"'.

.

'.

~.~,' :<....«~

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

JACKSON DIVISION

OLIVIA Y., by and through her next friend, James D. Johnson; JAMISON 1., by and through his next friend, Clara Lewis; AND DESIREE, RENEE, TYSON, AND MONIQUE P., by and through their next friend, Sylvia Forster; on their own behalf and on behalf of a]] others similarly situated

PLAINTIFFS

;.--"),

I

V.

CIVIL ACTION No.5: b({ Li.) ()~-) I...~/U

HALEY BARBOUR, as Governor of the State of Mississippi; DONALD TAYLOR, as Executive Director of the Department of Human Services; AND BILLY MANGOLD, as Director of the Division of Family and Children's Services

DEFENDANTS

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF REQUEST FOR CLASS ACTION INTRODUCTION
1. Every year, the State of Mississippi receives over 10,000 reports that children are being physically abused, starVed, sexua]]y abused, neglected, or otherwise maltreated. The State is charged with the responsibility of protecting these children. It is failing in its duty. Through years of mismanagement, underfunding, and deliberate indifference, the State has knowingly a]]owed its system for protecting children to col1apse, <leaving Mississippi's most vulnerable children defenseless.
2. This is a civil rights class action lawsuit on behalf of Mississippi's abused and neglected children. Jt seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to compel the Governor of Mississippi, the Executive Director of the Department of Human Services ("DHS"), and the Director of the Division of Family and Children's Services ("DFCS") to meet their legal obligations to care for and protect the State's abused and neglected children.

3. For over a decade, Defendants have known of the harm that pervasive and longstanding failures of the child welfare system are causing to children. As early as 1992, the Child Welfare League of America ("CWLA"), the largest national association of public and private child welfare agencies, documented DFCS deficiencies in a scathing] 44-page report, including excessive case1oads, inadequate staffing, and a lack of foster and adoptive homes. The CWLA report stated that if reform were not forthcoming, children would continue to live in abusive and neglectful environments, and some would suffer irreparable harm.
4. In 1995, the United States Department of Health and Human Services' Administration for Children and Families ("ACF"), which is responsible for monitoring state compliance with federal child welfare requirements, found that the State had insufficient services to protect children from abuse, that it was failing to provide children with adequate mental health and medical services, and that children were unnecessarily spending their childhoods in foster care. In response, DHS developed a "Strategic Plan'; to reform the child welfare system. That reform plan, however, has never been fully or adequately implemented.
5. For years, knowledgeable state officials have warned that Mississippi's child welfare system fails to protect and poses dangers to Mississippi;s children. In 2001, Sue Perry, Director of the Division of Family and Children's Services, wrote in a memo to Department of Human Services Executive Director Thelma Brittain that "the crisis needs to be addressed by whomever has the power to rectify the situation - before a tragedy occurs." In 2002, Mike Moore, Mississippi's Attorney General, acknowledged to the press that one of his biggest concerns was "that some child is going to die and they're going to die on the State's watch." That same year, the statewide Council of Youth Court Judges adopted a resoluhon stating that the shortage of DHS staff creates such a crisis for children at risk "as to constitute an
2

· .
endangerment to the lives of the children and to the citizens of the State of Mississippi." In January 2004, Governor Haley Barbour acknowledged to reporters that the Department of Human Services "has collapsed, for lack of management and a lack ofleadership ...."
6. Despite the widely recognized need to address the State's failing child welfare system, virtually nothing has been done. Years of inaction by State officials, even in the face of dire warnings, have demonstrated that judicial intervention is needed.
7. Mississippi's child welfare system lacks a minimally adequate number of caseworkers and foster care placements. Abused and neglected children reported to the State are left to suffer in dangerous and potentially deadly homes. The State diverts other children from the foster care system by placing them informally with relatives who are unsuitable or unable, without necessary support from the State, to provide adequate care. The children who are placed in the foster care system are often cycled through unsuitable foster care placements or institutjons. Defendants fail to meet these children's medical and psychological needs, and violate their constitutional and federal statutory rights.
8. Abused and neglected children failed by Mississippi's child welfare system often develop anger, fear, anxiety, and an inability to trust. Without a safe and permanent home and needed therapeutic services, they can fall behind in school, develop behavioral problems, and are frequently pushed into the juvenile justice system. Many of these children grow into adults who are homeless, drug addicted, or without the skills to hold regular jobs. Their long-term relationship with the criminal justice and public welfare systems will cost taxpayers millions of dollars more than the expense of having provided constitutionally required child welfare services when they first came to the State's attention.
3

, .
9. Mismanagement of the State's child welfare system also costs Mississippi millions of dollars in lost federal funding. By failing to meet minimum federal requirements, Mississippi has forfeited federal funds available to the states for child welfare programs. Not only is the State failing to claim federal money, it has been forced to return millions of dollars to the federal government due to lax oversight of its programs.
10. Defendants fail to provide Mississippi's abused and neglected children the services to which they are legally entitled. A court-enforced remedy is necessary to prevent further harm to these children-and to stop the ongoing tragedies that officials have been warned about for years.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
11. 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).
12. Venue is proper here pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 1391(b). The claims arise in this district.
PARTIES Named Plaintiffs 13. Plaintiff OLIVIA Y. is a three-and-a-half-year-old girl who has been in DFCS custody since September 2003. 14. Olivia Y. appears m this action through her next friend, James D. Johnson, Esquire, 301 West Pine Street; Hattiesburg, Mississippi, 39401. 15. Plaintiff JAMISON J. is a 17-year-old boy who has been in DFCS custody since 1991.
4

"
16. Jamison J. appears in this action through his next friend, Clara Lewis, 6562 Lyndon B. Johnson Drive; Jackson, Mississippi, 39213.
17. Plaintiffs DESIREE, RENEE, TYSON, and MONIQUE P. are siblings who have been known to DFCS since August 2003, aged nine, six, five, and two and a half, respectively.
18. Desiree, Renee, Tyson, and Monique P. appear in this action through their next friend, Dr. Sylvia Forster, 787 South Main Street, Suite C; Petal, Mississippi, 39465.
Defendants 19. Defendant HALEY BARBOUR is the Governor of Mississippi, and is sued in his official capacity. He is responsible for ensuring that al1 Mississippi agencies comply with applicable federal and state law, and oversees and directs the activities of the Mississippi Department of Human Services, pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. §§ 43-1-2; 43-1-]7; 43-15-3. His business address is P.O. Box 139; Jackson, Mississippi, 39205. 20. Defendant DONALD TAYLOR is the Executive Director of the Mississippi Department of Human Services, and is sued in his official capacity. In accordance with Miss.
Code Ann. §§ 43-1-2,' 43-1-17,' 43-1-51,' 43-15-3'" 43-15-5' 43-21-353(8),' 43-21-354,' and 43-21-
357(1), DHS is responsible for overseeing the proper and efficient operation of the Division of Family and Children's Services, as wen as ensuring DHS and DFCS are adequately funded with state and federal funds. His business address is 750 North State Street; Jackson, Mississippi, 39202.
21. Defendant BILLY MANGOLD is Director of the Mississippi Department of Human Services' Division of Family and Children's Services, and is sued in his official capacity. In accordance with Miss. Code Ann. §§ 43-1-51; 43-1-53; 43-15-3; 43-21-353(8), and 43-21354, he is responsible for: the proper and efficient operation ofDFCS, its services and programs;
5

providing for the care of the children served by DFCS; fully investigating all reports of abuse

and neglect and properly referring substantiated reports to youth court officials; directing the

placement of children in appropriate state programs and/or facilities, and assuring all contracted

and other programs and facilities providing child welfare services operate in conformity with all

constitutional, statutory, and regulatory requirements. His business address is 750 North State

Street; Jackson, Mississippi, 39202.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

22. This action is properly maintained as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and

(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is brought on behalf of two classes of children

defined as follows:

(a)

The "in-custody class," which is comprised of all children who are or will

be in the legal and/or physical custody ofDFCS; and

(b)

The "protective services class," which is comprised of al1 of those children

who are not in DFCS custody, but have been or are at risk of being abused

and neglected and about whom Defendants have received a report of abuse

or neglect.

23. As of August 2003, an estimated 2,981 children were in the physical and legal

custody of DFCS. A similar number of children comprise the in-custody class. An estimated

16,223 children were the subjects of abuse or neglect reports to DFCS in 2002, which is the most

recent date for which this information is publicly available. A similar number of children

comprise the protective services class. The two classes are each sufficiently numerous as to

make joinder impracticable.

6

, .
24. The questions ofJaw and fact raised by the Named Plaintiffs' claims are common
to and typical of those raised by each respective putative class member they seek to represent.
Each child relies on Defendants for child welfare services, and is harmed by the systemic
deficiencies of Mississippi's child welfare system.
A. 1. Questions of fact common to the in-custody class include:
a. whether Defendants fail to provide children in their custody with safe, licensed foster care placements;
b. whether Defendants fail to provide children in foster care with legally required services necessary to keep them safe and to prevent them from deteriorating physically, psychologically, or otherwise, while in custody; and
c. whether Defendants fail to provide foster children with timely and appropriate services necessary to ensure that they are either safely reunited with their families or freed for adoption and promptly placed in a permanent home.
2. Questions oflaw common to the in-custody class include:
a. whether Defendants' actions and inactions violate class Plaintiffs' rights under the Substantive Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to be safe from harm while in state custody;
b. whether Defendants' actions and inactions violate class Plaintiffs' rights under the Equal Protection Clause ofthe Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by intentionally and arbitrarily denying class members who have been placed in unlicensed facilities with child welfare protections; and
c. whether Defendants' actions and inactions violate class Plaintiffs' rights under the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended by the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997,42 U.S.c. §§ 620-629(i) and 670-679(b) ("the Adoption Assistance Act") to mandated foster care and adoption services.
B. 1. Questions offact common to the protective services class include:
a. whether Defendants fail to investigate reports of child abuse and neglect as required by law to determine the safety of children;
b. whether Defendants fail to refer reports of abuse and neglect and present the findings of investigations to the Youth Court;
7

c. whether Defendants place abused and neglected children in unlicensed homes Defendants know or should know pose an imminent risk of harm; and
d. whether Defendants systematically fail to provide children known to be at risk of abuse and neglect with access to the foster care system.
2. Questions of law common to the protective services class include:
a. whether Defendants' actions and inactions violate class Plaintiffs' rights under the Procedural Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution not to be deprived of their entitlement to access to Mississippi Youth Courts;
b. whether Defendants' actions and inactions violate class Plaintiffs' rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by intentionally and arbitrarily denying class members who have been the subject of a report of abuse or neglect investigative and protective services;
c. whether Defendants' actions and inactions violate class Plaintiffs' rights under the Equal Protection Clause ofthe Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by intentionally and arbitrarily denying class members who have been found to be abused and neglected access to the child welfare system; and
d. whether Defendants' actions and inactions violate class Plaintiffs' rights under the Substantive Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to be protected from state-created dangers by placing protective services class members in homes Defendants know or should know pose an imminent risk of harm.
25. The Named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the classes
they represent.
26. 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.
27. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys employed by Children's Rights, a national
non-profit legal organization with experience in child welfare class actions, Bradley Arant Rose
& White LLP, a 200-lawyer nationallaw firm with offices in Jackson, Mississippi; Birmingham,
8

Huntsville, and Montgomery, Alabama; and Washington, D.C., Stephen H. Leech Jr., a Jackson, Mississippi, attorney with extensive experience in complex civil litigation, and assisted by Loeb & Loeb LLP, a 200-lawyer national law firm with offices in Tennessee, California, Illinois, and New York. The lawyers from the two firms also have extensive experience litigating complex class action lawsuits in federal court. Plaintiffs' attorneys have identified and thoroughly investigated all claims in this action, and have committed sufficient resources to represent these classes.
28. Defendants have acted or failed to act on grounds generally applicable to all Plaintiff class members, necessitating class-wide declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs' counsel knows of no conflicts among class members.
STATUTORY BACKGROUND 29. In Mississippi, responsibility for assuring the safety of abused and neglected children rests with the Division of Family and Children's Services ofthe Mississippi Department of Human Services. Miss. Code Ann. §§ 43-] -5]; 43-] 5-5. DFCS has a central office in Jackson, and nine Regional Headquarters that directly oversee 84 county offices. 30. Caseworkers at DFCS local area offices are responsible for investigating an credible reports of abuse and neglect of children. Miss. Code Ann. §§ 43-21-353(1); 43-2] -357; 43-1-2(4); Code Miss. R. § 11 111 001 (Investigation of Reports of Suspected Child AbuselNeglect). DFCS must forward to the Youth Court a report summarizing its findings on each protective services case accepted for investigation. Miss. Code Ann. §§ 43-21-353(1); 4321-357. The Youth Court is then required to review DFCS findings and make an independent and final determination as to whether the allegation of abuse or neglect should be "evidenced" i.e., substantiated - and what services, if any, DFCS is required to provide to protect the child.
9

Miss. Code Ann. §§ 43-21-353(5); 43-21-357; 43-21-301(3). A child may not be removed from his or her home and taken into custody for longer than twenty-four hours absent a court order. Miss. Code Ann. §§ 43-21-301(2); 43-21-303(3) and (4).
31. If a child is removed from home, DFCS is obligated to provide the pI acement, care, and services necessary to ensure that child's safety and weJl-being. Miss. Code Ann. §§ 43-15-5; 43-15-13(2). According to state law, placement with relatives is encouraged, but the relatives and their homes must first be screened and approved. Miss. Code Ann. § 43-15-13(7). Approved and licensed non-relative foster homes, group homes and residential placements must be available to shelter children without appropriate relatives to care for them. Miss. Code. Ann. §§ 43-15-5; 43-15-101; 43-15-105; 42 U.S.c. § 672 (b) and (c).
32. DFCS must provide al1 children" in its custody with at least monthly face-to-face social worker contact, regular medical and dental care, other medical and mental health services as needed, and a case plan documenting those service needs and the long-term placement goal for the child. Miss. Code Ann. §§ 43-15-5(1); 43-15-13(3); 43-15-203(2); 43-1-2(4); Code Miss. R. § 11 111 001 (Client Contact Requirements; The Case Record; Foster Care Services Medical, Dental, Psychological and Educational Services for Foster Children); 42 U.S.c. §§ 671 (a)(16), 675(1). For those children who are unable to be safely reunited with their families, DFCS must timely find an alternative permanent home. Miss. Code Ann. § 43-15-13(3); 42 U.S.C. §§ 622(b)(10)(B)(ii) and (iii), 675(5). By the time a child is in DFCS custody for fifteen of the previous twenty-two months, DFCS is required to file a termination of parental rights petition on behalf of that child to free the child for adoption, unless a statutory exception is documented. Miss. Code Ann. § 43-15-13(3); 42 U.S.c. §§ 622 (b)(1 O)(B)(ii), 675(5)(E).
]0

33. Regular administrative and judicial reviews must also be provided to each child in foster care. Miss. Code Ann. § 43-15-13(3) and (5); 42 U.S.C. §§ 622 (b)(10)(B)(ii), 671 (a)(16), 675 (5)(B) and (C). These reviews must assure that DFCS is providing the services required to assure a timely, safe and permanent home for the child.ld.
34. States that meet federal1y-established child welfare standards are eligible for federal child welfare funding under Titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act. 42 U.S.c. . §§ 622 et seq.; 671 et seq. In order to qualify for federal child welfare funds, Mississippi has filed a mandated State Plan describing how the State wi]] assure compliance with federal child welfare requirements under these titles.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS REGARDING NAMED PLAINTIFFS A. OLIVIA Y.
35. Olivia Y. is a three-and-a-half-year-old girl who entered DFCS custody in September 2003 weighing only 22 pounds, which is the normal weight of a child less than half her age. She had been severely neglected and malnourished by her mother in her Forrest County home. Despite clear, visible indications of serious malnourishment, Defendants listed in their records "N/A" for any "physical/ medica1l deve1opmenta1l psychological problems" for this child, and did not immediately provide Olivia with a medical exam, nor did they have her assessed for obvious developmental problems. Instead, this frail and sickly girl was initially recorded in DFCS records as "quiet," "cute," and "petite." DFCS listed reunification as Olivia's permanency goal, and listed the expected discharge date as 45 days.
36. Within the first three months of her entry into DFCS custody, DFCS repeatedly uprooted Olivia, moving her through five separate placements. Olivia spent her first week in foster care with a foster family. DFCS then moved her into her aunt's home, after stating that a
11

background check for the adults in the home had been completed. However, Olivia was moved from that placement after one week when DFCS actually learned from the background check that the aunt's son, who DFCS knew was living in the home, is a convicted rapist. Olivia then spent one night in another foster home, after which this medically fragile toddler was placed, not in a therapeutic foster home, but in a shelter over a hundred miles away.
37. The shelter found that Olivia, who had been in DFCS care for several weeks, suffered from extremely small stature, low weight,abnormal facial features, severe cradle cap, strong body odor, and extremely foul smelling bowel movements.
38. A medical exam conducted in December 2003 revealed that Olivia was malnourished and depressed. She also had vaginal redness and swelling, an indicator of sexual abuse. However, the doctor performing the examination was not given a history of sexual abuse, so he did not perform a detailed vaginal examination. Despite the fact that Olivia lived in the home of a convicted rapist and it was later revealed to DFCS that she had often spent weekends in that home, and although Olivia "reacted in terror" in September 2003 when the doctor at the shelter tried to perform a more thorough examination for sexual abuse, DFCS has sti]] made no effort to determine if Olivia has, in fact, been sexua]]y abused or is carrying sexually transmitted diseases.
39. Because DFCS failed to immediately recognize that Olivia was suffering from severe malnourishment, and failed to provide her with a medical examination upon entering care, Olivia's health worsened once in DFCS custody. In her first week in DFCS custody, this threeyear-old actually lost weight, bringing her to a low of only 20 pounds.
40. Olivia is currently living in a foster home, her fifth placement since entering care. Olivia has a permanency goal of reunification with the mother who so severely neglected her,
12

even though her mother repeatedly has been noncompliant with her service agreement and has had positive drug screens. Olivia has never gone through a full assessment to determine the extent of her developmental delays, nor is she receiving any services to address those delays.
41. As a direct result of Defendants' actions and inactions, Olivia has been, and continues to be, irreparably harmed. She appears to have developmental delays that are not being addressed, and Defendants have failed to provide her with needed medical and therapeutic services. The repeated movements from one home to another have been emotionally traumatic for this medically fragile toddler. Although she has been in DFCS custody for more than half a year, Defendants have taken no steps to help Olivia achieve stable and safe permanency. Defendants have not even assessed the extent of her injuries.
42. Defendants have violated Olivia's constitutional and statutory rights by failing to protect her from harm; by failing to provide appropriate and necessary medical and therapeutic services; and by failing to develop and implement an appropriate permanency plan that would allow her to leave foster care and secure a safe and permanent home, all of which are required by law and by reasonable professional judgment. B. JAMISON J.
43. Jamison J. is a 17-year-old boy who has been in DFCS custody for more than twelve years and has been shuffled through at least 28 placements, many of which were provided foster board payments that were inadequate to meet his needs. Jamison has lived in loving foster homes willing to care for him and adopt him, but DFCS never took the necessary steps to make these living situations permanent.
44. In 1991, when he was four years old, Jamison and his sisters were removed by DFCS from their mother's horne in Cleveland, Mississippi, after she physically abused and
13

severely neglected the children. Jamison's father was incarcerated out of state. DFCS separated Jamison from his sisters, and placed him in a foster' home where his foster mother would terrorize him by shoving the young boy in front of her two dogs, and letting the dogs snarl and growl in Jamison's face.
45. Jamison was removed from the abusive foster home, and next spent more than two years in a loving foster home in Cleveland, Mississippi, where he bonded with a foster mother who to this day has remained in touch with Jamison. When the then-7-year-old Jamison began acting out, though, DFCS did not provide any services to him or his foster mother, and instead placed him in a residential treatment center on psychotropic medication, even though he did not suffer from any acute mental health problems.
46. DFCS next moved Jamison from the institution into another foster home, this time in Jackson. He spent the next five years with this family, and his foster parents told DFCS that they wanted to adopt Jamison. However, instead of freeing Jamison for adoption, DFCS then attempted to reunify Jamison with his biological mother, even though at this point in time he had been in foster care for more than seven years. DFCS sent Jamison back to the Delta region to spend a summer with his mother on a trial basis. While there, he witnessed the on-going severe abuse of a two-year-old child by another adult living in the home. Jamison witnessed this little boy being thrown into walls and beaten with an iron belt, inscribed "Boss." Jamison's older sister, who also had been returned on a trial basis, reported the abuse of the toddler, pointing out the little boy's swollen lip to a visiting DFCS worker, but DFCS did nothing to help the toddler. Jamison and his sister also witnessed their mother being repeatedly beaten by her boyfriends. This deeply traumatized Jamison, as he wanted to protect his mother from abuse but was too young to effectively intervene.
]4

47. At the end of the summer, DFCS dec1ared the trial reunification with his mother a success, and gave Jamison two days to return to Jackson to coHect his belongings and say goodbye to the foster parents and friends where he had spent the previous five years. During Jamison's brief trip to Jackson, the two-year-old was beaten to death for wetting his bed in the very home to which DFCS sought to return Jamison and his sister. Only after the avoidable death of this helpless toddler who was known to DFCS, did DFCS decide that Jamison's pending reunification with his mother was inappropriate.
48. Although Jamison was troubled by witnessing the abuse of the toddler, and angry that he was unable to protect his mother from domestic violence, DFCS again failed to provide him with appropriate mental health services, despite the repeated requests of his foster mother. Instead, Jamison was removed from his foster home and placed in a short-term residential treatment center for seven months, where he was again unnecessarily medicated. From the institution, DFCS placed Jamison in a shelter, then into another foster home, then back at the shelter and ultimately sent him to Memphis to live in a psychiatric hospita1. DFCS did not even tel1 Jamison he was going to the Memphis hospital until he was in the DFCS office; he had previously been told he was going to an independent hving group home. Doctors and counselors at the psychiatric hospital told Jamison he did not require hospitalization, but that there was no other placement available for him. Jamison unnecessarily spent six months in this overlyrestrictive institution. While Jamison was in this out-of-state placement, DFCS finally initiated proceedings to terminate his parents' parental rights. Jamison's mother, however, died of a drug overdose soon after her rights were terminated, and while Jamison was still living in the Memphis hospital.
15

49. At age 14, Jamison was then returned to the Jackson foster home at which he earlier had spent five years. After two years in this home, and again, with no attempts by DFCS to make this home permanent, his foster mother asked that he be removed, due to his adolescent behaviors. From March 2003 to January 2004, Jamison was cycled through three shelter placements, four foster homes, and a group home.
50. In January 2004, DFCS abruptly sent Jamison to Kansas to live with his father, even though his father's parental rights had already been terminated and Jamison had not seen his father in 15 years because, as DFCS knew, his father had been incarcerated for most of that time. Jamison protested being sent to Kansas to live with someone who was a stranger to him, but was told by a DFCS worker that it was important to "know your daddy." Before Jamison was sent to his father in Kansas, DFCS failed to do a home study on the home, or prepare an interstate compact with the child welfare agency in Kansas, both of which are required by federal law before placing foster children out of state.
51. When DFCS finally alerted their counterparts in Kansas that Jamison had been placed in his father's home, and a home study was undertaken by the Kansas child welfare officials, the Kansas officials refused to certify the home. Jamison's father failed the home study because he had been incarcerated 37 times and could not maintain consistent housing. He had also threatened to physically hurt Jamison.
52. DFCS then ordered Jamison to return to Mississippi immediately. Although Jamison had only been in Kansas for two months, and the reunification with his biological father was bumpy, he had quickly found a welcoming community at his Kansas high school. According to his counselor, he had quickly made friends at his new school, was liked by his teachers, was making good grades, was trying out for the baseball and football teams, and had
16

been cast as the lead role in the school play. After having been ripped from a community and school where he had been building a new life, Jamison was further traumatized when he arrived at the Jackson airport and no one was there to meet him, because DFCS forgot to pick him up.
53. Upon Jamison's return to Mississippi, he was placed in a group home on the campus of the infamous Oakley training school, currently the subject of a lawsuit brought by the U.s. Department of Justice against the State (See United States v. State of Mississippi, et al., Civ. Act. 3:03-1354BN, (Filed December 18,2003)). The other youths at the Oakley group home destroyed Jamison's clothes in a prank. Jamison has had to start working so that he can replace his clothes and buy basic toiletries.
54. Jamison, who is a very bright and motivated student, has not been allowed to attend regular public high school, but instead has been shunted to G.E.D. classes. Jamison desperately wants to go to a public high school so that he may receive his high school diploma, since he plans to apply to four-year colleges out of state. DFCS workers have told him that he cannot go to a four-year college, and that his options are community college or Job Corps. Due to living in the institution and being prohibited from attending class at a regular high school, Jamison has failed his junior year of high school because he has more than 21 absences. DFCS workers have told him that this school failure is more reason for him to attend only G.E.D. classes. Jamison's former foster mother in Cleveland, who has tried to stay in touch with him for ten years, has asked DFCS if she can take care of Jamison again, and Jamison asked his DFCS caseworker to place him with her so that he can attend a regular high school, but DFCS currently is refusing to remove him from the overly-restrictive institution and the G.E.D. program.
17

55. Jamison needs mental health services to help him address the continuing trauma he has suffered in the more than twelve years he has lived in DFCS custody. Yet DFCS is not providing him with any sort of counseling services or therapy to help him.
56. As a result of Defendants' actions and inactions, Jamison has been, and continues to be, irreparably hanned. His childhood has been spent in DFCS custody, yet for most of that time Defendants took no steps to help him achieve reasonable permanency. In fact, when his foster parents wanted to adopt him, after he had been in custody more than seven years, Defendants affirmatively chose to attempt to reunify him with an inappropriate and abusive biological mother. As a result, Defendants have churned Jamison through innumerable overlyrestrictive and inappropriate institutions, temporary shelters, and inappropriate foster homes. DFCS failed to provide Jamison any stability throughout his early adolescent years, causing him psychological harm.
57. Defendants have violated, and continue to violate, Jamison's constitutional and statutory rights by failing to protect him from harm in foster care; by failing to provide appropriate medical and mental health services necessary to keep him safe and to prevent him from deteriorating psychologically while in custody; by failing to place him in the least restrictive environment, instead of institutions that cause him developmental and psychological harm; by failing to develop and implement in a timely manner an appropriate permanency plan that would allow him to secure a permanent home; all of which are required by law and reasonable professional judgment.
c. DESIREE, RENEE, TYSON, and MONIQUE P.
58. Plaintiffs Desiree, Renee, Tyson, and Monique P. are a sibling group of three girls and one boy, ages nine, six, five, and two and a half, respectively, who live with their mother and
18

three older siblings in Forrest County, Mississippi. The children do not have stable housing, and DFCS has acknowledged that these children are in need of DFCS services to keep them safe. DFCS has failed to provide these children with access to the Youth Court, and has deliberately diverted them from the foster care system and its services.
59. In August 2003, a DFCS caseworker responded to a report that Desiree, Renee, Tyson, and Monique were homeless and being neglected by their mother, who was leaving them alone for long periods oftime and failing to feed and care for them. The caseworker made a visit to where the children were temporarily staying, and, upon information and belief, determined that the children could not safely remain in the care oftheir mother.
60. DFCS did not, however, refer the case to the Forrest County Youth Court, as required by state law. Had such a referral been made, the Plaintiff children would have had the opportunity to have a judicial determination as to whether they could remain safely with their mother and, if not, to have a Youth Court Judge order that they be provided services necessary to ensure their protection. Instead, DFCS cal1ed Mrs. D., the children's great-grandmother, and asked her if she would take in these four great-grandchildren. At the time Mrs. D. was already caring for six other children-three older great-grandchildren, and three of Mrs. D.'s grandchildren.
61. The caseworker told Mrs. D. that if she refused to take in these four additional great-grandchildren, the children would be sent to strangers in foster care, and she would most likely never see them again. Afraid she would lose contact with Plaintiff children, Mrs. D. agreed to take all four, despite the fact that she is over 70 years old, retired, and was already caring for six other children. The same day DFCS contacted Mrs. D. about her greatgrandchildren, a DFCS employee conducted a brief inspection of Mrs. D.'s home.
19

62. Despite having detennined that the four Plaintiff children were not safe in their mother's care, and having inspected Mrs. D.'s home in preparation for the children being moved there, DFCS did not, in fact, take any immediate steps to place Plaintiff children with Mrs. D. Instead, they left these vulnerable children in the care of their mother, and instructed her to drop them off at Mrs. D.'s home, which she did not do for a full week. After the initial visit to Mrs. D.'s home by DFCS in August 2003, no DCFS caseworker or other employee ever returned to the home to ensure the children's safety, or to evaluate the continued appropriateness of the placement.
63. Although Mrs. D. is retired and on a fixed income, DFCS never told her that she was eligible to apply to become a foster parent, and thus eligible to receive foster care board payments to help defray the costs of caring for these additional four children. In fact, in November 2003, when Mrs. D. called the same DFCS caseworker who had inspected her home, to tell the worker that she did not have enough food or money to care for the four additional children that had been placed with her, the caseworker told Mrs. D. that there was no possibility of providing her with any financial assistance. According to the DFCS caseworker, Mrs. D.'s only options were to continue to care for them with no support from DFCS or to have the children placed in a stranger's foster home.
64. On February 12,2004, Mrs. D. suffered a stroke which left her temporarily unable to speak or to walk, and clearly unable to continue to care for ten children. Although DFCS had initially arranged for the infonnal placement of Desiree, Renee, Tyson, and Monique with Mrs. D., it has done nothing to assure their safety now that Mrs. D. is no longer available to care for them. The children's 27-year-old mother, who previously had been told by DFCS that she was unable to care for her children, temporarily moved into Mrs. D.'s home, and assumed
20

responsibility for her seven children. When Mrs. D. was released from the hospital in ear1y March 2004, the children's mother left the house with the seven children, but has no secure housing for the children, and Mrs. D. has been unable to see the children, nor does she know their whereabouts. DFCS has been made aware of the fact that the children are again residing with their mother and have no stable housing, but the agency has refused to take any action to protect the children or assure that their mother is fit to care for them.
65. By failing to bring this case before the Forrest County Youth Court, DFCS has denied these children the opportunity to have any judicial determination regarding appropriate placement or permanency plan. Instead, DFCS placed them informally with a relative who became too ill and infirm to care for these children. Predictably, the children retumed to the care oftheir neglectful mother, without any official determination that she is now a capable caregiver.
66. As a result of the Defendants' actions and inactions, Desiree, Renee, Tyson, and Monique P. have been, and continue to be, irreparably harmed. Defendants have violated Desiree, Renee, Tyson, and Monique's constitutional rights by intentionally and arbitrarily failing to protect them from severe neglect after investigating and deeming their mother incapable of caring for them; by intentionally and arbitrarily denying them access to the foster care system; and by denying them access to the Youth Court without due process in violation of their constitutional rights.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS REGARDING SYSTEMIC DEFICIENCIES A. DEFENDANTS UNLAWFULLY DENY ABUSED AND NEGLECTED
CHILDREN ACCESS TO THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM 67. Mississippi's child welfare system cannot and has systematical1y failed to meet its legal obligations to protect and care for all of the State's abused and neglected children. The systemic inadequacies of the agency have caused DFCS to take the unlawful action of
2]

intentional1y and arbitrarily limiting the number of children it serves. DFCS diverts children from the child welfare system by failing to investigate reported abuse and neglect, by failing to substantiate clear cases of abuse and neglect, and by refusing to open cases and provide services even when it has determined that children are being abused or neglected. DFCS also engages in intentional, widespread, and inappropriate diversion of children from the foster care system by informal1y placing children with relatives who either cannot care for them, or who need support and services from the State in order to do so, but are not provided with such support.
68. The unlawful practice of diverting children from the foster care system has caused the foster care population to plummet. According to the Self-Assessment completed by the State in December 2003 in preparation for a federal Child and Family Services Review, Mississippi's foster care population has fa]]en from 3,292 on the last day of fiscal year 2000 to 2,686 on the last day of fiscal year 2002, a decrease of ] 8.4%. In fiscal year 2002, ] ,575 children entered DFCS custody, more than 20% fewer children than entered custody in 2000.
69. DFCS admits in the Self-Assessment that the shrinking foster care population does not directly correspond to a drop in the number of children in need of protection. It acknowledges that fewer children were entering foster care, at least in part, because of "the [unJavailability of workers to provide a full assessment" ofa child's safety and in some parts of the state "a strong reluctance to bring any child into custody unless it is extremely necessary."
70. The practice of intentionally and arbitrarily denying abused and neglected children access to a functioning child welfare system subjects them to foreseeable injury and imminent risk of harm.
22

1. Defendants Fail to Investigate All Credible Reports of Abuse and Neglect or to Refer All Reports to the Youth Court
71. The safety of Mississippi's children is at risk because Defendants do not operate a system capable of investigating all credible reports that a child is abused or neglected. Rather than hire a sufficient number of caseworkers, DFCS generally resorts to prioritizing abuse and neglect referrals, only investigating reports ofhann where a child has sustained a serious, visible, physical injury. DFCS has ignored reports that a child has no food or is without any supervision.
72. In 2001, DFCS Director Sue Perry reported in a memo to DHS Executive Director Thelma Brittain that due to staffing shortages, more than 6,200 cases were being left unattended and that "children will most assuredly die." Later that year, Perry reported to Brittain on "child deaths which could have been prevented had staff resources been provided."
73. A February 2001 memo to Thelma Brittain from the Deputy Director of the DHS Division of Program Integrity warned that no contact was being made on over 600 Hinds County abuse and neglect cases - some "severe" - requiring visitation, including court-ordered supervision. According to public media reports, testimony given during a 2002 state legislative hearing indicated that in Harrison County, only 26] of the 576 reports of abuse and neglect that
"\,
the county accepted over a three-month period were even investigated. A judge in Harrison County stated that "[w)e cannot continue to choose which children are going to be protected." The severe staffing shortages that result in reports of child maltreatment going uninvestigated persist in Harrison County, as weB as in other counties across the state.
74. According to the 2003 Self-Assessment, low staffing numbers "have a direct effect on" DFCS's ability to be consistent in its decisions regarding whether a report of child abuse or neglect is credible and should be investigated.
23

75. Discouraged by DFCS's failure to investigate reports of maltreatment, some professionals have simply stopped ca1Iing DFCS to report anything other than extreme abuse.
76. In some cases, DFCS has informed relatives who have reported abuse of their minor kin that the only recourse to protect the children is for the relatives to seek orders from the State Chancery Court granting them legal custody.
77. When DFCS fails to investigate a credible report of abuse or neglect, it also fails to present the case to the Youth Court for a final disposition, as is statutorily required. Children denied access to the Youth Court are thereby denied the opportunity to have that court review their situation and order DFCS to take necessary steps to protect them from further abuse or neglect.
78. DFCS has no rational basis for investigating some maltreatment reports, while intentionally and arbitrarily denying other children subject to the same types of maltreatment the same investigative services, as well as denying them access to the Youth Court. In its December 2003 Self-Assessment, DFCS admitted that "(i]n order to provide equal access to F;lmilyand Children's services throughout the State, reduce the significant staff turnover. .. and bring staffing levels to a reasonable and stable level..., between 900-1000 fulltime social workers are needed," (emphasis added).
79. DFCS's intentional and arbitrary failure to investigate some credible reports of harm or to refer all such reports to the Youth Court, while investigating and referring other reports made regarding similarly situated children, has left children in dangerous situations with no recourse, in violation of their procedural due process and equal protection rights under the Consti tuti on.
24

2. Defendants Fail to Confirm Reports of Clear Abuse and Neglect 80. In an effort to reduce the number of children for whom the State must provide foster care services, DFCS routinely fails to confirm abuse and neglect, even when there is a clear indication that a child is being maltreated. Maltreated children are thereby intentionally and arbitrarily denied access to child welfare services. 81. DFCS reports in its Self-Assessment that in 2001 it only "evidenced" (i.e., substantiated) approximately] 4.6% of al} reports of maltreatment that it investigated, which is half the national average rate of 27.5%, according to federally collected data. Even though DFCS reported an increase in the rate at which it confirmed abuse and neglect in 2002, it acknowledged that the increase likely reflected the manner in which it records data. DFCS stated that "[i]t is believed that the slightly higher rate reflects the increased probability that an evidenced case was more likely to be entered into MACWIS [the State's computer system], rather than an increased [sic] in the substantiation rate." In addition, Defendants' SelfAssessment reports that the areas of the state with chronic caseworker shortages have a lower substantiation rate. 82. In at least one county, the Youth Court is so troubled by DFCS's failure to evidence cases of abuse and neglect that it orders Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs) to undertake an independent investigation of certain cases that DFCS has chosen not to evidence. In many instances, it is only after this second, independent investigation takes place that a report is confinned and maltreated children receive the protection to which they are entitled. 83. The failure to uniformly substantiate reports where there is clear evidence of maltreatment results in abused and neglected children being left to fend for themselves, even after the State has investigated their situation. Children who are denied access to the child
25

welfare system are not only subject to further abuse and neglect, but are at high risk of poor psychological and social outcomes. Not only are these children subject to emotional damage, but maltreatment, particularly when there is no intervention, is associated with juvenile delinquency and criminal behavior. 1t is not uncommon for some of these children to become delinquents and be sent to State training schools, where conditions may also be constitutionally deficient. See United States v. State ofMississippi, et aI., Civ. Act. 3:03-1354BN, (Filed December 18, 2003).
84. The deliberate practice of not evidencing clear instances of abuse and neglect for some maltreated children because of a lack of necessary resources, while evidencing reports for similarly situated children, unlawfully and arbitrarily denies those ignored children access to Mississippi's child welfare system and places them at serious and foreseeable risk of hann in violation of their equal protection rights.
3. Defendants Fail to Provide Services to Children Found to be Abused or Neglected
85. Even when DFCS evidences a report of abuse or neglect, it systematically fails to take action to protect the child. According to its Self-Assessment, in 2002 DFCS opened for services only 47.5% of the cases where children were subjects of confinned incidents of abuse or neglect. Thus, DFCS left more than half of the children it found to be maltreated with no oversight and services to ensure their safety.
86. In its Self-Assessment, DFCS noted "inconsistencies" in the assessment of risk to children during the initial investigation and the decision to open a case, and acknowledged that staffing shortages and the inability to provide services once a case was opened were factors in the low case opening rate.
87. Intentionally and arbitrarily abandoning children known to be abused and neglected without protection, while providing similarly situated children with access to the child
26

welfare system, subjects these children to additional abuse and neglect, and causes serious emotional harm in violation of their constitutionally protected right to equal access to the child welfare system. It also discourages those who initially report abuse from making further reports.
4. Defendants Place Children They Acknowledge Are Abused and Neglected in Inappropriate and Unsafe Homes Outside of the Child Welfare System
88. Even when DFCS investigates a report of maltreatment and determines that the child cannot remain safely in his or her home, it regularly chooses not to assume responsibility for the neglected child. Instead of opening a case and seeking a court-ordered placement, DFCS , instead routinely places children with any available relatives in order to avoid the burden on the already overwhelmed child welfare system. DFCS refers to this practice as "Informal Family Planning" and considers these children not subject to agency regulation or court oversight.
89. A child subject to "Informal Family Planning" is not afforded the same protections by DFCS as a child who is removed and then placed into a relative's home pursuant to a court order, or into a non-related foster parent's home. The relative caregiver's qualifications are not critically evaluated, criminal background checks are not routinely conducted, and little, if any, effort is made to assess whether the home is safe or meets the child's needs. DFCS does not provide informally placed children with any supportive services, regardless of whether such services are necessary for ensuring the children's physical and mental health or safety.
90. Informally placed children are not monitored by DFCS caseworkers and may never become known to the Youth Court. Unlike children who are provided access to the child welfare system, these children are never provided DFCS or Youth Court review. Their situation is therefore never assessed to determine if they are safe in the care of their relatives or whether being separated from their parents remains in their best interest. Also, no protections are in place
27

to ensure that such children are not returned to abusive parents. The placements remain day-today without DFCS providing the opportunity for the children to be adopted if returning home is not a viable option. Children as young as toddlers are placed with elderly relatives with no thought to their safety, wel1-being, or permanency.
91. A1though DFCS regulations a110w for the licensing of relatives as foster parents, in practice DFCS discourages or denies access to this support and the protections that it would provide children. Relatives who ask DFCS for assistance in becoming foster parents are either told that relatives cannot become paid foster parents; or that they wi11 lose the children to strangers during the approval period, which can take six to nine months, and the children may never be returned to their care. The practice of arbitrarily discouraging relatives from becoming licensed foster parents denies families often desperately needed support and resources to which they may be entitled. More importantly, this practice denies the child court oversight and DFCS monitoring that may be necessary to ensure the child's safety, we11-being, and permanency.
92. In October 2003, DFCS issued a memorandum explaining that the agency was discontinuing its policy of allowing informal placements without approval by the Youth Court, background checks, and a home study prior to placement of any children. However, upon information and belief, DFCS has done nothing to assure the safety of those children previously placed pursuant to the acknowledged informal family planning practice. Nor has it instituted any means of determining whether the practice of informal family planning has, in fact, stopped. Upon information and belief, caseworkers across the state continue to engage in informal family planning, leaving children in potential1y harmful environments, without court oversight.
93. There is no rational basis for whether DFCS brings an abused or neglected child before the court, and provides that child with the attendant supervision and permanency services
28

that the case may require, or simply places the child informally. By intentional1y leaving abused and neglected children in unscreened and unmonitored homes, without opening cases for these children, Defendants knowingly and arbitrarily place these children at further risk of abuse, either in the new placements or by being returned to abusive parents, in violation of these children's rights to equal access to the child welfare system.
94. Even when DFCS does bring abused and neglected children to the attention of the Youth Court, those children may still be arbitrarily and intentionally denied access to the child welfare system, by being placed directly in the custody of a relative or other unrelated adult. Like informal1y placed children, these children are intentionally and arbitrarily denied DFCS support and oversight, regardless of whether those services are necessary for ensuring the children's physical and mental health or safety. B. ABUSED AND NEGLECTED FOSTER CHILDREN ARE SUBJECT TO
FURTHER HARM IN FOSTER CARE 95. Those children who do enter the foster care system are denied safe, stable and appropriate placements necessary to their health and wel1-being. 96. Despite being on notice for over a decade of the severe and long-standing shortage of foster homes and other appropriate foster care placements, Defendants have failed to take even the most basic steps necessary to recruit more foster parents and to develop a sufficient number of suitable placements. In its Self-Assessment, DFCS acknowledged that it routinely failed to even respond to inquiries and requests for applications by people interested in becoming foster and adoptive parents.. As a result of the acute shortage of foster care placements, DFCS places children in unsafe, unsupported, or unsuitable relative care, in temporary shelters, and in large institutions.
29

97. DFCS also fails to adequately fund foster care placements through required "foster care maintenance payments" at levels sufficient to provide essential and appropriate services for foster children, or to attract interest in providing foster care services. Foster care board rates paid by the State are a fraction of the cost the United States Department of Agriculture has determined is needed to raise children in the rural and urban South.
1. DFCS Places Children in Harmful Homes 98. Some of the few available foster homes in Mississippi are overcrowded and some are affinnatively abusive. 99. In its Self-Assessment, DFCS acknowledged that private agencIes seeking to recruit foster parents cannot even reliably access DFCS's abuse and neglect records on prospective foster parents. 100. DFCS admits that it has placed some children with relatives without adequate supportive services and without first undertaking "a thorough assessment of the relatives' ability to provide care." Thus, children such as Named Plaintiff Olivia Y. are placed in homes with convicted criminals who threaten their safety. Toddlers have been placed with aged and ill relatives, and children have been placed with relatives who themselves have known histories of child maltreatment. Many of these relative homes are not licensed foster care placements. 101. By relying on unsuitable, unlicensed, or harmful placements, Defendants are subjecting children removed from abusive and neglectful homes to the possibility of yet further maltreatment while in state custody, in violation of their constitutional right to be free from harm.
30

2. Mississippi's Foster Children are Over-Institutionalized 102. Mississippi places children of all ages in institutional or group settings regardless of their needs, simply because the State has no other placement alternatives. 103. When DFCS removes a child from his home and a relative placement cannot be located, DFCS general1y places that child in an emergency shelter. State regulation generally prohibits a child from remaining in an emergency shelter for longer than 45 days. Yet, with no available foster homes, DFCS leaves children for months in these temporary placements. To avoid violating the 45-day limit, DFCS has, at times, cycled children through a series of 45-day stays in different shelters. If a relative has still not been located during the time a child has spent in an emergency shelter, DFCS wil1 often move the child from the shelter to a large institution. 104. Defendants routinely place toddlers as young as two in institutional settings with children of all ages and service needs. Infants are placed in emergency shelters with teens suffering from emotional or behavioral problems. For example, in January 2004, the Harrison County shelter was home to, among other children, a ten-day-old infant, two toddlers, and an emotionally troubled teen. According to the last available federally reported data, in 2000, 19% of all children age 12 and younger who entered DFCS custody were placed in group and institutional settings, which is over twice the national median of 9%. Upon infonnation and belief, Mississippi's rate of institutionalizing young children remains well above the national average and is substantially higher than reasonable professional judgment would support. 105. Young children in institutional care are extremely vulnerable to medical and psychological harm. Institutions put young children at increased risk of delayed language development, developmental problems, and infectious illnesses. Children reared in institutions (compared to children raised by families) have been found to have lower IQ scores, difficulties
31

forming and maintaining relationships, and poor self-esteem. The exerClse of reasonable professional judgment requires that young children, particularly infants and toddlers, not be placed in institutional settings.
106. Not only are institutional settings more expensive for the State to run than foster homes, they also prolong the time children spend in foster care. Many children are taken from their own counties and shipped to institutions 40 or more miles from their homes, schools, and families. Children placed in institutions far from their families are less likely to be reunified with their families or adopted. This is because they have fewer opportunities for family visitation and less contact with their DFCS caseworkers, and because foster families are the most common source of adoptive families for children who are placed with them.
107. Some institutions relied upon by DFCS fail to meet minimum licensing standards for group placements. Children in DFCS custody may be placed in institutional residential homes that are exempt from licensing requirements because they are run by religious entities. Other children may be placed by the Youth Court directly in the custody of organizations that run unlicensed facilities. Although these unlicensed facilities must be registered with the State, they are not required to comply with regulations intended to ensure children receive a minimum degree of safety and physical as well as emotional care. Unlike licensed facilities, unlicensed institutional residential homes are not required to abide by al1 State policies regarding the treatment of children, to adhere to any minimum child/staff ratio, or to train staff members in CPR/first aid. There is no requirement for procedures to address suspected incidents of abuse or neglect involving staff. Children placed in such institutions are thus at risk of foreseeable harm.
108. The State also fails to provide many of the children placed in unlicensed placements any of the planning necessary for them to achieve pennanency through adoption or
32

reunification. They are therefore never provided the opportunity to grow up in loving families. Placement of children in unlicensed facilities also disqualifies the State from federal Title IV-E funding for the children placed in those facilities. Placing children in unlicensed facilities denies these children their equal protection rights to the protection of minimum licensing requirements afford those similarly situated children who are placed in licensed facilities.
109. Moreover, placing children in inappropriate institutional settings that cause developmental and psychological harm violates these children's constitutionally protected right to be free from harm while in Defendants' custody. The failure to place children in a least restrictive placement also violates these children's federal statutory rights.
3. Defendants Fail to Properly Monitor Foster Children 110. DFCS fails to monitor children in its custody to determine their safety and the continued appropriateness of their placements. Children may go months without seeing a caseworker. When visits do occur, they are often at DFCS offices, which precludes an assessment of the safety and suitability of the children's living environments. According to its Self-Assessment, DFCS found in a recent review of statewide data that only 41 % of cases reviewed had a documented visit of the child by the child's caseworker in the preceding 30 days. 111. In addition to failing to provide regular in-person contacts, DFCS fails to monitor the status of each foster child through case plan reviews every six months, as required by federal law. In its Self-Assessment, DFCS admits that because it has not provided for enough foster care reviewers to cover the entire state, it is unable to "ensure that each child in custody is reviewed every 6 months." 112. Similarly, although federal law reqUlres court reV1ews, which are called "perman'ency hearings," to be held at least annually to determine children's progress toward
33

achieving pennanency, through either safe reunification or adoption, they are not being consistently provided. The reviews are intended to ensure that children remain in foster care for a short a period as possible, and that their needs are being met during that time. According to its Self-Assessment, DFCS reviews indicated that only 38.7% of the children's cases examined had court orders documenting the required annual pennanency hearing.
113. The failure to monitor children in DFCS custody through face-to-face contact, case reviews, and pennanency hearings means that DFCS has no ability to assure that children in its custody are not harmed and are not needlessly in government custody in violation of federal statutory law and reasonable professional judgment. C. DEFENDANTS FAIL TO PROVIDE FOSTER CHILDREN WITH NECESSARY
MEDICAL, DENTAL, AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES 114. Defendants fail to meet the physical and mental health needs of the children in their custody. 115. Neither caseworkers nor foster parents are adequately trained to identify and address the medical and mental health needs of children in foster care. In 2003, DFCS reported in its Self-Assessment that it could not detennine what percentage of children in its custody had received a health assessment or screening. It further reported that critical medical infonnation is missing from children's computerized case records, estimating that only about half of the health care provided is noted in the data system. Without an updated medical history, DFCS cannot track and assure that a child is receiving needed medical services. 116. DFCS often places a child into a foster care home or institution with only the c10thes on that child's back and without a medical or mental health history, a Medicaid card, or even refills of necessary prescriptions. According to its Self-Assessment, in a recent case review, DFCS admitted that in approximately half of the cases reviewed there was no
34

documented evidence that the caseworker shared complete and detailed medical information with the foster parent. Without necessary medical information, foster parents are unable to take preventive measures to protect a child's physical and mental health. When a foster child experiences problems, the foster parents are left to arrange needed medical services without being able to provide doctors with past medical history or Medicaid payment.
] ]7. Foster children do not receive timely or adequate dental care. There is a severe shortage of dental care providers in the state who take Medicaid. DFCS has not made alternative funding arrangements for those services.
] ] 8. DFCS cannot meet the mental health care needs of children in its custody. It has failed to develop adequate mental health services or placement resources. Outpatient counseling for foster children is in short supply, thereby precluding children from receiving consistent and adequate therapeutic services.
] 19. Therapeutic family foster homes (homes in which foster parents are trained to care for foster children with acute medical or psychological needs) are virtual1y nonexistent. In 2000, Mississippi reported having only 25 therapeutic foster homes statewide. Few have been developed since that time. According to its Self-Assessment, as of December 2003, DFCS had entered into contracts to provide therapeutic services for only 250 children statewide, which includes group home placements, therapeutic foster homes, and intensive in-home services.
120. Children denied needed therapeutic foster home placements or other needed psychological services cycle through many institutions and foster homes. These children deteriorate mental1y and emotionally as a result of frequent moves caused by inappropriate placements.
35

· .
121. The American Academy of Pediatrics has concluded that multiple moves in foster care are injurious because "children need continuity, consistency, and predictability from their caregivers." The Academy has found that the disruption and uncertainty caused by multiple moves while in foster care can be "deleterious to the young child's brain growth, mental development, and psychological adjustment." Yet, Defendants have created situations in which children in their custody experience dozens of moves, and some have been through more than 40 placements.
122. Intensive residential treatment care is frequently available only for short periods, with discharge occurring well before the child has accomplished his or her treatment goals. Frequently, children return from these brief stints at residential placements overly medicated and without adequate fol1ow-up treatment plans or services. Children abruptly discharged from residential treatment are returned to placements that still cannot meet their needs and quickly require the child to be moved again.
123. Defendants' failure to consistently provide necessary medical, dental, and mental health services to the children in their custody is outside the bounds of reasonable professional judgment and causes those children physical and emotional harm. It places them at imminent risk of injury in violation of their rights and in deliberate indifference to their wel1-being. D. FOSTER CHILDREN WHO SHOULD BE ADOPTED LANGUISH IN DFCS
CUSTODY UNNECESSARILY 124. DFCS consistently fails to file petitions to free children for adoption by terminating parental rights in accordance with federal statutory timeframes or to timely place children who have been legally freed for adoption in adoptive placements. According to the State's Self-Assessment, as of December 2003, the average length of time from a child's entry· into foster care to his or her adoption, for those children adopted, was 3.43 years.
36

125. DFCS's process for filing termination petitions to free children for adoption is long and cumbersome. More than a year may pass from the time a petition for termination of parental rights is drafted until the petition is filed with the court. DFCS acknowledges in its most recent report on its Strategic Plan that unnecessary delays exist in processing termination petitions; it attributes these to a shortage of social workers and attorneys. DFCS has made little progress in addressing this issue. This avoidable delay needlessly prolongs children's stays in foster care and causes psychological harm and for some children may deny them adoption altogether.
126. DFCS has not dedicated the staff and resources necessary to ensure that children who have finally been freed are timely placed in an adoptive placement. Ensuring children are adopted requires staff to recruit adoptive families, to match families and pre-adoptive children, to support the family through the adoption process, and to oversee finalization of the adoption. According to the Self-Assessment, as of December 2003, only 18 caseworkers and three administrative assistants supported the entire state's adoption effort. DFCS admitted that the number of children who achieve permanency through adoption would be increased by "[a]dditionaI staff and additional permanency training ...."
127. As a result of Defendants' knowing failure to provide timely permanency services and recruit adoptive placements, children available for adoption drift for years in DFCS custody without being provided the opportunity to grow up with permanent families.
128. Children and youth who remain in foster care long term without the opportunity to live in a permanent family suffer psychological harm, are emotionally more vulnerable, and are more likely to have behavioral problems.
37

129. An unconscionable number of children in DFCS custody are never placed with a permanent family. In 2000, the last date for which federally reported information is publicly available, 35% of children who aged out of Mississippi foster care at age 18 were 12 years of age or younger when they entered care; thus much like Jamison, they needlessly spent much of their childhoods without having a permanent family.
130. The failure by DFCS to file timely petitions to free children for adoption violates their federal statutory rights. The psychological harm ~uffered by children left to languish unnecessarily in DFCS custody violates their constitutionally protected right to be free from harm while in state custody. E. DEFENDANTS HAVE FAILED TO PROVIDE THE STAFFING AND
RESOURCES OR TO ENGAGE IN THE PROGRAMMATIC REFORM NECESSARY FOR A PROPERLY FUNCTIONING CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM 131. Defendants are aware of the problems confronting Mississippi's child welfare system. In the late 1990s, Defendants prepared a detailed "Strategic Plan" with the assistance of the federal Administration for Children and Families, designed to address its known child welfare failures. Yet Defendants have deliberately determined not to provide staff or resources necessary for the system to function or to implement the changes set forth iri the Strategic Plan as necessary to protect children. 1. A Severe Shortage of Caseworkers Has Incapacit~ted DFCS 132. High DFCS caseworker vacancy and turnover rates cripple DFCS. The Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) recommends that caseworkers carry no more than 12 families at the investigation phase of a case, 17 families for on-going in-home services, or 12 to 15 children in foster care. Caseworkers in Mississippi carry caseloads far in excess of these standards. For example, according to the Self-Assessment, as of September 2003, caseworkers
38

in Washington County carried average caseloads of over 76 children per worker, those in Warren County carried average caseIoads of 113, those in Harrison County carried average caseloads of 114, those in Hancock County carried caseloads averaging 120 children per worker, and caseworkers in Copiah County labored under caseloads averaging 127 children per worker. Upon infonnation and belief, as of March 2004, there is one caseworker in Forrest County, who is responsible for 285 children.
133. In addition to failing to recruit and hire caseworkers, Defendants do nothing to ensure staff retention, while low morale and heavy caseloads caused by Defendants' poor management decisions discourage social workers from even applying for DFCS positions. From July 2001 to July 2002, DFCS only hired approximately 200 workers, while more than 400 workers resigned.
134. To address the severe shortage of caseworkers, DFCS began sending workers from other counties on "rotations" to understaffed, offices. During that rotation, the caseworker's caseload in his or her county is not covered. Not only does the rotation practice jeopardize the safety of children whose cases are unsupervised during their caseworker's absence, it also provides children in the region being served with inconsistent case services.
135. Caseworkers are not provided necessary training. According to the SelfAssessment, intensive training occurs only when there are 16 to 18 new recruits who require training. Staff who are hired in the meantime begin field work and assume casework responsibilities while they are waiting for intensive training.
136. Caseworkers lack basic equipment necessary to perfonn their jobs, including cellular phones, car seats, and DFCS vehicles. While in the field, many caseworkers must rely on pay phones in order to communicate with county offices. DFCS offices Jack clerical staff,
39

thereby requiring caseworkers to perfonn administrative functions, when they should be engaged in case practice. The lack of equipment and support staff hinders caseworkers from delivering mandated services.
137. Staffing shortages have continued despite Defendants' knowledge of the resulting risk to children. In 2002, in its Annual Progress Report on its Child and Family Services Plan, DFCS admitted that "[s]taff turnover and the inability to fill vacant positions have created critical service gaps in numerous counties" and that "loss of key staff over the past year to eighteen months has had a devastating effect on overal1 perfonnance...." In May 2002, the federal Administration for Children and Families wrote to the State about its "urgent concern" regarding "the extremely low number of social worker and supervisory positions in DFCS and the seriously high staff vacancy rate that have resulted in dangerously high child welfare caseloads." That same year DFCS Director Sue Perry resigned, and in a letter to the Governor and the Executive Director ofDHS, she warned that with staff vacancies and caseloads at an all time high, children who should be protected by the State were endangered. Yet staffing shortages persist.
2. Defendants Have Failed to Take Advantage of Available Federal Funding 138. In addition to Defendants' failure to assure adequate resources for DFCS, Mississippi has also forfeited minions of dol1ars in federal matching funds due to DHS and DFCS mismanagement. For example, Mississippi has the highest percentage of unused federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) monies of any state in its federal monitoring Region. These available federal funds could be applied to fund child welfare services if DHS and DFCS made proper claims for them. In addition, this year DHS is experiencing a $20.7 million deficit in the TANF funds it has claimed. In an effort to close that deficit, DHS is now closing over 34 centers that provide services to families with children at risk of entering the
40

foster care or juvenile justice systems, including the Center for the Prevention of Child Abuse in Gulfport.
139. Mississippi also cannot claim, or has been repeatedly disallowed, other federal Title IV-E funds, because of deficient case record documentation and the placement of children in unlicensed homes and facilities. As of June 30, 2003, Mississippi calculated that only 44% of the children in Mississippi foster care were eligible for Title IV-E federal reimbursements. If DFCS complied with federal statutory standards, and placed more children in licensed homes and facilities, the reimbursement rate could be twice as high, making the State eligible for mi11ions more in federal funds.
140. In addition to failing to pun down available federal funds, Mississippi is being required to repay the federal government over $5 million it had incorrectly claimed in Title IV-E funds because of the State's poor administrative practices.
141. Currently, according to numerous press reports, the State's Auditor as we11 as the Inspector General of the federal Department of Health and Human Services are conducting an investigation into of whether DHS failed to adequately audit, monitor and account for $89 million that was intended to be spent on services to vulnerable and needy people, including children. As a result of the investigation, DHS may be required to repay federal funds.
3. Defendants Have Fai1ed to Engage in Needed Programmatic Reform 142. Defendants' own Strategic Plan required DFCS to develop basic management functions necessary for a child welfare system to track, monitor, and serve children. The Plan called for DFCS· to retool its case practices and policies to reflect best case practice. These reforms have been largely abandoned.
41

.'
143. According to the last available report made by DFCS on its reform efforts in 2002, DFCS has failed to fully implement a "Best Practice" social work practice modeJ, intended to make necessary changes to the provision of social work services to children, and it has failed to institute needed staff training, including training on such issues as accessing federal funds.
144. Defendants' refusal to institute the reforms necessary to address known and documented deficiencies has condemned children to a child welfare system unable to meet its obligations to protect them.
145. In 2002, the Governor, members of the legislature, and other Defendants were warned by DFCS Director Sue Perry that abuse and neglect investigations were not taking place, and that children with open cases were not being monitored. Perry stated that as a result, children were being left at risk of serious bodily harm, and at least one 19-month-old child had already been killed. Despite being put on repeated notice by Youth Court judges, child advocates and people within DFCS of the disastrous effects the failing child welfare system is having on the lives of children, Defendants have not undertaken measures necessary to meet their constitutional and statutory responsibilities, in deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs' rights and their substantial risk of harm.
CAUSES OF ACTION BROUGHT PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 1983 First Cause of Action - Procedural Due Process Claim Brought on Behalf of
the Protective Services Class 146. Each and every allegation of the Complaint is incorporated herein as if ful1y set forth. 147. The foregoing actions and inactions of the Defendants amount to a pattern, practice, and custom of failure to exercise reasonable professional judgment and deliberate indifference to the constitutional procedural due process rights of children in the protective
42

. ~

servlces class. Plaintiffs have a constitutionaIly protected, state-created interest in having

credible reports of maltreatment referred to the Youth Court, as required by state law, and having

the Youth Court make the final determination regarding the disposition of those reports. Plaintiff

children are being deprived of their state-created interest in accessing the courts without due

process ofIaw.

Second Cause of Action - Equal Protection Claim Brought on Behalf of

the Protective Services Class

.

148. Each and every allegation of the Complaint is incorporated herein as if fully set

forth.

149. The foregoing actions and inactions of the Defendants amount to a pattern,

practice, and custom of failure to exercise reasonable professional judgment and deliberate

indifference to the constitutional rights of the children in the protective services class.

Defendants are engagmg m a practice of intentionally and arbitrarily denying investigative

services to protective services class members who are the subject of a report of abuse or neglect,

despite the fact that they are similarly situated to those children who receive investigative

servlces. Defendants are also intentionally and arbitrarily denying abused and neglected

protective services class members access to child welfare services, despite the fact that otherwise

similarly situated children receive such services. Defendants' determination to deny Plaintiff

class members investigative and other child welfare services bears no rational relation to a

legitimate state interest, and violates class members' Equal Protection rights.

Third Cause of Action - Equal Protection Claim Brought on Behalf of the Protective Services Class Placed Informal1y with Kin

150. Each and every allegation of the Complaint is incorporated herein as if fully set

forth.

43

151. The foregoing actions and inactions of the Defendants amount to a pattern, practice, and custom of failure to exercise reasonable professional judgment and deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of the children in the protective services class. Defendants are engaging in a practice of intentionally and arbitrarily denying child welfare services to protective service class members who have been placed informal1y with kin, despite the fact that they are otherwise similarly situated to those children who receive child welfare services. Defendants' determination to deny Plaintiff class members informal1y placed with kin child welfare services bears no rational relation to a legitimate state interest, and violates these class members' Equal Protection rights.
Fourth Cause of Action - Equal Protection Claim Brought on Behalf of the Protective Services Class Members Placed Directly by the Court in Unlicensed Placements 152. Each and every al1egation of the Complaint is incorporated herein as if fully set
forth. 153. Miss. Code Ann. §§ 43-21-609 (b) and (e)(ii) violate protective service class
members' Equal Protection rights as they are applied to permit them to be placed by the Youth Court directly into unlicensed facilities or homes without entering DFCS custody. Protective service class members who have been placed by the Youth Court into unlicensed placements are intentionally and arbitrarily denied child welfare services and protection, despite the fact that they are otherwise similarly situated to children who are placed in DFCS custody and who receive child welfare services. The application of Miss. Code Ann. §§ 43-21-609 (b) and (e)(ii), to permit children to be denied child welfare services on the basis of their placement into unlicensed placements bears no rational relation to a legitimate state interest.
44

Fifth Cause of Action - State-Created Danger Claim Brought on Behalf of the Protective Services Class
]54. Each and every allegation of the Complaint is incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
]55. The foregoing actions and inactions of the Defendants amount to a pattern, practice, and custom of failure to exercise reasonable professional judgment and deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of the children in the protective services class. Defendants are engaging in a pattern and practice of violating the protective services class members' rights under the Substantive Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, by removing class members from their caretakers and. then placing them in informal relative placements that the Defendants know or should know pose an imminent risk of harm to these children, in deliberate indifference to their safety and welfare and in disregard for the exercise of reasonable professional judgment.
Sixth Cause of Action - Substantive Due Process Claim Brought on Behalf of the 1nCustody Class
] 56. Each and every allegation of the Complaint is incorporated herein as if fu]]y set forth.
] 57. The foregoing actions and inactions of the Defendants amount to a pattern, practice, and custom of failure to exercise reasonable professional judgment and deliberate indifference to in-custody Plaintiff children's constitutional rights. As a result, Plaintiff children are being deprived of their substantive due process rights conferred upon them by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. These rights include, but are not limited to, their right to protection from harm - physical, emotional, developmental or otherwise - while in state custody; their right not to remain in state custody unnecessarily; their right to treatment;
45

their right to treatment related to the cause of their confinement; and their right to receive care, treatment and services consistent with competent professional judgment.
Seventh Cause of Action - Equal Protection Claim Brought on Behalf of the In-Custody Class Members Placed in Unlicensed Placements
158. Each and every allegation of the Complaint is incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
159. The foregoing actions and inactions of the Defendants amount to a pattern, practice, and custom of failure to exercise reasonable professional judgment and deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of the children in the protective services class. Defendants are engaging in a practice of intentionally and arbitrarily denying in-custody class members who have been placed in unlicensed placements with the child welfare protections of minimum licensing requirements, including adequate safety procedures and staffing, despite the fact that they are otherwise similarly situated to those children placed in licensed placements. Defendants' determination to deny Plaintiff class members placed in unlicensed placements child welfare protections afforded those similarly situated children placed in licensed placements bears no rational relation to a legitimate state interest, and violates these class members' equal protection rights.
Eighth Cause of Action - Adoption Assistance Act Claims Brought on Behalf of the In-Custody Class
160. Each and every allegation of the Complaint is incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
] 61. As a result of the foregoing actions and inactions of the Defendants, the Defendants are engaging in a policy, pattern, practice, and/or custom of depriving in-custody Plaintiff children the rights conferred upon them by the federal Adoption Assistance and Child
46

Welfare Act of 1980, as amended by the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. These rights include, but are not limited to, the right to the development and implementation of individual case plans that contain specific mandated elements, including documentation of the steps taken to achieve permanency; the right to live in foster care placements that have the capacity to provide for the essential needs and services of children in their care by receiving adequate foster care maintenance payments; the right to a case record review system which includes semi-annual administrative reviews and annual permanency reviews, the right to placement only in facilities that have been licensed by the state; the right to placement in foster homes or facilities that conform to national professional standards; the right to placement in the least restrictive, most family-like setting; the right to have a petition to tenninate 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 foster children whose pennanency goal is adoption to planning and services to obtain permanent placement at the earliest possible time and the right to have health and educational records reviewed, updated, and supplied to foster care providers with whom the child is placed at the time of placement. 42 U.S.C. §§ 671(a)(1); 671(a)(10); 671(a)(16); 672(a), (b) and (c); 675(1); 675(4)(A) and (B); 675(5)(A) through (E); 622(a) and (b)(lO)(B)(ii) and (iii); 45 C.F.R. §1355.20.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff children respectfully request that this Honorable Court: A. Assert jurisdiction over this action; B. Order that all Plaintiffs may maintain this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; C. Declare unconstitutional and unlawful pursuant to Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
47

1. Defendants' violation of the protective services class members' rights under the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution; 2. Defendants' violation of the protective services class members' rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution; 3. Defendants' violation of the protective services class members' rights under the Substantive Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution not to be placed in an environment Defendants know or should know pose a risk to their safety; 4. Defendants' violation of the in-custody class members' rights under the Substantive Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution; 5. Defendants' violation of the in-custody class members' rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution; 6. Defendants' violation of the in-custody class members' rights under the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, as amended by the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, and regulations promulgated thereunder; and 7. Miss. Code. Ann. §§ 43-21-609(b) and (e)(1i) as they are applied to permit children deemed by the Youth Court as abused or neglected to be placed directly in unlicensed placements; D. Permanently enjoin Defendants from subjecting members of the Plaintiff class to practices that violate their rights; E. Order appropriate remedial relief to ensure that a detailed plan is developed, implemented, and monitored to ensure Defendants protect the legal rights of Plaintiffs as set forth in this complaint; F. Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.c. §§ 1988 and 1920; and G. Grant such other and further equitable relief as the Court deems just, necessary and proper to protect Plaintiffs and Plaintiff class members from further harm by Defendants.
48

:j •
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, this the.2!!!!1. day of March, 2004.
W. WayneD nkwater, Jr. (MBN , Melody McAnally (MBN 101236) BRADLEY ARANT ROSE & WHITE LLP 188 East Capital Street, Suite 450 Jackson, Mississippi 39201 (601) 948-8000 Stephen H. Leech 850 East River Place, Suite 300 Jackson, Mississippi 39202 (601) 355-4013 OF COUNSEL: Marcia Robinson Lowry (pro hac vice pending) Susan Lambiase (pro hac vice pending) Eric E. Thompson (pro hac vice pending) Shirim Nothenberg (pro hac vice pending) Corene Kendrick (pro hac vice pending) CHILDREN'S RIGHTS 404 Park Avenue South New York, New York 10016 (212) 683-2210 John Lang (pro hac vice pending) Christian Carbone (pro hac vice pending) LOEB & LOEB LLP 345 Park Ave. New York, New York 10154 (212) 407-4000
49

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION

OLIVIA Y., et al.

PLAINTIFFS

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:04CV251LN

HALEY BARBOUR, as Governor of the State of Mississippi, et al.

DEFENDANTS

MISSISSIPPI SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND REFORM PLAN

INTRODUCTION
This Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan (the "Plan") shall resolve all remaining claims in the above-captioned case, Olivia Y. v. Barbour, et al. Paragraph I of the Stipulated Settlement Agreement approved by the Court on May 17,2007, is hereby incorporated into this Plan.
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson Division, shall have continuing jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Plan and any annual implementation plans required herein.
I. REFORM PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION
Defendants shall meet the standards and outcome measures in Sections II and III of this Plan within five years of the Court's approval or within any earlier interim timelines that are specified herein.
A. For every 12-month period following Court approval of this Plan, Defendants shall develop an annual implementation plan with COA and Plaintiffs that sets forth the steps that must be taken in that 12-month period in order to meet that Period's interim benchmarks and make the progress necessary within that Period to achieve overall compliance with the Plan within five years. Each annual implementation plan shall be Court enforceable and include specific steps and timelines to achieve compliance with this Plan.
B. The first 12-month implementation plan is incorporated herewith at Appendix A. Each subsequent annual implementation plan shall be developed jointly with the Parties and COA 90 calendar days prior to the end of the previous 12-month period. Each annual implementation plan will be incorporated into this Plan.

1

C. Defendants do not speak for the Mississippi Legislature, which has the power under Mississippi law to determine the appropriations for the State's child welfare programs. However, at least annually after Court approval of this Plan, 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 Plan 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. Nothing in this paragraph in any way limits Defendants' obligations under this Plan.
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.
D. Nothing in this Plan shall be construed as infringing on the authority of the State courts of Mississippi to exercise their jurisdiction over individual class members. Defendants will not be held accountable for the State courts' exercise of such jurisdiction in any individual case, as long as Defendants requested that the State court exercise its jurisdiction consistent with the requirements of the Plan in that individual case.
II. STANDARDS
The following standards shall be met within five years of Court approval of this Plan, or earlier as specified below.
A. Administration and Management Standards
1. Agency Leadership
a. The director of DFCS shall be qualified by: an advanced degree from an accredited college or university in a field related to the agency's mission and services; five years of related experience at minimum; competence in administering and providing services to individuals, families, and/or children; management skills in addressing human resources and financial matters; and the ability to coordinate the agency's services with other community resources.
b. Within 90 calendar days of Court approval of this Plan, DFCS will hire and maintain a director for DFCS who meets the Plan's qualification requirements for the position.
2

2. Human Resources Management
a. Workforce:
1) No DFCS caseworker shall carry a caseload that exceeds the following:
• 9 for dedicated adoption workers (counted by child) • 14 for dedicated child protection workers (counted by investigation) • 14 for dedicated ongoing foster care workers (counted by child) • 15 for dedicated new application licensing workers (counted by home) • 17 for dedicated in-home protection workers (counted by family) • 25 for dedicated in-home dependency/prevention workers (counted by
family) • 36 for dedicated renewal licensing workers (counted by home) • 118 for dedicated abuse aud neglect intake workers (counted by
intake).
2) Individual DFCS caseworkers with generic caseloads shall not carry a mixed caseload requiring more than 6,960 minutes of case-related work per month as measured in accordance with Dr. Sue Steib's time study standards as reproduced below.
• Adoption: 807 min. per case/per month • Child protection investigation: 484 min. per case/per month • Foster care: 507 min. per case/per month • Licensing - new application: 470 min. per case/per month • In-home dependency - protection: 410 min. per case/per month • In-home dependency - prevention: 275 min. per case/per month • Licensing - renewal: 191 min. per case/per month • General intake: 59 min. per case/per month • Intra-state home studies - 282 min. per case/per month • Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children (ICPC) - 106 min.
per case/per month • Courtesy interviews - 65 min. per case/per month
3) The parties acknowledge that the above time study standards are based on averages and that any individual case may require more or fewer minutes of case-related work per month.
4) Individual caseloads shall be measured monthly.
5) No DFCS supervisor shall be directly responsible for supervising more than five caseworkers.
3

6) No supervisor shall be assigned primary responsibility for providing direct casework services for any case, except in cases of extenuating circumstances which shall last no more than four (4) weeks and have been approved in writing by the director of DFCS after consultation with the supervisor's Regional Director to ensure the continued proper supervision of the impacted direct service workers.
By the end of implementation Period I:
7) At least 30% ofDFCS caseworkers shall carry a caseload that does not exceed Plan caseload requirements. No more than 30% of caseworkers shall carry a caseload exceeding twice the Plan caseload requirements. No caseworkers shall carry a caseload exceeding three times the Plan caseload requirements.
8) No more than 30% of supervisors who are responsible for supervising DFCS caseworkers shall be responsible for supervising more than five caseworkers.
9) Caseworkers shall have access to a supervisor by telephone 24 hours a day.
By the end of implementation Period 2:
10) At least 50% ofDFCS caseworkers shall carry a caseload that does not exceed Plan caseload requirements. No more than 20% of caseworkers shall carry a caseload exceeding twice the Plan caseload requirements.
II) No more than 20% of supervisors who are responsible for supervising DFCS caseworkers shall be responsible for supervising more than five caseworkers.
12) Supervisors will no longer be assigned primary responsibility for providing direct casework for any cases, unless under the extenuating circumstances exception as described above.
By the end of implementation Period 3:
13) At least 75% ofDFCS caseworkers shall carry a caseload that does not exceed Plan caseload requirements. No more than 10% of caseworkers shall carry a caseload exceeding twice the Plan caseload requirements.
14) No more than 10% of supervisors who are responsible for supervising DFCS caseworkers shall be responsible for supervising more than five caseworkers.
4

By the end of implementation Period 4:
15) At least 95% of DFCS caseworkers shall carry a caseload that does not exceed Plan caseload requirements. No caseworkers shall carry a caseload exceeding twice the Plan caseload requirements.
16) No more than 5% of supervisors who are responsible for supervising DFCS caseworkers shall be responsible for directly supervising more than five caseworkers.
b. Worker and Supervisor Qualifications:
1) DFCS shall hire only foster care workers who have an advanced degree in social work or a comparable human services field, or a B.A. in social work or a comparable human service field with two years of related experience. Should the related COA standards change, the new COA worker qualifications standards will govern.
2) DFCS shall hire or promote to the position of caseworker supervisor only persons with an advanced degree in social work or a comparable human service field and two years of experience working with children and families, preferably in foster care. Should the related COA standards change, the new COA caseworker supervisor qualifications standards will govern.
c. Training:
1) DFCS shall maintain a Training Unit, headed by a qualified director of training. The Training Unit shall have sufficient staffing, funding, and other resources to assure that it can provide comprehensive child welfare training to enable all caseworkers, supervisors, and other child welfare agency employees to comply with the relevant mandates of this Plan, DFCS policy, and reasonable professional standards.
2) Subsequent to Court approval of this Plan, all new caseworkers hired by DFCS shall receive a minimum of 270 hours of pre-service training, including instructional training and supervised field training, prior to assuming any case responsibilities; all new caseworker supervisors hired or promoted by DFCS shall receive a minimum of 40 hours of in-service training directed specifically at the supervision of child welfare caseworkers prior to assuming any supervisory responsibilities; all caseworkers shall receive a minimum of 40 hours of ongoing in-service training each year; and all supervisors shall receive a minimum of 24 hours of ongoing in-service training each year.
3) The caseworker training shall be based on clearly identified learning objectives and culminate in competency-based testing, which will need to be
5

successfully completed for the training to be credited. The curriculum shall be drawn from current research and data.
By the end of implementation Period I:
4) DFCS shall establish and maintain a Training Unit, headed by a qualified director of training, with sufficient staffing and resources to provide comprehensive child welfare pre-service and ongoing training to all caseworkers and supervisors. Supervisory personnel will no longer be detailed from the field to provide training.
5) All new caseworkers and supervisors will complete their service. trammg consistent with the Plan requirements before they assume their respective responsibilities for carrying cases and supervising.
6) The ongoing training curriculum for caseworkers and supervIsors will be completed and ongoing training will have been initiated.
By the end of implementation Period 2:
7) All caseworkers shall receive a minimum of 40 hours of ongoing in-service training each year, and all supervisors shall receive a minimum of 24 hours of ongoing in-service training each year.
d. Contract Agency Requirements:
By the end of implementation Period 2:
In the event that private agencies provide protective, preventive, foster care, or adoption case work services under contract with DFCS, DFCS shall require the contract agencies to abide by all related terms of the Plan, including, but not limited to, provisions regarding training curricula, minimum training hours, and caseload standards. DFCS shall implement and maintain a performance-based contracting system to evaluate annually contract agency compliance with the terms of the Plan. DFCS shall take reasonable steps to ensure contract agency remediation of any identified deficiencies.
3. Performance and Quality Improvement
By the end of implementation Period I:
a. DFCS shall begin implementing a separate continuous quality improvement (CQI) system.
6

By the end of implementation Period 2:
b. DFCS shall implement and maintain a separate CQI system that can identifY areas of needed improvement and require improvement plans in support of achieving performance targets, program goals, client satisfaction, and positive client outcomes. The CQI system shall include monitoring and evaluating the quality of social and human services provided by independent contractors and other provider organizations and ensuring contractor remediation of any identified deficiencies.
c. DFCS shall comply with the public child fatality reporting requirements of the Child Abuse Prevention Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5106a(b)(2)(A)(x).
4. Legal and Regulatory Compliance
DFCS shall comply with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
5. Information Management and Use
a. DFCS shall have a Mississippi Automated Child Welfare Information System (MACWIS) appropriate to its size and complexity that permits (1) timely access to information about persons served by any part of the organization, or by other practitioners within the organization, to support child safety and continuity of care across settings and services; (2) capturing, tracking, and reporting of financial, compliance, and child welfare information, including federally required AFCARS elements; (3) longitudinal reporting and comparison of performance over time; (4) the use of clear and consistent formats and methods for reporting and disseminating data, including system-wide reports; (5) the collection of data necessary to monitor compliance with the Plan; (6) DFCS county staff access to a computerized database of the placement resources currently available for placement statewide; (7) notification to caseworkers when a foster care provider for a child assigned to the worker is under investigation, or that provider's foster care license has expired or been revoked; (8) notification to caseworkers investigating a report of abuse of subsequent reports of abuse concerning the same child or alleged perpetrator; (9) caseworkers to access information on available services statewide; and (10) review of prior (i.e. historical) case documents including Individual Service Plans.
By the end of implementation Period 1:
b. DFCS shall provide to all county agency staff with child welfare responsibilities access to basic computer services, consisting of access to MACWIS, word processing, and electronic mail.
c. MACWIS data related to compliance with the Plan's Foster Care Service Standards II.B.I-12 will be collected, analyzed, and disseminated at least monthly to DFCS regional and county staff.
7

By the end of implementation Period 2:
d. DFCS county staff shall have access to a MACWIS database of the placement resources available for placement statewide at any given time. The database shall permit staff to determine whether a given placement is suitable for a given child needing placement by allowing access to current caretaker placement information, including capacity limitations, current census, the placement's suitability for children by age, sex, and special needs, and any related licensing and maltreatment investigations information.
e. DFCS shall take reasonable steps to ensure data integrity and user accountability in MACWIS. The system shall have the necessary controls to decrease the risk of duplication of data and to reduce the risk of incorrect or invalid data. The system shall provide a visible trail to the database administrators of all information entered, added, deleted, or modified, and shall have necessary security to protect data integrity. This system shall be audited at least annually to ensure the accuracy and validity of the data in the system. Necessary actions identified by the MACWIS data accuracy and validity audit to correct MACWIS data errors shall be implemented annually.
6. Case Recordings
a. DFCS caseworkers shall compile, maintain, and keep current complete child welfare case records.
By the end of implementation Period 3:
b. At least 90% of child welfare case records will be current and complete.
By the end of implementation Period 4:
c. At least 95% of child welfare case records will be current and complete.
7. Financial Management
By the end of implementation Period 1:
a. Defendants shall conduct an external assessment of actual and anticipated federal funding levels and create an implementation program to increase federal funding available to DFCS.
b. Funds realized as a result of revenue maximization activities shall not supplant appropriated state funds but shall be used in furtherance of the reforms and outcome measures provided for herein and to improve child welfare services.
8

B. Foster Care Service Standards
1. Screening and Assessments
a. Upon taking a child into custody, DFCS shall engage in a thorough screening of the child and an individualized, strengths-based, family-focused, and culturally responsive assessment of the family, with the family's participation. Information gathered during the screening and assessment shall consist of (1) internal, external, and historical factors that may contribute to concerns identified in initial risk and safety assessments and initial screenings; (2) child and family strengths, protective factors, and needs; (3) the impact of maltreatment on the child; (4) factors and characteristics pertinent to selecting an appropriate placement; (5) family resources for the child and the parents; and (6) any other material pertinent for meeting service objectives. The screening and assessment shall inform the selection of an appropriate placement, the provision of needed services, and permanency planning, and shall be completed within 30 calendar days of the child's entrance into custody and documented in the child's case record.
b. DFCS shall initiate the assessment process through individual team meetings (1) with the child and the assigned DFCS caseworker within the first 72 hours of initial placement or any subsequent placement moves; (2) with the child's parents and the assigned DFCS caseworker within the first two weeks of initial placement; and (3) with the foster care provider and the assigned DFCS caseworker within the first two weeks of any placement, or within different timeframes as required by COA standards.
c. In all cases in which the whereabouts of one or both parents is unknown, DFCS shall immediately institute a diligent search for the parent(s), which shall be documented in the child's case record.
d. In instances in which it is impossible to meet with one or both parents, the assessment process will proceed as described above, notwithstanding the parent's absence.
By the end of implementation Period 2:
e. All cas,eworkers carrying active cases and their supervisors will have undergone training on the individual and family team meeting protocols.
f. At least 40% of children entering custody during the Period shall have a thorough screening and assessment, consistent with Plan requirements, within 30 calendar days of entering custody.
g. At least 40% of children entering custody or subject to a placement move during the Period shall have an individual team meeting (1) with the child and the assigned DFCS caseworker within the first 72 hours of initial placement or any subsequent placement moves; (2) with the child's parents and the assigned DFCS
9

caseworker within the first two weeks of initial placement; and (3) with the foster care provider and the assigned DFCS caseworker within the first two weeks of any placement.
h. In at least 40% of placement cases in which the whereabouts of one or both parents is unknown, DFCS shall have immediately instituted a diligent search for the parent(s), which shall be documented in the child's case record.
By the end of implementation Period 3:
1. At least 80% of children entering custody during the Period shall have a thorough screening and assessment, consistent with Plan requirements, within 30 calendar days of entering custody.
J. At least 80% of children entering custody or subject to a placement move during the Period shall have an individual team meeting (1) with the child and the assigned DFCS caseworker within the first 72 hours of initial placement or any subsequent placement moves; (2) with the child's parents and the assigned DFCS caseworker within the first two weeks of initial placement; and (3) with the foster care provider and the assigned DFCS caseworker within the first two weeks of any placement.
k. In at least 80% of placement cases in which the whereabouts of one or both parents is unknown, DFCS shall have immediately instituted a diligent search for the parent(s), which shall be documented in the child's case record.
By the end of implementation Period 4:
I. At least 90% of children entering custody during the Period shall have a thorough screening and assessment, consistent with Plan requirements, within 30 calendar days of entering custody.
m. At least 90% of children entering custody or subject to a placement move during the Period shall have an individual team meeting (1) with the child and the assigned DFCS caseworker within the first 72 hours of initial placement or any subsequent placement moves; (2) with the child's parents and the assigned DFCS caseworker within the first two weeks of initial placement; and (3) with the foster care provider and the assigned DFCS caseworker within the first two weeks of any placement.
n. In at least 90% of placement cases in which the whereabouts of one or both parents is unknown, DFCS shall have immediately instituted a diligent search for the parent(s), which shall be documented in the child's case record.
10

2. Service Planning and Monitoring
a. Within 30 calendar days of a child's entrance into foster care, the DFCS caseworker shall convene a team meeting with the DFCS caseworker's direct supervisor, the child's family if appropriate, the foster family, and the child unless there is a justification for excluding the child from the planning process. During the team meeting, service plans shall be developed for both the child and the parents with the participation of all team meeting participants.
b. Each service plan shall be reviewed and updated quarterly at a team meeting with the caseworker, the caseworker's direct supervisor, the foster parent, the child's parents if appropriate, and the child unless there is a justification for excluding the child from the planning process. If the child's placement changes, or there is a significant change affecting the child or hislher family, a team meeting shall be convened and the service plan must be updated within 30 calendar days of the date of change.
c. In instances in which it is impossible to meet with one or both parents, the planning process will proceed as described above, notwithstanding the parent's absence.
By the end of implementation Period 2:
d. At least 40% of children entering custody during the Period shall have a team meeting with service plans developed for both the child and the parents, consistent with Plan requirements, within 30 calendar days of entry into foster care.
e. At least 40% of children in custody during the Period shall have team meetings, at which time their service plans shall be updated, quarterly and within 30 calendar days of any placement or other significant change, consistent with Plan requirements.
By the end of implementation Period 3:
f. At least 80% of children entering custody during the Period shall have a team meeting with service plans developed for both the child and the parents, consistent with Plan requirements, within 30 calendar days of entry into foster care.
g. At least 80% of children in custody during the Period shall have team meetings, at which time their service plans shall be updated, quarterly and within 30 calendar days of any placement or other significant change, consistent with Plan requirements.
11

By the end of implementation Period 4:
h. At least 90% of children entering custody during the Period shall have a team meeting with service plans developed for both the child and the parents, consistent with Plan requirements, within 30 calendar days of entry into foster care.
1. At least 90% of children in custody during the Period shall have team meetings, at which time their service plans shall be updated, quarterly and within 30 calendar days of any placement or other significant change, consistent with Plan requirements.
3. Child and Youth Permanency
a. Permanency Plan:
1) Working with service providers, foster parents, the child, and the family, DFCS shall develop and document in the child's case record a permanency plan within 30 calendar days of the child's initial placement that specifies the permanency goal, a timeframe for achieving permanency, and activities that support permanency.
2) DFCS may assign a permanency goal of durable legal custody to a child for whom it has not made adoption efforts only if an appropriate person, with preference given to relatives, has been identified; such person is willing to assume long-term responsibility for the child but has articulated a reasonable basis for not adopting the child; and it is in the child's best interests to remain in the home of such person rather than be considered for adoption by another person. In such circumstances, there shall be in place a long-term placement agreement signed by DFCS and the relative or other appropriate person ensuring the permanency and stability of this placement barring emergency circumstances that dictate the removal of the child.
3) No child shall be assigned a permanency goal of permanent foster care.
4) If DFCS concludes, after considering reunification, adoption, durable legal custody, and permanent placement with a relative, that these permanency plans are inappropriate or unavailable for a child, DFCS may assign a permanency goal of emancipation for the child. In such circumstances, a) the child must be at least 16 years old and b) DFCS must document to the Youth Court a compelling reason why this permanency goal is in the best interest of the child and more appropriate than reunification, adoption, durable legal custody, or permanent placement with a relative.
12

By the end of implementation Period 2:
5) A least 50% of children entering care during the Period shall have a permanency plan within 30 calendar days of their entry into care consistent with Plan requirements.
6) At least 50% of children in custody during the Period shall have a permanency plan that is consistent with Plan requirements.
By the end of implementation Period 3:
7) A least 90% of children entering care during the Period shall have a permanency plan within 30 calendar days of their entry into care consistent with Plan requirements.
8) At least 90% of children in custody during the Period shall have a permanency plan that is consistent with Plan requirements.
By the end of implementation Period 4:
9) At least 95% of children entering care during the Period shall have a
permanency plan within 30 calendar days of their entry into care consistent
with Plan requirements.
10) At least 95% of children in custody during the Period shall have a permanency plan that is consistent with Plan requirements.
b. Concurrent Planning:
I) For children with the goal of reunification, DFCS shall engage in concurrent planning consisting of early assessment of the potential for reunification; early identification of potential family resources; and early placement with a potentially permanent family resource.
By the end of implementation Period 2:
2) At least 50% of children in custody during the Period with the goal of reunification shall have 'case record documentation reflecting active concurrent permanency planning consistent with Plan requirements.
By the end of implementation Period 3:
3) At least 90% of children in custody during the Period with the goal of reunification shall have case record documentation reflecting active concurrent permanency planning consistent with Plan requirements.
13

By the end of implementation Period 4:
4) A least 95% of children in custody during the Period with the goal of reunification shall have case record documentation reflecting active concurrent permanency planning consistent with Plan requirements.
c. Permanency Plan Updating and Review:
I) A child's permanency plan shall be reviewed in a court or administrative case review at least every six months. DFCS will take reasonable steps, including written notice, to ensure the participation of the child, parents, caregivers, and relevant professionals in court or administrative reviews.
2) DFCS will take reasonable steps to ensure that a court review, which may be called a review, dispositional, or permanency hearing, is held for each child in foster care custody within 12 months of initial placement, and annually thereafter. /
By the end of implementation Period 2:
3) At least 50% of children in custody at least six months during the Period shall have a timely court or administrative case review consistent with Plan requirements during the Period.
4) At least 50% of children in custody at least 12 months during the Period shall have a timely annual court review consistent with Plan requirements during the Period.
By the end of implementation Period 3:
5) At least 90% of children in custody at least six months during the Period shall have a timely court or administrative case review consistent with Plan requirements during the Period.
6) At least 90% of children in custody at least 12 months during the Period shall have a timely annual court review consistent with Plan requirements during the Period.
By the end of implementation Period 4:
7) At least 95% of children in custody at least six months during the Period shall have a timely court or administrative case review consistent with Plan requirements during the Period.
14

8) At least 95% of children in custody at least 12 months during the Period shall have a timely annual court review consistent with Plan requirements during the Period.
d. Reunification Services:
1) When the child's permanency goal is reunification, DFCS shall identify in the parents' service plan and make available directly or through referral those services DFCS deems necessary to address the behaviors or conditions resulting in the child's placement in foster care and to help the parents develop strategies to facilitate permanency for the child.
2) For a child with a permanency goal of reunification, the child's assigned DFCS caseworker shall meet with the child's biological parents at least monthly to assess service delivery and achievement of service goals, to keep the family informed and involved in decisions about the child, and to remain current about the family's circumstances.
3) For children with a permanency goal of reunification, the case record shall document opportunities provided to parents in support of reunification, including involvement in service planning and access to needed services; constructive visitation and on-going contact with the child; reduction of barriers to contact, visitation, and involvement in the child's care; and use of resources to prepare the family for reunification.
By the end of implementation Period 2:
4) At least 40% of children with a permanency goal of reunification during the Period shall have service plans for their parents that identify those services DFCS deems necessary to address the behaviors or conditions resulting in the child's placement in foster care and case record documentation that DFCS made those identified services available directly or through referral.
By the end of implementation Period 3:
5) At least 80% of children with a permanency goal of reunification during the Period shall have service plans for their parents that identify those services DFCS deems necessary to address the behaviors or conditions resulting in the child's placement in foster care and case record documentation that DFCS made those identified services available directly or through referral.
By the end of implementation Period 4:
6) At least 90% of children with a permanency goal of reunification during the Period shall have service plans for their parents that identify those services DFCS deems necessary to address the behaviors or conditions resulting in the
15

child's placement in foster care and case record documentation that OFeS made those identified services available directly or through referral.
e. Termination of Parental Rights:
1) For children who will have spent 15 of the previous 22 months in foster care, OFeS shall submit a tennination of parental rights (TPR) packet to the Office of the Attorney General by the first day of the fifteenth month or document an available exception under the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA). The Office of the Attorney General shall file the petition for tennination of parental rights by the last day of the fifteenth month to ensure compliance with the ASFA.
2) When a child's primary pennanency goal is established as adoption, OFes shall submit a TPR packet to the State Office within 30 calendar days. Within 30 calendar days of receipt of the TPR packet by the State Office, the State Office shall review the packet, remedy any deficiencies, and submit a TPR referral to the Office of the Attorney General. Within 30 calendar days of such referral, the Office of the Attorney General shall either file the petition for TPR or document to OFeS a legal deficiency preventing timely filing. Within 10 working days of receiving documentation of a legal deficiency, the assigned OFeS caseworker shall document to the Office of the Attorney General the steps to be taken to address the deficiency. The OFeS caseworker and that caseworker's direct supervisor shall meet in person every 30 calendar days thereafter to document progress being made to address the legal deficiency until a TPR referral has been accepted as legally sufficient by the Office of the Attorney General, who shall file the petition for TPR within 30 calendar days.
By the end of implementation Period 2:
3) At least 40% of children in custody reaching the point at which they have spent 15 of the previous 22 months in foster care during the Period shall have a petition for TPR filed on their behalf or an available exception under the federal ASFA documented by the end of their fifteenth month in care.
4) At least 40% of children in custody during the Period who have spent more than 15 of the previous 22 months in foster care without a TPR petition filed on their behalf or an available ASFA exception documented by the end of their fifteenth month in care shall have such a petition filed or an available exception documented within the Period.
By the end of implementation Period 3:
5) At least 80% of children in custody reaching the point at which they have spent 15 of the previous 22 months in foster care during the Period shall have
16

a petition to TPR filed on their behalf or an available exception under the federal ASFA documented by the end of their fifteenth month in care.
6) At least 80% of children in custody during the Period who have spent more than 15 of the previous 22 months in foster care without a TPR petition filed on their behalf or an available ASFA exception documented by the end of their fifteenth month in care shall have such a petition filed or an available exception documented within the Period.
By the end of implementation Period 4:
7) At least 90% of children in custody reaching the point at which they have spent 15 of the previous 22 months in foster care during the Period shall have a petition to TPR filed on their behalf or an available exception under the federal ASFA documented by the end of their fifteenth month in care.
8) At least 90% of children in custody during the Period who have spent more than 15 of the previous 22 months in foster care without a TPR petition filed on their behalf or an available ASFA exception documented by the end of their fifteenth month in care shall have such a petition filed or an available exception documented within the Period.
f. Adoption:
1) When a child's primary permanency goal is established as adoption, DFCS shall, within 10 working days, assign an adoption specialist to work with the assigned DFCS caseworker to immediately begin the process of securing an adoptive placement for the child. Within 15 calendar days of the primary permanency goal change to adoption, the DFCS caseworker, along with the adoption specialist, shall draw up an adoption plan that identifies the childspecific activities that DFCS will undertake to achieve the permanency goal of adoption and the timeframes in which the activities will be undertaken. The adoption specialist shall be responsible for consulting with private and public professionals and identifying and ensuring the provision of targeted services necessary for the child to be adopted. An adoption status meeting with the DFCS caseworker, the adoption specialist, and the caseworker's direct supervisor to review the progress being made in achieving the goal of adoption shall occur weekly for infants and monthly for all other children awaiting adoption, and shall be noted in the child's case record.
2) For each child who is not in a home with approved adoptive parents within six months after being legally freed for adoption, DFCS will assign an external adoption consultant who will be contracted to work with the assigned DFCS caseworker and adoption specialist to review, amend, or approve the adoption plan and to ensure the plan is implemented. The initial meeting with the consultant to review that adoption plan shall be in person. The consultant shall also participate in the monthly or, in the case of infants, weekly adoption
17

status meetings, but may do so telephonically where geographic barriers make in-person participation impractical.
By the end of implementation Period 1:
3) DFCS shall provide and maintain an approval process by which foster parents and adoptive parents may be approved simultaneously, so that whenever possible and appropriate, placement moves can be minimized and foster parents can be eligible to adopt the children for whom they have been providing foster care. A foster parent who has been providing foster care for a child for 12 months shall be given preference as an adoptive parent for that child should he/she become legally available for adoption, unless DFCS documents why the placement is unsuitable for adoption.
4) DFCS shall implement and maintain a process for advising all potential adoptive families, including any foster family caring for a child who has become legally available for adoption, of the availability of adoption subsidies. This notification shall be documented in the child's record, and the family's access to such subsidies shall be facilitated.
5) DFCS shall establish and maintain a system of post-adoptive services to stabilize and maintain adoptive placements. All adoptive families eligible for adoption subsidies shall have access to these services, which shall include respite services; counseling, mental health treatment, and crisis intervention; family preservation and stabilization services; and peer support.
By the end of implementation Period 2:
6) At least 75% of children in custody with the primary permanency goal of adoption during the Period shall have an assigned adoption specialist and an adoption plan that identifies the child-specific activities that DFCS will undertake to achieve adoption, and shall receive regular adoption status meetings consistent with Plan requirements.
7) At least 75% of children in custody during the Period who are legally free for adoption but are not in a home with approved adoptive parents within six months after being legally freed for adoption shall have an assigned external adoption consultant consistent with Plan requirements to ensure the adoption plan is implemented.
By the end of implementation Period 3:
8) At least 90% of children in custody with the primary permanency goal of adoption during the Period shall have an assigned adoption specialist and an adoption plan that identifies the child-specific activities that DFCS will undertake to achieve adoption, and shall receive regular adoption status meetings consistent with Plan requirements.
18

9) At least 90% of children in custody during the Period who are legally free for adoption but are not in a home with approved adoptive parents within six months after being legally freed for adoption shall have an assigned external adoption consultant consistent with Plan requirements to ensure the adoption plan is implemented.
By the end of implementation Period 4:
10) At least 95% of children in custody with the primary permanency goal of adoption during the Period shall have an assigned adoption specialist and an adoption plan that identifies the child-specific activities that DFCS will undertake to achieve adoption, and shall receive regular adoption status meetings consistent with Plan requirements.
11) At least 95% of children in custody during the Period who are legally free for adoption but are not in a home with approved adoptive parents within six months after being legally freed for adoption shall have an assigned external adoption consultant consistent with Plan requirements to ensure the adoption plan is implemented.
4. Child Safety
a. DFCS shall maintain a well-publicized 24-hour statewide child abuse hotline for the reporting of abuse and/or neglect.
b. Upon receipt of a report of child maltreatment in a group home, emergency shelter, or private child placing agency foster home, DFCS shall undertake a licensure investigation, that is additional to, and independent of, any child protective investigation, that shall include an on-site inspection of the facility or home to determine the contract provider's compliance with DFCS licensure standards. If the provider is found to be in violation of licensure standards, it shall have 30 days to submit a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) with timeframes to rectify the violation and comply with the approved CAP and timeframes. If the provider does not comply with the licensure standards based on the approved CAP and timeframes, DFCS shall revoke the license.
c. All allegations of maltreatment of a child in custody, including corporal punishment, shall be investigated by a caseworker who has received training in the investigation of maltreatment in out-of-home placements and has no ongoing connection to the foster care case.
By the end of implementation Period I:
d. DFCS shall assure that standardized decision-making criteria are used for prioritizing, screening, and assessing all reports of maltreatment, including corporal punishment, of children in DFCS custody.
19

e. All investigations into reports of maltreatment, including corporal punishment, of children in DFCS custody must be initiated within 24 hours and completed within 20 calendar days, including supervisory approval. DFCS shall assure that such investigations and decisions are based on a full and systematic evaluation of the factors that may place a child in DFCS custody at risk.
f. Any foster child who remains in the same out-of-home placement following an investigation into a report that he or she was maltreated, or subject to corporal punishment, in that placement shall be visited by a DFCS caseworker twice a month for three months after the conclusion of the investigation to assure the child's continued safety and well-being.
g. When a maltreatment investigation involves a foster home, DFCS shall file a copy of the approved final investigative report, and any recommendations and/or corrective actions DFCS has deemed necessary, in the case record of the foster child, in the file of the foster or adoptive parents with a copy of the letter of notification to the foster or adoptive parents, and in the DFCS State Office. DFCS shall also provide those records to the Youth Court Judge with jurisdiction over the child and to the Monitor.
h. When a maltreatment investigation involves an agency group home, emergency shelter, private child placing agency foster home, or other facility licensed by DFCS, a copy of the final investigative report shall be filed in the child's case record, in the facility licensing file, and in the DFCS State Office. DFCS shall provide the report to the Youth Court Judge with jurisdiction over the child and to the Monitor.
1. DFCS shall undertake a special safety review, including an unannounced site visit, of all currently licensed foster homes with two or more reports of maltreatment, including corporal punishment, within the last three years to determine whether any children placed in those homes are at risk of harm and any licensing standards related to child safety are not being met. Any necessary corrective actions will be identified and tracked.
j. DFCS shall undertake a special safety review, including an unannounced site visit, of all group homes and other residential facilities that house children in custody with three or more reports of maltreatment, including corporal punishment, within the last two years to determine whether any children placed in those facilities are at risk of harm and any licensing standards related to child safety are not being met. Any necessary corrective actions will be identified and tracked.
By the end of implementation Period 2:
k. For investigations of agency group homes, emergency shelters, and private child placing agency foster homes, the Licensure Unit shall undertake a separate
20

investigation of the contract provider's compliance with DFCS licensure standards.
5. Child Placement
a. No foster child shall be placed in a foster care setting that has not been licensed or approved as meeting DFCS licensure standards, unless the child is placed pursuant to the following relative licensing process. The licensing process for relatives shall take place in two steps: (1) an emergency process to be developed by DFCS in conjunction with COA that enables a child to be placed with relatives as soon as the child enters placement, following an initial screen (as described at ILB.S.i below) of the relative's home, and (2) a full licensing process, to be completed no later than 60 calendar days after the child· has entered placement. DFCS may waive non-safety licensing requirements for relative foster placements in individual cases, in accordance with federal regulations.
b. No foster home shall provide care for more than three foster children or for a total of more than five children (including foster, biological, and adoptive children) at any given time. No more than two children in the foster home may be under the age of two or have therapeutic needs. Notwithstanding the above, a sibling group may be placed together in the same foster home in excess of these limits, but only upon written approval by the DFCS Regional Director determining that the foster children can be maintained safely in the foster home.
c. Children with special needs shall be matched with placement resources that can meet their therapeutic, medical, and educational needs. DFCS shall ensure that each county office has access to placement specialists within its region having the ability to ascertain the placement resources available and their suitability for each particular child needing placement.
d. Each foster child shall be placed in the least restrictive setting that meets hislher individual needs as determined by a review of all intake, screening, assessment, and prior placement information on the child available at the time of placement. In order of consideration, this means placement with relatives; foster home care within reasonable proximity to the child's home community; foster home care outside of the child's home community; group home care; or institutional care.
e. Each child shall be placed within hislher own county or within 50 miles of the home from which he/she was removed. This provision shall not apply if (I) the child's needs are so exceptional that they cannot be met by a family or facility within hislher own county or within 50 miles of the home from which he/she was removed; (2) the child is placed through the ICPC consistent with its terms; (3) the child is appropriately placed with relatives or another planned permanent resource; (4) the child is ordered to be placed in a child-specific foster care setting by a court; or (5) the child is placed in an adoptive home.
21

f. Siblings who enter placement at or near the same time shall be placed together unless (I) doing so would be harmful to one or more of the siblings; (2) one of the siblings has exceptional needs that can be met only in a specialized program or facility; or (3) 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 initial placement, the caseworker 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.
g. No later than at the time of placement, DFCS shall provide foster parents or facility staff with the foster child's currently available medical, dental health, educational, and psychological information, including a copy of the child's Medicaid card. DFCS shall gather and provide to foster parents or facility staff all additional current medical, dental health, educational, and psychological information available from the child's service providers within 15 days of placement.
h. DFCS shall take all reasonable steps to avoid the disruption of an appropriate placement and ensure placement stability for children. If a caseworker has knowledge that a placement may disrupt, the caseworker shall immediately convene a meeting with the DFCS supervisor, the foster parents, and, if appropriate, the child to determine the following: the cause of the potential disruption; whether the placement is appropriate for the child; whether additional services are necessary to support the placement; whether the child needs another placement; and, if another placement is necessary, what that placement should be. If the placement disrupts on an emergency basis, the meeting shall be held no later than five days after the disruption to address whether the child needs additional supportive services and whether the new placement is appropriate.
By the end of implementation Period I:
i. All foster care settings, including relative placements, shall be screened prior to the initial placement of foster children to ensure that children receive safe, sufficient, and appropriate care. Additional screens shall be completed at least once annually thereafter and within two weeks of a reported change in the residents of a foster home. Screens shall include criminal and child welfare background checks of all household members who are at least 14 years old. No foster child shall be placed in a home prior to DFCS receipt of the background check results.
J. DFCS shall develop and implement an expedited process for licensing screened relative caregivers to enable a child to be placed quickly with relatives upon entering placement. All relative placements approved for expedited placement shall undergo the full licensing procedure within 120 calendar days of the child's placement in the home.
22

k. No foster child shall remain in an emergency or temporary facility for more than 45 calendar days, unless, in exceptional circumstances, the Division Director has granted express written approval for the extension that documents the need for the extension.
By the end of implementation Period 2:
I. No child shall spend more than 12 hours at a time in a DFCS office or other nonresidential facility that provides intake functions. No child shall be placed in more than one emergency or temporary facility within one episode of foster care, unless an immediate placement move is necessary to protect the safety of the child or of others as certified in writing by the Regional Director.
m. No child under 10 years of age shall be placed in a congregate care setting (including group homes and shelters) unless the child has exceptional needs that cannot be met in a relative or foster family home or the child is a member of a sibling group, and the Regional Director has granted express written approval for the congregate-care placement. Such approval shall be based on the Regional Director's written determination that the child's needs cannot be met in a less restrictive setting and can be met in that specific facility, including a description of the services available in the facility to address the individual child's needs. Sibling groups in which one or more of the siblings are under the age of 10 shall not be placed in congregate care settings for more than 45 days.
n. No foster child shall be moved from hislher existing placement to another foster placement unless DFCS specifically documents in the child's case record justifications for that move and the move is approved by a DFCS supervisor.
o. All relative placements approved for expedited placement shall undergo the full licensing procedure within 60 calendar days ofihe child's placement in the home.
p. At least 50% of children in DHS custody placed in a new placement during the Period shall have their currently available medical, dental, educational, and psychological information provided to their foster parents or facility staff no later than at the time of any new placement during the Period.
q. At least 30% of children in custody known by DFCS to be subject to a potential or actual placement disruption during the Period shall receive a meeting to address placement stability consistent with Plan requirements.
By the end of implementation Period 3:
r. No more than 30% of foster homes shall provide care to a number of children in excess ofthe Plan foster home population limitations.
23

s. At least 80% of children in DHS custody placed in a new placement during the Period shall have their currently available medical, dental, educational, and psychological information provided to their foster parents or facility staff no later than at the time of any new placement during the Period.
t. At least 70% of children in custody known by DFCS to be subject to a potential or actual placement disruption during the Period shall receive a meeting to address placement stability consistent with Plan requirements.
u. At least 80% of children with special needs shall be matched with placement resources that can meet their therapeutic, medical, and educational needs.
v. At least 80% of children in DHS custody shall be placed in the least restrictive setting that meets their individual needs consistent with Plan requirements.
w. At least 80% of siblings who entered DFCS custody at or near the same time shall be placed together consistent with Plan requirements.
By the end of implementation Period 4:
x. No foster child shall be placed or remain in a foster care setting that does not meet DFCS licensure standards consistent with Plan requirements, unless so ordered by the Youth Court over DFCS objection.
y. No more than 10% of foster homes shall provide care to a number of children in excess of the Plan foster home population limitations.
z. At least 95% of children in DHS custody shall have their currently available medical, dental, educational, and psychological information provided to their foster parents or facility staff no later than at the time of any new placement.
aa. At least 90% of children with special needs shall be matched with placement resources that can meet their therapeutic, medical, and educational needs.
bb. At least 90% of children in DHS custody shall be placed in the least restrictive setting that meets their individual needs consistent with Plan requirements.
cc. At least 90% of siblings who entered DFCS custody at or near the same time shall be placed together consistent with Plan requirements.
dd. At least 90% of children in custody known by DFCS to be subject to a potential or actual placement disruption during the Period shall receive a meeting to address placement stability consistent with Plan requirements.
24

6. Developing and Maintaining Connections
a. At the time of the initial team meeting when a child enters foster care, a visitation plan for the child and hislher family shall be developed as part of the child's service plan. This visitation plan shall be developed and regularly updated in collaboration with parents, foster parents, and the child and should be appropriate to a) the child's age and developmental stage; b) the parents' strengths and needs; c) the schedules of foster parents and parents; d) the social and cultural context of the family; and e) the status of the case and the permanency goal. If parental visitation is appropriate based on the above factors, this visitation plan shall include a minimum of two visits per month with the parents (unless a court order in the child's case limits such visits). For all children, regardless of permanency goal, this visitation plan shall include at least one visit per month with any . siblings not in the same placement (unless a court order in the child's case limits such visits).
b. DFCS shall arrange contact for the child with hislher parents and with any siblings not in the same placement within 24 hours of foster care placement unless there are documented reasons why contact should not occur. If a visit cannot be arranged within 24 hours, a telephone call to parents, siblings, or extended family members must be provided to the child.
c. DFCS caseworkers shall take all reasonable steps to ensure the implementation of each child's visitation plan. DFCS and its contracting agencies shall implement a policy that prohibits cancellation of visits as a disciplinary action.
By the end of implementation Period 2:
d. At least 40% of children in custody during the Period shall be provided with contacts with their parents and with any siblings not in the same placement consistent with Plan requirements.
By the end of implementation Period 3:
e. At least 80% of children in custody during the Period shall be provided with contacts with their parents and with any siblings not in the same placement consistent with Plan requirements.
By the end of implementation Period 4:
f. At least 90% of children in custody during the Period shall be provided with contacts with their parents and with any siblings not in the same placement consistent with Plan requirements.
25

7. Physical and Mental Health Care
a. Every child entering foster care shall receive a health screening evaluation from a qualified medical practitioner within 72 hours after placement that is in accordance with the health screening recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
b. Within 30 calendar days of placement in foster care, each child shall receive a comprehensive health assessment that is in accordance with the assessment recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
c. Nothing in the above paragraphs shall prohibit the initial health screening evaluation and the comprehensive health assessment from being conducted in one clinical visit. However, in such instances, this combined visit shall be conducted within 72 hours of placement.
d. All children shall receive periodic medical examinations and all medically necessary follow-up services and treatment throughout the time they are in state custody, in accordance with the time periods recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
e. Each child three years old and older shall be provided with a dental examination within 90 calendar days of foster care placement and every six months thereafter. Each foster child who reaches the age of three in care shall be provided with a dental examination within 90 calendar days of hislher third birthday and every six months thereafter. Foster children shall receive all medically necessary dental services.
f. Each child four years old and older shall be provided with a mental health assessment by a qualified professional within 30 calendar days of foster care placement. Each foster child who reaches the age of four in care shall be provided with a mental health assessment within 30 calendar days of hislher fourth birthday. Each foster child shall receive recommended mental health services pursuant to hislher assessment.
g. Each foster child ages birth through three shall be provided with a developmental assessment by a qualified professional, and each child older than three shall be provided with a developmental assessment if factors indicate such an assessment is warranted. All foster children shall be provided with needed follow-up developmental services.
By the end of implementation Period 2:
h. At least 40% of children entering custody during the Period shall receive a comprehensive health assessment consistent with Plan requirements within 30 calendar days of entering care.
26

1. At least 40% of children in custody during the Period shall receive periodic medical examinations and all medically necessary follow-up· services and treatment consistent with Plan requirements.
j. At least 40% of children three years old and older entering custody during the Period or in care and turning three years old during the Period shall receive a dental examination within 90 calendar days of foster care placement or their third birthday, respectively.
k. At least 40% of children in custody during the Period shall receive a dental examination every six months consistent with Plan requirements and all medically necessary dental services.
I. At least 40% of children four years old and older entering custody during the Period or in care and turning four years old during the Period shall receive a mental health assessment by a qualified professional within 30 calendar days of foster care placement or their fourth birthday, respectively, and all recommended mental health services pursuant to their assessment.
m. At least 40% of children in custody ages birth through three during the Period, and older children if factors indicate it is warranted, shall receive a developmental assessment by a qualified professional and all needed developmental services.
By the end of implementation Period 3:
n. At least 80% of children entering custody during the Period shall receIve a comprehensive health assessment consistent with Plan requirements within 30 calendar days of entering care.
o. At least 80% of children in custody during the Period shall receive periodic medical examinations and all medically necessary follow-up services and treatment consistent with Plan requirements.
p. At least 80% of children three years old and older entering custody during the Period or in care and turning three years old during the Period shall receive a dental examination within 90 calendar days of foster care placement or their third birthda)T, respectively.
q. At least 80% of children in custody during the Period shall receive a dental examination every six months consistent with Plan requirements and all medically necessary dental services.
r. At least 80% of children four years old and older entering custody during the Period or in care and turning four years old during the Period shall receive a mental health assessment by a qualified professional within 30 calendar days of foster care placement or their fourth birthday, respectively, and all recommended mental health services pursuant to their assessment.
27

s. At least 80% of children in custody ages birth through three during the Period, and older children if factors indicate it is warranted, shall receive a developmental assessment by a qualified professional and all needed developmental services.
By the end of implementation Period 4:
t. At least 90% of children entering custody during the Period shall receive a comprehensive health assessment consistent with Plan requirements within 30 calendar days of entering care.
u. At least 90% of children in custody during the Period shall receive periodic medical examinations and all medically necessary follow-up services and treatment consistent with Plan requirements.
v. At least 90% of children three years old and older entering custody during the Period or in care and turning three years old during the Period shall receive a dental examination within 90 calendar days of foster care placement or their third birthday, respectively.
w. At least 90% of children in custody during the Period shall receive a dental examination every six months consistent with Plan requirements and all medically necessary dental services.
x. At least 90% of children four years old and older entering custody during the Period or in care and turning four years old during the Period shall receive a mental health assessment by a qualified professional within 30 calendar days of foster care placement or their fourth birthday, respectively, and all recommended mental health services pursuant to their assessment.
y. At least 90% of children in custody ages birth through three during the Period, and older children if factors indicate it is warranted, shall receive a developmental assessment by a qualified professional and all needed developmental services.
8. Educational Services
a. DFCS caseworkers shall screen each child for general and special educational needs within 30 calendar days ofhislher entry into foster care.
b. DFCS shall take reasonable steps to ensure that school-age foster children are registered for and attending accredited schools within three business days of initial placement or any placement change, including while placed in shelters or other temporary placements.
c. DFCS shall make all 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.
28

By the end of implementation Period 2:
d. At least 40% of school-age children entering custody during the Period shall be screened for general and special educational needs within 30 calendar days of their entry into foster care.
e. At least 40% of school-age children entering custody or subject to a change in schools due to a placement move during the Period shall be registered for and attending an accredited school within three business days of the initial placement or placement change, including while placed in shelters or other temporary placements, unless delayed by the Youth Court.
By the end of implementation Period 3:
f. At least 80% of school-age children entering custody during the Period shall be screened for general and special educational needs within 30 calendar days of their entry into foster care.
g. At least 80% of school-age children entering custody or subject to a change in schools due to a placement move during the Period shall be registered for and attending an accredited school within three business days of the initial placement or placement change, including while placed in shelters or other temporary placements, unless delayed by the Youth Court.
By the end of implementation Period 4:
h. At least 90% of school-age children entering custody during the Period shall be screened for general and special educational needs within 30 calendar days of their entry into foster care.
I. At least 90% of school-age children entering custody or subject to a change in schools due to a placement move during the Period shall be registered for and attending an accredited school within three business days of the initial placement or placement change, including while placed in shelters or other temporary placements, unless delayed by the Youth Court.
9. Therapeutic Services
a. Each foster child requiring therapeutic and rehabilitative foster care services because of a diagnosis of significant medical, developmental, emotional, or behavioral problems shall be provided with a treatment plan and shall be provided with these services in accordance with the plan.
29

By the end of implementation Period 2:
b. At least 40% of children in custody during the Period requiring therapeutic and/or rehabilitative foster care services because of a diagnosis of significant medical, developmental, emotional, or behavioral problems shall be provided with a treatment plan and services in accordance with their plan.
By the end of implementation Period 3:
c. At least 80% of children in custody during the Period requiring therapeutic and/or rehabilitative foster care services because of a diagnosis of significant medical, developmental, emotional, or behavioral problems shall be provided with a treatment plan and services in accordance with their plan.
By the end of implementation Period 4:
d. At least 90% of children in custody during the Period requiring therapeutic and/or rehabilitative foster care services because of a diagnosis of significant medical, developmental, emotional, or behavioral problems shall be provided with a treatment plan and services in accordance with their plan.
10. Worker Contact and Monitoring
a. Regardless of whether a child's foster care placement is being directly supervised by DFCS or by a contract agency, the assigned DFCS caseworker (either County of Service or County of Responsibility) shall meet with the child in person and, where age-appropriate, alone at least twice monthly to assess the child's safety and well-being, service delivery, and achievement of permanency and other service goals. At least one visit per month shall take place in the child's placement. During a child's first month in foster care and after each change of placement, the assigned DFCS caseworker shall meet with the child in person, and, where age-appropriate, alone, to assess the child's adjustment to the placement and whether more frequent visits by the caseworker are necessary. This assessment may occur at a regularly scheduled visit with the child.
b. For a child with a permanency goal of reunification, the child's assigned DFCS caseworker shall meet with the child's biological parents at least monthly to assess service delivery and achievement of service goals, to keep the family informed and involved in decisions about the child, and to remain current about the family's circumstances.
c. A DFCS foster care worker shall regularly communicate with non-therapeutic foster parents who have one or more foster children residing in their home and visit the home at least monthly to (1) share all relevant and legally disclosable information concerning the foster child; (2) evaluate the foster child's safety,
30

needs, and well-being; and (3) monitor service delivery and achievement of service goals.
d. DFCS shall maintain weekly contact with therapeutic foster parents who have one or more foster children residing in their home, and shall make a minimum of two visits per month to the home to (1) share all relevant and legally disclosable information concerning the foster child; (2) evaluate the foster child's safety, needs, and well-being; and (3) monitor service delivery and achievement of service goals.
e. All required visits and contacts shall be documented in the child's case record.
By the end of implementation Period 2:
f. At least 30% of children in custody shall receive documented twice-monthly inperson visits by the assigned DFCS caseworker during the Period, consistent with Plan requirements.
g. At least 40% of children with a goal of reunification shall have their assigned DFCS caseworker meet monthly with the child's biological parents, consistent with Plan requirements, as documented in the child's case record.
h. At least 30% of foster parents with at least one foster child residing in their home during the Period shall have a DFCS worker visit the home twice a month (therapeutic foster homes) or monthly (non-therapeutic foster homes), consistent with Plan requirements, as documented in the children's case records.
By the end of implementation Period 3:
1. At least 70% of children in custody shall receive documented twice-monthly inperson visits by the assigned DFCS caseworker during the Period, consistent with Plan requirements.
J. At least 80% of children with a goal of reunification shall have their assigned DFCS caseworker meet monthly with the child's biological parents, consistent with Plan requirements, as documented in the child's case record.
k. At least 80% of foster parents with at least one foster ehild residing in their home during the Period shall have a DFCS worker visit the home twice a month (therapeutic foster homes) or monthly (non-therapeutic foster homes), consistent with Plan requirements, as documented in the children's case records.
31

By the end of implementation Period 4:
1. At least 90% of children in custody shall receive documented twice-monthly inperson visits by the assigned DFCS caseworker during the Period, consistent with Plan requirements.
m. At least 90% of children with a goal of reunification shall have their assigned DFCS caseworker meet monthly with the child's biological parents, consistent with Plan requirements, as documented in the child's case record.
n. At least 90% of foster parents with at least one foster child residing in their home during the Period shall have a DFCS worker visit the home twice a month (therapeutic foster homes) or monthly (non-therapeutic foster homes), consistent with Plan requirements, as documented in the children's case records.
11. Transition to Independent Living
a. DFCS shall provide each youth transitioning to independence with at least six months' advance notice of the cessation of any health, financial, or other benefits that will occur at the time of transition.
b. Each foster youth 14-20 years old, regardless ofhislher permanency plan, shall be provided with an opportunity to participate in the creation of an Independent Living service plan for Independent Living preparation. DFCS shall provide each eligible youth with Independent Living services as set forth in hislher service plan.
c. DFCS shall ensure that each youth transitioning to independence has available an adequate living arrangement, a source of income, health care, independent living stipends, and education and training vouchers. DFCS shall assist youth in locating and/or enrolling in educational or vocational programs appropriate to their needs, interests, abilities, and goals, such as high school or OED programs; colleges or universities; vocational training programs; and special education services.
d. DFCS shall assist youth in obtaining or compiling documents necessary to function as an independent adult as outlined in COA standards.
By the end of implementation Period 2:
e. At least 60% of children in custody 14-20 years old during the Period shall be provided with Independent Living services as set forth in their service plan.
f. At least 60% of children in custody transitioning to independence during the Period shall have available an adequate living arrangement, a source of income, health care, independent living stipends, and education and training vouchers. DFCS shall also assist such children in obtaining, prior to transitioning to
32

independent living, the necessary documents and information identified in the COA standards for emancipating youth.
By the end of implementation Period 3:
g. At least 90% of children in custody 14-20 years old during the Period shall be provided with Independent Living services as set forth in their service plan.
h. At least 80% of children in custody transitioning to independence during the Period shall have available an adequate living arrangement, a source of income, health care, independent living stipends, and education and training vouchers. DFCS shall also assist such children in obtaining, prior to transitioning to independent living, the necessary documents and information identified in the COA standards for emancipating youth.
By the end of implementation Period 4:
1. At least 95% of children in custody 14-20 years old during the Period shall be provided with Independent Living services as set forth in their service plan.
J. At least 90% of children in custody transitioning to independence during the Period shall have available an adequate living arrangement, a source of income, health care, independent living stipends, and education and training vouchers. DFCS shall assist such children in obtaining, prior to transitioning to independent living, the necessary documents and information identified in the COA standards for emancipating youth.
12. Case Closing and Aftercare
a. For each child who has a permanency goal of reunification and who is in fact placed in the home for the purpose of reunification, DFCS shall provide, subject to the approval of the youth court, such child with a 90-day trial home visit. During any trial home visit period, a DFCS caseworker or Family Preservation caseworker shall meet with the child in the home at least two times per month, and each meeting shall occur without the parent or caretaker present.
b. A recommendation to return a child to hislher home or to place the child in the custody of a relative shall be made at a meeting attended by the child's DFCS caseworker, the caseworker's supervisor, the worker from the private agency if the child is placed with a private agency, the foster parents (unless DFCS determines that the foster parents' attendance would be inappropriate), the biological parents or the relative assuming custody, and the child. At the meeting, the participants shall devise an after-care plan that identifies all of the services necessary to ensure that the conditions leading to the child's placement in foster care have been addressed, and that the child's safety and stability will be assured. DFCS shall take reasonable steps to provide or facilitate access to all services necessary to support the child during the trial home visit.
33

c. Before the end of any trial home visit period, there shall be a final discharge staffing meeting, which shall include the child's caseworker, the caseworker's supervisor, the child, and the parent or relative assuming custody, to determine the appropriateness of a final discharge. If final discharge is determined to be appropriate, DFCS shall make the appropriate application to the court to be relieved of custody.
By the end of implementation Period 2:
d. At least 40% of children in custody who are reunified during the Period shall receive a 90-day trial home visit period or have case record documentation reflecting the Youth Court's objection to such a trial home visit. During that trial home visit period, the child's caseworker or a Family Preservation caseworker shall meet with the child in the home at least two times per month, and DFCS shall provide or facilitate access to all services identified in the child's after-care plan, consistent with Plan requirements.
By the end of implementation Period 3:
e. At least 70% of children in custody who are reunified during the Period shall receive a 90-day trial home visit period or have case record documentation reflecting the Youth Court's objection to such a trial home visit. During that trial home visit period, the child's caseworker or a Family Preservation caseworker shall meet with the child in the home at least two times per month, and DFCS shall provide or facilitate access to all services identified in the child's after-care plan, consistent with Plan requirements.
By the end of implementation Period 4:
f. At least 90% of children in custody who are reunified during the Period shall receive a 90-day trial home visit period or have case record documentation reflecting the Youth Court's objection to such a trial home visit. During that trial home visit period, the child's caseworker or a Family Preservation caseworker shall meet with the child in the home at least two times per month, and DFCS shall provide or facilitate access to all services identified in the child's after-care plan, consistent with Plan requirements.
13. Recruitment and Retention of Foster Families and Therapeutic Service Providers
a. DFCS shall make available, either directly or through contract, a sufficient number of appropriate placements for all children in its physical and legal custody.
34

b. DFCS shall make available foster parent training classes beginning every 60 calendar days in every region with individualized training available as needed, and at times convenient for the foster family.
c. DFCS shall secure services for foster parents to prevent and reduce stress and family crisis.
d. DFCS shall ensure that all licensed resource families (regardless of whether they are supervised directly by DFCS or by private providers) receive at least the minimum reimbursement rate for a given level of service as established pursuant to the Plan.
e. By January 2008, Defendants shall establish and begin to pay to all licensed resource families at least the following basic monthly foster care maintenance payments plus an $80 monthly clothing allowance: for each child ages 0-3, $350; for each child ages 4-5, $355; for each child ages 6-9, $355 + $30 child allowance; for each child ages 10-12, $360 + $40 child allowance; for each child ages 13-15, $370 + $50 child allowance; for each child ages 16-21, $370+ $60 child allowance.
f. By July 2009, Defendants shall establish and begin to pay to all licensed resource families at least the following basic monthly foster care maintenance payments: for each child ages 0-8, $555; for each child ages 9-15, $636; and for each child age 16 and older, $697. The parties agree that these rates satisfy the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 675(4)(A). Defendants shall provide increases in the foster care maintenance payments every two years thereafter, based upon the rate of inflation and discussions with affected foster parent groups and congregate care providers, in order to continue complying with 42 U.S.C. § 675(4)(A).
g. Defendants shall, within 180 days of the Court's approval of the Plan, engage a qualified independent consultant to assess board payment rates currently being paid to foster parents caring for special needs foster children and to congregate care facilities to determine the extent to which those rates meet the requirements of 42 U.S.c. § 675(4)(A) and reflect the actual cost of caring for special needs foster children and children placed in congregate care facilities, including the necessary and reasonable costs of facility administration and operation. The selection of the independent consultant shall be subject to approval by the Monitor; said approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
h. Within a year of Court approval of the Plan, the consultant shall deliver to the Parties and the Monitor a written report setting forth (1) findings regarding the adequacy of the current schedule of foster care maintenance payments made to foster care providers serving special needs children and facilities providing congregate foster care in relation to the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 675(4)(A) and the actual cost in the state of Mississippi to provide such care; (2) the methodology utilized to determine the actual costs in the state of Mississippi to
35

provide such care; and (3) a schedule of recommended rates for foster care providers serving special needs children and facilities providing congregate foster care. Plaintiffs shall have 30 days to raise any written objection to the schedule of recommended rates as determined by the consultant. Should Plaintiffs raise objections and should the Parties be unable to reach agreement, the consultant's schedule and Plaintiffs' objection shall be submitted to the Court for final determination.
By the end ofImplementation Period 2:
1. The rate structure recommended by the consultant for foster care providers to special needs children and for facilities providing congregate care, as agreed upon by the Parties or determined by the Court, shall be fully implemented.
14. Durable Legal Custody
If adoption and/or reunification are not appropriate, consistent with the provisions of Section Il.B.3.a, DHS shall, subject to legislative funding or the availability of federal funds, make monthly payments to caregivers who assume durable legal custody of a foster child, if the caregiver is found to have financial need in caring for such child.
III. OUTCOME MEASURES
The following child welfare outcome measures shall be met within five years of Court approval of this Plan and shall be measured by the Monitor every six months. The child welfare outcomes shall be measured using a combination of longitudinal data analysis and point-in-time data analysis.
A. Reunification
I. At least 76.2% of children discharged from custody and reunified with their parents or caretakers in the last year shall have been reunified within 12 months of the latest removal from home.
By the end of implementation Period 2:
2. At least 30% of children who are discharged from custody and reunified with their parents or caretakers in the last year shall be reunified within 12 months of the latest removal from home.
By the end of implementation Period 3:
3. At least 60% of children who are discharged from custody and reunified with their parents or caretakers in the last year shall be reunified within 12 months of the latest removal from home.
36

By the end of implementation Period 4:
4. At least 70% of children who are discharged from custody and reunified with their parents or caretakers in the last year shall be reunified within 12 months of the latest removal from home.
B. Time to Adoption Finalization
1. At least 32% of children who were discharged in the last year upon the finalization of an adoption shall have had the adoption finalized within 24 months of the latest removal from home.
By the end of implementation Period 2:
2. At least 15% of children who were discharged in the last year upon finalization of an adoption shall have had the adoption finalized within 24 months of the latest removal from home.
By the end of implementation Period 3:
3. At least 25% of children who were discharged in the last year upon finalization of an adoption shall have had the adoption finalized within 24 months of the latest removal from home.
By the end of implementation Period 4:
4. At least 30% of children who were discharged in the last year upon finalization of an adoption shall have had the adoption finalized within 24 months of the latest removal from home.
C. Number of Placements (Temporary breaks in placement for children who run away or require emergency hospitalization or respite care not exceeding 14 days and who return to their immediately prior placement shall not count as additional placements.)
I. In the last year, at least 86.7% of children in care less than 12 months from the time of latest removal from home shall have had two or fewer placements.
By the end of implementation Period 2:
2. In the last year, at least 40% of children in care less than 12 months from the time of latest removal from home shall have had two or fewer placements.
By the end of implementation Period 3:
3. In the last year, at least 70% of children in care less than 12 months from the time of latest removal from home shall have had two or fewer placements.
37

By the end of implementation Period 4:
4. In the last year, at least 80% of children in care less than 12 months from the time of latest removal from home shall have had two or fewer placements.
D. AbuselNeglectlMaltreatment in Care (This measure shall apply to reports of abuse, neglect, or maltreatment of children while in DFCS custody.)
I. The rate of abuse or maltreatment in care in the last year shall not exceed 0.33%.
By the end of implementation Period 2:
2. The rate of abuse or maltreatment in care in the last year shall not exceed 1.14%.
By the end of implementation Period 3:
3. The rate of abuse or maltreatment in care in the last year shall not exceed 0.57%.
By the end of implementation Period 4:
4. The rate of abuse or maltreatment in care in the last year shall not exceed 0.45%.
IV. COA ACCREDITATION
DFCS's foster care services shall be accredited by COA pursuant to CONs relevant management and service standards.
V. NAMED PLAINTIFFS
Each Agreement on Services and Plans for Named Plaintiffs entered into by the parties pursuant to Section 4.G of the Stipulated Settlement Agreement approved by the Court on May 17, 2007, is hereby incorporated as enforceable provisions of this Plan.
VI. MONITORING
A. The parties agree that Grace Lopes shall be the Monitor of Defendants' compliance with this Plan and the annual implementation plans. Defendants shall provide the Monitor with the necessary resources to perform its duties.
B. The Monitor's duties shall be to confirm independently the data reports and statistics provided pursuant to this Plan and the annual implementation plans; conduct independent case record and other qualitative reviews; review all plans and documents to be developed and produced by Defendants pursuant to this Plan; and report on Defendants' compliance in implementing the terms of the Plan and the annual implementation plans, and the achievement of the improved outcomes set forth therein. The Monitor shall prepare reports that will address these issues and be released periodically, but no less than
38

every six months, the first report to be issued within nine months of Court approval of this Plan, unless the parties and the Monitor agree otherwise. In order to avoid duplication and to build capacity within the agency, the Monitor will look first to Defendants' data and data analysis. Accordingly, Defendants shall provide the Monitor with access to all data reports produced in the regular course of business respecting topics covered by this Plan and the annual implementation plans. Notwithstanding the existence of Defendants' data, data analysis, and reports, however, the Monitor shall have the authority to prepare new reports on all topics covered by both this Plan and the annual implementation plans, to the extent the Monitor deems necessary.
C. Defendants agree to provide the Monitor with free and, upon request, private access to all individuals within DFCS and persons within the Executive Branch, as the Monitor chooses; to assist the Monitor in gaining access to other stakeholders in the child welfare system (including but not limited to the staff of contract providers); and to provide the Monitor with free access to all documents, data, and premises it deems relevant to its work (including but not limited to documents and data from contract agencies and courts). The Monitor agrees to respect the confidentiality of all information related to individually identifiable clients, subject to applicable law. Defendants shall take no adverse action against individuals or agencies because they shared information with the Monitor pursuant to this Plan.
D. The reports of the Monitor shall be public documents filed with the Court, except that any individually identifying information and any other confidential information protected from disclosure by law shall be redacted or otherwise removed from any public report. The Monitor shall provide copies of each of its reports to all named Defendants as well as to the heads of the State House and Senate Committees on Appropriations and Public Health. Any such information received by the Monitor, unless already public, shall not be made public without Defendants' prior written permission, except as incorporated into a public report of the Monitor.
E. The parties shall have access, through the Monitor, to all information made available to the Monitor, and to all other information related to ensuring compliance with and enforcing this Plan and the annual implementation plans, subject to the existing confidentiality order in effect in this case. The Monitor may protect the identity of confidential sources of any such information.
F. The parties may request that the Monitor review and issue recommendations regarding the provision of services to the Named Plaintiffs in this case.
G. The intent of the parties is that the Monitor shall develop a plan to transfer the primary monitoring function to DFCS's CQI unit upon the termination of this Plan, or at such earlier time as provided for in Section VII.C below. The Monitor shall work in collaboration with Defendants to build DFCS's CQI capacity.
H. The Monitor may periodically meet privately with the Court concerning issues related to this case, provided the parties are made aware of the occurrence of such a meeting.
39

I. If at any point the Monitor can no longer serve, the parties shall agree on another Monitor, with input and recommendations from the outgoing Monitor.
VII. DISPUTE RESOLUTION, TERMINATION, AND EXIT
A. The Defendants shall implement all reforms necessary to effectuate this Plan and the annual implementation plans. The parties agree that the systemic and comprehensive nature of this Plan will require implementation and refinement of policies and programs over a number of years. The parties shall make every reasonable effort to resolve disputes prior to seeking Court intervention. Plaintiffs agree not to seek relief for isolated or minor violations, or for violations related solely to an individual child, unless that child is aNamed Plaintiff.
B. If Plaintiffs believe that Defendants have failed to comply with any obligation under this Plan or an annual implementation plan, Plaintiffs will, prior to seeking judicial action to enforce the terms of this Plan or an annual implementation plan, give written notice of non-compliance to the State. Within 30 calendar days of Plaintiffs' notice of noncompliance, Defendants shall submit a written response to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs agree to work in good faith with the State to agree on necessary corrective actions and avoid enforcement action, and may not initiate court action for 60 days from the date of Plaintiffs' non-compliance notice. However, in case of an emergency posing an immediate threat to the health or safety of youths, Plaintiffs may omit the notice and cure requirements herein before seeking judicial action.
C. The Court may terminate jurisdiction over this lawsuit if it finds that Defendants are in substantial compliance with the provisions of this Plan for two consecutive six-month reporting periods subsequent to four years from Court approval of this Plan or anytime thereafter.
At the end of five years from the date of this Plan, the monitor shall transfer to Defendants' CQI system monitoring of all the Plan provisions under the following headings or subheadings for which Defendants have sustained compliance for at least six months on all such provisions (as reflected in monitoring report data) and where the Monitor has determined that Defendants' CQI system is adequately monitoring the Plan provisions: lI.A.l; lI.A.2.a; lI.A.2.b; lI.A.2.c; Il.A.2.d; Il.A.3; Il.A.4; lI.A.S; Il.A.6; Il.A.7; lI.B.!; lI.B.2; lI.B.3.a; Il.B.3.b; lI.B.3.c; Il.B.3.d; lI.B.3.e; lI.B.3.f; Il.B.4; lI.B.S; II.B.6; Il.B.7; II.B.8; II.B.9; II.B.IO; II.B.II; II.B.12; II.B.l3; Il.B.!4; III.A.!; III.B.I; IIl.C.I; and III.D.1. The reports of the Monitor shall identify the provisions, if any, that are to be transferred to Defendants' CQI system for the subsequent monitoring period. Plaintiffs reserve the right to object to the transfer of the monitoring of a provision to Defendants' CQI system.
Once Defendants' CQI system is responsible for the transferred monitoring of any Plan provisions, and as long as the Court retains jurisdiction, Defendants' CQI system shall issue public monitoring reports every six months on Defendants' compliance levels with any such provisions.
40

While Defendants shall make a good faith effort to maintain compliance with a provision
transferred to its cQr system, a drop in compliance levels after the transfer of the
monitoring of a Plan provision shall not be, by itself, grounds for a Motion to enforce the Plan to hold Defendants in contempt, or to bar future expiration of the Plan. Notwithstanding the above, Plaintiffs are not precluded from seeking to enforce transferred provisions as remedial measures III connection with Motions to enforce provisions that have not been transferred. D. Defendants may seek a court-ordered modification of any provision of this Plan pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure if significant changes in factual conditions, beyond Defendants' control and not contemplated by the parties at the time the Plan was entered into, make the provision unworkable, make compliance substantially more onerous, or make enforcement detrimental to the public interest, and the changed circumstance occurred despite Defendants' reasonable effort to comply with the Plan. E. All parties reserve all claims and defenses with respect to all claims for an award of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses for Plaintiffs, which claims shall be separately asserted and determined according to a schedule to be fixed by the Court.
41

------.-~.--
-------

AGREED TO AND APPROVED FOR ENTRY BY:
FOR PLAINTIFFS:
MU<.'_~~
Marcia Robinson Lowry (pro hac vice MBN 43 I) Eric-Th01npson(pro-hac-vice MBN 43993)- ..-.. Shirim Nothenberg (pro hac vice MBN 43990) Susan Lambiase (pro hac vice MBN 43992) CHILDREN'S RIGHTS, INC. . 330 Seventh Ave., 4tll Floor New York, NY 10001 (212) 683-2210

WayneDn water (MBN 619

Melody McAnally (MBN 1012 6)

BRADLEY ARANT ROSE & WHITE LLP

188 East Capitol Street, Suite 450

Jackson,MS 39201

.

(601) 948-8000

Stephen H. Leech (MBN 1173) P.O. Box 3623 Jackson,MS 39207

John Lang (pro hac vice MBN 43987) Christian D. Carbone (pro hac vice MBN 43986) John Piskora (pro hac vice MBN 44474) LOEB & LOEB LLP 345 Park Ave. New York, NY 10154

- -------

42

'----4~itt L. ("Rusty") Fortenberry Jr., Esq. (MBN 5435) Barry C. Campbell, Esq. (MBN 99535) Kenya Key Rachal, Esq. (MBN 99227) Gretchen L. Zmitrovich, Esq. (MBN 101470) Ashley Tullos Young, Esq. (MBN 101839) BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL, & BERKOWITZ, PC 428 I-55 North Meadowbrook Office Park Jackson, MS 39211 (601) 351-2400
Harold E. Pizzetta, III, Esq. (MBN 99867) Assistant Attorney General General Civil Division Carroll Gartin Justice Building 430 High Street Jackson,MS 39201

-¢

1- SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the

day of~~~~~~::::.., 200'6>

DIS

43

Appendix A - Year I Implementation Plan Mississippi Settlement Reform Plan
PERIOD 1 ANNUAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
This is the annual Implementation Plan for Period I required by the parties' Settlement Reform Plan (the "Plan"). The Period I Implementation Plan Requirements shall be met by the end of Period I or earlier as specified herein.
I. Administration and Management Assessment and Implementation Steps
Within six months of Court approval of the Plan, Defendants, in conjunction with the Council on Accreditation (COA), shall conduct an assessment of DFCS administration and management capacity and needs consistent with COA Policies. The Administration and Management Assessment shall include the following:
a) A workforce assessment consistent with PA-HR 2, b) A training assessment of training curricula and the Training Unit, c) A DFCS contracting practices assessment, d) A quality improvement system assessment, e) A MACWIS assessment, and f) A fiscal and financial management assessment.
The Period 2 implementation plan shall include specific timelines by which Defendants will provide for the needs identified in the Period I Administration and Management Assessment.
1. Agency Leadership
The new DFCS director will assemble a management team capable of assisting with the reform process at DFCS.
2. Human Resources Management
a. Workforce:
Defendants shall, in conjunction with COA, develop and begin implementing a written plan to meet the needs identified in the required Administration and Management Workforce Assessment. Such plan shall identify strategies, timeframes, and recruitment resources to be allocated to ensure that there are sufficient DFCS professional and support staff to achieve compliance with the caseload requirements specified in the Plan.
b. Worker and Supervisor Qualifications:
Defendants shall, in conjunction with COA, develop and begin to implement a plan with timeframes and specific action steps for bringing its current staff into compliance with the worker and supervisor qualification requirements of the Plan.

c. Training:

Appendix A - Year 1 hnplementation Plan Mississippi Settlement Refonn Plan

Defendants shall, in conjunction with COA, develop and begin implementing a written plan to meet the needs identified in the required Administration and Management Training Assessment.

Defendants shall implement competency-based testing to assess knowledge acquisition of newly hired staff following the completion of pre-service training, including newly hired or newly promoted supervisors following the completion of supervisory training. Training credit shall only be given to those new hires who demonstrate sufficient knowledge acquisition.

Defendants shall implement a system to track staff participation in all required training.

d. Contract Agency Requirements:

Defendants shall, in conjunction with COA, develop and begin implementing a written plan to meet the needs identified in the required Administration and Management Contracting Assessment.

Defendants shall notify all private agencies that provide protective, preventive, foster care, or adoption case work services under contract with DFCS that those agencies will be required to abide by all related tenns of the Plan, including, but not limited to, provisions regarding training curricula, minimum training hours, and caseload standards.

DFCS shall design and begin implementing a perfonnance-based contracting system with the capacity to monitor and enforce contract perfonnance on all related tenns of the Plan.

3. Performance and Quality Improvement

Defendants shall, in conjunction with COA, develop and begin implementing a written plan to meet the needs identified in the required Administration and Management Quality Improvement Assessment. The plan shall include specific steps and timeframes for the implementation of a separate continuous quality improvement (CQI) system that meets eOA standards and Plan requirements.

Defendants shall develop, in conjunction with COA, and begin implementing a CQI assessment tool that measures compliance with the Plan's management and foster care service standards.

4. Legal and Regulatory Compliance

2

Appendix A - Year I hnplementation Plan Mississippi Settlement Reform Plan
5. Information Management and Use
Defendants shall, in conjunction with COA, develop and begin implementing a written plan to meet the needs identified in the required Administration and Management MACWIS Assessment.
Defendants will develop and begin implementing a plan that will ensure MACWIS maintains statewide placement resource information such as current availability, capacity limitations, census, suitability by age, sex and special needs, and any related licensing and maltreatment investigations information accessible to DFCS county staff.
6. Case Recordings
Defendants, in conjunction with COA, shall implement a system to regularly review whether DFCS child welfare case records are current, complete, made by authorized personnel only, signed and dated by the person who provided the service, and signed and dated by supervisors, where appropriate, in accordance with federal and state law and regulations.
7. Financial Management
Defendants shall, in conjunction with COA, develop and begin implementing a written plan to meet the needs identified in the required Administration and Management Fiscal Assessment, including addressing any identified deficiencies in financial management practices.
II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
Within 180 calendar days of Court approval of the Plan, Defendants, in conjunction with COA, shall identifY and begin revision of DFCS policies and practice guides as necessary to reflect the
COA foster care services standards and the requirements set forth in Section n.B of the Plan, and
identifY any related training needs.
Within nine months of Court approval, Defendants, in conjunction with COA or a COA designee, shall conduct a Foster Care Services Assessment, which shall include:
a) A reunification services needs assessment, b) A termination of parental rights (TPR) assessment to identifY those children who have
been in custody more than 15 of the previous 22 months and for whom DFCS has not filed a TPR petition or documented an available exception under the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) as required, c) A child safety assessment of DFCS practice prioritizing, screening, assessing, and investigating reports of maltreatment of children to determine the extent to which DFCS investigations and decisions are based on a full and systematic evaluation of the factors that may place a child at risk,
3

Appendix A - Year 1 Implementation Plan Mississippi Settlement Refonn Plan
d) A placement assessment of current needs for achieving compliance with the placement standards set forth in Section II.B.5 of the Plan, which shall include (1) the structure of the placement process, including the role and efficacy of the state office placement unit; (2) the services and supports available to support enhanced placement stability, including out-patient or in-home assessment and treatment services to avoid the frequent use of time-limited assessment and treatment placement programs; and (3) the placement resources needed to meet the placement needs of children in custody,
e) An assessment of case practice associated with parent/child and sibling visitation to identify barriers to meeting the visitation standards set forth in Section II.B.6 of the Plan,
f) A service provider needs assessment to identify available medical, dental, and mental health services and gaps in services,
g) An assessment of the quality and array of independent living services available to foster children ages 14-20, and
h) A recruitment and retention assessment to determine the need for additional foster care support services.
COA may, at its discretion, refer to and utilize previous external assessments of DFCS in its completion of the above assessments.
The Period 2 implementation plan shall include specific timelines by which Defendants will provide for the needs identified in the Period 1 Foster Care Services Assessment.
1. Screening and Assessments
Within 180 calendar days of Court approval of the Plan, DFCS, in conjunction with COA, shall develop a protocol for both individual and family team meetings and develop a training module on such protocols that shall be incorporated into the preservice and in-service training curricula.
2. Service Planning and Monitoring
The revised policies and practice guides shall require that each service plan and revision of such plan include the elements and meet the requirements of COA Standards PA-FC 2.06, 3.01, 3.04, and 3.05, as well as incorporate and track the child's educational needs and goals.
3. Child and Youth Permanency
a. Permanency Plan:
The revised policies and practice guides shall require that:
1) All permanency plans contain specific information about:
4

Appendix A- Year I Implementation Plan Mississippi Settlement Refonn Plan
a) How the permanency goal will be achieved; b) What services are necessary to make the accomplishment of the goal
likely; c) Who is responsible for the provision of those services; d) When the services will be provided; and e) The date by which the permanency goal is likely to be achieved.
2) All services documented in the case record as necessary for the achievement of the permanency goal are provided within the time period in which they are needed, by either providing those services directly, contracting with a private provider for those services, or referring to an existing service provider for the provision of those services.
b. Concurrent Planning:
c. Permanency Plan Updating and Review:
Defendants shall establish and begin implementing a system to facilitate a court review for every foster child within 12 months of initial placement and annually thereafter. That system shall include (I) tracking scheduled annual court reviews, and notifying the Youth Court with jurisdiction over the child of any reviews that need to be scheduled or re-scheduled so as to meet Plan requirements; (2) providing to the Youth Court with jurisdiction as ordered by the Court or no later than 30 calendar days before such a court review is due a detailed up-to-date report on the current status of the child's placement, visitation, pennanent plan progress, and service needs; and (3) ensuring that the child's assigned caseworker or supervisor attends any such scheduled court review.
d. Reunification Services:
Defendants shall, in conjunction with COA, develop and begin implementing a written plan to meet the needs identified in the required Foster Care Services Reunification Needs Assessment, with specific steps and timetables for addressing gaps in the availability of effective services.
e. Termination of Parental Rights/Special Permanency Reviews:
For each child who has been, or reaches, more than 15 of the previous 22 months in foster care, for whom DFCS has not filed a TPR petition or documented an available ASFA exception, DFCS shall begin holding special permanency reviews. Such reviews shall include the DFCS caseworker, the caseworker's direct supervisor, and at least one individual with expertise in permanency planning who has not held direct casework or supervisory responsibility for the case. The review will produce a written plan of action setting forth the steps to be taken by DFCS, the contract agency, andlor any other provider of services, in order to move the child to permanency as quickly as possible. Such permanency
5

Appendix A - Year Ilmplementation Plan Mississippi Settlement Refonn Plan
reviews shall be documented in the child's case record, and reconvened monthly until all barriers to permanency have been resolved, a TPR petition has been filed, or an available ASFA exception has been documented in the child's case record.
DFCS shall begin the implementation of a "tickler" system for notifying caseworkers and caseworker supervisors when a case assigned to them has reached the following milestones: 12 months after a child entered custody; 30 calendar days after the establishment of adoption as the primary permanency goal; 30 calendar days after a TPR referral has been made; and, 10 calendar days after a TPR packet has been returned to DFCS because of a legal deficiency.
f. Adoption:
Within 180 calendar days of Court approval of the Plan, DFCS, in conjunction with COA, shall define the job description, responsibilities, and qualifications for the position of adoption specialist. The adoption specialist responsibilities shall include consulting with private and public professionals and identifying and ensuring the provision of targeted services necessary for the child to be adopted.
DFCS shall implement and maintain a process for making legal risk placements that assures that children for whom the permanency plan is adoption, but who are not yet legally free for adoption, are placed in appropriate adoptive homes.
DFCS shall take reasonable steps to hire (or promote) and train a sufficient number of adoption specialists to meet the adoption requirements of Section II.B.3.f of the Plan. Adoption status meetings consistent with the Plan will start being held by the end of Period 1.
Within 180 calendar days of Court approval of the Plan, DFCS, in conjunction with COA, shall develop a protocol for adoption meetings, which are to be held to review the progress being made in achieving the goal of adoption for legally free children.
Within a year of Court approval of the Plan, DFCS shall have identified external adoption consultants who DFCS can contract with to provide adoption recruitment assistance to children who have been free for adoption for six or more months and who are not yet placed in an approved adoptive home.
4. Child Safety
Within 30 calendar days of Court approval of the Plan, Defendants shall instruct all DFCS staff that as mandated reporters they are required to formally report any suspicions of maltreatment, including corporal punishment, of children in custody.
Defendants, in conjunction with COA, shall revise DFCS policies and procedures for screening and investigating reports of child maltreatment, including corporal
6

Appendix A - Year 1 Implementation Plan Mississippi Settlement Refonn Plan
punishment, to incorporate the child safety standards and requirements set forth in Section ILB.4 of the Plan.
Within 180 calendar days of Court approval of the Plan, all calls to the hotline shall immediately be entered into the statewide computer infonnation system, and the worker or supervisor receiving the report shall use the infonnation system to detennine whether there have been prior reports of abuse and/or neglect in that family or concerning that child.
If a report is screened in, information regarding any prior reports shall immediately be made available to the worker to whom the case has been assigned for investigation.
5. Child Placement
Within 90 calendar days of Court approval of the Plan, DFCS shall implement a fonnalized mechanism to provide foster parents with all appropriate and available infonnation about a child prior to or at the time of placement and for supplementing that infonnation as further infonnation is gathered.
Defendants shall develop and begin implementing a plan with specific action steps and timeframes to address policy and structural changes to the placement process that the placement assessment has identified as necessary to comply with the placement requirements set forth in Section n.B.S of the Plan. That plan shall also include the development of the position of placement specialists in each region, and a protocol for the placement stability meetings that the Plan requires that DFCS hold when a worker has knowledge that a placement is at risk of disruption.
Defendants, in conjunction with COA, shall develop and begin the implementation of a written plan to ensure the speedy licensing of all current unlicensed caregivers to be phased in by the end of the second implementation period.
Within 180 days of Court approval of the Plan, no foster child entering custody will be placed in an unlicensed relative placement, subject to the allowance of the emergency licensing process that allows 120 days for the licensing process to take place.
6. Developing and Maintaining Connections
Defendants will develop and begin implementing a written plan to address the barriers identified in the visitation practice assessment.
7. Physical and Mental Health Care
Defendants shall, in consultation with state Medicaid and mental health officials, develop and begin implementing specific and focused regional plans to recruit and
7

Appendix A - Year I hnplementation Plan Mississippi Settlement Reform Plan
develop service providers in areas identified in the needs assessment as having gaps in required services.
8. Educational Services
DFCS shall develop and implement a protocol for conducting a general and special education screen of children entering foster care.
DFCS shall develop and begin implementing a plan for providing, either directly or through contract, the following educational services in each county: tutoring, preparation for a general equivalency diploma (OED), and college preparation.
9. Therapeutic Services
10. Worker Contact and Monitoring
Defendants' revised policies and practice guides shall reflect the issues to be addressed during worker contacts with parents, children, and foster care providers. Defendants shall revise DFCS training as necessary to ensure instruction on the quality, frequency, purpose, and structure of meeting with foster children, biological parents, and foster care providers. The training shall specifically address communicating with, interviewing, and observing foster children.
11. Transition to Independent Living
Defendants shall develop and begin implementing a written plan to address identified independent living service gaps.
Defendants shall develop and begin implementing a system for ensuring that emancipating youth have obtained, prior to transitioning to independent living, the necessary documents and information identified in the COA standards for such youth.
DFCS will develop for each region the capacity and current resource guides necessary to assist youth in locating and/or enrolling in educational or vocational programs appropriate to their needs, interests, abilities, and goals, such as high school or OED programs; colleges or universities; vocational training programs; and special education services.
12. Case Closing and Aftercare
13. Recruitment and Retention of Foster Families and Therapeutic Service Providers
Defendants shall develop and begin implementing a written plan for targeted recruitment and development of a range of family and facility placements that will adequately meet the placement needs of the foster care population as identified by DFCS's previous regional self-assessments and the assessment required herein.
8

Appendix A- Year 1 Implementation Plan Mississippi Settlement Refonn Plan
Defendants shall develop and begin implementing a written plan to provide services for foster parents in every county to prevent and reduce stress and family crisis.
In consultation with Mississippi foster parents, DFCS shall identify additions and revisions to the current foster parent training curriculum that are necessary to adequately train foster parents to meet the needs of the children placed in their care. Foster parent training classes based upon the revised curriculum shall be available in every region.
DFCS shall implement a system of dual foster/adopt licensing and any necessary policy and practice changes to prevent the underutilization of licensed and approved foster families.
DFCS shall create a resource family workgroup (consisting of staff and resource families) to develop and implement resource family practices and protocols that address the types of information that should be provided to resource families prior to taking a child into the home, what type of training is needed, what emergency procedures need to be in place for resource families, what strategies are effective in recruiting, and how resource families can be included in case planning.
DFCS shall regionalize its recruitment and retention efforts, and for each region have in place a stakeholder recruitment and retention team to identify local needs and develop and implement plans for recruiting, supporting, and utilizing foster and adoptive parents.
III. Council on Accreditation Standards
A. These COA standards are applicable to children in custody and are to be implemented within 180 days of Court approval of the Mississippi Settlement Reform Plan.
PA-HR 2: HUMAN RESOURCES PLANNING The agency reassesses its workforce as part of annual planning and prepares for future needs by:
a. conducting a gap analysis between the current workforce composition, including number of employees, skills, and demographics, and projected workforce needs; and
b. determining how to close gaps when possible, through recruiting, training or outsourcing.
PA-AM3.01 The scope of services offered:
a. is defined in writing; b. is adaptable and can respond to changes in the service environment,
identified needs, and desired outcomes of service recipients;
9

Appendix A - Year I Implementation Plan Mississippi Settlement Reform Plan
c. is secured through written agreement with qualified service providers, community partners, individual practitioners, and consultants; and
d. considers allocation of resources together with available evidence of effective practice.
PA-ETH 4: PROTECTION OF REPORTERS OF SUSPECTED MISCONDUCT The agency prohibits employment-related retaliation against employees and others affiliated with the agency that come forward with information about suspected misconduct or questionable practices, and provides an appropriate, confidential channel for reporting such information.
PA-HR3.03 Screening procedures for new employees, contractors, and direct service volunteers include appropriate, legally permissible, and mandated reviews of state criminal history records and civil child abuse and neglect registries to determine the appropriateness of hiring prospective personnel who will:
a. work in residential programs; or b. provide direct services to children, the elderly, or other persons
determined by the agency to be vulnerable or at risk.
PA-HR 4.04 The agency establishes a formal mechanism through which employees can express and resolve grievances, which includes:
a. how grievances are filed and to whom, including who will make a final determination;
b. timely written notification of the resolution and an explanation of any further appeal, rights or recourse;
c. documenting responses and actions taken; and d. maintaining a copy of the notification of resolution in the personnel
record.
PA-RPM2.03 The agency reviews all incidents and accidents that involve the threat of or actual harm, and review procedures:
a. establish timeframes for review; b. require solicitation of statements from all involved individuals; c. ensure an independent review; and d. require documentation of all actions taken.
PA-CR 1.01 Clients receive a written summary of their rights and responsibilities at initial contact, which includes:
a. basic expectations for use ofthe agency's services; b. hours that services are available;
10

Appendix A- Year I Implementation Plan Mississippi Settlement Reform Plan
c. rules, expectations, and other factors that can result in discharge or termination of services; and
d. a clear explanation of how to lodge complaints, grievances, or appeals.
PA-CR 3: GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES The agency maintains a formal mechanism through which applicants, clients, and other stakeholders can express and resolve grievances, including denial of service, which includes:
a. timely written notification of the resolution and an explanation of any further appeal, rights or recourse;
b. at least one level of review that does not involve the person about whom the complaint has been made or the person who reached the decision under review; and
c. the right of the consumer or a family member to be heard by a panel or person delegated to review responsibility.
PA-CPS 4.01 The agency maintains a well-publicized, 24-hour access line to receive reports of suspected abuse and neglect.
PA-CPS 4.04 Standardized decision-making criteria are used, in consultation with supervisory personnel, to determine if the report meets statutory and agency criteria, and if the case will be:
a. screened out; b. referred for alternative response services; c. investigated; and/or d. reported to other authorities.
PA-CPS 5.01 Every child determined during screening to be in imminent danger is seen immediately, and in all other cases children are seen within a timeframe that ensures their safety.
PA-CPS 5.06 When there are concerns about a child's safety, the agency immediately initiates a safety plan, and when there are unmet basic needs, the agency immediately obtains resources or services.
PA-CPS 10.01 When a child cannot safely remain at home, the agency collaborates with parents to establish a voluntary agreement, or otherwise petitions a court of proper jurisdiction, to obtain appropriate care.
PA-FC 6.01 All foster homes are licensed, approved, or certified according to state or local regulation
11

Appendix A - Year I Implementation Plan Mississippi Settlement Refonn Plan
PA-Fe 12.05 The agency implements practices and protocols to prevent and respond to missing children and allegations of maltreatment in the foster home.

PA-Fe 16.07 Each foster family develops or uses the agency's protocols for responding to emergencies including accidents, run-away behavior, serious illness, fire, and natural disasters.

PA-Fe 17.04 Criminal background and child abuse registry checks are conducted for all adults in the home prior to placement, in accordance with applicable legal requirements.

PA-Fe 17.05

Each foster home is regularly assessed to identify and address any safety concerns

including, but not limited to:

a. inadequate heat, light, water, refrigeration, cooking, and toilet facilities;

b. malfunctioning smoke detectors;

c. unsanitary conditions;

d. lack of phone service;

e. unsafe doors, steps, and windows, or mlssmg window guards where

necessary;

f.

exposed wiring;

g. access to hazardous substances, materials, or equipment;

h. rodent or insect infestation; and

1.

walls and ceilings with holes or lead.

PA-Fe 17.06 Foster parents who transport children in their own vehicles:
a. use age-appropriate passenger restraint systems; b. provide adequate passenger supervision, as required by statute or
regulation; c. properly maintain vehicles and obtain required registration and inspection;
and d. provide the agency with armual validation of current licenses, driving
records, and appropriate insurance.

PA-AS 7.01 Custody status of the child is clearly established before the initiation of adoption services, and the agency acts in accordance with federal and state regulations for legal proceedings to tenninate parental rights.

12

Appendix A - Year I hnplementation Plan Mississippi Settlement Refonn Plan

B. These COA standards are applicable to children in custody and are to be implemented within 365 days of Court approval of the Mississippi Settlement Refonn Plan.

PA-HR4.01 The agency promotes open communication and collaboration among disciplines and staff levels by:
a. holding regular team, agency, and divisional meetings, as appropriate to the agency; and
b. providing feedback to personnel about their suggestions and recommendations.

PA-HR4.03 The agency annually establishes personnel satisfaction and retention goals and measures rate of personnel turnover and personnel satisfaction.

PA-PQI2.01 The PQI framework takes into account all of the agency's regions and sites, and all individuals and families served.

PA-PQI2.02

A PQI operational plan:

a. assigns responsibility for coordination and implementation of PQI

activities, and provision of technical assistance in using the PQI process;

b. sets forth the purpose and scope of PQI activities;

c. establishes how the agency periodically reviews essential management and

service delivery processes consistent in light of quality priorities;

d. defines stakeholders and how stakeholders will participate in the PQI

process;

e. outlines methods and timeframes for monitoring and reporting activities;

and

f.

includes provision for an assessment of the utility of the PQI program,

including any barriers and supports for implementation.

PA-RPM2.01

Management conducts an internal assessment of overall risk at least annually that

includes:

a. compliance with legal requirements, including licensing and mandatory

reporting laws, and fiscal accountability;

b. insurance and liability;

c. health and safety, including use of facilities:

d. contracting practices and compliance;

e. stafftraining regarding areas of risk;

f

volunteer roles and oversight;

g. research involving program participants and other clients' rights issues;

h. security of information, including client confidentiality;

13

Appendix A - Year 1 Implementation Plan Mississippi Settlement Refonn Plan

1.

financial risk;

J. fundraising;

k. conflict of interest;

1. employment practices; and

m. interagency collaborations.

PA-RPM2.02 The agency conducts a quarterly review of immediate and ongoing risks that includes a review of incidents, accidents, and grievances related to:
a. administering, dispensing, or prescribing medications; b. service modalities or other organizational practices that involve risk or
limit freedom of choice; c. the use of restrictive behavior management interventions, such as
seclusion and restraint; d. facility safety issues; and e. situations where a person was detennined to be a danger to himselflherself
or others.

PA-RPM2.04 Individuals qualified by knowledge and experience are responsible for risk prevention and management functions.

PA-RPM5.01 Personnel can rapidly access paper and electronic information.

PA-RPM5.02 Electronic and paper records can be located at all times.

PA-ASE 6.01 The agency assesses its safety and security needs and:
a. takes appropriate measures to protect the safety of all persons who are in its facilities or on its grounds;
b. develops safety and communication protocols for staff that work off-site; c. trains staff on potential risks they may encounter on-site, in the
community, or in clients' homes; d. trains staff on self-protection techniques, as necessary; and e. has security systems to deter facility break-ins.

PA-ASE 6.03 An agency that transports service recipients in its vehicles or permits transportation in vehicles that belong to the agency's personnel, foster parents, volunteers, or contractors requires:
a. the use of age-appropriate passenger restraint systems; b. adequate passenger supervision, as mandated by statute or regulation; c. proper maintenance of agency vehicles; d. current registration and inspection of vehicles;

14

Appendix A - Year 1 hnplementation Plan Mississippi Settlement Reform Plan

e. annual validation of licenses and driving records; and

f.

proper insurance for vehicles and passengers.

PA-ASE 8.01 The agency minimizes the risk of exposure to contagious and infectious disease by:
a. adhering to CDC and OSHA guidelines; b. consulting with the local health department or an individual qualified to
provide such information; and c. annually training program personnel on universal disease precautions.

PA-ASE 8.02 The agency:
a. consults with local and state public health and licensing authorities to determine the need to test personnel who are in direct contact with service recipients who may be at high risk for tuberculosis or other air and bloodborne pathogens; and
b. as necessary, implements a targeted testing program that is consistent with public health authority recommendations.

PA-BSM 3.01 All personnel and foster parents receive initial and ongoing competency-based training, appropriate to their responsibilities, on the agency's behavior support and management intervention policies, procedures, and practices.

PA-BSM 3.02 Personnel and foster parents receive training that includes:
a. recognizing aggressive and out-of-control behavior, psychosocial issues, medical conditions, and other contributing factors that may lead to a crisis;
b. understanding how staff behavior can influence the behavior of service recipients; and
c. limitations on the use of physical techniques.

PA-BSM 3.03 Training addresses methods for de-escalating volatile situations, including:
a. listening and communication techniques, such as negotiation and mediation;
b. involving the person in regaining control and encouraging self-calming behaviors;
c. separation of individuals involved in an altercation; d. offering a voluntary escort to guide the person to a safe location; e. time out to allow the person to calm down; and f. other non-restrictive ways of de-escalating and reducing episodes of
aggressive and out-of-control behavior

15

Appendix A - Year I Implementation Plan Mississippi Settlement Reform Plan
PA-TS 2.02 All personnel who have regular contact with clients receive training on legal issues, including:
a. mandatory reporting and the identification of clinical indicators of suspected abuse and neglect, as applicable;
b. reportable criminal behavior including criminal, acquaintance, and statutory rape;
c. duty to warn; d. the agency's policies and procedures on confidentiality and disclosure of
service recipient information, and penalties for violation of these policies and procedures; e. the legal rights of service recipients; and f. any requirements associated with consent decrees.

PA-TS 2.03 All personnel receive training on proper documentation techniques and the maintenance and security of case records.

PA-CPS 4.05 Cases are assigned for investigation, referred, or screened out, within 24 hours.

PA-CPS 5.05 The investigator conducts a comprehensive evaluation of risk and protective factors that include:
a. child safety; b. family strengths and needs; c. history and impact of prior child abuse or neglect, domestic violence, or
substance use; and family connections.

PA-CPS 7.02

The information gathered for assessments:

a. includes underlying conditions and environmental and historical factors

that may contribute to concerns identified in initial screening,

investigation, and risk and safety assessments;

b. identifies child and family strengths, protective factors, and needs;

c. includes the potential impact of maltreatment on the child;

d. includes factors and characteristics pertinent to making an appropriate

placement, if necessary;

e. identifies potential family resources for the child and the parents; and

f.

is limited to material pertinent for providing services and meeting

objectives.

PA-CPS 8.03 An individualized service plan developed with each family is based on the assessment and includes:

16

Appendix A - Year I Implementation Plan Mississippi Settlement Refonn Plan
a. agreed upon goals, desired outcomes, and timeframes for achieving them; b. services and supports to be provided, and by whom; c. timeframes for evaluating family progress; and d. the signature of the parents and the youth, if age appropriate.
PA-CPS 9.04 Frequency and type of face-to-face visits with the child and family are appropriate to the family's needs and risk to the child, and visits occur at least once a month, to:
a. establish effective working relationships; b. assess safety and well-being; c. monitor service delivery; and d. measure and support the achievement of agreed upon goals.
PA-CPS 10.03 The agency minimizes the negative effects removal can have on a child by:
a. providing age-appropriate information about the removal process; b. identifying personal items the child will bring; c. collecting information about the child's daily routine, preferred foods and
activities, needed therapeutic or medical care, and education; d. discussing how the child can maintain contact with the family; and e. discussing separation and loss.
PA-FC 2.02 The information gathered for assessments:
a. includes internal, external, and historical factors that may contribute to concerns identified in initial risk and safety assessments and initial screenings;
b. identifies child and family strengths, protective factors, and needs; c. includes the impact of maltreatment on the child; d. includes factors and characteristics pertinent to selecting an appropriate
placement; e. identifies family resources for the child and the parents; and f. is limited to material pertinent for meeting service objectives.
PA-FC 2.04 The child receives an initial health screening from a qualified medical practitioner within 72 hours of entry into care to identify the need for immediate medical or mental health care, and assess for infectious and communicable diseases.
PA-FC 3.04 The service plan is based on the assessment and includes:
a. service goals, desired outcomes, and timeframes for achieving them; b. services and supports to be provided, and by whom; and c. the signature of the parents and, when appropriate, the child or youth.
17

Appendix A - Year 1 Implementation Plan Mississippi Settlement Reform Plan
PA-FC 4.01 Service providers, foster parents, the public authority, and the court work with the child, youth, and family to develop a permanency plan within 30 days of placement, which specifies:
a. the permanency goal(s); b. a timeframe for achieving permanency; and c. activities that support permanency.
PA-FC 6.05 The home environment is considered when identifying a family for the child, and foster care homes have no more than:
a. five children with no more than two children under age two; or b. two foster children with therapeutic needs.
PA-FC 10.03 Qualified professionals provide the child with age-appropriate health services including:
a. medical examinations according to well child guidelines; b. dental examinations every 6 months; c. developmental, mental health, and alcohol and drug screenings within 30
days after entry into care, and when indicated to identify the need for further diagnostic assessment; and d. needed therapeutic and treatment services.
PA-FC 11.02 The treatment team develops an individualized treatment plan that:
a. specifies a diagnosis; b. identifies current and anticipated needs, and specifies short- and long-term
therapeutic interventions; c. is reviewed by the treatment team weekly to coordinate an effective
response to current issues and behaviors; and d. is reviewed within 30 days of placement, and every 90 days, to evaluate
continued need for therapeutic foster care.
PA-FC 12.01 The family foster care worker meets separately with the child and the parents at least once a month to:
a. assess safety and well-being; b. monitor service delivery; and c. support the achievement of permanency and other service plan goals.
PA-FC 16.05 Foster parents are trained in:
18

Appendix A - Year 1 Implementation Plan Mississippi Settlement Reform Plan
a. basic first aid; b. medication administration; c. cardio-pulmonary resuscitation; d. recognizing and responding to child behaviors that jeopardize health and
well-being; and e. medical or rehabilitation interventions and operation of medical equipment
required for a child's care.
PA-FC 16.06 Foster parents sign a statement agreeing to refrain from the use of corporal and degrading punishment, and receive initial and ongoing training and support to promote positive behavior and use appropriate discipline techniques.
PA-AS 3.04 The home-study is a collaborative process that helps the family decide if adoption is an appropriate goal, and includes:
a. one or more visits to the prospective adoptive family's home; b. reference checks; c. criminal background and child abuse and neglect registry checks
according to applicable legal requirements; and d. preparation of a home-study report with a recommendation regarding the
family's ability to meet the needs of an adopted child.
PA-AS 2.03 An age-appropriate child study is conducted to assess the child's readiness for adoption, and includes:
a. an evaluation of the child's ability to bond and develop relationships; b. history of maltreatment and prior placements; c. prenatal history and developmental screening of infants and young
children; d. current medical and dental health examinations; and e. a psychological evaluation, if needed.
19

 
 Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 84 Filed 03/11/05 Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION

OLIVIA Y ., BY AND THROUGH HER NEXT FRIEND, JAMES D. JOHNSON; JAMISON, J., BY AND THROUGH HIS NEXT FRIEND, CLARA LEWIS; DESIREE, RENEE, TYSON AND MONIQUE P., BY AND THROUGH THEIR NEXT FRIEND, SYLVIA FORSTER; JOHN A., BY AND THROUGH HIS NEXT FRIEND, JAMES D. JOHNSON; CODY B., BY AND THROUGH HIS NEXT FRIEND, SHARON SCOTT, MARY, TOM, MATTHEW AND DANA W., BY AND THROUGH THEIR NEXT FRIEND, ZELETRA W.; AND SAM H., BY AND THROUGH HIS NEXT FRIEND, YVETTE BULLOCK, ON THEIR OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED

PLAINTIFFS

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:04CV251LN

HALEY BARBOUR, AS GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI; DONALD TAYLOR, AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES; AND BILLY MANGOLD, AS DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN’S SERVICES

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On March 30, 2004, plaintiffs herein moved, pursuant to Rules
23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for
certification of this action as a class action, with two plaintiff
classes, defined, respectively, as follows:
(1) “all children who are or will be in the legal and/or physical custody of DFCS” (the “In-Custody Class”); and
(2) “all of those children who are not in DFCS custody, but have been or are at risk of being abused and neglected, and about whom Defendants have received a

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 84 Filed 03/11/05 Page 2 of 10
report of abuse or neglect (the “Protective Services Class”). Subsequently, defendants Haley Barbour, Governor of the State of Mississippi, Donald Taylor, Executive Director of the Department of Human Services (DHS) and Billy Mangold, Director of the Division of Family and Children’s Services (DFCS), moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants moved to stay consideration of the motion for class certification pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss. On November 18, the court issued its opinion on defendants’ motion. The court therein dismissed all claims sought to be asserted by and on behalf of the “Protective Services Class,” and also dismissed the claims of the “In-Custody Class” for violation of their alleged procedural due process rights and for violation of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act. In the wake of that ruling, there remain only claims of the putative “In-Custody Class” for violation of their substantive due process rights. Plaintiffs, who seek class certification pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2), bear the burden of demonstrating that the requirements of the rule have been met. The pertinent provisions of the rule are as follows: (a) Prerequisites to a Class Action. One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all only if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the
2

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 84 Filed 03/11/05 Page 3 of 10
class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. (b) Class Actions Maintainable. An action may be maintained as a class action if the prerequisites of subdivision (a) are satisfied, and in addition: . . . (2) the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole. Thus, plaintiffs must establish the four factors of Rule 23(a)--numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy–-as well as the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2). Defendants admit that the proposed class, which would include all of the approximately 3,000 children currently in DHS custody, satisfies the requirement of numerosity, but they maintain that plaintiffs’ efforts toward establishing the propriety of class certification begin and end there. The gist of defendants’ opposition to class certification is their insistence that in presenting this as as a prospective class action, plaintiffs are seeking a “one size fits all” approach to claims and issues that simply cannot be treated in such a fashion. This is not a case of “generic children with generic claims,” say defendants, but rather of individual children whose cases DHS is mandated to address in an individualized fashion based on each child’s individual circumstances and individual needs. They note that a child can wind up in DHS custody in one of several ways, from the Baby Drop-Off Law to orders of the Youth Court, and that
3

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 84 Filed 03/11/05 Page 4 of 10
while there may be a common basic cause which leads to DHS’s assuming custody, i.e., abuse and neglect, it does not follow that all abused and neglected children are alike or have the same problems and needs. Indeed, they say, abused and neglected children are of different ages, genders and family backgrounds and have different medical, psychological and behavior problems, intellect and education, so that the treatment, care and services DHS is mandated to provide must be assessed on a child-specific basis.
Defendants further contend that plaintiffs cannot legitimately label their claims “common” merely by broadly alleging that “systemic deficiencies have resulted and continue to result in violations of their federal and statutory and constitutional rights.” They argue, that is, that the requisite commonality cannot be found to exist where plaintiffs have not challenged specific practices or procedures utilized by DHS but rather have simply alleged generally that DHS has a practice and procedure of failing to meet the needs of children in its custody and has thereby violated the substantive due process rights of all children in its custody. In sum, defendants submit that plaintiffs have impermissibly attempted to group together children with very different needs, rights and problems, and they conclude that since plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that all children in the proposed class have experienced the same problems or the same
4

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 84 Filed 03/11/05 Page 5 of 10
difficulties in receiving required services from DHS as plaintiffs or as each other, then plaintiffs cannot possibly satisfy Rule 23(a)’s requirements of commonality and typicality.
With reference to the requirement of Rule 23(b)(2), defendants similarly argue that because plaintiffs have not identified any specific policy or practice that could be the subject of injunctive relief but rather have alleged generally that defendants have a policy and practice of not meeting the needs of children in its custody, it is difficult to conceive of an injunction that could remedy the alleged deficiencies, and certainly not a “classwide” injunction that could remedy the deficiencies encountered by individual children.
To meet the test for commonality, plaintiffs need not show that “[t]he interests and claims of the various plaintiffs . . . are identical. Rather, the commonality test is met when there is ‘at least one issue whose resolution will affect all or a significant number of the putative class members.’” Forbush v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc., 994 F.2d 1101, 1106 (5th Cir. 1993) (quoting Stewart v. Winter, 669 F.2d 328, 335 (5th Cir. 1982)). “For this reason, ‘[t]he threshold of “commonality” is not high’." Id. (quoting Jenkins v. Raymark Industries, 782 F.2d 468, 472 (5th Cir. 1986)). Neither is the test for typicality demanding. Smith v. Texaco, Inc., 263 F.3d 394, 406 (5th Cir. 2001). The requirement of typicality “‘focuses on the similarity between the
5

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 84 Filed 03/11/05 Page 6 of 10

named plaintiffs' legal and remedial theories and the theories of those whom they purport to represent,’ and is satisfied when the resolution of common questions affects all or a substantial number of class members.” Id. at 406-07 (citations omitted).
Here, the court, having considered plaintiffs’ arguments, is persuaded that plaintiffs have sufficiently identified issues common to all or most of the proposed class members. These include, by way of example only, the legal questions whether defendants’ actions and inactions have violated the substantive due process rights of children in DHS custody to be safe from harm while in state custody and whether defendants’ actions and inactions have resulted in a denial of necessary health services in violation of their substantive due process rights, and the factual questions whether defendants have failed to provide children in their custody with safe, licensed foster care placements, whether defendants have failed to provide children in foster care with required services necessary to keep them safe and prevent them from deteriorating physically, psychologically or otherwise while in custody and whether DHS staffing shortage endangers children in DHS custody.1

1

A plaintiff cannot clear the commonality hurdle by

“merely describing issues at the highest level of generality.”

Smith v. Texaco, Inc., 263 F.3d 394, 405 -406 (5th Cir. 2001).

Thus, for example, it is not sufficient merely to allege, without

more, that all members of the proposed class have been victims of

race discrimination. Here, while defendants challenge plaintiffs’

complaint as too general to support class certification, the court

6

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 84 Filed 03/11/05 Page 7 of 10
In the court’s opinion, it is reasonably clear from their complaint that plaintiffs have identified alleged shortcomings by DHS, in terms, inter alia, of its staffing, policies and practices, which if proven, could readily be found to place every child in DHS custody at substantial risk of harm. Consequently, even though each plaintiff and each proposed class member may not yet have suffered the same type or degree of harm (though some surely have), because it appears that defendants’ alleged acts and omissions pose a significant risk of similar harm to all (or at least the requisite “significant number” of) children in DHS custody, the court concludes that the requirements of commonality and typicality are satisfied.
It also follows from the court’s conclusion in this regard that plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2), in that the plaintiffs’ allegations do relate to defendants’ actions and inaction with respect to the class as a whole and the relief plaintiffs seek is classwide declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole. The court does acknowledge defendants’ contention that effective injunctive relief for the benefit of the proposed class, as opposed to relief for the specific named plaintiffs, cannot feasibly be granted in view of the extensiveness of the failures alleged by plaintiffs.
finds that it is sufficiently specific in terms of the violations identified and relief sought.
7

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 84 Filed 03/11/05 Page 8 of 10
In the court’s opinion, however, the fact that it could prove difficult to fashion fully responsive and effective injunctive relief (in the event violation(s) are proven) is not a basis for refusing to undertake the task in the first place. That is to say, the court does not perceive this to be an impossible undertaking, and it is not one the court is unwilling to assume.
In addition to the foregoing, defendants also contend that plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the “adequacy” requirement of Rule 23(a). As to this requirement, the Fifth Circuit has made clear that
[t]o meet Rule 23 requirements, the court must find that class representatives, their counsel, and the relationship between the two are adequate to protect the interests of absent class members. Stirman v. Exxon Corp., 280 F.3d 554, 562 (5th Cir. 2002). Class representatives must satisfy the court that they, and not counsel, are directing the litigation. To do this, class representatives must show themselves sufficiently informed about the litigation to manage the litigation effort. Berger, 257 F.3d at 479. Unger v. Amedisys Inc., 2005 WL 375684, *2 (5th Cir. 2005). Defendants in this case do not question the adequacy of class counsel. They do, however, contend that the “next friends” through whom the named plaintiffs are suing are “uninterested and inexperienced” and hence are not adequate class representatives. In this regard, they note that at their depositions, Sharon Scott, next friend to Cody B., and Sylvia Forester, next friend to the P. Children, both testified that they do not know where these children are now, and next friend James Johnson testified that he
8

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 84 Filed 03/11/05 Page 9 of 10

has never met John A. and that while he knows John A. is in a foster home, he does not know the name of the foster parent and has never spoken with the foster parent.
Plaintiffs vigorously dispute defendants’ characterization of these persons as uninterested and inexperienced, and insist that the next friend for each of the named In-Custody plaintiffs is an adequate representative.2 Specifically, plaintiffs note that James Johnson serves as guardian ad litem for both Olivia Y. and John A., having been appointed by the Mississippi Youth Court and that his representation of the children in this case is specifically authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c). As for the others, plaintiffs point out that Sharon Scott is a family friend of Cody B.’s former foster parent and helped care for him for approximately eighteen months, until he was moved. Ms. Scott testified that she has repeatedly tried to get information from DHS as to his whereabouts but DHS will not give her the information.
Zelatra W., next friend to Mary, Tom, Matthew and Dana W., is the children’s aunt who, as a licensed foster care provider, cared for the children in her home for two and a half years before they were removed. She testified that although she has been unable to get information from DHS concerning the children, it has not been

2

Plaintiffs point out that Sylvia Forester is not a next

friend on behalf of any of the In-Custody plaintiffs.

9

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 84 Filed 03/11/05 Page 10 of 10
for lack of effort on her part. Clara Lewis, next friend to Jamison J., is his former foster parent who has known him for years, stayed in touch with him, knows where he is currently and is Jamison J.’s biological sister’s adoptive parent.
In the court’s opinion, the suggestion by defendants that these representatives of the named plaintiff children are uninterested or inexperienced is unfounded in fact. To the contrary, each is generally knowledgeable about the nature and purpose of this litigation, and has a good faith interest in the named plaintiffs’ welfare and in the prosecution of this litigation.3
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, it is ordered that plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is granted to the extent they seek certification of an “In-Custody Class.”4
SO ORDERED this 11th day of March, 2005.
/s/ Tom S. Lee UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

Copies of the next friends’ deposition transcripts were

provided at the court’s request, and the court’s review refutes

defendants’ characterization of these individuals.

4

The court notes that plaintiffs have moved to strike

Exhibit 1 which was submitted by defendants with their response to

the motion for class certification. In the court’s opinion,

plaintiffs are correct that for present purposes, the exhibit is

not relevant and it is therefore stricken.

10

 
 ,.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MI1~Sn~S¥
JACKSON DIVISION
OLNIA Y., by and through her next friend, James D. Johnson; JAMISON J., by and through his next friend, Clara Lewis; DESIREE, RENEE, TYSON, AND MONIQUE P., by and through their next friend, Sylvia Forster; JOHN A., by and through his next mend, .Tames D. Johnson; CODY B., by and through his next friend, Sharon Scott; MARY, TOM, MATTHEW, and DANA W., by and through their next friend, Zelatra W., AND SAM H., by and through his next friend, Yvette Bullock; on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated

MAY 172004
PLAINTIFFS

V.

CNIL ACTION NO. 3:04CV251LN

HALEY BARBOUR, as Governor of the State of Mississippi; DONALD TAYLOR, as Executive Director ofthe Department ofHuman Services; AND BILLY MANGOLD, as Director ofthe Division of Family and Children's Services

DEFENDANTS

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF REQUEST FOR CLASS ACTION INTRODUCTION
1. Every year, the State of Mississippi receives over 10,000 reports that children are being physically abused, starved, sexually abused, neglected, or otherwise maltreated. The State is charged with the responsibility of protecting these children. It is failing in its duty. Through years of mismanagement, underfunding, and deliberate indifference, the State has knowingly allowed its system for protecting children to collapse, leaving Mississippi's most vulnerable children defenseless.
2. This is a civil rights class action lawsuit on behalf of Mississippi's abused and neglected children. It seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to compel the Governor of

\

Mississippi, the Executive Director of the Department of Human Services ("DHS"), and the Director of the Division of Family and Children's Services ("DFCS") to meet their legal obligations to care for and protect the State's abused and neglected children.
3. For over a decade, Defendants have known of the hann that pervasive and longstanding failures of the child welfare system are causing to children. As early as 1992, the Child Welfare League of America ("CWLA"), the largest national association of public and private child welfare agencies, documented DFCS deficiencies in a scathing 144-page report, including excessive caseloads, inadequate staffing, and a lack of foster and adoptive homes. The CWLA report stated that if reform were not forthcoming, children would continue to live in abusive and neglectful environments, and some would suffer irreparable hann.
4. In. 1995, the United States Department of Health and Human Services' Administration for Children and Families ("ACF"), which is responsible for monitoring state compliance with federal child welfare requirements, found that the State had insufficient services to protect children from abuse, that it was failing to provide children with adequate mental health and medical services, and that children were unnecessarily spending their childhoods in foster care. In response, DHS developed a "Strategic Plan" to reform the child welfare system. That reform plan, however, has never been fully or adequately implemented.
5. For years, knowledgeable state officials have warned that Mississippi's child welfare system fails to protect and poses dangers to Mississippi's children. In 2001, Sue Perry, Director of the Division of Family and Children's Services, wrote in a memo to Department of Human Services Executive Director Thehna Brittain that "the crisis needs to be addressed by whomever has the power to rectify the situation - before a tragedy occurs." In 2002, Mike Moore, Mississippi's Attorney General, acknowledged to the press that one of his biggest
2

concerns was "that some child is going to die and they're going to die on the State's watch." That same year, the statewide Council of Youth Court Judges adopted a resolution stating that the shortage of DHS staff creates such a crisis for children at risk "as to constitute an endangerment to the lives of the children and to the citizens of the State of Mississippi." In January 2004, Governor Haley Barbour acknowledged to rep'orters that the Department of Human Services "has collapsed, for lack of management and a lack ofleadership ...."
6. Despite the widely recognized need to address the State's failing child welfare system, virtually nothing has been done. Years of inaction by State officials, even in the face of dire warnings, have demonstrated that judicial intervention is needed.
7. Mississippi's child welfare system lacks a minimally adequate number of caseworkers and foster care placements. Abused and neglected children reported to the State are left to suffer in dangerous and potentially deadly homes. The State diverts other children from the foster care system by placing them informally with relatives who are unsuitable or unable, without necessary support from the State, to provide adequate care. The children who are placed in the foster care system are often cycled through unsuitable foster care placements or institutions. Defendants fail to meet these children's medical and psychological needs, and violate their constitutional and federal statutory rights.
8. Abused and neglected children failed by Mississippi's child welfare system often develop anger, fear, anxiety, and an inability to trust. Without a safe and permanent home and needed therapeutic services, they can fall behind in school, develop behavioral problems, and are frequently pushed into the juvenile justice system. Many of these children grow into adults who are homeless, drug addicted, or without the skills to hold regular jobs. Their long-term relationship with the criminal justice and public welfare systems will cost taxpayers millions of
3

dollars more than the expense of having provided constitntionally required child welfare services when they first came to the State's attention.
9. Mismanagement of the State's child welfare system also costs Mississippi millions of dollars in lost federal funding. By failing to meet minimum federal requirements, Mississippi has forfeited federal funds available to the states for child welfare programs. Not only is the State failing to claim federal money, it has been forced to retnm millions of dollars to the federal government due to lax oversight ofits programs.
10. Defendants fail to provide Mississippi's abused and neglected children the services to which they are legally entitled. A court-enforced remedy is necessary to prevent further harm to these children-and to stop the ongoing tragedies that officials have been warned about for years.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
11. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress violations of the United States Constitntion and federal statntes. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3).
12. Venue is proper here pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The claims arise in this district.
PARTIES Named Plaintiffs 13. Plaintiff OLNlA Y. is a three-and-a-half-year-old girl who has been in DFCS custody since September 2003. 14. Olivia Y. appears in this action through her next friend, James D. Johnson, Esquire, 301 West Pine Street; Hattiesburg, Mississippi, 39401.
4

15. Plaintiff JAMISON J. is a l7-year-old boy who has been in DFCS custody since 1991.
16. Jamison J. appears in this action through his next friend, Clara Lewis, 6562 Lyndon B. Johnson Drive; Jackson, Mississippi, 39213.
17. Plaintiffs DESIREE, RENEE, TYSON, and MONlQUE P. are siblings who have been known to DFCS since August 2003, aged nine, six, five, and three, respectively.
18. Desiree, Renee, Tyson, and Monique P. appear in this action through their next friend, Dr. Sylvia Forster, 787 South Main Street, Suite C; Petal, Mississippi, 39465.
19. Plaintiff JOHN A. is a 14-year-old boy from Forrest County who has been in DFCS custody since he was nine years old.
20. John A. appears in this action through his next friend, James D. Johnson, Esquire, 301 West Pine Street; Hattiesburg, Mississippi, 39401.
21. Plaintiff CODY B., aged two, was removed by DFCS from his parents in 2002, and placed in a Jackson County shelter when he was two months old.
22. Cody B. appears in this action through his next friend, Sharon Scott, 4720 Garner Street; Pascagoula, Mississippi, 39567.
23. Plaintiffs MARY, TOM, MATTHEW, and DANA W., are siblings ages thirteen, ten, seven, and six years old, respectively, who were removed from their home in Hinds County by DFCS in 2000.
24. Mary, Tom, Matthew, and Dana W. appear in this action through their next friend, Zelatra W.!
I The full name and address ofthe next friend are not inclnded here in order to protect the identity of the Named Plaintiffs.
5

25. Plaintiff SAM H. is a 14-year-old boy living with his biological mother in Lauderdale County who has been known to DFCS since 1995.
26. Sam H. appears in this action through his next friend, Yvette Bullock, 110 West Fourth Avenue; Petal, Mississippi, 39465.
Defendants 27. Defendant HALEY BARBOUR is the Governor of Mississippi, and is sued in his official capacity. He is responsible for ensuring that all Mississippi agencies comply with applicable federal and state law, and oversees and directs the activities of the Mississippi Department of Human Services, pursuant to Miss. Code Aun. §§ 43-1-2; 43-1-17; 43-15-3. His business address is P.O. Box 139; Jackson, Mississippi, 39205. 28. Defendant DONALD TAYLOR is the Executive Director of the Mississippi Department of Human Services, and is sued in his official capacity. In accordance with Miss. Code Aun. §§ 43-1-2; 43-1-17; 43-1-51; 43-15-3; 43-15-5; 43-21-353(8); 43-21-354; and 43-21357(1), DHS is responsible for overseeing the proper and efficient operation of the Division of Family and Children's Services, as well as ensuring DHS and DFCS are adequately funded with state and federal funds. His business address is 750 North State Street; Jackson, Mississippi, 39202. 29. Defendant BILLY MANGOLD is Director of the Mississippi Department of Human Services' Division of Family and Children's Services, and is sued in his official capacity. In accordance with Miss. Code Aun. §§ 43-1-51; 43-1-53; 43-15-3; 43-21-353(8), and 43-21354, he is responsible for: the proper and efficient operation of DFCS, its services and programs; providing for the care of the children served by DFCS; fully investigating all reports of abuse and neglect and properly referring substantiated reports to youth court officials; directing the
6

placement of children in appropriate state programs and/or facilities, and assuring all contracted

and other programs and facilities providing child welfare services operate in conformity with all

constitntional, statntory, and regulatory requirements. His business address is 750 North State

Street; Jackson, Mississippi, 39202.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

30. This action is properly maintained as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and

(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is brought on behalf of two classes of children

defmed as follows:

(a)

The "in-custody class," which is comprised of all children who are or will

be in the legal and/or physical custody ofDFCS; and

(b)

The "protective services class," which is comprised of all ofthose children

who are not in DFCS custody, but have been or are at risk ofbeing abused

and neglected and about whom Defendants have received a report of abuse

orneglect~

3l. As of August 2003, an estimated 2,981 children were in the physical and legal

custody of DFCS. A similar number of children comprise the in-custody class. An estimated

16,223 children were the subjects of abuse or neglect reports to DFCS in 2002, which is the most

recent date for which this information is publicly available. A similar number of children

comprise the protective services class. The two classes are each sufficiently numerous as to

make joinder impracticable.

32. The questions of law and fact raised by the Named Plaintiffs' claims are common

to and typical of those raised by each respective putative class member they seek to represent.

7

Each child relies on Defendants for child welfare services, and is harmed by the systemic
deficiencies of Mississippi's child welfare system.
A. 1. Questions of fact common to the in-custody class include:
a. whether Defendants fail to provide children in their custody with safe, licensed foster care placements;
b. whether Defendants fail to provide children in foster care with legally required services necessary to keep them safe and to prevent them from deteriorating physically, psychologically, or otherwise, while in custody; and
c. whether Defendants fail to provide foster children with timely and appropriate services necessary to ensure that they are either safely reunited with their families or freed for adoption and promptly placed in a permanent home.
2. Questions of law common to the in-custody class include:
a. whether Defendants' actions and inactions violate class Plaintiffs' rights under the Substantive Due Process Clause ofthe Fourteenth Amendment to the Uuited States Constitution to be safe from harm while in state custody;
b. whether Defendants' actions and inactions violate class Plaintiffs' rights under the Equal Protection Clause ofthe Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by intentionally and arbitrarily denying class members who have been placed in unlicensed facilities with child welfare protections; and
c. whether Defendants' actions and inactions violate class Plaintiffs' rights under the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended by the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, 42 U.S.C. §§ 620-629(i) and 670-679(b) (''the Adoption Assistance Act") to mandated foster care and adoption services.
B. 1. Questions of fact common to the protective services class include:
a. whether Defendants fail to investigate reports of child abuse and neglect as required by law to determine the safety of children;
b. whether Defendants fail to refer reports of abuse and neglect and present the findings of investigations to the Youth Court;
c. whether Defendants place abused and neglected children in unlicensed homes Defendants know or should know pose an imminent risk ofharm; and
d. whether Defendants systematically fail to provide children known to be at risk of abuse and neglect with access to the foster care system.
8

2. Questions oflaw conunon to the protective services class include:
a. whether Defendants' actions and inactions violate class Plaintiffs' rights under the Procedural Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution not to be deprived of their entitlement to access to Mississippi Youth Courts;
b. whether Defendants' actions and inactions violate class Plaintiffs' rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by intentionally and arbitrarily denying class members who have been the subject of a report of abuse or neglect investigative and protective services;
c. whether Defendants' actions and inactions violate class Plaintiffs' rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by intentionally and arbitrarily denying class members who have been found to be abused and neglected access to the child welfare system; and
d. whether Defendants' actions and inactions violate class Plaintiffs' rights under the Substantive Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to be protected from state-created dangers by placing protective services class members in homes Defendants know or should know pose an inuninent risk of harm.
33. The Named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the classes
they represent.
34. 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.
35. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys employed by Children's Rights, a national
.non-profit legal organization with experience in child welfare class actions, Bradley Arant Rose
& White LLP, a 200-lawyer national law firm with offices in Jackson, Mississippi; Birmingham,
Huntsville, and Montgomery, Alabama; and Washington, D.C., Stephen H. Leech Jr., a Jackson,
Mississippi, attorney with extensive experience in complex civil litigation, and assisted by Loeb
& Loeb LLP, a 200-lawyer national law firm with offices in Tennessee, California, Illinois, and
9

New York. The lawyers from the two firms also have extensive experience litigating complex class action lawsuits in federal court. Plaintiffs' attorneys have identified and thoroughly investigated all claims in this action, and have committed sufficient resources to represent these classes.
36. Defendants have acted or failed to act on grounds generally applicable to all Plaintiff class members, necessitating class-wide declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs' counsel knows of no conflicts among class members.
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
37. In Mississippi, responsibility for assuring the safety of abused and neglected children rests with the Division ofFamily and Children's Services of the Mississippi Department of Human Services. Miss. Code Ann. §§ 43-1-51; 43-15-5. DFCS has a central office in Jackson, and nine Regional Headquarters that directly oversee 84 county offices.
38. Caseworkers at DFCS local area offices are responsible for investigating all credible reports of abuse and neglect of children. Miss. Code Ann. §§ 43-21-353(1); 43-21-357; 43-1-2(4); Code Miss. R. § 11 III 001 (Investigation of Reports of Suspected Child Abuse/Neglect). DFCS must forward to the Youth Court a report summarizing its findings on each protective services case accepted for investigation. Miss. Code Ann. §§ 43-21-353(1); 4321-357. The Youth Court is then required to review DFCS fmdings and make an independent and final determination as to whether the allegation of abuse or neglect should be "evidenced" i.e., substantiated - and what services, if any, DFCS is required to provide to protect the child. • Miss. Code Ann. §§ 43-21-353(5); 43-21-357; 43-21-301(3). A child may not be removed from his or her home and taken into custody for longer than twenty-four hours absent a court order. Miss. Code Ann. §§ 43-21-301(2); 43-21-303(3) and (4)..
10

39. If a child is removed from home, DFCS is obligated to provide the placement, care, and services necessary to ensure that child's safety and well-being. Miss. Code Ann. §§ 43-15-5; 43-15-13(2). According to state law, placement with relatives is encouraged, but the relatives and their homes must first be screened and approved. Miss. Code Ann. § 43-15-13(7). Approved and licensed non-relative foster homes, group homes and residential placements must be available to shelter children without appropriate relatives to care for them. Miss. Code. Ann. §§ 43-15-5; 43-15-101; 43-15-105; 42 U.S.C. § 672 (b) and (c).
40. DFCS must provide all children in its custody with at least monthly face-to-face social worker contact, regular medical and dental care, other medical and mental health services as needed, and a case plan documenting those service needs and the long-term placement goal for the child. Miss. Code Ann. §§ 43-15-5(1); 43-15-13(3); 43-15-203(2); 43-1-2(4); Code Miss. R. § 11 111 001 (Client Contact Requirements; The Case Record; Foster Care Services Medical, Dental, Psychological and Educational Services for Foster Children); 42 U.S.C. §§ 671(a)(16), 675(1). For those children who are unable to be safely reunited with their families, DFCS must timely find an alternative permanent home. Miss. Code Ann. § 43-15-13(3); 42 U.S.C. §§ 622(b)(10)(B)(ii) and (iii), 675(5). By the time a child is in DFCS custody for fifteen of the previous twenty-two months, DFCS is required to file a termination of parental rights petition on behalf of that child to free the child for adoption, unless a statutory exception is documented. Miss. Code Ann. § 43-15-13(3); 42 U.S.C. §§ 622 (b)(IO)(B)(ii), 675(5)(E).
41. Regular admiuistrative and judicial reviews must also be provided to each child in foster care. Miss. Code Ann. § 43-15-13(3) and (5); 42 U.S.C. §§ 622 (b)(IO)(B)(ii), 671 (a)(16), 675 (5)(B) and (C). These reviews must assure that DFCS is providing the services required to assure a timely, safe and permanent home for the child. Id.
11

42. States that meet federally-established child welfare standards are eligible for federal child welfare funding under Titles N-B and N-E of the Social Security Act. 42 U.S.C. §§ 622 et seq.; 671 et seq. In order to qualify for federal child welfare funds, Mississippi has filed a mandated State Plan describing how the State will assure compliance with federal child welfare requirements under these titles.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS REGARDING NAMED PLAINTIFFS A. OLIVIA Y.
43. Olivia Y. is a three-and-a-half-year-old girl who entered DFCS custody in September 2003 weighing only 22 pounds, which is the normal weight of a child less than half her age. She had been severely neglected and malnourished by her mother in her Forrest County home. Despite clear, visible indications of serious malnourishment, Defendants listed in their records "NIA" for any "physical! medical! developmentaU psychological problems" for this child, and did not immediately provide Olivia with a medical exam, nor did they have her assessed for obvious developmental problems. Instead, this frail and sickly girl was initially recorded in DFCS records as "quiet," "cute," and "petite." DFCS listed reunification as Olivia's permanency goal, and, listed the expected discharge date as 45 days.
44. Within the first three months of her entry into DFCS custody, DFCS repeatedly uprooted Olivia, moving her through five separate placements. Olivia spent her first week in foster care with a foster family. DFCS then moved her into her aunt's home, after stating that a background check for the adults in the home had been completed. However, Olivia was moved from that placement after one week when DFCS actually learned from the background check that the aunt's son, who DFCS knew was living in the home, is a convicted rapist. Olivia then spent
12

one night in another foster home, after which this medically fragile toddler was placed, not in a therapeutic foster home, but in a shelter over a hundred miles away.
45. The shelter found that Olivia, who had been in DFCS care for several weeks, suffered from extremely small stature, low weight, abnormal facial features, severe cradle cap, strong body odor, and extremely foul smelling bowel movements.
46. A medical exam conducted in December 2003 revealed that Olivia was I!lalnourished and depressed. She also had vaginal redness and swelling, an indicator of sexual abuse. However, the doctor performing the examination was not given a history of sexual abuse, so he did not perform a detailed vaginal examination. Despite the fact that Olivia lived in the home of a convicted rapist and it was later revealed to DFCS that she had often spent weekends in that home, and although Olivia "reacted in terror" in September 2003 when the doctor at the shelter tried to perform a more thorough examination for sexual abuse, DFCS has still made no effort to determine if Olivia has, in fact, been sexually abused or is carrying sexually transmitted diseases.
47. Because DFCS failed to immediately recognize that Olivia was suffering from severe malnourishment, and failed to provide her with a medical examination upon entering care, Olivia's health worsened once in DFCS custody. In her first week in DFCS custody, this threeyear-old actually lost weight, bringing her to a low ofonly 20 pounds.
48. Olivia is currently living in a foster home, her fifth placement since entering care. Olivia has a permanency goal of reunification with the mother who so severely neglected her, even though her mother repeatedly has been noncompliant with her service agreement and has had positive drug screens. Olivia has never gone through a full assessment to determine the extent of her developmental delays, nor is she receiving any services to address those delays.
13

49. As a direct result of Defendants' actions and inactions, Olivia has been, and continues to be, irreparably harmed. She appears to have developmental delays that are not being addressed, and Defendants have failed to provide her with needed medical and therapeutic services. The repeated movements from one home to another have been emotionally traumatic for this medically fragile toddler. Although she has been in DFCS custody for more than half a year, Defendants have taken no steps to help Olivia achieve stable and safe permanency. Defendants have not even assessed the extent ofher injuries.
50. Defendants have violated Olivia's constitutional and statutory rights by failing to protect her from harm; by failing to provide appropriate and necessary medical and therapeutic services; and by failing to develop and implement an appropriate permanency plan that would allow her to leave foster care and secure a safe and permanent home, all of which are required by law and by reasonable professional judgment. B. JAMISON J.
51. Jamison J. is a l7-year-old boy who has been in DFCS custody for more than twelve years and has been shuffled through at least 28 placements, many of which were provided foster board payments that were inadequate to meet his needs. Jamison has lived in loving foster homes willing to care for him and adopt him, but DFCS never took the necessary steps to make these living situations permanent.
52. In 1991, when he was four years old, Jamison and his sisters were removed by DFCS from their mother's home in Cleveland, Mississippi, after she physically abused and severely neglected the children. Jamison's father was incarcerated out of state. DFCS separated Jamison from his sisters, and placed him in a foster home where his foster mother would
14

terrorize him by shoving the young boy in front of her two dogs, and letting the dogs snarl and growl in Jamison's face.
53. Jamison was removed from the abusive foster home, and next spent more than two years in a loving foster home in Cleveland, Mississippi, where he bonded with a foster mother who to this day has remained in touch with Jamison. When the then-7-year-old Jamison began acting out, though, DFCS did not provide any services to him or his foster mother, and instead placed him in a residential treatment center on psychotropic medication, even though he did not suffer from any acute mental health problems.
54. DFCS next moved Jamison from the institution into another foster home, this time in Jackson. He spent the next five years with this family, and his foster parents told DFCS that they wanted to adopt Jamison. However, instead of freeing Jamison for adoption, DFCS then attempted to reunif'y Jamison with his biological mother, even though at this point in time he had been in foster care for more than seven years. DFCS sent Jamison back to the Delta region to spend a summer with his mother on a trial basis. While there, he witnessed the on-going severe abuse of a two-year-old child by another adult living in the home. Jamison witnessed this little boy being thrown into walls and beaten with an iron belt, inscribed "Boss." Jamison's older sister, who also had been returned on a trial basis, reported the abuse of the toddler, pointing out the little boy's swollen lip to a visiting DFCS worker, but DFCS did nothing to help the toddler. Jamison and his sister also witnessed their mother being repeatedly beaten by her boyfriends. This deeply traumatized' Jamison, as he wanted to protect his mother from abuse but was too young to effectively intervene.
55. At the end of the summer, DFCS declared the trial reunification with his mother a success, and gave Jamison two days to return to Jackson to collect his belongings and say
15

goodbye to the foster parents and friends where he had spent the previous five years. During Jamison's brief trip to Jackson, the two-year-old was beaten to death for wetting his bed in the very home to which DFCS sought to return Jamison and his sister. Only after the avoidable death ofthis helpless toddler who was known to DFCS, did DFCS decide that Jamison's pending reunification with his mother was inappropriate.
56. Although Jamison was troubled by witnessing the abuse of the toddler, and angry that he was unable to protect his mother from domestic violence, DFCS again failed to provide him with appropriate mental health services, despite the repeated requests of his foster mother. Instead, Jamison was removed from his foster home and placed in a short-term residential treatment center for seven months, where he was again unnecessarily medicated. From the institution, DFCS placed Jamison in a shelter, then into another foster home, then back at the shelter and ultimately sent him to Memphis to live in a psychiatric hospital. DFCS did not even tell Jamison he was going to the Memphis hospital until he was in the DFCS office; he had previously been told he was going to an independent living group home. Doctors and counselors at the psychiatric hospital told Jamison he did not require hospitalization, but that there was no other placement available for him. Jamison unnecessarily spent six months in this overlyrestrictive institution. While Jamison was in this out-of-state placement, DFCS finally initiated proceedings to terminate his parents' parental rights. Jamison's mother, however, died of a drug overdose soon after her rights were terminated, and while Jamison was still living in the Memphis hospital.
57. At age 14, Jamison was then returned to the Jackson foster home at which he earlier had spent five years. After two years in this home, and again, with no attempts by DFCS to make this home permanent, his foster mother asked that he be removed, due to his adolescent
16

behaviors. From March 2003 to January 2004, Jamison was cycled through three shelter placements, four foster homes, and a group home.
58. In January 2004, DFCS abruptly sent Jamison to Kansas to live with his father, even though his father's parental rights had already been terminated and Jamison had not seen his father in 15 years because, as DFCS knew, his father had been incarcerated for most of that time. Jamison protested being sent to Kansas to live with someone who was a stranger to him, but was told by a DFCS worker that it was important to "know your daddy." Before Jamison was sent to his father in Kansas, DFCS failed to do a home study on the home, or prepare an interstate compact with the child welfare agency in Kansas, both of which are required by federal law before placing foster children out of state.
59. When DFCS finally alerted their counterparts in Kansas that Jamison had been placed in his father's home, and a home study was undertaken by the Kansas child welfare officials, the Kansas officials refused to certify the home. Jamison's father failed the home study because he had been incarcerated 37 times and could not maintain consistent housing. He had also threatened to physically hurt Jamison.
60. DFCS then ordered Jamison to return to Mississippi immediately. Although Jamison had only been in Kansas for two months, and the reunification with his biological father was bumpy, he had quickly found a welcoming community at his Kansas high school. According to his counselor, he had quickly made friends at his new school, was liked by his teachers, was making good grades, was trying out for the baseball and football teams, and had been cast as the lead role in the school play. After having been ripped from a community and school where he had been building a new life, Jamison was further traumatized when he arrived at the Jackson airport and no one was there to meet him, because DFCS forgot to pick him up.
17

61. Upon Jamison's return to Mississippi, he was placed in a group home on the campus of the infamous Oakley training school, currently the subject of a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Department of Justice against the State (See United States v. State of Mississippi, et at., Civ. Act. 3:03-1354BN, (Filed December 18, 2003)). The other youths at the Oakley group home destroyed Jamison's clothes in a prank. Jamison has had to start working so that he can replace his clothes and buy basic toiletries.
62. Jamison, who is a very bright and motivated student, has not been allowed to attend regular public high school, but instead has been shunted to G.E.D. classes. Jamison desperately wants to go to a public high school so that he may receive his high school diploma, since he plans to apply to four-year colleges out of state. DFCS workers have told him that he cannot go to a four-year college, and that his options are community college or Job Corps. Due to living in the institution and being prohibited from attending class at a regular high school, Jamison has failed his junior year of high school because he has more than 21 absences. DFCS workers have told him that this school failure is more reason for him to attend only G.E.D. classes. Jamison's former foster mother in Cleveland, who has tried to stay in touch with him for ten years, has asked DFCS if she can take care of Jamison again, and Jamison asked his DFCS caseworker to place him with her so that he can attend a regular high school, but DFCS currently is refusing to remove him from the overly-restrictive institution and the G.E.D. program.
63. Jamison needs mental health services to help him address the continuing trauma he has suffered in the more than twelve years he has lived in DFCS custody. Yet DFCS is not providing him with any sort ofcounseling services or therapy to help him.
64. As a result of Defendants' actions and inactions, Jamison has been, and continues to be, irreparably harmed. His childhood has been spent in DFCS custody, yet for most of that
18

time Defendants took no steps to help him achieve reasonable permanency. In fact, when his foster parents wanted to adopt him, after he had been in custody more than seven years, Defendants affirmatively chose to attempt to reunify him with an inappropriate and abusive biological mother. As a result, Defendants have churned Jamison through innumerable overlyrestrictive and inappropriate institutions, temporary shelters, and inappropriate foster homes. DFCS failed to provide Jamison any stability throughout his early adolescent years, causing him psychological harm.
65. Defendants have violated, and continue to violate, Jamison's constitutional and statutory rights by failing to protect him from harm in foster care; by failing to provide appropriate medical and mentill health services necessary to keep him safe and to prevent him from deteriorating psychologically while in custody; by failing to place him in the least restrictive environment, instead of institutions that cause him developmental and psychological harm; by failing to develop and implement in a timely manner an appropriate permanency plan that would allow him to secure a permanent home; all of which are required by law and reasonable professional judgment. C. DESIREE, RENEE, TYSON, and MONIQUE P.
66. Plaintiffs Desiree, Renee, Tyson, and Monique P. are a sibling group of three girls and one boy, ages nine, six, five, and three, respectively, who live with their mother and three older siblings in Forrest County, Mississippi. The children do not have stable housing, and DFCS has acknowledged that these children are in need of DFCS services to keep them safe. DFCS has failed to provide these children with access to the Youth Court, and. has deliberately diverted them from the foster care system and its services.
19

67. In August 2003, a DFCS caseworker responded to a report that Desiree, Renee, Tyson, and Monique were homeless and being neglected by their mother, who was leaving them alone for long periods of time and failing to feed and care for them. The caseworker made a visit to where the children were temporarily staying, and, upon information and belief, determined that the children could not safely remain in the care of their mother.
68. DFCS did not, however, refer the case to the Forrest County Youth Court, as required by state law. Had such a referral been made, the Plaintiff children would have had the opportunity to have a judicial determination as to whether they could remain safely with their mother and, if not, to have a Youth Court Judge order that they be provided services necessary to ensure their protection. Instead, DFCS called Mrs. D., the children's great-grandmother, and asked her if she would take in these four great-grandchildren. At the time Mrs. D. was already caring for six other children-three older great-grandchildren, and three of Mrs. Do's grandchildren.
69. The caseworker told Mrs. D. that if she refused to take in these four additional great-grandchildren, the children would be sent to strangers in foster care, and she would most likely never see them again. Afraid she would lose contact with Plaintiff children, Mrs. D. agreed to take all four, despite the fact that she is over 70 years old, retired, and was already caring for six other children. The same day DFCS contacted Mrs. D. about her greatgrandchildren, a DFCS employee conducted a briefinspection of Mrs. Do's home.
70. Despite having determined that the four Plaintiff children were not safe in their mother's care, and having inspected Mrs. Do's home in preparation for the children being moved there, DFCS did not, in fact, take any immediate steps to place Plaintiff children with Mrs. D. Instead, they left these vulnerable children in the care of their mother, and instructed her to drop
20

them off at Mrs. Do's home, which she did not do for a full week. After the initial visit to Mrs. Do's home by DFCS in August 2003, no DCFS caseworker or other employee ever returned to the home to ensure the children's safety, or to evaluate the continued appropriateness of the placement.
71. Although Mrs. D. is retired and on a fixed income, DFCS never told her that she was eligible to apply to become a foster parent, and thus eligible to receive foster care board payments to help defray the costs of caring for these additional four children. In fact, in November 2003, when Mrs. D. called the same DFCS caseworker who had inspected her home, to tell the worker that she did not have enough food or money to care for the four additional children that had been placed with her, the caseworker told Mrs. D. that there was no possibility of providing her with any financial assistance. According to the DFCS caseworker, Mrs. Do's only options were to continue to care for them with no support from DFCS or to have the children placed in a stranger's foster home.
n. On February 12, 2004, Mrs. D. suffered a stroke which left her temporarily unable
to speak or to walk, and clearly unable to continue to care for ten children. Although DFCS had initially arranged for the informal placement of Desiree, Renee, Tyson, and Monique with Mrs. D., it has done nothing to assure their safety now that Mrs. D. is no longer available to care for them. The children's 27-year-old mother, who previously had been told by DFCS that she was unable to care for her children, temporarily moved into Mrs. Do's home, and assumed responsibility for her seven children. When Mrs. D. was released from the hospital in early March 2004, the children's mother left the house with the seven children, but has no secure housing for the children, and Mrs. D. has been unable to see the children, nor does she know their whereabouts. DFCS has been made aware of the fact that the children are again residing
21

with their mother and have no stable housing, but the agency has refused to take any action to protect the children or assure that their mother is fit to care for them.
73. By failing to bring this case before the Forrest County Youth Court, DFCS has denied these children the opportunity to have any judicial determination regarding appropriate placement or permanency plan. Instead, DFCS placed them informally with a relative who became too ill and infirm to care for these children. Predictably, the children returned to the care of their neglectful mother, without any official determination that she is now a capable caregiver.
74. As a result of the Defendants' actions and inactions, Desiree, Renee, Tyson, and Monique P. have been, and continue to be, irreparably harmed. Defendants have violated Desiree, Renee, Tyson, and Monique's constitutional rights by intentionally and arbitrarily failing to protect them from severe neglect after investigating and deeming their mother incapable of caring for them; by intentionally and arbitrarily denying them access to the foster care system; and by denying them access to the Youth Court without due process in violation of their constitutional rights. D. JOHN A.
75. John A. is a 14-year-old boy from Forrest County who has been in DFCS custody since he was nine years old. Although John is mentally ill, DFCS has failed to provide him with consistent, necessary, and individualized mental health services in a placement appropriate to his needs. Instead, DFCS has moved John more than 35 times in the past four years, and has sent him out of state several times.
76. When John and his four siblings first entered DFCS custody in 1999, John was placed in a psychiatric hospital where he was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. After John was . discharged from the hospital, he was placed in a shelter, despite his clear need for a therapeutic
22

placement. Within two weeks of his placement in the shelter, John's mental health had deteriorated so severely that he again required psychiatric hospitalization.
77. At the age of ten, after being discharged from this second stay at a psychiatric hospital, DHS began repeatedly moving John among foster homes and psychiatric wards. Last year, John was cycled in and out of foster homes six times in the span of less than three months. He has been institutionalized 13 separate times, and was sent at least twice out of state to a residential treatment center in Memphis, because no available placements could be located for him in Mississippi. He also has been shipped up and down the length of Mississippi - from Pascagoula and Moss Point on the coast, to Magee and Jackson in central Mississippi, and as far north as the Memphis area, and then back to his native Hattiesburg.
78. John has been freed for adoption, but Defendants have failed to take reasonable steps to accomplish the goal of providing John with a permanent home. In early 2004, DFCS could not identify any placement options for John. He therefore sat in the DFCS office day after day, not in school, hoping that someone would agree to care for him. In the evenings, John was
sent to temporary emergency foster homes to sleep, only to be returned to the DFCS office the
next morning. 79. Since entering foster care, John has not been able to attend any single school
regularly, and there have been periods of time when DFCS has failed to send him to school at all. In February 2004, DFCS attempted to enroll him in a new school, but John was denied admission because DFCS had not provided the school with the necessary paperwork. During the days in which John waited in the DFCS office for an available bed, DFCS did not send him to school. By subjecting John to so many placements, Defendants have deprived him of a nurturing and stable home, of necessary, consistent mental health services, and of any educational continuity.
23

80. As a result of Defendants' actions and inactions, John has been and continues to be irreparably hanned. John has serious psychological and behavioral problems that have been exacerbated by the numerous times DFCS has moved him to different foster homes and institutions, the failure to provide appropriate mental health services of any continuity, and the failure to provide him with a permanent family.
81. The lack of continuity of care in the treatment of John's mental illness also has aggravated his psychological and behavioral problems. DFCS has moved him to numerous institutions across the state, and even out of state. Professionally accepted psychiatric practice dictates that mental health patients, most critically and especially children, have continuity in their psychiatrists and therapists. Having multiple therapists and having to restart treatment numerous times creates abandonment and trust problems for children with mental illness, and compounds the abandonment issues that a foster child such as John has. Siruilarly, starting and stopping different psychiatric medications can lead to a patient never becoming adjusted to the medicine's side effects. Furthermore, left untreated, bipolar disorder will worsen with more severe cycles ofmania and depression.
82. Defendants have violated John's constitutional and statutory rights by failing to protect him from hann; by failing to provide him with appropriate, least-restrictive placements; by failing to provide him with mental health services necessary to prevent him from deteriorating psychologically while in state custody; and by failing to provide necessary and appropriate permanency and adoption services, all of which are required by law and reasonable professional judgment.
24

E. CODYB. 83. Cody B., who was born on May 3,2002, was removed by DFCS from his parents
and placed in a Jackson County shelter when he was two months old. From the shelter, DFCS moved Cody to the foster home of Ms. B. Although Cody suffers from severe asthma, Ms. B. was not provided any of the baby's medical history. In fact, Cody arrived at the foster home without a single possession.
84. Cody had no visits with his biological parents for his first six months in the foster home. His biological parents have six additional children, but only have custody of one. In December 2002, DFCS instituted a schedule of supervised visits between Cody and his parents, but the visits were erratic because DFCS frequently failed to transport Cody to the visits as scheduled.
85. When Cody returned from visits with his biological parents, he often had difficulty breathing because the parents exposed him to cigarette smoke, which exacerbated his asthma. On at least one occasion Cody had to be brought to the hospital after a visit with his parents because his breathing was so labored.
86. During January 2004, Cody's caseworker was on leave, and no other caseworker was assigned her caseload. On February II, 2004, a DFCS worker picked Cody up from his childcare provider's home to visit his parents. He was to be returned to the childcare provider by four o'clock in the afternoon. However, the DFCS caseworker called the provider and advised her that Cody would be returned directly to Ms. B.'s home. The foster mother was never advised of this change in arrangement. When Ms. B. called DFCS after not fmding Cody at his childcare provider's home, the caseworker stated that she had attempted to return Cody to Ms. B.but when
25

no one was at her home, the worker tried to leave Cody with a neighbor. When no neighbor was available to take Cody, the caseworker allowed Cody's biological parents to keep him overnight.
87. Cody was returned to the childcare provider from the overnight stay with his parents late in the afternoon the next day, with a hospital admission bracelet, and his breathing was very labored. The caseworker did not disclose why Cody had been in the hospital during his unsupervised stay with his biological parents, nor did she acknowledge that Cody was suffering from breathing problems upon his return. When Ms. B. picked Cody up from the childcare provider's home, she immediately took Cody home and had to administer breathing treatments.
88. Later that evening, when the DFCS caseworker dropped off medication that had been prescribed to Cody, she refused to provide the foster mother any further explanation as to the circumstances surrounding Cody's trip to the emergency room, other than to say that he had been suffering respiratory problems.
89. Throughout February 2004, DFCS continued to only erratically provide services to Cody, including supervised parental visits. DFCS either failed to pick Cody up for visits, or would return him much later than was scheduled. When Cody was assigned an early intervention specialist to address potential developmental delays, the specialist asked to speak with the foster mother because she needed information about Cody's development from his primary caregiver. DFCS, however, refused to provide the specialist with the foster mother's contact information.
90. The foster mother became increasingly distressed by the seeming total unwillingness of DFCS to provide the care and services Cody needed. She raised her concerns with DFCS on several occasions, to no avail.
26

91. In frustration, the foster mother called DFCS and stated that, under the circumstances, she could no longer care for Cody. Rather than take steps to support and stabilize the foster care placement, DFCS immediately wrenched Cody from the only mother he has ever known, and put this nineteen-month-old baby into a shelter.
92. After Cody was removed Ms. B. wrote to the Governor, her United States Senator, the local DHS Regional Director and the Youth Court Judge, explaining that she deeply loved Cody, and wanted nothing more than to adopt him, but she felt she could no longer work with an agency that seemed to have no regard for Cody's well-being. She pleaded for someone to pay attention to Cody and help him achieve permanency. Immediately thereafter, DFCS revoked the foster mother's foster care license on the ground that, in advocating for Cody, she had violated confidentiality requirements.
93. When DFCS moved Cody from the shelter to a foster home, no one informed the new foster parents about Cody's respiratory problems. As a result, soon after being placed in the foster home, Cody required hospitalization. After he was released from the hospital, Cody was placed again in a shelter, where he remained for close to a month. He was next placed in yet another foster home.
94. Although Cody has been in DFCS custody close to two years, Defendants have failed to take any steps to provide him with permanency. He has not been returned to his parents on the grounds that they are unable to address his asthma, yet no steps have been taken to place this toddler with a family who is interested in adopting him.
95. As a result of Defendants' actions and inactions, Cody has been and continues to be irreparably harmed. Defendants have jeopardized his health by failing to adequately address his medical needs and by repeatedly exposing him to environments that exacerbated his asthma.
27

The movement from a stable and loving foster home into and out of a shelter twice and into two new foster homes has been emotionally traumatic for this toddler, and life-threatening. Defendants have not taken steps to help Cody achieve a stable and safe permanent home.
96. Defendants have violated Cody's constitutional and statutory rights by failing to protect him from harm; by failing to provide appropriate and necessary medical services; and by failing to develop and implement an appropriate permanency plan that would allow him to leave foster care and secure a safe and permanent home, all of which are required by law and reasonable professional judgment. F. MARY, TOM, MATTHEW and DANA W.
97. Mary, Tom, Matthew, and Dana W., thirteen, ten, seven, and six years old, respectively, were removed from their home and placed in a Hinds County shelter in 2000, because their mother, a drug abuser, had neglected them, and their father was incarcerated. The
children remained in the shelter for six weeks, during which time DFCS failed to send them to
school. 98. While the children were residing in the shelter, their aunt and uncle, Mr. and Mrs.
W., approached DFCS and offered to care for the siblings. The W. 's, who are of limited means, and, at that time, had two children of their own and were expecting a third, requested assistance from DFCS in caring for their nieces and nephews. DFCS denied the request for assistance.
99. The W.'s nonetheless assumed custody of the children, and applied to become their foster parents. After they were licensed as foster parents, the couple again sought to receive foster board rates for the children that DFCS had placed with them. Once again they were denied payments. The W.'s sought assistance from the Youth Court. After a hearing, the court ordered that DFCS assume its legal responsibility to Mary, Tom, Matthew, and Dana and pay the
28

couple foster board payments, including retroactive payments from the time the W.'s had been licensed as foster parents.
100. Because the children previously had been neglected and malnourished, and because Mary and Dana had been sexually abused, the children suffer from multiple behavioral and mental health problems. However, counseling was provided to them by DFCS only sporadically. Tom, then eight years old, was hospitalized for a week in the spring of2002, when he reported that he wanted to kill himself. In February 2003, Mary, then 11 years old, also threatened suicide, and was admitted to a psychiatric hospital where she remained for a month. Both Mary and Tom were prescribed psychiatric medication upon discharge.
101. When Matthew entered DFCS custody at age four, he was still in diapers and drinking from a bottle. Matthew made enormous progress developmentally once placed with the W.'s, but continued to suffer mental health problems. His school counselor described him as being out of control, and, as a first grader, he was called into the principal's office for misbehaving no fewer than nineteen times in the span of three months. In February 2003, Matthew was also admitted briefly to a psychiatric hospital where he was prescribed psychiatric medication. When he continued to exhibit severe emotional problems after his release, his pediatrician recommended that Matthew's mental health be re-assessed. Following that reassessment, Matthew was again hospitalized.
102. On March 7, 2003, three days after Matthew was re-admitted to the hospital, DFCS received a report alleging that Mrs. W. was inducing or exaggerating psychological problems in the children as a means of obtaining higher foster board payments. Before any steps were taken to verify the allegation, DFCS removed all four children from Mr. and Mrs. W.'s care. The DFCS worker investigating the report quickly determined that the allegation was
29

unfounded, based upon the children's extensive psychological and school records. On April 1, 2003, the W.'s received written confirmation from DFCS that the allegations were, in fact, unfounded. Nonetheless, DFCS has refused to return the children to their aunt and uncle, with whom they had been living for two years.
103. As a result of the children being removed from their aunt and uncle's home, Mary, Tom, Matthew, and Dana have been separated for the first time in their lives and their medical needs are not being adequately addressed. In May 2003, Dana suffered from a skin rash, began to lose clumps of hair and had ringworm on her face and back. Mary has reported that since being removed from her aunt's home, she has not been receiving her psychiatric medication.
104. Mary, Tom, Matthew, and Dana have been freed for adoption. They are living with three separate foster families, none of which are interested in adopting the children. Upon information and belief, DFCS is making no efforts to seek and secure an adoptive home for the children other than feature them on "Wednesday's Child," a television program that profiles children awaiting adoption. At the same time, the W.' s have made it clear that they are willing and eager to adopt the children. Rather than place the siblings back in a home with relatives who know and love them and who will keep them all together, DFCS has revoked the W.'s foster home license on the ground that their license contained a waiver that only allowed for the placement of relative children, and there were no longer any relative children to be placed in the home.
105. As a result of Defendants' actions and inactions, Mary, Tom, Matthew, and Dana have been and continue to be irreparably harmed. These siblings' special needs are not being met, causing them emotional harm. They do not know whether they will ever have a permanent
30

family. As a result, they live in a state of constant anxiety and are being deprived, entirely without necessity, of the opportunity for healthy development and a normal childhood.
106. Defendants have violated and continue to violate Mary, Tom, Matthew, and Dana's constitutional and statutory rights by failing to protect them from harm; by failing to provide for their mental health needs; by failing to place the children with an available relative; and by failing to provide planning and services necessary to achieve permanence at the earliest possible time, all of which are required by law and reasonable professional judgment. G. SAMB.
107. Sam H. is a 14-year-old boy living with his biological mother in Lauderdale County. DFCS fIrst began to receive reports that Sam and his older sister Sarah were being neglected sometime in late 1995 or early 1996 when the children were residing in Forrest County. It was reported that the young children were living in a trailer with no food, plumbing, or running water, and that they slept on mattresses on a floor littered by the feces of the more than twenty dogs that the faruily kept on the property. DFCS took no steps to protect the children at that time.
108. Over the next four years, additional reports were made concerning the children, including that they were being sexually abused, and that they were not being sent to school, but DFCS again took no steps to protect Sam or Sarah.
109. In 2001, Sarah, who was then 14 years old, was sexually abused and became pregnant by a 20-year-old friend of her mother's who was also living with the family. Upon learning of the pregnancy, the mother moved with Sam to Jackson County, abandoning her pregnant daughter in the care of the man who impregnated her. The mother left Sarah without food, money, or access to medical care. When her aunt brought Sarah to the attention of the
31

Youth Court, Sarah was 22 weeks pregnant, and had not eaten in three days. She was malnourished, had never been to a doctor to receive prenatal care, was infested with lice, and infected with chlamydia.
110. In March 2002, the Madison County Youth Court deemed Sarah to be a neglected child and ordered that she be placed in the custody of her aunt. The Youth Court Judge also directed that DFCS undertake an investigation to determine if Sam, who continued to reside with his mother, was also neglected and whether he was attending school. Upon information and belief, DFCS did not undertake that investigation at the time it was ordered, thereby denying Sam the opportunity to have a judicial determination regarding his safety in the continued care of his mother.
Ill. Since the mother was found to have neglected Sarah in 2002, there have been at least five additional reports made to DFCS regarding the mother's neglect of Sam. After Sarah was placed with her aunt, she disclosed that she had been physically abused by her mother and sexually molested by another of her mother's friends. The sexual abuse was reported to both DFCS and the police department. That friend currently lives with Sam and his mother.
112. DFCS finally undertook an investigation into Sam's welfare in April 2004. Sam is currently functionally illiterate and his mother refuses to send him to school. Sam not only lives with his mother, who has been criminally charged with abandomnent and neglect of Sarah, but also the mother's friend who is currently under investigation for sexually molesting Sarah. Sam's grandmother, his maternal uncle who is a substance abuser, and another of his mother's friends also reside in the home. Upon information and belief, DFCS nonetheless recently determined that Sam is not in need of any protection or services.
32

113. As a result of Defendants' actions and inactions, Sam has been and continues to be irreparably harmed. Defendants have violated Sam's constitutional rights by intentionally and arbitrarily failing to protect him from abuse and neglect; by intentionally and arbitrarily denying him access to the foster care system and services; and by denying him access to the Youth Court without due process.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS REGARDING SYSTEMIC DEFICIENCIES A. DEFENDANTS UNLAWFULLY DENY ABUSED AND NEGLECTED
CHILDREN ACCESS TO THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM 114. Mississippi's child welfare system cannot and has systematically failed to meet its legal obligations to protect and care for all of the State's abused and neglected children. The systemic inadequacies of the agency have caused DFCS to take the unlawful action of intentionally and arbitrarily limiting the number of children it serves. DFCS diverts children from the child welfare system by failing to investigate reported abuse and neglect, by failing to substantiate clear cases of abuse and neglect, and by refusing to open cases and provide services even when it has determined that children are being abused or neglected. DFCS also engages in intentional, widespread, and inappropriate diversion of children from the foster care system by informally placing children with relatives who either cannot care for them, or who need support and services from the State in order to do so, but are not provided with such support. 115. The unlawful practice of diverting children from the foster care system has caused the foster care population to plununet. According to the Self-Assessment completed by the State in December 2003 in preparation for a federal Child and Family Services Review, Mississippi's foster care popUlation has fallen from 3,292 on the last day of fiscal year 2000 to 2,686 on the last day of fiscal year 2002, a decrease of 18.4%. In fiscal year 2002, 1,575 children entered DFCS custody, more than 20% fewer children than entered custody in 2000.
33

116. DFCSadmits in the Self-Assessment that the shrinking foster care population does not directly correspond to a drop in the number of children in need of protection. It acknowledges that fewer children were entering foster care, at least in part, because of "the [un]availability of workers to provide a full assessment" of a child's safety and in some parts of the state "a strong reluctance to bring any child into custody unless it is extremely necessary."
117. The practice of intentionally and arbitrarily denying abused and neglected children access to a functioning child welfare system subjects them to foreseeable injury and imminent risk of harm.
1. Defendants Fail to Investigate All Credible Reports of Abuse and Neglect or to Refer All Reports to the Youth Court
118. The safety of Mississippi's children is at risk because Defendants do not operate a system capable of investigating all credible reports that a child is abused or neglected. Rather than hire a sufficient number of caseworkers, DFCS generally resorts to prioritizing abuse and neglect referrals, only investigating reports of harm where a child has sustained a serious, visible, physical injury. DFCS has ignored reports that a child has no food or is without any supervision.
119. In 2001, DFCS Director Sue Perry reported in a memo to DHS Executive Director Thelma Brittain that due to staffing shortages, more than 6,200 cases were being left unattended and that "children will most assuredly die." Later that year, Perry reported to Brittain on "child deaths which could have been prevented had staffresources been provided."
120. A February 2001 memo to Thehna Brittain from the Deputy Director of the DHS Division ofPrograrn Integrity warned that no contact was being made on over 600 Hinds County abuse and neglect cases - some "severe" - requiring visitation, including court-ordered supervision. According to public media reports, testimony given during a 2002 state legislative hearing indicated that in Harrison County, only 261 of the 576 reports of abuse and neglect that
34

the county accepted over a three-month period were even investigated. A judge in Harrison County stated that "[w]e cannot continue to choose which children are going to be protected." The severe staffing shortages that result in reports of child maltreatment going uninvestigated persist in Harrison County, as well as in other counties across the state.
121. According to the 2003 Self-Assessment, low staffing numbers "have a direct effect on" DFCS's ability to be consistent in its decisions regarding whether a report of child abuse or neglect is credible and should be investigated.
122. Discouraged by DFCS's failure to investigate reports of maltreatment, some professionals have simply stopped calling DFCS to report anything other than extreme abuse.
123. In some cases, DFCS has informed relatives who have reported abuse of their minor kin that the only recourse to protect the children is for the relatives to seek orders from the State Chancery Court granting them legal custody.
124. When DFCS fails to investigate a credible report of abuse or neglect, it also fails to present the case to the Youth Court for a final disposition, as is statutorily required. Children denied access to the Youth Court are thereby denied the opportunity to have that court review their situation and order DFCS to take necessary steps to protect them from further abuse or neglect.
125. DFCS has no rational basis for investigating some maltreatment reports, while intentionally and arbitrarily denying other children subject to the same types of maltreatment the same investigative services, as well as denying them access to the Youth Court. In its December 2003 Self-Assessment, DFCS admitted that "[i]n order to provide equal access to Family and Children's services throughout the State, reduce the significant staff turnover...and
35

bring staffing levels to a reasonable and stable level..., between 900-1000 fulltime social workers are needed." (emphasis added).
126. DFCS's intentional and arbitrary failure to investigate some credible reports of hann or to refer all such reports to the Youth Court, while investigating and referring other reports made regarding similarly situated children, has left children in dangerous situations with no recourse, in violation of their procedural due process and equal protection rights under the Constitution.
2. Defendants Fail to ConfIrm Reports of Clear Abuse and Neglect 127. In an effort to reduce the number of children for whom the State must provide foster care services, DFCS routinely fails to confirm abuse and neglect, even when there is a clear indication that a child is being maltreated. Maltreated children are thereby intentionally and arbitrarily denied access to child welfare services. 128. DFCS reports in its Self-Assessment that in 2001 it only "evidenced" (i.e., substantiated) approximately 14.6% of all reports of maltreatment that it investigated, which is half the national average rate of 27.5%, according to federally collected data. Even though DFCS reported an increase in the rate at which it confirmed abuse and neglect in 2002, it acknowledged that the increase likely reflected the manner in which it records data. DFCS stated that "[i]t is believed that the slightly higher rate reflects the increased probability that an evidenced case was more likely to be entered into MACWIS [the State's computer system], rather than an increased [sic] in the substantiation rate." In addition, Defendants' SelfAssessment reports that the areas of the state with chronic caseworker shortages have a lower substantiation rate.
36

129. In at least one county, the Youth Court is so troubled by DFCS's failure to evidence cases of abuse and neglect that it orders Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs) to undertake an independent investigation of certain cases that DFCS has chosen not to evidence. In many instances, it is only after this second, independent investigation takes place that a report is confirmed and maltreated children receive the protection to which they are entitled.
130. The failure to uniformly substantiate reports where there is clear evidence of maltreatment results in abused and neglected children being left to fend for themselves, even after the State has investigated their situation. Children who are denied access to the child welfare system are not only subject to further abuse and neglect, but are at high risk of poor psychological and social outcomes. Not only are these children subject to emotional damage, but maltreatment, particularly when there is no intervention, is associated with juvenile delinquency and criminal behavior. It is not uncommon for some of these children to become delinquents and be sent to State training schools, where conditions may also be constitutionally deficient. See United States v. State a/Mississippi, et at., Civ. Act. 3:03-1354BN, (Filed December 18, 2003).
131. The deliberate practice of not evidencing clear instances of abuse and neglect for some maltreated children because of a lack of necessary resources, while evidencing reports for similarly situated children, unlawfully and arbitrarily denies those ignored children access to Mississippi's child welfare system and places them at serious and foreseeable risk of harm in violation oftheir equal protection rights.
3. Defendants Fail to Provide Services to Children Found to be Abused or Neglected
132. Even when DFCS evidences a report of abuse or neglect, it systematically fails to take action to protect the child. According to its Self-Assessment, in 2002 DFCS opened for services only 47.5% of the cas,es where children were subjects of confirmed incidents of abuse or
37

neglect. Thus, DFCS left more than half of the children it found to be maltreated· with no oversight and services to ensure their safety.
133. In its Self-Assessment, DFCS noted "inconsistencies" in the assessment of risk to children during the initial investigation and the decision to open a case, and acknowledged that staffing shortages and the inability to provide services once a case was opened were factors in the low case opening rate.
134. Intentionally and arbitrarily abandoning children known to be abused and neglected without protection, while providing similarly situated children with access to the child welfare system, subjects these children to additional abuse and neglect, and causes serious emotional harm in violation of their constitutionally protected right to equal access to the child welfare system. It also discourages those who initially report abuse from making further reports.
4. Defendants Place Children They Acknowledge Are Abused and Neglected in Inappropriate and Unsafe Homes Outside of the Child Welfare System
135. Even when DFCS investigates a report of maltreatment and determines that the child cannot remain safely in his or her home, it regularly chooses not to assume responsibility for the neglected child. Instead of opening a case and seeking a court-ordered placement, DFCS instead routinely places children with any available relatives in order to avoid the burden on the already overwhehned child welfare system. DFCS refers to this practice as "Informal Family Planning" and considers these children not subject to agency regulation or court oversight.
136. A child subject to "Informal Family Planning" is not afforded the same protections by DFCS as a child who is removed and then placed into a relative's home pursuant to a court order, or into a non-related foster parent's home. The relative caregiver's qualifications are not critically evaluated, criminal background checks are not routinely conducted, and little, if any, effort is made to assess whether the home is safe or meets the
38

child's needs. DFCS does not provide infonnaIIy placed children with any supportive services, regardless of whether such services are necessary for ensuring the children's physical and mental health or safety.
137. Infonnally placed children are not monitored by DFCS caseworkers and may never become known to the Youth Court. Unlike children who are provided access to the child welfare system, these children are never provided DFCS or Youth Court review. Their situation is therefore never assessed to determine if they are safe in the care of their relatives or whether being separated from their parents remains in their best interest. Also, no protections are in place to ensure that such children are not returned to abusive parents. The placements remain day-today without DFCS providing the opportunity for the children to be adopted if returning home is not a viable option. Children as young as toddlers are placed with elderly relatives with no thought to their safety, weII-being, or pennanency.
138. Although DFCS regulations aIIow for the licensing of relatives as foster parents, in practice DFCS discourages or denies access to this support and the protections that it would provide children. Relatives who ask DFCS for assistance in becoming foster parents are either told that relatives cannot become paid foster parents; or that they wiIl lose the' children to strangers during the approval period, which can take six to nine months, and the children may never be returned to their care. The practice of arbitrarily discouraging relatives from becoming licensed foster parents denies families often desperately needed support and resources to which they may be entitled. More importantly, this practice denies the child court oversight and DFCS monitoring that may be necessary to ensure the child's safety, weII-being, and permanency.
139. In October 2003, DFCS issued a memorandum explaining that the agency was discontinuing its policy of aIlowing infonnal placements without approval by the Youth Court,
39

background checks, and a home study prior to placement of any children. However, upon information and belief, DFCS has done nothing to assure the safety of those children previously placed pursuant to the acknowledged informal family planning practice. Nor has it instituted any means of determining whether the practice of informal family planning has, in fact, stopped. Upon information and belief; caseworkers across the state continue to engage in informal family planning, leaving children in potentially harmful environments, without court oversight.
140. There is no rational basis for whether DFCS brings an abused or neglected child before the court, and provides that child with the attendant supervision and permanency services that the case may require, or simply places the child informally. By intentionally leaving abused and neglected children in unscreened and unmonitored homes, without opening cases for these children, Defendants knowingly and arbitrarily place these children at further risk of abuse, either in the new placements or by being returned to abusive parents, in violation of these children's rights to equal access to the child welfare system.
141. Even when DFCS does bring abused and neglected children to the attention ofthe Youth Court, those children may still be arbitrarily and intentionally denied access to the child welfare system, by being placed directly in the custody of a relative or other unrelated adult. Like informally placed children, these children are intentionally and arbitrarily denied DFCS support and oversight, regardless of whether those services are necessary for ensuring the children's physical and mental health or safety. B. ABUSED AND NEGLECTED FOSTER CHILDREN ARE SUBJECT TO
FURTHER HARM IN FOSTER CARE 142. Those children who do enter the foster care system are denied safe, stable and appropriate placements necessary to their health and well-being.
40

143. Despite being on notice for over a decade of the severe and long-standing shortage of foster homes and other appropriate foster care placements, Defendants have failed to take even the most basic steps necessary to recruit more foster parents and to develop a sufficient number of suitable placements. In its Self-Assessment, DFCS acknowledged that it routinely failed to even respond to inquiries and requests for applications by people interested in becoming foster and adoptive parents. As a result of the acute shortage of foster care placements, DFCS places children in unsafe, unsupported, or unsuitable relative care, in temporary shelters, and in large institutions.
144. DFCS also fails to adequately fund foster care placements through required "foster care maintenance payments" at levels sufficient to provide essential and appropriate services for foster children, or to attract interest in providing foster care services. Foster care board rates paid by the State are a fraction of the cost the United States Department of Agriculture has determined is needed to raise children in the rural and urban South.
1. DFCS Places Children in Harmfnl Homes 145. Some of the few available foster homes in Mississippi are overcrowded and some are affrrmatively abusive. 146. In its Self-Assessment, DFCS acknowledged that private agencies seeking to recruit foster parents cannot even reliably access DFCS's abuse and neglect records on prospective foster parents. 147. DFCS admits that it has placed some children with relatives without adeqnate supportive services and without first undertaking "a thorough assessment of the relatives' ability to provide care." Thus, children such as Named Plaintiff Olivia Y. are placed in homes with convicted criminals who threaten their safety. Toddlers have been placed with aged and ill
41

relatives, and children have been placed with relatives who themselves have known histories of child maltreatment. Many of these relative homes are not licensed foster care placements.
148. By relying on unsuitable, unlicensed, or harmful placements, Defendants are SUbjecting children removed from abusive and neglectful homes to the possibility of yet further maltreatment while in state custody, in violation of their constitutional right to be free from harm.
2. Mississippi's Foster Children are Over-Institutionalized 149. Mississippi places children of all ages in institutional or group settings regardless of their needs, simply because the State has no other placement alternatives. ISO. When DFCS removes a child from his home and a relative placement cannot be located, DFCS generally places that child in an emergency shelter. State regulation generally prohibits a child from remaiuing in an emergency shelter for longer than 45 days. Yet, with no available foster homes, DFCS leaves children for months in these temporary placements. To avoid violating the 45-day limit, DFCS has, at times, cycled children through a series of 45-day stays in different shelters. If a relative has still not been located during the time a child has spent in an emergency shelter, DFCS will often move the child from the shelter to a large institution. lSI. Defendants routinely place toddlers as young as two in institutional settings with children of all ages and service needs. Infants are placed in emergency shelters with teens suffering from emotional or behavioral problems. For example, in January 2004, the Harrison County shelter was home to, among other children, a ten-day-old infant, two toddlers, and an emotionally troubled teen. According to the last available federally reported data, in 2000, 19% of all children age 12 and younger who entered DFCS custody were placed in group and institutional settings, which is over twice the national median of 9%. Upon information and
42

belief, Mississippi's rate of institutionalizing young children remains well above the national average and is substantially higher than reasonable professional judgment would support.
152. Young children in institutional care are extremely vulnerable to medical and psychological harm. Institutions put young children at increased risk of delayed language development, developmental problems, and infectious illnesses. Children reared in institutions (compared to children raised by families) have been found to have lower IQ scores, difficulties forming and maintaining relationships, and poor self-esteem. The exercise of reasonable professional judgment requires that young children, particularly infants and toddlers, not be placed in institutional settings.
153. Not only are institutional settings more expensive for the State to run than foster homes, they also prolong the time children spend in foster care. Many children are taken from their own counties and shipped to institutions 40 or more miles from their homes, schools, and families. Children placed in institutions far from their families are less likely to be reunified with their families or adopted. This is because they have fewer opportunities for family visitation and less contact with their DFCS caseworkers, and because foster families are the most common source of adoptive families for children who are placed with them.
154. Some institutions relied upon by DFCS fail to meet minimum licensing standards for group placements. Children in DFCS custody may be placed in institutional residential homes that are exempt from licensing requirements because they are run by religious entities. Other children may be placed by the Youth Court directly in the custody of organizations that run unlicensed, facilities. Although these unlicensed facilities must be registered with the State, they are not required to comply with regulations intended to ensure children receive a minimum degree of safety and physical as well as emotional care. Unlike licensed facilities, unlicensed
43

institutional residential homes are not required to abide by all State policies regarding the treatment of children, to adhere to any minimum child/staff ratio, or to train staff members in CPR/first aid. There is no requirement for procedures to address suspected incidents of abuse or neglect involving staff. Children placed in such institutions are thus at risk of foreseeable harm.
ISS. The State also fails to provide many of the children placed in unlicensed placements any of the planning necessary for them to achieve permanency through adoption or reunification. They are therefore never provided the opportunity to grow up in loving families. Placement of children in unlicensed facilities also disqualifies the State from federal Title IV-E funding for the children placed in those facilities. Placing children in unlicensed facilities denies these children their equal protection rights to the protection of minimum licensing requirements afford those similarly situated children who are placed in licensed facilities.
156. Moreover, placing children in inappropriate institutional settings that cause developmental and psychological harm violates these children's constitutionally protected right to be free from harm while in Defendants' custody. The failure to place children in a least restrictive placement also violates these children's federal statutory rights.
3. Defendants Fail to Properly Monitor Foster Children 157. DFCS fails to monitor children in its custody to determine their safety and the continued appropriateness of their placements. Children may go months without seeing a caseworker. When visits do occur, they are often at DFCS offices, which precludes an assessment of the safety and suitability of the children's living environments. According to its Self-Assessment, DFCS found in a recent review of statewide data that only 41% of cases reviewed had a documented visit ofthe child by the child's caseworker in the preceding 30 days.
44

158. In addition to failing to provide regular in-person contacts, DFCS fails to monitor the status of each foster child through case plan reviews every six months, as required by federal law. In its Self-Assessment, DFCS admits that because it has not provided for enough foster care reviewers to cover the entire state, it is unable to "ensure that each child in custody is reviewed every 6 months."
159. Similarly, although federal law' requires court reViews, which are called "permanency hearings," to be held at least annually to determine children's progress toward achieving permanency, through either safe reunification or adoption, they are not being consistently provided. The reviews are intended to ensure that children remain in foster care for a short a period as possible, and that their needs are being met during that time. According to its Self-Assessment, DFCS reviews indicated that only 38.7% of the children's cases examined had court orders documenting the required annual permanency hearing.
160. The failure to monitor children in DFCS custody through face-to-face contact, case reviews, and permanency hearings means that DFCS has no ability to assure that children in its custody are not harmed and are not needlessly in government custody in violation of federal statutory law and reasonable professional judgment. C. DEFENDANTS FAlL TO PROVIDE FOSTER CHILDREN WITH NECESSARY
MEDICAL, DENTAL, AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES 161. Defendants fail to meet the physical and mental health needs of the children in their custody. 162. Neither caseworkers nor foster parents are adequately trained to identify and address the medical and mental health needs of children in foster care. In 2003, DFCS reported in its Self-Assessment that it could not determine what percentage of children in its custody had received a health assessment or screening. It further reported that critical medical information is
45

missing from children's computerized case records, estimating that only about half of the health care provided is noted in the data system. Without an updated medical history, DFCS cannot track and assure that a child is receiving needed medical services.
163. DFCS often places a child into a foster care home or institution with only the clothes on that child's back and without a medical or mental health history, a Medicaid card, or even refills of necessary prescriptions. According to its Self-Assessment, in a recent case review, DFCS admitted that in approximately half of the cases reviewed there was no documented evidence that the caseworker shared complete and detailed medical information with the foster parent. Without necessary medical information, foster parents are unable to take preventive measures to protect a child's physical and mental health. When a foster child experiences problems, the foster parents are left to arrange needed medical services without being able to provide doctors with past medical history or Medicaid payment.
164. Foster children do not receive timely or adequate dental care. There is a severe shortage of dental care providers in the state who take Medicaid. DFCS has not made alternative funding arrangements for those services.
165. DFCS cannot meet the mental health care needs of children in its custody. It has failed to develop adequate mental health services or placement resources. Outpatient counseling for foster children is in short supply, thereby precluding children from receiving consistent and adequate therapeutic services.
166. Therapeutic family foster homes (homes in which foster parents are trained to care for foster children with acute medical or psychological needs) are virtually nonexistent. In 2000, Mississippi reported having only 25 therapeutic foster homes statewide. Few have been developedsincethat time. According to its Self-Assessment, as of December 2003, DFCS had
46

entered into contracts to provide therapeutic services for only 250 children statewide, which includes group home placements, therapeutic foster homes, and intensive in-home services.
167. Children denied needed therapeutic foster home placements or other needed psychological services cycle through many institutions and foster homes. These children deteriorate mentally and emotionally as a result of frequent moves caused by inappropriate placements.
168. The American Academy of Pediatrics has concluded that multiple moves in foster care are injurious because "children need continnity, consistency, and predictability from their caregivers." The Academy has found that the disruption and uncertainty caused by multiple moves while in foster care can be "deleterious to the young child's brain growth, mental development, and psychological adjustment." Yet, Defendants have created situations in which children in their custody experience dozens of moves, and some have been through more than 40 placements.
169. Intensive residential treatment care is frequently available only for short periods, with discharge occurring well before the child has accomplished his or her treatment goals. Frequently, children return from these brief stints at residential placements overly medicated and without adequate follow-up treatment plans or services. Children abruptly discharged from residential treatment are returned to placements that still cannot meet their needs and quickly require the child to be moved again.
170. Defendants' failure to consistently provide necessary medical, dental, and mental health services to the children in their custody is outside the bounds of reasonable professional judgment and causes those children physical and emotional harm. It places them at innninent risk ofinjury in violation of their rights and in deliberate indifference to their well-being.
47

D. FOSTER CHILDREN WHO SHOULD BE ADOPTED LANGUISH IN DFCS CUSTODY UNNECESSARILY 171. DFCS consistently fails to file petitions to free children for adoption by
tenninating parental rights in accordance with federal statntory timeframes or to timely place children who have been legally freed for adoption in adoptive placements. According to the State's Self-Assessment, as of December 2003, the average length of time from a child's entry into foster care to his or her adoption, for those children adopted, was 3.43 years.
172. DFCS's process for filing termination petitions to free children for adoption is long and cumbersome. More than a year may pass from the time a petition for tennination of parental rights is drafted until the petition is filed with the court. DFCS acknowledges in its most recent report on its Strategic Plan that unnecessary delays exist in processing tennination petitions; it attributes these to a shortage of social workers and attorneys. DFCS has made little progress in addressing this issue. This avoidable delay needlessly prolongs children's stays in foster care and causes psychological harm and for some children may deny them adoption altogether.
173. DFCS has not dedicated the staff and resources necessary to ensure that children who have finally been freed are timely placed in an adoptive placement. Ensuring children are adopted requires staff to recruit adoptive families, to match families and pre-adoptive children, to support the family through the adoption process, and to oversee finalization of the adoption. According to the Self-Assessment, as of December 2003, only 18 caseworkers and three administrative assistants supported the entire state's adoption effort. DFCS admitted that the number of children who achieve pennanency through adoption would be increased by "[a]dditional staff and additional pennanency training ...."
48

174. As a result of Defendants' knowing failure to provide timely permanency services and recruit adoptive placements, children available for adoption drift for years in DFCS custody without being provided the opportunity to grow up with permanent families.
175. Children and youth who remain in foster care long term without the opportunity to live in a permanent family suffer psychological harm, are emotionally more vulnerable, and are more likely to have behavioral problems.
176. An unconscionable number of children in DFCS custody are never placed with a permanent family. In 2000, the last date for which federally reported information is publicly available, 35% of children who aged out of Mississippi foster care at age 18 were 12 years of age or younger when they entered care; thus much like Jamison, they needlessly spent much of their childhoods without having a permanent family.
177. The failure by DFCS to file timely petitions to free children for adoption violates their federal statutory rights. The psychological harm suffered by children left to languish unnecessarily in DFCS custody violates their constitutionally protected right to be free from harm while in state custody. E. DEFENDANTS HAVE FAILED TO PROVIDE THE STAFFING AND
RESOURCES OR TO ENGAGE IN THE PROGRAMMATIC REFORM NECESSARY FOR A PROPERLY FUNCTIONING CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM 178. Defendants are aware of the problems confronting Mississippi's child welfare system. In the late 1990s, Defendants prepared a detailed "Strategic Plan" with the assistance of the federal Administration for Children and Families, designed to address its known child welfare failures. Yet Defendants have deliberately determined not to provide staff or resources necessary for the system to function or to implement the changes set forth in the Strategic Plan as necessary to protect children.
49

1. A Severe Shortage of Caseworkers Has Incapacitated DFCS 179. High DFCS caseworker vacancy and turnover rates cripple DFCS. The Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) recommends that caseworkers carry no more than 12 families at the investigation phase of a case, 17 families for on-going in-home services, or 12 to 15 children in foster care. Caseworkers in Mississippi carry caseloads far in excess of these standards. For example, according to the Self-Assessment, as of September 2003, caseworkers in Washington County carried average caseloads of over 76 children per worker, those in Warren County carried average caseloads of 113, those in Harrison County carried average caseloads of 114, those in Hancock County carried caseloads averaging 120 children per worker, and caseworkers in Copiah County labored under caseloads averaging 127 children per worker. Upon information and belief, as of March 2004, there is one caseworker in Forrest County, who is responsible for 285 children. 180. In addition to failing to recruit and hire caseworkers, Defendants do nothing to ensure staff retention, while low morale and heavy caseloads caused by Defendants' poor management decisions discourage social workers from even applying for DFCS positions. From July 2001 to July 2002, DFCS only hired approximately 200 workers, while more than 400 workers resigned. 181. To address the severe shortage of caseworkers, DFCS began sending workers from other counties on "rotations" to understaffed offices. During that rotation, the caseworker's caseload in his or her county is not covered. Not only does the rotation practice jeopardize the safety of children whose cases are unsupervised during their caseworker's absence, it also provides children in the region being served with inconsistent case services.
50

182. Caseworkers are not provided necessary training. According to the SelfAssessment, intensive training occurs only when there are 16 to 18 new recruits who require training. Staff who are hired in the meantime begin field work and assume casework responsibilities while they are waiting for intensive training.
183. Caseworkers lack basic equipment necessary to perform their jobs, including cellular phones, car seats, and DFCS vehicles. While in the field, many caseworkers must rely on pay phones in order to commuuicate with county offices. DFCS offices lack clerical staff, thereby requiring caseworkers to perform admiuistrative functions, when they should be engaged in case practice. The lack of equipment and support staff hinders caseworkers from delivering mandated services.
184. Staffing shortages have continued despite Defendants' knowledge of the resulting risk to children. ill 2002, in its Annual Progress Report on its Child and Family Services Plan, DFCS admitted that "[s]taffturnover and the inability to fill vacant positions have created critical service gaps in numerous counties" and that "loss of key staff over the past year to eighteen months has had a devastating effect on overall performance...." ill May 2002, the federal Admiuistration for Children and Faruilies wrote to the State about its "urgent concern" regarding ''the extremely low number of social worker and supervisory positions in DFCS and the seriously high staff vacancy rate that have resulted in dangerously high child welfare caseloads." That same year DFCS Director Sue Perry resigned, and in a letter to the Governor and the Executive Director ofDHS, she warned that with staff vacancies and caseloads at an all time high, children who should be protected by the State were endangered. Yet staffing shortages persist.
51

2. Defendants Have Failed to Take Advantage of Available Federal Funding 185. ill addition to Defendants' failure to assure adequate resources for DFCS, Mississippi has also forfeited millions of dollars in federal matching funds due to DHS and DFCS mismanagement. For example, Mississippi has the highest percentage of unused federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) monies of any state in its federal monitoring Region. These available federal funds could be applied to fund child welfare services if DHS and DFCS made proper claims for them. ill addition, this year DHS is experiencing a $20.7 million deficit in the TANF funds it has claimed. ill an effort to close that deficit, DHS is now closing over 34 centers that provide services to families with children at risk of entering the foster care or juvenile justice systems, including the Center for the Prevention of Child Abuse in Gulfport. 186. Mississippi also carmot claim, or has been repeatedly disallowed, other federal Title N-E funds, because of deficient case record documentation and the placement of children in unlicensed homes and facilities. As of June 30, 2003, Mississippi calculated that ouly 44% of the children in Mississippi foster care were eligible for Title N -E federal reimbursements. If DFCS complied with federal statntory standards, and placed more children in licensed homes and facilities, the reimbursement rate could be twice as high, making the State eligible for millions more in federal funds. 187. ill addition to failing to pull down available federal funds, Mississippi is being required to repay the federal govermnent over $5 million it had incorrectly claimed in Title N-E funds because ofthe State's poor administrative practices. 188. Currently, according to numerous press reports, the State's Auditor as well as the illspector General of the federal Department of Health and Human Services are conducting an
52

investigation into of whether DRS failed to adequately audit, monitor and account for $89 million that was intended to be spent on services to vulnerable and needy people, including children. AB a result of the investigation, DRS may be required to repay federal funds.
3. Defendants Rave Failed to Engage in Needed Programmatic Reform 189. Defendants' own Strategic Plan required DFCS to develop basic management functions necessary for a child welfare system to track, monitor, and serve children. The Plan called for DFCS to retool its case practices and policies to reflect best case practice. These reforms have been largely abandoned. 190. According to the last available report made by DFCS on its reform efforts in 2002, DFCS has failed to fully implement a "Best Practice" social work practice model, intended to make necessary changes to the provision of social work services to children, and it has failed to institute needed staff training, including training on such issues as accessing federal funds. 191. Defendants' refusal to institute the reforms necessary to address known and documented deficiencies has condemned children to a child welfare system unable to meet its obligations to protect them. 192. In 2002, the Governor, members of the legislature, and other Defendants were warned by DFCS Director Sue Perry that abuse and neglect investigations were not taking place, and that children with open cases were not being monitored. Perry stated that as a result, children were being left at risk of serious bodily harm, and at least one 19-month-old child had already been killed. Despite being put on repeated notice by Youth Court judges, child advocates and people within DFCS of the disastrous effects the failing child welfare system is having on the lives of children, Defendants have not undertaken measures necessary to meet
53

their constitutional and statutory responsibilities, in deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs' rights and their substantial risk ofhann.
CAUSES OF ACTION BROUGHT PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 1983 First Cause of Action - Procedural Due Process Claim Brought on Behalf of
the Protective Services Class 193. Each and every allegation of the Complaint is incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 194. The foregoing actions and inactions of the Defendants amount to a pattern, practice, and custom of failure to exercise reasonable professional judgment and deliberate indifference to the constitutional procedural due process rights of children in the protective services class. Plaintiffs have a constitutionally protected, state-created interest in having credible reports of maltreatment referred to the Youth Court, as required by state law, and having the Youth Court make the fmal determination regarding the disposition of those reports. Plaintiff children are being deprived of their state-created interest in accessing the courts without due process oflaw.
Second Cause of Action - Equal Protection Claim Brought on Behalf of the Protective Services Class
195. Each and every allegation of the Complaint is incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
196. The foregoing actions and inactions of the Defendants amount to a pattern, practice, and custom of failure to exercise reasonable professional judgment and deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of the children in the protective services class. Defendants are engaging in a practice of intentionally and arbitrarily denying investigative services to protective services class members who are the subject of a report of abuse or neglect,
54

despite the fact that they are similarly situated to those children who receive investigative servICes. Defendants are also intentionally and arbitrarily denying abused and neglected protective services class members access to child welfare services, despite the fact that otherwise similarly situated children receive such services. Defendants' determination to deny Plaintiff class members investigative and other child welfare services bears no rational relation to a legitimate state interest, and violates class members' Equal Protection rights.
Third Cause ofAction - Equal Protection Claim Brought on Behalf of the Protective Services Class Placed Informally with Kin
197. Each and every allegation of the Complaint is incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
198. The foregoing actions and inactions of the Defendants amount to a pattern, practice, and custom of failure to exercise reasonable professional judgment and deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of the children in the protective services class. Defendants are engaging in a practice of intentionally and arbitrarily denying child welfare services to protective service class members who have been placed informally with kin, despite the fact that they are otherwise similarly situated to those children who receive child welfare services. Defendants' determination to deny Plaintiff class members informally placed with kin child welfare services bears no rational relation to a legitimate state interest, and violates these class members' Equal Protection rights.
Fourth Cause of Action - Equal Protection Claim Brought on Behalf of the Protective Services Class Members Placed Directly by the Court in Unlicensed Placements 199. Each and every allegation of the Complaint is incorporated herein as if fully set
forth.
55

200. Miss. Code Ann. §§ 43-21-609 (b) and (e)(ii) violate protective service class members' Equal Protection rights as they are applied to permit them to be placed by the Youth Court directly into unlicensed facilities or homes without entering DFCS custody. Protective service class members who have been placed by the Youth Court into unlicensed placements are intentionally and arbitrarily denied child welfare services and protection, despite the fact that they are otherwise similarly situated to children who are placed in DFCS custody and who receive child welfare services. The application of Miss. Code Ann. §§ 43-21-609 (b) and (e)(ii), to permit children to be denied child welfare services on the basis of their placement into unlicensed placements bears no rational relation to a legitimate state interest.
Fifth Cause of Action - State-Created Danger Claim Brought on Behalf of the Protective Services Class
201. Each and every allegation of the Complaint is incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
202. The foregoing actions and inactions of the Defendants amount to a pattern, practice, and custom of failure to exercise reasonable professional judgment and deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of the children in the protective services class. Defendants are engaging in a pattern and practice of violating the protective services class members' rights under the Substantive Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, by removing class members from their caretakers and then placing them in informal relative placements that the Defendants know or should know pose an imminent risk of harm to these children, in deliberate indifference to their safety and welfare and in disregard for the exercise of reasonable professional judgment.
56

Sixth Cause of Action - Substantive Due Process Claim Brought on Behalf of the In, Custody Class
203. Each and every allegation of the Complaint is incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
204. The foregoing actions and inactions of the Defendants amount to a pattern, practice, and custom of failure to exercise reasonable professional judgment and deliberate indifference to in-custody Plaintiff children's constitutional rights. As a result, Plaintiff children are being deprived of their substantive due process rights conferred upon them by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. These rights include, but are not limited to, their right to protection from harm - physical, emotional, developmental or otherwise - while in state custody; their right not to remain in state custody unnecessarily; their right to treatment; their right to treatment related to the cause of their confinement; and their right to receive care, treatment and services consistent with competent professional judgment.
Seventh Cause of Actiou - Equal Protection Claim Brought on Behalf of the In-Custody Class Members Placed in Unlicensed Placements
205. Each and every allegation of the Complaint is incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
206. The foregoing actions and inactions of the Defendants amount to a pattern, practice, and custom of failure to exercise reasonable professional judgment and deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of the children in the protective services class. Defendants are engaging in a practice of intentionally and arbitrarily denying in-custody class members who have been placed in unlicensed placements with the child welfare protections of minimum licensing reqnirements, including adequate safety procedures and staffing, despite the fact that they are otherwise similarly situated to those children placed in licensed placements.
57

Defendants' detennination to deny Plaintiff class members placed in nnIicensed placements child welfare protections afforded those similarly situated children placed in licensed placements bears no rational relation to a legitimate state interest, and violates these class members' equal protection rights.
Eighth Cause of Action - Adoption Assistance Act Claims Brought on Behalf of the In-Custody Class
207. Each and every allegation of the Complaint is incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
208. As a result of the foregoing actions and inactions of the Defendants, the Defendants are engaging in a policy, pattern, practice, and/or custom of depriving in-custody Plaintiff children the rights conferred upon them by the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended by the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. These rights include, but are not limited to, the right to the development and implementation of individual case plans that contain specific mandated elements, including documentation of the steps taken to achieve permanency; the right to live in foster care placements that have the capacity to provide for the essential needs and services of children in their care by receiving adequate foster care maintenance payments; the right to a case record review system which includes semi-annual administrative reviews and annual permanency reviews, the right to placement only in facilities that have been licensed by the state; the right to placement in foster homes or facilities that conform to national professional standards; the right to placement in the least restrictive, most family-like setting; the right to have a petition to tenninate 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 foster children whose permanency goal is adoption to planning and services to obtain permanent placement at the earliest possible
58

time and the right to have health and educational records reviewed, updated, and supplied to foster care providers with whom the child is placed at the time of placement. 42 U.S.C. §§ 671(a)(I); 671(a)(IO); 671(a)(l6); 672(a), (b) and (c); 675(1); 675(4)(A) and (B); 675(5)(A) through (E); 622(a) and (b)(lO)(B)(ii) and (iii); 45 C.F.R. §1355.20.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff children respectfully request that this Honorable Court: A. Assert jurisdiction over this action; B. Order that all Plaintiffs may maintain this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; C. Declare unconstitutional and unlawful pursuant to Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
1. Defendants' violation of the protective services class members' rights under the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution; 2. Defendants' violation of the protective services class members' rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution; 3. Defendants' violation of the protective services class members' rights under the Substantive Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution not to be placed in an environment Defendants know or should know pose a risk to their safety; 4. Defendants' violation of the in-custody class members' rights under the Substantive Due Process Clause ofthe United States Constitution; 5. Defendants' violation of the in-custody class members' rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution; 6. Defendants' violation of the in-custody class members' rights under the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, as amended by the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, and regulations promulgated thereunder; and
59

7. Miss. Code. Ann. §§ 43-21-609(b) and (e)(ii) as they are applied to permit

children deemed by the Youth Court as abused or neglected to be placed directly

in unlicensed placements;

D. Permanently enjoin Defendants from subjecting members of the Plaintiff class to

practices that violate their rights;

E. Order appropriate remedial relief to ensure that a detailed plan is developed,

implemented, and monitored to ensure Defendants protect the legal rights of Plaintiffs as set

forth in this complaint;

F. Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§§ 1988 and 1920; and

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

and proper to protect Plaintiffs and Plaintiff class members from further harm by Defendants.

_1_ RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, this the

f[,-.
day of May, 2004.

W. Wayne

ater, Jr. (MBN 619

Melody McAnally(MBN 101236)

BRADLEY ARANT ROSE & WHITE LLP

188 East Capital Street, Suite 450

Jackson, Mississippi 39201

(601) 948-8000 ,

Stephen H. Leech (MBN 1173) 850 East River Place, Suite 300 Jackson, Mississippi 39202 (601) 355-4013

Marcia Robinson Lowry (MBN 43991 pro hac vice) Susan Lambiase (MBN 43992 pro hac vice) Eric E. Thompson (MBN 43993 pro hac vice) Shirim Nothenberg (MBN 43990 pro hac vice) Corene Kendrick (MBN 43989 pro hac vice) CHILDREN'S RIGHTS 404 Park Avenue South NewYork,NewYork 10016 (212) 683-2210

60

John Lang (MBN 43987 pro hac vice) Christian Carbone (MBN 43986 pro hac vice) Eric Manne (MBN 43988 pro hac vice) LOEB & LOEB LLP 345 Park Ave. New York, New York 10154 (212) 407-4000
PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Melody McAnally, one ofthe attorneys for Plaintiffs herein, do hereby certify that I have

this day cause to be mailed, postage prepaid, a true and correct copy of the foregoing to:

Harold Pizzetta, Esquire Special Assistant Attorney General Carroll Gartin Justice Building Post Office Box 220 Jackson, Mississippi 39205-0220

Attorney for Defendants

11f~ This the

ofMay, 2004.

61

 
 Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 350 Filed 08/29/06 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION

OLIVIA Y., BY AND THROUGH HER NEXT FRIEND, JAMES D. JOHNSON; JAMISON, JR., BY AND THROUGH HIS NEXT FRIEND, CLARA LEWIS; DESIREE, RENEE, TYSON, AND MONIQUE P., BY AND THROUGH THEIR NEXT FRIEND, SYLVIA FORSTER; JOHN A., BY AND THROUGH HIS NEXT FRIEND, JAMES D. JOHNSON; CODY. B., BY AND THROUGH HIS NEXT FRIEND, SHARON SCOTT; MARY, TOM, MATTHEW, AND DANA W., BY AND THROUGH THEIR NEXT FRIEND, ZELATRA W., AND SAM H., BY AND THROUGH HIS NEXT FRIEND, YVETTE BULLOCK, ON THEIR OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED

PLAINTIFFS

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:04CV251LN

HALEY BARBOUR, AS GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI; DONALD TAYLOR, AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES; AND BILLY MANGOLD, AS DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF FAMILY AND CHILREN'S SERVICES

DEFENDANTS

ORDER

There are pending before the court defendants’ motion for

abstention based on Younger v. Harris; the parties’ cross-motions

for summary judgment; and defendants’ motion to exclude the expert

testimony of Bill M. Brister, Ph.D. The motions have been fully

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 350 Filed 08/29/06 Page 2 of 3

briefed,1 and the court, having considered the motions, with accompanying exhibits, concludes that each should be denied.
The court has previously rejected a motion by defendants for Younger abstention, and concludes that its renewed motion should be denied, as well. Defendants state that their present motion, as contrasted with their prior motion, seeks only to exclude from this court’s consideration evidence relating to placements and services, and they argue that a ruling by this court in these two areas would inevitably interfere with ongoing Youth Court proceedings. However, the court is not persuaded that any relief which this court may grant, in the event plaintiffs were to establish a constitutional violation, would necessarily impinge on the jurisdiction and prerogative of the state’s Youth Courts.
Turning to the parties’ motions for summary judgment, the court has considered these motions, along with the accompanying exhibits, in detail, and has concluded that neither party has established entitlement to summary judgment and that the claims would best be resolved in the context of a trial.2

1

There is also pending a motion by defendants for leave

to file surrebutal in connection with their motion for summary

judgment. That motion is granted.

Further, plaintiffs have moved to strike portions of certain

exhibits filed by defendants in support of their summary judgment

motion. This motion is denied.

2

Of course, the court does recognize that in view of the

fact that plaintiffs seek solely equitable relief, the case is to

be tried to the bench.

2

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 350 Filed 08/29/06 Page 3 of 3
Defendants have moved on Daubert grounds to preclude plaintiffs’ expert, Bill Brister, from testifying about alleged mismanagement by the Department of Human Services in regard to defendants’ procurement of funds, including federal matching funds for use in Mississippi’s foster care system. However, the court agrees with plaintiffs that defendants’ objections go to the weight of Dr. Brister’s testimony and do not warrant exclusion of his testimony altogether.
Based on the foregoing, it is ordered that defendants’ motion for abstention based on Younger v. Harris is denied; the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment are denied; defendants’ motion to exclude the expert testimony of Bill M. Brister, Ph.D., is denied; plaintiff’s motion to strike certain of defendants’ exhibits is denied; and defendants’ motion for leave to file surrebuttal is granted.
SO ORDERED this 29th day of August, 2006.
/s/ Tom S. Lee UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3

 
 Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 401 Filed 04/03/07 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION

OLIVIA Y., et al.

PLAINTIFFS

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:04CV251

HALEY BARBOUR, as Governor of the State of Mississippi, et al. DEFENDANTS

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT

I. INTRODUCTION The parties jointly m ove the Cour t for preliminary approval of the Stipulated
Settlement Agreement (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1), and respectfully request that the Court enter the P roposed Order (attached as Exhibit 2), which (1) preliminarily approves the Settlement Agreement; (2) authorizes the form and manner of notice concerning the Stipulated S ettlement Agreement to be sent to class m embers (attached as Exhibit 3); (3) sets the deadline for persons who wish to be heard in favor of or in objection to the settlement; and (4) sets the date for a fairness hearing in accordance with Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. II. THE LEGAL STANDARD FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
Judicial approval of a proposed class action settlement under Rule 23 involves a two-step process. First, class counsel subm its the terms of the proposed settlement to the court, and the court m akes a preliminary fairness evaluation. If prelim inary approval is

4/102058.1

1

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 401 Filed 04/03/07 Page 2 of 7

granted, the court directs that notice of the settlem ent be given to members of the class,

solicits comment and objection from class members, and holds a form al fairness hearing

to determine whether the proposed settlement is indeed fair , reasonable, and adequate.

Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) § 21.63 (2004) (attached as Exhibit 4).

“If the proposed settlement appears to be the product of serious, inform ed, non-

collusive negotiations, has no obvious deficiencies, does not improperly grant preferential

treatment to class rep resentatives or segments of the class, a nd falls within the rang e of

possible approval,” courts have generally granted preliminary approval and left final

determination for a formal fairness heari ng where supporters and opponents of approval

receive a fair opportunity to help the court determ ine fairness. 2 H. Newberg and A.

Conte, Newberg on Class Actions § 11.25, at 11-37 (3d ed. 1992) (quoting Manual for

Complex Litigation, Second, at § 30.44) (attached as Exhibit 5). In this case, where the

Court has actively and appropriately m anaged the case for three years, has denied

motions to dism iss and granted class cer tification over vigorous opposition, has

supervised an extensive discovery process, has inf ormed itself about the respe ctive

positions of the parties through th e process of sifting throu gh evidence in the course of

denying the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment and in th e course of multiple

pretrial conferences, the Court is well pos itioned to m ake the necessary preliminary

determination of whether this settlement is worthy of the class’ consideration.

III. THE COURT SHOULD PRELI

MINARILY APPROVE THE

SETTLEMENT AND DIRECT THAT NOTICE BE SENT TO MEMBERS

OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS

The Court’s review of this c ase and the Stipulated Settlement Agreement will

establish that the p roposed settlement agreement “fall[s] within the range of possible

4/102058.1

2

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 401 Filed 04/03/07 Page 3 of 7
approval,” and easily e xceeds the threshold of fairness required for u ltimate approval under Rule 23(e). In light of the Court’s fam iliarity with this case, for present purposes the parties provide a brief summ ary of the li tigation and the featur es of the proposed decree warranting preliminary approval.
A. The Litigation For three years, the Plaintiff Class, through its counsel, has vigorously prosecuted this action, which challenges syste mic deficiencies in Mississipp i’s foster care sy stem. The action, alleging claim s under federal law, was filed on March 30, 2004. An Amended Complaint was filed May 17, 2004. For the next three yea rs the partie s engaged in vigorously contested litigation, including extensive discover y. On Nove mber 18, 2004, the Court denied Defenda nts’ Motion to Dism iss as to Plain tiffs’ constitutional substantive du e process claim s. (Docket No. 57.) On March 11, 2005, the Cour t granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification. (Docket No. 84.) Class Couns el reviewed hundreds of thousands of pages of documents produced by Defendants and nonparties. Twenty-seven (27) fact witnesses were deposed. Class Counsel assem bled a team of child welfare and foster care exp erts who conducted a thorough investigation and issu ed extremely detailed reports on various aspects of the Mississippi foster care system. Defendants likewise retained an expert who conducted her own substantial review of the sy stem and produced a detailed report. The parties subsequently filed cross-motions for summary judgment supported by voluminous evidentiary support. (Docket Nos. 266, 280.) On August 29, 2006, the Court denied the parties’ cross-motions for summ ary judgment. (Docket No. 350). At a Nove mber 6, 2006 pretrial conference, during w hich

4/102058.1

3

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 401 Filed 04/03/07 Page 4 of 7
the parties informed the Court that they were engaged in settlem ent discussions, trial was set for May 7, 2007. Over the course of fi ve months, Class Counsel and Defendants bargained at arm ’s length to reach an ag reement on achieving reform s and m easurable improvement in the operati on of Mississippi’s child welf are system. Through these efforts the proposed settlement was reached.
B. The Stipulated Settlement Agreement The federal judicial system favors settlements. As the Fifth Circuit observed in approving the settlement of a cl ass action, “Particularly in class action suits, there is an overriding public interest in fa vor of settlement . . . . In these days of increasin g congestion within the federal court system , settlements contribute greatly to the efficient utilization of our scarce judicial resources.” Cotton v. Hinton, 559 F.2d 1326, 1331 (5th Cir. 1977) (citations omitted). Under the criteria for evaluating a proposed settlem ent set forth in the Manual on Complex Litigation (Fourth) , § 21.62 (2004) (Exhibit 4), this proposed settlem ent deserves class consideration becau se it avoi ds a trial on liability and moves the case immediately to the remedial phase. The sett lement provides that only for the purpose of resolving the liability phase of this lawsu it without further litigation, Defendants do not contest that the cons titutional substantive due process rights of the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class were violated. Accordingly, the parties ag ree to m ove directly to the remedial phase of the litigation. T he settlement contemplates that the parties will first attempt to agree on a rem edial plan de veloped by Defe ndants and the Council on Accreditation with consulta tion from the part ies’ experts. The plan m ust set forth specific actions and timelines necessary for the Defendants to achieve accreditation, bring

4/102058.1

4

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 401 Filed 04/03/07 Page 5 of 7
the state in substantial conformity with f ederal standards regard ing foster care, and address Plaintiffs’ constitutional concerns. Agreement as to the services and plans for the named Plaintiffs will also be nego tiated. An agreed-upon mediator will facilitate this process. If agreement on the remedial plan is reached by the parties, it will becom e court enforceable, with an outside m onitor, and re solve the litig ation. If the parties cannot agree on a rem edial plan, the parties will pr oceed to a trial as to the scope of the necessary remedy.
C. The Notice The parties have agreed to a Notice of Proposed Settlem ent, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. This proposed N otice sets fort h the material terms of the proposed settlement and com ports with Rule 23 and the requirem ents of due process. The Notice describ es the procedures for persons who wish to be heard in favor of or objection to the settlement, and specifies the date, time, and place of the for mal fairness hearing. The parties, of cour se, stand ready to m ake such modifications to the Notice as the Court direc ts. D efendants will send th e Notice direc tly to class m embers in accordance with the terms of the Proposed Order (Exhibit 2). IV. CONCLUSION The parties respectfully request that the Court preliminarily approve the proposed settlement between the Plaintiff Class and De fendants, enter the Proposed Order attached as Exhibit 2, and direct that the proposed Notice be sen t to all members of the clas s in accordance with that Order. Respectfully submitted, this the 3rd day of April, 2007.

4/102058.1

5

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 401 Filed 04/03/07 Page 6 of 7

4/102058.1

/s Melody McAnally________________ W. Wayne Drinkwater, Jr. (MSB # 6193) Melody McAnally (MSB # 101236) BRADLEY ARANT ROSE & WHITE LLP 188 East Capitol Street, Suite 450 Jackson, Mississippi 39201 Telephone: (601) 948-8000 Facsimile: (601) 948-3000
Stephen H. Leech (MSB # 1173) 618 Crescent Boulevard, Suite 103 Ridgeland, MS 39157 P. O. Box 3623 Jackson, Mississippi 39207 Telephone: (601) 607-4172
Marcia Robinson Lowry (MSB # 43991 pro hac vice) Eric E. Thompson (MSB # 43993 pro hac vice) Shirim Nothenberg (MSB # 43990 pro hac vice) CHILDREN’S RIGHTS 330 7th Avenue, 4th floor New York, New York 10001 Telephone: (212) 683-2210
John Lang (MSB # 43987 pro hac vice) Christian Carbone (MSB # 43986 pro hac vice) John Piskora (MSB # 44474 pro hac vice) LOEB & LOEB LLP 345 Park Ave. New York, New York 10154 Telephone: (212) 407-4000
PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL
/s Dewitt L. (“Rusty”) Fortenberry, Jr._________ Dewitt L. (“Rusty”) Fortenberry, Jr. (MSB # 5435) Gretchen L. Zmitrovich (MSB #101470) Ashley Tullos Young (MSB #101839) Kenya Key Rachal (MSB #99227) Barry C. Campbell (MSB #99535) BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC 4268 I-55 North Meadowbrook Office Park P.O. Box 14167
6

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 401 Filed 04/03/07 Page 7 of 7
Jackson, Mississippi 39211 Telephone: (601) 351-2400 Facsimile: (601) 351-2424
Harold E. Pizzetta, III, Esq. (MSB # 99867) Assistant Attorney General General Civil Division Carroll Gartin Justice Building 430 High Street Jackson, Mississippi 39201
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS HALEY BARBOUR, ET AL.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on April 3, 2007, I electronical ly filed the foregoing with the Court
using the ECF system, which sent notification of such filing to the following:
Dewitt L. (“Rusty”) Fortenberry Jr., Esq. Kenya Key Rachal, Esq. Gretchen L. Zmitrovich, Esq. Ashley Tullos Young, Esq. Barry C. Campbell, Esq. BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC 428 I-55 North Meadowbrook Office Park Jackson, MS 39211
Harold E. Pizzetta, III, Esq. Assistant Attorney General General Civil Division Carroll Gartin Justice Building 430 High Street Jackson, Mississippi 39201
Attorneys for Defendants Haley Barbour, et al.
/s Melody McAnally________________

4/102058.1

7

 
 Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 401-2 Filed 04/03/07 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION

OLIVIA Y., et aL, For And On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated

PLAINTIFFS

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:04CV251

HALEY BARBOUR, as Governor of the State of Mississippi, et al.

DEFENDANTS

STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

1. By entering into this agreement, the Defendants do not admit the truth or validity of any claim made against them by Plaintiffs. However and only for purposes of resolving the liability phase of this lawsuit without further litigation, the Defendants do not contest that the constitutional substantive due process rights of Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff class were violated. The parties agree to forego a trial or other evidentiary hearing on liability and proceed directly to the consideration of an appropriate remedy. This admission is restricted to resolving this litigation and is not an admission of liability for purposes of any other litigation. Further, the parties acknowledge and agree that there is no right to monetary damages in this litigation.

2. A trial date for the remedial phase shall be set for no less than eight months from the date of the Court's preliminary approval of this agreement.

3. There are two options under which the remedy phase of this litigation will be concluded.

4. Option #I: A final settlement agreement regarding the remedy phase is arrived at through mediation and addresses the following issues.

A. The Mississippi Department of Human Services/Division of Family and Children's Services shall be accredited by the Council on Accreditation regarding foster care within five years of the execution of a final agreement.

B. The Mississippi Department of Human Services/Division of Family and Children's Services shall achieve substantial conformity with federal standards as contained in federal law governing foster care within five years from the execution of a final agreement. Substantial conformity shall be determined by Health and Human Services. Which federal standards should be included in the final agreement will be determined during mediation.

I 1 z

EXHIBIT

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 401-2 Filed 04/03/07 Page 2 of 4
C. Within six months of the Court's preliminary approval of this agreement, the Mississippi Department of Human Services/Division of Family and Children's Services and the Council on Accreditation will develop a detailed plan for achieving accreditation and substantial compliance with federal standards regarding foster care referenced in paragraph B within five years. The plan will set forth specific actions and time lines necessary to achieve accreditation, bring the state in substantial conformity with the federal standards, and address Plaintiffs' constitutional concerns. The parties' experts shall be advisory consultants in this process. Beginning sixty days from the Court's preliminary approval and continuing every fortyfive days thereafter, defendants shall provide to plaintiffs a copy of the most recent draft plan. The plan, once agreed to by the parties, will be court enforceable for the duration of the Agreement.
D. Mediation shall proceed in the following manner. Within fourteen days of the Court's preliminary approval of this agreement, the parties shall agree on a mediator. If an agreement is not reached, a mediator will be appointed by the Court. The first topic to be addressed during mediation shall be the necessary services and plans regarding the named Plaintiffs. The mediator will act as a facilitator as needed to ensure that the parties move expeditiously and cooperatively through the process contained in Section 4.
E. Within ninety days of the Court's preliminary approval of this agreement, the parties will agree to an entity to monitor compliance with the detailed plan described in C.
F. The parties will agree on a time line for terminating any settlement agreement along with the criteria for termination.
G. Within sixty days of the Court's preliminary approval of this agreement, the parties shall agree on appropriate services and plans regarding the named Plaintiffs.
As long as Option #1 remains active, the State Defendants shall make available to Plaintiffs all information which is shared with the Council on Accreditation. The Court's confidentiality order of August 5, 2004, shall remain in effect.
If after mediation the parties cannot agree on a plan, a monitor, the federal standards to be made a part of any final remedial agreement, or other components of the settlement agreement, Option #1 shall become void and will not be binding on either party. In such an instance, all issues of remedy regarding Plaintiffs' constitutional substantive due process rights shall be submitted to the Court for judicial determination as set forth in Option #2.
If the parties are able to reach an agreement on the above substantive components, the agreement shall be reduced to a final settlement agreement regarding remedy. The agreement shall end the litigation, subject to Court enforcement of the agreement.
5. Option# 2: Under the judicial option for resolving the remedy phase, all issues regarding a remedy related to Plaintiffs' constitutional substantive due process right shall be submitted to the Court for judicial determination. The parties agree that the Court retains

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 401-2 Filed 04/03/07 Page 3 of 4

jurisdiction to enter a remedial order. The scope of Plaintiffs' constitutional substantive due process rights shall be determined by tbe Court. At any such hearing or trial, the parties shall assert all claims and defenses regarding an appropriate remedy. In accordance with the State Defendants' concession above that they will not contest that the constitutional substantive due process rights of Plaintiffs were violated, the parties shall not litigate or relitigate issues of fact or law relating to whether Plaintiffs' constitutional substantive due process rights were violated, but may litigate the scope of the required remedy.
6. All parties reserve all claims and defenses with respect to all claims for an award of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses for Plaintiffs, which claims shall be separately asserted and determined according to a schedule to be fixed by the Court.
AGREED TO AND APPROVED FOR ENTRY BY:

arcia Robinson Lowry (pro hac ice M Eric Thompson (pro hac vice MBN 43993) Shirim Nothenberg (pro hac vice MBN 43990) Susan Lambiase (MBN 43992 pro hac vice) CHILDRENOS RIGHTS, INC. 330 Seventh Ave, 4th Floor
N~or~NY;;;:~

Wayne7rillkwater (MBN 6193) Melody Mcanally (MBN 101236) BRADLEY ARANT ROSE & WHITE LLP 188 East Capital Street, Suite 450 Jackson Mississippi 39201 (601) 498-8000

Stephen H. Leech (MBN 1173) 850 East River Place, Suite-300 Jackson, Mississippi 39202

John Lang (pro hac vice MBN 43987)

Christian D. Carbone (pro hac vice MBN 43986)

:;

John Piskora (MBN 44474 pro hac vice)

4--

LOEB & LOEB LLP

345 Park Ave.

New York, New York 10154

3

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 401-2 Filed 04/03/07 Page 4 of 4
Dewitt L. ("Rusty'') Fortenberry Jr., Esq. Barry C. Campbell, Esq. Kenya Key Rachal, Esq. Gretchen L. Zmitrovich, Esq. Ashley Tullos Young, Esq. BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC 428 I-55 North Meadowbrook Office Park Jackson, MS 39211 (601) 351-2400 Harold E. Pizzetta, ill, Esq. (MBN 99867) Assistant Attorney General General Civil Division Carroll Gartin Justice Building 430 High Street Jackson, Mississippi 39201 SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the _ _ day of_ _ _ _ _ _ _, 2007.
DISTRICT JUDGE
4

 
 Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 402 Filed 04/03/07 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION

OLIVIA Y., et al.

PLAINTIFFS

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:04CV251LN

HALEY BARBOUR, as Governor of the State of Mississippi, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

This matter came before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Stipulated Settlement Agreement. The Court has preliminarily reviewed and evaluated the proposed settlement between the Plaintiff Class and the Defendants and finds that it appears to be within the range of reasonableness. Accordingly, the Motion is, for good cause, GRANTED. The Court rules, orders, and directs as follows: 1. Proposed Settlement. The terms of the settlement at issue are embodied in the proposed Stipulated Settlement Agreement filed in conjunction with the Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval. Based on the Court’s familiarity with this case, which has been pending for three years, the Court believes that this proposed settlement is worthy of the class’ consideration, that notice of this proposed settlement should be directed to class members, and that a hearing should be conducted to ascertain whether this settlement meets the standards required for final approval pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). 2. Hearing. A hearing shall be held in Courtroom 2, James O. Eastland Courthouse, 245 East Capitol Street, Jackson, Mississippi, at 9:30 a.m. on May 17, 2007,

1

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 402 Filed 04/03/07 Page 2 of 5

to consider whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should

receive the Court’s final approval pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e).

(a) Objections by class members to the proposed settlement will be

considered if filed in writing with the Clerk of the United States

District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson

Division, on or before May 7, 2007.

(b) At the hearing, class members may be heard orally in support of or

in opposition to the proposed settlement, provided such persons

file with the Clerk on or before May 7, 2007, a written notification

of their desire to appear personally, briefly indicating (if in

opposition to the settlement) the nature of the objection.

(c) Counsel for the Class and for Defendants should be prepared at the

hearing to respond to objections filed by class members and to

provide other information, as appropriate, bearing on whether or

not the settlement should be approved.

3. Notice.

On or before April 16, 2007, Defendants shall, at their sole

expense, take the following steps to notify class members of the proposed settlement:

(a) Defendants shall prepare and mail true and correct copies of the

Notice of Proposed Settlement in Olivia Y., et al. v. Barbour, et al.,

attached hereto (“Notice to Class Members”), postage prepaid, by

first class mail to all of the following persons/locations, with an

accompanying letter signed by Executive Director Don Taylor that

gives notice of the settlement and directs that the Notice to Class

1

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 402 Filed 04/03/07 Page 3 of 5
Members be prominently and immediately posted in the location(s) in which it is most likely to be seen by foster children and their legal representatives, and that the notice remain posted until May 17, 2007: i) Each DFCS county office, regional office, and state office; ii) Each group home, congregate living facility, institution,
and facility in which children in DFCS custody are placed; iii) Each agency with which DFCS contracts for the provision
of foster care services and/or other services for class members; iv) The judges and clerks of each Youth Court in the State of Mississippi; v) The judges and clerks of each Chancery Court in the State of Mississippi with jurisdiction over custody, placement, or parental rights with respect to class members; vi) Each person who serves as a Guardian Ad Litem with respect to any class member; vii) Each person who has been approved as of the date class notice issues to serve as a foster parent, putative adoptive parent, or legal guardian, or to otherwise act in loco parentis for any class member; and
1

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 402 Filed 04/03/07 Page 4 of 5
viii) Each class member who has attained or will attain the age of fourteen (14) years on or before the date class notice issues.
(b) Defendants shall send by first class mail copies of this Order, the Notice to Class Members, and the proposed settlement agreement to any member of the Mississippi public who requests it within five (5) business days of receiving the request.
(c) Defendants shall prominently post this Order, the Notice to Class Members, and the proposed settlement on the Mississippi DHS Web site and shall maintain that posting until further order from the Court.
(e) Defendants will file with the Clerk on or before April 20, 2007, an affidavit certifying compliance with the notice requirements of this Order.
(f) On or before May 1, 2007, Defendants will supply Class Counsel with an alphabetical list (including name and all available contact information) of all persons who, according to Defendants’ records, appear to be class members and all persons to whom Notice to Class Members has been mailed pursuant to this Order.
So ORDERED this 3rd day of April, 2007.
/s/ Tom S. Lee United States District Court Judge
1

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 402 Filed 04/03/07 Page 5 of 5
1

 
 Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 420 Filed 05/14/07 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION

OLIVIA Y., et al.

PLAINTIFFS

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:04CV251LN

HALEY BARBOUR, as Governor of the State of Mississippi, et al. DEFENDANTS

JOINT MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
The parties jointly m ove this Court pur suant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) for final approval of the proposed Stipulated Se ttlement Agreement, which this C ourt preliminarily approved by Order dated April 3, 2007. A t rue and correct copy of the proposed Settlement Agreement is attached as Exhibit 1.
1. On March 11, 2005, the Court certified this case seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for class action tr eatment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). The proposed settlem ent provides that Defendants do not contest that the constitution al substantive due process r ights of the Plaintiff Class have been violated, and that the parties agree to m ove directly to the rem edial phase of th e litigation, in whic h the parties shall attempt to a gree on a c omprehensive reform plan tha t will rem edy the class-wide constitutional violations. If the parties cann ot agree on a remedial plan, the pa rties shall pro ceed to a trial as to the scope of th e necessary remedy. As t he proposed settlement contemplates class-wide
1

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 420 Filed 05/14/07 Page 2 of 5
relief, Rule 23(e)(1)(A) requires the Court’s approval of the agreem ent if, after a hearing, the Court concludes that the term s of the s ettlement are “fair, reasonable, and adequate” from the perspective of absent class members. See generally, Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) § 21.63 (2004) (attached as Exhibit 2). 2. On April 3, 2007, the C ourt granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement and directed the Defendants to provide notice to class members and other interested persons. As ev idenced by the certification filed with the Court on April 18, 2007, Defendant s have complied with the Court’s direction regarding notice. The distribution of notice is further evidenced by the var ious comments and objection s submitted on behalf of class members or other interes ted parties that were filed in acco rdance with the directions set forth in the class noti ce. A compila tion of those lette rs is attached as Exhibit 3. None of the comments or objection s attacked or addressed the for m of notice or th e reasonableness of the m anner of notification. The requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(B) have thereby been satisfied. 3. The proposed settlement follows thr ee years of litigation w hich involved extensive discovery, two m otions to dismiss, and which culm inated in cross motions for summ ary judgment. The proposed settlem ent was reached only after the d enial of the cross m otions for summary judgment, and following five m onths of arm’ s length bargaini ng. The vigorous manner in which the p arties litigated this case, and the tim e and effor t
2

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 420 Filed 05/14/07 Page 3 of 5
involved in reaching the proposed se ttlement amply demonstrates the absence of fraud or collus ion between the parties in reaching this agreement. 4. All of the letters submitted in response to the class notice recognize a need to reform Mississippi’s foster care system, and they are overwhelmingly in favor of the proposed Stipulated Settle ment as the m eans of resolving the litigation and achieving that ne cessary reform. The two objections submitted in response to the notice are not from class members, and reflect a misunderstanding as to either the scope of the litigation, or the term s of the proposed settlement. Not a single class m ember has asserted that the proposed settlement fails to satisfy the requirements for approval as specified in Rule 23(e)(1). 5. The proposed settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate. The projected month-long trial would have been expe nsive and, assuming an appeal, the proceedings would be extrem ely time-consuming. The litigation has reached a s tage where both parties and this Court are we ll positioned to evaluate the terms of the proposed agr eement. While Plaintiffs developed a strong factual basis for their claim s, securing a liability ruling at trial or on appeal was in no m anner preordained, and the cost, tim e and possible risk of litigation, all w eigh in favo r of the proposed settlem ent, which moves the parties directly to the rem edial phase of the case. Class counsel, all of whom have substant ial experience litigating com plex federal class actions, strongly support the proposed settlem ent, and there
3

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 420 Filed 05/14/07 Page 4 of 5
have been no objections by either cl ass representatives, or absent members. See Ayers v. Thompson, 358 F.3d 356, 368-69 (5 th Cir. 2004)
(listing factors that guide approval of class action settlements).
WHEREFORE, the parties join tly move that the Court, after conducting the hearing
required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(C), en ter its findings and conclusions supporting
approval of the proposed Stipulated Settlement and grant its approval.
Respectfully submitted, this 14th day of May, 2007.
/s Eric Thompson________________ Marcia Robinson Lowry (MBN 43991 pro hac vice) Eric E. Thompson (MBN 43993 pro hac vice) Shirim Nothenberg (MBN 43990 pro hac vice) CHILDREN’S RIGHTS 330 7th Avenue, 4th floor New York, New York 10001 Telephone: (212) 683-2210
W. Wayne Drinkwater, Jr. (MBN 6193) Melody McAnally (MBN 101236) BRADLEY ARANT ROSE & WHITE LLP 188 East Capitol Street, Suite 450 Jackson, Mississippi 39201 Telephone: (601) 948-8000 Facsimile: (601) 948-3000
Stephen H. Leech (MBN 1173) 618 Crescent Boulevard, Suite 103 Ridgeland, MS 39157 P. O. Box 3623 Jackson, Mississippi 39207 Telephone: (601) 607-4172
John Lang (MBN 43987 pro hac vice) Christian Carbone (MBN 43986 pro hac vice) John Piskora (MBN 44474 pro hac vice) LOEB & LOEB LLP
4

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 420 Filed 05/14/07 Page 5 of 5
345 Park Ave. New York, New York 10154 Telephone: (212) 407-4000 PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL /s Dewitt L. (“Rusty”) Fortenberry, Jr._________ Dewitt L. (“Rusty”) Fortenberry, Jr. (MSB # 5435) Gretchen L. Zmitrovich (MSB #101470) Ashley Tullos Young (MSB #101839) Kenya Key Rachal (MSB #99227) Barry C. Campbell (MSB #99535) BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC 4268 I-55 North Meadowbrook Office Park P.O. Box 14167 Jackson, Mississippi 39211 Telephone: (601) 351-2400 Facsimile: (601) 351-2424 Harold E. Pizzetta, III, Esq. Assistant Attorney General General Civil Division Carroll Gartin Justice Building 430 High Street Jackson, Mississippi 39201 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS HALEY BARBOUR, ET AL.
5

 
 Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438 Filed 11/08/07 Page 1 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION

OLIVIA Y., et al.

PLAINTIFFS

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:04CV251

HALEY BARBOUR, as Governor of the State of Mississippi, et al. DEFENDANTS

JOINT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT

I. INTRODUCTION The parties jointly m ove the Cour t for preliminary approval of the Mississippi
Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan (the “Agreement”) (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1), and respectfully request that the Court ente r the Proposed Order (attached as Exhibit 2), which (1) prelim inarily approves the Agreem ent; (2) authorizes the f orm and manner of notice concerning the Agreement to be sent to class members (attached as Exhibit 3); (3) sets the deadline for persons who wish to be heard in favor of or in objection to the Agreement; and (4) sets the date for a fairness hearing in accordance with Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. II. THE LEGAL STANDARD FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
Judicial approval of a proposed class action settlement under Fed. R. Ci v. P. 23 involves a two-step process. First, class counsel subm its the term s of the proposed settlement to the cou rt, and the c ourt makes a pre liminary fairness evaluation. If

4/112238.1

1

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438 Filed 11/08/07 Page 2 of 10
preliminary approval is granted, the court direct s that notice of the settlem ent be given to members of the class, s olicits comment and objection from class m embers, and holds a formal fairness hearing to determ ine whether the proposed settlem ent is indeed fair, reasonable, and adequate. Manual for Complex Litigation (Fourth) § 21.63 (2004).
“If the proposed settlement appears to be the product of serious, inform ed, noncollusive negotiations, has no obvious deficiencies, does not improperly grant preferential treatment to class rep resentatives or segments of the class, a nd falls within the rang e of possible approval,” courts have generally granted preliminary approval and left final determination for a formal fairness heari ng where supporters and opponents of approval receive a fair opportunity to help the court determ ine fairness. 2 H. Newberg and A. Conte, Newberg on Class Actions § 11.25, at 11-37 (3d ed. 1992) (quoting Manual for Complex Litigation, Second, at § 30.44). In this case, wh ere the Court has actively and appropriately managed the case for three and a half years, has denied m otions to dismiss and granted class certification over vigorous o pposition, has supervised an extens ive discovery process, has inform ed itself abou t the r espective positions of the par ties through the process of sifting through evidence in the course of denying the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment and in th e course of multiple pretrial conferences, the Court is well positio ned to make the necessary preliminary determination of whether this settlement is worthy of the class’ consideration.

4/112238.1

2

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438 Filed 11/08/07 Page 3 of 10

III. THE COURT SHOULD PRELI

MINARILY APPROVE THE

AGREEMENT AND DIRE CT THAT NOTICE BE S ENT TO M EMBERS

OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS

The Court’s review of this ca se and the Agreem ent will estab lish that the

proposed settlement agreement “fall[s] within the range of possible approval,” and easily

exceeds the thresho ld of fairness required fo r ultimate approval under Rule 23(e). In

light of the Court’s f amiliarity with this ca se, for present purposes the parties provide a

brief summary of the litigation and the f eatures of the proposed decree warranting

preliminary approval.

A. The Litigation

For three and a half years, the Plain tiff Class of approxim ately 3,500 children in

Mississippi foster care custody, through its c ounsel, has prosecuted this action, which

alleges deficiencies in Mississippi’s foster care system. The action, alleging claims under

federal law, was filed on March 30, 2004. An Amended Complaint was filed May 17,

2004.

For the next three yea rs the partie s engaged in vigorously contested litigation,

including extensive discover y. On Nove mber 18, 2004, the Court granted Defendants’

Motion to Dism iss as to Plai ntiffs’ procedural due proc ess claims, equal protection

claims, substantive due process claims for Protective Services class, and claims under the

Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act and denied Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

as to Plaintiffs constitutional substantiv e due process claim s for in-custody class

members. (Docket No. 57.) On March 11, 2005, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for

Class Certification. (Docket No. 84.) Class Counsel revi ewed hundreds of thousands of

pages of docum ents produced by D efendants and nonparties. Twenty -seven (27) fact

4/112238.1

3

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438 Filed 11/08/07 Page 4 of 10
witnesses were deposed. Class Counsel retain ed child welfare and foster care ex perts who conducted a thorough investigation and issu ed extremely detailed reports on various aspects of the Mis sissippi foster care sy stem. Defendants likewise retained a child welfare expert who conducted her own substantial review of the Mis sissippi foster care system and produced a detailed report. The parties subsequently filed cross-motions for summary judgment supported by volum inous evidentiary support. (D ocket Nos. 266, 280).
On August 29, 2006, the Court denied the parties’ cross-motions for summ ary judgment. (Docket No. 350). At a Nove mber 6, 2006, pretrial conference, during which the parties informed the Court that they were engaged in settlem ent discussions, trial was set for May 7, 2007. Over the course of fi ve months, Class Counsel and Defendants bargained at arm ’s length to reach an ag reement on achieving reform s and m easurable improvement in the operati on of Mississipp i’s child welf are system. A Stipu lated Settlement Agreement as to liab ility was approved by this Court at a Rule 23(e) fairness hearing on May 17, 2007 (Exhibit 4), and pr ovided for m ediation to arrive at an acceptable remedial order. Through these efforts the proposed settlement was reached.
B. The Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan The federal judicial system favors settlements. As the Fifth Circuit observed in approving the settlement of a cl ass action, “Particularly in class action suits, there is an overriding public interest in fa vor of settlement . . . . In these days of increasin g congestion within the federal court system , settlements contribute greatly to the efficient utilization of our scarce judicial resources.” Cotton v. Hinton, 559 F.2d 1326, 1331 (5th Cir. 1977) (citations omitted). Under the criteria for evaluating a proposed settlement set

4/112238.1

4

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438 Filed 11/08/07 Page 5 of 10
forth in the Manual on Complex L itigation (Fourth), § 21.62 (2004), this proposed settlement deserves clas s consideration becau se it prov ides for significant benefits and protections for class members.
The Agreement establishes standards and outcome measures that Defendants must meet within five years or earlier as set out in the Agreement and in what are to be an nual implementation plans. The Year 1 Im plementation Plan has been agreed upon and is at Appendix A to the Agreem ent. Subseque nt annual implem entation plans w ill be developed by Defendants with the Council on Accreditation (COA) and Plaintiffs, setting forth the steps t hat must be t aken to meet applicable interim benchmarks and achieve overall compliance with the Agreement.
(1) Administration and Management Standards Among the administration and management standards that must be im plemented, the Agreement provides that with in 90 da ys of Court approva l, the Mississippi Department of Hu man Services (DHS) Divi sion of Family and Children’s Services (DFCS) will hire and maintain a director who is qualified for the position consistent with COA standards. Defendants will also phase in c aseload caps cons istent with those recommended by Defendants’ expert, and minimum qualification requirements for caseworkers and supervisors consistent with COA standards. Perfor mance-based contracting will be phased in, as well as a continuous quality improvement (CQI) system to monitor agency p erformance and re quire improvement plans for identified deficiencies. The Agreement also provides that DF CS shall provide for a more robust information system and maintain current and complete child welfare records. Defendants

4/112238.1

5

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438 Filed 11/08/07 Page 6 of 10
shall also conduct an external federal funding assessment and maximize available federal funding opportunities. The Year 1 Im plementation Plan provides for an assessm ent of DFCS administration and management capacity and needs consistent with COA policies, and a process to begin addressing any identified needs.
(2) Foster Care Service Standards Among the foster care services standa rds that m ust be im plemented, the Agreement provides that children entering custody shall receiv e a health screening evaluation within 72 hours after p lacement and a com prehensive medical examination within 30 days. Periodic dental exam s for foster children three years old and older, and mental health assessm ents for children four years old and older m ust be provided. Children entering custody or subject to a placem ent move shall receive a child screening and family assessment and have a service pl an, including a perm anency plan, developed or updated within 30 days. Service plans wi ll be updated at least quarterly and foster children’s permanency plans will be reviewed at least every six months, including at least an annual judicial review. The Agreement also pro vides that Defendants make available necessary services to facilitate reunification of foster children with their families, and move forward without delay with adoption or other permanent placements consistent with f ederal law when reunification is not possible. Older foster children ages 14-20 will be provided with independent living services to prepare them for transitioning to independence. Foster children are to be placed in licensed placements that can m eet their individual needs, siblings pl aced together when appropriate, and foster ho mes are to be limited in the number of foster child ren they can care for. Lim its also apply on placing

4/112238.1

6

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438 Filed 11/08/07 Page 7 of 10

foster children for exten ded periods in emergency placements and on placing children

under 10 years of age in congregate care settings . Parent and sibli ng visits are to be

provided, and twice monthly face-to-face visits with foster children by their caseworkers

shall be provided. Placement moves must be justified and placement stability supported.

The Agreement also provides that by July 2009, basic m onthly foster care board

rates will be increased to established,

age-appropriate am ounts. The Year 1

Implementation Plan provides for an assessm ent of DFCS foster care servic es, and a

process to begin addressing any identified needs.

(3) Outcome Measures

The Agreement provides for Defe ndants to meet phased -in outcome measures

regarding the tim eliness of ch ild reunifications and adoptio ns and the reduction of the

frequency of placem ent moves and m altreatment in c are, consistent with federal

standards.

(4) COA Accreditation

DFCS’s foster care services shall be accredited by COA.

(5) The Named Plaintiffs

The named Plaintiffs who re mained in state custody as of the Stipulated

Settlement Agreement approved by the Cour t on May 17, 2007, all have an individual

Agreement on Services and Plans th at provides for permanency and independent living

services monitored by Plaintiffs’ counsel. (Attached collectively as Ex. 5).

(6) Monitor

An independent monitor of Defendants’ compliance with the Agreement and the

annual implementation plans, atto rney Grace Lopes, has been agreed to by the parties.

4/112238.1

7

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438 Filed 11/08/07 Page 8 of 10
(Ms. Lopes’ resum e is attached at E x. 6). The parties agree that this Court shall have continuing jurisdiction to enforce the term s of this Agreement and any required annual implementation plans.
C. The Notice The parties have agreed to a Notice of Proposed Settlem ent, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. This proposed N otice sets fort h the material terms of the proposed settlement and com ports with Rule 23 and the requirem ents of due process. The Notice describ es the procedures for persons who wish to be heard in favor of or objection to the settlement, and specifies the date, time, and place of the for mal fairness hearing. The parties, of cour se, stand ready to m ake such modifications to the Notice as the Court direc ts. D efendants will send th e Notice direc tly to class m embers in accordance with the terms of the Proposed Order (Exhibit 2). IV. CONCLUSION The parties respectfully request that the Court preliminarily approve the proposed settlement between the Plaintiff Class and De fendants, enter the proposed Order attached as Exhibit 2, and direct that the proposed Notice be sen t to all members of the clas s in accordance with that Order. Respectfully submitted, this 8th day of November, 2007.
/s Melody McAnally________________ W. Wayne Drinkwater, Jr. (MBN 6193) Melody McAnally (MBN 101236) BRADLEY ARANT ROSE & WHITE LLP 188 East Capitol Street, Suite 450 Jackson, Mississippi 39201 Telephone: (601) 948-8000 Facsimile: (601) 948-3000

4/112238.1

8

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438 Filed 11/08/07 Page 9 of 10

4/112238.1

Stephen H. Leech (MBN 1173) 618 Crescent Boulevard, Suite 103 Ridgeland, MS 39157 P. O. Box 3623 Jackson, Mississippi 39207 Telephone: (601) 607-4172
Marcia Robinson Lowry (MBN 43991 pro hac vice) Eric E. Thompson (MBN 43993 pro hac vice) Shirim Nothenberg (MBN 43990 pro hac vice) CHILDREN’S RIGHTS 330 7th Avenue, 4th floor New York, New York 10001 Telephone: (212) 683-2210
John Lang (MBN 43987 pro hac vice) Christian Carbone (MBN 43986 pro hac vice) John Piskora (MBN 44474 pro hac vice) LOEB & LOEB LLP 345 Park Ave. New York, New York 10154 Telephone: (212) 407-4000
PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL
/s Dewitt L. (“Rusty”) Fortenberry, Jr._________ Dewitt L. (“Rusty”) Fortenberry, Jr. (MSB # 5435) Gretchen L. Zmitrovich (MSB #101470) Ashley Tullos Young (MSB #101839) Kenya Key Rachal (MSB #99227) Barry C. Campbell (MSB #99535) BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC 4268 I-55 North Meadowbrook Office Park P.O. Box 14167 Jackson, Mississippi 39211 Telephone: (601) 351-2400 Facsimile: (601) 351-2424
Harold E. Pizzetta, III, Esq. Assistant Attorney General General Civil Division Carroll Gartin Justice Building 430 High Street Jackson, Mississippi 39201 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS HALEY BARBOUR, ET AL.
9

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438 Filed 11/08/07 Page 10 of 10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on Nove mber 8, 2007, I el ectronically filed the foregoing with the
Court using the ECF system, which sent notification of such filing to the following:
Dewitt L. (“Rusty”) Fortenberry Jr., Esq. Kenya Key Rachal, Esq. Gretchen L. Zmitrovich, Esq. Ashley Tullos Young, Esq. Barry C. Campbell, Esq. BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC 428 I-55 North Meadowbrook Office Park Jackson, MS 39211 (601) 351-2400
Harold E. Pizzetta, III, Esq. Assistant Attorney General General Civil Division Carroll Gartin Justice Building 430 High Street Jackson, Mississippi 39201
Attorneys for Defendants Haley Barbour, et al.
/s Melody McAnally________________

4/112238.1

10

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 1 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 2 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 3 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 4 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 5 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 6 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 7 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 8 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 9 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 10 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 11 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 12 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 13 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 14 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 15 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 16 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 17 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 18 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 19 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 20 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 21 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 22 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 23 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 24 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 25 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 26 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 27 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 28 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 29 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 30 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 31 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 32 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 33 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 34 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 35 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 36 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 37 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 38 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 39 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 40 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 41 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 42 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 43 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 44 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 45 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 46 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 47 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 48 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 49 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 50 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 51 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 52 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 53 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 54 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 55 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 56 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 57 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 58 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 59 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 60 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 61 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-2 Filed 11/08/07 Page 62 of 62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-3 Filed 11/08/07 Page 1 of 4

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-3 Filed 11/08/07 Page 2 of 4

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-3 Filed 11/08/07 Page 3 of 4

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-3 Filed 11/08/07 Page 4 of 4

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-4 Filed 11/08/07 Page 1 of 5

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-4 Filed 11/08/07 Page 2 of 5

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-4 Filed 11/08/07 Page 3 of 5

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-4 Filed 11/08/07 Page 4 of 5

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-4 Filed 11/08/07 Page 5 of 5

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-5 Filed 11/08/07 Page 1 of 4

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-5 Filed 11/08/07 Page 2 of 4

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-5 Filed 11/08/07 Page 3 of 4

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-5 Filed 11/08/07 Page 4 of 4

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-7 Filed 11/08/07 Page 1 of 4

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-7 Filed 11/08/07 Page 2 of 4

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-7 Filed 11/08/07 Page 3 of 4

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 438-7 Filed 11/08/07 Page 4 of 4

 
 Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 1 of 62

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION

OLIVIA Y., et al.

PLAINTIFFS

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:04CV251LN

HALEY BARBOUR, as Governor of the State of Mississippi, et al.

DEFENDANTS

MISSISSIPPI SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND REFORM PLAN
INTRODUCTION
This Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan (the “Plan”) shall resolve all remaining claims in the above-captioned case, Olivia Y. v. Barbour, et al. Paragraph 1 of the Stipulated Settlement Agreement approved by the Court on May 17, 2007, is hereby incorporated into this Plan.
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson Division, shall have continuing jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Plan and any annual implementation plans required herein.
I. REFORM PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION
Defendants shall meet the standards and outcome measures in Sections II and III of this Plan within five years of the Court’s approval or within any earlier interim timelines that are specified herein.
A. For every 12-month period following Court approval of this Plan, Defendants shall develop an annual implementation plan with COA and Plaintiffs that sets forth the steps that must be taken in that 12-month period in order to meet that Period’s interim benchmarks and make the progress necessary within that Period to achieve overall compliance with the Plan within five years. Each annual implementation plan shall be Court enforceable and include specific steps and timelines to achieve compliance with this Plan.
B. The first 12-month implementation plan is incorporated herewith at Appendix A. Each subsequent annual implementation plan shall be developed jointly with the Parties and COA 90 calendar days prior to the end of the previous 12-month period. Each annual implementation plan will be incorporated into this Plan.
C. Defendants do not speak for the Mississippi Legislature, which has the power under Mississippi law to determine the appropriations for the State’s child welfare programs. However, at least annually after Court approval of this Plan, and consistent with existing
1

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 2 of 62
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 Plan 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. Nothing in this paragraph in any way limits Defendants’ obligations under this Plan.
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.
D. Nothing in this Plan shall be construed as infringing on the authority of the State courts of Mississippi to exercise their jurisdiction over individual class members. Defendants will not be held accountable for the State courts’ exercise of such jurisdiction in any individual case, as long as Defendants requested that the State court exercise its jurisdiction consistent with the requirements of the Plan in that individual case.
II. STANDARDS
The following standards shall be met within five years of Court approval of this Plan, or earlier as specified below.
A. Administration and Management Standards
1. Agency Leadership
a. The director of DFCS shall be qualified by: an advanced degree from an accredited college or university in a field related to the agency’s mission and services; five years of related experience at minimum; competence in administering and providing services to individuals, families, and/or children; management skills in addressing human resources and financial matters; and the ability to coordinate the agency’s services with other community resources.
b. Within 90 calendar days of Court approval of this Plan, DFCS will hire and maintain a director for DFCS who meets the Plan’s qualification requirements for the position.
2

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 3 of 62
2. Human Resources Management
a. Workforce:
1) No DFCS caseworker shall carry a caseload that exceeds the following:
9 for dedicated adoption workers (counted by child) 14 for dedicated child protection workers (counted by investigation) 14 for dedicated ongoing foster care workers (counted by child) 15 for dedicated new application licensing workers (counted by home) 17 for dedicated in-home protection workers (counted by family) 25 for dedicated in-home dependency/prevention workers (counted by family) 36 for dedicated renewal licensing workers (counted by home) 118 for dedicated abuse and neglect intake workers (counted by intake).
2) Individual DFCS caseworkers with generic caseloads shall not carry a mixed caseload requiring more than 6,960 minutes of case-related work per month as measured in accordance with Dr. Sue Steib’s time study standards as reproduced below.
Adoption: 807 min. per case/per month Child protection investigation: 484 min. per case/per month Foster care: 507 min. per case/per month Licensing – new application: 470 min. per case/per month In-home dependency – protection: 410 min. per case/per month In-home dependency – prevention: 275 min. per case/per month Licensing – renewal: 191 min. per case/per month General intake: 59 min. per case/per month Intra-state home studies – 282 min. per case/per month Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children (ICPC) – 106 min. per case/per month Courtesy interviews – 65 min. per case/per month
3) The parties acknowledge that the above time study standards are based on averages and that any individual case may require more or fewer minutes of case-related work per month.
4) Individual caseloads shall be measured monthly.
5) No DFCS supervisor shall be directly responsible for supervising more than five caseworkers.
6) No supervisor shall be assigned primary responsibility for providing direct casework services for any case, except in cases of extenuating
3

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 4 of 62
circumstances which shall last no more than four (4) weeks and have been approved in writing by the director of DFCS after consultation with the supervisor’s Regional Director to ensure the continued proper supervision of the impacted direct service workers. By the end of implementation Period 1: 7) At least 30% of DFCS caseworkers shall carry a caseload that does not exceed Plan caseload requirements. No more than 30% of caseworkers shall carry a caseload exceeding twice the Plan caseload requirements. No caseworkers shall carry a caseload exceeding three times the Plan caseload requirements. 8) No more than 30% of supervisors who are responsible for supervising DFCS caseworkers shall be responsible for supervising more than five caseworkers. 9) Caseworkers shall have access to a supervisor by telephone 24 hours a day. By the end of implementation Period 2: 10) At least 50% of DFCS caseworkers shall carry a caseload that does not exceed Plan caseload requirements. No more than 20% of caseworkers shall carry a caseload exceeding twice the Plan caseload requirements. 11) No more than 20% of supervisors who are responsible for supervising DFCS caseworkers shall be responsible for supervising more than five caseworkers. 12) Supervisors will no longer be assigned primary responsibility for providing direct casework for any cases, unless under the extenuating circumstances exception as described above. By the end of implementation Period 3: 13) At least 75% of DFCS caseworkers shall carry a caseload that does not exceed Plan caseload requirements. No more than 10% of caseworkers shall carry a caseload exceeding twice the Plan caseload requirements. 14) No more than 10% of supervisors who are responsible for supervising DFCS caseworkers shall be responsible for supervising more than five caseworkers.
4

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 5 of 62
By the end of implementation Period 4:
15) At least 95% of DFCS caseworkers shall carry a caseload that does not exceed Plan caseload requirements. No caseworkers shall carry a caseload exceeding twice the Plan caseload requirements.
16) No more than 5% of supervisors who are responsible for supervising DFCS caseworkers shall be responsible for directly supervising more than five caseworkers.
b. Worker and Supervisor Qualifications:
1) DFCS shall hire only foster care workers who have an advanced degree in social work or a comparable human services field, or a B.A. in social work or a comparable human service field with two years of related experience. Should the related COA standards change, the new COA worker qualifications standards will govern.
2) DFCS shall hire or promote to the position of caseworker supervisor only persons with an advanced degree in social work or a comparable human service field and two years of experience working with children and families, preferably in foster care. Should the related COA standards change, the new COA caseworker supervisor qualifications standards will govern.
c. Training:
1) DFCS shall maintain a Training Unit, headed by a qualified director of training. The Training Unit shall have sufficient staffing, funding, and other resources to assure that it can provide comprehensive child welfare training to enable all caseworkers, supervisors, and other child welfare agency employees to comply with the relevant mandates of this Plan, DFCS policy, and reasonable professional standards.
2) Subsequent to Court approval of this Plan, all new caseworkers hired by DFCS shall receive a minimum of 270 hours of pre-service training, including instructional training and supervised field training, prior to assuming any case responsibilities; all new caseworker supervisors hired or promoted by DFCS shall receive a minimum of 40 hours of in-service training directed specifically at the supervision of child welfare caseworkers prior to assuming any supervisory responsibilities; all caseworkers shall receive a minimum of 40 hours of ongoing in-service training each year; and all supervisors shall receive a minimum of 24 hours of ongoing in-service training each year.
3) The caseworker training shall be based on clearly identified learning objectives and culminate in competency-based testing, which will need to be
5

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 6 of 62
successfully completed for the training to be credited. The curriculum shall be drawn from current research and data.
By the end of implementation Period 1:
4) DFCS shall establish and maintain a Training Unit, headed by a qualified director of training, with sufficient staffing and resources to provide comprehensive child welfare pre-service and ongoing training to all caseworkers and supervisors. Supervisory personnel will no longer be detailed from the field to provide training.
5) All new caseworkers and supervisors will complete their service training consistent with the Plan requirements before they assume their respective responsibilities for carrying cases and supervising.
6) The ongoing training curriculum for caseworkers and supervisors will be completed and ongoing training will have been initiated.
By the end of implementation Period 2:
7) All caseworkers shall receive a minimum of 40 hours of ongoing in-service training each year, and all supervisors shall receive a minimum of 24 hours of ongoing in-service training each year.
d. Contract Agency Requirements:
By the end of implementation Period 2:
In the event that private agencies provide protective, preventive, foster care, or adoption case work services under contract with DFCS, DFCS shall require the contract agencies to abide by all related terms of the Plan, including, but not limited to, provisions regarding training curricula, minimum training hours, and caseload standards. DFCS shall implement and maintain a performance-based contracting system to evaluate annually contract agency compliance with the terms of the Plan. DFCS shall take reasonable steps to ensure contract agency remediation of any identified deficiencies.
3. Performance and Quality Improvement
By the end of implementation Period 1:
a. DFCS shall begin implementing a separate continuous quality improvement (CQI) system.
6

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 7 of 62
By the end of implementation Period 2:
b. DFCS shall implement and maintain a separate CQI system that can identify areas of needed improvement and require improvement plans in support of achieving performance targets, program goals, client satisfaction, and positive client outcomes. The CQI system shall include monitoring and evaluating the quality of social and human services provided by independent contractors and other provider organizations and ensuring contractor remediation of any identified deficiencies.
c. DFCS shall comply with the public child fatality reporting requirements of the Child Abuse Prevention Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5106a(b)(2)(A)(x).
4. Legal and Regulatory Compliance
DFCS shall comply with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
5. Information Management and Use
a. DFCS shall have a Mississippi Automated Child Welfare Information System (MACWIS) appropriate to its size and complexity that permits (1) timely access to information about persons served by any part of the organization, or by other practitioners within the organization, to support child safety and continuity of care across settings and services; (2) capturing, tracking, and reporting of financial, compliance, and child welfare information, including federally required AFCARS elements; (3) longitudinal reporting and comparison of performance over time; (4) the use of clear and consistent formats and methods for reporting and disseminating data, including system-wide reports; (5) the collection of data necessary to monitor compliance with the Plan; (6) DFCS county staff access to a computerized database of the placement resources currently available for placement statewide; (7) notification to caseworkers when a foster care provider for a child assigned to the worker is under investigation, or that provider’s foster care license has expired or been revoked; (8) notification to caseworkers investigating a report of abuse of subsequent reports of abuse concerning the same child or alleged perpetrator; (9) caseworkers to access information on available services statewide; and (10) review of prior (i.e. historical) case documents including Individual Service Plans.
By the end of implementation Period 1:
b. DFCS shall provide to all county agency staff with child welfare responsibilities access to basic computer services, consisting of access to MACWIS, word processing, and electronic mail.
c. MACWIS data related to compliance with the Plan’s Foster Care Service Standards II.B.1-12 will be collected, analyzed, and disseminated at least monthly to DFCS regional and county staff.
7

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 8 of 62
By the end of implementation Period 2:
d. DFCS county staff shall have access to a MACWIS database of the placement resources available for placement statewide at any given time. The database shall permit staff to determine whether a given placement is suitable for a given child needing placement by allowing access to current caretaker placement information, including capacity limitations, current census, the placement’s suitability for children by age, sex, and special needs, and any related licensing and maltreatment investigations information.
e. DFCS shall take reasonable steps to ensure data integrity and user accountability in MACWIS. The system shall have the necessary controls to decrease the risk of duplication of data and to reduce the risk of incorrect or invalid data. The system shall provide a visible trail to the database administrators of all information entered, added, deleted, or modified, and shall have necessary security to protect data integrity. This system shall be audited at least annually to ensure the accuracy and validity of the data in the system. Necessary actions identified by the MACWIS data accuracy and validity audit to correct MACWIS data errors shall be implemented annually.
6. Case Recordings
a. DFCS caseworkers shall compile, maintain, and keep current complete child welfare case records.
By the end of implementation Period 3:
b. At least 90% of child welfare case records will be current and complete.
By the end of implementation Period 4:
c. At least 95% of child welfare case records will be current and complete.
7. Financial Management
By the end of implementation Period 1:
a. Defendants shall conduct an external assessment of actual and anticipated federal funding levels and create an implementation program to increase federal funding available to DFCS.
b. Funds realized as a result of revenue maximization activities shall not supplant appropriated state funds but shall be used in furtherance of the reforms and outcome measures provided for herein and to improve child welfare services.
8

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 9 of 62
B. Foster Care Service Standards
1. Screening and Assessments
a. Upon taking a child into custody, DFCS shall engage in a thorough screening of the child and an individualized, strengths-based, family-focused, and culturally responsive assessment of the family, with the family’s participation. Information gathered during the screening and assessment shall consist of (1) internal, external, and historical factors that may contribute to concerns identified in initial risk and safety assessments and initial screenings; (2) child and family strengths, protective factors, and needs; (3) the impact of maltreatment on the child; (4) factors and characteristics pertinent to selecting an appropriate placement; (5) family resources for the child and the parents; and (6) any other material pertinent for meeting service objectives. The screening and assessment shall inform the selection of an appropriate placement, the provision of needed services, and permanency planning, and shall be completed within 30 calendar days of the child’s entrance into custody and documented in the child’s case record.
b. DFCS shall initiate the assessment process through individual team meetings (1) with the child and the assigned DFCS caseworker within the first 72 hours of initial placement or any subsequent placement moves; (2) with the child’s parents and the assigned DFCS caseworker within the first two weeks of initial placement; and (3) with the foster care provider and the assigned DFCS caseworker within the first two weeks of any placement, or within different timeframes as required by COA standards.
c. In all cases in which the whereabouts of one or both parents is unknown, DFCS shall immediately institute a diligent search for the parent(s), which shall be documented in the child’s case record.
d. In instances in which it is impossible to meet with one or both parents, the assessment process will proceed as described above, notwithstanding the parent’s absence.
By the end of implementation Period 2:
e. All caseworkers carrying active cases and their supervisors will have undergone training on the individual and family team meeting protocols.
f. At least 40% of children entering custody during the Period shall have a thorough screening and assessment, consistent with Plan requirements, within 30 calendar days of entering custody.
g. At least 40% of children entering custody or subject to a placement move during the Period shall have an individual team meeting (1) with the child and the
9

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 10 of 62
assigned DFCS caseworker within the first 72 hours of initial placement or any subsequent placement moves; (2) with the child’s parents and the assigned DFCS caseworker within the first two weeks of initial placement; and (3) with the foster care provider and the assigned DFCS caseworker within the first two weeks of any placement.
h. In at least 40% of placement cases in which the whereabouts of one or both parents is unknown, DFCS shall have immediately instituted a diligent search for the parent(s), which shall be documented in the child’s case record.
By the end of implementation Period 3:
i. At least 80% of children entering custody during the Period shall have a thorough screening and assessment, consistent with Plan requirements, within 30 calendar days of entering custody.
j. At least 80% of children entering custody or subject to a placement move during the Period shall have an individual team meeting (1) with the child and the assigned DFCS caseworker within the first 72 hours of initial placement or any subsequent placement moves; (2) with the child’s parents and the assigned DFCS caseworker within the first two weeks of initial placement; and (3) with the foster care provider and the assigned DFCS caseworker within the first two weeks of any placement.
k. In at least 80% of placement cases in which the whereabouts of one or both parents is unknown, DFCS shall have immediately instituted a diligent search for the parent(s), which shall be documented in the child’s case record.
By the end of implementation Period 4:
l. At least 90% of children entering custody during the Period shall have a thorough screening and assessment, consistent with Plan requirements, within 30 calendar days of entering custody.
m. At least 90% of children entering custody or subject to a placement move during the Period shall have an individual team meeting (1) with the child and the assigned DFCS caseworker within the first 72 hours of initial placement or any subsequent placement moves; (2) with the child’s parents and the assigned DFCS caseworker within the first two weeks of initial placement; and (3) with the foster care provider and the assigned DFCS caseworker within the first two weeks of any placement.
n. In at least 90% of placement cases in which the whereabouts of one or both parents is unknown, DFCS shall have immediately instituted a diligent search for the parent(s), which shall be documented in the child’s case record.
10

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 11 of 62
2. Service Planning and Monitoring
a. Within 30 calendar days of a child’s entrance into foster care, the DFCS caseworker shall convene a team meeting with the DFCS caseworker’s direct supervisor, the child’s family if appropriate, the foster family, and the child unless there is a justification for excluding the child from the planning process. During the team meeting, service plans shall be developed for both the child and the parents with the participation of all team meeting participants.
b. Each service plan shall be reviewed and updated quarterly at a team meeting with the caseworker, the caseworker’s direct supervisor, the foster parent, the child’s parents if appropriate, and the child unless there is a justification for excluding the child from the planning process. If the child’s placement changes, or there is a significant change affecting the child or his/her family, a team meeting shall be convened and the service plan must be updated within 30 calendar days of the date of change.
c. In instances in which it is impossible to meet with one or both parents, the planning process will proceed as described above, notwithstanding the parent’s absence.
By the end of implementation Period 2:
d. At least 40% of children entering custody during the Period shall have a team meeting with service plans developed for both the child and the parents, consistent with Plan requirements, within 30 calendar days of entry into foster care.
e. At least 40% of children in custody during the Period shall have team meetings, at which time their service plans shall be updated, quarterly and within 30 calendar days of any placement or other significant change, consistent with Plan requirements.
By the end of implementation Period 3:
f. At least 80% of children entering custody during the Period shall have a team meeting with service plans developed for both the child and the parents, consistent with Plan requirements, within 30 calendar days of entry into foster care.
g. At least 80% of children in custody during the Period shall have team meetings, at which time their service plans shall be updated, quarterly and within 30 calendar days of any placement or other significant change, consistent with Plan requirements.
11

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 12 of 62
By the end of implementation Period 4:
h. At least 90% of children entering custody during the Period shall have a team meeting with service plans developed for both the child and the parents, consistent with Plan requirements, within 30 calendar days of entry into foster care.
i. At least 90% of children in custody during the Period shall have team meetings, at which time their service plans shall be updated, quarterly and within 30 calendar days of any placement or other significant change, consistent with Plan requirements.
3. Child and Youth Permanency
a. Permanency Plan:
1) Working with service providers, foster parents, the child, and the family, DFCS shall develop and document in the child’s case record a permanency plan within 30 calendar days of the child’s initial placement that specifies the permanency goal, a timeframe for achieving permanency, and activities that support permanency.
2) DFCS may assign a permanency goal of durable legal custody to a child for whom it has not made adoption efforts only if an appropriate person, with preference given to relatives, has been identified; such person is willing to assume long-term responsibility for the child but has articulated a reasonable basis for not adopting the child; and it is in the child’s best interests to remain in the home of such person rather than be considered for adoption by another person. In such circumstances, there shall be in place a long-term placement agreement signed by DFCS and the relative or other appropriate person ensuring the permanency and stability of this placement barring emergency circumstances that dictate the removal of the child.
3) No child shall be assigned a permanency goal of permanent foster care.
4) If DFCS concludes, after considering reunification, adoption, durable legal custody, and permanent placement with a relative, that these permanency plans are inappropriate or unavailable for a child, DFCS may assign a permanency goal of emancipation for the child. In such circumstances, a) the child must be at least 16 years old and b) DFCS must document to the Youth Court a compelling reason why this permanency goal is in the best interest of the child and more appropriate than reunification, adoption, durable legal custody, or permanent placement with a relative.
12

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 13 of 62
By the end of implementation Period 2:
5) A least 50% of children entering care during the Period shall have a permanency plan within 30 calendar days of their entry into care consistent with Plan requirements.
6) At least 50% of children in custody during the Period shall have a permanency plan that is consistent with Plan requirements.
By the end of implementation Period 3:
7) A least 90% of children entering care during the Period shall have a permanency plan within 30 calendar days of their entry into care consistent with Plan requirements.
8) At least 90% of children in custody during the Period shall have a permanency plan that is consistent with Plan requirements.
By the end of implementation Period 4:
9) At least 95% of children entering care during the Period shall have a permanency plan within 30 calendar days of their entry into care consistent with Plan requirements.
10) At least 95% of children in custody during the Period shall have a permanency plan that is consistent with Plan requirements.
b. Concurrent Planning:
1) For children with the goal of reunification, DFCS shall engage in concurrent planning consisting of early assessment of the potential for reunification; early identification of potential family resources; and early placement with a potentially permanent family resource.
By the end of implementation Period 2:
2) At least 50% of children in custody during the Period with the goal of reunification shall have case record documentation reflecting active concurrent permanency planning consistent with Plan requirements.
By the end of implementation Period 3:
3) At least 90% of children in custody during the Period with the goal of reunification shall have case record documentation reflecting active concurrent permanency planning consistent with Plan requirements.
13

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 14 of 62
By the end of implementation Period 4:
4) A least 95% of children in custody during the Period with the goal of reunification shall have case record documentation reflecting active concurrent permanency planning consistent with Plan requirements.
c. Permanency Plan Updating and Review:
1) A child’s permanency plan shall be reviewed in a court or administrative case review at least every six months. DFCS will take reasonable steps, including written notice, to ensure the participation of the child, parents, caregivers, and relevant professionals in court or administrative reviews.
2) DFCS will take reasonable steps to ensure that a court review, which may be called a review, dispositional, or permanency hearing, is held for each child in foster care custody within 12 months of initial placement, and annually thereafter.
By the end of implementation Period 2:
3) At least 50% of children in custody at least six months during the Period shall have a timely court or administrative case review consistent with Plan requirements during the Period.
4) At least 50% of children in custody at least 12 months during the Period shall have a timely annual court review consistent with Plan requirements during the Period.
By the end of implementation Period 3:
5) At least 90% of children in custody at least six months during the Period shall have a timely court or administrative case review consistent with Plan requirements during the Period.
6) At least 90% of children in custody at least 12 months during the Period shall have a timely annual court review consistent with Plan requirements during the Period.
By the end of implementation Period 4:
7) At least 95% of children in custody at least six months during the Period shall have a timely court or administrative case review consistent with Plan requirements during the Period.
14

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 15 of 62
8) At least 95% of children in custody at least 12 months during the Period shall have a timely annual court review consistent with Plan requirements during the Period.
d. Reunification Services:
1) When the child’s permanency goal is reunification, DFCS shall identify in the parents’ service plan and make available directly or through referral those services DFCS deems necessary to address the behaviors or conditions resulting in the child’s placement in foster care and to help the parents develop strategies to facilitate permanency for the child.
2) For a child with a permanency goal of reunification, the child’s assigned DFCS caseworker shall meet with the child’s biological parents at least monthly to assess service delivery and achievement of service goals, to keep the family informed and involved in decisions about the child, and to remain current about the family’s circumstances.
3) For children with a permanency goal of reunification, the case record shall document opportunities provided to parents in support of reunification, including involvement in service planning and access to needed services; constructive visitation and on-going contact with the child; reduction of barriers to contact, visitation, and involvement in the child’s care; and use of resources to prepare the family for reunification.
By the end of implementation Period 2:
4) At least 40% of children with a permanency goal of reunification during the Period shall have service plans for their parents that identify those services DFCS deems necessary to address the behaviors or conditions resulting in the child’s placement in foster care and case record documentation that DFCS made those identified services available directly or through referral.
By the end of implementation Period 3:
5) At least 80% of children with a permanency goal of reunification during the Period shall have service plans for their parents that identify those services DFCS deems necessary to address the behaviors or conditions resulting in the child’s placement in foster care and case record documentation that DFCS made those identified services available directly or through referral.
By the end of implementation Period 4:
6) At least 90% of children with a permanency goal of reunification during the Period shall have service plans for their parents that identify those services DFCS deems necessary to address the behaviors or conditions resulting in the
15

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 16 of 62
child’s placement in foster care and case record documentation that DFCS made those identified services available directly or through referral. e. Termination of Parental Rights:
1) For children who will have spent 15 of the previous 22 months in foster care, DFCS shall submit a termination of parental rights (TPR) packet to the Office of the Attorney General by the first day of the fifteenth month or document an available exception under the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA). The Office of the Attorney General shall file the petition for termination of parental rights by the last day of the fifteenth month to ensure compliance with the ASFA.
2) When a child’s primary permanency goal is established as adoption, DFCS shall submit a TPR packet to the State Office within 30 calendar days. Within 30 calendar days of receipt of the TPR packet by the State Office, the State Office shall review the packet, remedy any deficiencies, and submit a TPR referral to the Office of the Attorney General. Within 30 calendar days of such referral, the Office of the Attorney General shall either file the petition for TPR or document to DFCS a legal deficiency preventing timely filing. Within 10 working days of receiving documentation of a legal deficiency, the assigned DFCS caseworker shall document to the Office of the Attorney General the steps to be taken to address the deficiency. The DFCS caseworker and that caseworker’s direct supervisor shall meet in person every 30 calendar days thereafter to document progress being made to address the legal deficiency until a TPR referral has been accepted as legally sufficient by the Office of the Attorney General, who shall file the petition for TPR within 30 calendar days.
By the end of implementation Period 2:
3) At least 40% of children in custody reaching the point at which they have spent 15 of the previous 22 months in foster care during the Period shall have a petition for TPR filed on their behalf or an available exception under the federal ASFA documented by the end of their fifteenth month in care.
4) At least 40% of children in custody during the Period who have spent more than 15 of the previous 22 months in foster care without a TPR petition filed on their behalf or an available ASFA exception documented by the end of their fifteenth month in care shall have such a petition filed or an available exception documented within the Period.
By the end of implementation Period 3:
5) At least 80% of children in custody reaching the point at which they have spent 15 of the previous 22 months in foster care during the Period shall have
16

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 17 of 62
a petition to TPR filed on their behalf or an available exception under the federal ASFA documented by the end of their fifteenth month in care.
6) At least 80% of children in custody during the Period who have spent more than 15 of the previous 22 months in foster care without a TPR petition filed on their behalf or an available ASFA exception documented by the end of their fifteenth month in care shall have such a petition filed or an available exception documented within the Period.
By the end of implementation Period 4:
7) At least 90% of children in custody reaching the point at which they have spent 15 of the previous 22 months in foster care during the Period shall have a petition to TPR filed on their behalf or an available exception under the federal ASFA documented by the end of their fifteenth month in care.
8) At least 90% of children in custody during the Period who have spent more than 15 of the previous 22 months in foster care without a TPR petition filed on their behalf or an available ASFA exception documented by the end of their fifteenth month in care shall have such a petition filed or an available exception documented within the Period.
f. Adoption:
1) When a child’s primary permanency goal is established as adoption, DFCS shall, within 10 working days, assign an adoption specialist to work with the assigned DFCS caseworker to immediately begin the process of securing an adoptive placement for the child. Within 15 calendar days of the primary permanency goal change to adoption, the DFCS caseworker, along with the adoption specialist, shall draw up an adoption plan that identifies the childspecific activities that DFCS will undertake to achieve the permanency goal of adoption and the timeframes in which the activities will be undertaken. The adoption specialist shall be responsible for consulting with private and public professionals and identifying and ensuring the provision of targeted services necessary for the child to be adopted. An adoption status meeting with the DFCS caseworker, the adoption specialist, and the caseworker’s direct supervisor to review the progress being made in achieving the goal of adoption shall occur weekly for infants and monthly for all other children awaiting adoption, and shall be noted in the child’s case record.
2) For each child who is not in a home with approved adoptive parents within six months after being legally freed for adoption, DFCS will assign an external adoption consultant who will be contracted to work with the assigned DFCS caseworker and adoption specialist to review, amend, or approve the adoption plan and to ensure the plan is implemented. The initial meeting with the consultant to review that adoption plan shall be in person. The consultant shall also participate in the monthly or, in the case of infants, weekly adoption
17

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 18 of 62
status meetings, but may do so telephonically where geographic barriers make in-person participation impractical.
By the end of implementation Period 1:
3) DFCS shall provide and maintain an approval process by which foster parents and adoptive parents may be approved simultaneously, so that whenever possible and appropriate, placement moves can be minimized and foster parents can be eligible to adopt the children for whom they have been providing foster care. A foster parent who has been providing foster care for a child for 12 months shall be given preference as an adoptive parent for that child should he/she become legally available for adoption, unless DFCS documents why the placement is unsuitable for adoption.
4) DFCS shall implement and maintain a process for advising all potential adoptive families, including any foster family caring for a child who has become legally available for adoption, of the availability of adoption subsidies. This notification shall be documented in the child’s record, and the family’s access to such subsidies shall be facilitated.
5) DFCS shall establish and maintain a system of post-adoptive services to stabilize and maintain adoptive placements. All adoptive families eligible for adoption subsidies shall have access to these services, which shall include respite services; counseling, mental health treatment, and crisis intervention; family preservation and stabilization services; and peer support.
By the end of implementation Period 2:
6) At least 75% of children in custody with the primary permanency goal of adoption during the Period shall have an assigned adoption specialist and an adoption plan that identifies the child-specific activities that DFCS will undertake to achieve adoption, and shall receive regular adoption status meetings consistent with Plan requirements.
7) At least 75% of children in custody during the Period who are legally free for adoption but are not in a home with approved adoptive parents within six months after being legally freed for adoption shall have an assigned external adoption consultant consistent with Plan requirements to ensure the adoption plan is implemented.
By the end of implementation Period 3:
8) At least 90% of children in custody with the primary permanency goal of adoption during the Period shall have an assigned adoption specialist and an adoption plan that identifies the child-specific activities that DFCS will undertake to achieve adoption, and shall receive regular adoption status meetings consistent with Plan requirements.
18

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 19 of 62
9) At least 90% of children in custody during the Period who are legally free for adoption but are not in a home with approved adoptive parents within six months after being legally freed for adoption shall have an assigned external adoption consultant consistent with Plan requirements to ensure the adoption plan is implemented.
By the end of implementation Period 4:
10) At least 95% of children in custody with the primary permanency goal of adoption during the Period shall have an assigned adoption specialist and an adoption plan that identifies the child-specific activities that DFCS will undertake to achieve adoption, and shall receive regular adoption status meetings consistent with Plan requirements.
11) At least 95% of children in custody during the Period who are legally free for adoption but are not in a home with approved adoptive parents within six months after being legally freed for adoption shall have an assigned external adoption consultant consistent with Plan requirements to ensure the adoption plan is implemented.
4. Child Safety
a. DFCS shall maintain a well-publicized 24-hour statewide child abuse hotline for the reporting of abuse and/or neglect.
b. Upon receipt of a report of child maltreatment in a group home, emergency shelter, or private child placing agency foster home, DFCS shall undertake a licensure investigation, that is additional to, and independent of, any child protective investigation, that shall include an on-site inspection of the facility or home to determine the contract provider’s compliance with DFCS licensure standards. If the provider is found to be in violation of licensure standards, it shall have 30 days to submit a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) with timeframes to rectify the violation and comply with the approved CAP and timeframes. If the provider does not comply with the licensure standards based on the approved CAP and timeframes, DFCS shall revoke the license.
c. All allegations of maltreatment of a child in custody, including corporal punishment, shall be investigated by a caseworker who has received training in the investigation of maltreatment in out-of-home placements and has no ongoing connection to the foster care case.
By the end of implementation Period 1:
d. DFCS shall assure that standardized decision-making criteria are used for prioritizing, screening, and assessing all reports of maltreatment, including corporal punishment, of children in DFCS custody.
19

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 20 of 62
e. All investigations into reports of maltreatment, including corporal punishment, of children in DFCS custody must be initiated within 24 hours and completed within 20 calendar days, including supervisory approval. DFCS shall assure that such investigations and decisions are based on a full and systematic evaluation of the factors that may place a child in DFCS custody at risk.
f. Any foster child who remains in the same out-of-home placement following an investigation into a report that he or she was maltreated, or subject to corporal punishment, in that placement shall be visited by a DFCS caseworker twice a month for three months after the conclusion of the investigation to assure the child’s continued safety and well-being.
g. When a maltreatment investigation involves a foster home, DFCS shall file a copy of the approved final investigative report, and any recommendations and/or corrective actions DFCS has deemed necessary, in the case record of the foster child, in the file of the foster or adoptive parents with a copy of the letter of notification to the foster or adoptive parents, and in the DFCS State Office. DFCS shall also provide those records to the Youth Court Judge with jurisdiction over the child and to the Monitor.
h. When a maltreatment investigation involves an agency group home, emergency shelter, private child placing agency foster home, or other facility licensed by DFCS, a copy of the final investigative report shall be filed in the child’s case record, in the facility licensing file, and in the DFCS State Office. DFCS shall provide the report to the Youth Court Judge with jurisdiction over the child and to the Monitor.
i. DFCS shall undertake a special safety review, including an unannounced site visit, of all currently licensed foster homes with two or more reports of maltreatment, including corporal punishment, within the last three years to determine whether any children placed in those homes are at risk of harm and any licensing standards related to child safety are not being met. Any necessary corrective actions will be identified and tracked.
j. DFCS shall undertake a special safety review, including an unannounced site visit, of all group homes and other residential facilities that house children in custody with three or more reports of maltreatment, including corporal punishment, within the last two years to determine whether any children placed in those facilities are at risk of harm and any licensing standards related to child safety are not being met. Any necessary corrective actions will be identified and tracked.
By the end of implementation Period 2:
k. For investigations of agency group homes, emergency shelters, and private child placing agency foster homes, the Licensure Unit shall undertake a separate
20

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 21 of 62
investigation of the contract provider’s compliance with DFCS licensure standards.
5. Child Placement
a. No foster child shall be placed in a foster care setting that has not been licensed or approved as meeting DFCS licensure standards, unless the child is placed pursuant to the following relative licensing process. The licensing process for relatives shall take place in two steps: (1) an emergency process to be developed by DFCS in conjunction with COA that enables a child to be placed with relatives as soon as the child enters placement, following an initial screen (as described at II.B.5.i below) of the relative’s home, and (2) a full licensing process, to be completed no later than 60 calendar days after the child has entered placement. DFCS may waive non-safety licensing requirements for relative foster placements in individual cases, in accordance with federal regulations.
b. No foster home shall provide care for more than three foster children or for a total of more than five children (including foster, biological, and adoptive children) at any given time. No more than two children in the foster home may be under the age of two or have therapeutic needs. Notwithstanding the above, a sibling group may be placed together in the same foster home in excess of these limits, but only upon written approval by the DFCS Regional Director determining that the foster children can be maintained safely in the foster home.
c. Children with special needs shall be matched with placement resources that can meet their therapeutic, medical, and educational needs. DFCS shall ensure that each county office has access to placement specialists within its region having the ability to ascertain the placement resources available and their suitability for each particular child needing placement.
d. Each foster child shall be placed in the least restrictive setting that meets his/her individual needs as determined by a review of all intake, screening, assessment, and prior placement information on the child available at the time of placement. In order of consideration, this means placement with relatives; foster home care within reasonable proximity to the child’s home community; foster home care outside of the child’s home community; group home care; or institutional care.
e. Each child shall be placed within his/her own county or within 50 miles of the home from which he/she was removed. This provision shall not apply if (1) the child’s needs are so exceptional that they cannot be met by a family or facility within his/her own county or within 50 miles of the home from which he/she was removed; (2) the child is placed through the ICPC consistent with its terms; (3) the child is appropriately placed with relatives or another planned permanent resource; (4) the child is ordered to be placed in a child-specific foster care setting by a court; or (5) the child is placed in an adoptive home.
21

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 22 of 62
f. Siblings who enter placement at or near the same time shall be placed together unless (1) doing so would be harmful to one or more of the siblings; (2) one of the siblings has exceptional needs that can be met only in a specialized program or facility; or (3) 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 initial placement, the caseworker 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.
g. No later than at the time of placement, DFCS shall provide foster parents or facility staff with the foster child’s currently available medical, dental health, educational, and psychological information, including a copy of the child’s Medicaid card. DFCS shall gather and provide to foster parents or facility staff all additional current medical, dental health, educational, and psychological information available from the child’s service providers within 15 days of placement.
h. DFCS shall take all reasonable steps to avoid the disruption of an appropriate placement and ensure placement stability for children. If a caseworker has knowledge that a placement may disrupt, the caseworker shall immediately convene a meeting with the DFCS supervisor, the foster parents, and, if appropriate, the child to determine the following: the cause of the potential disruption; whether the placement is appropriate for the child; whether additional services are necessary to support the placement; whether the child needs another placement; and, if another placement is necessary, what that placement should be. If the placement disrupts on an emergency basis, the meeting shall be held no later than five days after the disruption to address whether the child needs additional supportive services and whether the new placement is appropriate.
By the end of implementation Period 1:
i. All foster care settings, including relative placements, shall be screened prior to the initial placement of foster children to ensure that children receive safe, sufficient, and appropriate care. Additional screens shall be completed at least once annually thereafter and within two weeks of a reported change in the residents of a foster home. Screens shall include criminal and child welfare background checks of all household members who are at least 14 years old. No foster child shall be placed in a home prior to DFCS receipt of the background check results.
j. DFCS shall develop and implement an expedited process for licensing screened relative caregivers to enable a child to be placed quickly with relatives upon entering placement. All relative placements approved for expedited placement shall undergo the full licensing procedure within 120 calendar days of the child’s placement in the home.
22

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 23 of 62
k. No foster child shall remain in an emergency or temporary facility for more than 45 calendar days, unless, in exceptional circumstances, the Division Director has granted express written approval for the extension that documents the need for the extension.
By the end of implementation Period 2:
l. No child shall spend more than 12 hours at a time in a DFCS office or other nonresidential facility that provides intake functions. No child shall be placed in more than one emergency or temporary facility within one episode of foster care, unless an immediate placement move is necessary to protect the safety of the child or of others as certified in writing by the Regional Director.
m. No child under 10 years of age shall be placed in a congregate care setting (including group homes and shelters) unless the child has exceptional needs that cannot be met in a relative or foster family home or the child is a member of a sibling group, and the Regional Director has granted express written approval for the congregate-care placement. Such approval shall be based on the Regional Director’s written determination that the child’s needs cannot be met in a less restrictive setting and can be met in that specific facility, including a description of the services available in the facility to address the individual child’s needs. Sibling groups in which one or more of the siblings are under the age of 10 shall not be placed in congregate care settings for more than 45 days.
n. No foster child shall be moved from his/her existing placement to another foster placement unless DFCS specifically documents in the child’s case record justifications for that move and the move is approved by a DFCS supervisor.
o. All relative placements approved for expedited placement shall undergo the full licensing procedure within 60 calendar days of the child’s placement in the home.
p. At least 50% of children in DHS custody placed in a new placement during the Period shall have their currently available medical, dental, educational, and psychological information provided to their foster parents or facility staff no later than at the time of any new placement during the Period.
q. At least 30% of children in custody known by DFCS to be subject to a potential or actual placement disruption during the Period shall receive a meeting to address placement stability consistent with Plan requirements.
By the end of implementation Period 3:
r. No more than 30% of foster homes shall provide care to a number of children in excess of the Plan foster home population limitations.
s. At least 80% of children in DHS custody placed in a new placement during the Period shall have their currently available medical, dental, educational, and
23

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 24 of 62
psychological information provided to their foster parents or facility staff no later than at the time of any new placement during the Period.
t. At least 70% of children in custody known by DFCS to be subject to a potential or actual placement disruption during the Period shall receive a meeting to address placement stability consistent with Plan requirements.
u. At least 80% of children with special needs shall be matched with placement resources that can meet their therapeutic, medical, and educational needs.
v. At least 80% of children in DHS custody shall be placed in the least restrictive setting that meets their individual needs consistent with Plan requirements.
w. At least 80% of siblings who entered DFCS custody at or near the same time shall be placed together consistent with Plan requirements.
By the end of implementation Period 4:
x. No foster child shall be placed or remain in a foster care setting that does not meet DFCS licensure standards consistent with Plan requirements, unless so ordered by the Youth Court over DFCS objection.
y. No more than 10% of foster homes shall provide care to a number of children in excess of the Plan foster home population limitations.
z. At least 95% of children in DHS custody shall have their currently available medical, dental, educational, and psychological information provided to their foster parents or facility staff no later than at the time of any new placement.
aa. At least 90% of children with special needs shall be matched with placement resources that can meet their therapeutic, medical, and educational needs.
bb. At least 90% of children in DHS custody shall be placed in the least restrictive setting that meets their individual needs consistent with Plan requirements.
cc. At least 90% of siblings who entered DFCS custody at or near the same time shall be placed together consistent with Plan requirements.
dd. At least 90% of children in custody known by DFCS to be subject to a potential or actual placement disruption during the Period shall receive a meeting to address placement stability consistent with Plan requirements.
24

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 25 of 62
6. Developing and Maintaining Connections
a. At the time of the initial team meeting when a child enters foster care, a visitation plan for the child and his/her family shall be developed as part of the child’s service plan. This visitation plan shall be developed and regularly updated in collaboration with parents, foster parents, and the child and should be appropriate to a) the child’s age and developmental stage; b) the parents’ strengths and needs; c) the schedules of foster parents and parents; d) the social and cultural context of the family; and e) the status of the case and the permanency goal. If parental visitation is appropriate based on the above factors, this visitation plan shall include a minimum of two visits per month with the parents (unless a court order in the child’s case limits such visits). For all children, regardless of permanency goal, this visitation plan shall include at least one visit per month with any siblings not in the same placement (unless a court order in the child’s case limits such visits).
b. DFCS shall arrange contact for the child with his/her parents and with any siblings not in the same placement within 24 hours of foster care placement unless there are documented reasons why contact should not occur. If a visit cannot be arranged within 24 hours, a telephone call to parents, siblings, or extended family members must be provided to the child.
c. DFCS caseworkers shall take all reasonable steps to ensure the implementation of each child’s visitation plan. DFCS and its contracting agencies shall implement a policy that prohibits cancellation of visits as a disciplinary action.
By the end of implementation Period 2:
d. At least 40% of children in custody during the Period shall be provided with contacts with their parents and with any siblings not in the same placement consistent with Plan requirements.
By the end of implementation Period 3:
e. At least 80% of children in custody during the Period shall be provided with contacts with their parents and with any siblings not in the same placement consistent with Plan requirements.
By the end of implementation Period 4:
f. At least 90% of children in custody during the Period shall be provided with contacts with their parents and with any siblings not in the same placement consistent with Plan requirements.
25

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 26 of 62
7. Physical and Mental Health Care
a. Every child entering foster care shall receive a health screening evaluation from a qualified medical practitioner within 72 hours after placement that is in accordance with the health screening recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
b. Within 30 calendar days of placement in foster care, each child shall receive a comprehensive health assessment that is in accordance with the assessment recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
c. Nothing in the above paragraphs shall prohibit the initial health screening evaluation and the comprehensive health assessment from being conducted in one clinical visit. However, in such instances, this combined visit shall be conducted within 72 hours of placement.
d. All children shall receive periodic medical examinations and all medically necessary follow-up services and treatment throughout the time they are in state custody, in accordance with the time periods recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
e. Each child three years old and older shall be provided with a dental examination within 90 calendar days of foster care placement and every six months thereafter. Each foster child who reaches the age of three in care shall be provided with a dental examination within 90 calendar days of his/her third birthday and every six months thereafter. Foster children shall receive all medically necessary dental services.
f. Each child four years old and older shall be provided with a mental health assessment by a qualified professional within 30 calendar days of foster care placement. Each foster child who reaches the age of four in care shall be provided with a mental health assessment within 30 calendar days of his/her fourth birthday. Each foster child shall receive recommended mental health services pursuant to his/her assessment.
g. Each foster child ages birth through three shall be provided with a developmental assessment by a qualified professional, and each child older than three shall be provided with a developmental assessment if factors indicate such an assessment is warranted. All foster children shall be provided with needed follow-up developmental services.
By the end of implementation Period 2:
h. At least 40% of children entering custody during the Period shall receive a comprehensive health assessment consistent with Plan requirements within 30 calendar days of entering care.
26

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 27 of 62
i. At least 40% of children in custody during the Period shall receive periodic medical examinations and all medically necessary follow-up services and treatment consistent with Plan requirements.
j. At least 40% of children three years old and older entering custody during the Period or in care and turning three years old during the Period shall receive a dental examination within 90 calendar days of foster care placement or their third birthday, respectively.
k. At least 40% of children in custody during the Period shall receive a dental examination every six months consistent with Plan requirements and all medically necessary dental services.
l. At least 40% of children four years old and older entering custody during the Period or in care and turning four years old during the Period shall receive a mental health assessment by a qualified professional within 30 calendar days of foster care placement or their fourth birthday, respectively, and all recommended mental health services pursuant to their assessment.
m. At least 40% of children in custody ages birth through three during the Period, and older children if factors indicate it is warranted, shall receive a developmental assessment by a qualified professional and all needed developmental services.
By the end of implementation Period 3:
n. At least 80% of children entering custody during the Period shall receive a comprehensive health assessment consistent with Plan requirements within 30 calendar days of entering care.
o. At least 80% of children in custody during the Period shall receive periodic medical examinations and all medically necessary follow-up services and treatment consistent with Plan requirements.
p. At least 80% of children three years old and older entering custody during the Period or in care and turning three years old during the Period shall receive a dental examination within 90 calendar days of foster care placement or their third birthday, respectively.
q. At least 80% of children in custody during the Period shall receive a dental examination every six months consistent with Plan requirements and all medically necessary dental services.
r. At least 80% of children four years old and older entering custody during the Period or in care and turning four years old during the Period shall receive a mental health assessment by a qualified professional within 30 calendar days of foster care placement or their fourth birthday, respectively, and all recommended mental health services pursuant to their assessment.
27

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 28 of 62
s. At least 80% of children in custody ages birth through three during the Period, and older children if factors indicate it is warranted, shall receive a developmental assessment by a qualified professional and all needed developmental services.
By the end of implementation Period 4:
t. At least 90% of children entering custody during the Period shall receive a comprehensive health assessment consistent with Plan requirements within 30 calendar days of entering care.
u. At least 90% of children in custody during the Period shall receive periodic medical examinations and all medically necessary follow-up services and treatment consistent with Plan requirements.
v. At least 90% of children three years old and older entering custody during the Period or in care and turning three years old during the Period shall receive a dental examination within 90 calendar days of foster care placement or their third birthday, respectively.
w. At least 90% of children in custody during the Period shall receive a dental examination every six months consistent with Plan requirements and all medically necessary dental services.
x. At least 90% of children four years old and older entering custody during the Period or in care and turning four years old during the Period shall receive a mental health assessment by a qualified professional within 30 calendar days of foster care placement or their fourth birthday, respectively, and all recommended mental health services pursuant to their assessment.
y. At least 90% of children in custody ages birth through three during the Period, and older children if factors indicate it is warranted, shall receive a developmental assessment by a qualified professional and all needed developmental services.
8. Educational Services
a. DFCS caseworkers shall screen each child for general and special educational needs within 30 calendar days of his/her entry into foster care.
b. DFCS shall take reasonable steps to ensure that school-age foster children are registered for and attending accredited schools within three business days of initial placement or any placement change, including while placed in shelters or other temporary placements.
c. DFCS shall make all 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.
28

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 29 of 62
By the end of implementation Period 2:
d. At least 40% of school-age children entering custody during the Period shall be screened for general and special educational needs within 30 calendar days of their entry into foster care.
e. At least 40% of school-age children entering custody or subject to a change in schools due to a placement move during the Period shall be registered for and attending an accredited school within three business days of the initial placement or placement change, including while placed in shelters or other temporary placements, unless delayed by the Youth Court.
By the end of implementation Period 3:
f. At least 80% of school-age children entering custody during the Period shall be screened for general and special educational needs within 30 calendar days of their entry into foster care.
g. At least 80% of school-age children entering custody or subject to a change in schools due to a placement move during the Period shall be registered for and attending an accredited school within three business days of the initial placement or placement change, including while placed in shelters or other temporary placements, unless delayed by the Youth Court.
By the end of implementation Period 4:
h. At least 90% of school-age children entering custody during the Period shall be screened for general and special educational needs within 30 calendar days of their entry into foster care.
i. At least 90% of school-age children entering custody or subject to a change in schools due to a placement move during the Period shall be registered for and attending an accredited school within three business days of the initial placement or placement change, including while placed in shelters or other temporary placements, unless delayed by the Youth Court.
9. Therapeutic Services
a. Each foster child requiring therapeutic and rehabilitative foster care services because of a diagnosis of significant medical, developmental, emotional, or behavioral problems shall be provided with a treatment plan and shall be provided with these services in accordance with the plan.
29

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 30 of 62
By the end of implementation Period 2:
b. At least 40% of children in custody during the Period requiring therapeutic and/or rehabilitative foster care services because of a diagnosis of significant medical, developmental, emotional, or behavioral problems shall be provided with a treatment plan and services in accordance with their plan.
By the end of implementation Period 3:
c. At least 80% of children in custody during the Period requiring therapeutic and/or rehabilitative foster care services because of a diagnosis of significant medical, developmental, emotional, or behavioral problems shall be provided with a treatment plan and services in accordance with their plan.
By the end of implementation Period 4:
d. At least 90% of children in custody during the Period requiring therapeutic and/or rehabilitative foster care services because of a diagnosis of significant medical, developmental, emotional, or behavioral problems shall be provided with a treatment plan and services in accordance with their plan.
10. Worker Contact and Monitoring
a. Regardless of whether a child’s foster care placement is being directly supervised by DFCS or by a contract agency, the assigned DFCS caseworker (either County of Service or County of Responsibility) shall meet with the child in person and, where age-appropriate, alone at least twice monthly to assess the child’s safety and well-being, service delivery, and achievement of permanency and other service goals. At least one visit per month shall take place in the child’s placement. During a child’s first month in foster care and after each change of placement, the assigned DFCS caseworker shall meet with the child in person, and, where age-appropriate, alone, to assess the child’s adjustment to the placement and whether more frequent visits by the caseworker are necessary. This assessment may occur at a regularly scheduled visit with the child.
b. For a child with a permanency goal of reunification, the child’s assigned DFCS caseworker shall meet with the child’s biological parents at least monthly to assess service delivery and achievement of service goals, to keep the family informed and involved in decisions about the child, and to remain current about the family’s circumstances.
c. A DFCS foster care worker shall regularly communicate with non-therapeutic foster parents who have one or more foster children residing in their home and visit the home at least monthly to (1) share all relevant and legally disclosable information concerning the foster child; (2) evaluate the foster child’s safety,
30

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 31 of 62
needs, and well-being; and (3) monitor service delivery and achievement of service goals.
d. DFCS shall maintain weekly contact with therapeutic foster parents who have one or more foster children residing in their home, and shall make a minimum of two visits per month to the home to (1) share all relevant and legally disclosable information concerning the foster child; (2) evaluate the foster child’s safety, needs, and well-being; and (3) monitor service delivery and achievement of service goals.
e. All required visits and contacts shall be documented in the child’s case record.
By the end of implementation Period 2:
f. At least 30% of children in custody shall receive documented twice-monthly inperson visits by the assigned DFCS caseworker during the Period, consistent with Plan requirements.
g. At least 40% of children with a goal of reunification shall have their assigned DFCS caseworker meet monthly with the child’s biological parents, consistent with Plan requirements, as documented in the child’s case record.
h. At least 30% of foster parents with at least one foster child residing in their home during the Period shall have a DFCS worker visit the home twice a month (therapeutic foster homes) or monthly (non-therapeutic foster homes), consistent with Plan requirements, as documented in the children’s case records.
By the end of implementation Period 3:
i. At least 70% of children in custody shall receive documented twice-monthly inperson visits by the assigned DFCS caseworker during the Period, consistent with Plan requirements.
j. At least 80% of children with a goal of reunification shall have their assigned DFCS caseworker meet monthly with the child’s biological parents, consistent with Plan requirements, as documented in the child’s case record.
k. At least 80% of foster parents with at least one foster child residing in their home during the Period shall have a DFCS worker visit the home twice a month (therapeutic foster homes) or monthly (non-therapeutic foster homes), consistent with Plan requirements, as documented in the children’s case records.
31

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 32 of 62
By the end of implementation Period 4:
l. At least 90% of children in custody shall receive documented twice-monthly inperson visits by the assigned DFCS caseworker during the Period, consistent with Plan requirements.
m. At least 90% of children with a goal of reunification shall have their assigned DFCS caseworker meet monthly with the child’s biological parents, consistent with Plan requirements, as documented in the child’s case record.
n. At least 90% of foster parents with at least one foster child residing in their home during the Period shall have a DFCS worker visit the home twice a month (therapeutic foster homes) or monthly (non-therapeutic foster homes), consistent with Plan requirements, as documented in the children’s case records.
11. Transition to Independent Living
a. DFCS shall provide each youth transitioning to independence with at least six months’ advance notice of the cessation of any health, financial, or other benefits that will occur at the time of transition.
b. Each foster youth 14-20 years old, regardless of his/her permanency plan, shall be provided with an opportunity to participate in the creation of an Independent Living service plan for Independent Living preparation. DFCS shall provide each eligible youth with Independent Living services as set forth in his/her service plan.
c. DFCS shall ensure that each youth transitioning to independence has available an adequate living arrangement, a source of income, health care, independent living stipends, and education and training vouchers. DFCS shall assist youth in locating and/or enrolling in educational or vocational programs appropriate to their needs, interests, abilities, and goals, such as high school or GED programs; colleges or universities; vocational training programs; and special education services.
d. DFCS shall assist youth in obtaining or compiling documents necessary to function as an independent adult as outlined in COA standards.
By the end of implementation Period 2:
e. At least 60% of children in custody 14-20 years old during the Period shall be provided with Independent Living services as set forth in their service plan.
f. At least 60% of children in custody transitioning to independence during the Period shall have available an adequate living arrangement, a source of income, health care, independent living stipends, and education and training vouchers. DFCS shall also assist such children in obtaining, prior to transitioning to
32

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 33 of 62
independent living, the necessary documents and information identified in the COA standards for emancipating youth.
By the end of implementation Period 3:
g. At least 90% of children in custody 14-20 years old during the Period shall be provided with Independent Living services as set forth in their service plan.
h. At least 80% of children in custody transitioning to independence during the Period shall have available an adequate living arrangement, a source of income, health care, independent living stipends, and education and training vouchers. DFCS shall also assist such children in obtaining, prior to transitioning to independent living, the necessary documents and information identified in the COA standards for emancipating youth.
By the end of implementation Period 4:
i. At least 95% of children in custody 14-20 years old during the Period shall be provided with Independent Living services as set forth in their service plan.
j. At least 90% of children in custody transitioning to independence during the Period shall have available an adequate living arrangement, a source of income, health care, independent living stipends, and education and training vouchers. DFCS shall assist such children in obtaining, prior to transitioning to independent living, the necessary documents and information identified in the COA standards for emancipating youth.
12. Case Closing and Aftercare
a. For each child who has a permanency goal of reunification and who is in fact placed in the home for the purpose of reunification, DFCS shall provide, subject to the approval of the youth court, such child with a 90-day trial home visit. During any trial home visit period, a DFCS caseworker or Family Preservation caseworker shall meet with the child in the home at least two times per month, and each meeting shall occur without the parent or caretaker present.
b. A recommendation to return a child to his/her home or to place the child in the custody of a relative shall be made at a meeting attended by the child’s DFCS caseworker, the caseworker’s supervisor, the worker from the private agency if the child is placed with a private agency, the foster parents (unless DFCS determines that the foster parents’ attendance would be inappropriate), the biological parents or the relative assuming custody, and the child. At the meeting, the participants shall devise an after-care plan that identifies all of the services necessary to ensure that the conditions leading to the child’s placement in foster care have been addressed, and that the child’s safety and stability will be assured. DFCS shall take reasonable steps to provide or facilitate access to all services necessary to support the child during the trial home visit.
33

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 34 of 62
c. Before the end of any trial home visit period, there shall be a final discharge staffing meeting, which shall include the child’s caseworker, the caseworker’s supervisor, the child, and the parent or relative assuming custody, to determine the appropriateness of a final discharge. If final discharge is determined to be appropriate, DFCS shall make the appropriate application to the court to be relieved of custody.
By the end of implementation Period 2:
d. At least 40% of children in custody who are reunified during the Period shall receive a 90-day trial home visit period or have case record documentation reflecting the Youth Court’s objection to such a trial home visit. During that trial home visit period, the child’s caseworker or a Family Preservation caseworker shall meet with the child in the home at least two times per month, and DFCS shall provide or facilitate access to all services identified in the child’s after-care plan, consistent with Plan requirements.
By the end of implementation Period 3:
e. At least 70% of children in custody who are reunified during the Period shall receive a 90-day trial home visit period or have case record documentation reflecting the Youth Court’s objection to such a trial home visit. During that trial home visit period, the child’s caseworker or a Family Preservation caseworker shall meet with the child in the home at least two times per month, and DFCS shall provide or facilitate access to all services identified in the child’s after-care plan, consistent with Plan requirements.
By the end of implementation Period 4:
f. At least 90% of children in custody who are reunified during the Period shall receive a 90-day trial home visit period or have case record documentation reflecting the Youth Court’s objection to such a trial home visit. During that trial home visit period, the child’s caseworker or a Family Preservation caseworker shall meet with the child in the home at least two times per month, and DFCS shall provide or facilitate access to all services identified in the child’s after-care plan, consistent with Plan requirements.
13. Recruitment and Retention of Foster Families and Therapeutic Service Providers
a. DFCS shall make available, either directly or through contract, a sufficient number of appropriate placements for all children in its physical and legal custody.
34

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 35 of 62
b. DFCS shall make available foster parent training classes beginning every 60 calendar days in every region with individualized training available as needed, and at times convenient for the foster family.
c. DFCS shall secure services for foster parents to prevent and reduce stress and family crisis.
d. DFCS shall ensure that all licensed resource families (regardless of whether they are supervised directly by DFCS or by private providers) receive at least the minimum reimbursement rate for a given level of service as established pursuant to the Plan.
e. By January 2008, Defendants shall establish and begin to pay to all licensed resource families at least the following basic monthly foster care maintenance payments plus an $80 monthly clothing allowance: for each child ages 0-3, $350; for each child ages 4-5, $355; for each child ages 6-9, $355 + $30 child allowance; for each child ages 10-12, $360 + $40 child allowance; for each child ages 13-15, $370 + $50 child allowance; for each child ages 16-21, $370+ $60 child allowance.
f. By July 2009, Defendants shall establish and begin to pay to all licensed resource families at least the following basic monthly foster care maintenance payments: for each child ages 0-8, $555; for each child ages 9-15, $636; and for each child age 16 and older, $697. The parties agree that these rates satisfy the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 675(4)(A). Defendants shall provide increases in the foster care maintenance payments every two years thereafter, based upon the rate of inflation and discussions with affected foster parent groups and congregate care providers, in order to continue complying with 42 U.S.C. § 675(4)(A).
g. Defendants shall, within 180 days of the Court’s approval of the Plan, engage a qualified independent consultant to assess board payment rates currently being paid to foster parents caring for special needs foster children and to congregate care facilities to determine the extent to which those rates meet the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 675(4)(A) and reflect the actual cost of caring for special needs foster children and children placed in congregate care facilities, including the necessary and reasonable costs of facility administration and operation. The selection of the independent consultant shall be subject to approval by the Monitor; said approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
h. Within a year of Court approval of the Plan, the consultant shall deliver to the Parties and the Monitor a written report setting forth (1) findings regarding the adequacy of the current schedule of foster care maintenance payments made to foster care providers serving special needs children and facilities providing congregate foster care in relation to the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 675(4)(A) and the actual cost in the state of Mississippi to provide such care; (2) the methodology utilized to determine the actual costs in the state of Mississippi to
35

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 36 of 62
provide such care; and (3) a schedule of recommended rates for foster care providers serving special needs children and facilities providing congregate foster care. Plaintiffs shall have 30 days to raise any written objection to the schedule of recommended rates as determined by the consultant. Should Plaintiffs raise objections and should the Parties be unable to reach agreement, the consultant’s schedule and Plaintiffs’ objection shall be submitted to the Court for final determination.
By the end of Implementation Period 2:
i. The rate structure recommended by the consultant for foster care providers to special needs children and for facilities providing congregate care, as agreed upon by the Parties or determined by the Court, shall be fully implemented.
14. Durable Legal Custody
If adoption and/or reunification are not appropriate, consistent with the provisions of Section II.B.3.a, DHS shall, subject to legislative funding or the availability of federal funds, make monthly payments to caregivers who assume durable legal custody of a foster child, if the caregiver is found to have financial need in caring for such child.
III. OUTCOME MEASURES
The following child welfare outcome measures shall be met within five years of Court approval of this Plan and shall be measured by the Monitor every six months. The child welfare outcomes shall be measured using a combination of longitudinal data analysis and point-in-time data analysis.
A. Reunification
1. At least 76.2% of children discharged from custody and reunified with their parents or caretakers in the last year shall have been reunified within 12 months of the latest removal from home.
By the end of implementation Period 2:
2. At least 30% of children who are discharged from custody and reunified with their parents or caretakers in the last year shall be reunified within 12 months of the latest removal from home.
By the end of implementation Period 3:
3. At least 60% of children who are discharged from custody and reunified with their parents or caretakers in the last year shall be reunified within 12 months of the latest removal from home.
36

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 37 of 62
By the end of implementation Period 4:
4. At least 70% of children who are discharged from custody and reunified with their parents or caretakers in the last year shall be reunified within 12 months of the latest removal from home.
B. Time to Adoption Finalization
1. At least 32% of children who were discharged in the last year upon the finalization of an adoption shall have had the adoption finalized within 24 months of the latest removal from home.
By the end of implementation Period 2:
2. At least 15% of children who were discharged in the last year upon finalization of an adoption shall have had the adoption finalized within 24 months of the latest removal from home.
By the end of implementation Period 3:
3. At least 25% of children who were discharged in the last year upon finalization of an adoption shall have had the adoption finalized within 24 months of the latest removal from home.
By the end of implementation Period 4:
4. At least 30% of children who were discharged in the last year upon finalization of an adoption shall have had the adoption finalized within 24 months of the latest removal from home.
C. Number of Placements (Temporary breaks in placement for children who run away or require emergency hospitalization or respite care not exceeding 14 days and who return to their immediately prior placement shall not count as additional placements.)
1. In the last year, at least 86.7% of children in care less than 12 months from the time of latest removal from home shall have had two or fewer placements.
By the end of implementation Period 2:
2. In the last year, at least 40% of children in care less than 12 months from the time of latest removal from home shall have had two or fewer placements.
By the end of implementation Period 3:
3. In the last year, at least 70% of children in care less than 12 months from the time of latest removal from home shall have had two or fewer placements.
37

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 38 of 62
By the end of implementation Period 4:
4. In the last year, at least 80% of children in care less than 12 months from the time of latest removal from home shall have had two or fewer placements.
D. Abuse/Neglect/Maltreatment in Care (This measure shall apply to reports of abuse, neglect, or maltreatment of children while in DFCS custody.)
1. The rate of abuse or maltreatment in care in the last year shall not exceed 0.33%.
By the end of implementation Period 2:
2. The rate of abuse or maltreatment in care in the last year shall not exceed 1.14%.
By the end of implementation Period 3:
3. The rate of abuse or maltreatment in care in the last year shall not exceed 0.57%.
By the end of implementation Period 4:
4. The rate of abuse or maltreatment in care in the last year shall not exceed 0.45%.
IV. COA ACCREDITATION
DFCS’s foster care services shall be accredited by COA pursuant to COA’s relevant management and service standards.
V. NAMED PLAINTIFFS
Each Agreement on Services and Plans for Named Plaintiffs entered into by the parties pursuant to Section 4.G of the Stipulated Settlement Agreement approved by the Court on May 17, 2007, is hereby incorporated as enforceable provisions of this Plan.
VI. MONITORING A. The parties agree that Grace Lopes shall be the Monitor of Defendants’ compliance with this Plan and the annual implementation plans. Defendants shall provide the Monitor with the necessary resources to perform its duties.
B. The Monitor’s duties shall be to confirm independently the data reports and statistics provided pursuant to this Plan and the annual implementation plans; conduct independent case record and other qualitative reviews; review all plans and documents to be developed and produced by Defendants pursuant to this Plan; and report on Defendants’ compliance in implementing the terms of the Plan and the annual implementation plans, and the achievement of the improved outcomes set forth therein. The Monitor shall prepare reports that will address these issues and be released periodically, but no less
38

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 39 of 62
than every six months, the first report to be issued within nine months of Court approval of this Plan, unless the parties and the Monitor agree otherwise. In order to avoid duplication and to build capacity within the agency, the Monitor will look first to Defendants’ data and data analysis. Accordingly, Defendants shall provide the Monitor with access to all data reports produced in the regular course of business respecting topics covered by this Plan and the annual implementation plans. Notwithstanding the existence of Defendants’ data, data analysis, and reports, however, the Monitor shall have the authority to prepare new reports on all topics covered by both this Plan and the annual implementation plans, to the extent the Monitor deems necessary.
C. Defendants agree to provide the Monitor with free and, upon request, private access to all individuals within DFCS and persons within the Executive Branch, as the Monitor chooses; to assist the Monitor in gaining access to other stakeholders in the child welfare system (including but not limited to the staff of contract providers); and to provide the Monitor with free access to all documents, data, and premises it deems relevant to its work (including but not limited to documents and data from contract agencies and courts). The Monitor agrees to respect the confidentiality of all information related to individually identifiable clients, subject to applicable law. Defendants shall take no adverse action against individuals or agencies because they shared information with the Monitor pursuant to this Plan.
D. The reports of the Monitor shall be public documents filed with the Court, except that any individually identifying information and any other confidential information protected from disclosure by law shall be redacted or otherwise removed from any public report. The Monitor shall provide copies of each of its reports to all named Defendants as well as to the heads of the State House and Senate Committees on Appropriations and Public Health. Any such information received by the Monitor, unless already public, shall not be made public without Defendants’ prior written permission, except as incorporated into a public report of the Monitor.
E. The parties shall have access, through the Monitor, to all information made available to the Monitor, and to all other information related to ensuring compliance with and enforcing this Plan and the annual implementation plans, subject to the existing confidentiality order in effect in this case. The Monitor may protect the identity of confidential sources of any such information.
F. The parties may request that the Monitor review and issue recommendations regarding the provision of services to the Named Plaintiffs in this case.
G. The intent of the parties is that the Monitor shall develop a plan to transfer the primary monitoring function to DFCS’s CQI unit upon the termination of this Plan, or at such earlier time as provided for in Section VII.C below. The Monitor shall work in collaboration with Defendants to build DFCS’s CQI capacity.
H. The Monitor may periodically meet privately with the Court concerning issues related to this case, provided the parties are made aware of the occurrence of such a meeting.
39

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 40 of 62
I. If at any point the Monitor can no longer serve, the parties shall agree on another Monitor, with input and recommendations from the outgoing Monitor.
VII. DISPUTE RESOLUTION, TERMINATION, AND EXIT
A. The Defendants shall implement all reforms necessary to effectuate this Plan and the annual implementation plans. The parties agree that the systemic and comprehensive nature of this Plan will require implementation and refinement of policies and programs over a number of years. The parties shall make every reasonable effort to resolve disputes prior to seeking Court intervention. Plaintiffs agree not to seek relief for isolated or minor violations, or for violations related solely to an individual child, unless that child is a Named Plaintiff.
B. If Plaintiffs believe that Defendants have failed to comply with any obligation under this Plan or an annual implementation plan, Plaintiffs will, prior to seeking judicial action to enforce the terms of this Plan or an annual implementation plan, give written notice of non-compliance to the State. Within 30 calendar days of Plaintiffs’ notice of noncompliance, Defendants shall submit a written response to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs agree to work in good faith with the State to agree on necessary corrective actions and avoid enforcement action, and may not initiate court action for 60 days from the date of Plaintiffs’ non-compliance notice. However, in case of an emergency posing an immediate threat to the health or safety of youths, Plaintiffs may omit the notice and cure requirements herein before seeking judicial action.
C. The Court may terminate jurisdiction over this lawsuit if it finds that Defendants are in substantial compliance with the provisions of this Plan for two consecutive six-month reporting periods subsequent to four years from Court approval of this Plan or anytime thereafter.
At the end of five years from the date of this Plan, the monitor shall transfer to Defendants’ CQI system monitoring of all the Plan provisions under the following headings or subheadings for which Defendants have sustained compliance for at least six months on all such provisions (as reflected in monitoring report data) and where the Monitor has determined that Defendants’ CQI system is adequately monitoring the Plan provisions: II.A.1; II.A.2.a; II.A.2.b; II.A.2.c; II.A.2.d; II.A.3; II.A.4; II.A.5; II.A.6; II.A.7; II.B.1; II.B.2; II.B.3.a; II.B.3.b; II.B.3.c; II.B.3.d; II.B.3.e; II.B.3.f; II.B.4; II.B.5; II.B.6; II.B.7; II.B.8; II.B.9; II.B.10; II.B.11; II.B.12; II.B.13; II.B.14; III.A.1; III.B.1; III.C.1; and III.D.1. The reports of the Monitor shall identify the provisions, if any, that are to be transferred to Defendants’ CQI system for the subsequent monitoring period. Plaintiffs reserve the right to object to the transfer of the monitoring of a provision to Defendants’ CQI system.
Once Defendants’ CQI system is responsible for the transferred monitoring of any Plan provisions, and as long as the Court retains jurisdiction, Defendants’ CQI system shall issue public monitoring reports every six months on Defendants’ compliance levels with any such provisions.
40

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 41 of 62
While Defendants shall make a good faith effort to maintain compliance with a provision transferred to its CQI system, a drop in compliance levels after the transfer of the monitoring of a Plan provision shall not be, by itself, grounds for a Motion to enforce the Plan to hold Defendants in contempt, or to bar future expiration of the Plan. Notwithstanding the above, Plaintiffs are not precluded from seeking to enforce transferred provisions as remedial measures in connection with Motions to enforce provisions that have not been transferred. D. Defendants may seek a court-ordered modification of any provision of this Plan pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure if significant changes in factual conditions, beyond Defendants’ control and not contemplated by the parties at the time the Plan was entered into, make the provision unworkable, make compliance substantially more onerous, or make enforcement detrimental to the public interest, and the changed circumstance occurred despite Defendants’ reasonable effort to comply with the Plan. E. All parties reserve all claims and defenses with respect to all claims for an award of attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses for Plaintiffs, which claims shall be separately asserted and determined according to a schedule to be fixed by the Court.
41

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 42 of 62
AGREED TO AND APPROVED FOR ENTRY BY: FOR PLAINTIFFS: /s/Marcia Robinson Lowry Marcia Robinson Lowry (pro hac vice MBN 43991) Eric Thompson (pro hac vice MBN 43993) Shirim Nothenberg (pro hac vice MBN 43990) Susan Lambiase (pro hac vice MBN 43992) CHILDREN’S RIGHTS, INC. 330 Seventh Ave., 4th Floor New York, NY 10001 (212) 683-2210 /s/Melody McAnally Wayne Drinkwater (MBN 6193) Melody McAnally (MBN 101236) BRADLEY ARANT ROSE & WHITE LLP 188 East Capitol Street, Suite 450 Jackson, MS 39201 (601) 948-8000 Stephen H. Leech (MBN 1173) P. O. Box 3623 Jackson, MS 39207 John Lang (pro hac vice MBN 43987) Christian D. Carbone (pro hac vice MBN 43986) John Piskora (pro hac vice MBN 44474) LOEB & LOEB LLP 345 Park Ave. New York, NY 10154
42

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 43 of 62
FOR DEFENDANTS:
/s/Haley Barbour Governor Haley Barbour, State of Mississippi
/s/Jim Hood Attorney General Jim Hood, State of Mississippi Dewitt L. (“Rusty”) Fortenberry Jr., Esq. (MBN 5435) Barry C. Campbell, Esq. (MBN 99535) Kenya Key Rachal, Esq. (MBN 99227) Gretchen L. Zmitrovich, Esq. (MBN 101470) Ashley Tullos Young, Esq. (MBN 101839) BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL, & BERKOWITZ, PC 428 I-55 North Meadowbrook Office Park Jackson, MS 39211 (601) 351-2400 Harold E. Pizzetta, III, Esq. (MBN 99867) Assistant Attorney General General Civil Division Carroll Gartin Justice Building 430 High Street Jackson, MS 39201
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 4th day of January, 2008.
/s/Tom S. Lee DISTRICT JUDGE
43

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 44 of 62
Appendix A - Year 1 Implementation Plan Mississippi Settlement Reform Plan
PERIOD 1 ANNUAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
This is the annual Implementation Plan for Period 1 required by the parties’ Settlement Reform Plan (the “Plan”). The Period 1 Implementation Plan Requirements shall be met by the end of Period 1 or earlier as specified herein.
I. Administration and Management Assessment and Implementation Steps
Within six months of Court approval of the Plan, Defendants, in conjunction with the Council on Accreditation (COA), shall conduct an assessment of DFCS administration and management capacity and needs consistent with COA Policies. The Administration and Management Assessment shall include the following:
a) A workforce assessment consistent with PA-HR 2, b) A training assessment of training curricula and the Training Unit, c) A DFCS contracting practices assessment, d) A quality improvement system assessment, e) A MACWIS assessment, and f) A fiscal and financial management assessment.
The Period 2 implementation plan shall include specific timelines by which Defendants will provide for the needs identified in the Period 1 Administration and Management Assessment.
1. Agency Leadership
The new DFCS director will assemble a management team capable of assisting with the reform process at DFCS.
2. Human Resources Management
a. Workforce:
Defendants shall, in conjunction with COA, develop and begin implementing a written plan to meet the needs identified in the required Administration and Management Workforce Assessment. Such plan shall identify strategies, timeframes, and recruitment resources to be allocated to ensure that there are sufficient DFCS professional and support staff to achieve compliance with the caseload requirements specified in the Plan.
b. Worker and Supervisor Qualifications:
1

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 45 of 62
Defendants shall, in conjunction with COA, develop and begin to implement a plan with timeframes and specific action steps for bringing its current staff into compliance with the worker and supervisor qualification requirements of the Plan.
c. Training:
Defendants shall, in conjunction with COA, develop and begin implementing a written plan to meet the needs identified in the required Administration and Management Training Assessment.
Defendants shall implement competency-based testing to assess knowledge acquisition of newly hired staff following the completion of pre-service training, including newly hired or newly promoted supervisors following the completion of supervisory training. Training credit shall only be given to those new hires who demonstrate sufficient knowledge acquisition.
Defendants shall implement a system to track staff participation in all required training.
d. Contract Agency Requirements:
Defendants shall, in conjunction with COA, develop and begin implementing a written plan to meet the needs identified in the required Administration and Management Contracting Assessment.
Defendants shall notify all private agencies that provide protective, preventive, foster care, or adoption case work services under contract with DFCS that those agencies will be required to abide by all related terms of the Plan, including, but not limited to, provisions regarding training curricula, minimum training hours, and caseload standards.
DFCS shall design and begin implementing a performance-based contracting system with the capacity to monitor and enforce contract performance on all related terms of the Plan.
3. Performance and Quality Improvement
Defendants shall, in conjunction with COA, develop and begin implementing a written plan to meet the needs identified in the required Administration and Management Quality Improvement Assessment. The plan shall include specific steps and timeframes for the implementation of a separate continuous quality improvement (CQI) system that meets COA standards and Plan requirements.
Defendants shall develop, in conjunction with COA, and begin implementing a CQI assessment tool that measures compliance with the Plan’s management and foster care service standards.
2

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 46 of 62
4. Legal and Regulatory Compliance
5. Information Management and Use
Defendants shall, in conjunction with COA, develop and begin implementing a written plan to meet the needs identified in the required Administration and Management MACWIS Assessment.
Defendants will develop and begin implementing a plan that will ensure MACWIS maintains statewide placement resource information such as current availability, capacity limitations, census, suitability by age, sex and special needs, and any related licensing and maltreatment investigations information accessible to DFCS county staff.
6. Case Recordings
Defendants, in conjunction with COA, shall implement a system to regularly review whether DFCS child welfare case records are current, complete, made by authorized personnel only, signed and dated by the person who provided the service, and signed and dated by supervisors, where appropriate, in accordance with federal and state law and regulations.
7. Financial Management
Defendants shall, in conjunction with COA, develop and begin implementing a written plan to meet the needs identified in the required Administration and Management Fiscal Assessment, including addressing any identified deficiencies in financial management practices.
II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
Within 180 calendar days of Court approval of the Plan, Defendants, in conjunction with COA, shall identify and begin revision of DFCS policies and practice guides as necessary to reflect the COA foster care services standards and the requirements set forth in Section II.B of the Plan, and identify any related training needs.
Within nine months of Court approval, Defendants, in conjunction with COA or a COA designee, shall conduct a Foster Care Services Assessment, which shall include:
a) A reunification services needs assessment, b) A termination of parental rights (TPR) assessment to identify those children who
have been in custody more than 15 of the previous 22 months and for whom DFCS has not filed a TPR petition or documented an available exception under the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) as required,
3

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 47 of 62
c) A child safety assessment of DFCS practice prioritizing, screening, assessing, and investigating reports of maltreatment of children to determine the extent to which DFCS investigations and decisions are based on a full and systematic evaluation of the factors that may place a child at risk,
d) A placement assessment of current needs for achieving compliance with the placement standards set forth in Section II.B.5 of the Plan, which shall include (1) the structure of the placement process, including the role and efficacy of the state office placement unit; (2) the services and supports available to support enhanced placement stability, including out-patient or in-home assessment and treatment services to avoid the frequent use of time-limited assessment and treatment placement programs; and (3) the placement resources needed to meet the placement needs of children in custody,
e) An assessment of case practice associated with parent/child and sibling visitation to identify barriers to meeting the visitation standards set forth in Section II.B.6 of the Plan,
f) A service provider needs assessment to identify available medical, dental, and mental health services and gaps in services,
g) An assessment of the quality and array of independent living services available to foster children ages 14-20, and
h) A recruitment and retention assessment to determine the need for additional foster care support services.
COA may, at its discretion, refer to and utilize previous external assessments of DFCS in its completion of the above assessments.
The Period 2 implementation plan shall include specific timelines by which Defendants will provide for the needs identified in the Period 1 Foster Care Services Assessment.
1. Screening and Assessments
Within 180 calendar days of Court approval of the Plan, DFCS, in conjunction with COA, shall develop a protocol for both individual and family team meetings and develop a training module on such protocols that shall be incorporated into the preservice and in-service training curricula.
2. Service Planning and Monitoring
The revised policies and practice guides shall require that each service plan and revision of such plan include the elements and meet the requirements of COA Standards PA-FC 2.06, 3.01, 3.04, and 3.05, as well as incorporate and track the child’s educational needs and goals.
3. Child and Youth Permanency
a. Permanency Plan:
4

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 48 of 62
The revised policies and practice guides shall require that:
1) All permanency plans contain specific information about:
a) How the permanency goal will be achieved; b) What services are necessary to make the accomplishment of the goal
likely; c) Who is responsible for the provision of those services; d) When the services will be provided; and e) The date by which the permanency goal is likely to be achieved.
1) All services documented in the case record as necessary for the achievement of the permanency goal are provided within the time period in which they are needed, by either providing those services directly, contracting with a private provider for those services, or referring to an existing service provider for the provision of those services.
b. Concurrent Planning:
c. Permanency Plan Updating and Review:
Defendants shall establish and begin implementing a system to facilitate a court review for every foster child within 12 months of initial placement and annually thereafter. That system shall include (1) tracking scheduled annual court reviews, and notifying the Youth Court with jurisdiction over the child of any reviews that need to be scheduled or re-scheduled so as to meet Plan requirements; (2) providing to the Youth Court with jurisdiction as ordered by the Court or no later than 30 calendar days before such a court review is due a detailed up-to-date report on the current status of the child’s placement, visitation, permanent plan progress, and service needs; and (3) ensuring that the child’s assigned caseworker or supervisor attends any such scheduled court review.
d. Reunification Services:
Defendants shall, in conjunction with COA, develop and begin implementing a written plan to meet the needs identified in the required Foster Care Services Reunification Needs Assessment, with specific steps and timetables for addressing gaps in the availability of effective services.
e. Termination of Parental Rights/Special Permanency Reviews:
For each child who has been, or reaches, more than 15 of the previous 22 months in foster care, for whom DFCS has not filed a TPR petition or documented an available ASFA exception, DFCS shall begin holding special permanency reviews. Such reviews shall include the DFCS caseworker, the caseworker’s direct supervisor, and at least one individual with expertise in permanency
5

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 49 of 62
planning who has not held direct casework or supervisory responsibility for the case. The review will produce a written plan of action setting forth the steps to be taken by DFCS, the contract agency, and/or any other provider of services, in order to move the child to permanency as quickly as possible. Such permanency reviews shall be documented in the child’s case record, and reconvened monthly until all barriers to permanency have been resolved, a TPR petition has been filed, or an available ASFA exception has been documented in the child’s case record.
DFCS shall begin the implementation of a “tickler” system for notifying caseworkers and caseworker supervisors when a case assigned to them has reached the following milestones: 12 months after a child entered custody; 30 calendar days after the establishment of adoption as the primary permanency goal; 30 calendar days after a TPR referral has been made; and, 10 calendar days after a TPR packet has been returned to DFCS because of a legal deficiency.
f. Adoption:
Within 180 calendar days of Court approval of the Plan, DFCS, in conjunction with COA, shall define the job description, responsibilities, and qualifications for the position of adoption specialist. The adoption specialist responsibilities shall include consulting with private and public professionals and identifying and ensuring the provision of targeted services necessary for the child to be adopted.
DFCS shall implement and maintain a process for making legal risk placements that assures that children for whom the permanency plan is adoption, but who are not yet legally free for adoption, are placed in appropriate adoptive homes.
DFCS shall take reasonable steps to hire (or promote) and train a sufficient number of adoption specialists to meet the adoption requirements of Section II.B.3.f of the Plan. Adoption status meetings consistent with the Plan will start being held by the end of Period 1.
Within 180 calendar days of Court approval of the Plan, DFCS, in conjunction with COA, shall develop a protocol for adoption meetings, which are to be held to review the progress being made in achieving the goal of adoption for legally free children.
Within a year of Court approval of the Plan, DFCS shall have identified external adoption consultants who DFCS can contract with to provide adoption recruitment assistance to children who have been free for adoption for six or more months and who are not yet placed in an approved adoptive home.
4. Child Safety
6

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 50 of 62
Within 30 calendar days of Court approval of the Plan, Defendants shall instruct all DFCS staff that as mandated reporters they are required to formally report any suspicions of maltreatment, including corporal punishment, of children in custody.
Defendants, in conjunction with COA, shall revise DFCS policies and procedures for screening and investigating reports of child maltreatment, including corporal punishment, to incorporate the child safety standards and requirements set forth in Section II.B.4 of the Plan.
Within 180 calendar days of Court approval of the Plan, all calls to the hotline shall immediately be entered into the statewide computer information system, and the worker or supervisor receiving the report shall use the information system to determine whether there have been prior reports of abuse and/or neglect in that family or concerning that child.
If a report is screened in, information regarding any prior reports shall immediately be made available to the worker to whom the case has been assigned for investigation.
5. Child Placement
Within 90 calendar days of Court approval of the Plan, DFCS shall implement a formalized mechanism to provide foster parents with all appropriate and available information about a child prior to or at the time of placement and for supplementing that information as further information is gathered.
Defendants shall develop and begin implementing a plan with specific action steps and timeframes to address policy and structural changes to the placement process that the placement assessment has identified as necessary to comply with the placement requirements set forth in Section II.B.5 of the Plan. That plan shall also include the development of the position of placement specialists in each region, and a protocol for the placement stability meetings that the Plan requires that DFCS hold when a worker has knowledge that a placement is at risk of disruption.
Defendants, in conjunction with COA, shall develop and begin the implementation of a written plan to ensure the speedy licensing of all current unlicensed caregivers to be phased in by the end of the second implementation period.
Within 180 days of Court approval of the Plan, no foster child entering custody will be placed in an unlicensed relative placement, subject to the allowance of the emergency licensing process that allows 120 days for the licensing process to take place.
6. Developing and Maintaining Connections
7

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 51 of 62
Defendants will develop and begin implementing a written plan to address the barriers identified in the visitation practice assessment.
7. Physical and Mental Health Care
Defendants shall, in consultation with state Medicaid and mental health officials, develop and begin implementing specific and focused regional plans to recruit and develop service providers in areas identified in the needs assessment as having gaps in required services.
8. Educational Services
DFCS shall develop and implement a protocol for conducting a general and special education screen of children entering foster care.
DFCS shall develop and begin implementing a plan for providing, either directly or through contract, the following educational services in each county: tutoring, preparation for a general equivalency diploma (GED), and college preparation.
9. Therapeutic Services
10. Worker Contact and Monitoring
Defendants’ revised policies and practice guides shall reflect the issues to be addressed during worker contacts with parents, children, and foster care providers. Defendants shall revise DFCS training as necessary to ensure instruction on the quality, frequency, purpose, and structure of meeting with foster children, biological parents, and foster care providers. The training shall specifically address communicating with, interviewing, and observing foster children.
11. Transition to Independent Living
Defendants shall develop and begin implementing a written plan to address identified independent living service gaps.
Defendants shall develop and begin implementing a system for ensuring that emancipating youth have obtained, prior to transitioning to independent living, the necessary documents and information identified in the COA standards for such youth.
DFCS will develop for each region the capacity and current resource guides necessary to assist youth in locating and/or enrolling in educational or vocational programs appropriate to their needs, interests, abilities, and goals, such as high school or GED programs; colleges or universities; vocational training programs; and special education services.
12. Case Closing and Aftercare
8

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 52 of 62
13. Recruitment and Retention of Foster Families and Therapeutic Service Providers
Defendants shall develop and begin implementing a written plan for targeted recruitment and development of a range of family and facility placements that will adequately meet the placement needs of the foster care population as identified by DFCS’s previous regional self-assessments and the assessment required herein.
Defendants shall develop and begin implementing a written plan to provide services for foster parents in every county to prevent and reduce stress and family crisis.
In consultation with Mississippi foster parents, DFCS shall identify additions and revisions to the current foster parent training curriculum that are necessary to adequately train foster parents to meet the needs of the children placed in their care. Foster parent training classes based upon the revised curriculum shall be available in every region.
DFCS shall implement a system of dual foster/adopt licensing and any necessary policy and practice changes to prevent the underutilization of licensed and approved foster families.
DFCS shall create a resource family workgroup (consisting of staff and resource families) to develop and implement resource family practices and protocols that address the types of information that should be provided to resource families prior to taking a child into the home, what type of training is needed, what emergency procedures need to be in place for resource families, what strategies are effective in recruiting, and how resource families can be included in case planning.
DFCS shall regionalize its recruitment and retention efforts, and for each region have in place a stakeholder recruitment and retention team to identify local needs and develop and implement plans for recruiting, supporting, and utilizing foster and adoptive parents.
III.Council on Accreditation Standards
A. These COA standards are applicable to children in custody and are to be implemented within 180 days of Court approval of the Mississippi Settlement Reform Plan.
PA-HR 2: HUMAN RESOURCES PLANNING The agency reassesses its workforce as part of annual planning and prepares for future needs by:
a. conducting a gap analysis between the current workforce composition, including number of employees, skills, and demographics, and projected workforce needs; and
b. determining how to close gaps when possible, through recruiting, training or outsourcing.
9

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 53 of 62
PA-AM 3.01 The scope of services offered:
a. is defined in writing; b. is adaptable and can respond to changes in the service environment,
identified needs, and desired outcomes of service recipients; c. is secured through written agreement with qualified service providers,
community partners, individual practitioners, and consultants; and d. considers allocation of resources together with available evidence of
effective practice.
PA-ETH 4: PROTECTION OF REPORTERS OF SUSPECTED MISCONDUCT The agency prohibits employment-related retaliation against employees and others affiliated with the agency that come forward with information about suspected misconduct or questionable practices, and provides an appropriate, confidential channel for reporting such information.
PA-HR 3.03 Screening procedures for new employees, contractors, and direct service volunteers include appropriate, legally permissible, and mandated reviews of state criminal history records and civil child abuse and neglect registries to determine the appropriateness of hiring prospective personnel who will:
a. work in residential programs; or b. provide direct services to children, the elderly, or other persons
determined by the agency to be vulnerable or at risk.
PA-HR 4.04 The agency establishes a formal mechanism through which employees can express and resolve grievances, which includes:
a. how grievances are filed and to whom, including who will make a final determination;
b. timely written notification of the resolution and an explanation of any further appeal, rights or recourse;
c. documenting responses and actions taken; and d. maintaining a copy of the notification of resolution in the personnel
record.
PA-RPM 2.03 The agency reviews all incidents and accidents that involve the threat of or actual harm, and review procedures:
a. establish timeframes for review; b. require solicitation of statements from all involved individuals; c. ensure an independent review; and d. require documentation of all actions taken.
10

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 54 of 62
PA-CR 1.01 Clients receive a written summary of their rights and responsibilities at initial contact, which includes:
a. basic expectations for use of the agency’s services; b. hours that services are available; c. rules, expectations, and other factors that can result in discharge or
termination of services; and d. a clear explanation of how to lodge complaints, grievances, or appeals.
PA-CR 3: GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES The agency maintains a formal mechanism through which applicants, clients, and other stakeholders can express and resolve grievances, including denial of service, which includes:
a. timely written notification of the resolution and an explanation of any further appeal, rights or recourse;
b. at least one level of review that does not involve the person about whom the complaint has been made or the person who reached the decision under review; and
c. the right of the consumer or a family member to be heard by a panel or person delegated to review responsibility.
PA-CPS 4.01 The agency maintains a well-publicized, 24-hour access line to receive reports of suspected abuse and neglect.
PA-CPS 4.04 Standardized decision-making criteria are used, in consultation with supervisory personnel, to determine if the report meets statutory and agency criteria, and if the case will be:
a. screened out; b. referred for alternative response services; c. investigated; and/or d. reported to other authorities.
PA-CPS 5.01 Every child determined during screening to be in imminent danger is seen immediately, and in all other cases children are seen within a timeframe that ensures their safety.
PA-CPS 5.06 When there are concerns about a child’s safety, the agency immediately initiates a safety plan, and when there are unmet basic needs, the agency immediately obtains resources or services.
PA-CPS 10.01
11

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 55 of 62
When a child cannot safely remain at home, the agency collaborates with parents to establish a voluntary agreement, or otherwise petitions a court of proper jurisdiction, to obtain appropriate care.
PA-FC 6.01 All foster homes are licensed, approved, or certified according to state or local regulation
PA-FC 12.05 The agency implements practices and protocols to prevent and respond to missing children and allegations of maltreatment in the foster home.
PA-FC 16.07 Each foster family develops or uses the agency's protocols for responding to emergencies including accidents, run-away behavior, serious illness, fire, and natural disasters.
PA-FC 17.04 Criminal background and child abuse registry checks are conducted for all adults in the home prior to placement, in accordance with applicable legal requirements.
PA-FC 17.05 Each foster home is regularly assessed to identify and address any safety concerns including, but not limited to:
a. inadequate heat, light, water, refrigeration, cooking, and toilet facilities; b. malfunctioning smoke detectors; c. unsanitary conditions; d. lack of phone service; e. unsafe doors, steps, and windows, or missing window guards where
necessary; f. exposed wiring; g. access to hazardous substances, materials, or equipment; h. rodent or insect infestation; and i. walls and ceilings with holes or lead.
PA-FC 17.06 Foster parents who transport children in their own vehicles:
a. use age-appropriate passenger restraint systems; b. provide adequate passenger supervision, as required by statute or
regulation; c. properly maintain vehicles and obtain required registration and inspection;
and d. provide the agency with annual validation of current licenses, driving
records, and appropriate insurance.
PA-AS 7.01
12

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 56 of 62
Custody status of the child is clearly established before the initiation of adoption services, and the agency acts in accordance with federal and state regulations for legal proceedings to terminate parental rights.
B. These COA standards are applicable to children in custody and are to be implemented within 365 days of Court approval of the Mississippi Settlement Reform Plan.
PA-HR 4.01 The agency promotes open communication and collaboration among disciplines and staff levels by:
a. holding regular team, agency, and divisional meetings, as appropriate to the agency; and
b. providing feedback to personnel about their suggestions and recommendations.
PA-HR 4.03 The agency annually establishes personnel satisfaction and retention goals and measures rate of personnel turnover and personnel satisfaction.
PA-PQI 2.01 The PQI framework takes into account all of the agency's regions and sites, and all individuals and families served.
PA-PQI 2.02 A PQI operational plan:
a. assigns responsibility for coordination and implementation of PQI activities, and provision of technical assistance in using the PQI process;
b. sets forth the purpose and scope of PQI activities; c. establishes how the agency periodically reviews essential management
and service delivery processes consistent in light of quality priorities; d. defines stakeholders and how stakeholders will participate in the PQI
process; e. outlines methods and timeframes for monitoring and reporting activities;
and f. includes provision for an assessment of the utility of the PQI program,
including any barriers and supports for implementation.
PA-RPM 2.01 Management conducts an internal assessment of overall risk at least annually that includes:
a. compliance with legal requirements, including licensing and mandatory reporting laws, and fiscal accountability;
b. insurance and liability; c. health and safety, including use of facilities: d. contracting practices and compliance; e. staff training regarding areas of risk;
13

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 57 of 62
f. volunteer roles and oversight; g. research involving program participants and other clients’ rights issues; h. security of information, including client confidentiality; i. financial risk; j. fundraising; k. conflict of interest; l. employment practices; and m. interagency collaborations.
PA-RPM 2.02 The agency conducts a quarterly review of immediate and ongoing risks that includes a review of incidents, accidents, and grievances related to:
a. administering, dispensing, or prescribing medications; b. service modalities or other organizational practices that involve risk or
limit freedom of choice; c. the use of restrictive behavior management interventions, such as
seclusion and restraint; d. facility safety issues; and e. situations where a person was determined to be a danger to himself/herself
or others.
PA-RPM 2.04 Individuals qualified by knowledge and experience are responsible for risk prevention and management functions.
PA-RPM 5.01 Personnel can rapidly access paper and electronic information.
PA-RPM 5.02 Electronic and paper records can be located at all times.
PA-ASE 6.01 The agency assesses its safety and security needs and:
a. takes appropriate measures to protect the safety of all persons who are in its facilities or on its grounds;
b. develops safety and communication protocols for staff that work off-site; c. trains staff on potential risks they may encounter on-site, in the
community, or in clients’ homes; d. trains staff on self-protection techniques, as necessary; and e. has security systems to deter facility break-ins.
PA-ASE 6.03 An agency that transports service recipients in its vehicles or permits transportation in vehicles that belong to the agency’s personnel, foster parents, volunteers, or contractors requires:
a. the use of age-appropriate passenger restraint systems;
14

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 58 of 62
b. adequate passenger supervision, as mandated by statute or regulation; c. proper maintenance of agency vehicles; d. current registration and inspection of vehicles; e. annual validation of licenses and driving records; and f. proper insurance for vehicles and passengers.
PA-ASE 8.01 The agency minimizes the risk of exposure to contagious and infectious disease by:
a. adhering to CDC and OSHA guidelines; b. consulting with the local health department or an individual qualified to
provide such information; and c. annually training program personnel on universal disease precautions.
PA-ASE 8.02 The agency:
a. consults with local and state public health and licensing authorities to determine the need to test personnel who are in direct contact with service recipients who may be at high risk for tuberculosis or other air and bloodborne pathogens; and
b. as necessary, implements a targeted testing program that is consistent with public health authority recommendations.
PA-BSM 3.01 All personnel and foster parents receive initial and ongoing competency-based training, appropriate to their responsibilities, on the agency’s behavior support and management intervention policies, procedures, and practices.
PA-BSM 3.02 Personnel and foster parents receive training that includes:
a. recognizing aggressive and out-of-control behavior, psychosocial issues, medical conditions, and other contributing factors that may lead to a crisis;
b. understanding how staff behavior can influence the behavior of service recipients; and
c. limitations on the use of physical techniques.
PA-BSM 3.03 Training addresses methods for de-escalating volatile situations, including:
a. listening and communication techniques, such as negotiation and mediation;
b. involving the person in regaining control and encouraging self-calming behaviors;
c. separation of individuals involved in an altercation; d. offering a voluntary escort to guide the person to a safe location; e. time out to allow the person to calm down; and
15

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 59 of 62
f. other non-restrictive ways of de-escalating and reducing episodes of aggressive and out-of-control behavior
PA-TS 2.02 All personnel who have regular contact with clients receive training on legal issues, including:
a. mandatory reporting and the identification of clinical indicators of suspected abuse and neglect, as applicable;
b. reportable criminal behavior including criminal, acquaintance, and statutory rape;
c. duty to warn; d. the agency’s policies and procedures on confidentiality and disclosure of
service recipient information, and penalties for violation of these policies and procedures; e. the legal rights of service recipients; and f. any requirements associated with consent decrees.
PA-TS 2.03 All personnel receive training on proper documentation techniques and the maintenance and security of case records.
PA-CPS 4.05 Cases are assigned for investigation, referred, or screened out, within 24 hours.
PA-CPS 5.05 The investigator conducts a comprehensive evaluation of risk and protective factors that include:
a. child safety; b. family strengths and needs; c. history and impact of prior child abuse or neglect, domestic violence, or
substance use; and family connections.
PA-CPS 7.02 The information gathered for assessments:
a. includes underlying conditions and environmental and historical factors that may contribute to concerns identified in initial screening, investigation, and risk and safety assessments;
b. identifies child and family strengths, protective factors, and needs; c. includes the potential impact of maltreatment on the child; d. includes factors and characteristics pertinent to making an appropriate
placement, if necessary; e. identifies potential family resources for the child and the parents; and f. is limited to material pertinent for providing services and meeting
objectives.
16

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 60 of 62
PA-CPS 8.03 An individualized service plan developed with each family is based on the assessment and includes:
a. agreed upon goals, desired outcomes, and timeframes for achieving them; b. services and supports to be provided, and by whom; c. timeframes for evaluating family progress; and d. the signature of the parents and the youth, if age appropriate.
PA-CPS 9.04 Frequency and type of face-to-face visits with the child and family are appropriate to the family’s needs and risk to the child, and visits occur at least once a month, to:
a. establish effective working relationships; b. assess safety and well-being; c. monitor service delivery; and d. measure and support the achievement of agreed upon goals.
PA-CPS 10.03 The agency minimizes the negative effects removal can have on a child by:
a. providing age-appropriate information about the removal process; b. identifying personal items the child will bring; c. collecting information about the child’s daily routine, preferred foods and
activities, needed therapeutic or medical care, and education; d. discussing how the child can maintain contact with the family; and e. discussing separation and loss.
PA-FC 2.02 The information gathered for assessments:
a. includes internal, external, and historical factors that may contribute to concerns identified in initial risk and safety assessments and initial screenings;
b. identifies child and family strengths, protective factors, and needs; c. includes the impact of maltreatment on the child; d. includes factors and characteristics pertinent to selecting an appropriate
placement; e. identifies family resources for the child and the parents; and f. is limited to material pertinent for meeting service objectives.
PA-FC 2.04 The child receives an initial health screening from a qualified medical practitioner within 72 hours of entry into care to identify the need for immediate medical or mental health care, and assess for infectious and communicable diseases.
PA-FC 3.04 The service plan is based on the assessment and includes:
a. service goals, desired outcomes, and timeframes for achieving them; b. services and supports to be provided, and by whom; and
17

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 61 of 62
c. the signature of the parents and, when appropriate, the child or youth.
PA-FC 4.01 Service providers, foster parents, the public authority, and the court work with the child, youth, and family to develop a permanency plan within 30 days of placement, which specifies:
a. the permanency goal(s); b. a timeframe for achieving permanency; and c. activities that support permanency.
PA-FC 6.05 The home environment is considered when identifying a family for the child, and foster care homes have no more than:
a. five children with no more than two children under age two; or b. two foster children with therapeutic needs.
PA-FC 10.03 Qualified professionals provide the child with age-appropriate health services including:
a. medical examinations according to well child guidelines; b. dental examinations every 6 months; c. developmental, mental health, and alcohol and drug screenings within 30
days after entry into care, and when indicated to identify the need for further diagnostic assessment; and d. needed therapeutic and treatment services.
PA-FC 11.02 The treatment team develops an individualized treatment plan that:
a. specifies a diagnosis; b. identifies current and anticipated needs, and specifies short- and long-term
therapeutic interventions; c. is reviewed by the treatment team weekly to coordinate an effective
response to current issues and behaviors; and d. is reviewed within 30 days of placement, and every 90 days, to evaluate
continued need for therapeutic foster care.
PA-FC 12.01 The family foster care worker meets separately with the child and the parents at least once a month to:
a. assess safety and well-being; b. monitor service delivery; and c. support the achievement of permanency and other service plan goals.
PA-FC 16.05 Foster parents are trained in:
a. basic first aid; b. medication administration;
18

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 459 Filed 01/04/08 Page 62 of 62
c. cardio-pulmonary resuscitation; d. recognizing and responding to child behaviors that jeopardize health and
well-being; and e. medical or rehabilitation interventions and operation of medical
equipment required for a child’s care. PA-FC 16.06 Foster parents sign a statement agreeing to refrain from the use of corporal and degrading punishment, and receive initial and ongoing training and support to promote positive behavior and use appropriate discipline techniques. PA-AS 3.04 The home-study is a collaborative process that helps the family decide if adoption is an appropriate goal, and includes:
a. one or more visits to the prospective adoptive family’s home; b. reference checks; c. criminal background and child abuse and neglect registry checks
according to applicable legal requirements; and d. preparation of a home-study report with a recommendation regarding the
family’s ability to meet the needs of an adopted child. PA-AS 2.03 An age-appropriate child study is conducted to assess the child’s readiness for adoption, and includes:
a. an evaluation of the child’s ability to bond and develop relationships; b. history of maltreatment and prior placements; c. prenatal history and developmental screening of infants and young
children; d. current medical and dental health examinations; and e. a psychological evaluation, if needed.
19

 
 Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 473 Filed 05/09/08 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION

OLIVIA Y., et al.

PLAINTIFFS

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:04CV251LN

HALEY BARBOUR, as Governor of the State of Mississippi, et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER

This matter came before the Court on the Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Approval of

Settlement Regarding Plaintiffs’ Attorneys’ Fees and Order of Notice to the Class. The Court having

reviewed the Unopposed Motion and the agreed-upon Notice to the Class required by Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 23(h), the Motion is, for good cause, GRANTED in part. The Court rules,

orders, and directs as follows:

1. Notice.

On or before May 30, 2008, Defendants shall, at their sole expense, take the

following steps to notify Class members of the proposed settlement:

(a) Defendants shall prepare and mail true and correct copies of the Notice of Proposed

Fees Settlement in Olivia Y., et al. v. Barbour, et al., attached hereto (“Notice to

Class”), postage prepaid, by first class mail to all of the following persons/locations,

with an accompanying letter signed by the Department of Human Services (“DHS”)

Executive Director that gives notice of the settlement and directs that the Notice to

Class be prominently and immediately posted in the location(s) in which it is most

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 473 Filed 05/09/08 Page 2 of 6
likely to be seen by foster children and their legal representatives, and that the notice remain posted until June 16, 2008:
i) Each Division of Family and Children’s Services (“DFCS”) county office, regional office, and state office;
ii) Each group home, congregate living facility, institution, and facility in which children in DFCS custody are placed;
iii) Each agency with which DFCS contracts for the provision of foster care services and/or other services for Class members;
iv) The judges and clerks of each Youth Court in the state of Mississippi; v) The judges and clerks of each Chancery Court in the state of
Mississippi with jurisdiction over custody, placement, or parental rights with respect to Class members; vi) Each person who serves as a Guardian Ad Litem with respect to any Class member; vii) Each person who has been approved as of the date class notice issues to serve as a foster parent, putative adoptive parent, or legal guardian, or to otherwise act in loco parentis for any Class member; and viii) Each Class member who has attained or will attain the age of fourteen (14) years on or before the date class notice issues. (b) Defendants shall prominently post this Order and the Notice to Class on the Mississippi DHS website and shall maintain that posting until further order from the Court.
2

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 473 Filed 05/09/08 Page 3 of 6 (c) Defendants will file with the Court on or before June 6, 2008, an affidavit certifying compliance with the notice requirements of this Order.
2. Objections. Objections by Class members to the proposed settlement regarding Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees will be considered if filed in writing with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, James O. Eastland Courthouse, 245 East Capitol Street, Jackson, Mississippi, on or before June 16, 2008. 3. Responses. Counsel for the Class and for Defendants will have until June 23, 2008, to file responses to any objections filed by Class members and to provide other information, as appropriate, bearing on whether or not the settlement should be approved pursuant to Rule 23(h).
So ORDERED this 9th day of May, 2008. /s/Tom S. Lee United States District Court Judge
3

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 473 Filed 05/09/08 Page 4 of 6
NOTICE OF PROPOSED FEES SETTLEMENT
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:
TO ALL CHILDREN WHO ARE OR WILL BE IN THE CUSTODY OF MISSISSIPPI’S DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES’ (DHS) DIVISION OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN’S SERVICES (DFCS):
I. Background Of The Case
This notice concerns a proposed settlement of Plaintiffs’ claim for attorneys’ fees in the lawsuit known as Olivia Y., et al. v. Barbour, et al. If you are one of the children described above, or if you are the legal representative of one or more of these children, then you should read this notice.
Olivia Y. was filed in March 2004 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson Division, against the Governor of Mississippi, the Executive Director of DHS, and the Director of DHS’s Division of Family and Children’s Services, all in their official capacities (together they are called the “Defendants”). This case alleged that Mississippi’s foster care system was failing to adequately protect children in its custody and provide necessary services in violation of their federal constitutional rights. This lawsuit sought only court-ordered changes in the system; money damages were never at issue.
Plaintiffs and Defendants negotiated a proposed settlement as to liability that was approved by the Court on May 17, 2007, after notice and a hearing. The parties then negotiated a remedial order that was approved by the Court on January 4, 2008, after notice and a hearing. The parties have now sought to have the Court approve their settlement of Plaintiffs’ claims for attorneys’ fees and expenses as the prevailing party in this civil rights action as described below. You have the right to review the Unopposed Motion for Approval of Settlement Regarding Plaintiffs’ Attorneys’ Fees if you choose. You also have the right to tell the judge what you think before the judge decides whether to approve the requested fee award.
II. Request For Payment Of Attorneys’ Fees
Pursuant to applicable legal authorities, Plaintiffs’ attorneys have requested payment of their fees and expenses for legal services provided to the Plaintiff Class from 2002 through January 4, 2008. Plaintiffs’ attorneys supplied detailed billing records to Defendants in support of that request for 28,289.14 hours in attorney and paralegal time and over $300,000 in expenses. Defendants’ counsel reviewed those billing records and disputed various billings and the applicable rates. After further review and discussion, attorneys for the parties agreed to payment by the Defendants of the compromise amount of $4,863,557.50 ($4,540,830.43 in fees; $322,727.07 in expenses) in full and complete satisfaction of all Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in connection with this lawsuit from 2002 through January 4, 2008.
1

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 473 Filed 05/09/08 Page 5 of 6

Class members or their legal representatives who have questions about this Notice may contact Attorney Shirim Nothenberg. Attorney Nothenberg represents the Class and works for Children’s Rights. Her toll-free telephone number is (888) 283-2210.

You may also review the materials that have been filed with the Court in this case, except those filed under seal, by going to the Office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi (Jackson Division) at the James O. Eastland United States Courthouse, 245 Capitol Street, Jackson, Mississippi. The Clerk’s Office is open on business days from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. To review materials in the public record in the Olivia Y. case, refer to Civil Action Number 3:04CV251LN.

III. Opportunity To Comment About The Unopposed Motion For Approval of Settlement Regarding Plaintiffs’ Attorneys’ Fees

If they wish, Class members or their legal representatives may submit written comments to the Court supporting or objecting to the Unopposed Motion for Approval of Settlement Regarding Plaintiffs’ Attorneys’ Fees. No court hearing will be held. To submit written comments, Class members or their legal representatives must send or deliver a letter to the Court at the following address:

Mr. J.T. Noblin, Clerk United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi United States Courthouse 245 East Capitol Street Jackson, Mississippi 39201

In order to be considered by the Court, your letter must be received by no later than 4:00 p.m. on June 16, 2008. You must sign your letter, and must also print your name, address, and telephone number on the letter. Please reference the Olivia Y. case, Civil Action Number 3:04CV251LN.

Please also send copies of your letter to the following lawyers:

Shirim Nothenberg Children’s Rights 330 Seventh Ave., 4th Floor New York, New York 10001

Rusty Fortenberry Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell
& Berkowitz, PC 4268 I-55 North Meadowbrook Office Park Jackson, Mississippi 39211

2

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 473 Filed 05/09/08 Page 6 of 6
PLEASE NOTE: THE UNOPPOSED MOTION REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ FEES REFERENCED HEREIN AND THIS OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE COMMENTS TO THE COURT DO NOT CONCERN ANY INDIVIDUAL CHILD’S CASE THAT IS PENDING IN THE MISSISSIPPI YOUTH COURTS. THIS OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT CONCERNS ONLY THE PROPOSED PAYMENT OF $4,863,557.50 TO PLAINTIFFS’ ATTORNEYS FOR THEIR WORK PROSECUTING THIS CASE FROM 2002 THROUGH JANUARY 4, 2008. PLAINTIFFS’ ATTORNEYS MAY FROM TIME TO TIME IN THE FUTURE ASK THE DISTRICT JUDGE TO AWARD THEM ADDITIONAL FEES AND EXPENSES INCURRED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS IN THIS CASE FOR CONTINUED REPRESENTATION OF THE PLAINTIFF CLASS. ADDITIONAL NOTICE TO THE PLAINTIFF CLASS MAY NOT BE PROVIDED IN ADVANCE OF SUCH REQUESTS. IF YOU OBJECT TO PLAINTIFFS’ ATTORNEYS BEING AWARDED ADDITIONAL FEES AND EXPENSES UNDER THESE CONDITIONS, YOU SHOULD FILE AN OBJECTION WITH THE COURT SO STATING.
This Notice Has Been Approved For Distribution By:
The Honorable Tom S. Lee Senior Judge United States District Court Southern District of Mississippi
3

 
 Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 480 Filed 08/07/08 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION

OLIVIA Y., et al.

PLAINTIFFS

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:04CV251LN

HALEY BARBOUR, as Governor of the State of Mississippi, et al. DEFENDANTS

CONSENT ORDER The Court having reviewed Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Approval of Settlement Regarding Plaintiffs’ Attorneys’ Fees, Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support and Memorandum in Further Support, as well as the Declarations of Marcia Robinson Lowry, Wayne Drinkwater, Stephen Leech, John Lang, Luke Dove, and Martha Bergmark; Proper notice having been made to the Plaintiff class pursuant to Rule 23(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Order directing distribution of notice; and The Court having considered all submissions received regarding the Unopposed Motion, the Court, hereby ORDERS that: The Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion is GRANTED. It is hereby further ORDERED THAT partial final judgment be entered in favor of the Plaintiffs, OLIVIA Y., et al., against the Defendants, HALEY BARBOUR, et al., in the sum of $4,863,557.50, for all Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and expenses through the January 4, 2008 Fairness Hearing, pursuant to the fees settlement agreement of the parties. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 7, 2008

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 480 Filed 08/07/08 Page 2 of 2
/s/Tom S. Lee UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Consented to:
/s Shirim Nothenberg________________ Shirim Nothenberg (MBN 43990 pro hac vice) CHILDREN’S RIGHTS 330 7th Avenue, 4th floor New York, New York 10001 Telephone: (212) 683-2210 Plaintiffs’ counsel
/s Rusty Fortenberry_____________ Rusty Fortenberry, Esquire (MBN 5435) BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC 4268 I-55 North Meadowbrook Office Park Jackson, Mississippi 39211 Telephone: (601) 351-2400 Defendants’ counsel

 
 Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 492 Filed 08/04/09 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION

OLIVIA Y., et al.

PLAINTIFFS

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:04CV251LN

HALEY BARBOUR, as Governor of the State of Mississippi, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER
This matter came before the Court on the Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Plaintiffs’ Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses. The Court, having reviewed the Unopposed Motion and evaluated the agreed-upon amount of fees and expenses, finds it reasonable. Accordingly, the Motion is, for good cause, GRANTED. The Court rules, orders, and directs as follows:
1. Payment shall be made by Defendants to Plaintiffs’ Counsel in the agreed-upon amount of $230,300.88 for legal services performed and expenses incurred from January 5, 2008 through January 4, 2009 in the monitoring and enforcement of the Remedial Order entered into in this case.
2. Because the notice received by Plaintiff Class pursuant to Rule 23(h) as to Plaintiffs’ first Unopposed Motion for Approval of Settlement Regarding Plaintiffs’ Attorney’s Fees included notification that Plaintiffs’ Counsel might periodically be submitting fee applications for monitoring and enforcement work performed on behalf of the Plaintiff Class and that no additional notification would be made of such applications, and because additional notice would impose undue cost and

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 492 Filed 08/04/09 Page 2 of 2 burden, notice pursuant to Rule 23(h) of this and any subsequent fee applications for post-judgement monitoring and enforcement work is unnecessary.
So ORDERED this 4th day of August, 2009. /s/Tom S. Lee United States District Court Judge
2

 
 Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 1 of 81

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION

OLIVIA Y., et al.

PLAINTIFFS

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:04CV251LN

PHIL BRYANT, as Governor of the State of Mississippi, et al.

DEFENDANTS

MODIFIED MISSISSIPPI SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND REFORM PLAN

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 2 of 81
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 I. REFORM PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION ..............................................................1 II. REQUIREMENTS TO BE IMPLEMENTED STATEWIDE ................................................3 A. Systemic Infrastructure Standards ..................................................................................3 1. Agency Leadership...................................................................................................3 2. Human Resources Management ...............................................................................3 a. Workforce: ........................................................................................................3 b. Worker and Supervisor Qualifications: ............................................................7 c. Training: ............................................................................................................7 d. Contract Agency Requirements: .......................................................................8 3. Continuous Quality Improvement ............................................................................9 4. Legal and Regulatory Compliance ...........................................................................9 5. Information Management and Use ...........................................................................9 6. Financial Management ...........................................................................................11 7. Recruitment and Retention of Foster Families and Therapeutic Service Providers12 B. Foster Care Service Standards.......................................................................................13 1. Child Safety............................................................................................................13 2. Child Placement .....................................................................................................15 3. Physical and Mental Health Care ...........................................................................21 4. Therapeutic Services ..............................................................................................25 5. Worker Contact and Monitoring ............................................................................26 6. Permanency ............................................................................................................28 7. Adoption .................................................................................................................29 C. Outcome Measures ........................................................................................................31 1. Number of Placements ..........................................................................................31 2. Abuse/Neglect/Maltreatment in Care .....................................................................31 III. REQUIREMENTS TO BE IMPLEMENTED REGION-BY-REGION: ............................32 A. Systemic Infrastructure Standards ................................................................................32 1. Continuous Quality Improvement ..........................................................................32 2. Recruitment and Retention of Foster Families and Therapeutic Service Providers33 B. Foster Care Service Standards.......................................................................................33 1. Comprehensive Family Assessments .....................................................................33 2. Individualized Case Planning .................................................................................34 3. Child and Youth Permanency.................................................................................35 a. Permanency Plan:............................................................................................35 b. Concurrent Planning: ......................................................................................36 c. Permanency Plan Updating and Review: ........................................................37 d. Reunification Services: ...................................................................................38 e. Termination of Parental Rights: ......................................................................39 4. Case Recordings .....................................................................................................39 5. Developing and Maintaining Connections .............................................................40 6. Educational Services ..............................................................................................41 7. Transition to Independent Living ...........................................................................42
ii

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 3 of 81 8. Case Closing and Aftercare ....................................................................................44
C. Outcome Measures ........................................................................................................45 1. Reunification ..........................................................................................................45 2. Time to Adoption Finalization ...............................................................................45
IV. COA ACCREDITATION ...................................................................................................46 V. NAMED PLAINTIFFS.........................................................................................................46 VI. MONITORING....................................................................................................................46 VII. DISPUTE RESOLUTION, TERMINATION, AND EXIT ...............................................48 APPENDICES:
Appendix A: Practice Model Rollout Schedule Appendix B: Period 3 Implementation Plan Appendix C: Proposed Data Reports Schedule Appendix D: Mississippi Diligent Recruitment of Families for Children
iii

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 4 of 81

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION

OLIVIA Y., et al.

PLAINTIFFS

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:04CV251LN

PHIL BRYANT, as Governor of the State of Mississippi, et al.

DEFENDANTS

MODIFIED MISSISSIPPI SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND REFORM PLAN

INTRODUCTION
This Modified Mississippi Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan (the “Modified Settlement Agreement”) shall supersede the Mississippi Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan entered as a Court Order on J anuary 4, 2008 ( the “initial Settlement Agreement”). This Modified Settlement Agreement shall resolve all remaining claims in the above-captioned case, Olivia Y. v. Bryant, et al. Paragraph 1 of the Stipulated Settlement Agreement approved by the Court on May 17, 2007 is hereby incorporated into this Modified Settlement Agreement.
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Jackson Division, shall have continuing jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Modified Settlement Agreement and any annual implementation plans required herein.
I. REFORM PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION
A. The intent of this Modified Settlement Agreement is to require Defendants to develop the child welfare infrastructure necessary to meet and sustain statewide the child welfare standards and outcomes mandated in the Modified Settlement Agreement. In order to accomplish this, the Modified Settlement Agreement provides for both a statewide and region-by-region approach to reform. Section II of the Modified Settlement Agreement sets forth the child welfare infrastructure, standards, and outcomes that Defendants must meet within specified timeframes statewide. S ection III of the Modified Settlement Agreement sets forth the child welfare infrastructure, standards, and outcomes that Defendants must meet within a phased-in, region-by-region timeframe specified by when those regions implement the Practice Model.
B. Defendants shall meet the standards and outcome measurements in Sections II and III of this Modified Settlement Agreement by the conclusion of Period 6 or within any earlier interim timelines that are specified herein.
C. Defendants shall implement the Practice Model developed in conjunction with the Center for the Support of Families (“CSF”) on a region-by-region basis in accordance with the schedule incorporated herewith at Appendix "A". Defendants shall continue to
1

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 5 of 81
contract with CSF or other similar entity selected by the Defendants and approved by the Court Monitor for technical assistance and oversight of the implementation process until the Practice Model is fully implemented in all 13 DFCS regions pursuant to the Appendix "A" schedule. A region shall be deemed to have fully implemented the Practice Model after the conclusion of a s ix-month planning period, a 12-month initial implementation period, and a 12-month full implementation period.
D. For every 12-month period subsequent to the filing of this Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall develop an annual implementation plan with Plaintiffs that sets forth the steps that must be taken in that 12-month period in order to meet that Period’s interim benchmarks and make the progress necessary within that Period to achieve overall compliance with the Modified Settlement Agreement. Each annual implementation plan shall be Court enforceable and include specific steps and timelines to achieve compliance with this Modified Settlement Agreement.
E. The filing of this Modified Settlement Agreement shall constitute the commencement of Implementation Period Three. The third 12-month implementation plan is incorporated herewith at Appendix "B". Each subsequent annual implementation plan shall be developed jointly with the Parties 90 calendar days prior to the end of the previous 12month period. Each annual implementation plan will be incorporated into this Modified Settlement Agreement.
F. Defendants shall produce accurate and validated reports as identified in Appendix "C" that reflect county-by-county performance. T he reports that are noted as available in Appendix "C" as of the date the Court enters this Modified Settlement Agreement will be produced beginning one month from the date that the Court enters this Modified Settlement Agreement and every 30 days thereafter. D efendants shall begin producing those reports that do not exist as of the date that the Court enters this Modified Settlement Agreement by the dates set forth in Appendix "C". Data reports shall be provided to the Monitor and the Plaintiffs within 30 da ys of the date the report becomes available and every 30 da ys thereafter, with the exception of the data report on t raining of DFCS caseworkers which shall be produced quarterly.
G. Defendants do not speak for the Mississippi Legislature, which has the power under Mississippi law to determine the appropriations for the State’s child welfare programs. However, at least annually after Court approval of this Modified Settlement 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 Modified Settlement Agreement in connection with any budget, funding, or allocation request to the executive or legislative branches of State government. T o 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. Nothing in this paragraph in any way limits Defendants’ obligations under this Modified Settlement Agreement.
2

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 6 of 81
H. 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.
I. Defendants shall maximize available federal funding opportunities.
J. Nothing in this Modified Settlement Agreement shall be construed as infringing on the authority of the State courts of Mississippi to exercise their jurisdiction over individual class members. Defendants will not be held accountable for the State courts’ exercise of such jurisdiction in any individual case, as long as Defendants requested that the State court exercise its jurisdiction consistent with the requirements of the Modified Settlement Agreement in that individual case.
II. REQUIREMENTS TO BE IMPLEMENTED STATEWIDE Defendants shall meet the following requirements, standards, interim benchmarks, and outcome measures statewide, except with respect to the staffing requirements set forth in Section II.A.2.a.9-12, which shall be measured as required in that section. For those requirements which are required to be met from the time that a region has fully implemented the Practice Model, compliance will not be measured by looking back in time at practice that pre-dates full implementation. For those requirements which are required to be met 12 months after full implementation of the Practice Model, compliance will not be measured by looking back in time at practice that pre-dates the 12 m onth period following full implementation. A. Systemic Infrastructure Standards
1. Agency Leadership
The Mississippi Department of Human Services (“MDHS”) shall maintain a Deputy Administrator having sole responsibility for the oversight of the Division of Family and Children’s Services (“DFCS”). T hat person shall be qualified by: an advanced degree from an accredited college or university in a field related to the agency’s mission and services; five years of related experience at minimum; competence in administering and providing services to individuals, families, and/or children; management skills in addressing human resources and financial matters; and the ability to coordinate the agency's services with other community resources.
2. Human Resources Management
a. Workforce:
1) No DFCS caseworker shall carry a caseload that exceeds the following:
• 9 for dedicated adoption workers (counted by child) • 14 for dedicated child protection workers (counted by investigation) • 14 for dedicated ongoing foster care workers (counted by child)
3

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 7 of 81

• 15 for dedicated new application licensing workers (counted by home) • 17 for dedicated in-home protection workers (counted by family) • 25 for dedicated in-home dependency/prevention workers (counted by
family) • 36 for dedicated renewal licensing workers (counted by home) • 118 for dedicated abuse and neglect intake workers (counted by
intake).

2) Individual DFCS caseworkers with generic caseloads shall not carry a mixed caseload requiring more than a total of 6,960 m inutes or 100 Workload Units of case-related work per month as enumerated below.

Service Type

Minutes

• Adoption COS

300

• ICPC Incoming

106

• ICPC Outgoing

106

• Placement COR

254

• Placement COS

253

• Placement R&S

507

• Prevention COR

138

• Prevention COS

137

• Prevention R&S

275

• Protective Services COR

210

• Protective Services COS

200

• Protective Services R&S

410

• Case Management Intake

59

• Court Ordered Relative Appl.

282

• ICPC Application

282

• Investigation Level 2

484

• Investigation Level 3

484

• General Intake

59

• Resource Inquiry

59

• Adoption Addendum

191

• Foster Home Addendum

191

• Resource Home Study

470

• Resource Home Supervision

140

• Resource Renewal

191

• Courtesy Interviews

65

Caseload Units 4.3 1.6 1.6 3.7 3.6 7.3 2.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 2.9 5.9 0.9 4.1 4.1 7.0 7.0 0.9 0.9 2.8 2.8 6.8 2.0 2.8 1.0

3) The Parties acknowledge that the above time study standards are based on averages and that any individual case may require more or fewer minutes of case-related work per month. T he Parties may agree to modify these caseload standards following an evaluation of the impact of Practice Model activities on the time needed for providing services to families.

4

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 8 of 81
4) Individual caseloads shall be measured monthly.
5) Caseworkers shall have access to a supervisor by telephone 24 hours a day.
6) No DFCS supervisor shall be directly responsible for directly supervising more than five caseworkers.
7) No supervisor shall be assigned primary responsibility for providing direct casework services for any case, except in cases of extenuating circumstances which shall last no more than four (4) weeks and have been approved in writing by the Field Operations Director of DFCS after consultation with the supervisor’s Regional Director to ensure the continued proper supervision of the impacted direct service workers.
8) Within 90 days following the start of Implementation Period Three, DFCS shall formulate and begin implementing a methodology for producing accurate and validated caseworker and supervisor caseload data reports, if such reports do not currently exist. Data reports shall be produced in each county monthly. W ithin 120 da ys of the date this Modified Settlement Agreement is filed, DFCS shall provide the Plaintiffs and the Monitor with county-by-county caseload data on a monthly basis.
9) By the end of Implementation Period Three:
(a) At least 75% of DFCS caseworkers shall carry a caseload that does not exceed Modified Settlement Agreement caseload requirements. N o more than 10% of caseworkers shall carry a caseload exceeding twice the Modified Settlement Agreement caseload requirements. No caseworkers shall carry a caseload exceeding three times the Modified Settlement Agreement caseload requirements. Hancock, Harrison, Hinds, and Jackson Counties (the “Carve Out Counties”) are exempt from these requirements during Implementation Period Three.
(b) No more than 10% of supervisors who are responsible for supervising DFCS caseworkers shall be responsible for directly supervising more than five caseworkers. H ancock, Harrison, Hinds, and Jackson Counties are exempt from this requirement during Implementation Period Three.
(c) Caseworkers shall have access to a supervisor by telephone 24 hours a day.
(d) Supervisors will not be assigned primary responsibility for providing direct casework for any cases, unless under the extenuating circumstances exception as described above.
5

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 9 of 81
10) By the end of Implementation Period Four:
(a) At least 85% of DFCS caseworkers shall carry a caseload that does not exceed Modified Settlement Agreement caseload requirements. N o more than 5% of caseworkers shall carry a caseload exceeding twice the Modified Settlement Agreement caseload requirements. H ancock, Harrison, Hinds, and Jackson Counties are exempt from these requirements during Implementation Period Four.
(b) No more than 10% of supervisors who are responsible for supervising DFCS caseworkers shall be responsible for directly supervising more than five caseworkers. H ancock, Harrison, Hinds, and Jackson Counties are exempt from this requirement during Implementation Period Four.
11) By the end of Implementation Period Five:
(a) At least 80% of DFCS caseworkers in Hancock, Harrison, Hinds, and Jackson Counties shall carry a caseload that does not exceed Modified Settlement Agreement caseload requirements. No more than 15% of caseworkers in Hancock, Harrison, Hinds, and Jackson Counties shall carry a c aseload exceeding twice the Modified Settlement Agreement caseload requirements. No caseworkers in Hancock, Harrison, Hinds, and Jackson Counties shall carry a cas eload exceeding three times the Modified Settlement Agreement caseload requirements.
(b) No more than 5% of DFCS caseworkers in a non-Carve Out County shall carry a caseload that exceeds Modified Settlement Agreement caseload requirements.
(c) No more than 15% of supervisors in Hinds, Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson Counties who are responsible for directly supervising DFCS caseworkers shall be responsible for directly supervising more than five caseworkers.
(d) No more than 5% of supervisors in a non-Carve Out County who are responsible for supervising DFCS caseworkers shall be responsible for directly supervising more than five caseworkers.
12) By the end of Implementation Period Six:1
(a) All counties, including the Carve Out Counties, shall meet the caseload standards set forth in Section II.
1Because this workforce section establishes requirements for Carve Out and non-Carve Out counties which might give rise to some confusion regarding what must be accomplished in Period Six, those Period Six requirements are explicitly set forth. For all other sections, Period Six requirements are not explicitly stated because Section I requires that by Period Six, Defendants shall be in full compliance with all of the standards and outcome measures of the Modified Settlement Agreement.
6

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 10 of 81
b. Worker and Supervisor Qualifications:
1) DFCS shall hire only foster care workers who have an advanced degree in social work or a comparable human services field, or a B.A. in social work or a comparable human service field with two years of related experience. Should the related Council on Accreditation (“COA”) standards change, the new COA worker qualifications standards will govern.
2) DFCS shall hire or promote to the position of caseworker supervisor only persons with an advanced degree in social work or a comparable human service field and two years of experience working with children and families, preferably in foster care. Should the related COA standards change, the new COA caseworker supervisor qualifications standards will govern.
c. Training:
1) DFCS shall establish and maintain a Training Unit, headed by a qualified director of training. T he Training Unit shall have sufficient staffing, funding, and other resources to assure that it can provide comprehensive child welfare training to enable all caseworkers, supervisors, and other child welfare agency employees to comply with the relevant mandates of this Modified Settlement Agreement, DFCS policy, and reasonable professional standards.
2) All new DFCS caseworkers shall receive a minimum of 270 hours of preservice training, including instructional training and supervised field training, prior to assuming any case responsibilities. P re-service training provided during an internship with DFCS may be counted towards this 270 hour pre-service training requirement if that training is the same training as that provided to new hires.
3) All new caseworker supervisors hired or promoted by Defendants shall receive a minimum of 40 hours of training, directed specifically at the supervision of child welfare caseworkers, prior to being assigned any caseworkers to supervise.
4) All caseworkers shall receive a minimum of 40 hours of ongoing in-service training each year, and all supervisors shall receive a minimum of 24 hours of in-service training each year.
5) The caseworker pre-service training shall be based on clearly identified learning objectives and culminate in competency-based testing. A caseworker will not be deemed as having completed training unless the caseworker earns a passing grade on t he competency-based testing. The curriculum shall be drawn from current research and data.
7

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 11 of 81
6) By the end of Implementation Period Three:
(a) Defendants shall establish and maintain a Training Unit, headed by a qualified director of training, with sufficient staffing and resources to provide or contract for the provision of comprehensive child welfare pre-service and in-service training to all caseworkers and supervisors.
(b) All new caseworkers and supervisors will complete their pre-service training consistent with the Modified Settlement Agreement requirements before they assume their respective responsibilities for carrying cases and supervising.
(c) The in-service training curriculum for caseworkers and supervisors will be developed and in-service training will have been initiated.
7) By the end of Implementation Period Four:
(a) All caseworkers shall receive a minimum of 40 hour s of structured ongoing in-service training each year, and all supervisors shall receive a minimum of 24 hours of ongoing in-service training each year.
(b) Supervisory personnel will not be detailed from the field to provide the required pre-service and in-service training.
d. Contract Agency Requirements:
1) Defendants shall implement and maintain a performance-based contracting system to evaluate annually contract agency compliance with the terms of the Modified Settlement Agreement. Defendants shall take reasonable steps to ensure contract agency remediation of any identified deficiencies.
2) By the end of Implementation Period Three:
(a) All therapeutic resource parents who have one or more foster children residing in the home shall be visited in the home at least once per month by their private agency caseworker. These visits shall be in addition to the monthly home visit conducted by DFCS. Beginning in Implementation Period Three, all contracts executed between Defendants and pr ivate agencies that provide services to foster children shall require that the private caseworker (1) share all relevant and legally disclosable information concerning the foster child; (2) evaluate the foster child’s safety, needs, and well-being; and (3) monitor service delivery and the achievement of service goals. DFCS shall require that such visits occur, that they are documented in the child’s case record, and that remedial action is taken if such visits are not taking place.
8

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 12 of 81
(b) Beginning in Implementation Period Three, all contracts executed between Defendants and private agencies that provide protective, preventive, foster care, or adoption case work services shall require the contract agencies to abide by all related terms of the Modified Settlement Agreement, including, but not limited to, provisions regarding training curricula, minimum training hours, and caseload standards, with the exception that contract agency caseworkers shall not be required to undertake the hours of pre-service training required of DFCS caseworkers that pertain to MACWIS instruction and DFCSspecific workplace procedures. T he training requirement of the Modified Settlement Agreement shall apply only to contract agency caseworkers and supervisors responsible for making case planning decisions and/or recommendations.
3) By the end of Implementation Period Five:
(a) In the event that private agencies provide protective, preventive, foster care, or adoption case work services under contract with DFCS, DFCS shall require the contract agencies to abide by all related terms of the Modified Settlement Agreement, including, but not limited to, provisions regarding training curricula, minimum training hours, and caseload standards. T he training requirements of the Modified Settlement Agreement apply only to contract agency caseworkers and supervisors responsible for making case planning decisions and/or recommendations, and those contract agency caseworkers shall not be required to undertake the hours of pre-service training required of DFCS caseworkers that pertain to MACWIS instruction and DFCSspecific workplace procedures.
3. Continuous Quality Improvement
Defendants shall implement and maintain a separate CQI system that can identify areas of needed improvement and require improvement plans in support of achieving performance targets, program goals, client satisfaction, and positive client outcomes.
4. Legal and Regulatory Compliance
DFCS shall comply with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, including but not limited to, the public child fatality reporting requirements of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment And Adoption Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5106a(b)(2)(B)(x).
5. Information Management and Use
a. DFCS shall have a Mississippi Automated Child Welfare Information System (MACWIS) appropriate to its size and complexity that permits (1) timely access to information about persons served by any part of the organization, or by other
9

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 13 of 81
practitioners within the organization, to support child safety and continuity of care across settings and services; (2) capturing, tracking, and reporting of financial, compliance, and child welfare information, including federally required AFCARS elements; (3) longitudinal reporting and comparison of performance over time; (4) the use of clear and consistent formats and methods for reporting and disseminating data, including system-wide reports; (5) the collection of data necessary to monitor compliance with the Modified Settlement Agreement; (6) DFCS county staff access to a co mputerized database of the placement resources currently available for placement statewide; (7) notification to caseworkers when a foster care provider for a child assigned to the worker is under investigation, or that provider’s foster care license has expired or been revoked; (8) notification to caseworkers investigating a report of abuse of subsequent reports of abuse concerning the same child or alleged perpetrator; (9) caseworkers to access information on available services statewide; and (10) review of prior (i.e. historical) case documents including Individual Service Plans.
b. Defendants shall take reasonable steps to ensure data integrity and user accountability in MACWIS.
c. By the end of Implementation Period Three:
1) DFCS shall provide to all county agency staff with child welfare responsibilities access to basic computer services, consisting of access to MACWIS, word processing, and electronic mail.
2) Consistent with the schedule set forth in Appendix "C", data related to compliance with the Modified Settlement Agreement’s Foster Care Service Standards will be collected, analyzed, and disseminated at least monthly to DFCS regional and county staff.
3) Defendants shall automate the DFCS foster care review instrument to include the foster care review data indicators as listed on A ppendix "C". The child’s foster care review record shall become part of the child’s case file.
4) The Director of the Foster Care Review Division of the CQI Unit of DFCS ("FCR Director") shall regularly review the documentation of the foster care reviews to ensure that the foster care reviewers are appropriately utilizing the foster care review protocol. When the FCR Director identifies concerns regarding foster care reviews, DFCS shall remediate the concerns.
d. By the end of Implementation Period Four:
1) Defendants’ foster care review instrument shall be revised to include reviews of all children placed in therapeutic settings – whether home-based or congregate. T he foster care review of therapeutic placements shall include an assessment, reflected in the revised instrument, of whether: (1)
10

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 14 of 81
the therapeutic placement is meeting the individual child’s needs; (2) any additional services are necessary to ensure that the placement meets the individual child’s needs; and (3) the placement is appropriate as a therapeutic placement. If the foster care review identifies any concerns as to the capacity of the placement to provide therapeutic care, such concerns shall be documented and provided to the Regional Director who oversees the county of responsibility for that child. D efendants will develop and begin implementing a protocol for informing private agencies of concerns regarding the capacity of the private agency’s placement to provide therapeutic care. Defendants shall ensure that no c hild remains in a therapeutic placement where a foster care reviewer has identified concerns, unless a remediation plan is being implemented to address those concerns. No new child shall be placed in a therapeutic placement where a foster care reviewer has identified concerns until a remediation plan has been fully implemented and all necessary remediation has occurred.
e. By the end of Implementation Period Five:
1) DFCS county staff shall have access to a computerized database of the placement resources available for placement statewide at any given time. The database shall permit staff to determine whether a given placement is suitable for a given child needing placement by allowing access to current caretaker placement information, including capacity limitations, current census, the placement’s suitability for children by age, sex, and special needs, and any related licensing and maltreatment investigations information.
2) The MACWIS system shall have the necessary controls to decrease the risk of duplication of data and to reduce the risk of incorrect or invalid data. The system shall provide a visible trail to the database administrators of all information entered, added, deleted, or modified, and shall have necessary security to protect data integrity. T his system shall be audited at least annually to ensure the accuracy and validity of the data in the system. Necessary actions identified by the MACWIS data accuracy and validity audit to correct MACWIS data errors shall be implemented annually.
6. Financial Management
a. Defendants shall implement and maintain implementation of the May 2011 recommendations of Hornby Zeller Associates and the Center for Support of Families, as negotiated by the Parties for each Implementation Period.
b. By the end of Implementation Period Three:
1) Defendants shall have implemented and shall maintain implementation of the recommendations negotiated and agreed to by the Parties, and filed with the Court by July 14, 2012.
11

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 15 of 81
2) Funds realized as a result of revenue maximization activities shall not supplant appropriated state funds but shall be used in furtherance of the reforms and outcome measures provided for herein and to improve child welfare services.
c. By the end of Implementation Period Four:
1) As necessary, the Parties shall negotiate and agree to the implementation of additional recommendations. If the Parties so agree, Defendants shall have implemented, and shall maintain implementation of, those recommendations.
d. By the end of Implementation Period Five:
1) As necessary, the Parties shall negotiate and agree to the implementation of additional recommendations. If the Parties so agree, Defendants shall have implemented, and shall maintain implementation of, those recommendations.
7. Recruitment and Retention of Foster Families and Therapeutic Service Providers
a. Defendants shall ensure that all licensed resource families (regardless of whether they are supervised directly by DFCS or by private providers) receive at least the minimum reimbursement rate for a given level of service as established pursuant to the Modified Settlement Agreement.
b. By July 2009, D efendants shall establish and begin to pay to all licensed resource families at least the following basic monthly foster care maintenance payments: for each child ages 0-8, $555; for each child ages 9-15, $636; and for each child age 16 and older, $697. The Parties agree that these rates satisfy the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 675(4)(A). On July 1, 2013, and every two years thereafter, Defendants shall provide increases in the foster care maintenance payments, based upon the previous year’s rate of inflation and discussions with affected resource parent groups and congregate care providers, in order to continue complying with 42 U.S.C. § 675(4)(A).
c. Defendants shall, within 180 da ys of the Court’s approval of the initial Settlement Agreement, engage a qualified independent consultant to assess board payment rates currently being paid to resource parents caring for special needs foster children and to congregate care facilities to determine the extent to which those rates meet the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 675(4)(A) and reflect the actual cost of caring for special needs foster children and children placed in congregate care facilities, including the necessary and reasonable costs of facility administration and operation. T he selection of the independent consultant shall be subject to approval by the Monitor; said approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
12

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 16 of 81
d. Within a year of Court approval of the initial Settlement Agreement, the consultant shall deliver to the Parties and the Monitor a written report setting forth (1) findings regarding the adequacy of the current schedule of foster care maintenance payments made to foster care providers serving special needs children and facilities providing congregate foster care in relation to the requirements of 42 U .S.C. § 675( 4)(A) and the actual cost in the state of Mississippi to provide such care; (2) the methodology utilized to determine the actual costs in the state of Mississippi to provide such care; and (3) a schedule of recommended rates for foster care providers serving special needs children and facilities providing congregate foster care. Plaintiffs shall have 30 days to raise any written objection to the schedule of recommended rates as determined by the consultant. S hould Plaintiffs raise objections and should the Parties be unable to reach agreement, the consultant's schedule and Plaintiffs' objection shall be submitted to the Court for final determination.
e. By the end of Implementation Period Three:
1) The rate structure recommended by the consultant for foster care providers to special needs children and for facilities providing congregate care, as agreed upon b y the Parties or determined by the Court, shall be fully implemented. D efendants shall determine the funding source for this rate structure.
B. Foster Care Service Standards
1. Child Safety
a. Defendants shall maintain a w ell-publicized 24-hour statewide child abuse hotline for the reporting of abuse and/or neglect.
b. Upon receipt of a report of child maltreatment in a group home, emergency shelter, or private child placing agency resource home, DFCS shall undertake a licensure investigation, that is in addition to, and independent of, any child protective investigation, that shall include an on-site inspection of the facility or home to determine the contract provider’s compliance with DFCS licensure standards. If the provider is found to be in violation of licensure standards, it shall have 30 days to submit a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) with timeframes to rectify the violation and comply with the approved CAP and timeframes. If the provider does not comply with the licensure standards based on the approved CAP and timeframes, DFCS shall revoke the license.
c. All allegations of maltreatment of a child in custody, including corporal punishment, shall be investigated by a caseworker who has received training in the investigation of maltreatment in out-of-home placements and has no ongoing connection to the foster care case.
d. Within 30 days of the completion of any investigation of maltreatment of a child in custody, as required in Section II.B.1, DFCS shall review the maltreatment
13

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 17 of 81
investigation. This review shall include: (1) identification of any case practice deficiencies; (2) identification of any remedial actions necessary to ensure the safety of the child who is the subject of the investigation as well as any other child in the home or placement as well as the timeframe in which such remedial action must take place; and (3) identification of any corrective action that is necessary to address deficiencies in case practice demonstrated by the investigation as well as the timeframe in which such remedial action must take place. DFCS will monitor the initiation and completion of the remedial actions regarding individual child safety and case practice. DFCS shall notify the Area Social Work Supervisor (ASWS), Regional Director, and Director of Field Operations when such remedial actions have not been initiated within five days of identification or timely completed.
e. By the end of Implementation Period Three:
1) Defendants shall assure that standardized decision-making criteria are used for prioritizing, screening, and assessing all reports of maltreatment, including corporal punishment, of children in DFCS custody.
2) All investigations into reports of maltreatment, including corporal punishment, of children in DFCS custody must be initiated within 24 hours and completed within 30 c alendar days, including supervisory approval. Defendants shall assure that such investigations and decisions are based on a full and systematic evaluation of the factors that may place a child in custody at risk.
3) Any foster child who remains in the same out-of-home placement following an investigation into a report that he or she was maltreated or subject to corporal punishment in that placement shall be visited by a DFCS caseworker twice a month for three months after the conclusion of the investigation to assure the child’s continued safety and well-being.
4) When a maltreatment investigation involves a resource home, DFCS shall file a copy of the approved final investigative report, and any recommendations and/or corrective actions DFCS has deemed necessary, in the case record of the foster child, in the file of the foster or adoptive parents with a copy of the letter of notification to the foster or adoptive parents, and in the DFCS State Office. DFCS shall also provide those records to the Youth Court Judge with jurisdiction over the child and to the Monitor.
5) When a maltreatment investigation involves an agency group home, emergency shelter, private child placing agency resource home, or other facility licensed by DFCS, a copy of the final investigative report shall be filed in the child’s case record, in the DFCS State Office licensing file, and sent to the licensed provider facility. DFCS shall provide the report to the Youth Court Judge with jurisdiction over the child and to the Monitor.
14

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 18 of 81
6) For investigations of agency group homes, emergency shelters, and private child placing agency resource homes, DFCS shall undertake a separate investigation of the contract provider’s compliance with DFCS licensure standards.
2. Child Placement
a. No foster child shall be placed in a foster care setting (either therapeutic or nontherapeutic) that has not been licensed or approved as meeting DFCS licensure standards, unless the child is placed pursuant to the relative licensing process.
b. All foster care settings, including relative placements, shall be screened prior to the initial placement of foster children to ensure that children receive safe, sufficient, and appropriate care. Additional screens shall be completed at least once annually thereafter and within two weeks of a reported change in the residents of a resource home. Screens shall include criminal and child welfare background checks of all household members who are at least 14 years old. No foster child shall be placed in a home prior to DFCS receipt of the background check results.
c. DFCS shall maintain an expedited process for licensing screened relative caregivers to enable a child to be placed quickly with relatives upon e ntering placement. The licensing process for relatives shall take place in two steps: (1) an emergency process that enables a child to be placed with relatives as soon as the child enters placement, following an initial screen (as described above) of the relative’s home, and (2) a full licensing process, to be completed no later than 90 calendar days after the child has entered placement. DFCS may waive non-safety licensing requirements for relative foster placements in individual cases, in accordance with federal regulations. All relative placements approved for expedited placement shall undergo the full licensing procedure within 90 calendar days of the child’s placement in the home.
d. No foster home shall provide care for more than three foster children or for a total of more than five children (including foster, biological, and adoptive children) at any given time. No more than two children in the foster home may be under the age of two or have therapeutic needs. Notwithstanding the above, a sibling group may be placed together in the same foster home in excess of these limits, but only upon written approval by the DFCS Regional Director determining that the foster children can be maintained safely in the foster home.
e. Children with special needs shall be matched with placement resources that can meet their therapeutic and medical needs. DFCS shall ensure that each county office has access to resource workers within its region who have the ability to ascertain the placement resources available and their suitability for each particular child needing placement.
15

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 19 of 81
f. Each foster child shall be placed in the least restrictive setting that meets his/her individual needs as determined by a review of all intake, screening, assessment, and prior placement information on the child available at the time of placement. In order of consideration, this means placement with relatives; resource home care within reasonable proximity to the child’s home community; resource foster home care outside of the child’s home community; group home care; or institutional care.
g. Each child shall be placed within his/her own county or within 50 miles of the home from which he/she was removed. This provision shall not apply if: (1) the child’s needs are so exceptional that they cannot be met by a family or facility within his/her own county or within 50 m iles of the home from which he/she was removed; (2) the child is placed through the ICPC consistent with its terms; (3) the child is appropriately placed with relatives or another planned permanent resource; (4) the child is ordered to be placed in a child-specific foster care setting by a court; or (5) the child is placed in an adoptive home.
h. Siblings who enter placement at or near the same time shall be placed together unless: (1) doing so would be harmful to one or more of the siblings; (2) one of the siblings has exceptional needs that can be met only in a specialized program or facility; or (3) 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 initial placement, the caseworker 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.
i. No later than at the time of placement, Defendants shall provide resource parents or facility staff with the foster child’s currently available medical, dental health, educational, and psychological information, including a copy of the child’s Medicaid card. D efendants shall gather and provide to resource parents or facility staff all additional current medical, dental health, educational, and psychological information available from the child’s service providers within 15 days of placement.
j. Defendants shall take all reasonable steps to avoid the disruption of an appropriate placement and ensure placement stability for children. If there is a documented indication that a placement may disrupt, the caseworker shall immediately convene a meeting with the DFCS supervisor, the resource parents, and, if appropriate, the child to determine the following: the cause of the potential disruption; whether the placement is appropriate for the child; whether additional services are necessary to support the placement; whether the child needs another placement; and, if another placement is necessary, what that placement should be. If the placement disrupts on a n emergency basis, the meeting shall be held no later than five days after the disruption to address whether the child needs additional supportive services and whether the new placement is appropriate.
16

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 20 of 81
k. No foster child shall remain in an emergency or temporary facility for more than 45 calendar days, unless, in exceptional circumstances, the Division Director or Field Operations Director has granted express written approval for the extension that documents the need for the extension.
l. No child shall spend more than 12 hours at a time in a DFCS office or other nonresidential facility that provides intake functions. D efendants shall be exempt from maintaining and producing data reports regarding this requirement.
m. No child under 10 years of age shall be placed in a congregate care setting (including group homes and shelters) unless the child has exceptional needs that cannot be met in a relative or foster family home or the child is a member of a sibling group, and the Regional Director has granted express written approval for the congregate-care placement. S uch approval shall be based on t he Regional Director’s written determination that the child’s needs cannot be met in a less restrictive setting and can be met in that specific facility, including a description of the services available in the facility to address the individual child’s needs. Sibling groups in which one or more of the siblings are under the age of 10 shall not be placed in congregate care settings for more than 45 days.
n. No foster child shall be moved from his/her existing placement to another foster placement unless DFCS specifically documents in the child’s case record justifications for that move and the move is approved by a DFCS supervisor.
o. No child shall be placed in more than one emergency or temporary facility within one episode of foster care, unless an immediate placement move is necessary to protect the safety of the child or of others as certified in writing by the Regional Director.
p. By the end of Implementation Period Three:
1) All foster care settings, including relative placements, shall be screened prior to the initial placement of foster children in accordance with this Modified Settlement Agreement.
2) No foster child shall be placed or remain in a foster care setting that does not meet DFCS licensure standards consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements, unless so ordered by the Youth Court over DFCS objection.
3) Within 120 days of the start of Implementation Period 3, Defendants shall develop and implement an expedited process for licensing screened relative caregivers to enable a child to be placed quickly with relatives upon entering placement.
4) All unlicensed placements in which foster children are residing as of the date the Court approves this Modified Settlement Agreement that meet the requirements of the licensure process shall be licensed. All children who
17

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 21 of 81
have been living in any of those unlicensed placements that do not meet the requirements of the licensure process shall have been moved into licensed and appropriate resource home placements, unless the Youth Court orders that the child not be moved.
5) All placements approved for relative placement after the date the Court enters this Modified Settlement Agreement shall undergo the full licensing procedure within 90 days of a child’s placement.
6) No more than 40 children under 10 years of age shall be placed in a congregate care setting (including group homes and shelters) unless the child has exceptional needs that cannot be met in a relative or foster family home or the child is a member of a sibling group, and the Regional Director has granted express written approval for the congregate-care placement.
7) No more than 180 children shall be placed in more than one emergency or temporary facility within one episode of foster care, unless an immediate placement move is necessary to protect the safety of the child or of others as certified in writing by the Regional Director.
8) No foster child shall remain in an emergency or temporary facility for more than 45 c alendar days, unless, in exceptional circumstances, the Field Operations Director has granted express written approval for the extension that documents the need for the extension.
9) No child shall spend more than 12 hours at a time in a DFCS office or other non-residential facility that provides intake functions. Defendants shall be exempt from maintaining and producing data reports regarding this requirement.
10) No more than 30% of resource homes shall provide care to a number of children in excess of the Modified Settlement Agreement resource home population limitations.
11) At least 60% of children with special needs shall be matched with placement resources that can meet their therapeutic and medical needs.
12) At least 75% of children in DFCS custody shall be placed in the least restrictive setting that meets their individual needs consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
13) At least 80% of siblings who entered DFCS custody at or near the same time shall be placed together consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
14) At least 40% of children in DFCS custody placed in a new placement during the Period shall have their currently available medical, dental, educational, and psychological information provided to their resource
18

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 22 of 81
parents or facility staff no later than at the time of any new placement during the Period.
15) At least 35% of children in DFCS custody with a documented indication that they were to be subject to a potential or actual placement disruption during the Period shall receive a meeting to address placement stability consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
16) At least 85% of children who entered DFCS custody shall be placed within his/her own county or within 50 m iles of the home from which he/she was removed unless one of the exceptions provided in the Modified Settlement Agreement is documented as applying.
q. By the end of Implementation Period Four:
1) DFCS shall ensure that each county office has access to resource workers within its region having the ability to ascertain the placement resources available and their suitability for each particular child needing placement.
2) No child under 10 years of age shall be placed in a congregate care setting (including group homes and shelters) unless the child has exceptional needs that cannot be met in a relative or foster family home or the child is a member of a sibling group, and the Regional Director has granted express written approval for the congregate-care placement.
3) No child shall be placed in more than one emergency or temporary facility within one episode of foster care, unless an immediate placement move is necessary to protect the safety of the child or of others as certified in writing by the Regional Director.
4) No more than 10% of foster children shall be moved from his/her existing placement to another foster placement unless DFCS specifically documents in the child’s case record justifications for that move and the move is approved by a DFCS supervisor.
5) No more than 20% of resource homes shall provide care to a number of children in excess of the Modified Settlement Agreement resource home population limitations.
6) At least 85% of children with special needs shall be matched with placement resources that can meet their therapeutic and medical needs.
7) At least 85% of children in DFCS custody shall be placed in the least restrictive setting that meets their individual needs consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
19

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 23 of 81
8) At least 90% of siblings who entered DFCS custody at or near the same time shall be placed together consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
9) At least 60% of children in DFCS custody placed in a n ew placement during the Period shall have their currently available medical, dental, educational, and psychological information provided to their resource parents or facility staff no later than at the time of any new placement during the Period.
10) At least 60% of children in DFCS custody with a documented indication that they were to be subject to an actual placement disruption during the Period shall receive a meeting to address placement stability consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
11) At least 90% of children who entered DFCS custody shall be placed within his/her own county or within 50 m iles of the home from which he/she was removed unless one of the exceptions provided in the Modified Settlement Agreement is documented as applying.
r. By the end of Implementation Period Five:
1) No more than 5% of foster children shall be moved from his/her existing placement to another foster placement unless DFCS specifically documents in the child’s case record justifications for that move and the move is approved by a DFCS supervisor.
2) No more than 10% of resource homes shall provide care to a number of children in excess of the Modified Settlement Agreement resource home population limitations.
3) At least 95% of children with special needs shall be matched with placement resources that can meet their therapeutic and medical needs.
4) At least 95% of children in DFCS custody shall be placed in the least restrictive setting that meets their individual needs consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
5) At least 95% of siblings who entered DFCS custody at or near the same time shall be placed together consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
6) At least 80% of children in DFCS custody placed in a n ew placement during the Period shall have their currently available medical, dental, educational, and psychological information provided to their resource parents or facility staff no later than at the time of any new placement during the Period.
20

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 24 of 81
7) At least 80% of children in DFCS custody with a documented indication that they were to be subject to a potential or actual placement disruption during the Period shall receive a meeting to address placement stability consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
8) 95% of children who entered DFCS custody shall be placed within his/her own county or within 50 miles of the home from which he/she was removed unless one of the exceptions provided in the Modified Settlement Agreement is documented as applying.
s. Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model:
1) At least 80% of the foster children in that region who enter custody or experience a placement change shall be placed in accordance with each of the child placement requirements of Section II.B.2.
t. Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model:
1) At least 90% of the foster children in that region who enter custody or experience a placement change shall be placed in accordance with each of the child placement requirements of Section II.B.2.
3. Physical and Mental Health Care
a. Every child entering foster care shall receive a health screening evaluation from a qualified medical practitioner within 72 hours after placement that is in accordance with the health screening recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
b. Every child entering foster care shall receive a comprehensive health assessment within 30 da ys of the placement. The assessment shall be in accordance with the recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics, except that dental exams shall be governed by Section II.B.3.e of the Modified Settlement Agreement.
c. Nothing in the above paragraphs shall prohibit the initial health screening evaluation and the comprehensive health assessment from being conducted in one clinical visit. H owever, in such instances, this combined visit shall be conducted within 72 hours of placement.
d. All children shall receive periodic medical examinations and all medically necessary follow-up services and treatment throughout the time they are in state custody, in accordance with the time periods recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
21

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 25 of 81
e. Every child three years old and older shall receive a dental examination within 90 calendar days of foster care placement and every six months thereafter. Every foster child who reaches the age of three in care shall be provided with a dental examination within 90 calendar days of his/her third birthday and every six months thereafter. Every foster child shall receive all medically necessary dental services.
f. Every child four years old and older shall receive a mental health assessment by a qualified professional within 30 calendar days of foster care placement. Every foster child who reaches the age of four in care shall receive a m ental health assessment within 30 c alendar days of his/her fourth birthday. E very foster child shall receive recommended mental health services pursuant to his/her assessment.
g. Every foster child ages birth through three shall receive a d evelopmental assessment by a qualified professional within 30 days of foster care placement, and each child older than three shall be provided with a developmental assessment if there are documented factors that indicate such an assessment is warranted. A ll foster children shall be provided with needed follow-up developmental services.
h. Nothing in the above paragraphs shall prohibit the developmental assessment and the comprehensive health assessment from being conducted in one clinical visit.
i. By the end of Implementation Period Three:
1) At least 50% of children entering custody during the Period shall receive a health screening evaluation from a qualified medical practitioner within 72 hours after placement that is in accordance with the health screening recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
2) At least 50% of children entering custody during the Period shall receive a comprehensive health assessment consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements within 30 calendar days of entering care.
3) At least 75% of children in custody during the Period shall receive periodic medical examinations and all medically necessary follow-up services and treatment consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
4) At least 60% of children three years old and older entering custody during the Period or in care and turning three years old during the Period shall receive a dental examination within 90 c alendar days of foster care placement or their third birthday, respectively.
5) At least 60% of children in custody during the Period shall receive a dental examination every six months consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements and all medically necessary dental services.
22

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 26 of 81
6) At least 50% of children four years old and older entering custody during the Period or in care and turning four years old during the Period shall receive a m ental health assessment by a q ualified professional within 30 calendar days of foster care placement or their fourth birthday, respectively.
7) At least 70% of children who received a mental health assessment during the period shall receive all recommended mental health services pursuant to their assessment.
8) At least 30% of children in custody ages birth through three during the Period, and older children if factors indicate it is warranted, shall receive a developmental assessment by a qualified professional within 30 c alendar days of foster care placement and all needed developmental services.
j. By the end of Implementation Period Four:
1) At least 70% of children entering custody during the Period shall receive a health screening evaluation from a qualified medical practitioner within 72 hours after placement that is in accordance with the health screening recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
2) At least 70% of children entering custody during the Period shall receive a comprehensive health assessment consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements within 30 calendar days of entering care.
3) At least 85% of children in custody during the Period shall receive periodic medical examinations and all medically necessary follow-up services and treatment consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
4) At least 75% of children three years old and older entering custody during the Period or in care and turning three years old during the Period shall receive a dental examination within 90 calendar days of foster care placement or their third birthday, respectively.
5) At least 80% of children in custody during the Period shall receive a dental examination every six months consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements and all medically necessary dental services.
6) At least 70% of children four years old and older entering custody during the Period or in care and turning four years old during the Period shall receive a m ental health assessment by a q ualified professional within 30 calendar days of foster care placement or their fourth birthday, respectively.
7) At least 80% of children who received a mental health assessment during the period shall receive all recommended mental health services pursuant to their assessment.
23

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 27 of 81
8) At least 60% of children in custody ages birth through three during the Period, and older children if factors indicate it is warranted, shall receive a developmental assessment by a qualified professional within 30 c alendar days of foster care placement and all needed developmental services.
k. By the end of Implementation Period Five:
1) At least 90% of children entering custody during the Period shall receive a health screening evaluation from a qualified medical practitioner within 72 hours after placement that is in accordance with the health screening recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
2) At least 90% of children entering custody during the Period shall receive a comprehensive health assessment consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements within 30 calendar days of entering care.
3) At least 95% of children in custody during the Period shall receive periodic medical examinations and all medically necessary follow-up services and treatment consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
4) At least 90% of children three years old and older entering custody during the Period or in care and turning three years old during the Period shall receive a dental examination within 90 calendar days of foster care placement or their third birthday, respectively.
5) At least 90% of children in custody during the Period shall receive a dental examination every six months consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements and all medically necessary dental services.
6) At least 90% of children four years old and older entering custody during the Period or in care and turning four years old during the Period shall receive a m ental health assessment by a q ualified professional within 30 calendar days of foster care placement or their fourth birthday, respectively.
7) At least 90% of children who received a mental health assessment during the period shall receive all recommended mental health services pursuant to their assessment.
8) At least 80% of children in custody ages birth through three during the Period, and older children if factors indicate it is warranted, shall receive a developmental assessment by a qualified professional within 30 c alendar days of foster care placement and all needed developmental services.
24

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 28 of 81
l. Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model:
1) At least 80% of foster children in that region who enter custody shall receive physical and mental health care in accordance with each of the Modified Settlement Agreement Requirements.
m. Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model:
1) At least 90% of foster children in that region who enter custody shall receive physical and mental health care in accordance with each of the Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
4. Therapeutic Services
a. Each foster child requiring therapeutic and rehabilitative foster care services because of a diagnosis of significant medical, developmental, emotional, or behavioral problems shall be provided with a treatment plan and shall be provided with these services in accordance with the plan.
b. By the end of Implementation Period Three:
1) At least 60% of children in custody during the Period requiring therapeutic and/or rehabilitative foster care services because of a diagnosis of significant medical, developmental, emotional, or behavioral problems shall be provided with a treatment plan and services in accordance with their plan.
c. By the end of Implementation Period Four:
1) At least 80% of children in custody during the Period requiring therapeutic and/or rehabilitative foster care services because of a d iagnosis of significant medical, developmental, emotional, or behavioral problems shall be provided with a treatment plan and services in accordance with their plan.
d. By the end of Implementation Period Five:
1) At least 90% of children in custody during the Period requiring therapeutic and/or rehabilitative foster care services because of a d iagnosis of significant medical, developmental, emotional, or behavioral problems shall be provided with a treatment plan and services in accordance with their plan.
25

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 29 of 81
e. Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model:
1) At least 80% of the foster children in that region who are in custody and require therapeutic and/or rehabilitative foster care services because of a diagnosis of significant medical, developmental, emotional, or behavioral problems shall be provided with a treatment plan and services during that period in accordance with their plan.
f. Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model:
1) At least 90% of the foster children in that region who are in custody and require therapeutic and/or rehabilitative foster care services because of a diagnosis of significant medical, developmental, emotional, or behavioral problems shall be provided with a treatment plan and services during that period in accordance with their plan.
5. Worker Contact and Monitoring
a. Regardless of whether a ch ild’s foster care placement is being directly supervised by DFCS or by a contract agency, the assigned DFCS caseworker (either County of Service or County of Responsibility) shall meet with the child in person and, where age-appropriate, alone at least twice monthly to assess the child’s safety and well-being, service delivery, and achievement of permanency and other service goals. A t least one visit per month shall take place in the child’s placement.
b. For a child with a permanency goal of reunification, the child’s assigned DFCS caseworker shall meet with the child’s parent(s) with whom the child is to be reunified at least monthly to assess service delivery and achievement of service goals, to keep the family informed and involved in decisions about the child, and to remain current about the family’s circumstances.
c. A DFCS foster care worker shall regularly communicate with resource parents (therapeutic and non-therapeutic) who have one or more foster children residing in their home and visit the home at least monthly to (1) share all relevant and legally disclosable information concerning the foster child; ( 2) evaluate the foster child's safety, needs and wellbeing; and (3) monitor service delivery and achievement of service goals.
d. All required visits and contacts shall be documented in the child’s case record.
e. By the end of Implementation Period Three:
1) At least 60% of children in custody shall receive documented twicemonthly in-person visits by the assigned DFCS caseworker during the Period, consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
26

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 30 of 81
2) At least 40% of children with a goal of reunification shall have their assigned DFCS caseworker meet monthly with the child’s parents, during the Period, consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements, and this visit shall be documented in the child’s case record.
3) At least 40% of resource parents (therapeutic and non-therapeutic) with at least one foster child residing in their home during the Period shall have a DFCS worker visit the home monthly, consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements, and this visit shall be documented in the children’s case records.
f. By the end of Implementation Period Four:
1) At least 80% of children in custody shall receive documented twicemonthly in-person visits by the assigned DFCS caseworker during the Period, consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
2) At least 60% of children with a goal of reunification shall have their assigned DFCS caseworker meet monthly with the child’s parents, during the Period, consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements, as documented in the child’s case record.
3) At least 60% of resource parents (therapeutic and non-therapeutic) with at least one foster child residing in their home during the Period shall have a DFCS worker visit the home monthly, consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements, as documented in the children’s case records.
g. By the end of Implementation Period Five:
1) At least 90% of children in custody shall receive documented twicemonthly in-person visits by the assigned DFCS caseworker during the Period, consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
2) At least 90% of children with a goal of reunification shall have their assigned DFCS caseworker meet monthly with the child’s parents, during the Period, consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements, as documented in the child’s case record.
3) At least 90% of resource parents (therapeutic and non-therapeutic) with at least one foster child residing in their home during the Period shall have a DFCS worker visit the home monthly, consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements, as documented in the children’s case records.
h. Beginning by the date as set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model:
1) At least 70% of children in custody in that region shall have received documented twice-monthly in-person visits by the assigned DFCS
27

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 31 of 81
caseworker during the preceding 12-month period, consistent with Modified Plan requirements.
2) At least 80% of children in that region with a goal of reunification shall have had their assigned DFCS caseworker meet monthly with the child’s biological parent(s) with whom that child is to be reunified consistent with Modified Plan requirements, as documented in the child’s case record.
3) At least 80% of foster parents in that region with at least one foster child residing in their home during the preceding 12-month period shall have had a DFCS worker visit the home monthly, consistent with Modified Plan requirements, as documented in the children’s case records.
i. Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model:
1) At least 90% of foster children in custody in that region shall receive documented twice-monthly in-person visits by the assigned DFCS caseworker, consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
2) At least 90% of foster children in that region with a goal of reunification shall have their assigned DFCS caseworker meet monthly with the child’s parent(s) with whom the child is to be reunified, consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements, as documented in the child’s case record.
3) At least 90% of resource parents in that region with at least one foster child residing in their home shall have a DFCS worker visit the home monthly, consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements, as documented in the children’s case records.
6. Permanency
a. Permanency Roundtables
1) Defendants shall implement a p ermanency roundtable process to target a population of children as indicated below with the goal of moving these children toward permanency. DFCS shall first hold permanency roundtable reviews in the applicable implementing regions for children who have been in DFCS custody for 36 months or longer and who have not achieved legal permanency.
2) Permanency roundtables shall be conducted by a permanency roundtable team consisting of a master practitioner and/or permanency consultant, a scribe, a neutral facilitator, the caseworker, and the supervisor. P rior to conducting any roundtables, the participating DFCS staff, court personnel, and community stakeholders shall be trained on the roundtable process.
28

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 32 of 81
3) Once there are fewer than ten children in an implementing region who have been in custody 36 m onths or longer and who meet the roundtable requirements, the implementing region shall begin holding roundtable sessions for those children in custody 24 m onths or longer who have not achieved legal permanence.
4) Defendants shall have implemented permanency roundtables statewide and every region that began the permanency roundtable process before Period 5 shall have held at least two rounds of permanency roundtables in addition to engaging in permanency follow-up activities.
b. By the end of Implementation Period Four:
1) Defendants shall hold training sessions for DFCS's Training Unit Staff on the Permanency Values Training and Permanency Skills Training Curricula.
2) Defendants shall conduct permanency roundtables in three additional regions.
c. By the end of Implementation Period Five:
1) Defendants shall have conducted permanency roundtable reviews for children who have been in DFCS custody for 36 months or longer and who have not achieved legal permanency. DFCS shall have achieved legal permanency, identified permanent connections, or obtained an enhanced permanency status for at least 90% of all children in the region who have been in DFCS custody for 36 months or longer and who have not achieved legal permanency.
2) DFCS shall have conducted permanency roundtable reviews for all children who have been in DFCS custody for 24 months or longer and who have not achieved legal permanency. DFCS shall have achieved legal permanency, identified permanent connections or obtained an enhanced permanency status for at least 80% of these children.
7. Adoption
a. Children in custody with the primary permanency goal of adoption shall have an assigned adoption specialist and an adoption plan that identifies the childspecific activities that Defendants will undertake to achieve adoption and the timeframes in which the activities will be undertaken. The adoption specialist shall be responsible for consulting with private and public professionals and identifying and ensuring the provision of targeted services necessary for the child to be adopted. An adoption status meeting with the DFCS caseworker, the adoption specialist, and the caseworker’s direct supervisor to review the progress being made in achieving the goal of adoption shall occur weekly for infants and monthly for all other children awaiting adoption, and shall be noted in the child’s case record.
29

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 33 of 81
b. By the end of Implementation Period Four:
Defendants shall maintain a process for advising all potential adoptive families, including any resource family caring for a child who has become legally available for adoption, of the availability of adoption subsidies. This notification shall be documented in the child’s record, and the family’s access to such subsidies shall be facilitated.
c. By the end of Implementation Period Five:
1) Defendants shall provide and maintain an approval process by which foster parents and adoptive parents may be approved simultaneously, so that whenever possible and appropriate, placement moves can be minimized and resource parents can be eligible to adopt the children for whom they have been providing foster care. A resource parent who has been providing foster care for a child for 12 months shall be given preference as an adoptive parent for that child should he/she become legally available for adoption, unless DFCS documents why the placement is unsuitable for adoption.
2) Defendants shall establish and maintain a system of post-adoptive services to stabilize and maintain adoptive placements. A ll adoptive families eligible for adoption subsidies shall have access to these services, which shall include respite services; counseling, mental health treatment, and crisis intervention; family preservation and stabilization services; and peer support.
3) At least 90% of children in custody with the primary permanency goal of adoption during the Period shall have an assigned adoption specialist and an adoption plan that identifies the child-specific activities that Defendants will undertake to achieve adoption, and shall receive regular adoption status meetings consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements during the Period.
d. Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model:
At least 90% of children in custody in that region with the primary permanency goal of adoption during the Period shall have an assigned adoption specialist and an adoption plan that identifies the child-specific activities that Defendants will undertake to achieve adoption, and shall receive regular adoption status meetings consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements during the Period.
30

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 34 of 81
e. Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model
At least 95% of children in custody in that region with the primary permanency goal of adoption during the Period shall have an assigned adoption specialist and an adoption plan that identifies the child-specific activities that Defendants will undertake to achieve adoption, and shall receive regular adoption status meetings consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements during the Period. C. Outcome Measures
The following child welfare outcome measures shall be met and measured annually.
1. Number of Placements (Temporary breaks in placement for children who run away, require emergency hospitalization or respite care not exceeding 14 days, or who are in residential schools such as schools for the vision or hearing impaired or colleges and universities, and who return to their immediately prior placement, shall not count as additional placements.)
a. In the last year, at least 86.7% of children state-wide in care less than 12 months from the time of latest removal from home shall have had two or fewer placements.
b. By the end of Implementation Period Three:
1) In the last year, at least 60% of children state-wide in care less than 12 months from the time of latest removal from home shall have had two or fewer placements.
c. By the end of Implementation Period Four:
1) In the last year, at least 75% of children state-wide in care less than 12 months from the time of latest removal from home shall have had two or fewer placements.
d. By the end of Implementation Period Five:
1) At least 86.7% of children state-wide in care less than 12 months from the time of latest removal from home shall have had two or fewer placements.
2. Abuse/Neglect/Maltreatment in Care (This measure shall apply to reports of abuse, neglect, or maltreatment of children while in DFCS custody.)
a. The rate of abuse or maltreatment in care in the last year shall not exceed 0.33%.
31

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 35 of 81
b. By the end of Implementation Period Three:
1) The rate of abuse or maltreatment in care in the last year shall not exceed 1.00%.
c. By the end of Implementation Period Four:
1) The rate of abuse or maltreatment in care in the last year shall not exceed 0.50%.
d. By the end of Implementation Period Five:
1) The rate of abuse or maltreatment in care in the last year shall not exceed 0.33%.
III. REQUIREMENTS TO BE IMPLEMENTED REGION-BY-REGION: Defendants shall meet the following requirements, standards, interim benchmarks, and outcome measures on a region-by-region basis as regions implement the Practice Model and in accordance with the timeframes set forth below and in Appendix "A". For those requirements which are required to be met from the time that a region has fully implemented the Practice Model, compliance will not be measured by looking back in time at practice that pre-dates full implementation. F or those requirements which are required to be met 12 months after full implementation of the Practice Model, compliance will not be measured by looking back in time at practice that pre-dates the 12 m onth period following full implementation. After all thirteen regions have fully implemented the practice model, all standards, benchmarks, and outcome measures in this Modified Settlement Agreement shall be measured and required statewide and shall no longer be measured on a region-by-region basis. A. Systemic Infrastructure Standards
1. Continuous Quality Improvement
a. No later than the date set forth in Appendix "A" by which a region shall have fully implemented the Practice Model, the CQI system shall measure compliance in that region with the foster care service standard requirements of this Modified Settlement Agreement and shall ensure remediation of any identified deficiencies.
b. At the time that the last region listed in Appendix "A" has fully implemented the Practice Model, the CQI system shall monitor and evaluate state-wide the quality of services provided by DFCS and independent contractors and other provider organizations. The CQI system shall measure compliance state-wide with the foster care service standard requirements of this Modified Settlement Agreement and shall ensure remediation of any identified deficiencies.
32

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 36 of 81
2. Recruitment and Retention of Foster Families and Therapeutic Service Providers
a. DFCS shall make available, either directly or through contract, a s ufficient number of appropriate placements for all children in its physical and legal custody.
b. DFCS shall make available resource parent training classes beginning every 60 calendar days in every region with individualized training available as needed, and at times convenient for the foster family.
c. DFCS shall secure services for resource parents to prevent and reduce stress and family crisis.
B. Foster Care Service Standards
1. Comprehensive Family Assessments
a. Within 30 da ys of taking a child into custody, DFCS shall complete a comprehensive family assessment which shall be developed through meetings (1) with the child and the assigned DFCS caseworker; (2) with the child’s parents and the assigned DFCS caseworker; and (3) with the foster care provider and the assigned DFCS caseworker, and the comprehensive family assessment shall be maintained in the child’s case record.
b. In all cases in which the whereabouts of one or both parents is unknown, DFCS shall immediately institute a diligent search for the parent(s), which shall be documented in the child’s case record.
c. In instances in which it is impossible to meet with one or both parents, the assessment process will proceed as described above, notwithstanding the parent’s absence.
d. Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has undergone the Initial Practice Model Implementation Period:
1) All caseworkers assigned to active cases, and their supervisors, will have undergone training on the family team meeting protocols.
e. Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model:
1) At least 80% of foster children in that region who enter custody shall have a thorough screening and assessment, consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements, within 30 calendar days of entering custody.
2) In at least 80% of placement cases in that region in which the whereabouts of one or both parents is unknown, DFCS shall immediately institute a
33

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 37 of 81
diligent search for the parent(s), which shall be documented in the child’s case record.
f. Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model:
1) At least 90% of foster children in that region who enter custody shall have a comprehensive family assessment, consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements, within 30 calendar days of entering custody.
2) In at least 90% of placement cases in that region in which the whereabouts of one or both parents is unknown, DFCS shall immediately institute a diligent search for the parent(s), which shall be documented in the child’s case record.
g. As of the date upon w hich the last region has fully implemented the Practice Model, performance on this comprehensive family assessment requirement shall be measured and required state-wide and shall no l onger be measured on a region-by-region basis.
2. Individualized Case Planning
a. Within 30 c alendar days of a child’s entrance into foster care, the DFCS caseworker shall convene a family team meeting and develop a service plan that addresses the strengths, needs and services required for both the child and the parents as explored during that family team meeting.
b. A family team meeting shall be held at least quarterly. The service plan shall be reviewed and updated quarterly or more frequently as needed, including within 30 days of a placement change.
c. Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model:
1) At least 80% of foster children in that region who enter custody shall have a family team meeting and service plans shall be developed for both the child and the parents, consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements, within 30 calendar days of entry into foster care.
2) At least 80% of foster children in that region who enter custody shall have family team meetings at least quarterly, and their service plans shall be updated quarterly, as well as within 30 calendar days of any placement or other significant change, consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
d. Beginning by 12 months following the date as set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model:
34

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 38 of 81
1) At least 90% of foster children in that region who enter custody shall have a family team meeting and service plans shall be developed for both the child and the parents, consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements, within 30 calendar days of entry into foster care.
2) At least 90% of foster children in that region who enter custody shall have family team meetings at least quarterly, and their service plans shall be updated quarterly, as well as within 30 c alendar days of a placement change, consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
e. As of the date upon w hich the last region has fully implemented the Practice Model, performance on these service plan requirements shall be measured and required state-wide and shall no longer be measured on a region-by-region basis.
3. Child and Youth Permanency
a. Permanency Plan:
1) Defendants shall work with service providers, resource parents, the child, and the family to develop and document in the child’s case record a permanency plan that specifies the permanency goal, a t imeframe for achieving permanency, and activities that support permanency.
2) Within 30 calendar days of the child’s initial placement, a permanency plan shall be developed that specifies the permanency goal, a t imeframe for achieving permanency, and activities that support permanency.
3) No child shall be assigned a permanency goal of durable legal custody unless there are documented efforts in the child’s case record to move the child to adoption and documentation of a reasonable basis why it is in the child’s best interests not to be considered for adoption.
4) No child shall be assigned a permanency goal of permanent foster care.
5) If DFCS concludes, after considering reunification, adoption, durable legal custody, and permanent placement with a r elative, that these permanency plans are inappropriate or unavailable for a child, DFCS may assign a permanency goal of Another Permanent Planned Living Arrangement (APPLA) for the child. In such circumstances, (1) the child must be at least 16 years old and (2) DFCS must document to the Youth Court a compelling reason why this permanency goal is in the best interest of the child and more appropriate than reunification, adoption, durable legal custody, or permanent placement with a relative.
35

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 39 of 81
6) Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model:
(a) At least 90% of foster children in that region who enter custody shall have a permanency plan within 30 calendar days of their entry into care consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
(b) At least 90% of foster children in custody in that region shall have a permanency plan that is consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
7) Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model:
(a) At least 95% of foster children in that region who enter custody shall have a permanency plan within 30 calendar days of their entry into care consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
(b) At least 95% of foster children in custody in that region shall have a permanency plan that is consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
8) As of the date upon which the last region has fully implemented the Practice Model, performance on these permanency planning requirements shall be measured and required state-wide and shall no longer be measured on a region-by-region basis.
b. Concurrent Planning:
1) For children with the goal of reunification, DFCS shall begin, within the first six months of the child’s entry into care, to engage in concurrent planning.
2) Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model:
(a) At least 90% of children in custody in that region with the goal of reunification shall have case record documentation reflecting active concurrent permanency planning consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
3) Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model:
(a) At least 95% of children in custody in that region with the goal of reunification shall have case record documentation reflecting active concurrent permanency planning consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
36

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 40 of 81
4) As of the date upon which the last region has fully implemented the Practice Model, performance on this concurrent planning requirement shall be measured and required state-wide and shall no l onger be measured region-by-region.
c. Permanency Plan Updating and Review:
1) A child’s permanency plan shall be reviewed in a court or administrative case review at least every six months. Foster care reviews shall satisfy this administrative case review requirement. D FCS will take reasonable steps, including written notice, to ensure the participation of the child, parents, caregivers, and relevant professionals in court or administrative reviews.
2) DFCS will take reasonable steps to ensure that a court review, which may be called a review, dispositional, or permanency hearing, is held for each child in foster care custody within 12 m onths of initial placement, and annually thereafter.
3) DFCS shall review all documented exceptions under the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act ("ASFA") for children who have spent more than 17 of the previous 22 m onths in foster care during the child’s foster care review.
4) Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model:
(a) At least 90% of foster children in that region who have been in custody for at least six months shall have a timely court or administrative case review consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
(b) At least 90% of foster children in that region who have been in custody for at least 12 months shall have a timely annual court review consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
5) Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model:
(a) At least 95% of foster children in that region who have been in custody for at least six months shall have a timely court or administrative case review consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
(b) At least 95% of foster children in that region who have been in custody in that region for at least 12 months shall have a timely annual court review consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement.
37

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 41 of 81
6) As of the date upon which the last region has fully implemented the Practice Model, performance on t his permanency planning update and review requirement shall be measured and required state-wide and shall no longer be measured on a region-by-region basis.
d. Reunification Services:
1) When the child’s permanency goal is reunification, DFCS shall identify in the service plan and make available directly or through referral those services DFCS deems necessary to address the behaviors or conditions resulting in the child’s placement in foster care and to help the parents develop strategies to facilitate permanency for the child. Caseworkers will monitor the provision of services through visits and updating of service plans.
2) For a child with a permanency goal of reunification, the child’s assigned DFCS caseworker shall meet with the child’s parent(s) with whom the child is to be reunified at least monthly to assess service delivery and achievement of service goals, to keep the family informed and involved in decisions about the child, and to remain current about the family’s circumstances.
3) For children with a permanency goal of reunification, the case record shall document opportunities provided to parents in support of reunification.
4) Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model:
(a) At least 80% of foster children in that region with a permanency goal of reunification shall have service plans for their parents that identify those services DFCS deems necessary to address the behaviors or conditions resulting in the child’s placement in foster care, and case record documentation that DFCS made those identified services available directly or through referral.
5) Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model:
(a) At least 90% of foster children in that region with a permanency goal of reunification shall have service plans for their parents that identify those services DFCS deems necessary to address the behaviors or conditions resulting in the child’s placement in foster care and case record documentation that DFCS made those identified services available directly or through referral.
6) As of the date upon which the last region has fully implemented the Practice Model, performance on t hese reunification requirements shall be
38

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 42 of 81
measured and required state-wide and shall no longer be measured on a region-by-region basis.
e. Termination of Parental Rights:
1) A termination of parental rights petition (“petition to TPR”) shall be filed on behalf of children who have spent 17 of the previous 22 months in foster care by the last day of a ch ild's seventeenth month in care, unless an available exception under ASFA has been documented by Defendants in the child’s case record.
2) Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model:
(a) At least 80% of foster children in that region who reach the point at which they have spent 17 of the previous 22 months in foster care shall have a petition to TPR filed on t heir behalf or an available exception under the federal ASFA documented by the end of their seventeenth month in care.
(b) At least 80% of foster children in that region who have spent more than 17 of the previous 22 months in foster care without a TPR petition filed on their behalf or an available ASFA exception documented shall have such a petition filed or an available exception documented.
3) Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model:
(a) At least 90% of foster children in that region who reach the point at which they have spent 17 of the previous 22 months in foster care shall have a petition to TPR filed on t heir behalf or an available exception under the federal ASFA documented by the last day of their seventeenth month in care.
(b) At least 90% of foster children in that region who have spent more than 17 of the previous 22 months in foster care without a TPR petition filed on their behalf or an available ASFA exception documented shall have such a petition filed or an available exception documented.
4) As of the date upon which the last region has fully implemented the Practice Model, performance on t his termination of parental rights requirement shall be measured and required state-wide and shall no longer be measured on a region-by-region basis.
4. Case Recordings
a. DFCS caseworkers shall compile, maintain, and keep current complete child welfare case records.
39

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 43 of 81
b. Beginning by the date as set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model:
1) At least 90% of child welfare case records in that region will be current and complete.
c. Beginning by 12 months following the date as set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model:
1) At least 95% of child welfare case records in that region will be current and complete.
d. As of the date upon w hich the last region has fully implemented the Practice Model, performance on this case recording requirement shall be measured and required state-wide and shall no longer be measured on a region-by-region basis.
5. Developing and Maintaining Connections
a. For all children entering foster care, a visitation plan for the child and his/her family shall be developed as part of the service plan. This visitation plan shall be developed and regularly updated in collaboration with parents, resource parents, and the child. If parental visitation is appropriate based on t he above factors, this visitation plan shall include a minimum of two visits per month with the parents (unless a court order in the child’s case limits such visits). For all children, regardless of permanency goal, this visitation plan shall include at least one visit per month with any siblings not in the same placement (unless a court order in the child’s case limits such visits).
b. DFCS shall arrange contact for the child with his/her parents and with any siblings not in the same placement within 24 hour s of foster care placement unless there are documented reasons why contact should not occur. If a visit cannot be arranged within 24 hour s, a telephone call to parents, siblings, or extended family members must be provided to the child.
c. DFCS caseworkers shall take all reasonable steps to ensure the implementation of each child’s visitation plan. D FCS and its contracting agencies shall implement a policy that prohibits cancellation of visits as a disciplinary action.
d. Beginning by the date as set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model:
1) At least 80% of foster children in that region shall be provided with contacts with their parents and with any siblings not in the same placement consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements, unless it is documented that a parent or sibling failed to make himself or herself available.
40

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 44 of 81
e. Beginning by 12 months following the date as set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model:
1) At least 90% of foster children in that region shall be provided with contacts with their parents and with any siblings not in the same placement consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements, unless it is documented that a parent or sibling failed to make himself or herself available.
f. As of the date by which the last region has fully implemented the Practice Model, performance on these visitation planning and services requirements shall be measured and required state-wide and shall no l onger be measured on a region-by-region basis.
6. Educational Services
a. DFCS caseworkers shall review the educational record of each child who enters custody for the purpose of identifying the child’s general and, if applicable, special educational needs and shall document the child’s educational needs within 30 calendar days of his/her entry into foster care.
b. DFCS shall take reasonable steps to ensure that school-age foster children are registered for and attending accredited schools within three business days of initial placement or any placement change, including while placed in shelters or other temporary placements.
c. DFCS shall make all 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.
d. Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model:
1) At least 80% of school-age foster children in that region who enter custody shall have their educational records reviewed and their educational needs documented by their DFCS caseworker within 30 c alendar days of their entry into foster care.
2) At least 80% of school-age foster children in that region who enter custody or are subject to a change in schools due to a placement move shall be registered for and attending an accredited school within three business days of the initial placement or placement change, including while placed in shelters or other temporary placements, unless delayed by the Youth Court.
41

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 45 of 81
e. Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model:
1) At least 90% of school-age foster children in that region who enter custody shall have their educational records reviewed and their educational needs documented by their DFCS caseworker within 30 c alendar days of their entry into foster care.
2) At least 90% of school-age foster children in that region who enter custody or are subject to a change in schools due to a placement move shall be registered for and attending an accredited school within three business days of the initial placement or placement change, including while placed in shelters or other temporary placements, unless delayed by the Youth Court.
f. As of the date upon w hich the last region has fully implemented the Practice Model, performance on these educational requirements shall be measured and required state-wide and shall no longer be measured on a region-by-region basis.
7. Transition to Independent Living
a. DFCS shall provide each youth transitioning to independence with at least six months’ advance notice of the cessation of any health, financial, or other benefits that will occur at the time of transition.
b. Each foster youth 14-20 years old, regardless of his/her permanency plan, shall be provided with an opportunity to participate in the creation of an Independent Living service plan for Independent Living preparation. D FCS shall provide each eligible youth with Independent Living services as set forth in his/her service plan.
c. DFCS shall ensure that each youth transitioning to independence has available an adequate living arrangement, a source of income, health care, independent living stipends, and education and training vouchers. DFCS shall assist youth in locating and/or enrolling in educational or vocational programs appropriate to their needs, interests, abilities, and goals, such as high school or GED programs; colleges or universities; vocational training programs; and special education services.
d. DFCS shall assist youth in obtaining or compiling the following documents and such efforts shall be documented in the child’s case record:
1. an identification card; 2. a social security or social insurance number; 3. a resume, when work experience can be described; 4. a driver’s license, when the ability to drive is a goal; 5. an original copy of the youth’s birth certificate; 6. religious documents and information;
42

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 46 of 81
7. documentation of immigration, citizenship, or naturalization, when applicable;
8. documentation of tribal eligibility or membership; 9. death certificates when parents are deceased; 10. a life book or a compilation of personal history and photographs, as
appropriate; 11. a list of known relatives, with relationships, addresses, telephone numbers,
and permissions for contacting involved parties; 12. previous placement information; and 13. educational records, such as a high school diploma or general equivalency
diploma, and a list of schools attended, when age-appropriate.
e. Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model:
1) At least 90% of foster children in that region who are 14-20 years old shall be provided with Independent Living services as set forth in their service plan.
2) At least 80% of foster children in that region who are transitioning to independence shall have available an adequate living arrangement, a source of income, health care, independent living stipends, and education and training vouchers. DFCS shall also assist such children in obtaining, prior to transitioning to independent living, the necessary documents and information identified in the COA standard PA-FC 13.06 for emancipating youth. Those efforts shall be documented in the child’s case record.
f. Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model:
1) At least 95% of foster children in that region who are 14-20 years old shall be provided with Independent Living services as set forth in their service plan during the Period.
2) At least 90% of foster children in that region who are transitioning to independence shall have available an adequate living arrangement, a source of income, health care, independent living stipends, and education and training vouchers. DFCS shall assist such children in obtaining, prior to transitioning to independent living, the necessary documents and information identified in the COA standard PA-FC 13.06 for emancipating youth. Those efforts shall be documented in the child’s case record.
g. As of the date upon w hich the last region has fully implemented the Practice Model, performance on these independent living services requirements shall be measured and required state-wide and shall no longer be measured on a regionby-region basis.
43

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 47 of 81
8. Case Closing and Aftercare
a. A recommendation to return a child to his/her home or to place the child in the custody of a relative shall be made at a meeting attended by the child’s DFCS caseworker and the caseworker’s supervisor. Defendants shall invite the worker from the private agency if the child is placed with a private agency, the resource parents (unless DFCS determines that the resource parents’ attendance would be inappropriate), the parents or the relative assuming custody, and the child. An after-care plan shall be developed that identifies all of the services necessary to ensure that the conditions leading to the child’s placement in foster care have been addressed, and that the child’s safety and stability will be assured. DFCS shall take reasonable steps to provide or facilitate access to all services necessary to support the child during the trial home visit.
b. For each child who has a permanency goal of reunification and who is in fact placed in the home for the purpose of reunification, DFCS shall provide, subject to the approval of the Youth Court, such child with a 90-day trial home visit, unless that child had been in custody for less than 90 da ys. D uring any trial home visit period, a DFCS caseworker shall meet with the child in the home at least two times per month, and each meeting shall occur without the parent or caretaker present.
c. Before the end of any trial home visit period, there shall be a final family team meeting, which shall include the child’s caseworker, the caseworker’s supervisor, the child, and the parent or relative assuming custody, to determine the appropriateness of a f inal discharge. If final discharge is determined to be appropriate, DFCS shall make the appropriate application to the court to be relieved of custody.
d. Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model:
1) At least 70% of foster children in that region who are reunified and who were in custody longer than 90 days shall receive a 90-day trial home visit period or have case record documentation reflecting the Youth Court’s objection to such a trial home visit. During that trial home visit period, the child’s caseworker or a Family Preservation caseworker shall meet with the child in the home at least two times per month, and DFCS shall provide or facilitate access to all services identified in the child’s after-care plan, consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
e. Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model:
1) At least 90% of foster children in that region who are reunified and who were in custody longer than 90 days shall receive a 90-day trial home visit period or have case record documentation reflecting the Youth Court’s
44

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 48 of 81
objection to such a trial home visit. During that trial home visit period, the child’s caseworker shall meet with the child in the home at least two times per month, and DFCS shall provide or facilitate access to all services identified in the child’s after-care plan, consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
f. As of the date upon w hich the last region has fully implemented the Practice Model, performance on these case closing and aftercare requirements shall be measured and required state-wide and shall no longer be measured on a regionby-region basis.
C. Outcome Measures
The following child welfare outcome measures shall be met and shall be measured annually:
1. Reunification
At least 76.2% of children state-wide discharged from custody and reunified with their parents or caretakers in the last year shall have been reunified within 12 months of the latest removal from home.
a. Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model:
1) At least 60% of foster children in that region who are discharged from custody and reunified with their parents or caretakers shall be reunified within 12 months of the latest removal from home.
b. Beginning by 12 m onths following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model:
1) At least 70% of foster children in that region who are discharged from custody and reunified with their parents or caretakers shall be reunified within 12 months of the latest removal from home.
c. Beginning by 12 m onths after the date by which the last region has fully implemented the Practice Model:
1) At least 76.2% of foster children state-wide who are discharged from custody and reunified with their parents or caretakers shall have been reunified within 12 months of the latest removal from home.
2. Time to Adoption Finalization
At least 32% of children state-wide who were discharged in the last year upon the finalization of an adoption shall have had the adoption finalized within 24 months of the latest removal from home.
45

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 49 of 81
a. Beginning by the date as set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model:
1) At least 25% of foster children in that region who are discharged upon finalization of an adoption shall have had the adoption finalized within 24 months of the latest removal from home.
b. Beginning by 12 m onths following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model:
1) At least 30% of foster children in that region who are discharged upon finalization of an adoption shall have had the adoption finalized within 24 months of the latest removal from home.
c. Beginning by 12 m onths after the date by which the last region has fully implemented the Practice Model:
1) At least 32% of foster children state-wide who were discharged upon t he finalization of an adoption shall have had the adoption finalized within 24 months of the latest removal from home.
IV. COA ACCREDITATION DFCS’s foster care services shall be accredited by COA pursuant to COA’s relevant management and service standards.
V. NAMED PLAINTIFFS Each Agreement on S ervices and Plans for Named Plaintiffs entered into by the Parties pursuant to Section 4.G of the Stipulated Settlement Agreement approved by the Court on May 17, 2007 is hereby incorporated as enforceable provisions of this Modified Settlement Agreement.
VI. MONITORING A. The Parties agree that Grace Lopes shall be the Monitor of Defendants’ compliance with this Modified Settlement Agreement and the annual implementation plans. D efendants shall provide the Monitor with the necessary resources to perform its duties.
B. The Monitor’s duties shall be to confirm independently the data reports and statistics provided pursuant to this Modified Settlement Agreement and the annual implementation plans; conduct independent case record and qualitative reviews; review all plans and documents to be developed and produced by Defendants pursuant to this Modified Settlement Agreement; and report on Defendants’ compliance in implementing the terms of the Modified Settlement Agreement and the annual implementation plans, and the achievement of the improved outcomes set forth therein. The Monitor shall provide the Court and the Parties with a telephonic status report on D efendants’ implementation efforts no less frequently than every 90 days, and shall prepare reports that will address
46

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 50 of 81
those efforts and be released periodically, but no less than every six months unless the Parties and the Monitor agree otherwise. Each such report shall be presented to the Court at a Status conference no l ess frequently than every six months. I n order to avoid duplication and to build capacity within the Agency, the Monitor will look first to Defendants’ data and data analysis. Accordingly, Defendants shall provide the Monitor with access to all data reports produced in the regular course of business respecting topics covered by this Modified Settlement Agreement and the annual implementation plans. Notwithstanding the existence of Defendants’ data, data analysis, and reports, however, the Monitor shall have the authority to prepare new reports on all topics covered by both this Modified Settlement Agreement and the annual implementation plans, to the extent the Monitor deems necessary.
C. Defendants agree to provide the Monitor with free and, upon request, private access to all individuals within DFCS and persons within the Executive Branch, as the Monitor chooses; to assist the Monitor in gaining access to other stakeholders in the child welfare system (including but not limited to the staff of contract providers); and to provide the Monitor with free access to all documents, data, and premises it d eems relevant to its work (including but not limited to documents and data from contract agencies and courts). The Monitor agrees to respect the confidentiality of all information related to individually identifiable clients, subject to applicable law. D efendants shall take no adverse action against individuals or agencies because they shared information with the Monitor pursuant to this Modified Settlement Agreement.
D. The reports of the Monitor shall be public documents filed with the Court, except that any individually identifying information and any other confidential information protected from disclosure by law shall be redacted or otherwise removed from any public report. The Monitor shall provide copies of each of its reports to all named Defendants as well as to the heads of the State House and Senate Committees on A ppropriations and Public Health. Any such information received by the Monitor, unless already public, shall not be made public without Defendants’ prior written permission, except as incorporated into a public report of the Monitor.
E. The Parties shall have access, through the Monitor, to all information made available to the Monitor, and to all other information related to ensuring compliance with and enforcing this Modified Settlement Agreement and the annual implementation plans, subject to the existing confidentiality order in effect in this case. T he Monitor may protect the identity of confidential sources of any such information.
F. The Parties may request that the Monitor review and issue recommendations regarding the provision of services to the Named Plaintiffs in this case.
G. The intent of the Parties is that the Monitor shall develop a plan to transfer the primary monitoring function to DFCS’s CQI unit upon t he termination of this Modified Settlement Agreement, or at such earlier time as provided for in Section VII.C below. The Monitor shall work in collaboration with Defendants to build DFCS’s CQI capacity.
47

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 51 of 81
H. The Monitor may periodically meet privately with the Court concerning issues related to this case, provided the Parties are made aware of the occurrence of such a meeting.
I. If at any point the Monitor can no l onger serve, the Parties shall agree on another Monitor, with input and recommendations from the outgoing Monitor.
VII. DISPUTE RESOLUTION, TERMINATION, AND EXIT
A. The Defendants shall implement all reforms necessary to effectuate this Modified Settlement Agreement and the annual implementation plans. The Parties agree that the systemic and comprehensive nature of this Modified Settlement Agreement will require implementation and refinement of policies and programs over a number of years. The Parties shall make every reasonable effort to resolve disputes prior to seeking Court intervention. P laintiffs agree not to seek relief for isolated or minor violations, or for violations related solely to an individual child, unless that child is a Named Plaintiff.
B. If Plaintiffs believe that Defendants have failed to comply with any obligation under this Modified Settlement Agreement or an annual implementation plan, Plaintiffs will, prior to seeking judicial action to enforce the terms of this Modified Settlement Agreement or an annual implementation plan, give written notice of non-compliance to the State. Within 30 calendar days of Plaintiffs’ notice of non-compliance, Defendants shall submit a written response to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs agree to work in good faith with the State to agree on necessary corrective actions and avoid enforcement action, and may not initiate court action for 60 days from the date of Plaintiffs’ non-compliance notice. However, in case of an emergency posing an immediate threat to the health or safety of youths, Plaintiffs may omit the notice and cure requirements herein before seeking judicial action.
C. The Court may terminate jurisdiction over this lawsuit if it finds that Defendants are in substantial compliance with the provisions of this Modified Settlement Agreement statewide for two consecutive six-month reporting periods.
1. No sooner than the full implementation of the Practice Model, the Monitor shall transfer to Defendants’ CQI system monitoring of all the Modified Settlement Agreement provisions under the following headings or subheadings for which Defendants have sustained state-wide compliance for at least six months on all such provisions (as reflected in monitoring report data) and where the Monitor has determined that Defendants’ CQI system is adequately monitoring the Modified Settlement Agreement provisions: II.A.1, II.A.2.a, II.A.2.b, II.A.2.c, II.A.2.d, II.A.3, II.A.4, II.A.5, II.A.6, II.A.7, II.B.1, II.B.2, II.B.3, II.B.4, II.B.5, II.B.6, II.B.7, II.C.1, II.C.2, III.A.1, III.A.2, III.B.1, III.B.2, III.B.3.a, III.B.3.b, III.B.3.c, III.B.3.d, III.B.3.e, III.B.4, III.B.5, III.B.6, III.B.7, III.B.8, III.C.1, III.C.2. The reports of the Monitor shall identify the provisions, if any, that are to be transferred to Defendants’ CQI system for the subsequent monitoring period. P laintiffs reserve the right to object to the transfer of the monitoring of a provision to Defendants’ CQI system.
2. Once Defendants’ CQI system is responsible for the transferred monitoring of any Modified Settlement Agreement provisions, and as long as the Court retains
48

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 52 of 81
jurisdiction, Defendants’ CQI system shall issue public monitoring reports every six months on Defendants’ compliance levels with any such provisions. 3. While Defendants shall make a good faith effort to maintain compliance with a provision transferred to its CQI system, a drop in compliance levels after the transfer of the monitoring of a Modified Settlement Agreement provision shall not be, by itself, grounds for a Motion to enforce the Modified Settlement Agreement to hold Defendants in contempt, or to bar future expiration of the Modified Settlement Agreement. Notwithstanding the above, Plaintiffs are not precluded from seeking to enforce transferred provisions as remedial measures in connection with Motions to enforce provisions that have not been transferred. D. Defendants may seek a court-ordered modification of any provision of this Modified Settlement Agreement pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure if significant changes in factual conditions, beyond Defendants’ control and not contemplated by the Parties at the time the Modified Settlement Agreement was entered into, make the provision unworkable, make compliance substantially more onerous, or make enforcement detrimental to the public interest, and the changed circumstance occurred despite Defendants’ reasonable effort to comply with the Modified Settlement Agreement. E. All parties reserve all claims and defenses with respect to all claims for an award of attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses for Plaintiffs, which claims shall be separately asserted and determined according to a schedule to be fixed by the Court.
#####
49

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 53 of 81
AGREED TO AND APPROVED FOR ENTRY BY: FOR PLAINTIFFS: /s/ Marcia Robinson Lowry Marcia Robinson Lowry (pro hac vice MBN 43991) Jessica Polansky (pro hac vice MBN 45356) CHILDREN’S RIGHTS, INC. 330 Seventh Avenue, 4th Floor New York, NY 10001 (212) 683-2210 Wayne Drinkwater (MBN 6193) BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP 188 East Capitol Street, Suite 400 Jackson, MS 39201 (601) 948-8000 John Lang (pro hac vice MBN 43987) Attorney at Law 60 East 42nd Street Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Tel. 212.300.0646 Christian D. Carbone (pro hac vice MBN 43986) John Piskora (pro hac vice MBN 44474) LOEB & LOEB LLP 345 Park Ave. New York, NY 10154
50

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 54 of 81
FOR DEFENDANTS:
/s/ Phil Bryant Governor Phil Bryant, State of Mississippi
/s/ Jim Hood Attorney General Jim Hood, State of Mississippi Dewitt L. (“Rusty”) Fortenberry Jr., Esq. (MBN 5435) Kenya Key Rachal, Esq. (MBN 99227) Ashley Tullos Young, Esq. (MBN 101839) BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL, & BERKOWITZ, PC 428 I-55 North Meadowbrook Office Park Jackson, MS 39211 (601) 351-2400 Harold E. Pizzetta, III, Esq. (MBN 99867) Assistant Attorney General General Civil Division Carroll Gartin Justice Building 430 High Street Jackson, MS 39201
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 6th day of July, 2012.
/s/Tom S. Lee DISTRICT JUDGE
51

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 55 of 81 APPENDIX "A"
Modified Mississippi Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan
Practice Model Rollout Schedule

Regions

Planning (6 months)

Implementation Phase Dates

Initial

Full/Ongoing

Implementation Implementation

(One Year)

(One Year)

Data Tracking (One Year)

I-South, II- January-June

West

2010

July 2010 – June 2011

Approx. Sept. 2011 – August
2012

September 2012 –
August 2013

V-West IV-North

JulyDecember
2010 July – December 2010

January December 2011
January 2011 – June 2012 (18
months)

Approx. March 2012 – February
2013 Approx. Sept. 2012 – August
2013

March 2013 – February 2014 September 2013 –
August 2014

I-North, III-South, IV-South

January-June 2011

July 2011 – June 2012

Approx. Sept. 2012 – August
2013

September 2013 –
August 2014

V-East,
III-North, VII-East

JulyDecember
2011 July 2011 – June 2012 (12
mos.)

January – December 2012
July 2012 – June 2013

Approx. March 2013 – February
2014 Approx. Sept. 2013 – August
2014

March 2014 – February 2015 September 2014 –
August 2015

II-East, VI,

July-

January – Approx. March March 2015 –

VII-West

December December 2013 2014 – February February

2012

2015

2016

Adjustments may be made to the timing of the planning and/or implementation phases based on

a region's progress. The two-month period between the end of the Initial Implementation phase

and the beginning of the Full Implementation phase is in place to permit the follow-up CQI

review after the first 12 months of implementation and an opportunity to revise the Regional

Implementation Plan based on preliminary results of the review going into the next phase of

implementation.

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 56 of 81
APPENDIX "B" Modified Mississippi Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan
PERIOD 3 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
This is the Implementation Plan for Period 3 required by the Modified Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan (the “Modified Settlement Agreement”). Implementation Period 3 shall run for a 12-month period beginning on the date the Modified Settlement Agreement is filed. Defendants shall substantially comply with the Period 3 Implementation Plan requirements by the end of Implementation Period 3, or earlier, as specified herein.
I. Administration and Management Implementation Steps
A. Human Resources Management
1. Management
a. By 30 d ays following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall establish a Statewide Implementation Team. The Statewide Implementation Team will be responsible for prioritizing, managing, and making decisions relating to implementation of the requirements of the Modified Settlement Agreement, this Plan, and the Practice Model. T he Statewide Implementation Team will consist of the MDHS Executive Director, MDHS Deputy Executive Director, DFCS Deputy Administrator, DFCS Director, DFCS Field Operations Director, DFCS CQI Director, and a CSF Officer or designee.
b. By 30 da ys following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall establish the following Statewide Implementation Sub-Teams: CQI, Training, Resource Development, Policy, Legal and Judicial, Resource Parent Recruitment and Retention, and Caseload/Staffing. T hese Statewide Implementation Sub-Teams will be responsible for designing and guiding the work plans necessary to implement the requirements of the Modified Settlement Agreement and this Plan in their respective functional areas. The Statewide Implementation Sub-Teams will report to and be directed by the Statewide Implementation Team. T he Statewide Implementation SubTeams shall meet no l ess frequently than monthly, with the exception of the CQI Sub-Team and the Resource Home Recruitment and Retention Sub-team which shall meet at least quarterly, and shall issue progress reports to the Statewide Implementation Team no less frequently than every three months and which shall discuss accomplishments, challenges, and anticipated next steps. The Statewide Implementation Sub-Teams’ membership will include the Unit Director responsible for that Sub-Team’s particular function, a Regional Director, and such other staff persons the Statewide Implementation Team has deemed responsible for carrying out the particular Sub-Team’s function. SubTeams may also include representatives of other state agencies or stakeholders the Statewide Implementation Team has deemed necessary to carry out the Sub-Team’s function.
Page 1 of 13

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 57 of 81
c. By 30 d ays following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall establish Regional Implementation Teams in Regions I-N, I-S, II-W, III-S, IV-N, IV-S, V-E and V-W. T he Regional Implementation Teams will be chaired by the respective Regional Director and the membership will consist of appropriate staff persons and may also include representatives of other state agencies or stakeholders the Statewide Implementation Team has deemed necessary to carry out the Team’s function. The Regional Implementation Teams shall meet no l ess frequently than quarterly and shall issue progress reports to the Statewide Implementation Team no l ess frequently than quarterly. These reports shall discuss accomplishments, challenges, and anticipated next steps. T he Regional Implementation Teams will include Sub-Teams in the following practice areas: CQI and Resource Parent Recruitment and Retention.
d. Within six (6) months of the start of Implementation Period 3, e ach of the Statewide Implementation Sub-Teams shall have finalized the work plans as described in I.A.1.b. above.
2. Workforce:
a. By August 1, 2012, Defendants shall maintain a practice coach in Regions I-N, I-S, II-E, II-W, III-N, III-S, IV-N, IV-S, V-E, V-W, VI, VII-E, and VII-W to facilitate Practice Model implementation.
b. Within nine (9) months of the start of Implementation Period 3, Defendants shall have finalized and begun implementing a Workforce Development Plan. This Workforce Development Plan shall address the recruitment and retention of DFCS professional and support staff as well as bring its current staff into substantial compliance with the worker and supervisor qualification requirements of the Modified Settlement Agreement. The Workforce Development Plan shall identify the specific steps, strategies, financial resources, and short- and long-term staffing goals with related timeframes that are necessary to meet the staffing requirements of the Modified Settlement Agreement. The Workforce Development Plan shall be approved by the Monitor as meeting the requirements of this Period 3 Implementation Plan and shall include a section focused specifically on recruitment and retention in Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson Counties (“Coast”), as well as strategies to support staff on the Coast, and shall also include a separate section focused specifically on recruitment, retention, and support strategies in Hinds County.
c. Defendants shall actively engage in recruitment and retention activities to address the workload issues in Hancock, Harrison, Hinds, and Jackson Counties as follows:
Page 2 of 13

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 58 of 81

1) By 30 d ays following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall have defined the role of a case aide to support caseworkers in Hancock, Harrison, Hinds, and Jackson Counties.
2) By 30 d ays following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall have determined the number of case aides needed in Hancock, Harrison, Hinds, and Jackson Counties and shall begin recruiting case aides in those counties.
3) By September 1, 2012, D efendants shall have written the Coast and Hinds County sections of the Workforce Plan as required in Section I.A.2.b above.
4) By July 1, 2012, t he Legal and Judicial Statewide Implementation SubTeam shall develop and begin implementing written strategies for promoting implementation of the Olivia Y. standards in the Mississippi Youth Courts. T hese strategies shall be implemented in Regions VII-E, VII-W, and III-S by the end of Implementation Period 3.
5) Defendants shall offer starting salaries for employees in the counties of Hancock, Harrison, Hinds, and Jackson, as indicated below:

Job Title

Starting Salary

Family Protection Worker I Family Protection Specialist Family Protection Specialist, Senior Family Protection Specialist, Advanced Area Social Work Supervisor

$27,190.12 $31,757.88 $34,557.43 $37,605.49 $43,138.52

6) The counties listed below shall have no fewer than the total number of full time caseworkers assigned to the counties as specified:

• Hancock County: • Harrison County: • Hinds County: • Jackson County:

16 caseworkers 42 caseworkers 50 caseworkers 34 caseworkers

Page 3 of 13

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 59 of 81
3. Training
a. Pre-Service Training
1) By 30 days following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall have a revised pre-service training curriculum. The revised training shall include training on t he quality, frequency, purpose, and structure of meetings with foster children, parents, and foster care providers and address communicating with, interviewing, and observing foster children.
2) By July 1, 2012, Defendants shall maintain nine (9) full-time trainers.
3) By September 1, 2012, Defendants shall strengthen the competency-based testing to ensure that trainees have acquired adequate competencies in the areas of interviewing, critical thinking skills, and documentation skills related to child safety assessments and to preparing case summaries for submission to the Youth Court.
4) Defendants shall have implemented an accurate and reliable system to track staff participation in all required training.
b. Supervisor Training
1) By 30 d ays following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall have a newly developed clinical supervisory training curriculum.
2) All Area Social Work Supervisors (ASWSs) hired between January 1, 2012 and April 1, 2013 shall have received training pursuant to the newly developed clinical supervisory training curriculum.
c. Other Training
1) By 30 d ays following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall have provided training to all Foster Care Review and Evaluation and Monitoring staff employed with Defendants as of January 1, 2012 on data indicators of the six (6) practice model components and systemic factors to measure and evaluate improvement efforts.
2) By 30 d ays following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall have provided training on the Use of Data in Management to all DFCS State Office staff employed with Defendants as of January 1, 2012, w ho hold the position of Bureau Director II, Bureau Director I, Division Director II, Division Director I, Office Director II, or Office Director I, as well as to all Regional Directors.
Page 4 of 13

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 60 of 81
3) By July 1, 2012, Defendants shall have provided training for Region V-E on the six (6) components of the practice model.
4) By the end of Implementation Period 3, Defendants shall have provided training for Regions II-E, III-N, VI, VII-E and VII-W on the six (6) components of the practice model.
4. Contract Agency Requirements
Defendants shall work with Casey Family Programs, or another consultant approved by the Monitor, for technical assistance with developing a plan with specific action steps and timeframes for a performance based contracting system with the capacity to monitor and enforce contract performance. That plan shall be complete by the end of Implementation Period 3.
B. Continuous Quality Improvement
1. By 30 days following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall finalize and begin implementing the Evaluation and Monitoring instrument that was submitted in draft form during the Bridge Period.
2. By 30 days following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants, in conjunction with CSF or another consultant, shall revise and begin implementing a written plan to implement a continuous quality improvement (CQI) system. That written plan shall explicitly specify the resources and staffing necessary to adequately operate the CQI unit in both the state and regional offices.
3. By 30 days following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall maintain one (1) Program Administrator, Sr. to work in the Evaluation and Monitoring Unit.
4. By 30 days following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall complete a baseline CQI Review for Region V-E.
5. By 30 days following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement Defendants shall complete a follow-up CQI Review for Region I-N.
6. By 45 days following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall hire three (3) Evaluation and Monitoring Unit liaisons.
7. By 45 days following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall complete an annual CQI report covering June 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011.
8. By July 1, 2012, Defendants shall complete a second follow-up CQI Review for Regions I-S and II-W.
Page 5 of 13

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 61 of 81
9. By August 1, 2012, Defendants shall complete a base-line CQI Review for Region III-N.
10. By September 1, 2012, Defendants shall complete a follow-up CQI Review for Region IV-S.
11. By October 1, 2012, Defendants shall complete a follow-up CQI Review for Region III-S.
12. By November 1, 2012, Defendants shall complete a baseline CQI Review for Region VII-W.
13. By December 1, 2012, Defendants shall complete a baseline CQI Review for Region VI.
14. By February 1, 2013, Defendants shall complete a baseline CQI Review for Region II-E.
15. By March 1, 2013, Defendants shall complete a second follow-up CQI Review for Region V-W.
16. By April 1, 2013, Defendants shall complete a follow-up CQI Review for Region V-E.
17. By June 1, 2013, Defendants shall complete a follow-up CQI Review for Region VII-E.
18. Within 60 days of completing each CQI Review, Defendants shall complete a report regarding that review. a. Within five (5) business days thereafter, Defendants will provide the completed report to Plaintiffs and to Monitor.
19.Defendants shall have hired the staff and obtained the resources required as specified in the CQI Plan developed pursuant to Section I.B.2. of the Period 3 Implementation Plan.
C. Legal and Regulatory Compliance By 30 d ays following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall have implemented the policies and procedures necessary to comply with the public child fatality reporting requirements of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment and Adoption Reform Act.
Page 6 of 13

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 62 of 81
D. Information Use and Management
1. Defendants shall produce accurate and validated reports as identified in Appendix C”to the Modified Settlement Agreement that reflect county-by-county performance.
a. The reports that are noted as available in Appendix “C” as of the beginning of Implementation Period 3 s hall be produced beginning one month from the beginning of Implementation Period 3 and every thirty (30) days thereafter.
b. Defendants shall begin producing those reports that do not exist as of the beginning of Implementation Period 3 by the dates set forth in Appendix “C.”
c. Data reports shall be provided to the Monitor and the Plaintiffs within thirty (30) days of the date the report becomes available and every thirty (30) days thereafter, with the exception of the data report on t raining of DFCS caseworkers which shall be produced quarterly.
2. Defendants shall ensure that the computer and electronic access problems identified in Dkt. No. 502, ps. 68-72 of the Court Monitor's September 8, 2011 r eport to the Court are remedied.
3. Consistent with the schedule set forth in Appendix “C,” Defendants shall collect, analyze and disseminate data, related to compliance with the Foster Care Service Standards set forth in Sections II.B and III.B of the Modified Settlement Agreement, at least monthly, to DFCS regional and county staff.
4. Defendants shall provide training for all foster care reviewers on the foster care review instrument and on processes related to addressing concerns identified during a foster care review.
E. Case Recordings and Information
Defendants shall revise the Supervisory Administrative Review process to require a review of whether DFCS child welfare case records are current, complete, made by the appropriate caseworker, and signed and dated by supervisors. F. Financial Management
1. By the end of Implementation Period 3, Defendants shall have implemented and shall maintain implementation of those recommendations made by Hornby Zeller Associates ("HZA") and the Center for Support of Families negotiated and agreed to by the Parties, and filed with the Court by July 14, 2012. The recommendations negotiated and agreed to by the Parties and filed with the Court shall become an enforceable part of this Period 3 Implementation Plan.
Page 7 of 13

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 63 of 81
2. Defendants shall issue a written report on the impact of HZA’s recommendations on Defendants’ ability to increase federal funding and any barriers to implementation. Defendants shall share the report with the Monitor and Plaintiffs.
II. Foster Care Services Assessment A. Policy
1. Defendants shall have completed all revisions to the DFCS policies and practice guides as necessary to reflect the COA foster care services standards and the requirements set forth in Sections II.B and III.B of the Modified Settlement Agreement, and shall assess what training is necessary in order to effectuate any new and revised policies and develop training curricula.
2. Service Planning and Monitoring: The revised policies shall require that each service plan, and revision of such plan, meet the requirements of Section III.B.2 of the Modified Settlement Agreement and:
a. are based on t he assessment required by Section III.B.1 of the Modified Settlement Agreement;
b. include: service goals, desired outcomes, and timeframes for achieving them; services and supports to be provided, and by whom; and the signature of the parent(s) with whom reunification is planned and, when appropriate, the child or youth; and
c. address, as appropriate: unmet service and support needs that impact safety, permanency, and well-being; maintaining and strengthening relationships; educational needs and goals; and the need for culturally responsive services and the support of the family’s informal social network.
3. Permanency Plan: The revised policies shall require that Individual or Family Service Plans contain the following:
a. how the permanency goal will be achieved;
b. what services are necessary to make the accomplishment of the goal likely;
c. who is responsible for the provision of those services;
d. when the services will be provided; and
e. the date by which the permanency goal is likely to be achieved.
4. Defendants shall develop a process for the Foster Care Review Unit to assess and report on whether permanency plans contain all of the elements listed in Section II.A.3 above.
Page 8 of 13

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 64 of 81
B. Child and Youth Permanency
1. Permanency Roundtables
a. In addition to Regions II-W, 5-W, and VII-E, which have already conducted permanency roundtables, by July 1, 2012, Defendants, with the assistance and support of Casey Family Programs, shall have conducted permanency roundtables in Regions I-N, I-S, and II-E. T he permanency roundtables will target a population of children who have been in Defendants’ custody for at least thirty-six (36) months with the goal of moving these children toward permanency.
b. By 45 da ys following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants, in consultation with Casey Family Programs, shall develop a schedule for permanency roundtables in four(4) additional regions and those roundtables shall be conducted prior to the end of Implementation Period 3.
c. Each permanency roundtable shall be conducted in accordance with Section II.B.6.a.2 of the Modified Settlement Agreement.
2. Permanency Planning Updating and Review
a. Within six (6) months of the start of Implementation Period 3, Defendants shall develop a system for tracking the annual court reviews for each child in care. Defendants’ policy shall require that the Youth Court with jurisdiction is provided with a detailed up-to-date report on t he current status of the child’s placement, visitation, permanent plan progress, and service needs. Defendants shall begin implementing that system before the end of Implementation Period 3.
b. The child’s assigned caseworker or supervisor shall attend every child’s annual court review unless there are exceptional circumstances that do not allow attendance.
3. Service Array
In order to build the capacity of Defendants to begin meeting the needs identified in the “Foster Care Services Reunification Needs Assessment,” Defendants shall, by the end of Implementation Period 3:
a. develop a Foster Care Unit;
b. hire a Division Director II to lead the Foster Care Unit;
c. hire a Medical-Mental Health Specialist; and
d. hire six (6) workers to build the resource service array.
Page 9 of 13

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 65 of 81
4. Termination of Parental Rights/Special Permanency Reviews
a. Within six (6) months of the start of Implementation Period 3, D efendants, in conjunction with a qualified independent consultant, shall develop a remedial plan with related action steps and time frames necessary to address the deficiencies found by the TPR Assessment in case practice and documentation related to the timely filing of termination of parental rights on behalf of children who have spent 17 of the previous 22 months in foster care, and for whom an available exception under the Adoption and Safe Families Act (“ASFA”) has not been documented. The issues that the remedial plan shall address include:
1) accurately identifying children for whom the ASFA TPR requirements apply;
2) adequate training for caseworkers regarding the circumstances that qualify as exceptions to filing TPRs pursuant to ASFA; and
3) appropriately documenting exceptions.
b. Defendants shall have begun implementing the TPR remedial plan by the end of Implementation Period 3.
5. Adoption
a. By 30 d ays following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall implement a process for advising all potential adoptive families, including any resource family caring for a child who has become legally available for adoption, of the availability of adoption subsidies. This notification shall be documented in the child’s record, and Defendants shall facilitate the family’s access to such subsidies.
b. By 45 da ys following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall define the job description, responsibilities, and qualifications for the position of adoption specialist. The adoption specialist’s responsibilities shall include consulting with private and public professionals and identifying and ensuring the provision of targeted services necessary for the child to be adopted.
c. By 45 days following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall revise the protocol for adoption meetings such that it provides sufficient information to guide case practice on how to review the progress being made in achieving the goal of adoption for legally free children.
d. By 45 da ys following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall develop and begin implementing a process for making legal risk placements that assures that children for whom the
Page 10 of 13

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 66 of 81
permanency plan is adoption but who are not yet legally free for adoption are placed in appropriate adoptive homes.
e. By 45 d ays following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall have begun to hire and train adoption specialists.
f. Defendants shall have taken reasonable steps to hire (or promote) and train a sufficient number of adoption specialists to meet the adoption requirements of the Modified Settlement Agreement and adoption status meetings shall have begun to be held.
C. Child Safety
1. By 30 days following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall conduct an assessment of the FM fatality, including an assessment of any failings by Defendants in the provision of foster care services, in case practice, and in licensing practice. The written assessment shall be provided to the Monitor and Plaintiffs and shall include recommendations for ways to improve child safety and address any identified failings.
2. Defendants shall have developed and begun implementing a plan to ensure that DFCS utilizes standardized decision-making criteria for prioritizing, screening, and assessing all reports of maltreatment of children via centralized intake.
3. Defendants shall have developed the training and processes required for:
a. review of in-care maltreatment investigations to identify case practice deficiencies;
b. identification of remedial actions necessary to ensure the safety of the child who is the subject of the investigation as well as any other child in the home or placement;
c. identification of any corrective action that is necessary to address deficiencies in case practice demonstrated by the investigation;
d. monitoring of the initiation and completion of the remedial actions regarding individual child safety and notification to the ASWS, Regional Director, and Director of Field Operations when such remedial actions have not been initiated within five (5) days of identification or timely completed; and
e. monitoring of the initiation and completion of the remedial actions regarding case practice and notification to the ASWS, Regional Director, and Director of Field Operations when such remedial actions have not been initiated within twenty (20) working days of identification or timely completed.
Page 11 of 13

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 67 of 81
4. The maltreatment investigation review process shall be fully implemented.
D. Child Placement
1. By 45 days following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall implement policy to provide resource parents with all appropriate and available information about a child prior to or at the time of placement and for supplementing that information as further information is gathered.
2. Defendants shall develop and begin implementing a plan with specific action steps and timeframes to address changes in the State Office’s therapeutic placement process identified as necessary to ensure the most appropriate placement for children in need of therapeutic placement.
E. Developing and Maintaining Connections
1. Defendants shall ensure caseworkers are provided training that addresses case practice associated with parent-child and sibling visitation as a component of the Practice Model training.
2. Defendants shall track the frequency of parent-child and sibling visitation in MACWIS.
F. Physical, Dental, and Mental Health
1. By 30 days following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall maintain a staff person in the Resource Development Unit whose job responsibility it will be to develop and coordinate a broader and more geographically diverse array of physical, dental, and mental health services available to foster children.
2. The physical, dental, and mental health program manager shall have developed a written plan for increasing the array of services available to foster children.
G. Educational Services
1. By 30 days following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall have hired a staff person in the Resource Development Unit whose job responsibility will be to promote and coordinate educational services including tutoring, preparation for a general equivalency diploma (GED), and college preparation available to foster children.
2. By September 1, 2012, Defendants shall have developed a protocol and associated caseworker training for conducting a review of a child’s educational record for the purpose of identifying the child’s general and, if applicable, special educational needs.
Page 12 of 13

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 68 of 81
H. Transition to Independent Living 1. By 30 days following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall develop a current resource guide necessary to assist youth in locating and/or enrolling in educational or vocational programs appropriate to their needs, interests, abilities, and goals, such as high school or GED programs, colleges or universities, vocational training programs, and special education services. This guide shall provide information on resources for all regions. 2. By 45 days following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, all youth ages sixteen (16) and older in DFCS custody shall have been offered a copy of the resource guide.
I. Recruitment and Retention of Resource Families and Therapeutic Service Providers 1. By September 30, 2012, Defendants shall meet the Year 2 requirements as set forth in its implementation plan for the Diligent Recruitment of Families for Children as shown in attached Appendix “D.” The implementation plan for the Diligent Recruitment of Families for Children shall become an enforceable part of this Period 3 Implementation Plan. 2. In consultation with Mississippi resource parents, Defendants shall identify additions and revisions to the current resource parent training curriculum that are necessary to adequately train resource parents to meet the needs of the children placed in their care. R esource parent training classes based upon the revised curriculum shall be available in every region.
Page 13 of 13

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 69 of 81 APPENDIX "C"
Modified Mississippi Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan
Proposed Data Reports Schedule - Period 3 Implementation Plan1

Data Report
Number of Children in Foster Care by Placement Type.
Number of Licensed Foster Family Homes.
During trial home visit period, child’s caseworker or a Family Preservation caseworker meets with child in the home at least twice a month. (MSA III.B.8.b) Investigations of reports of maltreatment of children in DFCS custody must be initiated within 24 hours. (MSA II.B.1.e.2) Investigations of reports of maltreatment of children in DFCS custody must be completed within 30 calendar days, including supervisory approval. (MSA II.B.1.e.2) Children remaining in the same out-of-home placement following an investigation into a report of maltreatment are visited by a DFCS caseworker twice a month for 3 months. (MSA II.B.1.e.3)
No child shall remain in an emergency/temp facility for more than 45 calendar days (exceptions may apply). (MSA II.B.2.k)
No child under 10 will be placed in a congregate care setting unless the child has exceptional needs that can't be met in a relative or foster family home (other conditions may apply.) (MSA II.B.2.m)
Sibling groups, in which there is at least one sibling under age 10, will not be placed in congregate care settings for more than 45 days. (MSA II.B.2.m) No child will be placed in more than 1 emergency/temp facility within 1 episode of foster care (exceptions may apply). (MSA II.B.2.o) For children with goal of reunification, the assigned DFCS caseworker will meet with the child's bio parents at least once a month to assess service delivery and achievement. (MSA II.B.5.b) (MSA III.B.3.d.2) A DFCS caseworker will visit the home of non-therapeutic resource parents, who have at least 1 foster child residing in the home, at least once a month (MSA II.B.5.c)

MACWIS Report Number, Manual
Report, or FCR MWZ0510
MWZRESL
MWLS54A

Current or Projected Availability
Currently Available Currently Available Currently Available

MWZ1271 MWZ1271

Currently Available Currently Available

MWLS55SA

Currently Available

MWLS50D

Currently Available

MWLS52HS

Currently Available

MWWLS53HS MWLS51D/S MWZWCR3

Currently Available Currently Available Currently Available

MWZPLMC

Currently Available

1 Appendix "C" will be updated, as needed, for each year's Implementation Plan.

1

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 70 of 81
APPENDIX "C" Modified Mississippi Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan

Data Report
A DFCS caseworker will visit the home of therapeutic resource parents, who have at least 1 foster child residing in the home, at least once a month (MSA II.B.5.c.) Children in care fewer than 12 months from time of latest removal from home shall have had 2 or fewer placements. (MSA II.C.1) The rate of abuse/maltreatment in care in the last year (MSA II.C.2)
A child's permanency plan will be reviewed in a court or administrative case review at least every 6 months. (MSA III.B.3.c.1) DFCS will take reasonable steps to ensure a court review is held for children in custody within 12 months of initial placement and annually thereafter. (MSA III.B.3.c.2) Children who've spent more than 17 of the previous 22 months in foster care without a TPR petition filed or exception documented shall have a petition filed or exception noted. (MSA III.B.3.e.1) Children in custody, ages 14-20, shall be provided with independent living services as set forth in their service plans. (MSA III.B.7.b) Children discharged and reunified in the last year shall have been reunified within 12 months of latest removal. (MSA III.C.1) Number of Pending Foster Family Homes.
Child's permanency plan will be developed within 30 calendar days of initial placement and documented in the child's case record. (MSA III.B.3.a.1-2) Assigned DFCS caseworker (COR or COS) will meet with child in person and, where age appropriate, alone at least twice a month to assess child's safety and wellbeing. At least 1 visit during the month will take place in the child's placement. (MSA II.B.5.a)
New caseworkers/supervisors complete their training requirements before assuming their responsibilities. (MSA II.A.2.c.2-3)2 Caseworkers shall carry a caseload that doesn't exceed Plan requirements. (MSA II. A.2.a.1)
Caseworkers do not carry a caseload exceeding 2x the caseload requirements. (MSA II.A.2.a.1)

MACWIS Report Number, Manual
Report, or FCR MWZPLMB
MWZPLM5S
MWBRD06 MWZTACR
MWZTPHR
MWZ014D1 and MWZ014D2 MWBRD16
MBWRD05
MWZRESPD MWLS312D
MWZWC5D
Manual Report
Manual Report Manual Report

Current or Projected Availability
Currently Available Currently Available Currently Available Currently Available Currently Available Currently Available Currently Available Currently Available Currently Available Currently Available Currently Available
90 days after start of IP3 120 days after start of IP3 120 days after start of IP3

2 Quarterly Report
2

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 71 of 81
APPENDIX "C" Modified Mississippi Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan

Data Report
Supervisors, responsible for supervising caseworkers, shall be responsible for supervising no more than 5 caseworkers. (MSA II.A.2.a.6) Children discharged in last year on finalization of adoption shall have had the adoption finalized within 24 mo. of latest removal from home. (MSA III.C.2) Children shall be placed within their own county or within 50 miles of the home from which they were removed (with exceptions). (MSA II.B.2.g)
Children entering foster care shall receive a health screening evaluation from a qualified medical practitioner within 72 hours of placement. (MSA II.B.3.a)
Within 30 calendar days of placement in foster care, children shall receive a comprehensive health assessment. (MSA II.B.3.b) Children reaching the point at which they have spent 17 of previous 22 months in foster care during the period shall have TPR petition filed or exception documented by the last day of the 17th month (MSA III.B.3.e.1)
Siblings who enter placement at/near the same time are placed together (with exceptions). (MSA II.B.2.h)
Children in custody are provided with contacts with their parents/siblings not in same placement within 24 hours of placement (exceptions may apply). (MSA III.B.5.b) Children are not placed in a foster care setting that has not been licensed or approved as meeting DFCS licensure standards unless placed pursuant to relative licensing process. (MSA II.B.2.a)
Children with special needs shall be matched with placement resources that can meet their therapeutic and medical needs. (MSA II.B.2.e) Children are placed in the least restrictive setting that meets his/her individual needs as determined by a review of all intake, screening, assessment and prior placement information on the child available at the time of placement. (MSA II.B.2.f) No later than time of placement, DFCS will provide resource parents/facility staff with foster child's current available medical, dental, educational and psychological information (including certain specific info). (MSA II.B.2.i)

MACWIS Report Number, Manual
Report, or FCR Manual Report
MWBRD10
MWLS314
MWLS315
MWLS315
MACWIS Report Number TBD
MWLS316
MACWIS Report Number TBD MWZ0151
FCR
FCR
FCR

Current or Projected Availability
120 days after start of IP3 Currently Available 06/15/12 06/15/12 06/15/12 07/11/12
07/15/12 07/15/12 7/31/12 12/31/12 12/31/12
12/31/12

3

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 72 of 81
APPENDIX "C" Modified Mississippi Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan

Data Report
DFCS will take all reasonable steps to avoid disruption of appropriate placements and ensure placement stability; if worker has knowledge of disruption possibility, s/he must convene FTM immediately. (MSA II.B.2.j)
Children shall have a family assessment3 completed within 30 calendar days of the child's entrance into custody which is documented in the child's case record. (MSA III.B.1.a) Foster children will receive recommended mental health services pursuant to his/her assessment. (MSA II.B.3.f) Foster children shall be provided with needed follow-up developmental services. (MSA II.B.3.g)
DFCS caseworkers will screen children for general/special educational needs within 30 calendar days of his/her entry into foster care. (MSA III.B.6.a) DFCS shall take reasonable steps to ensure that school-age foster children are registered for and attending accredited schools within 3 business days of initial placement or other placement changes (including shelters or other temp placements unless delayed by Youth Court). (MSA III.B.6.b)
Children requiring thera. and/or rehab. foster care services (because of diagnosis of significant medical, developmental, emotional or behavioral problems) have been provided a treatment plan and services in accordance with the plan. (MSA II.B.4.a) In cases where the whereabouts of one/both parents is unknown, DFCS will immediately institute a diligent search for the parents which shall be documented in the child's case record. (MSA III.B.1.b)
Within 30 days of a child's entrance into foster care, the caseworker will convene a team meeting with specified parties to develop service plans. (MSA III.B.2.a) Service plans shall be reviewed and updated quarterly at a team meeting and within 30 days of a placement change. (MSA III.B.2.b) Appropriate permanency goals include: no goal of permanent foster care; durable legal custody only after other goals are ruled out; and conditions for APPLA. (MSA III.B.3.a.3-5)

MACWIS Report Number, Manual
Report, or FCR FCR
FCR FCR FCR FCR FCR
FCR
FCR
FCR FCR FCR

Current or Projected Availability
12/31/12
12/31/12 12/31/12 12/31/12 12/31/12 12/31/12
12/31/12
12/31/12 12/31/12 12/31/12 12/31/12

3 This assessment will become the Comprehensive Family Assessment as regions fully implement the Practice Model.
4

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 73 of 81
APPENDIX "C" Modified Mississippi Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan

Data Report
For children with goals of reunification, DFCS will engage in concurrent planning within the 1st 6 months of custody (MSA III.B.3.b.1) Youth in custody transitioning to independence shall have available: an adequate living arrangement; a source of income; health care; IL stipends; education/training vouchers. (MSA III.B.7.c) Children in custody will receive periodic medical exams and all medically necessary follow-up services/treatment throughout the time they are in State custody. (MSA II.B.3.d) Children, 4 years and older, shall be provided a mental health assessment by a qualified professional within 30 calendar days of foster care placement. (MSA II.B.3.f) Children, birth-3 years, will be provided a developmental assessment by a qualified professional and each child older than age 3 shall be provided with a developmental assessment if factors indicate such an assessment is warranted. (MSA II.B.3.g)
Children, age 3 and older, shall be provided a dental exam within 90 calendar days of foster care placement and every 6 months thereafter. (MSA II.B.3.e) Children reaching age 3 in care shall be provided a dental exam within 90 days of his/her 3rd birthday and every 6 months thereafter. (MSA II.B.3.e) Supervisors shall receive a minimum of 24 hours annual on-going, in-service training. (MSA II.A.2.c.4)

MACWIS Report Number, Manual
Report, or FCR FCR FCR
FCR
FCR
FCR
FCR
FCR
Manual Report

Current or Projected Availability
12/31/12 12/31/12 12/31/12 12/31/12 12/31/12
12/31/12 12/31/12 12/31/12

5

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 74 of 81
APPENDIX "D" Modified Mississippi Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan

Mississippi Diligent Recruitment of Families for Children
Implementation Plan - Phase II, Version A

Cooperative Agreement
Items

Goal/Activity

1. Recruitment Activities

A. Targeted Recruitment: Market Segmentation

D,E,F

1. Map current resources against predicted need based on survey

analysis

D,E,F

2. Generate a series of maps showing where recruitment activities should be directed

D,E,F

3. Identify specific mediums of communication most used by potential resource families in identified recruitment areas

D,E,F

4. Identify Specific recruitment strategies for engaging targeted

families

D,E,F

5. Prioritize recruitment plans for most critical needs of children

entering care

B. Targeted Recruitment Diligent Recruitment Specialists

J,K,U

1. Evaluate current training

J,K,U

2. Identify areas needing development & strengthening

J,K,U
J,K,U J,K,U

3. Determine areas that should be included in pre-service and/or in-service training 4. Make modifications as necessary 5. Develop a plan to ensure diversity training is offered on a consistent basis

Year 2
X X X X X
X X X

Year 3
X X X X X
X X

Year 4
X

Year 5
X

Responsibility
Evaluator; CSF; Project Team Evaluator; CSF; Project Team Evaluator; CSF; Project Team Evaluator; CSF; Project Team Evaluator; CSF; Project Team
Project Team Project Team; CSF; Training Unit Project Team; CSF; Training Unit Project Team Project Team; Training Unit

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 75 of 81
APPENDIX "D" Modified Mississippi Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan

Cooperative Agreement
Items D,E,F
D,E,F
D,E,F

Goal/Activity
6. Develop a plan for disseminating market segmentation information to regions & private agencies 7. Disseminate market segmentation data including family portraits and recruitment strategies reports to Regional Implementation Teams 8. Develop or update Regional Recruitment Plans based on market segmentation data including family portraits and recruitment strategies reports

D,E,F

9. Develop and implement a plan for including LPCAs in

targeted recruitment activities

D,E,F

10. Recruitment Support Specialists will act as supports to the

regions and LCPAs and assist in securing tools necessary to

implement recruitment strategies outlined Regional Recruitment

Plans

C. Child Specific Recruitment

D,E,G,P,Q 1. Fully implement the expedited licensure process for related

resource homes

D,E,P,Q

2. Evaluate Mississippi’s current utilization of AdoptUSKids

adoption photo listing exchange

D,E,P,Q

3. Determine feasibility to modify current usage of AdoptUSKids

photo exchange for both children in care and resource parents.

D,E,P,Q

4. Develop Mississippi statewide adoption photo exchange if

needed

D. General Recruitment

D,E,G

1. Develop plan for ensuring inquires from prospective resource

families are handled in a timely and consistent manor

Year 2
X X X X X
X

Year 3
X X X
X X
X X X

Year 4
X
X

Year 5
X

Responsibility
Project Director
Recruitment Support Specialists
Recruitment Support Specialists; Regional Implementation Team Project Team
Recruitment Support Specialists
Project Team; Policy Director Project Director; State Co-Leads Project Director; State Co-Leads Project Director; State Co-Leads
Project Team

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 76 of 81
APPENDIX "D" Modified Mississippi Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan

Cooperative Agreement
Items D,E,G
D,E,G
D,E,G

Goal/Activity
2. Implement plan for ensuring inquiries from prospective resource families are handled in a timely and consistent manor 2. Establish a toll-free number for prospective resource families to call 3. Add to MDHS web site to address recruitment

D,E,G

4. Develop and implement statewide broadcast activities

L

5. MDHS has 3 Spanish translators on staff and that they are

available to assist staff in working with clients and in translating

materials

T

6. MDHS Practice Model implementation moves the program

towards a philosophy of working on permanency from the first

day children enter the child welfare system

2. Resource Licensure

A. Resource Applicants

H

1. Define current application process

H

2. Develop and implement internal tracking procedures to

monitor application process

H

3. Train resource staff on utilization of internal tracking tools

Year Year Year Year Responsibility 2 3 4 5

X X

Project Team

X

Project Director;

State Co-Leads

X

Project Director;

State Co-Leads;

CSF

X X Project Team,

Grant

Implementation

Team, CSF

X X X X DFCS Translators

X X X X CSF; Project Team; Field Staff; Regional Resource Staff

X X X X

Project Director; State Co-Leads Evaluator; Project Director Project Director; Recruitment Support Specialists

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 77 of 81
APPENDIX "D" Modified Mississippi Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan

Cooperative Agreement
Items H
H
H
H

Goal/Activity
4. Develop and implement exit survey to identify dropout rates/reasons at various states of the process 5. Adapt procedures for receiving and responding to applications and inquires based on data 6. Train resource staff on skills and strategies for responding to inquires and retaining families throughout the licensure process 7. Design and implement coaching process to ensure resource staff are using learned skills and strategies

B. Resource Family Training

I,K,U

1. Evaluate current training in regards to characteristics, needs &

issues of children in care/adoption clinical issues

I,K,U

2. Modify training or develop additional training as needed

I,K,U

3. Address shared parenting and supporting family relationships

C. Home Study Format

N

1. Evaluate current home study format

N

2. Identify a home study format that would provide necessary

information in a consistent manner

G,N

3. Develop plan to ensure all resource workers are utilizing the

same home study format

Year Year Year Year Responsibility 2 3 4 5

X X
X X

Evaluator; Project Team Evaluator; Project Team Project Team

X

Project Team;

Director of Field

Operations

X

Project Team

X

Project Team;

Grant

Implementation

Team work group

X X X X Project Team;

Regional Resource

Staff

X
X X

Project Director; State Co-Leads; MACWIS Project Director; State Co-Leads Project Director; State Co-Leads

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 78 of 81
APPENDIX "D" Modified Mississippi Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan

Cooperative Agreement
Items G,N
G,N

Goal/Activity
4. Provide training to resource staff on revised home study format 5. Design coaching process to ensure resource staff are using learned skills and strategies

D. Home Study Process

G

1. All prospective parents currently have access to the home

study process

E,G

2. Ensure home studies are completed in a timely manner

E,G,N,O

3. Mississippi Resource homes are licensed for both foster care

and adoption in a single application process which facilitates

concurrent planning.

3. Customer Service Model

H,I,P

1. Schedule site visit with AdoptUSKids

H,I,P

2. Determine which staff members will participate in AUK “train

the trainer” site visit

H,I,P

3. Develop and Implement plan for providing customer service model training to MDHS field staff

H,I,P

4. Make needed changes to policy and procedure to include customer service related issues

H,I,P

5. Ensure customer service model techniques are being implemented by staff and are sustainable.

Year Year Year Year Responsibility 2 3 4 5

X

Project Director;

State Co-Leads

X

Project Team;

Director of Field

Operations

X X X X Project Team; Regional Resource Staff
X X X X Evaluator; Project Team; Regional Resource Staff
X X X X Regional Resource Staff

X

Project Director

X

Project Director;

State Co-Leads;

Training Unit

X X

Project Director;

State Co-Leads;

Training Unit

X

Project Director;

State Co-Leads;

Policy Director

X X X Project Team; Field

Operations

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 79 of 81
APPENDIX "D" Modified Mississippi Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan

Cooperative Agreement
Items

Goal/Activity

4. Contract with the Licensed Child Placing Agencies

R

1. Release RFP

R

2. Review proposals

R

3. Prepare contracts and issue

R

4. Plan for contract monitoring

5. Family/Child Matching

A. Characteristics of Children in Care

A,Q

1. Establish baseline and benchmarks 3-6 months prior to

regional implementation roll out

A,Q

2. Aggregate data by county & make available to regions,

counties, and private agencies

A,Q

3. Develop and implement plan for consistently updating the

characteristics of children in care

A,Q

4. Work with MACWIS to ensure regular characteristic reports

are available

A,Q

5. Address characteristics of children in care and their placement

needs though regular placement committee meetings

Year Year Year Year Responsibility 2 3 4 5

X

Congregate Care Director; Permanency Unit Director;

DFCS Finance and

Administration

X

Congregate Care Director;

Permanency Unit Director;

DFCS Finance and

Administration

X

Congregate Care Director;

Permanency Unit Director;

DFCS Finance and

Administration

X

X

X

Congregate Care Director;

Permanency Unit Director;

DFCS Finance and

Administration

X X

Evaluator; Project

Team

X X

Evaluator; Project

Team

X

X

X

Project Director; State

Co-Leads, MACWIS;

Evaluator

X X Project Director;

State Co-Leads,

MACWIS;

Evaluator

X X Project Team;

Regional Resource

Staff

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 80 of 81
APPENDIX "D" Modified Mississippi Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan

Cooperative Agreement
Items

Goal/Activity

B. Resource Family Characteristics

B,Q

1. Develop and implement plan for consistently updating the

characteristics of licensed resource families

B,Q

2. Develop a database of characteristics of current resource

families by county

B,Q

4. Work with MACWIS to ensure regular resource family

characteristic reports are available

B,Q

5. Address placement needs by matching children with families

though regular placement committee meetings

8. Collaboration/Public-Private Partnerships

C

1. Use consumer data to determine communities with highest

placement rates by zip code

C

2. Identify prospective neighborhoods for recruitment activities

C

3. Adapt Regional Implementation Plans to address community

outreach

C

4. Adapt staff and resource families to include/work with

community partners

10. Website

I,K,Q,U

1. Consult with MACWIS related to website modification and

development

I,K,Q,U

2. Assess information currently available on MDHS website

Year Year Year Year Responsibility 2 3 4 5

X

Project Team; CSF;

Evaluator

X X X Project Team;

Evaluator; CSF,

MACWIS

X X X Project Team;

Evaluator; CSF,

MACWIS

X X X X Project Team;

Regional Resource

Staff

X X

CSF; MACWIS;

Project Team

X X

CFS; Project Team

X X X X Project Team;

Regional Resource

Staff

X X X X Project Team; CSF;

Regional Resource

Staff

X

Project Director;

State Co-Leads;

CSF; MACWIS

X

Project Director

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 571 Filed 07/06/12 Page 81 of 81
APPENDIX "D" Modified Mississippi Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan

Cooperative Agreement
Items
I,K,Q,U

Goal/Activity 3. Identify what type of modifications and additions are needed

I,K,Q,U

4. Gather or develop needed information

I,K,Q,U

5. Develop a plan for adding and maintaining information

11. Evaluation Activities
1. See attached evaluation plan

Year Year Year Year Responsibility 2 3 4 5

X X
X

Project Team; MACWIS; CSF Project Team; MACWIS; CSF Project Director; MACWIS; CSF

X X X X Evaluator

 
 Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 1 of 180

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION

OLIVIA Y., et al.

PLAINTIFFS

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:04CV251LN

HALEY BARBOUR, as Governor of the State of Mississippi, et al.

DEFENDANTS

______________________________________________________________________________

THE COURT MONITOR’S REPORT TO THE COURT REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ PROGRESS TOWARD MEETING PERIOD 2 REQUIREMENTS ______________________________________________________________________________

Table of Contents, Report Narrative, Index to Exhibits, and Appendix: Exhibits 1A – 63H*

September 8, 2010
*Because a motion to file Exs. 36-47, 58, and 59 under seal was filed on September 8, 2010, these exhibits are not included in the Appendix to this report.

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 2 of 180

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ................................................2

A. The First Implementation Plan .................................................................................4 B. The Second Implementation Plan ............................................................................5 C. The Bridge Plan ........................................................................................................7

II.

BACKGROUND ...........................................................................................................9

III. METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................12

IV. FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................16

A. Court Monitor’s Findings Related to Settlement Agreement and Period 2 Implementation Plan Requirements ......................................................................16

Period 2 IP §I.1.a. ..................................................................................................16 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.1.a. ..........................................................17 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.1.a., Relevant COA Standards ................18
Settlement Agreement §II.A.2.a. ...........................................................................18 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.A.2.a. ..................................18
Period 2 IP §I.2.a. ..................................................................................................25 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.2.a. ..........................................................26
Period 2 IP §I.2.b. ..................................................................................................28 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.2.b. ..........................................................28 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.2.b., Relevant COA Standards ................28
Period 2 IP §I.2.c. ..................................................................................................28 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.2.c. ..........................................................29
Settlement Agreement §II.A.2.c. ...........................................................................30 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.A.2.c. ...................................30 Background Related to Settlement Agreement §II.A.2.c. ...................30 In-Service Training ..............................................................................32 Progress During Period 2 .....................................................................33
Period 2 IP §I.2.d.1. ...............................................................................................38 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.2.d.1. .......................................................39
Period 2 IP §I.2.d.2. ...............................................................................................39 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.2.d.2. .......................................................39
Period 2 IP §I.2.d.3. ...............................................................................................40 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.2.d.3. .......................................................40
Period 2 IP §I.2.d.4. ...............................................................................................41 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.2.d.4. .......................................................41 Background Related to Period 2 IP §I.2.d.4. .......................................41 Pre-Service Training for Caseworkers.................................................42 Pre-Service Training for Supervisors...................................................45
Period 2 IP §I.2.d.6 ................................................................................................46

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 3 of 180
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.2.d.6. .......................................................46 Period 2 IP §I.2.d.7 ................................................................................................47
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.2.d.7. .......................................................47 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.2.d.1.-7., Relevant COA Standards.........49 Settlement Agreement §II.A.2.d. ...........................................................................50 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.A.2.d. ...................................50 Period 2 IP §I.2.e. .................................................................................................50 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.2.e............................................................50 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.2.e., Relevant COA Standards ................51 Period 2 IP §I.3.a. ..................................................................................................51 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.3.a. ..........................................................51 Settlement Agreement §II.A.3.b. ...........................................................................54 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.A.3.b. ...................................54 Period 2 IP §I.3.c. ..................................................................................................54 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.3.c. ..........................................................55 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.3.a.-c., Relevant COA Standards ............55 Settlement Agreement §II.A.3.c. ...........................................................................55 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.A.3.c. ...................................56 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.4.a., Relevant COA Standards .........................57 Settlement Agreement §II.A.5.d. ...........................................................................57 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.A.5.d. ...................................57 Settlement Agreement §II.A.5.e. ...........................................................................59 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.A.5.e. ...................................59 Period 2 IP §I.5.a. ..................................................................................................60 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.5.a. ..........................................................60 Period 2 IP §I.5.b. ..................................................................................................64 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.5.b. .........................................................64 Period 2 IP §I.5.c. ..................................................................................................66 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.5.c. ..........................................................66 Period 2 IP §I.5.d. ..................................................................................................66 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.5.d. .........................................................66 Period 2 IP §I.6.a. ..................................................................................................66 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.6.a. ..........................................................67 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.6.a., Relevant COA Standards ................67 Period 2 IP §I.7.a. ..................................................................................................68 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.7.a. ..........................................................68 Period 2 IP §I.7.b. ..................................................................................................69 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.7.b. .........................................................69 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.8., Relevant COA Standards ............................69 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.9., Relevant COA Standards ............................70 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.10., Relevant COA Standards ..........................70 Period 2 IP §II.1. ...................................................................................................70 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.1. ............................................................70 Period 2 IP §II.2.a.-d. ............................................................................................72 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.2.a.-d. .....................................................72 Period 2 IP §II.2.e.-g. ............................................................................................74
ii

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 4 of 180
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.2.e.-g. ....................................................74 Settlement Agreement §II.B.1.e. ...........................................................................79
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.1.e. ...................................79 Settlement Agreement §II.B.1.f. ............................................................................80
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.1.f. ....................................80 Settlement Agreement §II.B.1.g. ...........................................................................80
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.1.g. ...................................80 Settlement Agreement §II.B.1.h. ...........................................................................81
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.1.h. ...................................81 Period 2 IP §II.3.a. .................................................................................................81
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.3.a. .........................................................81 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.3.a,, Relevant COA Standards...............82 Settlement Agreement §II.B.2.d. ...........................................................................82 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.2.d. ...................................82 Settlement Agreement §II.B.2.e. ...........................................................................82 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.2.e. ...................................83 Period 2 IP §II.4.a.-c. .............................................................................................83 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.4.a.-c. .....................................................83 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.4.a.-c., Relevant COA Standards...........84 Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.a.5. ........................................................................84 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.a.5. ................................84 Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.a.6. ........................................................................84 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.a.6. ................................84 Period 2 IP §II.5.a.1. and 2. ...................................................................................85 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.5.a.1. and 2. ...........................................85 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.5.a., Relevant COA Standard ................85 Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.b.2. ........................................................................86 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.b.2. ................................86 Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.c.3. ........................................................................86 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.c.3. ................................86 Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.c.4. ........................................................................86 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.c.4. ................................87 Period 2 IP §II.5.b.1. ..............................................................................................87 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.5.b.1. ......................................................87 Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.d.4. ........................................................................87 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.d.4. ................................88 Period 2 IP §II.5.c.1. ..............................................................................................88 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.5.c.1. ......................................................88 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.5.c.1., Relevant COA Standard .............88 Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.e.3. ........................................................................88 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.e.3. ................................89 Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.e.4. ........................................................................89 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.e.4. ................................89 Period 2 IP §II.5.d.1. .............................................................................................90 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.5.d.1. .....................................................90 Period 2 IP §II.5.d.2. .............................................................................................90
iii

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 5 of 180
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.5.d.2. .....................................................91 Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.f.6. .........................................................................91
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.f.6. .................................92 Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.f.7. .........................................................................92
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.f.7. .................................92 Period 2 IP §II.5.e.1. ..............................................................................................92
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.5.e.1. ......................................................93 Period 2 IP §II.5.e.2. ..............................................................................................93
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.5.e.2. ......................................................94 Period 2 IP §II.5.e.3. ..............................................................................................94
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.5.e.3. ......................................................94 Period 2 IP §II.5.e.4. ..............................................................................................94
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.5.e.4. ......................................................95 Period 2 IP §II.5.e.5. ..............................................................................................95
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.5.e.5. ......................................................95 Period 2 IP §II.5.e.6. ..............................................................................................95
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.5.e.6. ......................................................95 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.5.e., Relevant COA Standards...............95 Settlement Agreement §II.B.4.k. ...........................................................................96 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.4.k. ...................................96 Period 2 IP §II.6.a. .................................................................................................97 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.6.a. ........................................................97 Period 2 IP §II.6.b. ................................................................................................97 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.6.b. ........................................................97 Period 2 IP §II.6.c. ................................................................................................99 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.6.c. ........................................................99 Period 2 IP §II.6.d. ................................................................................................99 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.6.d. ........................................................99 Period 2 IP §II.6.e. ..............................................................................................101 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.6.e. ......................................................101 Period 2 IP §II.6.f. ...............................................................................................104 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.6.f. .......................................................104 Period 2 IP §II.6.g. ..............................................................................................106 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.6.g. ......................................................106 Period 2 IP §II.6.h. ..............................................................................................110 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.6.h. ......................................................110 Period 2 IP §II.6.i. ...............................................................................................111 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.6.i. .......................................................111 Period 2 IP §II.6.j. ...............................................................................................111 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.6.j. .......................................................111 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.6.a.-j., Relevant COA Standards .........111 Settlement Agreement §II.B.5.l. ..........................................................................112 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.5.l. ..................................112 Settlement Agreement §II.B.5.m. ........................................................................112 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.5.m. ................................113 Settlement Agreement §II.B.5.n. .........................................................................113
iv

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 6 of 180
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.5.n. .................................113 Settlement Agreement §II.B.5.o. .........................................................................113
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.5.o. .................................114 Settlement Agreement §II.B.5.p. .........................................................................114
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.5.p. .................................114 Settlement Agreement §II.B.5.q. .........................................................................115
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.5.q. .................................115 Period 2 IP §II.7.a. ...............................................................................................115
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.7.a. ......................................................115 Period 2 IP §II.7.b. ..............................................................................................116
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.7.b. ......................................................116 Period 2 IP §II.7.c. ...............................................................................................116
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.7.c. ......................................................116 Period 2 IP §II.7.e. ...............................................................................................117
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.7.e. ......................................................117 Period 2 IP §II.7.f. ...............................................................................................117
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.7.f. .......................................................117 Period 2 IP §II.7.j. ...............................................................................................117
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.7.j. .......................................................118 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.7.a.-j., Relevant COA Standards .........118 Settlement Agreement §II.B.6.d. .........................................................................118 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.6.d. .................................118 Period 2 IP §II.8.a. ...............................................................................................118 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.8.a. ......................................................118 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.8.a., Relevant COA Standards.............119 Settlement Agreement §II.B.7.h. .........................................................................119 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.7.h. .................................119 Settlement Agreement §II.B.7.i. ..........................................................................119 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.7.i. ..................................120 Settlement Agreement §II.B.7.j. ..........................................................................120 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.7.j. ..................................120 Settlement Agreement §II.B.7.k. .........................................................................120 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.7.k. .................................120 Settlement Agreement §II.B.7.l. ..........................................................................120 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.7.l. ..................................121 Settlement Agreement §II.B.7.m. ........................................................................121 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.7.m. ................................121 Period 2 IP §II.9.a. ...............................................................................................121 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.9.a. ......................................................121 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.9.a., Relevant COA Standards.............121 Settlement Agreement §II.B.8.d. .........................................................................122 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.8.d. .................................122 Settlement Agreement §II.B.8.e. .........................................................................122 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.8.e. .................................122 Period 2 IP §II.10.a. .............................................................................................122 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.10.a. ....................................................123
v

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 7 of 180
Period 2 IP §II.10.b. ............................................................................................123 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.10.b. ....................................................123 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.10.a. and b., Relevant COA Standards 123
Settlement Agreement §II.B.9.b. .........................................................................123 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.9.b. .................................123
Settlement Agreement §II.B.10.f. ........................................................................124 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.10.f. ................................124
Settlement Agreement §II.B.10.g. .......................................................................124 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.10.g. ...............................124
Settlement Agreement §II.B.10.h. .......................................................................124 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.10.h. ...............................125
Period 2 IP §II.11.a. .............................................................................................125 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.11.a ......................................................125 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.11.a., Relevant COA Standards...........125
Settlement Agreement §II.B.11.e. .......................................................................126 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.11.e. ...............................126
Settlement Agreement §II.B.11.f. ........................................................................126 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.11.f. ................................126
Period 2 IP §II.12.a. ............................................................................................127 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.12.a. .....................................................127
Period 2 IP §II.12.b. ............................................................................................127 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.12.b. ....................................................127
Period 2 IP §II.12.c. .............................................................................................127 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.12.c. .....................................................127
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.13., Relevant COA Standards.......................127 Settlement Agreement §II.B.12.d. .......................................................................128
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.12.d. ...............................128 Settlement Agreement §II.B.13.i. ........................................................................128
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.13.i. ................................128 Period 2 IP §II.14.a. .............................................................................................128
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.14.a. ....................................................129 Period 2 IP §II.14.b. ............................................................................................131
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.14.b. ....................................................131 Period 2 IP §II.14.c. .............................................................................................131
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.14.c. ....................................................131 Period 2 IP §II.14.d. ............................................................................................131
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.14.d. ....................................................131 Period 2 IP §II.14.e. ............................................................................................131
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.14.e. ....................................................132 Period 2 IP §II.14.f. .............................................................................................132
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.14.f. .....................................................132 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.14.a.-f., Relevant COA Standards .......132 Settlement Agreement §III.A.2. ..........................................................................132 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §III.A.2. ..................................132 Settlement Agreement §III.B.2. ..........................................................................133 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §III.B.2. ..................................133
vi

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 8 of 180

Settlement Agreement §III.C.2. ...........................................................................133 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §III.C.2. ...................................133
Settlement Agreement §III.D.2. ..........................................................................133 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §III.D.2. ..................................134
Period 2 IP §III.1. ................................................................................................134 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §III.1. ...............................................134
Period 2 IP §III.2. ................................................................................................134 Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §III.2. ...............................................134
B. COA Findings Related to COA Standards in Period 2 Implementation Plan. ...135

V.

CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................164

vii

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 9 of 180

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION

OLIVIA Y., et al.

PLAINTIFFS

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:04CV251LN

HALEY BARBOUR, as Governor of the State of Mississippi, et al. DEFENDANTS
______________________________________________________________________________ THE COURT MONITOR’S REPORT TO THE COURT REGARDING
DEFENDANTS’ PROGRESS TOWARD MEETING PERIOD 2 REQUIREMENTS ______________________________________________________________________________

This report sets forth the Court Monitor’s (“Monitor”) findings regarding defendants’ progress toward meeting the requirements of the January 4, 2008 Mississippi Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan (“Settlement Agreement”), including the requirements contained in the Period 2 Annual Implementation Plan (“Period 2 IP”). A draft version of this report was provided to the parties for review and comment on August 5, 2010. All written comments regarding the draft were submitted to the Monitor by August 26, 2010.1 Based on the parties’ comments, it does not appear that there are any contested factual issues. The Monitor has considered the parties’ comments, and to the extent appropriate, addressed them in this revised report.
The report is divided into five sections. The Introduction and Summary of Findings section provides an overview of the progress that has been made since the time the Settlement Agreement was approved by the Court. The Background section describes how the Settlement

1 The Monitor conducted limited follow up investigation and has had several discussions with each party in response to their respective comments.

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 10 of 180
Agreement is structured and presents the relevant procedural history. The Methodology section explains the process used by the Monitor to evaluate defendants’ progress. The Findings section is divided into two parts. The first part presents the Monitor’s assessment of the progress that has been made toward meeting each of the Period 2 requirements. In addition, it summarizes the Council On Accreditation’s (“COA”)2 findings regarding the accreditation standards that the defendants were required to meet during Period 2. The second part presents each specific COA finding regarding whether the policy-related documents defendants were required to submit to COA during Period 2 satisfied each of the applicable COA standards. The Conclusion is followed by an Appendix that includes the report’s exhibits, which, as appropriate, have been redacted in the final version of the report to delete information that falls within the purview of the August 5, 2004 Confidentiality Order.3
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The Settlement Agreement anticipates that mandated reforms will be completed within a five-year period, culminating in measureable outcomes that ensure the safety and well-being of the children in defendants’ custody as well as their placement in permanent and nurturing homes. As of the filing date of this report, defendants are beyond the half-way mark in the reform process, and they have been required to satisfy requirements in two annual implementation plans and a short-term corrective action plan. Among other critical accomplishments, by this point in the remedial process, the Settlement Agreement contemplates that the Mississippi Department of Human Services
2 COA is an independent, non-profit, accrediting organization that accredits human services entities, including public sector child and family services agencies. 3 See Confidentiality Order, August 5, 2004. Several exhibits have been redacted and a motion to place certain exhibits (i.e., Exs. 36-47, 58 and 59) under seal was filed along with this report. Thus, the exhibits that are the subject of the motion are not included in the Appendix to this report and will be filed under seal assuming the Court issues an order granting the pending motion.
2

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 11 of 180
(“MDHS”) Division of Family and Children’s Services (“DFCS”) would have built key parts of the infrastructure necessary to initiate and advance the reform process. Indeed, the Settlement Agreement anticipates that by now DFCS policies and practice guides would have been revised to conform to the requirements of the Settlement Agreement, the training curriculum for caseworkers and their supervisors would have been modified to reflect these changes, and a comprehensive and adequately resourced staff training program would have been underway. Also anticipated by the Settlement Agreement is that prescribed assessments of MDHS/DFCS administrative and management functions and foster care services would have been completed, plans to address issues identified by the assessments would have been developed, and a remedial process related to the findings from the assessments would have been ongoing to address systemic factors implicated in the reform process.
According to the Settlement Agreement, by the half-way mark, the defendants would have the fundamental management tools and resources in hand to inform, shape and direct the reform process. For example, the Settlement Agreement contemplates that for the past 18 months, the DFCS management information system (“MACWIS”) would have been collecting appropriate data and generating accurate reports related to all of the Settlement Agreement’s foster care services standards and a continuous quality improvement (“CQI”) system would have been implemented. Moreover, by now, the Settlement Agreement anticipates that DFCS would have implemented a performance based contracting system as well as a program to maximize the federal funding needed to help subsidize the expansion of essential services for children and their families.
These and other required initiatives were designed to ensure the safety of the children in defendants’ custody and to improve the array and quality of the services and supports provided to
3

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 12 of 180
them and their families. As described in this report, defendants’ progress at the half-way mark has fallen significantly short of the Settlement Agreement’s required schedule. In fact, with the possible exception of a limited number of data reports generated within the past four-month period, none of the basic management tools contemplated by the Settlement Agreement are in hand. This has critical implications for the sequencing and the pace of the mandated five-year remedial process.
A. The First Implementation Plan The first implementation plan, referred to as the Period 1 IP, focused on building defendants’ capacity to achieve the goals and outcomes of the Settlement Agreement. It required the defendants to establish a DFCS management team and build key elements of the DFCS infrastructure through specifically defined initiatives and a prescribed planning process based on assessments of administrative and management operations, including assessments of MACWIS4 and the DFCS service delivery system.5 In most instances, the goals of these assessments were to provide a baseline assessment of performance and to identify shortcomings in actual performance relative to the Settlement Agreement’s requirements. The Settlement Agreement contemplates that the data derived from the assessments would have been used to inform plans for various remedial strategies that were required to be implemented during Period 1 or Period 2. Among other specific initiatives, the Period 1 IP also required the defendants to revise DFCS policy and practice guides to conform to the Settlement Agreement and implement a performance based contracting system.
4 In addition to MACWIS, assessments of the workforce, training curricula, contracting practices, the CQI system, and fiscal and financial management were required by the Period 1 IP. 5 Specific assessments of foster care services required by the Period 1 IP included reunification, independent living, foster care support, medical, dental and mental health services; case processing and practices related to termination of parental rights [hereinafter TPR], parent/child and sibling visitation and reports of child maltreatment; and, the array of DFCS placements.
4

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 13 of 180
The defendants made progress on a limited number of Period 1 requirements. As described in the Monitor’s June 2009 report, defendants restructured the DFCS executive management team to align it more closely with the principles of family-centered practice and reorganized the management structure of the agency from seven regions into 13 regions in order to strengthen accountability and more readily institute new management initiatives.6 As the result of a substantial budget increase, defendants enhanced DFCS social worker and supervisory staffing levels and most, but not all, required management positions were filled. Moreover, defendants established, but did not adequately staff or resource, Training and CQI Units in DFCS. There was also progress toward meeting many, but not all, initial COA accreditation requirements during Period 1. However, at least in part because of the delay in establishing the DFCS executive management team, most of the Period 1 capacity-building and assessment requirements were not completed. As a result they were incorporated into the Period 2 IP.7
B. The Second Implementation Plan As this report demonstrates, during Period 2 the defendants filled the few remaining DFCS management vacancies and continued their efforts to increase caseworker and supervisory staffing levels. Indeed, by May 31, 2010, 53 percent of DFCS caseworkers and 11 percent of their supervisors had been hired since 2008. In the 12-month period ending April 30, 2010 alone, defendants hired 151 out of 620, or 24 percent, of the caseworkers employed by the agency at that time. However, during Period 2 the defendants were not able to deliver required training to all newly hired caseworkers on a timely basis nor ensure that they had reasonable and consistent access to MACWIS, the system which stores each case record they are responsible to maintain.
6 The Court Monitor’s Report to the Court Regarding Defendants’ Progress toward Meeting Period 1 Requirements [hereinafter June 2009 Report], filed June 5, 2009, at 4. Defendants also developed a career ladder to bolster the recruitment and retention of social workers. The career ladder was approved, but it has not been funded. 7 Id.
5

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 14 of 180
The defendants improved their management of COA accreditation activities during Period 2. On a quarterly basis, DFCS staff submitted policies and related documents applicable to the 146 COA standards addressed by the Period 2 IP to COA in a timely fashion. All of the applicable standards that were not satisfied in Period 1 were satisfied during Period 2,8 and with very few exceptions, all of the Period 2 COA standards were satisfied. According to the COA project director who evaluated whether the documents defendants submitted complied with the applicable COA standards, the DFCS submissions were made on a timely basis, generally very well done, and included the appropriate supporting documentation. In the limited instances in which COA required remedial action, the project director reports that the defendants were very responsive. COA does not conduct an assessment of actual practices until a later stage of the accreditation process.
In many instances the defendants made efforts to satisfy specific Period 2 requirements, but as this report establishes, as a general matter, these efforts were belated and at least in certain respects they were not minimally adequate.9 In a few instances, there is no evidence that defendants made credible efforts to comply with certain specific Period 2 requirements,10 including requirements that had been part of the Period 1 IP.11
The Monitor’s June 2009 report emphasized that in order for the defendants to make measureable progress that could be sustained over time, it would be necessary for the defendants
8 Thirty-five standards that defendants did not meet during Period 1 were included in the Period 2 IP. COA found that defendants submitted documentation evidencing compliance or substantial compliance with 34 of the standards. COA determined one standard was not applicable to DFCS. 9 See, e.g., narratives related to Period 2 IP §I.2.d.1. (submission of training plan that does not address the plain language of the applicable Period 2 requirement) infra pp. 38-39; Period 2 IP §I.2.c. (submission of a worker and supervisor qualification requirement plan that does not address most of the enumerated elements of the applicable Period 2 requirement) infra pp. 28-30; Period 2 IP §I.2.a. (submission of a workforce development plan that does not address most of the specified elements of the applicable Period 2 requirement) infra pp. 26-28. 10 See, e.g., Period 2 IP §II.14.c., Period 2 IP §II.14.e., Period 2 IP §II.14.f. 11 See, e.g., Period 2 IP §II.5.e.4. infra pp. 94-95 and Period 1 IP §II.3.f. (requiring adoption specialists); Period 2 IP §II.5.e.3. infra p. 94 and Period 1 IP §II.3.f. (requiring external adoption consultants).
6

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 15 of 180
to bolster the capacity of MDHS and DFCS administrative operations;12 invest in the DFCS workforce by funding and hiring a sufficient number of qualified employees and providing them with the training and the equipment necessary to appropriately serve class members; and implement CQI and performance management systems. The Monitor’s June 2009 report addressed the critical need for substantial improvement in the quality and accuracy of the information available to guide management decisions and promote improvements in individual case practice.13 The report emphasized the need to address significant shortcomings in MACWIS, so that it could produce accurate, complete and reliable data related to the requirements in this case. Except for the progress defendants have made increasing DFCS staffing levels, none of these issues were resolved during Period 2. Simply put, at this juncture, the defendants do not have many of the basic tools in place to manage and promote the reform effort effectively and thereby provide a reasonable assurance the Settlement Agreement’s requirements will be satisfied.
C. The Bridge Plan Because of the shortcomings in defendants’ performance during Period 2, a corrective action process established by the Settlement Agreement was triggered.14 In June 2010, the Court issued an order approving a Bridge Plan that was proposed by the parties. The Bridge Plan is limited to a four-month performance period that ended on September 1, 2010. By its terms, the Bridge Plan requires the defendants to demonstrate the capacity to implement a narrow subset of unmet Period 2 requirements, including requirements for validated data reports corresponding to a series of required performance measures. In a July 23, 2010 status report, the Monitor found
12 These operations include functions related to federal revenue maximization, personnel processing and tracking, and contracting and procurement. 13 June 2009 Report at 7. 14 See infra pp. 10-11 for additional detail regarding this matter.
7

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 16 of 180
there was demonstrable progress in virtually all of the areas addressed in the Bridge Plan. The Monitor is required to report more fully on defendants’ performance during the full four-month term of the Bridge Period later this month. Due to the efforts associated with completing this report, and the volume of data implicated by the Bridge Plan, the Monitor anticipates filing a motion to extend the current deadline for submission of her report on the Bridge Plan.
The Bridge Plan required the defendants to bolster their management and planning capacity by contracting with the Center for the Support of Families (“CSF”) for technical assistance. Defendants contracted with CSF during early 2009 to develop a practice model and implementation plan that could serve as a framework for improving the quality of casework. A CSF executive manager, Jerry Milner, developed the practice model. The model is intended to promote child safety, permanency, and well-being through integrated processes that guide casework. Various legal requirements related to DFCS case practice, including requirements imposed by the Settlement Agreement, are infused into the model. Mr. Milner made recommendations about the infrastructure necessary to support the practice model as part of a comprehensive set of recommendations issued on September 30, 2009.15 DFCS policy and practice guides, as well as staff training curricula, will require significant revisions to incorporate the practice model. Mr. Milner and other consultants from CSF are currently working with the defendants on implementing the practice model in two regions on a pilot basis.
The practice model constitutes the centerpiece of defendants’ reform strategy. Defendants invested substantial executive-level attention and other resources during Period 2 developing the practice model and collaborating with CSF on initial implementation planning initiatives. These crucial activities were not captured by the Period 2 IP. Defendants expect to
15 Mississippi Practice Model, Final Report [hereinafter Practice Model Report], September 25, 2009.
8

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 17 of 180
phase-in implementation of the practice model on a regional basis over a 48-month period that exceeds the Settlement Agreement’s five-year timetable. Except for the fact that the timeline is inconsistent with the Settlement Agreement, the implementation plan that was developed for the practice model represents the first credible plan of action for improving the quality and consistency of case practice. However, the plan will not be viable without the basic administrative and management tools and the other resources that are required by the Settlement Agreement, but not yet in place.
In less than four months, at the end of the 2010 calendar year, there will be two years remaining in the anticipated five-year reform process. The parties must confront this fact and the issues outlined above as they consider options for the next steps in this remedial process.
II. BACKGROUND The Settlement Agreement includes standards and outcomes the defendants are required to satisfy by January 4, 2013, through an incremental remedial process that measures progress in terms of annual benchmarks and interim milestones. Annual implementation plans, which the parties are required to develop jointly, are incorporated into the Settlement Agreement.16 These plans measure progress over discrete time periods, according to clearly defined standards. The first implementation plan, referred to as the Period 1 IP, extended from January 4, 2008 to April 30, 2009.17 As detailed in the Monitor’s June 2009 Report, the pace of progress
16 Settlement Agreement §I.B. 17 The parties filed a joint motion to extend the time to file the Period 2 IP. Agreed Motion for Consent Order Extending Time to File the Year Two Implementation Plan, December 30, 2008. In a consent order filed on January 6, 2009, the Court enlarged the deadline for filing the Period 2 IP to April 1, 2009 and extended the term of the Period 1 IP until such time as the Period 2 IP was signed by the parties and incorporated into the Settlement Agreement. Consent Order, January 6, 2009 ¶¶ 6-7. A March 27, 2009 consent order further enlarged the deadline for filing the Period 2 IP to May 1, 2009. The parties attempted to file the Period 2 IP on May 1, 2009, but due to technical difficulties related to the ECF system, it was not filed in the record until May 4, 2009. See Declaration of Technical Difficulties, filed May 4, 2009.
9

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 18 of 180
during Period 1 did not meet the Settlement Agreement’s requirements.18 For this reason, the
report noted that the defendants would need to accelerate and intensify their efforts to achieve the
required systemic reforms within the Settlement Agreement’s anticipated five-year timetable.
Because MDHS/DFCS had a relatively new and promising leadership team, the Monitor
concluded that substantial progress during Period 2 was likely if the reform initiative was adequately resourced and appropriately managed.19
Period 2 began on May 1, 2009 and ended on April 30, 2010. An outline of the Monitor’s
preliminary findings related to Period 2 was submitted to the parties on February 12, 2010. The
outline indicated that as of mid-February 2010, the majority of Period 2 requirements had not been satisfied. On April 9, 2010, pursuant to §VII.B. of the Settlement Agreement,20 plaintiffs
provided defendants with written notice of noncompliance with the Settlement Agreement and
the Period 2 IP. Thereafter, as contemplated by the Settlement Agreement, the parties finalized
an agreement related to corrective action that is referred to as the “Bridge Plan.” The Court approved the Bridge Plan in an Agreed Order dated June 10, 2010.21
The Bridge Plan requires specified corrective action measures between May 1 and September 1, 2010, a time period that is referred to as the “Bridge Period.”22 Assuming plaintiffs
18 June 2009 Report at 2. 19 Id. 20 This provision states:
If Plaintiffs believe that Defendants have failed to comply with any obligation under this Plan or an annual implementation plan, Plaintiffs will, prior to seeking judicial action to enforce the terms of this Plan or an annual implementation plan, give written notice of non-compliance to the State. Within 30 calendar days of Plaintiffs’ notice of non-compliance, Defendants shall submit a written response to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs agree to work in good faith with the State to agree on necessary corrective actions and avoid enforcement action, and may not initiate court action for 60 days from the date of Plaintiffs’ non-compliance notice. H owever, in case of an emergency posing an immediate threat to the health or safety of youths, Plaintiffs may omit the notice and cure requirements herein before seeking judicial action. Settlement Agreement §VII.B. 21 Agreed Order [hereinafter June 10, 2010 Agreed Order], filed June 10, 2010. 22 Id. at 1.
10

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 19 of 180
determine that the defendants substantially complied with the Bridge Plan, the parties will be required to negotiate the terms of the Period 3 Implementation Plan (“Period 3 IP”). However, in specified emergency circumstances, or if plaintiffs determine defendants are not substantially complying with any provision of the Bridge Plan, they may, without further notice, proceed with enforcement action. The Bridge Plan also recognizes that plaintiffs may proceed with an enforcement action for any violation of Period 2 requirements following the conclusion of the Bridge Period or following initiation of any enforcement action related to any provision of the Bridge Plan or related to specified emergencies.
A core requirement in the Bridge Plan is that defendants contract with CSF for additional technical assistance in management and planning activities associated with meeting the requirements of the Settlement Agreement and for a fiscal assessment related to federal funding. This requirement is intended to address key factors that contributed to the critical shortcomings in defendants’ performance during Period 2. As noted above, defendants’ efforts to implement the Bridge Plan have been bolstered by the involvement of consultants from CSF.23 In a status report which addressed defendants’ progress as of July 23, 2010, the Monitor found that there had been demonstrable progress in virtually all of the areas addressed in the Bridge Plan.24 Pursuant to the Bridge Plan, the Monitor is required to submit a report on defendants’ performance during the full four-month Bridge Period.
23 See related discussion supra p. 8. 24 Defendants’ progress on the Bridge Plan is summarized in The Court Monitor’s Status Report to the Court Regarding the June 10, 2010 Agreed Order for Corrective Action [hereinafter July 23, 2010 Report], filed July 23, 2010, at 4-6.
11

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 20 of 180
III. METHODOLOGY
The Monitor’s assessment of defendants’ progress toward meeting Period 2 IP requirements included site visits to DFCS’s regional and county offices25 and the office of the
private vendor responsible for operating the centralized statewide Hotline for reporting allegations of child abuse or neglect.26 In addition, face-to-face interviews were conducted with over 60 MDHS and DFCS managers, supervisors and caseworkers27 as well as Hotline
supervisors and their staff. Structured telephone interviews with 40 newly hired caseworkers and supervisors also were conducted.28 Foster and adoptive parents, service providers from private
agencies that contract with DFCS, class members and their biological parents, attorneys and
others who practice or work in the Youth Court, representatives from university social work
programs, members of child welfare organizations and advocacy groups, representatives from COA,29 and other public and private child welfare system stakeholders also were interviewed. The Monitor also attended meetings of foster parent support groups30 and convened periodic
meetings with the parties and COA representatives.
Informal status updates were provided by the defendants and their counsel on a periodic
basis. In addition, defendants submitted two written status updates to the Monitor and Plaintiffs’
25 Site visits to DFCS county offices during Period 2 included Alcorn, Hancock, Harrison, Hinds, Jackson, Jones, Lee, Rankin, Walthal, Warren and Yazoo counties. 26 As explained infra pp. 97-101, 134-135, during Period 2 defendants contracted with a vendor to operate a centralized Hotline for the intake and screening of abuse and neglect reports. 27 Structured face-to-face interviews were conducted between October 7, 2009 and May 25, 2010 with over 60 DFCS staff and managers. Some staff and managers were interviewed on multiple occasions. Although a number of interviews were conducted in less than one hour, many were several hours in duration. 28 The telephone interviews were conducted following the conclusion of Period 2, during late June and July 2010. 29 As explained infra pp. 135-136, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, defendants were required to achieve specific COA accreditation standards during Period 2. 30 Meetings with foster parent groups during Period 2 were attended by the Monitor and two Mississippi-based consultants, Dr. Linda Southward and Stacy Ferraro, Esq., who have performed various monitoring activities during Period 2. Their credentials and experience are well-known to the parties and are set forth in the Appendix to this Report. See Ex. 1A, resume of Dr. Linda Southward; Ex. 1B, resume of Stacy Ferraro, Esq. Dr. Southward attended the majority of meetings with foster parent support groups in various regions of the state.
12

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 21 of 180
counsel on progress related to Period 2 requirements.31 Relevant documents, memoranda and other records maintained by MDHS/DFCS were reviewed and analyzed, including the following: electronic and paper case records for resource families and children in foster care and their biological parents; serious incident reports (“SIRs”), including reports of maltreatment and fatalities in care; maltreatment investigation reports; reports concerning safety reviews and related records;32 staffing and personnel data, including organizational charts and records related to hiring and attrition; requests for proposals (“RFPs”) and contract documents; foster care review records and reports; training records, curricula and other documents concerning training provided to caseworkers, supervisors and resource parents;33 data related to MACWIS such as monthly reports, change order requests and tracking information, a draft user manual, training materials, and system assessments; policies and practice guides; personnel data, including position descriptions, vacancy postings, and staffing rosters. The Monitor reviewed federal audit reports and related corrective action plans as well as defendants’ submissions to COA and related standards/memoranda prepared by COA. The Monitor also consulted with various child welfare system experts and other consultants during Period 2.
The Monitor conducted a case record review related to the Settlement Agreement’s child safety standards during Period 2.34 The case record review was based on an initial sample of 240 case records randomly selected from 797 reports of maltreatment of children in care statewide during a one-year period. Defendants were asked to submit to the Monitor all MACWIS reports
31 These updates did not provide fully accurate information about defendants’ progress. This shortcoming appears related to deficits in defendants’ capacity to manage their obligations in this lawsuit and monitor their progress. Some of the corrective action undertaken during the Bridge Period is intended to bolster these capacities. See July 23, 2010 Report at 5. 32 Defendants were required to conduct special safety reviews for foster homes and facilities that had received reports of maltreatment within specified time periods. Each review resulted in the issuance of a report, and it is these reports that were reviewed and analyzed. See Period 2 IP §II.6.e.-f. and infra pp. 101-106. 33 The term “resource parents” is used to refer to both foster and adoptive parents. 34 A preliminary summary of the findings from the case record review was provided to the parties on April 5, 2010.
13

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 22 of 180
of maltreatment of children in foster care between June 1, 2008 and June 30, 2009. Although
defendants made substantial efforts to produce these reports, they acknowledged difficulties identifying all cases responsive to the request. As explained in Section IV.A. of this report,35 the
case record review revealed errors in the designation of some reports as reports of maltreatment
of children in DFCS custody. For this reason, the Monitor is not confident that a complete list of all maltreatment reports entered in MACWIS during the review period was produced.36
Ultimately, defendants provided the Monitor with a final list that identified 797 reports of
maltreatment of children in care recorded in MACWIS during the review period. A random
sample of 240 case records selected from the 797 reports was assessed during the record review process.37 Fifty-five of the 240 case records reviewed were excluded from the analysis because they did not meet the criteria for review.38 The remaining 185 case records constitute a
statistically valid sample designed to produce a + 6.32 percent margin of error with 95 percent
confidence in the results.
A structured instrument was used for data collection. The instrument was developed
during 2009 by the Monitor in collaboration with the parties, their designees, and several expert consultants engaged by the Monitor to assist with this project.39 Final revisions to the instrument
were made after it was pilot-tested by DFCS staff and by the Monitor’s staff and consultants.
35 See Ex. 60, infra note 357. 36 DFCS staff assigned to conduct safety reviews pursuant to Period 2 IP §II.6.e.-f. reported similar difficulties obtaining an accurate list of maltreatment investigations covering this and other time periods. See infra pp. 101-106 for the narrative related to the Period 2 safety review requirements. 37 The term “case record” in this context refers to the electronic case record maintained in MACWIS and the corresponding paper record. 38 For example, case records were excluded because they did not contain a report of maltreatment in care; there was no information in MACWIS about the intake; the report of maltreatment was screened-in (i.e., accepted for investigation) but it was a duplicate report; the alleged perpetrator was a parent and the report was based on allegations that occurred during a trial home placement or an unsupervised visit; or, alleged abuse by a parentperpetrator occurred before the child was in MDHS custody. 39 The Monitor engaged Judith Meltzer, the co-director of the Center for the Study of Social Policy in Washington, D.C., to provide consultative services related to this project. Ms. Meltzer, an expert in child welfare systems, and
14

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 23 of 180
On September 14 and 15, 2009, a review team comprised of 13 DFCS employees40 participated in an eight-hour training session on the instrument and the case record review process. The training curriculum was designed and facilitated by the Monitor’s consultants in consultation with DFCS staff. The training focused on a review of the data collection instrument as well as the relevant navigation in MACWIS and in the paper case record. Trainees conducted an in-depth review of a sample case record in order to promote uniformity in the reviewer decision-making process.
During the review, all paper records were collected from the county offices and stored onsite at the MDHS state office under the supervision of a designated DFCS staff member. The paper records were inventoried and tracked by a designated member of the Monitor’s staff. Case records were reviewed between September 22 and 30, 2009 by a seven-person team at the MDHS state office. The review process was supervised by a three-person quality assurance (“QA”) team led by one of the Monitor’s expert consultants, a member of the Monitor’s staff and a DFCS manager with extensive experience supervising the DFCS case record review process. QA team members checked data collection instruments for completeness and consistency prior to data entry and analysis. All records reviewed by the review team were subject to a second review process by the QA team to ensure accuracy, consistency and an appropriate level of inter-rater reliability. The non-DFCS staff members on the QA team remained on-site until October 2, 2009 to conduct a supplementary review of the 55 excluded records.
two of her staff, Sarah Morrison and Rachel Joseph, have substantial experience conducting case record reviews in similar contexts. See www.cssp.org. In addition, a sociologist, Dr. Troy Blanchard, an associate professor at Louisiana State University, was also engaged to perform various statistical analyses related to the case record review. Dr. Blanchard’s experience and credentials are set forth in the Appendix to this report. Ex. 1C, curriculum vitae of Dr. Troy Blanchard. 40 The employees were selected by MDHS/DFCS management.
15

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 24 of 180
Subsequent to the on-site review, the data collection instruments were coded and analyzed using the standard Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (“SPSS”) program. Apparent discrepancies revealed by the analyses required further review of certain case records to confirm or otherwise reconcile seemingly discrepant data. These supplemental reviews, which were conducted by the Monitor’s staff, were successful in resolving questions about the data that emerged from the statistical analyses. Additional data analyses were conducted as a result of the supplemental reviews. The Monitor’s findings from the case record review are presented in Section IV.A. of this report.
IV. FINDINGS This section is divided into two parts. The first part presents the Monitor’s assessment of the progress that has been made toward meeting each of the Period 2 requirements and also summarizes the COA findings regarding the accreditation standards that the defendants were required to meet during Period 2. The second part presents each specific COA finding regarding whether the policy-related documents defendants were required to submit to COA during Period 2 satisfied each of the applicable COA standards.
A. Court Monitor’s Findings Related to Settlement Agreement and Period 2 Implementation Plan Requirements
The Monitor’s findings related to Period 2 requirements in the Settlement Agreement and the Period 2 IP follow below. All requirements are set out verbatim in bold type-face. The Monitor’s findings are summarized in the narrative that appears below the entries for each requirement.
Period 2 IP §I.1.a. I. Administration and Management Implementation Steps
1. Agency Leadership and Administration a. With the exception of the MACWIS Director position, by September 1, 2009, DFCS will have filled all unit director positions with qualified
16

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 25 of 180
individuals. By November 1, 2009, DFCS will hire a qualified MACWIS Director.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.1.a.: As explained below, the MACWIS director and an additional unit director were hired in advance of the required deadlines. All of the remaining positions were filled during Period 2, within several months following the prescribed deadline.
DFCS has three management levels: office directors, bureau directors, and division directors. During Period 1, defendants were required to hire a new DFCS director41 and assemble a management team capable of assisting with the reform efforts.42 A significant recruitment effort was conducted and a new director, the MDHS deputy director for family and children’s services, began working at the agency in early September 2008. At the end of Period 1, DFCS had 12 division director positions, four of which were vacant. By June 2009, following a reorganization and realignment process, the office director positions and nearly all of the bureau director positions were filled.43 Pursuant to the Period 2 IP, except for the November 1, 2009 deadline for hiring the MACWIS director, defendants were required to fill the remaining management vacancies by September 1, 2009.44
Defendants hired a well-qualified MACWIS director who began working at DFCS on September 1, 2009, in advance of the specified November 1, 2009 deadline. One additional management vacancy was filled before the applicable September 1, 2009 deadline.45 The
41 Settlement Agreement §II.A.1.a. and b. 42 Period 1 IP §I.1. 43 The relevant background is detailed in the June 2009 Report at 21-23. 44 Data submitted by the DFCS personnel unit indicate the following division director II positions were vacant at the start of Period 2: evaluation and monitoring; congregate care and therapeutic placement; primary prevention; and tertiary services. The data submitted also indicate that the contracts and grants management portion was filled on May 1 2009 and became vacant on June 30, 2010. The November 2009 deadline for hiring the MACWIS director takes into account the difficulties defendants encountered identifying experienced candidates for this pivotal position. 45 According to a report submitted by the DFCS personnel unit, the division director for congregate care and therapeutic placements began employment on June 29, 2009.
17

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 26 of 180
remaining vacancies were filled by February 2, 2010.46 As would be expected in any large
organization, there has been turnover in some division director positions since the start of
Period 2.47
Period 2 IP §I.1.a. Relevant COA Standards: PA-AM 2.01, PA-AM 3.04, PA-AM 6.01, PA-AM 6.02, PA-AM 7.01, PAAM 7.02, PA-FC 5.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.1.a., Relevant COA Standards: Based on the
documentation submitted by defendants to COA, COA found the documents were in compliance
with six standards and in substantial compliance with one standard. The COA’s findings are
addressed in further detail in Section IV.B. of this report.48
Settlement Agreement §II.A.2.a. II. Standards
A. Administration and Management Standards 2. Human Resources Management a. Workforce: By the end of implementation Period 2: 10) At least 50% of DFCS caseworkers shall carry a caseload that does not exceed Plan caseload requirements. No more than 20% of caseworkers shall carry a caseload exceeding twice the Plan caseload requirements. 11) No more than 20% of supervisors who are responsible for supervising DFCS caseworkers shall be responsible for supervising more than five caseworkers. 12) Supervisors will no longer be assigned primary responsibility for providing direct casework for any cases, unless under the extenuating circumstances exception as described above.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.A.2.a.: Defendants have made notable
progress increasing caseworker and supervisory staffing levels since 2008. This is a significant
accomplishment. However, there is evidence of continued critical staffing shortages in some
counties, particularly counties with a high number of children in DFCS custody. Moreover, the
defendants have not tracked and reported on caseworker and supervisory workloads as
46 The tertiary services position was filled on November 7, 2009; the evaluation and monitoring position was filled on January 21, 2010; and the primary prevention position was filled on January 18, 2010. 47 For example, the division director for tertiary services recently assumed a bureau director position, leaving the tertiary services position vacant. Defendants reported recruiting efforts to fill that position as well as the division director vacancy in primary prevention were ongoing. 48 Infra pp. 136-137.
18

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 27 of 180
contemplated by the Settlement Agreement and required by the Period 2 IP.49 Significant limitations in data collection, recording and analysis systems, and practices related to caseworker and supervisory workloads prevented the Monitor from making a determination about whether Period 1 workload requirements were satisfied.50 These limitations, which are described in the Monitor’s June 2009 Report,51 were not corrected during Period 2. Accordingly, defendants were required to submit validated workload data consistent with the Settlement Agreement’s requirements during the Bridge Period.52 The Monitor is evaluating the data that has been submitted by the defendants and will report on this matter in her forthcoming report on the Bridge Plan. These issues are described more fully below.
Historically, as explained in the Monitor’s June 2009 Report, an insufficient number of caseworkers and supervisors has contributed to high caseloads, fueling attrition levels and creating formidable recruitment challenges.53 This has had a critical impact on the ability to serve class members adequately.54 The workload requirements in the Settlement Agreement were intended to address DFCS’s chronic staffing deficits by establishing four types of workload limitations: 1) caseload ceilings for caseworkers with dedicated caseloads; 2) caseload ceilings for caseworkers with mixed caseloads; 3) limitations regarding the maximum number of caseworkers each DFCS supervisor may supervise; and 4) restrictions on supervisors providing direct casework services.55
49 Settlement Agreement §II.A.2.a.; Period 2 IP §I.5.b. 50 June 2009 Report at 25-35. 51 Id. 52 June 10, 2010 Agreed Order at ¶ 7.a., Ex. App. 1-2. 53 June 2009 Report at n. 79 and related text. 54 Id. at n. 78. 55 Settlement Agreement §II.A.2.a.1.-2., 3.-6.
19

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 28 of 180
For caseworkers with dedicated caseloads, the Settlement Agreement lists eight unique service categories, each with different caseload requirements.56 Most DFCS caseworkers have
mixed caseloads instead of dedicated caseloads. For caseworkers with mixed caseloads, the
Settlement Agreement identifies 11 distinct service categories and specifies the number of
minutes per month that a case within each category should be allotted for purposes of calculating a caseworker’s caseload.57 Each caseworker’s mixed caseload may not exceed a total of 6,960
minutes of case-related work per month, which is computed according to the minute allotments that are prescribed by the Settlement Agreement for each service category.58
Because nearly all DFCS caseworkers carry mixed caseloads, defendants must track
caseload data according to the 11 service categories and the corresponding minute requirements
that are defined in the Settlement Agreement. Defendants use MACWIS to record and track
these data. As explained in the Monitor’s June 2009 Report, MACWIS enables defendants to track caseworker workloads according to 26 different service types.59 Five of the service types in
MACWIS are for casework services not specified in the Settlement Agreement, and two additional service types are not used by DFCS employees.60 Caseworkers use the remaining 19
service types to record their work according to the categories reflected in the Settlement
Agreement. One casework service in the Settlement Agreement is not tracked, nor is it trackable
56 These categories are adoption, child protection, ongoing foster care, new application licensing, dedicated in-home protection, dedicated in-home dependency/prevention, dedicated renewal licensing, and dedicated abuse and neglect. Settlement Agreement §II.A.2.a.1. 57 The service categories identified for mixed caseloads are adoption, child protection investigation, foster care, licensing-new application, in-home dependency-protection, in-home dependency-prevention, licensing, general intake, intra-state home studies, inter-state compact for the placement of children [hereinafter ICPC], and courtesy interviews. Id. §II.A.2.a.2. 58 For example, child protection investigations are allotted 484 minutes per case per month and foster care cases are allotted 507 minutes per case per month. Id. Although the Settlement Agreement defines what constitutes a case for purposes of the dedicated caseload calculation, it is silent about what constitutes a case for purposes of the generic caseload calculation. Compare Id. §II.A.2.a.1. with Id. §II.A.2.a.2. 59 Ex. 1D, Draft – Reporting Workload Summary, August 18, 2008, excerpt pp. 1, 4. The draft manual lists 25 service types. 60 This is based on information provided by MACWIS staff with substantial experience working with the system.
20

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 29 of 180

as a service in the current version of MACWIS.61 The table below, which is reproduced from the

Monitor’s June 2009 Report, lists each of the Settlement Agreement service types with cross

references to the service types that DFCS’s employees can record in MACWIS.

Settlement Agreement Type
Adoption Child protection investigation Foster care
Licensing In-home dependency—protection
In-home dependency—prevention
Licensing—renewal General intake Intra-state home studies Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children (ICPC) Courtesy Interviews

Minutes Per Month Required by
Settlement Agreement 807 484
507
470
410

MACWIS Service Type
Adoption COS Investigation Level 2; or Investigation Level 3
Placement COR; and Placement COS -------------OR------------Placement R&S
Resource Inquiry; and Resource Home Study
Protective Service COR; and Protective Service COS -------------OR------------Protective Service R&S

275

Prevention COR; and

Prevention COS

-------------OR-------------

Prevention R&S

191

Resource Renewal

59

General Intake

282

Court Ord Rltv Appl; or

ICPC Application

106

ICPC Incoming

65

Not captured in MACWIS

Minutes Assigned in MACWIS
807 480 480
132 375 -------507
338 132
60 351 ------410
60 215 ------275
191 60 282 282 106
0

In June 2009, the Monitor reported that there are at least two ways in which MACWIS stores casework data that significantly reduce the accuracy of the data.62 First, MACWIS overcounts caseload minutes for five of the services specified in the Settlement Agreement.63 For these service groups, MACWIS does not pro-rate the number of minutes that a caseworker works on a case according to the day of the month the case worker is assigned to the case and the day of the month the caseworker closes the case. Rather, if a caseworker’s caseload includes an assigned case that falls within one of these five service categories for one or more days in a given

61 Courtesy interviews are not tracked. 62 June 2009 Report at 31-33. 63 The services for which minutes are over-counted are: adoption, ICPC, foster care, in-home dependency prevention, and in-home dependency protection.
21

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 30 of 180
month, the caseworker’s caseload calculation reflects the entire minute allotment for the case for that month. MACWIS’s method of counting caseworker minutes results in an overstatement of the number of minutes used to calculate individual caseloads, which in turn could result in an understatement of the number of caseworkers working at or below the levels prescribed by the Settlement Agreement.
A second problem with the data collected in MACWIS that also is described in the June 2009 Report is that certain casework services are not accurately accounted for in all of the months a caseworker is assigned to and required to be working on a case. Specifically, the minute allocations for four categories of services64 are not accounted for on a pro-rated basis or otherwise during each of the months a caseworker is assigned to one of these types of cases. Rather, the monthly minute allocation established by the Settlement Agreement is recorded in a caseworker’s workload data only in the month that the case is closed in MACWIS. The minutes are not proportionately allocated across the months in which the case is assigned to the caseworker. If a caseworker began and completed the casework in a single calendar month, this would not create a problem. However, if the casework extended over two or more calendar months, as is often the case, the caseworker’s workload data in MACWIS only would reflect the case assignment in the month the case was closed in MACWIS. Thus, in some months the caseworker’s caseload would be under-counted, and in others it would be over-counted.
There are other limitations in how MACWIS stores caseload data, as well as in recording and analysis systems and practices that are described in the June 2009 Report. These limitations affected the accuracy of MACWIS workload data and defendants’ ability to produce workload
64 The service types that are not accounted for are: intra-state home studies, child protective investigations, licensing, and licensing-renewal.
22

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 31 of 180
reports that conform to the Settlement Agreement’s requirements during Period 1.65 In an effort
to address some of these concerns, the Monitor recommended that the parties consider modifying
the Settlement Agreement’s caseload requirements during Period 1. Although negotiations concerning a modification proposal were conducted during Period 2,66 an agreement has not been finalized.67 Moreover, the limitations in MACWIS that were described in the Monitor’s June
2009 have not been corrected.
During the Bridge Period, defendants reported that they can now produce accurate and
validated workload reports that conform to the Settlement Agreement’s requirements by relying
on data obtained for MACWIS and other sources. Defendants have explained that they are
waiting for the caseload modification proposal to be finalized before changing how MACWIS
collects, records and analyzes workload data. The Monitor expects to review defendants’
alternative methodology and report on this matter in her forthcoming report on the Bridge Plan.
Despite the limitations in MACWIS, defendants have made progress increasing staffing
levels for caseworkers and supervisors since 2008. According to MDHS/DFCS staffing reports,
between July 1, 2008 and June 30, 2010 staffing levels for caseworkers and supervisors increased in the aggregate by approximately 25 percent.68 Approximately 151 new caseworkers and five
65 For example, defendants report that the minutes allocated in MACWIS and reflected in the Settlement Agreement for adoption and placement cases do not reflect current business practice and result in inaccurate workload computations. See also June 2009 Report at 33-34. 66 Id. at 34. 67 In the June 2009 Report, the Monitor noted that the Settlement Agreement’s caseload requirements use caseworkers as the basic unit of analysis (i.e., the percentage of caseworkers who are at or below defined workload standards). This structure provides some incentive to distribute workloads among caseworkers in a manner that may satisfy the Settlement Agreement’s caseload standards but undercuts improvements in case practice. A modification to caseload requirements could address this issue and ensure a reasonable distribution of cases among caseworkers. Focusing on cases as the unit of analysis rather than caseworker workloads may provide a more direct and robust measure of whether cases are managed by caseworkers who have reasonable workloads. Id. at 35 n. 104. 68 Ex. 2, Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Caseworker and Area Social Work Supervisor Hiring, Attrition, and Workforce Size, FY 2007 - FY 2010. This chart shows caseworker and supervisory staffing levels increased from 616 to 769 employees. In addition, the chart reflects that for the last two fiscal years caseworker and supervisory hiring has outpaced attrition. Based on DFCS data, it appears that the agency hired one new caseworker
23

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 32 of 180
new supervisors hired during Period 2 were employed at DFCS as of May 31, 2010.69 As of May 31, 2010, DFCS had 142 supervisory staff and 620 caseworkers.70 Fifteen percent of the supervisors and 66 percent of the caseworkers were hired since the end of the 2007 calendar year,71 and in Period 2 alone 24 percent of the caseworkers and approximately four percent of the supervisors were hired.
As of May 31, 2010, there were five vacant supervisory positions and 153 vacant caseworker positions at DFCS. At the start of Fiscal Year 2011 (“FY11”), which began July 1, 2010, defendants changed the staffing pattern relative to Fiscal Year 2010 (“FY10”) for caseworkers and supervisors. Defendants increased by 25 positions the number of funded, vacant supervisory positions and decreased by 35 positions the number of funded, vacant caseworker positions. To achieve the increase in supervisory positions, 25 of the 153 vacant, funded caseworker positions were converted to supervisory positions. Two other vacant caseworker positions were reallocated to MDHS/DFCS central office positions. Defendants also report that eight additional caseworker positions were eliminated as part of a legislative requirement to reduce the size of the DFCS workforce by 15 full-time employees in FY11.72
Defendants did not fill all funded caseworker and supervisory vacancies during Period 2. As of May 31, 2010, the average county caseworker vacancy rate was 17 percent,73 and
or supervisor in FY 2008 but lost 97, hired 202 new caseworkers or supervisors in FY 2009 but lost 113, and hired 163 new caseworkers or supervisors in FY 2010 but lost 99. 69 Ex. 3, Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Number of Caseworkers and Supervisors Employed by MDHS/DFCS on May 31, 2010 Hired by State Between May 1, 2009 and April 30, 2010, by Year and Month Hired. 70 Ex. 4, Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Status of Caseworker and Area Social Work Supervisor Positions as of May 31, 2010 and July 22, 2010. 71 Ex. 5, Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Year that Area Social Work Supervisors and Caseworkers Employed by the State of Mississippi as of May 31, 2010 Were Hired. The MDHS/DFCS Personnel Unit was not able to provide data regarding the date each caseworker and supervisor began working at DFCS. 72 See Ex. 4, supra note 70. 73 Ex. 6, Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Status of Caseworker Positions as of May 31, 2010, by County. This chart shows the number of vacant and funded caseworker positions in each county as of May 31, 2010.
24

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 33 of 180
the average supervisory vacancy rate was three percent.74 Among the 20 counties that employ
the largest number of caseworkers and supervisors, there were only two supervisory vacancies on
May 31, 2010.75 This shortage in supervisory positions helps to explain why DFCS reallocated
25 vacant caseworker positions to supervisory positions at the start of FY11.76
As noted above, defendants reported during the Bridge Period that they had developed an
alternative method for calculating caseloads that does not rely exclusively on MACWIS data.
According to defendants’ calculations, as of May 31, 2010, notwithstanding increased hiring,
there were significant staffing deficits in a number of counties, especially counties with high
caseloads.77 These deficits have continued.
Period 2 IP §I.2.a. I. Administration and Management Implementation Steps
2. Human Resources Management a. Work force: By September 1, 2009, Defendants shall develop and begin implementing a written Workforce Plan to recruit and retain sufficient DFCS professional and support staff as necessary to comply with the caseload requirements specified in section II.A.2.a of the Settlement Agreement. The Workforce Plan shall identify the specific steps, strategies, financial resources, and short- and long-term staffing goals with related timeframes that are necessary to meet the staffing requirements of the Settlement Agreement.
74 Ex. 7, Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Status of Area Social Work Supervisor Positions as of May 31, 2010, by County. This chart also shows the number of vacant and funded supervisory positions in each county as of May 31, 2010. 75 One of the vacancies was in Harrison County, and one was in Desoto County. However, defendants report that supervisory and other position vacancies may be reassigned among county offices on an as-needed basis. Ex. 8, Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Caseworker and Area Social Work Supervisor Positions, by Status, for 20 Counties Employing the Largest Number of MDHS/DFCS Staff. 76 Although the sample size is limited, it is noteworthy that five supervisors from four different counties (Harrison, Hinds Jones and Lee), out of the 16 supervisors from eight different counties who were interviewed face-to-face, reported supervising between six and nine caseworkers. Moreover, four of six newly hired supervisors who were interviewed by telephone (two of whom were also interviewed face-to-face), reported supervising between six and eight caseworkers at the start of their supervisory tenure. 77 For example, according to data provided to the Monitor by the defendants on July 22, 2010, as of May 31, 2010, Hinds County had 29 caseworker vacancies out of 55 allocated positions, Harrison County had 10 caseworker vacancies out of 32 allocated positions, Jackson County had 10 caseworker vacancies out of 38 allocated positions, and Adams County had six vacancies out of 21 allocated positions. Not surprisingly, caseworkers in these counties report having high caseloads. Moreover, some supervisors have reported carrying their own cases to ensure cases are covered, or assisting with casework on specific cases to help overworked caseworkers. One supervisor in Hinds County recently reported a current caseload of 20 cases as well as responsibility for supervising six caseworkers.
25

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 34 of 180
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.2.a.: The Workforce Plan was not developed and implemented by September 1, 2009, as required. This finding is explained below.
A Workforce Plan marked “Draft,” which states it was revised on January 20, 2010, was submitted to the Monitor on January 22, 2010.78 The submission does not meet Period 2 requirements for the following reasons: 1) it does not address the number of professional and support staff necessary to meet caseload requirements; and 2) it does not correlate timeframes with specific steps, strategies, financial resources and short- and long-term staffing goals, as required. Moreover, the draft appears to rely on stale information related to recruitment and retention of caseworkers and is silent with respect to supervisory and support staff.79
Although certain recruitment and retention strategies are identified in the draft, they are not keyed to goals and action steps and thus do not indicate a viable plan was being developed. For example, the draft refers to the unfunded career ladder and realignment package as retention methods. Although approved by the State Personnel Board (“SPB”) in 2008, the career ladder and realignment package were not funded. A viable plan would address the reasons why funding was not approved and outline the strategies and related action steps necessary to obtain funding that correspond to specific time periods. Alternative strategies to substitute for the incentive provided by the career ladder and realignment package, given the fact that funding has not been authorized, would also be described.80
78 Ex. 9, MDHS-Division of Family and Children’s Services, Workforce Plan, State Fiscal year 2010, DRAFT, revised as of 1/20/2010. The pagination of this document is not sequential. It goes from pages two to six and then continues with pages two to five; however, the document appears to be complete. 79 The draft relies on information obtained from a poll of workers hired in 2008 as well as retention data from 2007 and 2008. 80 The Monitor has analyzed salary data for both caseworker and supervisor positions. The Monitor’s analysis of salary data for caseworkers employed by DFCS as of May 31, 2010 indicates the overall average salary for all caseworkers was $29,488. Among caseworkers hired since 2008, the average salary was $27,847. Ex. 10, Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Average Salaries of Caseworkers Employed by MDHS/DFCS as of May 31, 2010, by Year Hired. This chart also depicts the average salary for caseworkers based on year hired. The analysis also revealed that the average overall salary for supervisors employed by DFCS as of May 31, 2010 was
26

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 35 of 180
Additionally, and of equal concern, the draft states the agency “feels very confident in its goal to fill the remaining vacant and frontline supervisor positions.”81 However, the draft reports that there were a combined total of 150 vacant frontline and supervisory positions for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010, and it ignores the fact that DFCS does not have the infrastructure to achieve a net gain of 150 new professional staff. If attrition rates remain consistent with FY10 levels, DFCS would need to hire nearly 200 employees within six months to achieve a net gain of 150 employees. A viable recruitment and retention plan would identify and consider the infrastructure limitations and present realistic hiring goals that are correlated to and informed by an infrastructure development strategy. Indeed, retention goals are undermined by insufficiencies in the infrastructure to support existing and newly-hired personnel. As explained more fully herein, these insufficiencies created significant challenges for the defendants during Period 2, contributing to delays in providing pre-service training,82 a shortage of adequate office space and limitations in reasonable access to computer equipment and services for newly hired staff in at least some counties,83 and persistent limitations in caseworker and supervisory access to MACWIS.84
$41,672. Among supervisors hired since 2008, the average salary was $39,518. Ex. 11, Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Average Salaries of Area Social Work Supervisors Employed by MDHS/DFCS as of May 31, 2010, by Year Hired. Like Ex. 10, this chart depicts the average salary for supervisors based on year hired. In addition, the Monitor’s analysis indicates that the average budgeted salaries for vacant caseworker positions as of May 31, 2010 was $27,721, which is commensurate with the salaries of caseworkers hired since 2008. Ex. 12, Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Average Salaries of MDHS/DFCS Caseworkers Hired by State in 2008-2010 vs. Average Budgeted Salaries for Caseworker Vacancies as of May 31, 2010. 81 See Ex. 9, supra note 78, at 4. 82 The delays in delivering pre-service training are described infra pp. 43-46. 83 These issues are addressed infra pp. 60-64, note 221. 84 Id.
27

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 36 of 180
Period 2 IP §I.2.b. I. Administration and Management Implementation Steps
2. Human Resources Management b. Supervisor Access: By July 1, 2009, caseworkers shall have access to a supervisor by telephone 24 hours a day.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.2.b.: This requirement has been satisfied. The
current ASWS job description indicates that supervisors are required to be on-call on a 24-hour
basis.85 The Monitor’s interviews with caseworkers and their supervisors in various DFCS
county offices establish that on-call practices conform to this policy requirement. Generally,
supervisory on-call schedules are established on a rotational basis and communicated to
caseworkers who rely upon them to contact supervisors during weeknights and on the weekends,
particularly with respect to new intakes.
Period 2 IP §I.2.b. Relevant COA Standards: PA-HR 3.01, PA-HR 3.02, PA-HR 6.01, PA-HR 6.02, PA-HR 7.01, PAHR 7.03, PA-TS 3.01, PA-TS 3.03.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.2.b., Relevant COA Standards: Based on the
documentation submitted by defendants to COA, COA found the documents were in compliance
with five standards and in substantial compliance with two standards. COA did not evaluate one
of the standards during Period 2. The COA’s findings are addressed in further detail in Section
IV.B. of this report.86
Period 2 IP §I.2.c. I. Administration and Management Implementation Steps
2. Human Resources Management c. Worker and Supervisor Qualifications: Defendants shall develop and begin to implement a plan with timeframes and specific action steps for bringing its current staff into compliance with the worker and supervisor qualification requirements mandated by section II.A.2.b of the Settlement Agreement and by COA standards, including PA-AS 13.02; PA-CPS 14.02; PA-AS 13.01; PACPS 14.01; PA-FC 19.01; PA-FC 19.05; and PA-CPS 10.02. Such plan shall be developed by September 1, 2009.
85 Ex.13, DHS-Area Social Work Supervisor, position description, at 5. 86 Infra pp. 137-139.
28

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 37 of 180
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.2.c.: The Worker and Supervisor Qualification Requirement Plan was not developed and implemented by September 1, 2009, as required. A Plan was submitted to the Monitor on January 22, 2010.87 As explained below, the submission does not meet Period 2 requirements.
Neither timeframes nor specific action steps for bringing the current DFCS staff into compliance with the qualification requirements of the Settlement Agreement are included in defendants’ submission. For example, the submission lists 13 bulleted topics under the title “Workforce Development Plans,”88 but only some of these topics relate to strategies for bringing the current staff into compliance with the qualification requirements, albeit in a general way.89 The required action steps and timelines related to these general strategies are not addressed by the Plan. Additionally, the draft includes “move away from hiring of related degrees” as an apparent goal, but it does not list the action steps necessary to accomplish this goal.90
Other topics listed under the “Workforce Development Plans” heading do not address qualification requirements. For example the draft cites “heavy recruitment strategies in critical needs counties (most severely understaffed regions VII-W, VII-E, V-E)” and “use part time positions to fill gaps in coastal counties – for resource development” under this heading.91 These are not strategies that address the worker and supervisor qualification requirements.
87 Ex. 14, Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children’s Services, Worker and Supervisor Qualification Plan, January 21, 2010. 88 Id. at 5. 89 For example, among the 13 items, the following general strategies are listed: 1) continue professional enhancement program-reimburse costs of education; 2) offer more training opportunities to current staff; 3) enhance training to supervisors and provide strengthened ongoing training to supervisors; and 4) continue partnerships/contractual agreements with universities. 90 Id. 91 Id.
29

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 38 of 180
Settlement Agreement §II.A.2.c.92 II. Standards
A. Administration and Management Standards 2. Human Resources Management c. Training: By the end of implementation Period 2: 7) All caseworkers shall receive a minimum of 40 hours of ongoing in-service training each year, and all supervisors shall receive a minimum of 24 hours of ongoing in-service training each year.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.A.2.c.: This requirement was not satisfied during Period 2 because DFCS does not offer comprehensive in-service child welfare training to all caseworkers and supervisors as required by the Settlement Agreement. As explained below, DFCS did not operate an in-service training program during Period 2. Instead, the agency offered limited in-service training opportunities related to Settlement Agreement requirements to caseworkers and supervisors. The few in-service courses offered by DFCS were not integrated with, nor did they build upon, the pre-service training curriculum. And while additional in-service training opportunities were offered to supervisors during Period 2, these programs, which have some significant limitations, were not part of a cohesive and comprehensive training program. Moreover, even if the in-service training program were adequate, because defendants did not fully implement a required system to track staff participation in training, neither the defendants nor the Monitor can determine readily what type of training each individual DFCS caseworker and supervisor received during Period 2.
Background Related to Settlement Agreement §II.A.2.c. The staff training program is essential to the reform effort.93 The viability of the program is contingent on several factors, including skilled leadership, experienced trainers, a comprehensive curriculum (based on a clearly defined practice model, sound policy and practical
92 The identical requirement is included in §I.2.d.5. of the Period 2 IP. 93 The Monitor addressed the critical role training plays in her June 2009 Report. June 2009 Report at 39-41.
30

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 39 of 180
guidance, and CQI data), an adequate supply of instructional supplies and equipment, and the tools to track and monitor employee participation in such a program.94
The Settlement Agreement includes requirements addressing both pre-service and inservice training hours for caseworkers and supervisors.95 Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, defendants are required to maintain a Training Unit that has “sufficient staffing, funding, and other resources to assure it can provide comprehensive child welfare training to enable all caseworkers, supervisors and other child welfare agency employees to comply with the relevant mandates of [the Settlement Agreement], DFCS policy, and reasonable professional standards.”96
The Training Unit was understaffed during Period 1 and remained understaffed during Period 2, without the other resources necessary to deliver the comprehensive training required by the Settlement Agreement. The impact of these deficiencies was exacerbated by the increased demands placed on the Training Unit by virtue of the fact that at least 15 percent of the total DFCS staff employed as of May 31, 2010 were hired during Period 2.97 As explained below, these limitations impeded progress toward meeting many, albeit not all, Period 2 requirements related to caseworker and supervisory training.
Defendants expected to increase staffing levels in the Training Unit by July 1, 2009, by adding 13 additional training coordinator positions, including six new trainers for each of the six new regions that were established during Period 198 as well as at least five additional trainers to
94 These factors are referenced in the June 2009 Report. Id. at 39. 95 Settlement Agreement §II.A.2.c.2. 96 Id. §II.A.2.c.1. 97 Compare, Ex. 15, chart prepared by Office of the Court Monitor, Total MDHS/DFCS Agency Positions as of May 31, 2010, by Status, showing that as of May 31, 2010 there were 1204 positions allocated to the DFCS workforce of which 1008 were filled, with Ex. 16, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Number of Employees Working for DFCS on May 31, 2010 Hired by State Between May 1, 2009 and April 30, 2010, by Year, Month, and Position. 98 As described supra p. 5, during Period 1 defendants changed DFCS’s administrative and management structure, expanding from seven to 13 regions. June 2009 Report at 4.
31

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 40 of 180
conduct supervisory and resource worker training statewide.99 The pre-service training capacity
of the Training Unit was not augmented by either hiring staff to fill these additional positions, or
supplementing in-house training capacity by other means, despite the high number of
caseworkers and supervisors who were hired during Period 2. This increase in newly-hired staff presented considerable challenges for the DFCS Training Unit.100
As described more fully below, a required training plan was not developed, and there
were substantial delays in conducting pre-service training for many newly-hired staff during Period 2.101 The delays in training new staff had a significant impact on case practice in county
offices that were understaffed. Moreover, staff report that class sizes often exceeded the number of students for which the training sessions were designed.102 In addition to being understaffed,
shortages of basic supplies and equipment exacerbated the challenges that confronted the Training Unit during Period 2.103 Further, neither the in-service training program nor the
tracking system required by the Settlement Agreement were implemented during Period 2.
In-Service Training The Settlement Agreement’s in-service104 training requirements are set forth below:
c. Training: 2) Subsequent to Court approval of this Plan, . . . all caseworkers shall
receive a minimum of 40 hours of ongoing in-service training each
99 Id. at 40-41. 100 At the end of Period 2, the Training Unit had six trainers. An additional trainer position and a training supervisor position were both vacant throughout Period 2. As of July 26, 2010, the positions had not been filled. A supervisory position in the Training Unit also remained unfilled during Period 2. Thus, in addition to the six trainers, the Training Unit was staffed during Period 2 with one clerk, one e-learning manager, one curriculum designer, and one recruitment/university liaison. Although the e-learning position was filled, the defendants do not have an e-learning program. The Monitor has been informed that there is no current system capacity to support such a program. 101 These matters are addressed infra pp. 43-46. 102 According to staff, although the pre-service training classes for caseworkers are designed for 12 to 14 students, many enrolled nearly double that number during Period 2. 103 According to staff, because basic supplies have been in short supply, it is not unusual for trainers to purchase supplies out-of-pocket. Staff report that there are significant delays in obtaining reimbursement. The June 2009 Report provides additional background related to these issues. June 2009 Report at 41. 104 The Settlement Agreement uses the terms “ongoing in-service training” and “ongoing training” interchangeably to refer to in-service training. This report uses the term “in-service training” to refer to both.
32

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 41 of 180
year; and all supervisors shall receive a minimum of 24 hours of ongoing in-service training each year. 3) The caseworker training shall be based on clearly identified learning objectives and culminate in competency-based testing, which will need to be successfully completed for the training to be credited. The curriculum shall be drawn from current research and data. Settlement Agreement §II.A.2.c.2.-3.
Defendants were required to establish a Training Unit, complete the in-service training curriculum, and initiate in-service training for caseworkers and supervisors by the end of Period 1.105 As described in the Monitor’s June 2009 Report, the curriculum for the in-service training program was not developed during Period 1. Although the Training Unit was established, it offered very limited in-service training opportunities.106 The Monitor’s June 2009 Report noted that even if the curriculum had been finalized, unless the Training Unit was appropriately resourced, the defendants would be unable to administer and manage an in-service training program that meets Settlement Agreement requirements.107
In an attempt to address the staffing deficits in the Training Unit, defendants supplemented the DFCS in-house training capacity for an in-service training course that was offered statewide during the latter part of Period 2 by assigning responsibility for conducting the training to 14 DFCS staff members who were employed in either supervisory or family protection specialist positions.108 As explained below, this practice is inconsistent with the intent of the Settlement Agreement.
Progress During Period 2 As noted above, the Settlement Agreement requires defendants to maintain an adequately staffed Training Unit that delivers comprehensive training to the DFCS workforce.109 The intent of this requirement is to ensure the Training Unit “can provide comprehensive child welfare
105 Settlement Agreement §II.A.2.c.6. 106 June 2009 Report at 44-45. 107 Id. 108 Some members of the DFCS Training Unit also provided this training. 109 Supra p. 31.
33

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 42 of 180
training to enable all caseworkers, supervisors and other child welfare agency employees to comply with the relevant mandates of [the Settlement Agreement], DFCS policy, and reasonable professional standards.”110 Because of the historical reliance on supervisory personnel to perform training functions, the Settlement Agreement and Period 2 IP expressly prohibit defendants from detailing111 supervisory personnel of any type to the Training Unit to provide training.112
The in-service training curriculum was not developed during Period 2; however, a very limited number of in-service training courses for caseworkers and supervisors were offered through the Training Unit during Period 2.113 Defendants augmented the in-service training capacity of the Training Unit during Period 2 by assigning a group of 14 supervisors and family protection specialists to conduct training on quality visits for staff in their respective regions. Except for one staff member, this duty was assigned to these supervisors and family protection specialists in addition to their regular job responsibilities.114
Interviews with 11 of the 14 staff members who were assigned to provide the quality visit training during Period 2 indicate that the majority spent approximately two full weeks on this
110 Settlement Agreement §II.A.2.c. 111 The term, “detail,” represents an administrative action whereby a staff member is reassigned temporarily to perform job duties that are outside of the duties specified in his/her job description. A detail may be full-time or part-time. 112 Settlement Agreement §II.A.2.c.4.; Period 2 IP §I.2.d.3. See infra p. 40 for the text of this Period 2 requirement. 113 According to the Training Director, a workshop in court procedures was provided for all staff statewide during the last quarter of 2009. Moreover, the Training Director reports that 64 training sessions on quality visits were conducted for caseworkers and supervisors on a statewide basis. As explained in the accompanying text of this report, in order to deliver the quality visit training, a group of 14 supervisors and family protection specialists were assigned to assist the Training Unit by conducting at least part of the training sessions. An additional 18 sessions related to the federal government’s child and family services review process were conducted for both caseworkers and supervisors. Other training offered by the Training Unit during Period 2, such as MACWIS training for DFCS state-office staff, is not subject to the Settlement Agreement’s in-service training requirements. 114 One of the staff members was relieved of other job responsibilities in anticipation of a position transfer to the Training Unit that did not materialize.
34

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 43 of 180
project.115 Eight of the 11 staff members interviewed were supervisors, and three were family protection specialists.116 One of the family protection specialists reported carrying a caseload, and at least two others had responsibility for conducting investigations related to allegations of maltreatment in care. Several staff members reported difficulty juggling their regular job responsibilities with the training assignment. Some staff members reported that they also were assigned to provide in-service training related to Bridge Plan requirements to DFCS staff during the Bridge Period.117
The assignment of supervisory personnel to provide the quality visit training is inconsistent with Period 2 IP §I.2.d.3., which is intended to ensure that training is not accomplished at the expense of service delivery. Assigning supervisors to provide the quality visit training in addition to their regular job duties diverts supervisors from their assigned duties, a phenomenon that Period 2 IP §I.2.d.3 was crafted to eliminate. In addition, the assignment of family protection specialists, especially those with case-related job duties, to conduct training in their regions, is inconsistent with the intent of the Settlement Agreement’s workload requirements,118 which were fashioned to ensure that caseworkers maintain a workload that provides a reasonable assurance that the Settlement Agreement’s minimum foster care services standards are satisfied. Moreover, the practice of assigning supervisors and caseworkers to conduct the quality visit training is also inconsistent with the intent of the Settlement
115 The staff assigned to provide the training reported that during January 2010 they participated in a three-day training that addressed how to train the staff in their respective regions. Thereafter, the majority spent approximately eight to 11 work days delivering the training to DFCS staff. The training sessions were conducted during February and March 2010. 116 All of the supervisors were Regional Area Social Work Supervisors, one of whom was serving as an acting Regional Director at the time of the assignment. 117 The Bridge Plan required defendants to provide statewide training in maltreatment investigations and in development and implementation of safety plans to all caseworkers engaged in maltreatment investigations by September 1, 2010. June 10, 2010 Agreed Order at ¶ 7.b. The Monitor will address this requirement in her forthcoming report on the Bridge Plan. 118 See, e.g., Settlement Agreement §II.2.a.1.-2.
35

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 44 of 180
Agreement’s training requirements, which contemplate that in-service training will be delivered
by staff who are dedicated to this function.119
In October 2009, defendants revised DFCS training policy to reflect the hours designated
for caseworker and supervisor pre-service and in-service training that are required by the
Settlement Agreement.120 The policy was not finalized during Period 2, and as of August 2010,
the final version of the policy had not been issued. As explained below, the draft policy and
current practice are not consistent with the Settlement Agreement’s in-service training
requirements.
Defendants currently permit caseworkers and supervisors to participate in external
training courses, which are credited toward the fulfillment of their in-service training
obligations.121 Guidance on the content of the external coursework for which credit may be
received is limited.122 Staff are instructed that the coursework “. . . should be directly related to
119 Settlement Agreement §II.A.2.c.1., 4., 7. 120 Ex. 17, Excerpt from DFCS Policy Manual, Volume IV, Section A, Revised October 2009, Administration Staff Development/Training, pp.1024-1031. 121 The draft policy conforms to current practice, stating that staff “are encouraged to attend on-going training courses, workshops and seminars from sources outside the Agency.” Id. at 1028. 122 According to the Training Director and other DFCS managers, staff receive instruction on these requirements that is consistent with the guidelines included in the draft policy. In relevant part, the draft policy states:
All caseworkers are required to obtain a minimum of 40 hours of on-going job-related training annually in order to remain eligible for their position. Caseworkers are to understand it is their obligation to maintain proficiency in the performance of their job duties by attending professional trainings and/or workshops. They should further understand it is their responsibility to submit verification of such training to the DFCS Training Unit. Failure on the part of the caseworker to complete the 40 hours of annual training for any reason will be grounds for termination of employment. All Area Social Work Supervisors are required to obtain a minimum of 24 hours of on-going in-service training annually to remain eligible for their position. Supervisors are to understand it is their obligations to maintain proficiency in the performance of their job duties by attending professional trainings and/or workshops. It is the responsibility of supervisors to submit verification of such training to the DFCS Training Unit. Failure on their part to complete the 24 hours of annual training for any reason will be grounds for termination of employment. No supervisory personnel shall be detailed to the Training Unit as an instructor; however, supervisory personnel are expected to mentor all staff they supervise. The following agency- sponsored trainings are mandatory for all DFCS workers annually:
• Non-Violent Crisis Intervention Training • Age Appropriate Passenger Restraints System Training • Blood-borne Pathogens
36

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 45 of 180
an employee’s present job duties and responsibilities or those which reasonably could be expected to be related in the near future.”123 This ad hoc approach is not contemplated by the Settlement Agreement. Indeed, the required reform process contemplates that the existing workforce will receive extensive in-service training on mandated changes in policies and procedures as well as on the practice skills necessary to achieve the Settlement Agreement’s requirements. Participation in external courses that “relate” or “reasonably could relate to present job duties” does little, if anything, to advance these goals.
As noted in the Monitor’s June 2009 Report, defendants offer additional in-service training to DFCS supervisors through mentoring and peer-to-peer learning programs. The mentoring program, which is offered for the first 24 weeks of employment, is intended for new supervisors. According to DFCS managers and supervisory staff, it has not been implemented consistently throughout DFCS’s 13 regions. Some regions have implemented the model on a consistent basis, and others have not.124 The peer-to-peer learning program, which is referred to as the Learning Lab, is provided through a contract with the University of Southern Mississippi (“USM”). The Learning Lab is offered to DFCS supervisors in six-hour sessions that occur approximately seven times per year. The Learning Lab is not integrated with the DFCS training program. It is designed to promote peer-to-peer learning opportunities, develop support networks among supervisors, and validate learning and supervision experiences. Staffing and other resources for the Learning Labs were not modified to support recent increases in DFCS
All other DFCS personnel shall annually receive, at a minimum, one training opportunity related to his or her job functions. Id. 1027-1028.
123 Id. at 1028. As noted supra note 122, defendants report that the revised draft of the training policy is consistent with instructions that staff received during Period 2. 124 The program is based on an individual plan between a supervisor and her/his mentor. They are expected to meet face-to-face once each week for six months and monthly thereafter for an additional six-month period. The 24-week curriculum includes topics such as the transition from worker to supervisor, case review and case staffing, team development planning, time management and staff retention.
37

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 46 of 180
supervisory staffing levels. Although the mentoring and the peer-to-peer learning programs may
offer supervisors some training in some of the policies, procedures and practice skills necessary
to achieving the Settlement Agreement’s requirements, neither program is based on an in-service training curriculum that incorporates the Settlement Agreement’s requirements.125
The in-service training courses offered by the DFCS Training Unit, and the additional in-
service training that is provided for supervisors, represent a fractured approach to staff
development. The courses do not build on the pre-service training curriculum and are not
integrated with each other. Defendants report that they are working to address this limitation in
the regions that are implementing the practice model. In light of the incremental implementation of the practice model,126 defendants must bolster the in-service training program for all staff on a
much more expedited schedule in order to make the necessary advances in case practice that are
contemplated by the Settlement Agreement’s timetable.
Moreover, even if defendants operated an in-service training program that satisfied
Settlement Agreement requirements during Period 2, they did not track staff training in a manner
that would enable tracking and reporting as required by the Period 2 IP. This matter is addressed in the narrative related to Period 2 IP §I.2.d.7.127
Period 2 IP §I.2.d.1. I. Administration and Management Implementation Steps
2. Human Resources Management d. Training:128 1) By September 1, 2009, DFCS shall develop and begin implementing a written plan to provide comprehensive child welfare pre-service and in-service training to all caseworkers and supervisors in accordance with the training requirements set forth in section II.A.2.c of the Settlement Agreement. The training plan shall include action steps and timelines to hire and train staff, update the
125 A review of the training materials used for these programs has identified some substantive limitations in the content of the training, including the failure to rely fully on current data and research in certain instances. 126 Implementation of the practice model is addressed supra pp. 8-9. 127 This provision is addressed supra pp. 47-49. 128 The on-going training requirements in §I.2.d.5. of the Period 2 IP are identical to the on-going training requirements in §II.A.2.c. of the Settlement Agreement which are addressed supra pp. 30-38.
38

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 47 of 180
training curriculum, and to procure all additional resources needed to operate a training unit that delivers the training required by the Settlement Agreement.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.2.d.1.: The Training Plan was not developed and implemented by September 1, 2009, as required by this subsection. Although a plan was submitted to the Monitor on January 22, 2010,129 it does not meet Period 2 requirements. Contrary to the plain language of this subsection, the plan does not address action steps and timelines to hire and train staff, update the curriculum, or procure the additional resources needed to operate a program that can provide the training required by the Settlement Agreement. Among other shortcomings in defendants' submission, the training plan states that the Settlement Agreement’s in-service training requirements and its mandated system for tracking staff training are long-term goals.130 The characterization of these requirements as long-term goals contradicts the express terms of the Period 2 IP, which establishes that both “goals” should have been met during Period 2.131
Period 2 IP §I.2.d.2. I. Administration and Management Implementation Steps
2. Human Resources Management d. Training 2) DFCS will have revised the training curriculum to reflect the updated Practice Guide and Policy Manual.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.2.d.2.: As explained below, the training curriculum was not revised to reflect the updated practice guide and policy manual. Although some revisions in the training curriculum, practice guides and policy manual were made, defendants did not complete the comprehensive revisions to the DFCS policy manual and practices guides required by Period 2 IP §II.1.132 This shortcoming is addressed by the Bridge Plan.133
129 Ex. 18, 2010 Training Unit Plan, Division of Family and Children’s Services. 130 Id. at 4. 131 Period 2 IP §I.2.d.1. and 7. 132 This requirement is addressed infra pp. 70-71. 133 June 10, 2010 Agreed Order at ¶ 7.c. and d.
39

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 48 of 180
The Settlement Agreement contemplates that the training curricula for caseworkers and
supervisors would incorporate modifications to the DFCS policy manual and practice guides
during Period 1. Because defendants did not revise the DFCS policy manual and practice guides
and make the associated modifications to the caseworker and supervisor training curricula during Period 1,134 these requirements were incorporated into the Period 2 IP. Thus, the Period 2 IP
requires defendants to revise the training curriculum in light of required revisions to underlying policies and practice guides.135
Defendants revised some policies and practice guides during Period 2,136 and made some
modifications to the corresponding sections of the curriculum that are used for the pre-service
training provided to caseworkers. However, because the comprehensive revision of the DFCS
policy manual and practice guides required by the Period 2 IP was not completed during Period
2, defendants are required to implement corrective action related to the policy manual and practice guides during the Bridge Period.137 Thereafter, defendants will be poised to modify the
training curriculum.
Period 2 IP §I.2.d.3. I. Administration and Management Implementation Steps
2. Human Resources Management d. Training 3) No supervisory personnel shall be detailed to the training unit to provide training.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.2.d.3.: For the reasons set forth in the narrative related to Settlement Agreement §II.A.2.c.,138 this requirement was not satisfied during Period 2.139
134 Period 1 IP §II.; see also June 2009 Report at pp. 57-59. 135 Period 2 IP §II.1., infra pp. 70-71. 136 For example, the curriculum used for caseworker pre-service training was updated to include a new section, “The Social Worker’s Guide to Family-Centered Practice.” 137 June 10, 2010 Agreed Order at ¶ 7.b.-c. The Monitor will report on this matter in the forthcoming report on the Bridge Plan. 138 Supra pp. 30-38.
40

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 49 of 180
Period 2 IP §I.2.d.4. I. Administration and Management Implementation Steps
2. Human Resources Management d. Training 4) All new caseworkers and supervisors will complete their service training consistent with the Settlement Agreement requirements before they assume their respective responsibilities for carrying cases and supervising.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.2.d.4.: The Period 2 IP requires that all caseworkers
and supervisors complete the Settlement Agreement’s pre-service training requirements before
assuming their respective responsibilities for supervising and carrying cases. Limitations in the
hiring data and training records produced by the defendants that implicate the requirements of
Period 2 IP §I.2.d.7. affected the Monitor’s ability to calculate precise compliance levels related to this subsection.140 However, as explained below, the evidence that the Monitor has collected
indicates that this requirement was not met during Period 2 for the following reasons: 1) the pre-
service training curriculum does not satisfy the requirements of the Settlement Agreement; 2)
caseworkers and supervisors did not receive the required training consistently on a timely basis;
3) there was an absence of written policy and clear direction regarding the specific case-related
duties that caseworkers and supervisors could be assigned to perform prior to completing the
training; and 4) in at least the relatively small number of instances identified by the Monitor,
newly-hired staff were assigned to perform casework and supervise caseworkers before
completing the pre-service training program.
Background Related to Period 2 IP §I.2.d.4.
The Settlement Agreement’s substantive requirements concerning pre-service training for
caseworkers and their supervisors, in relevant part, provide:
c. Training: 2) Subsequent to Court approval of this Plan, all new caseworkers hired by DFCS shall receive a minimum of 270 hours of pre-service
139 As described supra pp. 34-36, supervisors were detailed to perform in-service training functions during Period 2. 140 See infra pp. 47-49 for a summary of these limitations.
41

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 50 of 180
training, including instructional training and supervised field training, prior to assuming any case responsibilities; all new caseworker supervisors hired or promoted by DFCS shall receive a minimum of 40 hours of in-service training directed specifically at the supervision of child welfare caseworkers prior to assuming any supervisory responsibilities; . . . . Settlement Agreement §II.A.2.c.2.
As described in the Monitor’s June 2009 Report, historically, DFCS caseworkers have been
assigned to cases, and supervisors have been assigned to supervise caseworkers, before
completing pre-service training programs.141 This began to change during Period 1, and there
was continued progress during Period 2. However, as explained below, additional progress is
needed in order for this requirement to be satisfied.
Pre-Service Training for Caseworkers
Defendants began to implement a 270-hour pre-service training program for all newly-
hired caseworkers at the end of the 2008 calendar year.142 This training, which is referred to as
the Child Welfare Professional Development (“CWPD”) pre-service training,143 is a 10-week
course designed to deliver 270 hours of training. The course consists of a four-week workshop
of classroom instruction144 and six weeks of on-the-job training (“OJT”).
The CWPD training is designed to start with a three week OJT segment that is conducted
by the caseworker’s supervisor in the county office in which the caseworker is assigned.145
141 June 2009 Report at 42-44. 142 Defendants report that this training is also required for newly-hired supervisors who have not worked previously as caseworkers at DFCS. 143 The CWPD curriculum, including all instructional materials, trainers’ manuals, associated PowerPoint presentations, tests and answer keys, has been reviewed by Dr. Linda Southward, a social work professional with over 30 years combined experience in social work practice, teaching and research, who has provided consulting services to the Monitor during the course of Period 2. See supra note 30 and Ex. 1A for further information related to Dr. Southward’s credentials and experience. Dr. Southward also has reviewed the curricula used for the Learning Lab and for the mentoring training provided to DFCS supervisors. 144 Classroom time is 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Thursday, and 8:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Fridays, with a one-hour lunch break each day. 145 Interviews with supervisors and caseworkers during Period 2 indicate that the OJT component of the CWPD training is not implemented uniformly, and in some instances it is not being implemented at all in various regions throughout the state. Some supervisors responsible for providing this training to newly hired caseworkers reported that they were unaware of the existence of a training manual that they are expected to follow for the OJT component of the pre-service training. These representations were corroborated during interviews with caseworkers. Many
42

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 51 of 180
Following the OJT portion, the curriculum anticipates that caseworkers will begin the classroom
component of the training, rotating on a weekly basis for the next seven weeks between the
classroom instruction and the additional OJT segment in the county office in which they are
assigned.146
The Period 2 IP requires caseworkers to complete pre-service training before assuming
case-carrying responsibilities.147 Defendants report that 12 CWPD workshops were conducted
during Period 2.148 The evidence shows that there were substantial delays between the time that
caseworkers started employment at DFCS and the time they began the classroom component of
the CWPD training.149 During this period, and during the period that caseworkers participated in
the classroom component of the training, the evidence indicates that in at least some counties
newly-hired case workers performed clinical case-related work such as conducting home visits
by themselves or with another newly-hired caseworker. In some instances new caseworkers were
also assigned to conduct investigations and carry cases prior to completing the CWPD training
successfully.150 This practice has serious implications with respect to the quality of supervision
caseworkers indicated that they received little to no orientation at the start of their employment, and they described the OJT component of the training as unstructured. 146 Dr. Southward identified limitations in the pre-service training curriculum that are unrelated to the failure to incorporate each of the Settlement Agreement’s substantive requirements related to foster care services. For example, she found that there is a lack of continuity between the first three weeks of OJT and the first week of classroom training. The worksheets used for the first three weeks of OJT do not flow logically or sequentially from the activities in the field setting to the activities or objectives that are indentified by the curriculum and training guide for the first week of classroom training. 147 Period 2 IP §I.2.d.4. 148 According to Training Unit staff, the workshops were conducted in Hattiesburg, Canton, Gulfport, Tupelo, Greenville, Louisville, Greenwood, Mendenhall, and Oxford. 149 During telephone interviews with 40 of 152 caseworkers hired by DFCS between May 1, 2009 and February 16, 2010, 17 of the 38 workers (45 percent) who knew the date they started training reported that over two months elapsed between their hire dates and the start of the classroom component of the CWPD training. Ex. 19, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Months Between Hiring and Start of Training Reported by Caseworkers Hired Between May 1, 2009 and February 16, 2010, by Region, presents these findings in terms of DFCS region and the reported monthly intervals that elapsed between the hire date and the start of the classroom sessions. These delays appear consistent with information elicited during the course of face-to-face interviews with caseworkers, supervisors and Training Unit staff. 150 During Period 2, training coordinators reported to DFCS managers that newly-hired caseworkers revealed that they had been assigned to conduct maltreatment investigations, carry their own cases, or visit children alone or with
43

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 52 of 180
and services afforded to children and families,151 and also with respect to the accuracy of certain
data recorded in MACWIS.152
This problem was brought to the attention of DFCS senior management by both the
Monitor and by DFCS managers during 2009. And while it appears that defendants have taken
steps to address at least some of the related data accuracy issues,153 defendants have not issued a
clear policy directive to supervisors and caseworkers which defines precisely what job duties
newly-hired caseworkers may perform prior to the completion of the pre-service training
program.154
It appears that several factors contributed to caseworkers being assigned to undertake
case-related responsibilities for which they were unqualified prior to completing pre-service
training during Period 2, including: the absence of clear policy guidance; the failure to implement
another newly-hired caseworker during the course of training sessions. In addition, the Monitor advised defendants that she had received similar reports during the course of face-to-face interviews with caseworkers in some county offices. In fact, four of 27 caseworkers from Hinds, Jones and Rankin counties who were interviewed face-to-face reported working on cases before completing pre-service training. Three of the four indicated that they had carried a caseload during this time period. During telephone interviews with 40 of 152 caseworkers hired by DFCS between May 1, 2009 and February 16, 2010, 10 workers (25 percent) reported that they received case-related assignments before completing the pre-service training program. These assignments ranged from shopping for children and providing transportation to conducting home visits, intakes, and maltreatment investigations. Ex. 20, Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Reported Work Assignments for Caseworkers Hired Between May 1, 2009 and February 16, 2010 Prior to Completion of Training, shows the range of case-related assignments that were reported by the caseworkers who were interviewed. 151 Newly-hired caseworkers who have not completed pre-service training are not qualified to carry caseloads, conduct investigations, or assume responsibility for many of the case-related services that they have been assigned to perform. 152 For example, MACWIS records the visits with children that are conducted by caseworkers in each case that has been assigned to them. At a minimum, these visits can help to ensure the safety of children who are in DFCS custody if they are conducted by trained caseworkers who are appropriately supervised and who have developed a relationship with the children on their caseloads. The Settlement Agreement requires the assigned caseworker to visit each child on their caseload twice monthly and to document each visit. Settlement Agreement §II.B.10.f. In instances in which these visits are conducted by newly-hired caseworkers who have not completed their pre-service training, the data recorded in MACWIS does not appear to indicate that the visit was conducted by someone other than the caseworker assigned to the case. 153 See, e.g., Ex. 21, Practice Guidelines on Documenting Caseworker Visits with Children, issued in response to the data validation effort required by the Bridge Plan. This document was distributed to DFCS Regional Directors [hereinafter RDs] on April 28, 2010. The transmittal indicates that the RDs were instructed to provide the guidelines to both supervisors and workers on an immediate basis. 154 Additionally, the Monitor has been unable to confirm whether there are standards for caseload assignments immediately following the completion of training. Newly-hired caseworkers in some counties have reported initial assignments to a very high number of cases.
44

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 53 of 180
the OJT component of the CWPD training curriculum in all regions; substantial delays between
the date newly-hired caseworkers began working at DFCS and the date they completed the pre-
service training; and the critical shortage of caseworkers in some county offices.
Pre-Service Training for Supervisors
During the latter part of 2008, a 40-hour pre-supervisory service training curriculum was
developed for all new supervisors by DFCS in collaboration with the State Personnel Board
(“SPB”). The training is designed to take place over a five-day period. The first four days of
training are conducted by SPB staff and include instruction on basic supervisory skills. The fifth
day, conducted by the DFCS training director, focuses more specifically on child welfare topics and DFCS practices.155 Because newly hired and promoted supervisors continued to perform
supervisory duties without participating in the pre-supervisory service training required by the Period 1 IP, the Period 2 IP requires the cessation of this practice.156
According to data provided by the DFCS personnel unit, at least five supervisors hired during Period 2 were working at the agency as of May 31, 2010.157 A review of the training
rosters maintained by the SPB for the pre-service supervisory training sessions conducted during
Period 2 indicates that four of the five supervisors hired during Period 2 participated in the preservice supervisory training.158 The Monitor has identified two other DFCS employees subject
155 The training is divided into five segments. A review of the curriculum indicates that most of the training is generic and applies to all state employees. One segment related to family-centered supervision is specifically geared to DFCS and addresses topics such as intake screening, safety assessments, individual service plans, supervisory administrative reviews, random moment surveys, and OJT for new caseworkers and supervisors. According to Dr. Southward, the segment applicable to DFCS includes a series of topics that cannot be addressed in appropriate depth in the time allotted. 156 A review of the training rosters maintained by the SPB indicates that 70 percent of the 142 supervisors employed by DFCS as of May 31, 2010 participated in pre-service training between February 2009 and March 2010. An undetermined number of the other 30 percent of the supervisors employed at DFCS as of May 31, 2010 may have received the training during Period 1. 157 See Ex. 3, supra note 69, for a presentation of the relevant data. 158 These training sessions were conducted on May 18-22, 2009, June 1-5, 2009, September 28-October 2, 2009, January 11 and February 16-19, 2010, and March 22-26, 2010.
45

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 54 of 180
to the supervisory pre-service training requirements. According to the training rosters, both
employees received the pre-service training.159 Of the six supervisors who were trained, one
reports that she was assigned to supervise caseworkers before she completed the pre-service
supervisory training.160
Period 2 IP §I.2.d.6. I. Administration and Management Implementation Steps
2. Human Resources Management d. Training 6) Defendants shall implement competency-based testing to assess knowledge acquisition of newly hired staff following the completion of pre-service training, including newly hired or newly promoted supervisors following the completion of supervisory training. Training credit shall only be given to those new hires who demonstrate sufficient knowledge acquisition.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.2.d.6.: The pre-service training for caseworkers and
supervisors includes testing that staff are required to complete successfully.161 The evidence
establishes that defendants have implemented the testing component of the pre-service training.
Dr. Southward has reviewed the testing that is conducted and concluded that it should be
strengthened to ensure that trainees have acquired the basic competencies necessary to fulfill
their job responsibilities, including competencies in interviewing, critical thinking skills, and
documentation skills related to assessment and to preparing case summaries for submission to
court. The Monitor expects to discuss Dr. Southward’s assessment and recommendations with
the parties in the near term.
159 The two DFCS employees include a caseworker who was assigned to supervise in an acting capacity and received the pre-service supervisory training belatedly, and an additional supervisor hired during Period 2. It is possible that there were other supervisors who were either hired during Period 2, or who served as supervisors in an acting capacity, but were not identified by the Monitor. 160 This supervisor, who has been working in an acting supervisory capacity since June 2009, did not participate in the pre-service supervisory training until the September 28 - October 2, 2009 training session. She reports that sometime before the training, she was assigned full supervisory responsibilities. 161 The pre-service training for caseworkers includes testing after the first, second and third week of the classroom training. Testing related to the fourth week of classroom training is incorporated into the final pre-service training test. The supervisors are tested at the conclusion of the pre-service training classes. All tests are in multiple choice format.
46

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 55 of 180
Period 2 IP §I.2.d.7. I. Administration and Management Implementation Steps
2. Human Resources Management d. Training 7) Defendants shall implement a system to track staff participation in all required training.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.2.d.7.: Because this requirement was not satisfied during Period 1, it was included in the Period 2 IP.162 As explained below, although defendants have made some progress developing the requisite tracking system, such a system was not being operated by DFCS during Period 2.
Defendants report that by the end of Period 2 they were able to enter into MACWIS all pre-service and in-service training received by caseworkers and supervisors.163 However, a major limitation is that MACWIS does not generate reports yet that can be used to track the preservice and in-service training that each caseworker and supervisor is required to complete.164 As a result, defendants cannot adequately assess and manage workforce training needs, much less conduct the type of planning that is necessary to comply with the Settlement Agreement’s requirements. Defendants report that their efforts to generate these reports have been delayed due to the need to prioritize the processing of change orders associated with the data reports required by the Bridge Plan.
Because of these limitations, the Monitor reviewed the paper records that are used by DFCS to document pre-service training for newly-hired caseworkers to determine whether the records could be used as a substitute for the electronic tracking system, or at least as a basis for
162 Period 1 IP §I.2.c. 163 Starting in March 2010, defendants report that the training coordinators were required to record into MACWIS the CWPD training session they conducted and the attendees who participated in each training. 164 Defendants report that the electronic data can be accessed on an employee-by-employee basis by DFCS staff in the personnel unit and by the direct supervisors of individual employees. Neither the training director nor the regional directors have access to these data except with respect to staff they directly supervise.
47

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 56 of 180
determining whether newly-hired caseworkers received the requisite pre-service training.165 As a threshold matter, Training Unit staff report that the hire dates reflected on employee rosters transmitted to the Training Unit by the Personnel Unit are not always consistent with hire dates entered in MACWIS and/or with a separate notification of new hires form that is submitted to the training director. These types of discrepancies are consistent with the Monitor’s observations and compromise the ability to identify accurately the dates by which new staff must receive preservice training.
The paper training records for pre-service caseworker training are filed by training session date and not by date of hire, name of employee, or region. The training session records include daily sign-in sheets and individual trainee performance data such as answer sheets for tests conducted during the training, worksheets, self assessments, the graduation date and a copy of the certificate that is issued when an employee successfully completes the training. A review of training records maintained for the period between January 1, 2009 and April 1, 2010 that was conducted by Dr. Southward indicated that many of these training records were incomplete and inconsistently maintained.
On March 31 and April 1, 2010, Dr. Southward reviewed the available pre-service training records for 38 of 188 caseworkers listed on an employee roster that was provided to the Monitor by the DFCS Personnel Unit. According to the roster, there were 188 caseworkers hired between January 1, 2009 and February 16, 2010. Of the 188 employees on the list, every 10th record was requested for review. As of March 29, 2010, for caseworkers hired between January 4, 2010 and February 1, 2010, the review indicated that five caseworkers successfully completed
165 If accurate information concerning hiring dates can be produced by the MDHS/DFCS personnel unit, it appears that the training records maintained by the SPB for the pre-service supervisory training can serve as a basis for determining whether all newly-hired supervisors received pre-service training.
48

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 57 of 180
pre-service training; six caseworkers completed one week of pre-service training; and, six caseworkers completed week two of pre-service training. One caseworker, who was listed on the roster with a hire date of January 16, 2010, was never employed by DFCS. Another caseworker, who was listed on the roster with a hire date of January 19, 2010, had a MACWIS hire date of March 8, 2010 and had not begun training. A caseworker who completed one week of training had three different hire dates: January 16, 2010, the week of February 8-12, 2010, and March 6, 2010.
In light of these findings, an additional 19 records for caseworkers listed on the same roster were requested for review. This review revealed that the training records for nine caseworkers were incomplete (e.g., one, two or three weeks of training records and/or test scores were not included, but the Training Unit reported that all had completed training); training records for seven caseworkers were complete, documenting that pre-service training was satisfactorily completed; one caseworker started training late, due to illness; one caseworker did not graduate; and one caseworker with a hire date of January 20, 2009 never participated in preservice training. These findings were reported to the Training Unit director and in turn to DFCS management. The Monitor subsequently confirmed that the worker with the January 20, 2009 hire date was assigned to carry a caseload in March 2009 and received the pre-service training 14 months later, in May 2010, after the Monitor brought this finding to defendants’ attention.
Period 2 IP §I.2.d.1.-7. Relevant COA Standards: PA-TS 2.02, PA-TS 2.03, PA-TS 1.01, PA-TS 1.02, PA-TS 1.03, PA-TS 2.01, PA-TS 2.04, PA-BSM 3.01, PA-BSM 3.02, PA-BSM 3.03.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.2.d.1.-7., Relevant COA Standards: Based on the documentation submitted by defendants to COA, COA found the documents were in compliance
49

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 58 of 180
with seven standards and in substantial compliance with three standards. The COA’s findings
are addressed in further detail in Section IV.B. of this report.166
Settlement Agreement §II.A.2.d. II. Standards
A. Administration and Management Standards 2. Human Resources Management d. Contract Agency Requirements: By the end of implementation Period 2: In the event that private agencies provide protective, preventive, foster care, or adoption case work services under contract with DFCS, DFCS shall require the contract agencies to abide by all related terms of the Plan, including, but not limited to, provisions regarding training curricula, minimum training hours, and caseload standards. DFCS shall implement and maintain a performance-based contracting system to evaluate annually contract agency compliance with the terms of the Plan. DFCS shall take reasonable steps to ensure contract agency remediation of any identified deficiencies.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.A.2.d.: Defendants were required to
satisfy both the requirement related to contract agencies and the requirement related to
performance-based contracting during Period 1.167 They did not do so.168 Neither requirement
was satisfied during Period 2.
Period 2 IP §I.2.e. I. Administration and Management Implementation Steps
2. Human Resources Management e. Contract Agency Requirements: 1) DFCS shall, in conjunction with a qualified independent consultant approved by the Monitor, begin developing a plan for a performance-based contracting system with the capacity to monitor and enforce contract performance on all related terms of the Settlement Agreement.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.2.e.: Defendants were required to design and begin
implementing a performance based contracting system during Period 1.169 Because this was not
accomplished,170 the Period 2 IP required the defendants to begin developing a plan for a
166 Infra pp. 139-141. 167 Period I IP §I.2.d. 168 June 2009 Report at 48-49. 169 Period 1 IP §I.2.d. 170 June 2009 Report at 48-49.
50

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 59 of 180
performance-based contracting system in conjunction with a qualified independent consultant. During Period 2, the defendants developed at least two draft Requests for Proposals (“RFPs”) to hire a consultant to develop the requisite plan. A draft RFP, which was submitted to the Monitor for review and comment on January 31, 2010, had substantial deficiencies and was withdrawn by the defendants on February 3, 2010. Thereafter, defendants reported that they had conducted additional research and consulted with experts regarding the development and implementation process. However, defendants did not engage the expert nor begin to develop the plan during Period 2.
Period 2 IP §I.2.e. Relevant COA Standards: PA-RPM 9.02, PA-RPM 9.03, PA-RPM 10.02, PA-RPM 10.03, PA-RPM 10.04.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.2.e., Relevant COA Standards: Based on the documentation submitted by defendants to COA, COA found the documents were in compliance with one standard and in substantial compliance with three standards. COA did not evaluate one of the standards during Period 2. The COA’s findings are addressed in further detail in Section IV.B. of this report.171
Period 2 IP §I.3.a. I. Administration and Management Implementation Steps
3. Performance and Quality Improvement a. By September 30, 2009, Defendants, in conjunction with a qualified independent consultant approved by the Monitor, shall develop and begin implementing a written plan with specific steps and timeframes for the implementation of a separate continuous quality improvement (“CQI”) system that meets COA standards and Settlement Agreement requirements.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.3.a.: As explained below, although there was significant progress conceptualizing the design, structure and implementation of a CQI system
171 Infra pp. 141-142.
51

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 60 of 180
that meets the Settlement Agreement’s substantive requirements, a written plan consistent with the Settlement Agreement’s timelines was not finalized during Period 2.
On September 30, 2009 defendants produced the CSF report on the Mississippi Practice Model.172 A section of the report presents detailed recommendations concerning the design and implementation of the DFCS CQI system.173 The following topical areas, among others, are addressed: characteristics of the CQI system; scope and content of specific monitoring activities; general requirements related to the quantitative data and qualitative information used to evaluate performance; administrative and operational structure; staffing; development of a procedures manual and training; coordination processes and planning activities; relevant Settlement Agreement requirements, including COA standards; reporting and feedback; and, accountability.
As addressed above, the practice model report recommends the incremental implementation of the practice model on a region-by-region basis over the course of a 48-month period,174 and the introduction of what appears to be a carefully-designed CQI program in each region as it implements the practice model. Statewide CQI activities are also contemplated, but with a more limited CQI program operating in each region until the practice model is implemented.175 The recommended schedule for full implementation of the practice model and the CQI program exceeds the time-frame that is contemplated by the Settlement Agreement for the completion of the reform process.176
On January 22, 2010, the defendants submitted several documents to the Monitor and plaintiffs’ counsel in response to the requirements of this subsection: 1) the CQI section from the
172 Mississippi Child Welfare Practice Model Final Report, September 25, 2009, Center for the Support of Families, Inc. The report is an impressive document that describes, inter alia, the principles that defendants expect to adopt to guide the reform effort. Further information regarding the practice model is included supra pp. 8-9. 173 Id. at 251-273. 174 Supra pp. 8-9. 175 Id. at 264. 176 Compare Settlement Agreement §VII.C. with practice model implementation schedule, supra pp. 8-9.
52

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 61 of 180
final report on the Mississippi Practice Model;177 2) a three-page document titled “Continuous
Quality Improvement;”178 3) a document titled “Draft Fiscal Year 2009 Continuous Quality
Improvement Operational Plan;”179 4) Mississippi Division of Family and Children’s Services,
Performance and Quality Improvement Operational Plan, SFY 2010;180 and 5) an instrument for
reviewing case records.181 Most of these documents were in draft form, including the CQI
recommendations excerpted from the report on the practice model, which was stamped “draft.”
No explanation regarding how these documents relate to each other was provided, and with one
exception, the content of each is, at least in part, inconsistent with the others.182
In late January 2010, the CSF consultant who developed the CQI recommendations for
the defendants submitted a document outlining how each DFCS region and county office will be
involved in CQI activities prior to implementing the practice model.183 In combination this
document, and the “draft” CQI recommendations from the practice model report, represent a
thoughtful and comprehensive approach to the development of a CQI system that would meet the
requirement of the Settlement Agreement if the implementation schedule were adjusted to
conform with Settlement Agreement requirements.
177 Ex. 22, Section V, pp.1-26, excerpt, Mississippi Practice Model Final Report, August 7, 2009, Center for the Support of Families, Inc. Except for the date and the fact that it is stamped “DRAFT,” this document appears identical to Section V in the September 25, 2009 Practice Model Final Report that was submitted by defendants to the Monitor. See supra note 172. 178 Ex. 23, three-page document submitted to the Monitor and plaintiffs’ counsel on January 22, 2010 titled, Continuous Quality Improvement. This document includes a timeline that is described as “an approximate schedule for implementing the CQI system.” The schedule indicates that it will take defendants over 18 months to implement the CQI system in four of DFCS’s 13 regions. It does not address implementation activities elsewhere, including the other nine regions. Id. at 3. 179 Ex., 24, Draft Fiscal Year 2009 Continuous Quality Improvement Operational Plan. The cover page on this document in relevant part states: “*Note, this plan was drafted prior to the current DFCS QA Director (Mike Gallarno) being hired on 09-16-08. This draft has been submitted to him and is awaiting his approval and further input.” 180 Ex. 25, Mississippi Division of Family and Children’s Services, Performance and Quality Improvement Operational Plan, SFY 2010, Draft. 181 Ex. 26, Child and Family Services Reviews Onsite Review Instrument. 182 The Monitor later learned that the case record review instrument was a draft of an instrument that was being developed to conduct CQI baseline reviews in the regions that would be implementing the practice model. 183 Ex. 27, Statewide Impact of CQI Implementation, submitted to the Monitor on January 28, 2010.
53

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 62 of 180
On March 1, 2010, defendants reported that they were reconciling the various draft plans
that had been submitted to the Monitor in consultation with their expert consultants. In response
to an inquiry from the Monitor, defendants indicated that the final version of the CQI plan was
nearly complete and would be submitted to her in the near term. The Monitor received the final
version of the CQI plan from the defendants on August 2, 2010.184 The Monitor has not
completed her review of this recent submission. She is scheduled to discuss the Plan with the
DFCS manager responsible for the CQI program later this month.
Settlement Agreement §II.A.3.b.185 II. Standards
A. Administration and Management Standards 3. Performance and Quality Improvement By the end of implementation Period 2: b. DFCS shall implement and maintain a separate CQI system that can identify areas of needed improvement and require improvement plans in support of achieving performance targets, program goals, client satisfaction, and positive client outcomes. The CQI system shall include monitoring and evaluating the quality of social and human services provided by independent contractors and other provider organizations and ensuring contractor remediation of any identified deficiencies.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.A.3.b.: As explained in the narrative
related to Period 2 IP §I.3.a.,186 defendants did not implement a CQI system that meets the
Settlement Agreement’s requirements during Period 2.
Period 2 IP §I.3.c. I. Administration and Management Implementation Steps
3. Performance and Quality Improvement c. Defendants shall, in conjunction with a qualified independent consultant approved by the Monitor, develop and begin implementing a CQI assessment tool that measures compliance with the Settlement Agreement’s management and foster care service standards at sections II.A.1-7 and II.B.1-14, respectively.
184 Mississippi Division of Family and Children’s Services Continuous Quality Improvement Plan, State Fiscal Year 2011, submitted August 2, 2010. Because the Monitor has not made any findings related to this document, it is not included in the Appendix to this report. 185 The identical requirement is included in §I.3.b. of the Period 2 IP. 186 Supra pp. 51-54.
54

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 63 of 180
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.3.c.: Defendants did not begin implementing the
required assessment tool during Period 2. However, a comprehensive case record review
instrument was developed during Period 2 in collaboration with the defendants, by the CSF
consultant engaged to assist defendants with the development and implementation of the practice model.187 Defendants began to use the instrument during June 2010 for baseline reviews that have been conducted in the two regions that are currently implementing the practice model.188
The instrument represents a thoughtful and careful approach to a very important aspect of the
qualitative review process that will be used to promote improvements in case practice.
Period 2 IP §I.3.a.-c. Relevant COA Standards: PA-PQI 2.02, PA-PQI 2.01, PA-PQI 1.01, PA-PQI 1.02, PA-PQI 2.04, PAPQI 2.05, PA-PQI 3.02, PA-PQI 4.01, PA-PQI 4.02, PA-PQI 5.01, PA-PQI 6.01, PA-PQI 6.02.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.3.a.-c., Relevant COA Standards: Based on the
documentation submitted by defendants to COA, COA found the documents were in compliance
with seven standards, in substantial compliance with three standards, in partial compliance with
one standard, and out of compliance with one standard. The COA’s findings are addressed in further detail in Section IV.B. of this report.189
Settlement Agreement §II.A.3.c.190 II. Standards
A. Administration and Management Standards 3. Performance and Quality Improvement By the end of implementation Period 2: c. DFCS shall comply with the public child fatality reporting requirements of the Child Abuse Prevention Act, 42 U.S.C. §5106a(b)(2)(A)(x).
187 Ex. 28, CQI Reviews, OnSite Review Instrument, submitted to the Monitor on July 12, 2010. Detailed written instructions for the reviews and a document reflecting the proposed scoring for the review instrument have also been developed. These documents have been reviewed by the Monitor, but they are not included in the Appendix to this report. See also Ex. 26, supra note 181; supra note 182. 188 The sample size for the initial reviews is very limited. The initial reviews are intended to provide information to help inform strategies related to the early implementation of the practice model and are not intended to serve as the basis for statistically valid findings related to case practice. 189 Infra pp. 142-144. 190 The identical requirement is included in §I.4.a. of the Period 2 IP.
55

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 64 of 180
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.A.3.c.: In order for a state to be eligible
to receive a federal grant under the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment and Adoption Reform
General Program (“CAPTA”), 42 U.S.C. 5106a(b)(2)(A)(x), it must allow for “public disclosure”
of “information about the case of child abuse or neglect which has resulted in a child fatality or
near fatality.”191 According to the U.S. Department of Human Services’ Child Welfare Policy
Manual, disclosure of information related to child fatalities or near fatalities is mandatory.192
Mississippi law codifies this requirement in two provisions of the Mississippi Code.
Miss. Code Ann. § 43-21-257 states the general rule: “any record involving children . . . shall be
kept confidential and shall not be disclosed except as provided in Section 43-21-261.” The
relevant exception within § 43-21-261 specifies that:
(17) In every case where there is any indication or suggestion of either abuse or neglect and a child’s physical condition is medically labeled as medically “serious” or “critical” or a child dies, the confidentiality provisions of this section shall not apply. In cases of child deaths, the following information may be released by the Mississippi Department of Human Services: (a) child's name; (b) address or location; (c) verification from the Department of Human Services of case status (no case or involvement, case exists, open or active case, case closed); (d) if a case exists, the type of report or case (physical abuse, neglect, etc.), date of intake(s) and investigation(s), and case disposition (substantiated or unsubstantiated).
191 Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment and Adoption Reform General Program, 42 U.S.C. 5106(b)(2)(A)(x) (2010). The statute states:
§ 5106a. Grants to States for child abuse and neglect prevention and treatment programs (b) Eligibility requirements. (2) Coordination. A State plan submitted under paragraph (1) shall, to the maximum extent practicable, be coordinated with the State plan under part B of title IV of the Social Security Act [42 USCS §§ 620 et seq.] relating to child welfare services and family preservation and family support services, and shall contain an outline of the activities that the State intends to carry out using amounts received under the grant to achieve the purposes of this title [42 USCS §§ 5101 et seq.], including-(A) an assurance in the form of a certification by the chief executive officer of the State that the State has in effect and is enforcing a State law, or has in effect and is operating a Statewide program, relating to child abuse and neglect that includes-(x) provisions which allow for public disclosure of the findings or information about the case of child abuse or neglect which has resulted in a child fatality or near fatality. 192 U.S. Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., Administration of Children and Families, Child Welfare Policy Manual § 2.1A.4, Question 4, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws_policies/laws/cwpm/policy_dsp.jsp?citID=68#1540. The State does not have discretion in whether to allow the public access to the child fatality or near fatality information; rather, the public has the discretion as to whether to access the information. In other words, the State is not required to provide the information to the public unless requested, but may not withhold the facts about a case unless doing so would jeopardize a criminal investigation.” Id.
56

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 65 of 180
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the confidentiality provisions of this section shall continue if there is a pending or planned investigation by any local, state or federal governmental agency or institution.193
In 2008 the Supreme Court of Mississippi adopted this provision as part of its Uniform Rules of
Youth Court Practice.194 The relevant DFCS policy that addresses this subject matter is silent
with respect to near fatalities and will need to be revised to conform fully with the requirements
of this subsection.
Period 2 IP §I.4.a. Relevant COA Standards: PA-BSM 1.01, PA-AS 2.04.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.4.a., Relevant COA Standards: Based on the
documentation submitted by defendants to COA, COA found the documents were in compliance
with one standard and out of compliance with one standard. The COA’s findings are addressed
in further detail in Section IV.B. of this report.195
Settlement Agreement §II.A.5.d. II. Standards
A. Administration and Management Standards 5. Information Management and Use By the end of implementation Period 2: d. DFCS county staff shall have access to a MACWIS database of the placement resources available for placement statewide at any given time. The database shall permit staff to determine whether a given placement is suitable for a given child needing placement by allowing access to current caretaker placement information, including capacity limitations, current census, the placement’s suitability for children by age, sex, and special needs, and any related licensing and maltreatment investigations information.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.A.5.d.: This requirement was not
satisfied during Period 2 due to limitations in the capacity of the current MACWIS database and
other operational shortcomings. These matters are explained below.
DFCS staff did not have access to a MACWIS database of placement resources that
meets the Settlement Agreement’s requirements during Period 2. MACWIS does not have the
193 Miss. Code Ann. § 43-21-261 (2009). 194 In re Unif. Rules of Youth Court Practice, 2008 Miss. LEXIS 616 (Miss. 2008). 195 Infra p. 144.
57

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 66 of 180
capacity to collect all of the required data.196 Moreover, the placement data in MACWIS are not
consistently accurate.197 This fact is well-known to DFCS caseworkers and supervisors. The
caseworkers that the Monitor has interviewed report that they rely on the placements they have
used in the past as well as word-of-mouth among the staff in their offices to find placements for
specific children.198 In some counties, caseworkers report that resource supervisors help to
identify appropriate placements on an ad hoc basis.
According to DFCS caseworkers, because of the shortage of appropriate placements,
placements are selected almost exclusively on the basis of their availability and not because a
certain placement is suitable for a specific child.199 This issue has enormous implications for the
children in defendants’ care.200 However, even if an adequate number and array of placements
were available, caseworkers would be unable to match children with suitable placements unless
they had access to a placement database that meets the requirements of this subsection. In
196 For example, data related to the placement’s suitability for children by the required categories are not collected in MACWIS. 197 See, e.g., Ex. 29, Mississippi Foster Care Services Assessments, Final Report [hereinafter Assessment Report], at 107. The placement assessment that is included in the report relies on placement data regarding resource homes that are collected manually. The report recognizes that MACWIS has the capacity to collect the data, but it does not generate a report. Additionally, the report points out that MACWIS does not breakdown resources homes by type reliably. The report explains that resource homes are captured in MACWIS in one of four categories: foster homes, adoptive homes, resource homes or child specific homes, noting that the child specific category (e.g., relative placements) does not list any homes. In addition, the report raises concerns about the accuracy of placement data concerning resource homes, explaining that a cursory review in two counties showed closed homes as still active as well as some duplication of homes. As described infra pp. 102, 105, these limitations presented a significant challenge for the DFCS social workers who conducted the special safety reviews required by the Period 2 IP. 198 This is consistent with the information defendants’ consultant obtained from DFCS staff who were interviewed during the placement assessment. According to the Assessment Report, participants in most of the focus groups that were conducted “. . . indicated that when a child comes in to care, the worker calls licensed resource homes in the county until a vacancy is located, and that a vacancy may not correspond to the needs of the child or license limitations regarding age or sex of children desired.” Id. at 96. Among other findings, the Assessment Report concludes that “[t]here is no single contact which has statewide information about placement resources.” Id. at 109. 199 The Assessment Report concludes that the number of placement options for children entering foster care is inadequate. Id. at 109. 200 For example, caseworkers and supervisors have told the Monitor that they place children in acute care residential placements even when these placements are not indicated because of the shortage of licensed resource homes. Information obtained by defendants’ consultant during the placement assessment is consistent with these representations. The Assessment Report indicates that during the assessment DFCS staff reported “that acute residential care is often used as a short-term placement because the county does not have a resource home available.” Id. at 96.
58

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 67 of 180
addition to correcting shortcomings in the capacity of the placement database, defendants will
need to address other factors that contribute to inaccuracies in the placement data recorded in
MACWIS.201
Settlement Agreement §II.A.5.e. II. Standards
A. Administration and Management Standards 5. Information Management and Use By the end of implementation Period 2: e. DFCS shall take reasonable steps to ensure data integrity and user accountability in MACWIS. The system shall have the necessary controls to decrease the risk of duplication of data and to reduce the risk of incorrect or invalid data. The system shall provide a visible trail to the database administrators of all information entered, added, deleted, or modified, and shall have necessary security to protect data integrity. This system shall be audited at least annually to ensure the accuracy and validity of the data in the system. Necessary actions identified by the MACWIS data accuracy and validity audit to correct MACWIS data errors shall be implemented annually.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.A.5.e.: These requirements were not
satisfied during Period 2 largely because of limitations inherent in MACWIS. According to
MDHS/DFCS managers responsible for MACWIS, the system does not have sufficient controls
to decrease the risk of data duplication and incorrect or invalid data entry. In addition, the
system cannot track transactions on a historical basis and is not designed to provide a visible trail
of all information that is entered, added, deleted or modified. Absent this capacity, defendants’
ability to ensure data integrity, protect against security violations, and promote user
accountability is limited. Moreover, MACWIS has not been audited on an annual basis to ensure
the accuracy and validity of the data in the system.
201 Many factors contribute to inaccuracies in placement data, including limitations in the ability of workers to access MACWIS and correct erroneous entries. Delays in processing eligibility determinations associated with Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 672, which provides for federal matching funds to reimburse certain foster care expenses that a state has already paid, also contribute to limitations in the placement data because specific placements cannot be entered into MACWIS until the eligibility determination has been made. There is also a need to strengthen the MACWIS training for new caseworkers to mitigate the incidence of user error. Related issues are addressed more fully infra pp. 60-64.
59

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 68 of 180
Period 2 IP §I.5.a. I. Administration and Management Implementation Steps
5. Information Management and Use a. By July 1, 2009, DFCS shall provide to all county agency staff with child welfare responsibilities access to basic computer services, consisting of access to MACWIS, word processing, and electronic mail.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.5.a.: County agency staff, including caseworkers and
supervisors, did not have reasonable access to MACWIS and electronic mail on a consistent basis
during Period 2. This finding is explained below.
In an effort to enhance access to basic computer services for DFCS staff, the DFCS
MACWIS unit surveyed county office staff during the latter part of November 2009 to determine the number and location of staff in county offices who did not have their own computers.202
According to the survey, 83 users (11 percent) out of 755 users in the county offices did not have their own computers.203 Thereafter, between December 2009 and February 2010, computers were distributed to the county offices that had reported the shortages.204 At about this time,
another division of MDHS, which had begun to replace its computers with updated models, started to transfer its older inventory to DFCS.205 Because the transferred computers represented
an upgrade for many DFCS users, in March 2010 defendants used the transferred inventory to
replace some of the oldest DFCS terminals in the county offices. Defendants report that the replacement process will be completed on a statewide basis by late September 2010.206
In addition to the users identified during defendants’ November 2009 survey, there is
other evidence indicating the defendants did not provide reasonable access to computer services
202 See Ex. 30, MACWIS Accomplishments, September 2009-July 2010 at 2. This document is a summary of various remediation initiatives related to MACWIS that were undertaken between September 2009 and July 2010. The summary was prepared at the request of the Monitor by the DFCS MACWIS director. It includes a description of the survey results. Id. at 10-11. 203 During face-to-face interviews conducted by the Monitor with 43 caseworkers and supervisors, seven employees (16.3 percent) from Hancock and Harrison counties indicated that they did not have their own computers. Id. 204 Id. at 2. Interviews with DFCS staff establish that computers were configured, delivered and installed during this period. 205 The transferred inventory was received from the Economic Assistance division of MDHS. 206 Id.
60

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 69 of 180
on a shared basis or otherwise to all county office staff with child welfare responsibilities during Period 2, including during the time period that followed the delivery of the computers to the counties that reported the shortages. Face-to-face interviews conducted by the Monitor with caseworkers and supervisors during the course of Period 2, and more recent telephone interviews conducted during late June and July 2010, indicate that at least some caseworkers in counties with high caseloads have not had reasonable access to computer services.207 Moreover, although the majority of county agency staff had their own computers, defendants did not provide them with reasonable access to MACWIS on a routine basis during Period 2 due to the failure to properly maintain the DFCS information technology (“IT”) infrastructure.208
Since the time of the Monitor’s appointment in this case in January 2008, DFCS caseworkers, supervisors and managers have identified a series of chronic problems that undercut their ability to access and/or use MACWIS,209 including: 1) lengthy delays of up to several hours in logging into MACWIS; 2) difficulty staying logged on to MACWIS; 3) loss of data entered into MACWIS; 4) slow response times; and 5) system freezes.210 Because of these issues, and the defendants’ lack of progress toward satisfying MACWIS-related requirements in Period 1,
207 In June and July 2010, during telephone interviews with 40 caseworkers and supervisors hired between May 2009 and February 2010, five employees (13 percent) from Washington and Harrison counties reported that they did not have their own computers. The employees from Washington County noted that a small number of laptop computers were stored in the county office on a check-in/check-out basis. One employee reported that some of the laptops were not operational and another indicated that the number of laptops was insufficient to support the number of staff who did not have computers. There also are uncorroborated reports that the electrical system in some county offices simply cannot support the additional equipment. 208 There have been reports that the DFCS e-mail system consistently was not reliable during Period 2. Defendants indicate that they took steps to address this issue on a statewide basis in January 2010 and the problems were corrected by March 2010. Ex. 30, supra note 202, at 3. 209 The Monitor has observed many of the same problems that were reported by DFCS staff. 210 Many users also report difficulty navigating through MACWIS because the system is not user-friendly. They point out that the case records are not always accurate, but because of how the system is designed, users cannot readily correct errors.
61

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 70 of 180
during January 2009 the Monitor and an expert engaged by the Monitor211 met with various highlevel MDHS/DFCS managers with job responsibilities related to MACWIS. Among other matters, the problems with access to MACWIS that DFCS staff reported, as well as the agency’s plans to replace MACWIS with a web-based system, were discussed.212 Defendants provided assurances that remedial efforts were underway to address these and other critical MACWISrelated problems. However, there was little progress during the balance of Period 1. Thus, the Monitor’s June 2009 Report identified limitations in MACWIS as a key obstacle to the reform process.213 DFCS staff continued to experience significant difficulties accessing MACWIS throughout Period 2. Defendants have reported that these problems were exacerbated by staffing increases, which intensified the demands on the system.214
In January 2010 defendants hired a vendor to address MACWIS login and connectivity issues.215 By early April 2010, the vendor concluded that server capacity for connecting to the MACWIS application was inadequate to support the number of DFCS system users. Thus, the vendor recommended that the agency triple, from one to three, the number of login servers in operation.216 In addition to an insufficient number of login servers, defendants report that login problems also were exacerbated during Period 2 by the fact that MDHS/DFCS did not have a
211 The consultant, Harold Beebout, Ph.D., is the former Chief Information Officer of the District of Columbia Child and Family Services Agency (“CFSA”). He led CFSA’s successful effort to achieve tier 2 certification at the federal level for its automated child welfare information system. 212 The discussions focused on the following matters: 1) connectivity; 2) data retention; 3) system security; 4) equipment shortages; 5) reporting limitations; and 6) the backlog of change orders for report and/or system modifications. The reporting limitations and backlog of change orders are addressed infra pp. 64-66. 213 June 2009 Report at 7, 55. 214 See Ex. 30, supra note 202, at 7; see also Ex. 2, supra note 68, showing that as of July 2008 there were 616 filled caseworker and supervisory positions and as of June 2010 there were 769 filled positions. 215 Ex. 30, supra note 202, at 3. 216 Id. DFCS was using one login server at the time of the vendor’s assessment. Among other recommendations, the vendor suggested adding two additional servers.
62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 71 of 180
sufficient number of software licenses to accommodate all MACWIS users.217 Notwithstanding
the fact that DFCS had more users than licenses during Period 2, additional software licenses
were not procured until June 28, 2010. The delay in procurement of the licenses has protracted further the resolution of this problem.218 Defendants have been testing the software for the newly
acquired licenses in order to ensure it will be compatible with MACWIS. MDHS/DFCS
managers have not indicated when the software will be operable on a statewide basis; however,
according to a document that the defendants submitted to the Monitor on June 30, 2010, it
appears the timetable will extend beyond November 1, 2010. Defendants report the two
additional login servers were operable by mid-July 2010, and that this has improved statewide login times significantly.219 Defendants expect additional improvement by late September 2010
when the statewide replacement of the older computers in the county offices will be completed.220
The login and connectivity problems experienced by DFCS staff have been long standing
and persistent throughout Period 2. These deficits impact the ability of caseworkers and
supervisors to maintain accurate case records. Defendants must ensure that the limitations in
access to MACWIS that staff experienced during Period 2 are corrected and that the IT system is
217 Defendants maintained 760 software licenses during Period 2. The number was insufficient to support the workforce which now has over 1000 users. Defendants have reported that when the user load was equivalent with the number of licenses DFCS maintained, the system would not allow additional users to login. In turn, the users who were denied access made serial attempts to log in, which defendants report “tied up” licenses. Id. at 7 supra note 202. 218 Defendants have informed the Monitor that bids for additional licenses were considered during March 2010. However, MDHS did not finalize the procurement for the licenses until June 28, 2010. Instead of simply purchasing the licenses and software necessary to support the additional users, DFCS managers report that the agency has purchased upgraded software and licenses for all existing licensed users, as well as for the additional users for whom licenses are needed, because the software to support the existing licenses – which was available in March 2010 – is no longer available. This has resulted in increased costs, and will contribute to implementation delays because there is a need to test the upgraded software to ensure it is compatible with MACWIS. Defendants have been unable to provide a clear and complete timetable for the installation of the software. 219 Some DFCS staff have reported very recent improvements in login times. However, at least through early July, staff in several counties reported continued login delays to the Monitor, albeit of somewhat shorter duration. 220 Id. at 2, 12. See supra p. 60 for a discussion related to the replacement process.
63

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 72 of 180
maintained appropriately so that these problems do not reoccur. DFCS staff must have the basic
tools necessary to perform their duties in a manner that is contemplated by the Settlement
Agreement.221
Period 2 IP §I.5.b. I. Administration and Management Implementation Steps
5. Information Management and Use b. By November 1, 2009 and by April 30, 2010, DFCS will verify MACWIS data to identify the number of children in custody, face to face contacts, caseloads, timeliness of investigations, and placements.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.5.b.: Defendants were required to collect, analyze
and disseminate MACWIS data related to compliance with all of the Settlement Agreement’s
Foster Care Service Standards during Period 1.222 Because this Period 1 requirement was not
satisfied, it was addressed by this subsection of the Period 2 IP, which required defendants to
verify a much smaller subset of MACWIS data during Period 2. Defendants made timely efforts
to meet the Period 2 requirement; however, because these efforts were ill-informed, the data were
not validated. For this reason, the June 10, 2010 Agreed Order requires defendants to produce
over 20 data reports, including the reports required by this subsection, during the Bridge
221 In addition to limitations in access to computer services, some DFCS staff have reported shortages in necessary supplies and equipment, such as printers and cameras. Moreover, in some counties, office space is inadequate and in certain instances it appears unlikely to satisfy the governing COA standard, which requires a work environment “ . . . that is conducive to effectively providing services to individuals and families in a private and confidential manner, as needed.” ASE 1.05. For example, in Harrison, Hancock, Rankin and Hinds counties, staff report sharing offices in circumstances that raise concerns about confidentiality, and in Harrison and Hancock counties there are staff who report they do not have their own desks. Staff in Hancock County have been operating out of two trailers for the last several years because the county office was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. Because of limitations in the physical plant, it is not possible to have confidential discussions in the trailers. Caseworkers share a cramped trailer that does not afford minimally adequate workspace. See, e.g., Ex. 31, photograph of interior of DFCS Hancock County trailer #18, taken by Grace M. Lopes, May 5, 2010. Moreover, there are an insufficient number of telephone lines to support the number of DFCS staff who work in the trailers; however, DFCS staff report that the trailers do not have the capacity to support any additional telephone lines. In response to these concerns, defendants rely upon Miss. Code Ann. §43-1-9, which requires the county Board of Supervisors to provide office space for DFCS county office staff. The Monitor has not had an opportunity to determine what efforts, if any, defendants have made to address shortcomings in DFCS office space that may implicate COA requirements with the county Board of Supervisors or otherwise. 222 Period I IP §II.A.5.c. See also June 2009 Report at 52-55 for a discussion related to this Period 1 requirement.
64

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 73 of 180
Period.223 Defendants developed a methodology for validating data reports in consultation with their expert consultants during the Bridge Period. Pursuant to the Bridge Plan, a series of data reports were produced following what at least preliminarily appears to be an appropriate validation process.224 The Monitor will address the data reports that defendants submitted during the Bridge Period in her forthcoming report on the Bridge Plan.
Although defendants have attempted to improve MACWIS capacity to collect and report on certain data relevant to compliance with the Settlement Agreement’s foster care service standards during the Bridge Period, defendants do not have sufficient staff with the correct skill set to perform the programming and validation activities that will be needed to report accurately on all of the data requirements implicated by the Settlement Agreement. The reports produced during the Bridge Period alone have presented enormous challenges for DFCS managers and staff. The MACWIS unit currently has pending orders for system changes and/or reporting modifications that date back to 2008.225
There is a critical need to address the limitations in MACWIS on a more expedited basis. Incomplete or inaccurate data in MACWIS, like the types revealed during the Monitor’s case record review,226 could result in decision making related to child placements that presents an unreasonable risk of harm to children in defendants’ custody. For example, MACWIS fails to link prior reports of maltreatment in a way that provides the full history of prior maltreatment reports. Further, MACWIS contains inaccurate and incomplete dispositional data related to
223 June 10, 2010 Agreed Order at ¶ 7.a. Defendants are required to produce the reports at staggered intervals, and thereafter on a monthly basis, during the Bridge Period. 224 The methodology that was developed by defendants’ consultants to validate the data during the Bridge Period, which is included in the Appendix to this report, is appropriate. See Ex. 32, Methodology for Validating MACWIS Data Reports, submitted to the Monitor on July 12, 2010. 225 See, e.g., heat ticket no. 85970: family team meeting and ISP 30-day rule change, as of July 30, 2010 MACWIS staff report no progress since November 2009; heat ticket nos. 86706 and 86719: tracking mechanism for medical, dental, mental health and education information provided to resource placement, request received by DFCS/MIS unit in November 2008 and as of July 30, 2010 on hold as low priority. 226 See Ex. 60, infra note 357, at 2 for a summary of these limitations.
65

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 74 of 180
maltreatment reports. In the absence of complete and accurate information, caseworkers cannot
conduct adequate assessments nor make informed decisions about child placements. More
generally, in order to guide and assess performance with this reform effort, agency executives
and managers need current and accurate data to inform management decisions. In the absence of
a reliable data system that collects and reports data on a statewide, regional and county basis,
assessing progress is inefficient at best, and impossible at worst.
Period 2 IP §I.5.c. I. Administration and Management Implementation Steps
5. Information Management and Use c. DFCS shall issue a RFP for the comprehensive analysis of the MACWIS system and its ability to perform the computer functions required by section II.A.5.a of the Settlement Agreement and for recommendations of remedial efforts necessary to enable MACWIS to perform those Settlement Agreement requirements. DFCS shall undertake all reasonable efforts to expeditiously issue such RFP, which shall issue by September 1, 2009.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.5.c.: This requirement was not met during Period 2,
and as a result it is addressed by the June 10, 2010 Agreed Order, which requires defendants to
issue the RFP for a MACWIS assessment by September 1, 2010.227 The RFP was issued on July
27, 2010. It requires responsive proposals to be submitted by September 15, 2010.
Period 2 IP §I.5.d. I. Administration and Management Implementation Steps
5. Information Management and Use d. DFCS shall execute a contract pursuant to the RFP. Such contract shall require that the contracting agent provide the final MACWIS assessment and recommendations no later than 12 calendar months from the date of contract.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.5.d.: As noted above, the RFP associated with this
contract was not issued during Period 2, and therefore a contract was not executed during Period
2. Defendants anticipate the contract will be executed by January 1, 2011.
Period 2 IP §I.6.a. I. Administration and Management Implementation Steps
6. Case Recording and Information
227 December 10, 2010 Order at ¶ 5.
66

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 75 of 180
a. Defendants shall implement a system to regularly review whether DFCS child welfare case records are current, complete, made by the appropriate caseworker, signed and dated by the person who provided the service, and signed and dated by supervisors, where appropriate, in accordance with federal and state law and regulations.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.6.a.: This requirement was not met during Period 1, and as a result it is included in the Period 2 IP.228 Defendants routinely review case records as part of the federally-mandated administrative review process. These reviews include a determination regarding whether most of the specific elements of the case record addressed by this requirement are current and complete. In February 2010, a new manager for the administrative review program was hired. The manager reported in May 2010 that the review process was being modified to conform with the practice model and to address issues that were identified by the child safety assessment that was conducted by CSF during Period 2.229 The Monitor has not had an opportunity to determine the current status of these initiatives and has not audited individual DFCS administrative review records to determine the extent to which implementation of the review process during Period 2 conformed to the requirements of this subsection.
Period 2 IP §I.6.a. Relevant COA Standards: PA-RPM 7.02, PA-RPM 7.03, PA-RPM 7.04, PA-PQI 4.03, PA-RPM 7.05, PA-RPM 7.06, PA-RPM 7.07, PA-RPM 8.01, PA-CR 2.04, PA-AS 12.05, PA-AS 12.06, PA-RPM 5.01, PA-RPM 5.02, PA-RPM 6.01, PA-RPM 6.02.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.6.a., Relevant COA Standards: Based on the documentation submitted by defendants to COA, COA found the documents were in compliance with seven standards, in substantial compliance with five standards, and in partial compliance
228 Period 1 IP §I.6.; see also June 2009 Report at 56. 229 See infra pp. 76-79 for a summary of the findings of the child safety assessment conducted pursuant to Period 2 IP §II.2.f.
67

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 76 of 180
with three standards. The COA’s findings are addressed in further detail in Section IV.B. of this report.230
Period 2 IP §I.7.a. I. Administration and Management Implementation Steps
7. Financial Management a. By January 1, 2010, Defendants shall contract for an external assessment, to be conducted by a qualified independent consultant, of actual and anticipated federal funding levels, and for the development of a plan to establish the resources and infrastructure necessary to maximize the amount of federal funds received by the State. The selection of this qualified independent consultant shall be subject to approval by the Monitor.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.7.a.: The defendants did not contract for the required external assessment during Period 2. Defendants’ efforts to satisfy this requirement are described below.
Because the assessment of actual and anticipated federal funding levels was not performed by the defendants during Period 1,231 the Period 2 IP required defendants to engage an expert to conduct the assessment and to develop a plan to establish the resources and infrastructure necessary to maximize federal funding. A draft RFP was submitted to the Monitor and plaintiffs’ counsel in early December 2009. Among other concerns, the draft was, in part, inconsistent with the requirements of this subsection. Following several revisions, defendants issued the RFP related to the assessment on March 22, 2010. At the time the RFP was issued, negotiations related to the Bridge Plan were underway. In order to promote efficiencies and maximize the efficacy of the assessment, the Monitor suggested that the parties consider incorporating the assessment into the contemplated technical assistance addressed by the Bridge Plan. Thus, the Bridge Plan required that defendants finalize contract documents related to the
230 Infra pp. 144-147. 231 Settlement Agreement §II.A.7.a.; see also June 2009 Report at 56.
68

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 77 of 180
assessment by September 1, 2010.232 The Monitor will report on this matter in her forthcoming
report on the Bridge Plan. This is a pivotal requirement.233 Absent the resources and infrastructure that will enable
defendants to maximize federal funding, it is likely that the minimum requirements imposed by the Settlement Agreement will not be achieved.234
Period 2 IP §I.7.b. I. Administration and Management Implementation Steps
7. Financial Management b. Funds realized as a result of revenue maximization activities shall not supplant appropriated state funds but shall be used in furtherance of the reforms and outcome measures provided for herein and to improve child welfare services.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.7.b.: As a predicate to assessing compliance with
this requirement, the external assessment required by Period 2 IP §I.7.a. must be completed, and
a revenue maximization initiative must be undertaken.
Period 2 IP §I.8., Ethical Practice Relevant COA Standards: PA-ETH 1.01, PA-EH 1.02, PA-ETH 2.01, PA-ETH 5.01, PA-ETH 5.02, PA-ETH 5.03, PA-CR 1.02, PA-CR 1.06.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.8., Relevant COA Standards: Based on the
documentation submitted by defendants to COA, COA found the documents were in compliance
with six standards, in substantial compliance with one standard, and in partial compliance with
232 June 10, 2010 Agreed Order at ¶ 5. 233 Recent DFCS budget shortfalls underscore the urgency of this initiative. See, e.g., Consent Order, dated March 29, 2010, imposing limitations on the number of furloughs for DFCS employees during the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010. 234 This is especially likely with respect to the necessary expansion in the array and improvement in the quality of the services that DFCS provides to children and their families. The foster care services assessments conducted during Period 2, see discussion infra pp. 72-79, describes these issues. In order to fill critical gaps in services, the defendants must develop the funding plan contemplated by this subsection. Currently, defendants require service providers to assume sole fiscal responsibility for matching the federal funds that are used to subsidize the costs for various foster care services. According to child welfare experts the Monitor has consulted, this practice is very unusual and it will not be sustainable.
69

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 78 of 180
one standard. The COA’s findings are addressed in further detail in Section IV.B. of this report.235
Period 2 IP §I.9., Community Involvement and Advocacy Relevant COA Standards: PA-AM 4.01, PA-AM 4.02, PA-CPS 2.01.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.9., Relevant COA Standards: Based on the
documentation submitted by defendants to COA, COA found the documents were in compliance
with two standards and in substantial compliance with one standard. The COA’s findings are addressed in further detail in Section IV.B. of this report.236
Period 2 IP §I.10., Administrative and Service Environment Relevant COA Standards: PA-HR 4.01, PA-HR 4.03, PA-AM 5.01, PA-RPM 2.01, PA-RPM 2.02, PARPM 2.04, PA-ASE 6.01, PA-ASE 8.01, PA-ASE 8.02, PA-ASE 1.02, PA-ASE 4, PA-ASE 7.01, PAASE 7.03.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §I.10., Relevant COA Standards: Based on the
documentation submitted by defendants to COA, COA found the documents were in compliance
with six standards, in substantial compliance with five standards, and in partial compliance with
two standards. The COA’s findings are addressed in further detail in Section IV.B. of this report.237
Period 2 IP §II.1. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
1. Policy and Practice Guide Defendants shall revise DFCS policies and practice guides as necessary to reflect the COA foster care services standards and the requirements set forth in Section II.B of the Settlement Agreement, and identify any related training needs.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.1.: The required revisions were not completed
during Period 2, and all related training needs were not identified. Defendants’ progress toward
meeting this requirement is summarized below.
235 Infra pp. 147-148. 236 Infra pp. 148-149. 237 Infra pp. 149-151.
70

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 79 of 180
Because the defendants did not complete the comprehensive review and revisions to
DFCS policies and practice guides during Period 1, this requirement was included in the Period 2
IP.238 However, progress has been limited. The June 10, 2010 Agreed Order requires defendants
to develop several practice guides and revise specified sections of the DFCS policy manual
during the Bridge Period.239 The order also requires defendants to produce a schedule by which
each section of the policy manual will be developed and finalized.240 The schedule defendants
have submitted states that all required revisions to the policy manual will be completed May 1,
2011.241
During Period 2, the CSF consultant who developed the practice model also crafted, in
consultation with the defendants, six practice guides associated with the initial implementation of
the practice model.242 In addition, the defendants revised a number of DFCS policies; however,
an initial review indicates certain inconsistencies with key Settlement Agreement
requirements.243
238 In mid-January 2009, defendants engaged an experienced child welfare professional to coordinate the required policy review. At the outset of Period 2, defendants reported that the review and revision process was ongoing and that they expected it to be completed by September 2009. Several additional assurances that the revisions would be completed during Period 2 were provided. Defendants have explained recently that additional time to develop the policy is necessary in order to ensure it is consistent with the practice model. 239 June 10, 2010 Agreed Order at ¶¶ 7.d.and e. 240 Id. at ¶ 7.d.1. 241 Defendants submitted the schedule to plaintiffs’ counsel and the Court Monitor on June 10, 2010. 242 Practice Model Report at Appendix B. Because the report is voluminous, it is not included in the Appendix to this report. The report includes the following practice guides: Mobilizing Appropriate Services Timely; Assuring Safety and Managing Risk; Involving Children and Families in Case Activities and Decision Making; Strengths and Needs Assessments; Preserving and Maintaining Connections; and Individualized Case Planning. These documents are impressive; however, they ultimately must be tied to corresponding revisions in the DFCS policy manual. See, e.g., Ex. 33, Practice Guide, Strengths and Needs Assessments, Practice Model Report, Appendix B. 243 See, e.g., Ex. 34, Bulletin 6276, Revised Intake Policy, October 1, 2009, Child Protective Services Procedure for Service Activity, Mississippi, Volume IV, Section B, 2010-2024-A. This policy requires Hotline staff to conduct a screening of all maltreatment reports within 24 hours of receipt and at that point submit the report to the appropriate DFCS supervisor for assignment. The policy states that after the report of maltreatment of a child in DFCS custody is screened in and assigned for a full investigation, the assigned caseworker has 24 hours to initiate the investigation. Id. at 2019. This suggests that the caseworker has 48 hours from the time the report is received by the Hotline to initiate investigations of maltreatment reports for children in DFCS custody. These provisions are inconsistent with the Settlement Agreement, which requires that all reports of maltreatment of children in custody must be initiated within 24 hours. Settlement Agreement at §II.B.4.e. An additional shortcoming in the policy concerns the
71

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 80 of 180
Period 2 IP §II.2.a.-d. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
2. Foster Case Assessments Defendants shall conduct Foster Care Services Assessments in conjunction with a qualified independent consultant approved by the Monitor. The following Foster Care Services Assessments will be completed by October 1, 2009: a. A reunification services needs assessment; b. A service provider needs assessment with the purpose of identifying available medical, dental, and mental health services and gaps in services; c. An assessment of the quality and array of independent living services available to foster children ages 14-20; and d. A recruitment and retention assessment to determine the need for additional foster care support services.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.2.a.-d.: Defendants engaged the CSF consultants
who developed the practice model to conduct each of the required assessments. The final
assessment report was submitted to the Monitor and plaintiffs’ counsel on October 14, 2009.244
The findings from the assessments were the result of a thorough evaluative process that sought to
examine current needs, relevant policies and procedures, the existing service array, the efficacy
of current services, gaps in the current service array, and recommendations for strengthening the
service array.245 Data were collected from several sources, including an electronic survey, a
series of case record reviews, multiple focus groups with various child welfare system
stakeholders, and a review of relevant DFCS policies and procedures.246
The assessment report includes detailed findings related to the services that are available
to the children in DFCS custody and their families. Among other findings, the report documents
a critical shortage in individualized and effective reunification services statewide;247 pervasive
identification of prior reports of maltreatment during the intake screening process. This issue, as it relates to the centralized Hotline that was implemented in November 2009, is discussed infra pp. 99-101. Defendants reported that pursuant to the requirements of the June 10, 2010 Agreed Order, the policy would be revised to conform with Settlement Agreement requirements by September 1, 2010. The Monitor will report on this matter in her forthcoming report on the Bridge Plan. 244 The full report is included in the Appendix. Ex. 29, supra note 197. 245 Id. at 20. 246 Id. at 20-24. 247 Id. at 39-41.
72

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 81 of 180
deficits in case file documentation related to medical, dental and mental health screening and evaluation that can impact the efficacy of services;248 substantial limitations in access to an adequate array of mental health services;249 significant shortcoming in access to dental services, particularly in rural areas;250 the failure to document somatic health screenings in case files;251 the failure to provide resource parents with Medicaid cards and with relevant health-related information concerning the medical needs of the children placed in their homes;252 the failure to develop and implement individualized independent living plans or to provide individualized services tailored to each eligible in-custody youth’s strengths and needs;253 inconsistent implementation of foster care policy and practice among regions and counties within regions;254 the failure to treat resource parents as partners in decision making;255 an inadequate number of placement options for children entering foster care;256 application costs which serve as a financial barrier to the recruitment of foster families;257 the absence of recruitment plans for resource families;258 a lack of funding to support initiatives for recruiting resource families;259 failure to establish a single contact with statewide information about placement resources;260 and the absence of an efficient and effective process to ensure appropriate therapeutic placements and services.261
248 Id. at 68-69. 249 Id. 250 Id. at 69. 251 Id. 252 Id. 253 Id. at 86. 254 Id. at 108. 255 Id. at 109. 256 Id. 257 Id. 258 Id. 259 Id. 260 Id. 261 Id.
73

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 82 of 180
Detailed recommendations for addressing each of these issues are included in the
assessment report. The report’s findings are consistent with data collected by the Monitor during
Period 1 and 2. In light of the magnitude of these systemic deficits, there is an urgent need for
defendants to develop and implement a well-considered strategic plan that addresses each of
these limitations in tandem with the fiscal planning contemplated by Period 2 IP §I.7.b. and
practice model implementation strategies.262
Period 2 IP §II.2.e.-g. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
2. Foster Case Assessments The following Foster Care Services Assessments will be completed by January 1, 2010: e. A termination of parental rights (“TPR”) assessment for the purposes of identifying those children who have been in custody more than 15 of the previous 22 months and for whom DFCS has not filed a TPR petition or documented an available exception under the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act (“ASFA”) as required; f. A child safety assessment of DFCS practice for prioritizing, screening, assessing, and investigating reports of maltreatment of children to determine the extent to which DFCS investigations and decisions are based on a full and systematic evaluation of the factors that may place a child at risk; and g. A placement assessment of current needs for achieving compliance with the placement standards set forth in Section II.B.5 of the Settlement Agreement, which shall include (1) the structure of the placement process, including the role and efficacy of the state office placement unit; (2) the services and supports available to support enhanced placement stability, including out-patient or in-home assessment and treatment services to avoid the frequent use of timelimited assessment and treatment placement programs; and (3) the placement resources needed to meet the placement needs of children in custody.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.2.e.-g.: The CSF consultants who developed the
practice model also completed the termination of parental rights (“TPR”), child safety and
placement assessments. The placement assessment was combined with the recruitment and
retention assessment. The central findings from that assessment are described in the preceding
262 See also discussion related to Period 2 IP §I.7.a. supra pp. 68-69.
74

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 83 of 180
narrative related to Period 2 IP §II.2.a.-d.263 Both the TPR and the child safety assessments were submitted to the Monitor and plaintiffs’ counsel on a timely basis.264
The TPR assessment was based on a review and analysis of MACWIS reports, systematic efforts to validate MACWIS data through two sets of case record reviews, a staff survey, focus groups with various child welfare system stakeholders, and a review of DFCS policy and procedures. The assessment found substantial limitations and inaccuracies in the data recorded in MACWIS,265 which affect DFCS’s ability to identify all children in care for 15 of the most recent 22 months for whom a TPR petition has been filed, who are legally free, or for whom a documented exception to the filing requirement is reflected in the case record.266 During the course of the assessment, MACWIS reporting was modified to ensure necessary data are captured and correctly reported; however, the assessment report notes that modifications to existing policy, enhanced staff training and other ongoing efforts will be necessary to ensure data are input correctly.267
The assessment also revealed that the circumstances that qualify as exceptions to filing TPRs are not documented as exceptions in the child’s case plan or elsewhere in the case record.268 The assessment found that a reliable and uniform process for determining the date
263 Supra pp. 72-74. 264 The TPR assessment is described in a report dated November 24, 2009 that was submitted to the Monitor and plaintiffs’ counsel on December 31, 2009. Ex. 35, Termination of Parental Rights Assessment, Final Report, November 24, 2009, Center for the Support of Families, Inc. (redacted). The findings related to the safety assessment were submitted to the Monitor and plaintiffs’ counsel on October 14, 2009. Ex. 29, supra note 197. 265 Ex. 35 at 3-4. A serious effort was made to validate and improve the quality of the data recorded in MACWIS during the course of the assessment, Id. at 9; however, the reviewers found minimal documentation related to the applicability of exceptions pursuant to the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 [hereinafter ASFA], Pub. L. No. 105-89, 111 Stat 2115, despite an effort to improve recording and documentation practices during the assessment process. Ex. 35 at 9-10. 266 Id. at 21. 267 Id. at 22. 268 Id. The assessment report notes that documentation in the case plan is required by federal law. The report indicates that staff may not recognize when specific circumstances constitute exceptions to the filing requirement.
75

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 84 of 180
TPR petitions are filed has not been established.269 Moreover, systemic monitoring to ensure timely filing and appropriately documented exceptions is limited.270 The report includes recommendations for addressing each of these issues.271
The safety assessment included a review of relevant DFCS policy and procedures for prioritizing, screening, assessing and investigating reports of maltreatment in care, related COA standards and other Settlement Agreement requirements. The assessment considered policy and practice related to the scope and content of the maltreatment intake and screening tools, safety and risk assessment tools, and the investigative process. Data derived from a survey of DFCS staff, various child welfare system stakeholders, case reviews,272 and MACWIS reports informed the assessment’s findings. Because the assessment preceded the introduction of the centralized Hotline, which defendants introduced on a statewide basis on November 1, 2009,273 current intake and screening practices were not evaluated.
Among other findings, the assessment concluded that pre-Hotline screening decisions generally were accurate. Moreover, the assessment found that safety assessments during investigations of maltreatment reports were conducted on a consistent basis.274 However, the assessment identified key limitations related to certain aspects of the investigative process, including:
1) the need to identify service needs concerning safety and risk issues, make appropriate referrals, and link children and resource families to services during the investigative process;
2) the need to ensure parents of children in foster care are notified of maltreatment reports related to their children;
269 Id. 270 Id. 271 Id. at 23-24. 272 Two samples were reviewed: reports of maltreatment in care that were screened out and reports of maltreatment in care that were screened in and investigated. Ex. 29, supra note 197, at 125-128. 273 See narrative related to Period 2 IP § III.2., infra pp. 134-135. 274 Id. at 129.
76

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 85 of 180
3) the absence of a consistent practice of face-to-face contacts with children who are alleged victims during the investigative process;
4) delays in the timeliness of initiating and completing investigations;275 5) shortcomings in the quality of investigations as evidenced by the failure
to interview all required parties; 6) deficits in documentation related to investigations, including
documentation related to supervisory reviews; 7) the use of a safety and risk assessment tool that is not tailored to
allegations of maltreatment in care and therefore may not capture relevant information; and 8) the failure to clarify and enforce Settlement Agreement requirements related to the use of corporal punishment by resource parents or facility staff.276
The findings from the assessment are consistent with the Monitor’s ongoing review of
maltreatment investigations,277 as well as findings from the Monitor’s case record review related
to maltreatment reports, which was conducted during the latter part of 2009.278
The assessment report includes a series of recommendations to address the issues
identified by the safety assessment.279 Among other initiatives, the report recommends training
on investigating reports of maltreatment for all investigative and resource staff.280 The Monitor’s
ongoing review of investigative reports concerning allegations of maltreatment in care
underscores the critical need for defendants to bolster the quality of maltreatment investigations
275 See infra pp. 106-110 for the narrative related to Period 2 IP §II.6.g., which includes a summary of relevant findings from the Monitor’s case record reviews. 276 Id. at 129-130. 277 The Settlement Agreement requires that all reports of maltreatment concerning children in foster care must be initiated within 24 hours. Settlement Agreement §II.B.4.e.; Period 2 IP §II.6.g. The Monitor’s review of the 136 serious incident reports documenting allegations of maltreatment in care, and the corresponding investigative reports that were transmitted to the Monitor during Period 2, indicates that 82 (60.3%) of the investigations were initiated within 24 hours; 20 (14.7%) of the investigations were initiated sometime between 24 and 48 hours; 19 (14.0%) of the investigations were initiated between three and seven days; and 4 (3%) of the investigations were initiated within eight to 12 days. In 11 (8.0%) instances, there was no documentation of a private face-to-face interview/contact with the victim. The lack of documentation was due to either the absence of an investigative report or the lack of a documented face-to-face interview/contact with the alleged victim. 278 The complete findings from the case record review are summarized in Ex. 60, infra note 357. 279 Ex. 29, supra note 197, at 129-130. 280 Id. at 130.
77

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 86 of 180
through enhanced training and appropriate management oversight.281 Defendants have made
recent progress toward strengthening training related to the investigative process pursuant to the
281 The Monitor reviews maltreatment investigation reports on an ongoing basis. The maltreatment investigative reports that are described below, Exs. 36-47, contain information that falls within the purview of the August 5, 2004 Confidentiality Order, and thus the Monitor has moved to file them under seal. The motion is pending. Therefore, these exhibits are not included in the Appendix. The reports raise many concerns about the timeliness and quality of the investigations that are conducted by caseworkers and approved by their supervisors. For example, the investigative reports indicate that in some instances delays in face-to-face interviews/contacts with alleged victims place children at an unreasonable risk of harm. See, e.g., Ex. 36, DFCS investigation of October 16, 2009 report regarding maltreatment of S.S. (four-day delay between date of report and date alleged victim was interviewed when allegations included physical abuse, i.e., whipping with a belt; caseworker observed bruising on child, concluded there was evidence to substantiate report and moved four children from foster home); Ex. 37, DFCS investigation of August 14, 2009 report regarding maltreatment of J.A. (four-day delay between the date the alleged victim reported physical abuse, i.e., whippings with belts, paddles and spanking spoons, to his DFCS caseworker and date of interview); Ex. 38, DFCS investigation of May 26, 2009 report regarding maltreatment of A.W. (seven-day delay between date alleged victim was interviewed and report by grandmother that her grandson and another youth were forced to sleep outside a group home for the night due to a curfew violation); Ex. 39, DFCS investigation of May 21, 2009 report regarding maltreatment of D.C. and K.P. (children, ages three and four, were not interviewed until seven days after it was reported that children stated they had been spanked and a relative of resource mother stated that she had been told by resource mother to spank the children with a belt). In some instances the investigative reports document information that directly contradicts the investigative findings. See, e.g., Ex. 40, DFCS investigation of December 7, 2009 report regarding maltreatment of J.W. and J.W. (report states that during a team meeting, two siblings described being put in a choke hold, landing on the floor and being kicked by the resource mother; report states resource mother did not deny allegations, but denied kicking the child stating she moved the child on the floor with her foot, demonstrated what she did and also admitted throwing water on the face of one of the children on another occasion as a reaction to the child cursing her; the report characterizes allegation as physical neglect, not physical abuse, and there was no substantiated finding of physical neglect or abuse). Other investigative reports evidence inadequacies in the investigations that have been conducted. See, e.g., Ex. 41, DFCS investigation of February 8, 2010 report regarding maltreatment of P.O. (biological mother reported that her child had a black eye, bruise on her forehead, swollen ankle and hand, and burn on her hand; some marks were observed by investigator; foster mother explained that black eye and head bruise resulted from the child running into a dresser while the DFCS worker was present; based on the documentation in the report the DFCS worker who was allegedly present and the biological mother/reporter were not interviewed). In addition, the reports demonstrate that corporal punishment of children in care by resource parents is not considered to be maltreatment. See supra Ex. 37, DFCS investigation of August 14, 2009 report regarding maltreatment of J.A. (child reported physical abuse, i.e., whippings with belts, paddles and spanking spoons; resource parents admitted to spanking the child, but stated they never left marks or bruises; investigation resulted in finding that the foster parents violated corporal punishment policy but no evidence of physical abuse); Ex. 42, DFCS investigation of November 16, 2009 report regarding maltreatment of R.R., E.R., and R.R. (children reported that they were whipped by resource mother’s daughter with a paddle; resource mother admitted that she asked her daughter to whip the children and she admitted to “spanking on them”; investigation finds no evidence of physical abuse, and report states that corporal punishment is a policy violation); Ex. 43, DFCS investigation of June 12, 2009 report regarding maltreatment of S.T. (child reported that she was whipped with a ruler; resource mother admitted to hitting child with ruler; report finds no evidence of physical abuse, but evidence of violation of corporal punishment policy). Investigative reports also indicate there are at times significant inadequacies in identifying and/or documenting the risk of harm to children and developing appropriate safety plans during the course of maltreatment investigations. See, e.g., Ex. 44, DFCS investigation of October 22, 2009 report regarding maltreatment of D.S. and M.S. (child alleged that after mother of resource parent made him strip down to his underwear, and while brother-in-law of resource parent held him upside down by his feet, mother of resource parent took more than one switch and “switched” him on his calves and back; child also complained of being forced to sleep “downstairs with the rats and fleas”; caseworker found that child and his brother had marks from being disciplined with a switch, and resource parent admitted whipping and allowing a relative to use corporal punishment
78

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 87 of 180
Bridge Plan. By September 1, 2010, defendants were required to develop a new training
curriculum, with the assistance of the CSF consultants who developed the practice model, and to
provide training on a statewide basis to all caseworkers engaged in maltreatment
investigations.282 An enhanced curriculum was developed during the Bridge Period, and as of
July 2010, the training process was underway. The Monitor will report on this training initiative
in her forthcoming report on the Bridge Plan. In addition to strengthening training related to
investigations, defendants also have made recent improvements in some of the DFCS
administrative processes that are used to provide notification of maltreatment reports related to
children in foster care.283
Settlement Agreement §II.B.1.e. II. Standards
B. Foster Care Service Standards 1. Screening and Assessments By the end of implementation Period 2: e. All caseworkers carrying active cases and their supervisors will have undergone training on the individual and family team meeting protocols.284
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.1.e.: The Period 2 IP required
defendants to develop individual and family team meeting protocols.285 The protocols were not
developed during Period 2. Instead, in June 2009 defendants revised DFCS policy related to
on the children; safety plan states that worker has been trying to get approval to place the children in the father’s home and “is planning a transition move into that home soon”; however, there is no discussion of interim safety plans for children); Ex. 45, DFCS investigation of February 4, 2010 report regarding maltreatment of N.M. (report stated that youth went to a hotel with a girl who later told him that she was pregnant; investigator found that the facility was neglectful due to failing to inform the child’s caseworker that the youth had run away; safety plan stated “the child will remain in DHS custody until appropriate placement is located for the child.”; no indication of safety plan pending a new placement). Finally, many investigative reports present a disjointed chronology that results in an inability to follow the course of the investigation. See, e.g., Ex. 46, DFCS investigation of April 5, 2010 report regarding maltreatment of J.B.; Ex. 47, DFCS investigation of February 11, 2010 report regarding maltreatment of S.H. 282 June 10, 2010 Agreed Order at ¶ 7.b. 283 DFCS uses Serious Incident Report forms [hereinafter SIRs] to document serious incidents, including reports of maltreatment in care. Defendants recently finalized a written protocol related to SIR processing and distributed a revised SIR form to staff that is now available in an electronic format. Although further improvements in SIR documentation and tracking are warranted, these efforts are noteworthy. 284 The identical requirement is included in §II.3.b. of the Period 2 IP. 285 Period 2 IP §II.3.a. See infra pp. 81-82 for a discussion of this requirement.
79

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 88 of 180
individual and family team meetings and report that they incorporated the revision into the
annual training on court procedure that is provided to DFCS staff.286 For the reasons set forth in
the narrative related to Period 2 IP §II.3.a.,287 the policy cannot serve as a protocol for individual
and family team meetings. Therefore, in the absence of the required protocols, the training could
not be conducted.
Settlement Agreement §II.B.1.f. II. Standards
B. Foster Care Service Standards 1. Screening and Assessments By the end of implementation Period 2: f. At least 40% of children entering custody during the Period shall have a thorough screening and assessment, consistent with Plan requirements, within 30 calendar days of entering custody.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.1.f.: Defendants did not produce
validated data reports related to this subsection during Period 2 as contemplated by the settlement
agreement, and thus the Monitor was not able to assess whether this requirement was satisfied.
Settlement Agreement §II.B.1.g. II. Standards
B. Foster Care Service Standards 1. Screening and Assessments By the end of implementation Period 2: g. At least 40% of children entering custody or subject to a placement move during the Period shall have an individual team meeting (1) with the child and the assigned DFCS caseworker within the first 72 hours of initial placement or any subsequent placement moves; (2) with the child’s parents and the assigned DFCS caseworker within the first two weeks of initial placement; and (3) with the foster care provider and the assigned DFCS caseworker within the first two weeks of any placement.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.1.g.: Defendants did not produce
validated data reports related to this subsection during Period 2 as contemplated by the
Settlement Agreement, and thus the Monitor was not able to assess whether this requirement was
satisfied.
286 See Ex. 48, infra note 289, for the revised policy. 287 Infra pp. 81-82.
80

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 89 of 180
Settlement Agreement §II.B.1.h. II. Standards
B. Foster Care Service Standards 1. Screening and Assessments By the end of implementation Period 2: h. In at least 40% of placement cases in which the whereabouts of one or both parents is unknown, DFCS shall have immediately instituted a diligent search for the parent(s), which shall be documented in the child’s case record.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.1.h.: Defendants did not produce
validated data reports related to this subsection during Period 2 as contemplated by the
Settlement Agreement, and thus the Monitor was not able to assess whether this requirement was
satisfied.
Period 2 IP §II.3.a. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
3. Screening and Assessments a. By September 30, 2009, DFCS shall develop a protocol and training module for both individual and family team meetings as described in II.B.1.b of the Settlement Agreement. The training module shall be incorporated into the pre-service and in-service training curricula.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.3.a.: As addressed in the narrative related to
§II.B.1.e. of the Settlement Agreement,288 the required protocol was not developed during Period
2. In response to the requirements of this subsection, defendants revised DFCS policy related to
individual and family team meetings in June 2009;289 however, defendants plan to make
additional revisions to the policy to make it consistent with the practice model. Defendants
report that related modifications to the DFCS pre-service training curriculum were made on a
timely basis. In addition, the DFCS training director reports that the June 2009 policy has been
incorporated into the advanced development in the court procedure curriculum that is offered to
DFCS staff on an annual basis.290
288 Supra pp. 79-80. 289 Ex. 48, Bulletin 6200, Family Team Meetings and Individual Team Meetings, June 4, 2009, Mississippi, Volume IV, Revised June 2009, Section D, pp. 3308-3309-A. 290 The Monitor has not had an opportunity to corroborate this report.
81

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 90 of 180
It is evident from a review of the June 2009 policy revision that it cannot serve as a protocol for individual and family team meetings.291 The policy does not provide adequate
guidance to caseworkers on the principles that undergird individual and family team meetings or
on applied practices, including information related to the role and associated responsibilities of
the caseworker prior to, during, and subsequent to the meetings; the scope, content, and goals of
the meetings; available resources; documentation requirements; and facilitation methods,
including strategies for resolving disputes that may occur during the meetings.
Period 2 IP §II.3.a. Relevant COA Standards: PA-FC 1.01, PA-CPS 7.02, PA-FC 2.02, PA-AS 2.05, PA-FC 8.01.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.3.a., Relevant COA Standards: Based on the
documentation submitted by defendants to COA, COA found the documents were in compliance
with one standard and in substantial compliance with four standards. The COA’s findings are addressed in further detail in Section IV.B. of this report.292
Settlement Agreement §II.B.2.d. II. Standards
B. Foster Care Service Standards 2. Service Planning and Monitoring By the end of implementation Period 2: d. At least 40% of children entering custody during the Period shall have a team meeting with service plans developed for both the child and the parents, consistent with Plan requirements, within 30 calendar days of entry into foster care.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.2.d.: Defendants did not produce
validated data reports related to this subsection during Period 2 as contemplated by the
Settlement Agreement, and thus the Monitor was not able to assess whether this requirement was
satisfied.
Settlement Agreement §II.B.2.e. II. Standards
B. Foster Care Service Standards
291 The policy is somewhat confusing at least in part because it does not track case processing chronologically. 292 Infra pp. 152-153.
82

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 91 of 180
2. Service Planning and Monitoring By the end of implementation Period 2: e. At least 40% of children in custody during the Period shall have team meetings, at which time their service plans shall be updated, quarterly and within 30 calendar days of any placement or other significant change, consistent with Plan requirements.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.2.e.: Defendants did not produce
validated data reports related to this subsection during Period 2 as contemplated by the
Settlement Agreement, and thus the Monitor was not able to assess whether this requirement was
satisfied.
Period 2 IP §II.4.a.-c. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
4. Service Planning and Monitoring The revised policies and practice guides shall require that each service plan and revision of such plan meets the requirements of section II.B.2 of the Settlement Agreement and: a. is based on the assessment required by section II.B.1 of the Settlement Agreement; b. includes: service goals, desired outcomes, and timeframes for achieving them; services and supports to be provided, and by whom; and the signature of the parents and, when appropriate, the child or youth; and c. addresses, as appropriate: unmet service and support needs that impact safety, permanency, and well-being; maintaining and strengthening relationships; educational needs and goals; and the need for culturally responsive services and the support of the family’s informal social network.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.4.a.-c.: As noted previously,293 defendants have not
revised the DFCS policy manual as required. However, during Period 2, the consultants who
developed the practice model also developed a practice guide, in consultation with the
defendants, which addresses service planning in a methodical and comprehensive manner.294 As
contemplated by the Settlement Agreement, a related policy, training program, and adequate
293 See discussion related to Period 2 IP §II.1. supra pp. 70-71. 294 Ex. 49, Practice Guide, Mobilizing Appropriate Services Timely, excerpt, Practice Model Report, Appendix B, supra note 172.
83

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 92 of 180
service array will need to be developed in order for the service plans to be developed and
implemented in an appropriate fashion.295
Period 2 IP §II.4.a.-c. Relevant COA Standards: PA-CPS 8.03, PA-CPS 8.01, PA-CPS 8.05, PA-FC 3.07.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.4.a.-c., Relevant COA Standards: Based on the
documentation submitted by defendants to COA, COA found the documents were in compliance
with two standards and in substantial compliance with two standards. The COA’s findings are
addressed in further detail in Section IV.B. of this report.296
Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.a.5. II. Standards
B. Foster Care Service Standards 3. Child and Youth Permanency a. Permanency Plan By the end of implementation Period 2: 5. A least 50% of children entering care during the Period shall have a permanency plan within 30 calendar days of their entry into care consistent with Plan requirements.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.a.5.: Defendants did not produce
validated data reports related to this subsection during Period 2 as contemplated by the
Settlement Agreement, and thus the Monitor was not able to assess whether this requirement was
satisfied.
Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.a.6. II. Standards
B. Foster Care Service Standards 3. Child and Youth Permanency a. Permanency Plan By the end of implementation Period 2: 6. At least 50% of children in custody during the Period shall have a permanency plan that is consistent with Plan requirements.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.a.6.: Defendants did not produce
validated data reports related to this subsection during Period 2 as contemplated by the
295 The findings from the foster care services assessments, supra pp. 70-79, indicate this will be a substantial undertaking. 296 Infra p. 153.
84

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 93 of 180
Settlement Agreement, and thus the Monitor was not able to assess whether this requirement was
satisfied.
Period 2 IP §II.5.a.1. and 2. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
5. Child and Youth Permanency a. Permanency Plan The revised policies and practice guides shall require that: 1) All permanency plans contain specific information about: i. How the permanency goal will be achieved; ii. What services are necessary to make the accomplishment of the goal likely; iii. Who is responsible for the provision of those services; iv. When the services will be provided; and v. The date by which the permanency goal is likely to be achieved. 2) All services documented in the case record as necessary for the achievement of the permanency goal are provided within the time period in which they are needed, by either providing those services directly, contracting with a private provider for those services, or referring to an existing service provider for the provision of those services.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.5.a.1. and 2.: As noted previously,297 defendants
have not revised the DFCS policy manual as required. However, during Period 2, the consultants
who developed the practice model developed a practice guide, in consultation with the
defendants, which addresses permanency planning and services to achieve the permanency goal.
The practice guide is comprehensive and practice steps are presented in a methodical manner.298
As contemplated by the Settlement Agreement, the related policy and an appropriate service
array will need to be developed.299
Period 2 IP §II.5.a. Relevant COA Standard: PA-FC 4.01.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.5.a., Relevant COA Standard: Based on the
documentation submitted by defendants to COA, COA found the documents were in substantial
297 Supra pp. 70-71. 298 Ex. 50, Practice Guide, Individualized Case Planning, excerpt, Practice Model Report, Appendix B; see supra note 172. 299 See findings from the foster care services assessments, supra pp. 70-79.
85

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 94 of 180
compliance with this standard. This COA finding is addressed in further detail in Section IV.B.
of this report.300
Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.b.2. II. Standards
B. Foster Care Service Standards 3. Child and Youth Permanency b. Concurrent Planning By the end of implementation Period 2: 2. At least 50% of children in custody during the Period with the goal of reunification shall have case record documentation reflecting active concurrent permanency planning consistent with Plan requirements.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.b.2.: Defendants did not produce
validated data reports related to this subsection during Period 2 as contemplated by the
Settlement Agreement, and thus the Monitor was not able to assess whether this requirement was
satisfied.
Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.c.3. II. Standards
B. Foster Care Service Standards 3. Child and Youth Permanency c. Permanency Plan Updating and Review By the end of implementation Period 2: 3. At least 50% of children in custody at least six months during the Period shall have a timely court or administrative case review consistent with Plan requirements during the Period.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.c.3.: Defendants did not produce
validated data reports related to this subsection during Period 2 as contemplated by the
Settlement Agreement, and thus the Monitor was not able to assess whether this requirement was
satisfied.
Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.c.4. II. Standards
B. Foster Care Service Standards 3. Child and Youth Permanency c. Permanency Plan Updating and Review By the end of implementation Period 2:
300 Infra pp. 153-154.
86

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 95 of 180
4. At least 50% of children in custody at least 12 months during the Period shall have a timely annual court review consistent with Plan requirements during the Period.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.c.4.: Defendants did not produce
validated data reports related to this subsection during Period 2 as contemplated by the
Settlement Agreement, and thus the Monitor was not able to assess whether this requirement was
satisfied. Because the Bridge Plan requires defendants to submit validated data reports related to
this requirement,301 the Monitor expects to report on annual reviews in her forthcoming report on
the Bridge Plan.
Period 2 IP §II.5.b.1. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
5. Child and Youth Permanency b. Permanency Plan Updating and Review 1. By July 1, 2009, Defendants shall implement a system to facilitate a court review for every foster child within 12 months of initial placement and annually thereafter. That system shall include the capacity to: (1) track scheduled annual court reviews, and notify the Youth Court with jurisdiction over the child of any reviews that need to be scheduled or re-scheduled so as to meet the requirements of section II.B.3.c of the Settlement Agreement; (2) ensure that the Youth Court with jurisdiction is provided with a detailed up-to-date report on the current status of the child’s placement, visitation, permanent plan progress, and service needs no later than 30 calendar days before a scheduled court review or at a time otherwise directed by the Court; and (3) ensure that the child’s assigned caseworker or supervisor attends any such scheduled court review.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.5.b.1.: The required system was not implemented
during Period 2. However, there is evidence of defendants’ efforts to improve the quality of the
data that are recorded in MACWIS during Period 2.302
Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.d.4. II. Standards
B. Foster Care Service Standards 3. Child and Youth Permanency d. Reunification Services By the end of implementation Period 2:
301 June 10, 2010 Agreed Order at Ex. A. p. 2. 302 See, e.g. Ex. 51, Mississippi Department of Human Services Division of Family and Children’s Services, Child Welfare Professional Development Unit, Newsletter, Vol. 2, Issue 5, May 2010, at 9 (redacted excerpt).
87

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 96 of 180
4. At least 40% of children with a permanency goal of reunification during the Period shall have service plans for their parents that identify those services DFCS deems necessary to address the behaviors or conditions resulting in the child’s placement in foster care and case record documentation that DFCS made those identified services available directly or through referral.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.d.4.: Defendants did not produce
validated data reports related to this subsection during Period 2 as contemplated by the
Settlement Agreement, and thus the Monitor was not able to assess whether this requirement was
satisfied.
Period 2 IP §II.5.c.1. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
5. Child and Youth Permanency c. Reunification Services 1. Defendants, in conjunction with a qualified independent consultant approved by the Monitor, shall develop and begin implementing a written plan to meet the needs identified in the required Foster Care Services Reunification Needs Assessment, with specific steps and timetables for addressing gaps in the availability of effective services. Such plan shall be developed by January 1, 2010.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.5.c.1.: The required plan was not developed during
Period 2.
Period 2 IP §II.5.c.1. Relevant COA Standard: PA-FC 8.02.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.5.c.1., Relevant COA Standard: Based on the
documentation submitted by defendants to COA, COA found the documents were in substantial
compliance with this standard. This COA finding is addressed in further detail in Section IV.B.
of this report.303
Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.e.3. II. Standards
B. Foster Care Service Standards 3. Child and Youth Permanency e. Termination of Parental Rights By the end of implementation Period 2:
303 Infra p. 154.
88

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 97 of 180
3. At least 40% of children in custody reaching the point at which they have spent 15 of the previous 22 months in foster care during the Period shall have a petition for TPR filed on their behalf or an available exception under the federal ASFA documented by the end of their fifteenth month in care.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.e.3.: Although substantial efforts
were made to validate data reports implicated by this subsection as part of the TPR assessment that was conducted during Period 2,304 defendants did not produce validated data reports related
to this subsection as contemplated by the Settlement Agreement. Until the defendants address the shortcomings revealed by the assessment,305 it will not be possible to identify all children in
care who fall within the purview of this requirement. Thus, the Monitor was not able to assess
whether this requirement was satisfied during Period 2. Pursuant to the Bridge Plan, defendants are required to produce validated data reports related to this subsection.306 Accordingly, the
Monitor expects to report on defendants’ progress in her forthcoming report on the Bridge Plan.
Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.e.4. II. Standards
B. Foster Care Service Standards 3. Child and Youth Permanency e. Termination of Parental Rights By the end of implementation Period 2: 4. At least 40% of children in custody during the Period who have spent more than 15 of the previous 22 months in foster care without a TPR petition filed on their behalf or an available ASFA exception documented by the end of their fifteenth month in care shall have such a petition filed or an available exception documented within the Period.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.e.4.: The status of progress related
to this requirement is reflected in the preceding narrative related to Settlement Agreement
§II.B.3.e.3.
304 The TPR assessment is addressed supra pp. 74-76. 305 Id. 306 June 10, 2010 Agreed Order at Ex. A, p. 1.
89

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 98 of 180
Period 2 IP §II.5.d.1. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
5. Child and Youth Permanency d. Termination of Parental Rights/Special Permanency Reviews 1. By January 4, 2010, DFCS shall begin the implementation of a “tickler” system for notifying caseworkers and caseworker supervisors when a case assigned to them has reached the following milestones: 12 months after a child entered custody; 30 calendar days after the establishment of adoption as the primary permanency goal; 30 calendar days after a TPR referral has been made; and 10 calendar days after a TPR packet has been returned to DFCS because of a legal deficiency.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.5.d.1.: Defendants report that the system was
completed on March 8, 2010 and implemented during Period 2. There is evidence that staff were
notified about the introduction of some aspects of the required tickler system; however, the
Monitor has not had an opportunity to corroborate this evidence or to determine the extent to
which the tickler system is operational.
Period 2 IP §II.5.d.2. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
5. Child and Youth Permanency d. Termination of Parental Rights/Special Permanency Reviews 2. By December 1, 2009, DFCS shall have held a special permanency review for each child in DFCS custody who had, as of January 4, 2008, been in foster care more than 15 of the previous 22 months, and for whom DFCS has not filed a TPR petition or documented an available ASFA exception. For each child who reaches more than 15 of the previous 22 months in foster care after January 4, 2008, and for whom DFCS has not filed a TPR petition or documented an available ASFA exception, DFCS shall begin holding special permanency reviews. Such permanency reviews shall include the DFCS caseworker, the caseworker’s direct supervisor, and at least one individual with expertise in permanency planning who has not held direct casework or supervisory responsibility for the case. The review will produce a written plan of action setting forth the steps to be taken by DFCS, the contract agency, and/or any other provider of services, in order to move the child to permanency as quickly as possible. Such permanency reviews shall be documented in the child’s case record, and reconvened monthly until all barriers to permanency have been resolved, a TPR petition has been filed, or an available ASFA exception has been documented in the child’s case record.
90

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 99 of 180
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.5.d.2.: As described in the narrative related to Period 2 IP §II.2.e.,307 the TPR assessment that was conducted during Period 2 determined that
there are significant limitations in the accuracy of data collected in MACWIS. The assessment
identified an apparent systemic failure to properly document ASFA exceptions, which was
attributed, at least in part, to the failure of field staff (and presumably their supervisors) to
recognize when exceptions exist. The absence of a reliable and uniform process that is used on a
statewide basis to determine the date TPR petitions are filed was identified as an additional capacity deficit which, according to the defendants, was corrected in February 2010.308 Among
other remedial initiatives, the assessment report recommends modifications in DFCS policy as well as staff training to address these issues.309 Pursuant to the Bridge Plan,310 the defendants are
required to provide validated data reports that identify the cohort of children subject to the
requirements of this subsection. Until the data reports establish that defendants can identify the
correct cohort of children for whom permanency reviews are required, a reliable assessment of
defendants’ performance cannot be conducted.
Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.f.6. II. Standards
B. Foster Care Service Standards 3. Child and Youth Permanency f. Adoption By the end of implementation Period 2: 6. At least 75% of children in custody with the primary permanency goal of adoption during the Period shall have an assigned adoption specialist and an adoption plan that identifies the child-specific activities that DFCS will undertake to achieve adoption, and shall receive regular adoption status meetings consistent with Plan requirements.
307 Supra pp. 74-76. 308 Defendants report that since February 5, 2010 these data have been collected and disseminated by the Office of the Attorney General [hereinafter OAG]. The Monitor has reviewed one of the reports produced by the OAG, and it appears to address the necessary data; however, the Monitor has not had an opportunity to determine the validity of the data or to determine how they are used. 309 Supra p. 75. 310 June 10, 2010 Agreed Order at Ex. A., p.1.
91

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 100 of 180
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.f.6.: As a threshold matter, the
Monitor has been unable to confirm representations made by DFCS managers regarding the
availability of adoption specialists on a statewide basis during Period 2 who performed the
functions specified by this subsection. The Monitor requested that defendants submit the
evidence to support these representations during the comment period on the draft version of this
report. The evidence was not submitted. Additionally, defendants did not produce validated data
reports related to this requirement during Period 2 as contemplated by the Settlement Agreement
and thus the Monitor was unable to assess defendants’ progress related to this requirement.
Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.f.7. II. Standards
B. Foster Care Service Standards 3. Child and Youth Permanency f. Adoption By the end of implementation Period 2: 7. At least 75% of children in custody during the Period who are legally free for adoption but are not in a home with approved adoptive parents within six months after being legally freed for adoption shall have an assigned external adoption consultant consistent with Plan requirements to ensure the adoption plan is implemented.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.f.7.: The defendants did not engage
external adoption consultants during Period 2, and thus did not have the capacity to satisfy this
requirement.
Period 2 IP §II.5.e.1. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
5. Child and Youth Permanency e. Adoption 1. By July 1, 2009, DFCS shall define the job description, responsibilities, and qualifications for the position of adoption specialist. The adoption specialist’s responsibilities shall include consulting with private and public professionals and identifying and ensuring the provision of targeted services necessary for the child to be adopted.
92

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 101 of 180
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.5.e.1.: A draft position description dated June 26, 2009 was submitted to the Monitor by DFCS management.311 The position description does not include the job responsibilities required by this subsection. Based on reports from DFCS managers, it appears that defendants did not finalize the position description because a determination was made to use existing resource workers to perform the duties of the adoption specialists. However, it does not appear that this course of action was implemented on a statewide basis. Resource workers assist with adoptive placements and are also responsible for recruiting and licensing resource homes. Based on reports from DFCS county office staff, the backlog of relative placements that remained unlicensed during Period 2,312 and the systemic shortage of licensed resource homes, it does not appear DFCS had a sufficient number of resource workers on a statewide basis that could be reassigned to serve as adoption specialists during Period 2.
Period 2 IP §II.5.e.2. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
5. Child and Youth Permanency e. Adoption 2. By July 1, 2009, DFCS shall develop a protocol for adoption meetings, which are to be held to review the progress being made in achieving the goal of adoption for legally free children.
311 Ex. 52, Adoption Specialist Job Duties, Draft 06-26-09. 312 Pursuant to Settlement Agreement §II.B.5.j., defendants were required to develop and implement a process for expedited licensure of relative caregivers during Period 1. Because the requirement was not satisfied, the Period 2 IP required defendants to develop and implement a plan to license all unlicensed caregivers by the end of Period 2. See Period 2 IP §II.7.b. It also required the development and implementation of an expedited process for licensing screened relative caregivers during Period 2, Period 2 IP §II.7.c. Because these requirements were not satisfied during Period 2, the Bridge Plan requires defendants to take corrective action. June 10, 2010 Agreed Order at ¶ 7.f.
93

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 102 of 180
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.5.e.2.: A protocol for adoption meetings was
developed during Period 2.313 This document does not provide sufficient information to guide
case practice.
Period 2 IP §II.5.e.3. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
5. Child and Youth Permanency e. Adoption 3. By July 1, 2009, DFCS shall have identified external adoption consultants who DFCS can contract with to provide adoption recruitment assistance to children who have been free for adoption for six or more months and who are not yet placed in an approved adoptive home.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.5.e.3.: Defendants reported that they had identified
external adoption consultants with whom they could contract in order to obtain the required
external consultative services; however, they noted that these external entities were not contacted
regarding their interest in, and availability for, providing these services.314 This Period 2
requirement contemplates that defendants would engage in concrete planning activities to
determine whether a pool of appropriately qualified individuals/entities actually were available
by the July 1, 2009 start of the then-new fiscal year to provide required consultative services.
The identification of entities who might be contacted does not meet the spirit of this requirement.
Period 2 IP §II.5.e.4. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
5. Child and Youth Permanency e. Adoption 4. DFCS shall take reasonable steps to hire (or promote) and train a sufficient number of adoption specialists to meet the adoption requirements of Section II.B.3.f of the Settlement Agreement. Adoption status meetings consistent with the Settlement Agreement will start being held.
313 Ex. 53, Protocol for Adoption Meetings, submitted to the Monitor by DFCS management during Period 2. The Monitor has been unable to confirm the date this document was finalized and has not been able to determine whether it has been distributed to staff. 314 Ex. 54, External Adoption Consultant (redacted), submitted to the Monitor by DFCS management during Period 2. This document in relevant part states: “several qualified private practitioners have been identified but have not been contacted and, therefore, cannot be listed.” The document also lists licensed child-placing agencies “which would be given an opportunity to contract with DFCS….” Id.
94

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 103 of 180
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.5.e.4.: As noted in the narrative related to
Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.f.6.,315 the Monitor has been unable to confirm representations
made by DFCS managers regarding the availability of adoption specialists to perform the
functions specified by this subsection on a statewide basis during Period 2. The Monitor
requested that defendants submit evidence supporting these representations during the comment
period on the draft version of this report. No evidence was submitted.
Period 2 IP §II.5.e.5. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
5. Child and Youth Permanency e. Adoption 5. By October 1, 2009, DFCS shall develop and begin implementing a process for making legal risk placements that assures that children for whom the permanency plan is adoption but who are not yet legally free for adoption are placed in appropriate adoptive homes.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.5.e.5.: The required process was not developed
during Period 2.
Period 2 IP §II.5.e.6. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
5. Child and Youth Permanency e. Adoption 6. By October 1, 2009, DFCS shall implement a process for advising all potential adoptive families, including any foster family caring for a child who has become legally available for adoption, of the availability of adoption subsidies. This notification shall be documented in the child’s record, and the family’s access to such subsidies shall be facilitated.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.5.e.6.: The required process was not implemented
during Period 2.
Period 2 IP §II.5.e. Relevant COA Standards: PA-AS 8.05, PA-AS 2.03, PA-AS 8.01, PA-AS 7.02, PA-AS 3.02, PA-AS 3.04, PA-AS 11.01, PA-AS 11.02.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.5.e., Relevant COA Standards: Based on the
documentation submitted by defendants to COA, COA found the documents were in compliance
315 Supra pp. 91-92.
95

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 104 of 180
with two standards and in substantial compliance with six standards. The COA’s findings are addressed in further detail in Section IV.B. of this report.316
Settlement Agreement §II.B.4.k. II. Standards
B. Foster Care Service Standards 4. Child Safety By the end of implementation Period 2: k. For investigations of agency group homes, emergency shelters, and private child placing agency foster homes, the Licensure Unit shall undertake a separate investigation of the contract provider’s compliance with DFCS licensure standards.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.4.k.: As explained below, this requirement was not satisfied during Period 2.
Separate investigations of the contract provider’s compliance with DFCS licensure standards are not conducted routinely in large part because defendants do not have the capacity to do so. DFCS maintains a state office licensure unit that is responsible for the licensure, renewal and monitoring of over 100 group homes, emergency shelters and private child-placing agency foster homes that are operated by nearly 50 separate private agencies throughout the state. A licensure unit director was hired in 2009. In addition to the director, the unit currently has two staff members.317 The unit is not staffed to conduct the required investigations.
Nonetheless, the licensure unit tracks investigations related to reports of maltreatment in care concerning the facilities and therapeutic foster homes implicated by this subsection. Licensure unit staff review the investigative reports related to maltreatment investigations and respond on an ad hoc basis, by conducting site visits and, at times, requiring corrective action. Additional resources will be required in order for the licensure unit to develop the capacity to conduct the licensure investigations that are required by this subsection.
316 Infra pp. 154-155. 317 A third staff member recently accepted a position in the DFCS CQI unit.
96

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 105 of 180
Period 2 IP §II.6.a. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
6. Child Safety a. By May 1, 2009, Defendants shall instruct all DFCS staff that as mandated reporters they are required to formally report any suspicions of maltreatment, including corporal punishment, of children in custody.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.6.a.: Because this requirement was not satisfied during Period 1,318 it was included in the Period 2 IP. As described in the Monitor’s June 2009 Report, 319 defendants issued a policy bulletin in January 2008 instructing all DFCS staff that as
mandated reporters they were required to report formally any suspicious of maltreatment, including corporal punishment, of children in resource homes.320 Because the bulletin was
limited to resource homes, and did not address other settings, the Monitor reported that it did not satisfy Period 1 requirements.321 Thereafter, in February 2010, defendants provided written guidance to DFCS staff that incorporated the requirements of this subsection.322 The related
policy was revised during the Bridge Period and defendants expect to issue it in the near term.
The Monitor has reviewed the revision, and it comports with the requirements of this subsection.
Period 2 IP §II.6.b. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
6. Child Safety b. By January 1, 2010, DFCS shall assure that standardized decisionmaking criteria are used for prioritizing, screening, and assessing all reports of maltreatment, including corporal punishment, of children in DFCS custody.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.6.b.: As explained below, although there has been
progress, this requirement has not been satisfied.
318 Period 1 IP §II.4. 319 June 2009 Report at 81-82. 320 Ex. 55, MDHS, DFCS, Bulletin 6154, Mandatory Reporting Requirement, January 24, 2008. 321 June 2009 Report at 82. 322 Ex. 56, Mississippi Department of Human Services Division of Family and Children’s Services, Child Welfare Professional Development Unit, Newsletter, Vol. 2, Issue 2, February 2010, Mandating Reporting Reminder, at 1 (excerpt).
97

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 106 of 180
Pursuant to Period 2 requirements,323 during the last quarter of 2009, defendants began to operate a centralized Hotline for reporting all allegations of child abuse and neglect on a statewide basis. As a matter of policy, Hotline intake workers screen reports of maltreatment according to standardized criteria; however, DFCS supervisors are permitted to reconsider these screening decisions in several circumstances, including if staff in the DFCS county office have “additional information that might result in a change in the screening level.”324 Thus, by its express terms, DFCS policy during Period 2 did not comport with the requirements of this subsection.325
Interviews with Hotline supervisors and staff, as well as with DFCS managers and county office staff, indicate that case practice is consistent with these policy directives. According to the interview data, county office staff and/or their supervisors at times override the Hotline intake workers’ screening determinations based on subjective judgments, including judgments that are informed by independent knowledge of the child and/or family. The frequency of this practice is difficult to determine because the historical record related to individual screening decisions has not been available.326 However, the Monitor has interviewed DFCS managers and supervisory staff who have confirmed their reliance on their own subjective judgments to override screening decisions that have been made by the Hotline’s intake workers. This is precisely the type of circumstance that the requirement for utilizing standardized decision-making criteria is intended to prohibit. Defendants must address this issue in order to ensure the intake screening process meets the requirements of the Settlement Agreement.
323 Period 2 IP §II.B.6.d. A similar Period 2 requirement is included in Period 2 IP §III.2. 324 See Ex. 34, supra note 243, at 2020-A. 325 Defendants reported that the policy was revised during the Bridge Period. The Monitor will report on this matter in her forthcoming report related to the June 10, 2010 Agreed Order. 326 Defendants have been working to develop a reliable method for tracking and reporting on these data.
98

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 107 of 180
In addition, the assessment of maltreatment reports is not standardized.327 As described
above,328 defendants are required to take corrective action to strengthen the assessment of
maltreatment reports during the Bridge Period.329
Period 2 IP §II.6.c. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
6. Child Safety c. By January 1, 2010, Defendants shall revise DFCS policies and procedures for screening and investigating reports of child maltreatment, including corporal punishment, to incorporate the child safety standards and requirements set forth in Section II.B.4 of the Settlement Agreement.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.6.c.: As noted above,330 DFCS policies and
procedures have not been revised to incorporate the Settlement Agreement’s child safety
standards and requirements. Pursuant to the Bridge Plan, defendants are required to develop
certain policy documents and practice guides related to the requirements of this subsection.331
Accordingly, the Monitor will report on defendants’ progress in her forthcoming report on the
Bridge Plan.
Period 2 IP §II.6.d. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
6. Child Safety d. By September 1, 2009, all calls to the hotline shall immediately be entered into the statewide computer information system, and the worker or supervisor receiving the report shall use the information system to determine whether there have been prior reports of abuse and/or neglect in that family or concerning that child. If a report is screened in, information regarding any prior reports shall immediately be made available to the worker to whom the case has been assigned for investigation.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.6.d.: Defendants made significant progress toward
meeting this requirement during Period 2 by establishing a statewide Hotline for reporting child
abuse and neglect. However, because of critical limitations in MACWIS, which compromise the
327 This matter is addressed supra note 281 and related text. 328 Supra p. 79. 329 June 10, 2010 Agreed Order at ¶ 7.b. 330 Supra p. 70-71. 331 June 10, 2010 Agreed Order at ¶ 7.c. and d.
99

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 108 of 180
ability to access accurate and complete data regarding prior maltreatment reports, defendants currently do not have the capacity to provide a reasonable assurance that information regarding prior maltreatment reports is available immediately to the assigned DFCS investigator. In addition, even if this capacity deficit was resolved, the Monitor’s review of DFCS policy and of the training materials developed by DFCS staff for the Hotline’s intake workers indicates that insufficient direction and guidance is provided with respect to the responsibility of Hotline workers to determine whether there have been prior reports of abuse or neglect and to transmit this information so that it is immediately available to the assigned investigator. For these reasons, defendants have not satisfied the requirements of this subsection. These matters are explained more fully below.
As a threshold matter, MACWIS does not link prior reports of maltreatment in a way that provides the full history of prior maltreatment reports, and it contains inaccurate and incomplete dispositional data related to maltreatment reports. Unless this limitation is corrected, defendants will not have the capacity to meet this Period 2 requirement.
The statewide operation of the centralized Hotline commenced on November 1, 2009. Pursuant to DFCS policy332 and the MDHS/DFCS contract with the vendor responsible for operating the Hotline, all reports of suspected maltreatment must be entered into MACWIS and referred to the appropriate county within one hour of receiving the report.333 DFCS managers responsible for the Hotline report that intake workers are required to use MACWIS to determine
332 See Ex. 34, supra note 243, at 2018. 333 Ex. 57, Scope of Services, Social Work p.r.n., Central Intake, 24-Hour Hotline and Disaster Preparedness Plan at 2. As described infra p. 134, some DFCS staff report that in certain circumstances DFCS county office staff accept reports of maltreatment in the county office, interview the reporter, and thereafter contact the Hotline intake worker themselves to report the allegation of maltreatment. The evidence indicates that this practice is ongoing. The DFCS policy related to intake processing does not provide direction and guidance to county office staff with respect to their roles and responsibilities via-a-vis intake processing. Moreover, the Period 2 IP requires that defendants maintain a centralized intake system that receives and screens all reports of child maltreatment and forwards the screened-in reports to the appropriate county office. See Period 2 IP §III.2.
100

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 109 of 180
whether there is any history of prior maltreatment reports involving the child or family and to
include this information with the transmission of the report. The relevant DFCS policy indicates
that the Hotline intake worker is responsible for gathering information in MACWIS related to
prior maltreatment reports.334 The policy includes a summary of screening procedures applicable
to the Hotline intake worker.335 The procedures do not address the Hotline intake worker’s
responsibilities for gathering and disseminating data related to prior maltreatment reports.336 A
review of the training manual that was developed by DFCS for the Hotline’s intake workers
indicates that further written guidance and training related to this duty is warranted because the
training manual does not address this intake function.
Period 2 IP §II.6.e. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
6. Child Safety e. By October 1, 2009, DFCS shall complete a special safety review, including an unannounced site visit, of all currently licensed foster homes with two or more reports of maltreatment, including corporal punishment, within the last three years to determine whether any children placed in those homes are at risk of harm and/or any licensing standards related to child safety are not being met. Any necessary corrective actions will be identified and tracked.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.6.e.: Defendants made demonstrable progress
toward meeting this requirement during Period 1.337 However, because the required safety
reviews were not completed, this requirement was included in the Period 2 IP. The special safety
reviews were conducted during Period 2; however, in certain instances necessary corrective
action was not tracked. These findings are explained below.
334 See Ex. 34, supra note 243, at 2018 for the limited reference in the policy to this job duty. Among other responsibilities, the policy states that the Hotline worker is responsible for gathering information about “prior MDHS involvement (METSS, MSSIS, MAVERICS and MACWIS).” Id. No further information with respect to this responsibility is included in the policy or in the training materials that have been submitted to the Monitor. 335 Id. at 2019. 336 The Monitor has been advised by the DFCS manager who has responsibility for this function that written procedures regarding these intake responsibilities have not been developed. 337 Settlement Agreement §II.B.4.i.; see June 2009 Report at 79-80 for a discussion of defendants’ progress during Period 1.
101

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 110 of 180
During Period 1, defendants hired two experienced social workers to conduct the safety reviews. In addition, protocols and instruments to guide the scope and content of the reviews were developed and piloted. The reviewers targeted homes with two or more reports of maltreatment between May 1, 2006 and May 1, 2009; however, they encountered substantial challenges identifying the specific homes subject to this requirement. Because of limitations in MACWIS reporting, the reviewers supplemented data reported by MACWIS with data derived from manual reviews conducted by regional and county office staff to develop the list of resource homes subject to the required safety reviews. The reviewers also obtained relevant data from private agencies that provide therapeutic foster home placements to children in care.
According to the data submitted to the Monitor by the safety reviewers, a total of 91 resource homes were identified initially as meeting the criteria for review. Further investigation by the reviewers revealed that many of these homes were closed or inactive. Resource homes were deemed to be inactive if a child was not placed in the home during the time the reviews were conducted.338 Safety reviews related to 29 resource homes were conducted between March 12, 2009 and September 17, 2009.
A consultant who has assisted the Monitor with evaluating the safety review process accompanied the reviewers on two site visits and has briefed the Monitor on her findings and impressions.339 The Monitor also has interviewed the safety reviewers and reviewed a series of relevant documents, including: 1) MACWIS reports and reports from county and regional offices that were relied upon to identify the resource homes targeted for review; 2) the tracking log
338 The reviewers checked periodically to determine if a child had been placed in an inactive resource home; however, there was no mechanism established for alerting the reviewers to the fact that a child had been placed in a resource home that was characterized as inactive. Thus, it is possible that some resource homes that were deemed inactive served as placements at some point during the period that the reviews were conducted. 339 The consultant, Stacy Ferraro, has substantial experience in conducting complex investigations in other contexts. See Ex. 1B, supra note 30, for a summary of Ms. Ferraro’s background and experience. Ms. Ferraro attended a site visit of a resource home and a site visit of a facility.
102

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 111 of 180
developed by the safety reviewers to track their work on each resource home subject to review; and 3) the investigative reports prepared for each review that was conducted.
The reviewers report that they conducted unannounced site visits to each home targeted for review, and they prepared for the site visits by reviewing all relevant case files in MACWIS, including records related to prior reports of maltreatment concerning the resource home. During the site visits, the reviewers follow a protocol that was developed for this purpose. Interviews are conducted with the resource parent. Additionally, the child who is placed in the home is interviewed privately. The reviewers observe interactions between the child and resource parent and conduct a walk-through of the home. A safety checklist derived from the licensing standards is used to ensure the standards are satisfied.
The investigative reports prepared by the safety reviewers demonstrate that the safety reviewers identified and addressed a number of issues during the reviews,340 mostly related to violations of licensing standards that present a risk of harm.341 A formal system for notification concerning urgent issues identified during specific safety reviews, as well as a system for tracking and ensuring that corrective actions related to the findings from the safety reviews are completed, has not been developed.342 And although there is some evidence of follow-up on the findings from many of the reviews, there is no evidence that defendants have established a system that ensures accountability and requires corrective action within specific time periods.
340 However, the reports do not describe the circumstances concerning the prior reports of maltreatment nor do they indicate whether related issues were explored during the safety review. This is a limitation the Monitor has discussed with the reviewers and their supervisor that should be addressed. 341 See. e.g., March 26, 2009 safety review for JH home, improper storage of unloaded gun corrected on-site by reviewer; July 21, 2009 safety review for TD home, uncovered electrical outlet and kitchen cabinets not child proofed. 342 Reviewers report that immediate problems are brought to the attention of their supervisors, and, on occasion, county office staff.
103

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 112 of 180
Defendants have made significant progress toward developing the capacity to conduct the
required safety reviews. In addition to the need for defendants to collect and report accurate data
related to prior maltreatment reports, defendants must focus on establishing a defined system for
ensuring corrective actions are undertaken and appropriately tracked on a timely basis.
Nonetheless, the reviews have helped to ensure the safety of children, and they have revealed important data about DFCS case practice that could advance the current reform process.343
Period 2 IP §II.6.f. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
6. Child Safety f. By December 1, 2009, DFCS shall undertake a special safety review, including an unannounced site visit, of all group homes and other residential facilities that house children in custody with three or more reports of maltreatment, including corporal punishment, within the last two years to determine whether any children placed in those facilities are at risk of harm and/or any licensing standards related to child safety are not being met. Any necessary corrective actions will be identified and tracked.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.6.f.: Like the required safety reviews of resource
homes addressed in the preceding section of this report, defendants made progress toward
meeting this requirement related to group homes and other residential facilities during Period 1.344 However, because the safety reviews were not completed, this requirement was included in
the Period 2 IP. During Period 2, the reviewers targeted facilities with three or more reports of
maltreatment between May 1, 2006 and May 1, 2009, capturing a broader cohort of facilities than
required by this subsection. In order to develop the list of facilities targeted for review, the
reviewers supplemented data reported by MACWIS with data obtained from surveying private
343 For example, reviewers report receiving multiple complaints about lack of contact with caseworkers and have documented a pattern of inconsistencies in the allowances that children receive. The reviewers indicate that they record this information in individual case records. It also may be possible to readily capture and analyze the data derived from the safety reviews so it can be used to inform CQI initiatives. 344 Settlement Agreement §II.B.4.j.; see June 2009 Report at 79-80 for a discussion of defendants’ progress during Period 1.
104

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 113 of 180
agencies that provide therapeutic congregate placements, as well as data derived from manual reviews that were conducted by regional and county office staff.
Facilities with three or more reports of maltreatment between May 1, 2006 and May 1, 2009 were targeted for review. Although nine congregate facilities were identified as falling within this criteria, the reviewers attempted to conduct safety reviews for the 57 different facilities that house children in DFCS custody. Ultimately, safety reviews related to 47 facilities, including the nine facilities that satisfied the criteria of this subsection, were conducted between April 28, 2009 and November 23, 2009. Defendants should be commended for this effort, which went significantly beyond the scope of this subsection.
At the time of the site visits, many of the facilities housed more than one child in DFCS custody. The site visits were unannounced, and the reviewers attempted to interview each child in custody who was placed at the facility at the time of the site visit. However, the placement data that the reviewers used were not consistently accurate, and thus they relied on the representations of facility administrators with respect to whether a specific child was still in the placement at the time of the site visit. The reviewers toured each facility and interviewed staff as well as many of the children in custody who were in these placements during the site visits.345
The investigative reports related to these safety reviews reveal many issues that implicate licensure requirements.346 The tracking data maintained by reviewers indicate that the DFCS licensure unit followed up on many of these issues and required various corrective actions. A chronological mechanism for tracking these actions has not been maintained by the reviewers, and thus the Monitor cannot, at this point, assess the timeliness of the corrective action process. The Monitor has not had an opportunity to evaluate the licensure unit’s involvement, but expects
345 Some children at the facilities were not interviewed. 346 These issues include failure to provide youth with required allowances and various physical plant issues.
105

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 114 of 180
to do so in the near term. The limited tracking data related to the licensure unit’s activities that
have been provided to the Monitor are encouraging.
In certain limited instances, the investigative reports indicate that the reviewers did not
recognize the risk of harm to children that was evident during the site visits.347 The Monitor has
discussed this concern with the reviewers and DFCS management. Additional training and
enhanced supervision is indicated in order to ensure these issues are identified and addressed in
the future.
Period 2 IP §II.6.g. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
6. Child Safety g. By December 1, 2009, all investigations into reports of maltreatment, including corporal punishment, of children in DFCS custody must be initiated within 24 hours of the report and completed within 30 calendar days, including supervisory approval. DFCS shall assure that such investigations and decisions are based on a full and systematic evaluation of the factors that may place a child in DFCS custody at risk.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.6.g.: Because defendants did not produce validated
data reports related to this requirement during Period 2 as required by the Period 2 IP,348 they are
347 The safety review reports that are described below, Exs. 58 and 59, contain information that falls within the purview of the August 5, 2004 Confidentiality Order, and thus the Monitor has moved to file them under seal. The motion is pending. Therefore, these exhibits are not included in the Appendix. See, e.g., Ex. 58, Special Safety Review – Group Home/Residential Facility, MACWIS Resource ID Number: 000008648 (report indicates that a 17year-old boy threatened to kill himself on the day of the reviewer’s visit and had assaulted another child the previous day; staff member in group home reported to reviewer that child had expressed suicidal thoughts and had been crying hysterically; although the report states that the director of the program thought the child was in need of a residential therapeutic hospital placement, while the reviewer was present the director spoke to law enforcement in order to have the child escorted to a juvenile detention center; it is unclear from the report who advised the director to contact law enforcement; the safety reviewer failed to address the child’s mental health needs and failed to ensure that correct procedures were in place to secure appropriate supervision and care for the child.); Ex. 59, Special Safety Review – Group Home/Residential Facility, MACWIS Resource ID Number: 000041084. (In the interview section of the report, it is noted that a 13-year-old girl has “a flat affect and seemed to be under a heavy dose of medication” and a 15-year-old boy appeared to be “in a daze” under the influence of medication, and his speech was difficult to understand; in the “Significant Concerns Noted/Recommendations” section, it merely states “[c]oncerns were noted regarding the specific situations of each youth. See interviews for details”; there is no description of necessary corrective action. The administrators interviewed were not questioned regarding the children’s mental status, and there is no indication that the DFCS worker contacted the psychiatrist or reviewed any mental health records or treatment plans developed for these children.) 348 See requirement and related text regarding Period 2 IP §I.5.b., supra pp. 64-66.
106

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 115 of 180
required to do so during the Bridge Period.349 Accordingly, the Monitor will report more fully on defendants’ progress in her forthcoming report on the Bridge Plan. As described above,350 however, the safety assessment that was conducted during Period 2 identified significant limitations in the timeliness of the investigative process related to maltreatment reports.351 These findings are corroborated by the case record review the Monitor conducted during Period 2 that is described below.352
Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, by the end of Period 1, defendants were required to initiate all investigations into reports of maltreatment of children in custody within 24 hours and to complete the investigations within 20 calendar days.353 The case record review found significant shortcomings in the timeliness of the investigative process under the applicable Period 1 requirements as well as under the applicable Period 2 requirements, which enlarged the time for completing investigations during Period 2 to 30 days.354 The relevant analysis of the data obtained from the Monitor’s review of 185 randomly selected screened-in reports of maltreatment in care received by DFCS between June 1, 2008 and June 30, 2009 is set forth below.
349 June 10, 2010 Agreed Order, Ex. A, p.1. 350 Supra pp. 76-77. 351 The assessment found delays in both the initiation and the completion of the investigations. 352 Infra pp. 108-110. 353 Settlement Agreement §II.B.4.e. The initiation requirement remained the same during Period 2; however, the time for completion of investigations was modified for purposes of Period 2 implementation. According to the Period 2 IP, by December 1, 2009, defendants were required to initiate investigations within 24 hours and complete them within 30 calendar days. Period 2 IP §II.6.g. 354 Id.
107

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 116 of 180

• Assignment to investigator: Over 30 percent of the cases reviewed documented that investigations were not assigned to an investigator in time to promote timely initiation of the investigative process. The 134 screened-in maltreatment reports were assigned to an investigator within the following time periods:
o Within one day: 89 (66.4%) o Within two days: 10 (7.5%) o Within three days: 12 (9%) o Within four to six days: 12 (9%) o Within seven to 10 days: 5 (3.7%) o >10 days: 6 (4.2%)

Time Period Between Intake and Assignment to an Investigator

7-10 days >10 days

3.7%

4.4%

4-6 days

9%

3 days 9%
2days 7.5%

1 days 66.4%

• Initiation: The alleged child-victim was interviewed in 126 of the 134 screened-in reports.355 Except in two instances, the interviews were conducted on a face-to-face basis. Over half of the case records document that the alleged child-victim was not interviewed within 24 hours as required to satisfy the Settlement Agreement’s initiation standard. The time periods between intake and the interviews of the child-victims are set out below:

o Within one day: 59 (46.8%) o Within two days: 14 (11.1%) o Within three days: 7 (5.6%) o Within four to six days: 16 (12.7%) o Within seven to 10 days: 8 (6.3%) o > 10 days: 22 (15.5%)356
Time Period Between Intake and Interviews of the Child-
Victim

15.5%

6.3%

46.8%

12.7%

5.6% 11.1%

1 days 2 day 3 days 4-6 days 7-10 days

355 For purposes of the case record review, a child under three years of age was deemed to be interviewed if there was documentation in the case record that the investigative worker visited and observed the child during the investigation. 356 These 22 instances ranged from a minimum of 11 days to a maximum of 272 days.
108

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 117 of 180

• Submission to supervisor: The investigative reports for the 134 screened-in maltreatment reports were submitted to a supervisor for review within the time periods following the date of intake that are set out below:
o Within one to three days: 4 (3%) o Within four to six days: 1 (0.7%) o Within seven to 10 days: 9 (6.7%) o Within 11-15 days: 18 (13.4%) o Within 16-20 days: 18 (13.4%) o Within 21-30 days: 41 (30.6%) o Within 31-45 days: 19 (14.2%) o Within 46-60 days: 10 (7.5%) o > 60 days: 14 (10.4%)

Time Between Date of Intake and Submission to Supervisor

46-60 days 7.5%

> 60 days 1-3 days 4-6 days

10.4%

3% 0.7%

7-10 days 6.7%

31-45 days 14.2%

11-15 days 13.4%
16-20 days 13.4%

21-30 days 30.6%

• Time to Completion: Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the date of supervisory approval of the investigative findings constitutes the date the investigation is deemed to be completed. Nearly 27 percent of the investigations were completed within 20 days and just over 53 percent of the investigations were completed within 30 days. The time periods between the date of intake and the date of supervisory approval of the investigative findings related to the 134 screened-in reports of maltreatment are set out below:
o Within one to 20 days: 36 (26.9%) o Within 21-30 days: 35 (26.2%) o Within 31-50 days: 39 (29.1%) o >50 days: 24 (17.9%)
Time Between the Date of Intake and the Date of Supervisory Approval

> 50 days 17.9%

1-20 26.9%

31-50 29.1%

21-30 26.2%

109

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 118 of 180

• Time between submission to supervisor and supervisory approval: The time periods between the submission of completed investigative reports to a supervisor and supervisory approval of the investigative findings related to the 134 screened-in reports of maltreatment are set out below:
o One to three days: 88 (65.7%) o Four to 10 days: 25 (18.7%) o 11 to 20 days: 12 (9%) o > 20 days: 9 (6.7%)

Times Between Submission to Supervisor and Supervisor Approval
11-20> 20 days days 6.7% 9%

4-10 days 18.7%

0-3 days 65.7%

Additional findings from the Monitor’s case record review related to maltreatment reports are set
forth in a summary that is included in the Appendix to this report.357
Period 2 IP §II.6.h. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
6. Child Safety h. By December 1, 2009, any foster child who remains in the same out-ofhome placement following an investigation into a report that he or she was maltreated, or subject to corporal punishment, in that placement shall be visited by a DFCS caseworker twice a month for three months after the conclusion of the investigation to assure the child’s continued safety and well-being.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.6.h.: Because defendants did not produce validated
data reports related to this requirement during Period 2 as required,358 they are required to do so
during the Bridge Period.359 Accordingly, the Monitor expects to report on defendants’ progress
in her forthcoming report on the Bridge Plan.
357 Ex. 60, Summary of the Court Monitor’s Findings from Case Record Review Conducted during Period 2 Investigations Related to Reports of Maltreatment In Care. The summary restates the methodology used to conduct the review, which is also set forth in the Methodology section of this report, supra pp. 13-16. 358 See Period 2 IP §I.5.b. and related text supra pp. 64-66, which requires defendants to verify MACWIS data related to face-to-face contacts. 359 June 10, 2010 Agreed Order, Ex. A, p. 4.
110

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 119 of 180
Period 2 IP §II.6.i. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
6. Child Safety i. By December 1, 2009, when a maltreatment investigation involves a foster home, DFCS shall file a copy of the approved final investigative report and any recommendations and/or corrective actions DFCS has deemed necessary in the case record of the foster child, in the file of the foster or adoptive parents with a copy of the letter of notification to the foster or adoptive parents, and in the DFCS State Office. DFCS shall also provide those records to the Youth Court Judge with jurisdiction over the child and to the Monitor.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.6.i.: The Monitor has not had an opportunity to
assess defendants’ compliance with each provision of this requirement during Period 2 and will
report on this requirement as indicated.360
Period 2 IP §II.6.j. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
6. Child Safety j. By December 1, 2009, when a maltreatment investigation involves an agency group home, emergency shelter, private child placing agency foster home, or other facility licensed by DFCS, a copy of the final investigative report shall be filed in the child’s case record, in the facility licensing file, and in the DFCS State Office. DFCS shall provide the report to the Youth Court Judge with jurisdiction over the child and to the Monitor.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.6.j.: The Monitor has not had an opportunity to
assess defendants’ compliance with each provision of this requirement during Period 2 and will
report more fully on this requirement as indicated.361
Period 2 IP §II.6.a.-j. Relevant COA Standards: PA-CPS 4.05, PA-CPS 5.05, PA-CPS 6, PA-CPS 14.06, PA-ASE 6.03.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.6.a.-j., Relevant COA Standards: Based on the
documentation submitted by defendants to COA, COA found the documents were in compliance
360 The Monitor expects to discuss this requirement and related reporting with the parties following the submission of this report, and anticipates these discussions will inform the scheduling of reporting on findings related to Period 2 requirements that are not included in this report. 361 See supra note 360 for the process the Monitor expects to adopt with respect to prospective reporting related to this requirement.
111

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 120 of 180
with two standards and in substantial compliance with three standards. The COA’s findings are
addressed in further detail in Section IV.B. of this report.362
Settlement Agreement §II.B.5.l.363 II. Standards
B. Foster Care Service Standards 5. Child Placement By the end of implementation Period 2: l. No child shall spend more than 12 hours at a time in a DFCS office or other non-residential facility that provides intake functions. No child shall be placed in more than one emergency or temporary facility within one episode of foster care, unless an immediate placement move is necessary to protect the safety of the child or of others as certified in writing by the Regional Director.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.5.l.: Defendants did not produce
validated data reports related to this requirement during Period 2 as required.364 They are
required to produce validated data reports related to placements in emergency or temporary
facilities within one episode of foster care during the Bridge Period.365 Accordingly, the Monitor
expects to report on this aspect of defendants’ performance in her forthcoming report on the
Bridge Plan. During Period 2, defendants did not collect data that track the time children spend
in a DFCS office or other nonresidential facility that provides intake functions. They will need to
do so as a prerequisite to satisfying this aspect of the requirements of this subsection, which is
not addressed by the Bridge Plan.
Settlement Agreement §II.B.5.m.366 II. Standards
B. Foster Care Service Standards 5. Child Placement By the end of implementation Period 2: m. No child under 10 years of age shall be placed in a congregate care setting (including group homes and shelters) unless the child has exceptional needs that cannot be met in a relative or foster family home or the child is a member of a sibling group, and the Regional Director has granted express written approval for the
362 Infra p. 156. 363 The identical requirement is included in §II.7.g. of the Period 2 IP. 364 See Period 2 IP §I.5.b. and related text supra pp. 64-66, which requires defendants to verify MACWIS data regarding placements. 365 June 10, 2010 Agreed Order, Ex. A, p.3. 366 The identical requirement is included in §II.7.h. of the Period 2 IP.
112

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 121 of 180
congregate-care placement. Such approval shall be based on the Regional Director’s written determination that the child’s needs cannot be met in a less restrictive setting and can be met in that specific facility, including a description of the services available in the facility to address the individual child’s needs. Sibling groups in which one or more of the siblings are under the age of 10 shall not be placed in congregate care settings for more than 45 days.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.5.m.: Because defendants did not
produce validated data reports related to this requirement during Period 2 as required,367 they are
required to do so during the Bridge Period.368 Accordingly, the Monitor will report more fully on
defendants’ progress in her forthcoming report on the Bridge Plan.
Settlement Agreement §II.B.5.n.369 II. Standards
B. Foster Care Service Standards 5. Child Placement By the end of implementation Period 2: n. No foster child shall be moved from his/her existing placement to another foster placement unless DFCS specifically documents in the child’s case record justifications for that move and the move is approved by a DFCS supervisor.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.5.n.: Defendants did not produce
validated data reports related to this requirement during Period 2 as required, and thus the
Monitor was not able to assess whether this requirement was satisfied.370
Settlement Agreement §II.B.5.o.371 II. Standards
B. Foster Care Service Standards 5. Child Placement By the end of implementation Period 2: o. All relative placements approved for expedited placement shall undergo the full licensing procedure within 60 calendar days of the child’s placement in the home.
367 See Period 2 IP §I.5.b. and related text supra pp. 64-66, which requires defendants to verify MACWIS data regarding placements. 368 June 10, 2010 Agreed Order, Ex. A, p. 3. 369 The identical requirement is included in §II.7.i. of the Period 2 IP. 370 See Period 2 IP §I.5.b. and related text supra pp. 64-66, which requires defendants to verify MACWIS data regarding placements. 371 The identical requirement is included in §II.7.d. of the Period 2 IP.
113

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 122 of 180
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.5.o.: This requirement was not
satisfied during Period 2. Because defendants are required to take corrective action during the Bridge Period,372 the Monitor will report on these licensure procedures in her forthcoming report
on the Bridge Plan.
Settlement Agreement §II.B.5.p. II. Standards
B. Foster Care Service Standards 5. Child Placement By the end of implementation Period 2: p. At least 50% of children in DHS custody placed in a new placement during the Period shall have their currently available medical, dental, educational, and psychological information provided to their foster parents or facility staff no later than at the time of any new placement during the Period.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.5.p.: Defendants did not produce
validated data related to this requirement during Period 2 as contemplated by the Settlement Agreement. Nonetheless, both the foster care services assessments conducted during Period 2,373
as well as data obtained by the Monitor from interviews with foster parents and caseworkers
during Period 2, indicate that foster parents are not provided with this information on a routine
basis. For example, during meetings with over 92 foster parents between December 2009 and May 2010,374 the primary area of concern expressed by foster parents was the fact that they
received limited or no background information on the children placed in their homes prior to or at
the time of placement.
Foster parents have reported that they do not receive any psycho-social histories for
children prior to or at the time of placement, including background data related to somatic and
behavioral health, current treatment and medications, immunization records, Medicaid data,
372 June 10, 2010 Agreed Order ¶ 7.f. 373 The assessment findings are addressed supra pp. 72-73. 374 Meetings of six resource parent support groups in Hazelhurst, Van Cleave, Biloxi, Pearl, Canton and Kosciusko, Mississippi, were attended by Dr. Southward, one of the consultants who has worked with the Monitor on this project during Period 2. In addition, the Monitor has met with foster parent support group members and individual foster parents during the course of Period 2.
114

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 123 of 180
social security numbers, school records and birth certificates. The overwhelming majority of
foster parents reported that it takes months to obtain a social security number and a Medicaid
card for the children placed in their care. As a result, they have encountered substantial
difficulties accessing medical care for children and enrolling them in school.375 There is a
critical need for the defendants to address these issues.
Settlement Agreement §II.B.5.q. II. Standards
B. Foster Care Service Standards 5. Child Placement By the end of implementation Period 2: q. At least 30% of children in custody known by DFCS to be subject to a potential or actual placement disruption during the Period shall receive a meeting to address placement stability consistent with Plan requirements.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.5.q.: Defendants did not produce
validated data reports related to this requirement during Period 2 as contemplated by the
Settlement Agreement, and thus the Monitor was not able to assess whether this requirement was
satisfied.
Period 2 IP §II.7.a. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
7. Child Placement a. By May 1, 2009, all foster care settings, including relative placements, shall be screened prior to the initial placement of foster children to ensure that children receive safe, sufficient, and appropriate care. Additional screens shall be completed at least once annually thereafter and within two weeks of a reported change in the residents of a foster home. Screens shall include criminal and child welfare background checks of all household members who are at least 14 years old. No foster child shall be placed in a home prior to DFCS receipt of the background check results.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.7.a.: Defendants did not produce validated data
reports related to this requirement during Period 2 as contemplated by the Settlement Agreement,
and thus the Monitor was not able to assess whether this requirement was satisfied.
375 The absence of the immunization record is a barrier to enrollment.
115

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 124 of 180
Period 2 IP §II.7.b. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
7. Child Placement b. Defendants shall develop and begin the implementation of a written plan to ensure the speedy licensing of all current unlicensed caregivers. All such current unlicensed caregivers shall be licensed.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.7.b.: The required plan was not developed during
Period 2. As described in this report, there is a statewide shortage of licensed resource homes.376
During Period 1, defendants were required to develop and implement a process for expedited
licensure of relative caregivers.377 The requirement was not satisfied. Thus, the Period 2 IP
required defendants to develop the plan required by this subsection and the process required by
Period 2 IP §II.7.c., which incorporates the Period 1 requirement for expedited relative
licensure.378 Because these requirements were not satisfied during Period 2, the Bridge Plan
requires the defendants to take corrective action.379 The Monitor will report on defendants’
progress in her forthcoming report on the Bridge Plan.
Period 2 IP §II.7.c. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
7. Child Placement c. By December 1, 2009, DFCS shall develop and implement an expedited process for licensing screened relative caregivers to enable a child to be placed quickly with relatives upon entering placement. No foster child entering custody will be placed in an unlicensed relative placement, subject to the allowance of the emergency licensing process that allows 60 days for the licensing process to take place.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.7.c.: As noted in the preceding narrative related to
Period 2 IP §II.7.b., because defendants did not satisfy this requirement during Period 2, they are
required to do so during the Bridge Period.380 Accordingly, the Monitor will report more fully on
defendants’ progress for licensing relative caregivers in her forthcoming report on the Bridge
Plan.
376 The findings from the foster care services placement assessment address this limitation. See supra pp. 72-73. 377 Settlement Agreement §II.B.5.j. 378 See June 2009 Report at 84. 379 June 10, 2010 Agreed Order at ¶ 7.f. 380 Id.
116

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 125 of 180
Period 2 IP §II.7.e. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
7. Child Placement e. Defendants, in conjunction with a qualified independent consultant approved by the Monitor, shall develop and begin implementing a plan with specific action steps and timeframes to address policy and structural changes to the placement process that the placement assessment has identified as necessary to comply with the placement requirements set forth in Section II.B.5 of the Settlement Agreement. That plan shall also include the development of the position of placement specialists in each region, and a protocol for the placement stability meetings that the Settlement Agreement requires that DFCS hold when a worker has knowledge that a placement is at risk of disruption.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.7.e.: The required plan was not developed during
Period 2.
Period 2 IP §II.7.f. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
7. Child Placement f. By December 1, 2009 and continuing thereafter, no foster child shall remain in an emergency or temporary facility for more than 45 calendar days, unless, in exceptional circumstances, the Division Director has granted express written approval for the extension that documents the need for the extension.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.7.f.: Because defendants did not produce validated
data reports related to this requirement during Period 2 as required,381 they are required to do so
during the Bridge Period.382 Accordingly, the Monitor will report more fully on the duration of
placements in emergency and temporary facilities in her forthcoming report on the Bridge Plan.
Period 2 IP §II.7.j. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
7. Child Placement j. By September 30, 2009, DFCS shall implement a formalized protocol to provide foster parents with all appropriate and available information about a child prior to or at the time of placement and for supplementing that information as further information is gathered.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.7.j.: The required protocol was not implemented
during Period 2.
381 See Period 2 IP §I.5.b. and related text supra pp. 64-66, which requires defendants to verify MACWIS data regarding placements. 382 June 10, 2010 Agreed Order, Ex. A, p. 3.
117

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 126 of 180
Period 2 IP §II.7.a.-j. Relevant COA Standards: PA-KC 1.01, PA-KC 1.02, PA-FC 17.01, PA-FC 17.02, PA-KC 6.05, PACPS 11.02, PA-KC 6.01, PA-KC 2.03, PA-CPS 10.03, PA-CPS 11.01, PA-FC 6.05, PA-FC 16.05, PAFC 6.03, PA-FC 16.06, PA-FC 9.01, PA-BSM 1.02, PA-BSM 2.01, PA-BSM 2.03.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.7.a.-j., Relevant COA Standards: Based on the
documentation submitted by defendants to COA, COA found the documents were in compliance
with 13 standards, in substantial compliance with two standards and out of compliance with three
standards. The COA’s findings are addressed in further detail in Section IV.B. of this report.383
Settlement Agreement §II.B.6.d. II. Standards
B. Foster Care Service Standards 6. Developing and Maintaining Connections By the end of implementation Period 2: d. At least 40% of children in custody during the Period shall be provided with contacts with their parents and with any siblings not in the same placement consistent with Plan requirements.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.6.d.: Defendants did not produce
validated data reports related to this requirement during Period 2 as contemplated by the
Settlement Agreement, and thus the Monitor was not able to assess whether this requirement was
satisfied.
Period 2 IP §II.8.a. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
8. Developing and Maintaining Connections a. The Settlement Agreement requirements and standards at section II.B.6 for developing and maintaining connections through parentchild and sibling visitation will be included in the Practice Guide. Preservice and on-going training shall specifically address case practice associated with parent-child and sibling visitation, and regular supervisory reviews shall specifically include an evaluation of such practice.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.8.a.: The practice guide was developed during
Period 2, in consultation with the defendants, by the consultant who designed the practice model.
383 Infra pp. 156-160.
118

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 127 of 180
It is included in the appendix to the Practice Model Report.384 The practice guide is well-
designed and satisfies the requirements of this subsection. The Monitor has not had an
opportunity to determine whether the practice guide has been incorporated into the DFCS
training curriculum.
Period 2 IP §II.8.a. Relevant COA Standards: PA-FC 7.03, PA-FC 7.05.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.8.a., Relevant COA Standards: Based on the
documentation submitted by defendants to COA, COA found the documents were in compliance
with one standard and in partial compliance with one standard. The COA’s findings are
addressed in further detail in Section IV.B. of this report.385
Settlement Agreement §II.B.7.h. II. Standards
B. Foster Care Service Standards 7. Physical and Mental Health Care By the end of implementation Period 2: h. At least 40% of children entering custody during the Period shall receive a comprehensive health assessment consistent with Plan requirements within 30 calendar days of entering care.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.7.h.: Defendants did not produce
validated data reports related to this requirement during Period 2 as contemplated by the
Settlement Agreement, and thus the Monitor was not able to assess whether this requirement was
satisfied.
Settlement Agreement §II.B.7.i. II. Standards
B. Foster Care Service Standards 7. Physical and Mental Health Care By the end of implementation Period 2: i. At least 40% of children in custody during the Period shall receive periodic medical examinations and all medically necessary followup services and treatment consistent with Plan requirements.
384 Ex. 61, Mississippi Practice Model, Final Report, Appendix B/Practice Guide, Preserving and Maintaining Connections, September 25, 2009 385 Infra p. 160.
119

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 128 of 180
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.7.i.: Defendants did not produce
validated data reports related to this requirement during Period 2 as contemplated by the
Settlement Agreement, and thus the Monitor was not able to assess whether this requirement was
satisfied.
Settlement Agreement §II.B.7.j. II. Standards
B. Foster Care Service Standards 7. Physical and Mental Health Care By the end of implementation Period 2: j. At least 40% of children three years old and older entering custody during the Period or in care and turning three years old during the Period shall receive a dental examination within 90 calendar days of foster care placement or their third birthday, respectively.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.7.j.: Defendants did not produce
validated data reports related to this requirement during Period 2 as contemplated by the
Settlement Agreement, and thus the Monitor was not able to assess whether this requirement was
satisfied.
Settlement Agreement §II.B.7.k. II. Standards
B. Foster Care Service Standards 7. Physical and Mental Health Care By the end of implementation Period 2: k. At least 40% of children in custody during the Period shall receive a dental examination every six months consistent with Plan requirements and all medically necessary dental services.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.7.k.: Defendants did not produce
validated data reports related to this requirement during Period 2 as contemplated by the
Settlement Agreement, and thus the Monitor was not able to assess whether this requirement was
satisfied.
Settlement Agreement §II.B.7.l. II. Standards
B. Foster Care Service Standards 7. Physical and Mental Health Care By the end of implementation Period 2: l. At least 40% of children four years old and older entering custody during the Period or in care and turning four years old during the
120

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 129 of 180
Period shall receive a mental health assessment by a qualified professional within 30 calendar days of foster care placement or their fourth birthday, respectively, and all recommended mental health services pursuant to their assessment.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.7.l.: Defendants did not produce
validated data reports related to this requirement during Period 2 as contemplated by the
Settlement Agreement, and thus the Monitor was not able to assess whether this requirement was
satisfied.
Settlement Agreement §II.B.7.m. II. Standards
B. Foster Care Service Standards 7. Physical and Mental Health Care By the end of implementation Period 2: m. At least 40% of children in custody ages birth through three during the Period, and older children if factors indicate it is warranted, shall receive a developmental assessment by a qualified professional and all needed developmental services.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.7.m.: Defendants did not produce
validated data reports related to this requirement during Period 2 as contemplated by the
Settlement Agreement, and thus the Monitor was not able to assess whether this requirement was
satisfied.
Period 2 IP §II.9.a. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
9. Physical and Mental Health Care a. Defendants, in consultation with state Medicaid and mental health officials, shall, by December 1, 2009, develop and begin implementing specific and focused regional plans to recruit and develop service providers in areas identified in the needs assessment as having gaps in required services.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.9.a.: This requirement was not satisfied during
Period 2.
Period 2 IP §II.9.a. Relevant COA Standards: PA-FC 2.04, PA-FC 10.03, PA-FC 10.04, PA-KC 10.04.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.9.a., Relevant COA Standards: Based on the
documentation submitted by defendants to COA, COA found the documents were in compliance 121

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 130 of 180
with all four standards. The COA’s findings are addressed in further detail in Section IV.B. of
this report.386
Settlement Agreement §II.B.8.d. II. Standards
B. Foster Care Service Standards 8. Educational Services By the end of implementation Period 2: d. At least 40% of school-age children entering custody during the Period shall be screened for general and special educational needs within 30 calendar days of their entry into foster care.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.8.d.: Defendants did not produce
validated data reports related to this requirement during Period 2 as contemplated by the
Settlement Agreement, and thus the Monitor was not able to assess whether this requirement was
satisfied.
Settlement Agreement §II.B.8.e. II. Standards
B. Foster Care Service Standards 8. Educational Services By the end of implementation Period 2: e. At least 40% of school-age children entering custody or subject to a change in schools due to a placement move during the Period shall be registered for and attending an accredited school within three business days of the initial placement or placement change, including while placed in shelters or other temporary placements, unless delayed by the Youth Court.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.8.e.: Defendants did not produce
validated data reports related to this requirement during Period 2 as contemplated by the
Settlement Agreement, and thus the Monitor was not able to assess whether this requirement was
satisfied.
Period 2 IP §II.10.a. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
10. Educational Services a. DFCS shall develop and implement a protocol for conducting a general and special education screen of children entering foster care.
386 Infra pp. 160-161.
122

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 131 of 180
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.10.a.: This requirement was not satisfied during
Period 2.
Period 2 IP §II.10.b. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
10. Educational Services b. DFCS shall develop and begin implementing a plan for providing, either directly or through contract, the following educational services in each county: tutoring; preparation for a general equivalency diploma (“GED”); and college preparation.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.10.b.: The required plan was not developed during
Period 2.
Period 2 IP §II.10.a. and b. Relevant COA Standards: PA-FC 9.04, PA-FC 11.02.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.10.a. and b., Relevant COA Standards: Based on
the documentation submitted by defendants to COA, COA found the documents were in
compliance with one standard, and the other standard was determined to be not applicable for DFCS. The COA’s findings are addressed in further detail in Section IV.B. of this report.387
Settlement Agreement §II.B.9.b. II. Standards
B. Foster Care Service Standards 9. Therapeutic Services By the end of implementation Period 2: b. At least 40% of children in custody during the Period requiring therapeutic and/or rehabilitative foster care services because of a diagnosis of significant medical, developmental, emotional, or behavioral problems shall be provided with a treatment plan and services in accordance with their plan.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.9.b.: Defendants did not produce
validated data reports related to this subsection during Period 2 as contemplated by the
Settlement Agreement, and thus the Monitor was not able to assess whether this requirement was
satisfied.
387 Infra p. 161.
123

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 132 of 180
Settlement Agreement §II.B.10.f. II. Standards
B. Foster Care Service Standards 10. Worker Contact and Monitoring By the end of implementation Period 2: f. At least 30% of children in custody shall receive documented twice-monthly in-person visits by the assigned DFCS caseworker during the Period, consistent with Plan requirements.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.10.f.: Because defendants did not
produce validated data reports related to this requirement during Period 2 as required,388 they are
required to do so during the Bridge Period.389 Accordingly, the Monitor will report more fully on
the frequency of documented in-person visits by DFCS caseworkers with children in custody in
her forthcoming report on the Bridge Plan.
Settlement Agreement §II.B.10.g. II. Standards
B. Foster Care Service Standards 10. Worker Contact and Monitoring By the end of implementation Period 2: g. At least 40% of children with a goal of reunification shall have their assigned DFCS caseworker meet monthly with the child’s biological parents, consistent with Plan requirements, as documented in the child’s case record.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.10.g.: Because defendants did not
produce validated data reports related to this requirement during Period 2 as contemplated by the
Settlement Agreement, they are required to do so during the Bridge Period.390 Accordingly, the
Monitor will report more fully on defendants’ progress in her forthcoming report on the Bridge
Plan.
Settlement Agreement §II.B.10.h. II. Standards
B. Foster Care Service Standards 10. Worker Contact and Monitoring By the end of implementation Period 2: h. At least 30% of foster parents with at least one foster child residing in their home during the Period shall have a DFCS
388 See Period 2 IP §I.5.b. and related text supra pp. 64-66, which requires defendants to verify MACWIS data related to face-to-face contacts. 389 June 10, 2010 Agreed Order, Ex. A, p. 1. 390 Id.
124

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 133 of 180
worker visit the home twice a month (therapeutic foster homes) or monthly (non-therapeutic foster homes), consistent with Plan requirements, as documented in the children’s case records.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.10.h.: Defendants did not produce
validated data reports related to this subsection during Period 2 as required by the Settlement Agreement,391 and thus the Monitor was not able to assess whether this requirement was
satisfied.
Period 2 IP §II.11.a. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
11. Worker Contact and Monitoring a. Defendants’ revised policies and practice guides shall reflect the issues to be addressed during worker contacts with parents, children, and foster care providers. Defendants shall revise DFCS training as necessary to ensure instruction on the quality, frequency, purpose, and structure of meeting with foster children, biological parents, and foster care providers. The training shall specifically address communicating with, interviewing, and observing foster children.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.11.a.: A practice guide was developed during
Period 2, in consultation with the defendants, by the consultant who designed the practice model. It is included in the appendix to the Practice Model Report.392 The practice guide is well-
designed and satisfies the requirements of this subsection. The Monitor has not had an
opportunity to determine whether the practice guide has been incorporated into the DFCS
training curriculum.
Period 2 IP §II.11.a. Relevant COA Standards: PA-CPS 9.04, PA-FC 12.01, PA-FC 12.02.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.11.a., Relevant COA Standards: Based on the
documentation submitted by defendants to COA, COA found the documents were in compliance
391 See Period 2 IP §I.5.b. and related text supra pp. 64-66, which requires defendants to verify MACWIS data related to face-to-face contacts. 392 Ex. 62, Mississippi Practice Model, Final Report, Appendix B/Practice Guide, Involving Children and Families in Case Activities and Decision Making, September 25, 2009.
125

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 134 of 180
with two standards and in substantial compliance with one standard. The COA’s findings are
addressed in further detail in Section IV.B. of this report.393
Settlement Agreement §II.B.11.e. II. Standards
B. Foster Care Service Standards 11. Transition to Independent Living By the end of implementation Period 2: e. At least 60% of children in custody 14-20 years old during the Period shall be provided with Independent Living services as set forth in their service plan.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.11.e.: Because defendants did not
produce validated data reports related to this requirement during Period 2 as contemplated by the
Settlement Agreement, they are required to do so during the Bridge Period.394 Accordingly, the
Monitor will report more fully on independent living services in her forthcoming report on the
Bridge Plan.
Settlement Agreement §II.B.11.f. II. Standards
B. Foster Care Service Standards 11. Transition to Independent Living By the end of implementation Period 2: f. At least 60% of children in custody transitioning to independence during the Period shall have available an adequate living arrangement, a source of income, health care, independent living stipends, and education and training vouchers. DFCS shall also assist such children in obtaining, prior to transitioning to independent living, the necessary documents and information identified in the COA standards for emancipating youth.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.11.f.: Defendants did not produce
validated data reports related to this requirement during Period 2 as contemplated by the
Settlement Agreement, and thus the Monitor was not able to assess whether this requirement was
satisfied. However, data that defendants are required to produce during the Bridge Period may
facilitate the Monitor’s ability to evaluate defendants’ progress.395
393 Infra p. 162. 394 June 10, 2010 Agreed Order, Ex. A, p. 3. 395 Id.
126

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 135 of 180
Period 2 IP §II.12.a. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
12. Transition to Independent Living a. Defendants shall develop and begin implementing a written plan to address independent living service gaps identified in the Foster Care Independent Living Services Assessment.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.12.a.: The plan was not developed during Period 2.
Period 2 IP §II.12.b. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
12. Transition to Independent Living b. Defendants shall develop and begin implementing a system for ensuring that emancipating youth have obtained, prior to transitioning to independent living, the necessary documents and information identified in the COA standards for such youth.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.12.b.: The system was not developed during
Period 2.
Period 2 IP §II.12.c. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
12. Transition to Independent Living c. DFCS will develop for each region the capacity and current resource guides necessary to assist youth in locating and/or enrolling in educational or vocational programs appropriate to their needs, interests, abilities, and goals, such as high school or GED programs; colleges or universities; vocational training programs; and special education services.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.12.c.: Neither the capacity nor the resource guides
were developed during Period 2.
Period 2 IP §II.13., Case Closing and Aftercare Relevant COA Standards: PA-AS 10.01, PA-CPS 13.02, PA-FC 14.03, PA-FC 15.01, PA-KC 15.04.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.13., Relevant COA Standards: Based on the
documentation submitted by defendants to COA, COA found the documents were in compliance
with one standard, in substantial compliance with two standards, out of compliance with one
standard, and defendants response to COA is pending regarding one standard. The COA’s
findings are addressed in further detail in Section IV.B. of this report.396
396 Infra pp. 162-163.
127

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 136 of 180
Settlement Agreement §II.B.12.d. II. Standards
B. Foster Care Service Standards 12. Case Closing and Aftercare By the end of implementation Period 2: d. At least 40% of children in custody who are reunified during the Period shall receive a 90-day trial home visit period or have case record documentation reflecting the Youth Court’s objection to such a trial home visit. During that trial home visit period, the child’s caseworker or a Family Preservation caseworker shall meet with the child in the home at least two times per month, and DFCS shall provide or facilitate access to all services identified in the child’s after-care plan, consistent with Plan requirements.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.12.d.: Because defendants did not
produce validated data reports related to this requirement during Period 2 as contemplated by the
Settlement Agreement, they are required to do so during the Bridge Period.397 Accordingly, the
Monitor will report more fully on defendants’ progress in her forthcoming report on the Bridge
Plan.
Settlement Agreement §II.B.13.i. II. Standards
B. Foster Care Service Standards 13. Recruitment and Retention of Foster Families and Therapeutic Service Providers By the end of implementation Period 2: i. The rate structure recommended by the consultant for foster care providers to special needs children and for facilities providing congregate care, as agreed upon by the Parties or determined by the Court, shall be fully implemented.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.13.i.: The rate structure has not been
implemented. The status of this matter is explained in the narrative related to Period 2 IP
§II.14.a.398
Period 2 IP §II.14.a. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
14. Recruitment and Retention of Foster Families and Therapeutic Service Providers
a. By November 1, 2009, the consultant shall deliver to the Parties and the Monitor a written report setting forth (1) findings regarding the adequacy of the current schedule of foster care maintenance payments made to foster care providers serving special needs children and
397 June 10, 2010 Agreed Order, Ex. A, p. 4. 398 Infra pp. 128-131.
128

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 137 of 180
facilities providing congregate foster care in relation to the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 675(4)(A) and the actual cost in the state of Mississippi to provide such care; (2) the methodology utilized to determine the actual costs in the state of Mississippi to provide such care; and (3) a schedule of recommended rates for foster care providers serving special needs children and facilities providing congregate foster care. Plaintiffs shall have 30 days to raise any written objection to the schedule of recommended rates as determined by the consultant. Should Plaintiffs raise objections and should the Parties be unable to reach agreement, the consultant’s schedule and Plaintiffs’ objection shall be submitted to the Court for final determination.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.14.a.: Defendants contracted with CSF to conduct
the required assessment. CSF produced a report, the Mississippi Rate Setting Final Report
(“Rate Setting Report”), which was transmitted to plaintiffs’ counsel and the Monitor on
November 2, 2009.
The Rate Setting Report includes findings regarding the adequacy of the schedule of
foster care maintenance payments made to foster care providers serving special needs children
and facilities providing congregate foster care in relation to the requirements of 42
U.S.C.§675(4)(A) and regarding the actual cost in the state of Mississippi to provide such care;
details the methodology used to determine the actual costs to provide such care; and provides
recommended rates for foster care providers serving special needs children and for facilities
providing congregate foster care.
The Rate Setting Report analyzed separately the cost of foster care providers serving
special needs children and the cost of certain services provided by child care institutions and
child placing agencies: emergency shelters; therapeutic group homes; and therapeutic foster
homes. In a December 1, 2009 letter, plaintiffs’ counsel objected to the Rate Setting Report’s
finding regarding the per diem rate calculation for therapeutic group homes on three grounds.
First, plaintiffs objected to the general approach of using providers’ de facto costs as the basis of
calculating the “actual cost” of providing therapeutic group home services. Plaintiffs noted the
129

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 138 of 180
wide variance of reported provider costs within cost categories and object to the use of median costs rather than assessing whether certain providers’ costs represented different and more appropriate goods or service levels. Second, plaintiffs contended that reporting errors could confound the category-specific median cost calculations. Finally, plaintiffs objected to the exclusion of certain data points in the calculation of median costs.
Plaintiffs raise valid objections regarding the limitations of the cost study. The range of costs among the various providers reported in the Rate Setting Report may reflect different program cost structures (e.g., different fixed cost levels among providers), different program utilization levels, or differences in service quality among providers that should be accounted for in the per diem rate calculation. Nevertheless, in the absence of robust performance outcome data and consistently collected cost data for each service provider, parsing the sources of the cost variability and the cost of different quality outcomes may not be possible. In the absence of such data, it is not clear that another methodology would yield a more reasonable per diem rate at this juncture. Defendants can begin to address this by requiring uniform cost reporting by service providers, and ultimately by instituting outcome-based performance contracts. Over time, this will enable defendants to calculate more accurately the cost of providing appropriate levels and quality services.
The Monitor shares plaintiffs’ concerns regarding the omission of certain reported costs, which CSF deemed to be “outliers.” The use of median, category-specific costs in developing an overall constructed median, by itself, is one way to address the problem of outliers. Excluding values deemed to be outliers and then calculating a median value may inappropriately skew the analysis. Using the data provided by CSF in the Rate Setting Report, the Monitor recalculated the constructed median for therapeutic group homes, including the data that were excluded in
130

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 139 of 180
CSF’s calculation of a recommended rate of $90.57. The revised rate was $95.11, a five percent
increase over the rate recommended in the Rate Setting Report.
The Monitor anticipates further discussion with the parties regarding these issues.
Period 2 IP §II.14.b. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
14. Recruitment and Retention of Foster Families and Therapeutic Service Providers
b. Defendants, in conjunction with a qualified independent consultant approved by the Monitor, shall develop and begin implementing a written plan for targeted recruitment and development of a range of family and facility placements that will adequately meet the placement needs of the foster care population.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.14.b.: The required plan was not developed during
Period 2.
Period 2 IP §II.14.c. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
14. Recruitment and Retention of Foster Families and Therapeutic Service Providers
c. Defendants shall develop and begin implementing a written plan to provide services for foster parents in every county to prevent and reduce stress and family crisis.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.14.c.: The required plan was not developed during
Period 2.
Period 2 IP §II.14.d. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
14. Recruitment and Retention of Foster Families and Therapeutic Service Providers
d. In consultation with Mississippi foster parents, DFCS shall identify additions and revisions to the current foster parent training curriculum that are necessary to adequately train foster parents to meet the needs of the children placed in their care. Foster parent training classes based upon the revised curriculum shall be available in every region.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.14.d.: The additions and revisions to the training
curriculum were not completed during Period 2.
Period 2 IP §II.14.e. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
14. Recruitment and Retention of Foster Families and Therapeutic Service Providers
e. DFCS shall create a resource family workgroup (consisting of staff and resource families) to develop and implement resource family practices
131

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 140 of 180
and protocols that address the types of information that should be provided to resource families prior to taking a child into the home, what type of training is needed, what emergency procedures need to be in place for resource families, what strategies are effective in recruiting, and how resource families can be included in case planning.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.14.e.: The workgroup was not established during
Period 2.
Period 2 IP §II.14.f. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
14. Recruitment and Retention of Foster Families and Therapeutic Service Providers
f. DFCS shall regionalize its recruitment and retention efforts, and for each region have in place a stakeholder recruitment and retention team to identify local needs and develop and implement plans for recruiting, supporting, and utilizing foster and adoptive parents.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.14.f.: This initiative was not undertaken by the
defendants during Period 2.
Period 2 IP §II.14.a.-f. Relevant COA Standards: PA-FC 16.03, PA-FC 16.04, PA-FC 18.01, PA-FC 18.05, PA-KC 12.03.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §II.14.a.-f., Relevant COA Standards: Based on the
documentation submitted by defendants to COA, COA found the documents were in compliance
with all five standards. The COA’s findings are addressed in further detail in Section IV.B. of
this report.399
Settlement Agreement §III.A.2. III. Outcome Measures
A. Reunification By the end of implementation Period 2: 2. At least 30% of children who are discharged from custody and reunified with their parents or caretakers in the last year shall be reunified within 12 months of the latest removal from home.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §III.A.2.: Defendants did not produce
validated data reports related to this subsection during Period 2 as contemplated by the
399 Infra pp. 163-164.
132

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 141 of 180
Settlement Agreement, and thus the Monitor was not able to assess whether this requirement was
satisfied.
Settlement Agreement §III.B.2. III. Outcome Measures
B. Time to Adoption Finalization By the end of implementation Period 2: 2. At least 15% of children who were discharged in the last year upon finalization of an adoption shall have had the adoption finalized within 24 months of the latest removal from home.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §III.B.2.: Defendants did not produce
validated data reports related to this subsection during Period 2 as contemplated by the
Settlement Agreement, and thus the Monitor was not able to assess whether this requirement was
satisfied.
Settlement Agreement §III.C.2. III. Outcome Measures
C. Number of Placements By the end of implementation Period 2: 2. In the last year, at least 40% of children in care less than 12 months from the time of latest removal from home shall have had two or fewer placements.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §III.C.2.: Because defendants did not
produce validated data reports related to this requirement during Period 2 as required by the
Settlement Agreement,400 they are required to do so during the Bridge Period.401 Accordingly,
the Monitor will report more fully on defendants’ progress in her forthcoming report on the
Bridge Plan.
Settlement Agreement §III.D.2. III. Outcome Measures
D. Abuse/Neglect/Maltreatment in Care By the end of implementation Period 2: 2. The rate of abuse or maltreatment in care in the last year shall not exceed 1.14%.
400 See Period 2 IP §I.5.b. and related text supra pp. 64-66, which requires defendants to verify MACWIS data regarding placements. 401 June 10, 2010 Agreed Order, Ex. A, p. 1.
133

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 142 of 180
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §III.D.2.: Because defendants did not
produce validated data reports related to this requirement during Period 2 as contemplated by the Settlement Agreement, they are required to do so during the Bridge Period.402 Accordingly, the
Monitor will report more fully on defendants’ progress in her forthcoming report on the Bridge
Plan.
Period 2 IP §III.1. III. Council on Accreditation Readiness Assessment Defendants shall implement the following recommendations from the COA Accreditation Readiness Assessment, Part I, issued July 21, 2008:
1. By September 1, 2009, Defendants shall identify DFCS offices where crosscounty clustering would be beneficial, and Defendants shall create crosscounty office clusters in those locations in order to provide more supervision to line staff and to equalize caseloads; and
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §III.1.: The Monitor has not had an opportunity to
assess defendants’ compliance with this requirement during Period 2 and will report on this requirement as indicated.403
Period 2 IP §III.2. III. Council on Accreditation Readiness Assessment Defendants shall implement the following recommendations from the COA Accreditation Readiness Assessment, Part I, issued July 21, 2008:
2. By November 1, 2009, Defendants shall create a centralized intake system that receives and screens all reports of child maltreatment and that forwards all screened-in reports to the appropriate DFCS office.
Status of Progress, Period 2 IP §III.2.: As described above,404 defendants began to
operate the centralized intake system by establishing a statewide Hotline for reporting child
abuse and neglect on November 1, 2009. The Hotline does not receive all reports of
maltreatment in the first instance. DFCS staff in county offices have continued to process intakes
in what appear to be limited circumstances by interviewing reporters and forwarding the reports
402 Id. 403 See supra note 360 for the process the Monitor expects to adopt with respect to prospective reporting related to this requirement. 404 Supra pp. 97-98.
134

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 143 of 180
to the Hotline intake workers to enter into MACWIS. Defendants should take steps to address this practice promptly through careful planning, the development of clear policy guidance, staff training, and appropriate outreach to community stakeholders.
B. COA Findings Related to COA Standards in Period 2 Implementation Plan The Settlement Agreement requires defendants to be accredited by COA pursuant to COA’s relevant management and service standards.405 As required by the Settlement Agreement, the annual implementation plans have been developed jointly by the parties and COA.406 The initial stages of the COA accreditation process involve a review of DFCS policies and related documents to ensure conformity with COA standards. Thus, the Period 1 and Period 2 implementation plans list the COA standards that the defendants are required to comply with by demonstrating that the terms of relevant policy and related documents conform to the standards. COA does not assess actual agency practices to determine compliance with COA standards until a later stage in the accreditation process. Defendants had difficulty managing accreditation activities during Period 1, and as a result 35 COA standards required by the Period 1 IP were incorporated into the Period 2 IP.407 In addition, the Period 2 IP included 111 additional COA standards. Thus, during Period 2 the defendants were required to submit to COA documentation related to a total of 146 COA standards for a determination about whether the written submissions conform to the applicable standards. COA makes five types of findings related to the documentation: partial compliance, substantial compliance, compliance, noncompliance, and out of compliance. In instances in which a determination is made that the documents are out of compliance or noncompliant, a
405 Settlement Agreement §IV. 406 Id. §I.A. and B. 407 COA determined that one of the 35 Period 1 standards was not applicable to DFCS.
135

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 144 of 180

remedial process is triggered, requiring superseding and/or supplemental submissions that conform to the targeted standard.
As set forth below, during Period 2 the defendants submitted documentation that satisfied all of the outstanding Period 1 COA standards, and with very few exceptions, all of the Period 2 standards were satisfied. The COA project director who evaluated defendants’ submissions has reported that all of the submissions were timely, generally very well done, and included the appropriate supporting documentation. In the limited instances in which COA required remedial action, the project director has indicated that the defendants were very responsive.
COA’s findings with respect to the documentation the defendants submitted in support of each of the 146 COA standards included in the Period 2 IP are set forth below.

I. Administration and Management Implementation Steps Period 2 IP §I.1.: Agency Leadership and Administration

PA-AM 2.01

The agency head promotes a clear understanding and implementation of agency values,

including expectations for quality service delivery and effectiveness, expressed through:

a.

service delivery practices;

b.

human resources practices; and

c.

staff training and supervision.

COA Finding: In compliance - August 4, 2009 COA report408

PA-AM 3.04 The agency’s performance goals, and outcomes appropriate for clients and programs, are clearly articulated.
COA Finding: In substantial compliance - March 1, 2010 COA report409

PA-AM 6.01

The administrative team establishes in writing:

a.

responsibilities;

b.

a process for assessing and implementing responsibilities, such as establishing

task forces/committees; and

c.

under what conditions and to whom interim authority can be delegated.

COA Finding: In compliance - August 4, 2009 COA report

408 Ex. 63A, COA, DFCS First Quarter Deliverables Report, Year 2 Implementation Plan, August 4, 2009. 409 Ex. 63B, COA, DFCS Third Quarter Deliverables Report, Year 2 Implementation Plan, March 1, 2010.
136

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 145 of 180

PA-AM 6.02

Administrative team members:

a.

receive an orientation to the agency's mission, history, goals, objectives,

structure, methods of operation; and

b.

are familiarized with agency activities and are introduced to key staff

members.

COA Finding: In compliance - August 6, 2009 e-mail correspondence410

PA-AM 7.01

Strategic planning responsibilities include:

a.

envisioning and setting the agency’s strategic direction; and

b.

active support for inclusive, management-directed, agency-wide involvement in

long term planning that occurs every 4-5 years.

COA Finding: In compliance - August 4, 2009 COA report

PA-AM 7.02

The agency’s management team reviews and approves the long-term plan framework, to

ensure that planning encompasses:

a.

a review of the agency’s mission, values, and mandates;

b.

an assessment of strengths and weaknesses;

c.

measurable goals and objectives that flow from its mission and mandated

responsibilities; and

d.

appropriate strategies for meeting identified goals, including consideration of

the agency’s continued development and sustainability and possible need to

redirect, eliminate, or expand service to respond to changing community

demographics and needs.

COA Finding: In compliance - March 1, 2010 COA report

PA-FC 5

The program is guided by a service philosophy that:

a.

provides a logical approach for how program activities will meet the needs of

families;

b.

is culturally grounded; and

c.

is based on program goals and the best available evidence of service

effectiveness for the identified service population.

COA Finding: In compliance - March 1, 2010 COA report

Period 2 IP §I.2.b.: Human Resources Management, Supervisor Access

PA-HR 3.01

Job descriptions and selection criteria:

a.

state the qualifications, essential functions, responsibilities for each position or

group of like positions, and job expectations;

b.

include sensitivity to the service population’s cultural and socioeconomic

characteristics; and

c.

are reviewed and updated regularly.

410 Ex. 63C, August 6, 2009 e-mail correspondence from James Mooney to Jenni Murray regarding Year 2 First Quarter Deliverables.
137

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 146 of 180

COA Finding: In compliance - March 1, 2010 COA report

PA-HR 3.02

Recruitment and selection procedures include:

a.

notifying personnel of available positions;

b.

verifying references and credentials of personnel and independent contractors;

c.

providing applicants with a written job description;

d.

giving final candidates the opportunity to speak with currently-employed

personnel;

e.

retaining hiring records for at least one year; and

f.

using standard interview questions that comply with employment and

labor laws.

COA Finding: In compliance - March 1, 2010 COA report

PA-HR 6.01 Every full-time and part-time employee and volunteer receives a written annual performance review conducted by the person to whom s/he reports.
COA Finding: In compliance - November 12, 2009 COA report411

PA-HR 6.02

Performance evaluations assess job performance, and emphasize self-development and

professional growth, in relation to:

a.

specific expectations defined in the job description;

b.

agency-wide expectations for personnel;

c.

objectives established in the most recent evaluation and objectives for

future performance as they relate to the agency's mission and goals;

d.

developmental and professional objectives;

e.

recommendations for further training and skill building; and

f.

knowledge and competence related to the characteristics and needs of

service recipients, if applicable.

COA Finding: COA did not evaluate this requirement during Period 2.

PA-HR 7.01

Personnel records are updated regularly, and contain:

a.

identifying information and emergency contacts;

b.

application for employment, hiring documents including job postings and

interview notes, and reference verification;

c.

job description;

d.

compensation documentation, as appropriate;

e.

pre-service and in-service training records; and

f.

performance evaluations and all documentation relating to performance,

including disciplinary actions and termination summaries, if applicable.

COA Finding: In substantial compliance - November 12, 2009 COA report

PA-HR 7.03 Access to personnel records is limited to authorized personnel on a need-to-know basis.

411 Ex. 63D, COA, DFCS Second Quarter Deliverables Report, Year 2 Implementation Plan, November 12, 2009.
138

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 147 of 180

COA Finding: In substantial compliance - November 12, 2009 COA report

PA-TS 3.01412 Supervisors have sufficient time to provide individual or group supervision as appropriate to individual needs or program type, and to conduct evaluation and training activities.

COA Finding: In compliance - August 4, 2009 COA report

PA-TS 3.03413

Supervisors are responsible for:

a.

delegating and overseeing work assignments;

b.

ensuring that service delivery is performed according to the agency’s

mission, policies and procedures, and service philosophy;

c.

providing case consultation and in-service training as appropriate;

d.

identifying unmet training needs;

e.

ensuring case reviews are conducted at least quarterly; and

f.

conducting performance evaluations.

COA Finding: In compliance - August 4, 2009 COA report

Period 2 IP §I.2.d.: Human Resources Management, Training

PA-TS 2.02 - 365 Day Standard due July 1, 2009

All personnel who have regular contact with clients receive training on legal issues,

including:

a.

mandatory reporting and the identification of clinical indicators of suspected abuse

and neglect, as applicable;

b.

reportable criminal behavior including criminal, acquaintance, and

statutory rape;

c.

duty to warn;

d.

the agency’s policies and procedures on confidentiality and disclosure of service

recipient information, and penalties for violation of these policies and procedures;

e.

the legal rights of service recipients; and

f.

any requirements associated with consent decrees.

COA Finding: In compliance - July 10, 2009 COA memorandum414

PA-TS 2.03 - 365 Day Standard due July 1, 2009 All personnel receive training on proper documentation techniques and the maintenance and security of case records.

COA Finding: In compliance - July 10, 2009 COA memorandum

PA-TS 1.01 The agency implements a training and development program that enhances the knowledge, skills, and abilities of personnel and prepares personnel to assume their responsibilities.

412 The Period 2 IP states: “This requirement shall be interpreted to be consistent with Period 2 Annual Implementation Plan § I.2.d.3, which requires: ‘No supervisory personnel shall be detailed to the training unit to provide training.’” Period 2 IP at 4. 413 The Period 2 IP states: “This requirement shall be interpreted to be consistent with Period 2 Annual Implementation Plan § I.2.d.3, which requires: ‘No supervisory personnel shall be detailed to the training unit to provide training.’” Period 2 IP at 5. 414 Ex. 63E, July 10, 2009 memorandum from James Mooney to Jenni Murray regarding 365 Day Deliverables.
139

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 148 of 180

COA Finding: In compliance - November 12, 2009 COA report

PA-TS 1.02

The personnel training and development program:

a.

promotes cooperation among personnel;

b.

includes an education and training program that provides opportunities for

learning and skill enhancement;

c.

encourages creativity and innovation in program development and service

delivery;

d.

promotes awareness of, and sensitivity to, cultural backgrounds and

needs; and

e.

rewards and acknowledges the contributions of personnel.

COA Finding: In compliance - November 12, 2009 COA report

PA-TS 1.03

The personnel training and development program:

a.

is reviewed annually and revised in accord with an assessment of the

agency's training needs;

b.

outlines specific expectations regarding training required of personnel in

different positions and categories;

c.

provides the opportunity for personnel to fulfill the continuing education

requirements of their respective professions; and

d.

provides opportunities to support advancement within the agency and

profession.

COA Finding: In compliance - March 1, 2010 COA report

PA-TS 2.01

New personnel are oriented within the first three months of hire to:

a.

the agency’s mission, philosophy, goals, and services;

b.

the cultural and socioeconomic characteristics of the service population;

c.

the agency’s place within its community;

d.

the agency’s personnel manual; and

e.

lines of accountability and authority within the agency.

COA Finding: In compliance - March 1, 2010 COA report

PA-TS 2.04

Direct service personnel demonstrate competence in, or receive training on, as applicable:

a.

the establishment of rapport and responsive behaviors with service recipients;

b.

the needs of individuals and families in crisis including special service

needs of victims of violence, abuse, or neglect and their family members;

c.

basic health and medical needs of the service population;

d.

procedures for working with foreign language speakers and persons with

communication impairments; and

e.

public assistance and government subsidies.

COA Finding: In compliance - November 12, 2009 COA report

140

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 149 of 180

PA-BSM 3.01 - 365 Day Standard due July 1, 2009 All personnel and foster parents receive initial and ongoing competency-based training, appropriate to their responsibilities, on the agency’s behavior support and management intervention policies, procedures, and practices.
COA Finding: In substantial compliance - September 17, 2009 e-mail correspondence415

PA-BSM 3.02 - 365 Day Standard due July 1, 2009

Personnel and foster parents receive training that includes:

a.

recognizing aggressive and out-of-control behavior, psychosocial issues, medical

conditions, and other contributing factors that may lead to a crisis;

b.

understanding how staff behavior can influence the behavior of service recipients;

and

c.

limitations on the use of physical techniques.

COA Finding: In partial compliance - July 10, 2009 COA memorandum In substantial compliance - September 17, 2009 e-mail correspondence

PA-BSM 3.03 - 365 Day Standard due July 1, 2009

Training addresses methods for de-escalating volatile situations, including:

a.

listening and communication techniques, such as negotiation and mediation;

b.

involving the person in regaining control and encouraging self-calming behaviors;

c.

separation of individuals involved in an altercation;

d.

offering a voluntary escort to guide the person to a safe location;

e.

time out to allow the person to calm down; and

f.

other non-restrictive ways of de-escalating and reducing episodes of aggressive and

out-of-control behavior.

COA Finding: In partial compliance - July 10, 2009 COA memorandum In substantial compliance - September 17, 2009 e-mail correspondence

Period 2 IP §I.2.e.: Human Resources Management, Contract Agency Requirements

PA-RPM 9.02

The pursuit of contracts for services is consistent with the agency's mission and purpose, and

the agency:

a.

establishes a system of standardized contracting practices;

b.

conducts due diligence in contracting activities, including review of possible risks;

and

c.

assigns a qualified individual to oversee contracts.

COA Finding: In compliance - March 1, 2010 COA report

PA-RPM 9.03 Written contracts contain all significant terms and conditions in accordance with applicable law.

415 Ex. 63F, September 17, 2009 e-mail correspondence from James Mooney to Jenni Murray regarding Official Resubmission of BSM. Mr. Mooney’s September 17, 2009 e-mail addressed COA standards BSM 3.01, 3.02 and 3.03. The e-mail states: “[t]he information which you sent and accompanying documentation generally meets the requirements of the standards and resubmission request.” On September 1, 2010 the Monitor’s staff clarified this finding with Mr. Mooney, who stated that DFCS was in “substantial compliance” with COA standards BSM 3.01, 3.02 and 3.03.
141

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 150 of 180

COA Finding: COA did not evaluate this requirement during Period 2.

PA-RPM 10.02 The agency routinely monitors contractor progress toward fulfilling the terms of the contract.
COA Finding: In substantial compliance - May 18, 2010 COA report416

PA-RPM 10.03

Contracts for social and human services include:

a.

service quality, client satisfaction, and outcomes that accord with the agency’s

expectations;

b.

criteria for evaluating vendor performance; and

c.

protocols for routine communication of related data.

COA Finding: In substantial compliance - May 18, 2010 COA report

PA-RPM 10.04

When areas of concern are identified, the agency:

a.

develops an improvement plan in conjunction with the contractor; and

b.

ensures contractor follow-up and remediation.

COA Finding: In substantial compliance - May 18, 2010 COA report

Period 2 IP §I.3.: Performance and Quality Improvement

PA-PQI 2.02 - 365 Day Standard due July 1, 2009

A PQI operational plan:

a.

assigns responsibility for coordination and implementation of PQI activities, and

provision of technical assistance in using the PQI process;

b.

sets forth the purpose and scope of PQI activities;

c.

establishes how the agency periodically reviews essential management and service

delivery processes consistent in light of quality priorities;

d.

defines stakeholders and how stakeholders will participate in the PQI process;

e.

outlines methods and timeframes for monitoring and reporting activities; and

f.

includes provision for an assessment of the utility of the PQI program, including any

barriers and supports for implementation.

COA Finding: In substantial compliance - July 10, 2009 COA memorandum

PA-PQI 2.01 - 365 Day Standard due July 1, 2009 The PQI framework takes into account all of the agency's regions and sites, and all individuals and families served.

COA Finding: In substantial compliance - July 10, 2009 COA memorandum

PA-PQI 1.01 The agency's senior management sets forth quality expectations and broad goals that merit ongoing monitoring.

416 Ex. 63G, COA, DFCS Fourth Quarter Deliverables Report, Year 2 Implementation Plan, May 18, 2010.
142

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 151 of 180

COA Finding: In compliance - March 1, 2010 COA report

PA-PQI 1.02

The agency head endorses:

a.

a culture that promotes excellence and continual improvement;

b.

implementation of an agency-wide PQI framework;

c.

a dedicated PQI function;

d.

collection and constructive use of data to promote a high-learning, high-

performance, results-oriented agency;

e.

involvement of a wide range of managers and staff in the PQI process;

f.

inclusion of external stakeholders and community members; and

g.

an annual “score-card” or summary report of gains made against goals.

COA Finding: In compliance - November 12, 2009 COA report

PA-PQI 2.04

Quality expectations are reflected in key documents including:

a.

budgets;

b.

policy and procedures manuals;

c.

new staff training material;

d.

communications to staff, family members, consumers, and volunteers; and

e.

service provider contracts.

COA Finding: In compliance - March 1, 2010 COA report

PA-PQI 2.05

Staff responsible for PQI are qualified by education and experience to:

a.

engage people throughout the agency;

b.

systematically collect information and analyze data; and

c.

communicate results and recommendations to various key audiences.

COA Finding: In compliance - November 12, 2009 COA report

PA-PQI 3.02 Staff throughout the agency and stakeholders, including partners and contractors, work together to develop key outcomes and indicators, and identify sources of various types of reliable data including characteristics, service delivery experience, and outcomes for children, youth, adults, and families being served.
COA Finding: In compliance - March 1, 2010 COA report

PA-PQI 4.01 Collection of service delivery information focuses on key quality factors, including appropriateness, efficacy, and effectiveness, and any or all of the dimensions of quality.

COA Finding: In partial compliance - March 1, 2010 COA report

PA-PQI 4.02

The agency aggregates and reviews several sources of information to identify patterns,

including:

a.

quarterly case record review reports;

b.

quarterly review of incidents, accidents, and grievances;

c.

customer satisfaction data, usually annually;

d.

customer outcomes data, usually annually;

143

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 152 of 180

e.

internal and external evaluations of agency programs; and

f.

management and operations data and reports.

COA Finding: In substantial compliance - March 1, 2010 COA report

PA-PQI 5.01 The PQI plan outlines routine actions taken to identify areas of needed improvement, implement the improvement on a small or broad scale, review the results, modify or discontinue the improvement process, and keep staff informed and involved throughout the cycle.
COA Finding: In compliance - March 1, 2010 COA report
PA-PQI 6.01 An information packet is developed for stakeholders that explains the PQI framework, how PQI functions at the agency, and forms and measures the agency uses to study and improve operations, service delivery, and customer results.
COA Finding: Out of compliance - March 1, 2010 COA report

PA-PQI 6.02 An explanation of PQI function and structure is included in new hire packets and reviewed at new staff orientation.
COA Finding: In compliance - May 18, 2010 COA report

Period 2 IP §I.4.: Legal and Regulatory Compliance
PA-BSM 1.01 The agency's behavior support and management policies and practices comply with federal, state, and local legal and regulatory requirements.
COA Finding: Out of compliance - March 1, 2010 COA report

PA-AS 2.04

The agency identifies Indian children and collaborates with the tribe or Indian organization

to:

a.

determine the applicability, and ensure compliance with, the Indian

Child Welfare Act;

b.

determine jurisdiction;

c.

assess the child's needs;

d.

provide the family with information regarding their rights under the

Indian Child Welfare Act;

e.

determine the most appropriate plan for the child; and

f.

maintain connections between the child and his or her tribe.

COA Finding: In compliance - August 4, 2009 COA report

Period 2 IP §I. 6.: Case Recordings and Information

PA-RPM 7.02

Case records comply with all legal requirements and contain information necessary to

provide services, including:

a.

demographic and contact information;

144

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 153 of 180

b.

the reason for requesting or being referred for services;

c.

up-to-date assessments;

d.

the service plan, including mutually developed goals and objectives;

e.

copies of all signed consent forms;

f.

a description of services provided directly or by referral;

g.

routine documentation of ongoing services;

h.

documentation of routine supervisory review;

i.

discharge or aftercare plan;

j.

recommendations for ongoing and/or future service needs and assignment of

aftercare or follow-up responsibility, if needed; and

k.

a closing summary entered within 30 days of termination of service.

COA Finding: In substantial compliance - November 12, 2009 COA report

PA-RPM 7.03

The case record contains essential legal and medical information, including, as applicable:

a.

psychological, medical, toxicological, diagnostic, or other evaluations;

b.

copies of all written orders for medications or special treatment procedures; and

c.

court reports, documents of guardianship or legal custody, birth or marriage

certificates, and any legal directives related to the service being provided.

COA Finding: In compliance - November 12, 2009 COA report

PA-RPM 7.04

Case record entries are made by authorized personnel only, and are:

a.

specific, factual, relevant, and legible;

b.

kept up to date from intake through case closing;

c.

completed, signed, and dated by the person who provided the service; and

d.

signed and dated by supervisors, where appropriate.

COA Finding: In partial compliance - November 12, 2009 COA report

PA-PQI 4.03 Quarterly reviews of case records evaluate the presence, clarity, and continuity of required documents utilizing a uniform tool to ensure consistency.

COA Finding: In substantial compliance - March 1, 2010 COA report

PA-RPM 7.05

Progress notes comply with legal requirements, and are entered:

a.

at least quarterly; or

b.

monthly, or as required by law or regulation for individuals receiving protective

services, out-of-home care, day treatment, or frequent or intensive counseling or

treatment.

COA Finding: In compliance - March 1, 2010 COA report

PA-RPM 7.06

Service recipients may add a statement to their case records, and:

a.

any response by personnel is added with the service recipient’s knowledge; and

b.

the service recipient is given the opportunity to review and comment on such

additions.

COA Finding: In partial compliance - May 18, 2010 COA report 145

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 154 of 180

PA-RPM 7.07 At case closing, case records are reviewed and unsummarized notes, personal observations, and impressions are expunged.

COA Finding: In partial compliance - May 18, 2010 COA report

PA-RPM 8.01

Access to confidential case records meets legal requirements, and is limited to:

a.

the service recipient or, as appropriate, a parent or legal guardian;

b.

personnel authorized to access specific information on a “need-to know” basis;

c.

others who are permitted access;

d.

former service recipients;

e.

requests for records of deceased service recipients; and

f.

auditors, contractors, and licensing or accrediting personnel consistent with the

agency’s confidentiality policy.

COA Finding: In compliance - November 12, 2009 COA report

PA-CR 2.04 The release form for disclosure of confidential information includes the following elements:

a.

the name of the person whose information will be released;

b.

the signature of the person whose information will be released, or the parent or

legal guardian of a person who is unable to provide authorization;

c.

the specific information to be released;

d.

the purpose for which the information is to be used;

e.

the date the release takes effect;

f.

the date the release expires, not to exceed 90 days from when authorization is

given for a one time release of information, and not to exceed one year, or as the

law or court order requires, when a contracted or cooperating service provider

requires the release of information for ongoing service provision;

g.

the name of the person to whom the information is to be released;

h.

the name of the person within the agency who is providing the confidential

information; and

i.

a statement that the person or family may withdraw their authorization at any

time.

COA Finding: In substantial compliance - March 1, 2010 COA report

PA-AS 12.05 Records are retained for the period required by applicable law, or in the absence of such law for at least 99 years, and the agency has a plan for transfer of records if the adoption program is closed.
COA Finding: In compliance - November 12, 2009 COA report

PA-AS 12.06 All releases of identifying information about adopted persons, birth parents, and adoptive families are in accordance with individual preferences and applicable regulation.
COA Finding: In substantial compliance - March 1, 2010 COA report

146

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 155 of 180

PA-RPM 5.01 - 365 Day Standard due July 1, 2009 Personnel can rapidly access paper and electronic information.
COA Finding: In compliance - July 10, 2009 COA memorandum
PA-RPM 5.02 - 365 Day Standard due July 1, 2009 Electronic and paper records can be located at all times.
COA Finding: In compliance - July 10, 2009 COA memorandum

PA-RPM 6.01

The agency protects confidential and other sensitive information from theft, unauthorized

use, damage, or destruction by:

a.

limiting access to authorized personnel on a need-to-know basis;

b.

backing up electronic data, with copies maintained off premises;

c.

using firewalls, anti-virus and related software, and other appropriate

safeguards; and

d.

maintaining paper records in a secure location.

COA Finding: In compliance - November 12, 2009 COA report

PA-RPM 6.02

Case records are maintained and disposed of in a manner that protects privacy and

confidentiality, and the agency:

a.

maintains case records for at least seven years after case closing unless otherwise

mandated by law; and

b.

properly disposes of records in the event of the agency’s dissolution.

COA Finding: In substantial compliance - November 12, 2009 COA report

Period 2 IP §I. 8.: Ethical Practice
PA-ETH 1.01 The public has access to clear, timely, accurate information about the agency’s programs, activities, service recipients, and finances.

COA Finding: In compliance - August 6, 2009 COA addendum

PA-ETH 1.02 The agency accurately portrays its mission in all communications that contain such a representation.

COA Finding: In compliance - August 4, 2009 COA report

PA-ETH 2.01

A conflict of interest policy is tailored to the agency’s specific needs and characteristics, and:

a.

defines conflict of interest;

b.

identifies groups of individuals within the organization covered by the policy;

c.

addresses transactions between board members and the agency;

d.

addresses policy enforcement;

e.

provides a framework for evaluating situations that may constitute a conflict;

and

f.

invests management with developing procedures that facilitate disclosure of

information to prevent and manage potential and apparent conflicts of interest.

147

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 156 of 180

COA Finding: In compliance - August 4, 2009 COA report

PA-ETH 5.01 Personnel know and follow the code of ethics of their respective professions.

COA Finding: In compliance - March 1, 2010 COA report

PA-ETH 5.02

The agency prohibits:

a.

making or accepting payment or other consideration in exchange for referrals;

b.

steering, directing referrals to, or giving preference to clients easier or less

costly to serve for specific agencies and practitioners within the agency;

c.

unfairly steering or directing referrals to, or "creaming" clients for specific

network service provider agencies, such as network owners, or individual

practitioners within the network, as applicable to networks; and

d.

steering or directing referrals to private practices in which personnel,

consultants, or the immediate families of personnel and consultants are engaged.

COA Finding: In compliance - March 1, 2010 COA report

PA-ETH 5.03 The agency prohibits preferential treatment of members, community partners, advisory groups, personnel, or consultants in applying for and receiving the agency's services.

COA Finding: In compliance - March 1, 2010 COA report

PA-CR 1.02 A written summary of client rights and their responsibilities is posted in the reception areas of all service delivery locations.

COA Finding: In substantial compliance - August 4, 2009 COA report

PA-CR 1.06

The agency accommodates the written and oral communication needs of clients by:

a.

communicating, in writing and orally, in the languages of the major

population groups served;

b.

providing, or arranging for, bilingual personnel or translators or arranging for

the use of communication technology, as needed;

c.

providing telephone amplification, sign language services, or other

communication methods for deaf or hearing impaired persons;

d.

providing, or arranging for, communication assistance for persons with

special needs who have difficulty making their service needs known; and

e.

considering the person's literacy level.

COA Finding: In partial compliance - May 18, 2010 COA report

Period 2 IP §I.9.: Community Involvement and Advocacy

PA-AM 4.01

The agency conducts an ongoing program of community public education to communicate:

a.

its mission, role, functions, and capacities; and

b.

the strengths, needs, and challenges of the individuals, families, and groups it

serves.

148

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 157 of 180

COA Finding: In compliance - November 12, 2009 COA report

PA-AM 4.02

The agency collaborates with the community to advocate for issues of mutual concern, such

as:

a.

improvements to existing services;

b.

filling gaps in service;

c.

the full and appropriate implementation of applicable laws and regulations

regarding issues concerning the service population; and

d.

improved supports and accommodations for persons with special needs.

COA Finding: In compliance - November 12, 2009 COA report

PA-CPS 2.01 The agency's leadership works with the leadership of other organizations to identify common issues, develop opportunities for collaboration, and resolve administrative conflicts and other issues that inhibit service collaboration and use.

COA Finding: In substantial compliance - November 12, 2009 COA report

Period 2 IP §I.10.: Administrative and Service Environment

PA-HR 4.01 - 365 Day Standard due July 1, 2009

The agency promotes open communication and collaboration among disciplines and staff

levels by:

a.

holding regular team, agency, and divisional meetings, as appropriate to the agency;

and

b.

providing feedback to personnel about their suggestions and recommendations.

COA Finding: In compliance - July 10, 2009 COA memorandum

PA-HR 4.03 - 365 Day Standard due July 1, 2009 The agency annually establishes personnel satisfaction and retention goals and measures rate of personnel turnover and personnel satisfaction.

COA Finding: In compliance - July 10, 2009 COA memorandum

PA-AM 5.01

Oversight entities:

a.

reflect the demographics of the communities served;

b.

represent the interests of the communities served;

c.

link the agency and the public or community; and

d.

ensure that the agency’s policies and performance uphold the public trust.

COA Finding: In compliance - August 4, 2009 COA report

PA-RPM 2.01 - 365 Day Standard due July 1, 2009

Management conducts an internal assessment of overall risk at least annually that includes:

a.

compliance with legal requirements, including licensing and mandatory reporting

laws, and fiscal accountability;

b.

insurance and liability;

c.

health and safety, including use of facilities:

d.

contracting practices and compliance;

149

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 158 of 180

e.

staff training regarding areas of risk;

f.

volunteer roles and oversight;

g.

research involving program participants and other clients’ rights issues;

h.

security of information, including client confidentiality;

i.

financial risk;

j.

fundraising;

k.

conflict of interest;

l.

employment practices; and

m. interagency collaborations.

COA Finding: In substantial compliance - July 10, 2009 COA memorandum

PA-RPM 2.02 - 365 Day Standard due July 1, 2009

The agency conducts a quarterly review of immediate and ongoing risks that includes a

review of incidents, accidents, and grievances related to:

a.

administering, dispensing, or prescribing medications;

b.

service modalities or other organizational practices that involve risk or limit

freedom of choice;

c.

the use of restrictive behavior management interventions, such as seclusion and

restraint;

d.

facility safety issues; and

e.

situations where a person was determined to be a danger to himself/herself or

others.

COA Finding: In compliance - July 10, 2009 COA memorandum

PA-RPM 2.04 - 365 Day Standard due July 1, 2009 Individuals qualified by knowledge and experience are responsible for risk prevention and management functions.

COA Finding: In substantial compliance - July 10, 2009 COA memorandum

PA-ASE 6.01 - 365 Day Standard due July 1, 2009

The agency assesses its safety and security needs and:

a.

takes appropriate measures to protect the safety of all persons who are in its

facilities or on its grounds;

b.

develops safety and communication protocols for staff that work off-site;

c.

trains staff on potential risks they may encounter on-site, in the community, or in

clients’ homes;

d.

trains staff on self-protection techniques, as necessary; and

e.

has security systems to deter facility break-ins.

COA Finding: In substantial compliance - July 10, 2009 COA memorandum

PA-ASE 8.01 - 365 Day Standard due July 1, 2009

The agency minimizes the risk of exposure to contagious and infectious disease by:

a.

adhering to CDC and OSHA guidelines;

b.

consulting with the local health department or an individual qualified to provide

such information; and

c.

annually training program personnel on universal disease precautions.

COA Finding: In substantial compliance - July 10, 2009 COA memorandum

150

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 159 of 180

PA-ASE 8.02 - 365 Day Standard due July 1, 2009

The agency:

a.

consults with local and state public health and licensing authorities to determine the

need to test personnel who are in direct contact with service recipients who may be

at high risk for tuberculosis or other air and blood-borne pathogens; and

b.

as necessary, implements a targeted testing program that is consistent with public

health authority recommendations.

COA Finding: In substantial compliance - July 10, 2009 COA memorandum

PA-ASE 1.02 The agency develops and implements a policy to prohibit smoking in all areas of its buildings except in specified circumstances and in locations environmentally separate from administrative and service areas.
COA Finding: In compliance - November 12, 2009 COA report

PA-ASE 4

All facilities in which the agency operates are properly maintained through:

a.

regular inspections;

b.

preventive maintenance by a qualified professional;

c.

a monthly review of the physical plant’s heating, fire extinguishers, fire safety,

lighting, and other systems;

d.

a review of vehicle safety inspections;

e.

installation of window guards, where necessary; and

f.

quick responses to emergency maintenance issues and potentially hazardous

conditions.

COA Finding: In compliance - March 1, 2010 COA report

PA-ASE 7.01

The agency develops an emergency response plan that addresses:

a.

coordination with appropriate local, state, and federal governmental

authorities;

b.

coordination with emergency responders;

c.

coordination and communication with service recipients;

d.

evacuation of persons with mobility challenges and other special needs;

e.

accounting for the whereabouts of staff and service recipients;

f.

options for relocating service recipients; and

g.

situations involving the threat of harm or violence, or actual harm or violence.

COA Finding: In partial compliance - August 4, 2009 COA report

PA-ASE 7.03

The emergency response plan includes arrangements for:

a.

a temporary work site in the event of facility closure;

b.

communicating with senior management, personnel, service recipients, the

public, and the media; and

c.

notifying parents or legal guardians, as appropriate.

COA Finding: In partial compliance - August 4, 2009 COA report

151

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 160 of 180

II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps Period 2 IP §II.3.: Screening and Assessments

PA-FC 1.01

Prompt, responsive screening practices:

a.

ensure equitable treatment;

b.

examine the child's ability to participate in family and community life

without danger to themselves or others;

c.

give priority to urgent needs and emergency situations; and

d.

support timely initiation of services.

COA Finding: In compliance - November 12, 2009 COA report

PA-CPS 7.02 - 365 Day Standard due July 1, 2009

The information gathered for assessments:

a.

includes underlying conditions and environmental and historical factors that may

contribute to concerns identified in initial screening, investigation, and risk and

safety assessments;

b.

identifies child and family strengths, protective factors, and needs;

c.

includes the potential impact of maltreatment on the child;

d.

includes factors and characteristics pertinent to making an appropriate placement,

if necessary;

e.

identifies potential family resources for the child and the parents; and

f.

is limited to material pertinent for providing services and meeting objectives.

COA Finding: In substantial compliance - July 10, 2009 COA memorandum 417

PA-FC 2.02 - 365 Day Standard due July 1, 2009

The information gathered for assessments:

a.

includes internal, external, and historical factors that may contribute to concerns

identified in initial risk and safety assessments and initial screenings;

b.

identifies child and family strengths, protective factors, and needs;

c.

includes the impact of maltreatment on the child;

d.

includes factors and characteristics pertinent to selecting an appropriate placement;

e.

identifies family resources for the child and the parents; and

f.

is limited to material pertinent for meeting service objectives.

COA Finding: In substantial compliance - July 10, 2009 COA memorandum

PA-AS 2.05

Information is gathered from birth parents and maintained for the child’s future use,

including:

a.

the child’s medical and social history;

b.

contact information for organizations, medical facilities, or others involved in

services to the birth parents and the child;

c.

all available information about the medical and social history of the birth

parents and the pregnancy; and

d.

photographs or a physical description of birth parents.

COA Finding: In substantial compliance - November 12, 2009 COA report

417 In the July 10, 2009 COA memorandum, the standard is erroneously referred to as PA-CPS 7.05; however, there is no COA standard with that designation, and the language of the standard comports to PA-CPS 7.02.
152

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 161 of 180

PA-FC 8.01 Parents receive information about foster care services that includes: a. an orientation to the foster care service and the child’s need for a permanent,
safe, stable home; b. parental rights and responsibilities; c. the importance of parental involvement and contact with the child and the
agency, according to the service plan; and
d. the legal implications if reunification efforts are unsuccessful.

COA Finding: In substantial compliance - May 18, 2010 COA report

Period 2 IP §II.4.: Service Planning and Monitoring

PA-CPS 8.03 - 365 Day Standard due July 1, 2009

An individualized service plan developed with each family is based on the assessment and

includes:

a.

agreed upon goals, desired outcomes, and timeframes for achieving them;

b.

services and supports to be provided, and by whom;

c.

timeframes for evaluating family progress; and

d.

the signature of the parents and the youth, if age appropriate.

COA Finding: In substantial compliance - July 10, 2009 COA memorandum

PA-CPS 8.01

Service planning is family centered, and includes, as appropriate:

a.

the child;

b.

family members;

c.

additional service providers; and

d.

tribal representatives.

COA Finding: In substantial compliance - March 1, 2010 COA report

PA-CPS 8.05 Service plans are completed within timeframes established by the agency.

COA Finding: In compliance - March 1, 2010 COA report

PA-FC 3.07

The foster care worker and a supervisor, or a clinical, service, or peer team review the case

quarterly to assess:

a.

service plan implementation;

b.

progress toward achieving service goals and desired outcomes; and

c.

the continuing appropriateness of the agreed upon service goals.

COA Finding: In compliance - November 12, 2009 COA report

Period 2 IP §II.5.a: Child and Youth Permanency, Permanency Plan

PA-FC 4.01 - 365 Day Standard due July 1, 2009

Service providers, foster parents, the public authority, and the court work with the child,

youth, and family to develop a permanency plan within 30 days of placement, which

specifies:

a.

the permanency goal(s);

153

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 162 of 180

b.

a timeframe for achieving permanency; and

c.

activities that support permanency.

COA Finding: In substantial compliance - July 10, 2009 COA memorandum

Period 2 IP §II.5.c: Child and Youth Permanency, Reunification Services

PA-FC 8.02

Foster care workers maintain regular contact with the child’s family to:

a.

keep the family informed and involved in decisions about the child; and

b.

remain current about the family’s circumstances.

COA Finding: In substantial compliance - March 1, 2010 COA report

Period 2 IP §II.5.e: Child and Youth Permanency, Adoption

PA-AS 8.05

When a child is placed prior to termination of parental rights, the agency:

a.

informs the prospective adoptive parents of the substantial risks involved and

limitations on confidentiality;

b.

requires written agreements between the organization and the prospective

adoptive parents, stating the mutual intention that the adoption take place, if

legal matters are resolved; and

c.

makes diligent efforts to remove legal and other barriers to the adoption.

COA Finding: In compliance - July 5, 2010 e-mail correspondence418

PA-AS 2.03 - 365 Day Standard due July 1, 2009

An age-appropriate child study is conducted to assess the child’s readiness for adoption, and

includes:

a.

an evaluation of the child’s ability to bond and develop relationships;

b.

history of maltreatment and prior placements;

c.

prenatal history and developmental screening of infants and young children;

d.

current medical and dental health examinations; and

e.

a psychological evaluation, if needed.

COA Finding: In substantial compliance - July 10, 2009 COA memorandum

PA-AS 8.01

A process that examines the child’s needs and interests, and the prospective adoptive

parents’ interpersonal and parenting skills, identifies an adoptive family that:

a.

is most suitable to meet the child’s needs; and

b.

can advance the child’s best interests.

COA Finding: In substantial compliance - July 5, 2010 e-mail correspondence

PA-AS 7.02

Age-appropriate services that prepare the child for adoption include:

a.

opportunities to visit prospective adoptive parents, and preparation and support

for such visits;

418 Ex. 63H, July 5, 2010 e-mail correspondence from James Mooney to Jenni Murray regarding Year 2 Fourth Quarter Deliverables.
154

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 163 of 180

b.

counseling to help the child understand the adoption and cope with separation,

loss, and birth family loyalty issues;

c.

consideration of continued contact with the birth parents, siblings, extended

family, and the child's tribe when one has been identified; and

d.

the development of a lifebook that describes the child’s personal history.

COA Finding: In substantial compliance - March 1, 2010 COA report

PA-AS 3.02

The homestudy includes an assessment of:

a.

family relationships and functioning;

b.

education, employment, and financial status;

c.

parenting abilities and experiences;

d.

the home environment;

e.

physical and mental health status;

f.

cultural sensitivity and a willingness to support the child's cultural ties; and

g.

interest in adoption.

COA Finding: In compliance - March 1, 2010 COA report

PA-AS 3.04 - 365 Day Standard due July 1, 2009

The home-study is a collaborative process that helps the family decide if adoption is an

appropriate goal, and includes:

a.

one or more visits to the prospective adoptive family’s home;

b.

reference checks;

c.

criminal background and child abuse and neglect registry checks according to

applicable legal requirements; and

d.

preparation of a home-study report with a recommendation regarding the family’s

ability to meet the needs of an adopted child.

COA Finding: In substantial compliance - July 10, 2009 COA memorandum

PA-AS 11.01 When the need for post-adoption services is identified, the agency and the individual or family jointly develop a plan that specifies steps for obtaining these services.
COA Finding: In substantial compliance - March 1, 2010 COA report

PA-AS 11.02

Children, birth parents, adoptive parents, and adopted persons have access to needed post-

adoption services that are culturally relevant and include:

a.

assessments;

b.

information and referral;

c.

case management;

d.

early intervention for children with developmental delays;

e.

educational services;

f.

counseling, mental health treatment, and crisis intervention services;

g.

family preservation and stabilization services;

h.

peer support;

i.

transportation; and

j.

respite services and out-of-home care

COA Finding: In substantial compliance - March 1, 2010 COA report

155

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 164 of 180

Period 2 IP §II.6.: Child Safety PA-CPS 4.05 - 365 Day Standard due July 1, 2009 Cases are assigned for investigation, referred, or screened out, within 24 hours.
COA Finding: In substantial compliance - July 10, 2009 COA memorandum

PA-CPS 5.05 - 365 Day Standard due July 1, 2009

The investigator conducts a comprehensive evaluation of risk and protective factors that

include:

a.

child safety;

b.

family strengths and needs;

c.

history and impact of prior child abuse or neglect, domestic violence, or substance

use; and family connections.

COA Finding: In substantial compliance - July 10, 2009 COA memorandum

PA-CPS 6 Safety assessments are conducted at defined intervals and milestones, and safety plans are developed and updated as necessary.
COA Finding: In compliance - November 12, 2009 COA report

PA-CPS 14.06 Supervisory personnel are involved in all decisions related to child safety and permanency, and workers have access to a supervisor by telephone 24 hours a day.
COA Finding: In compliance - August 4, 2009 COA report

PA-ASE 6.03 - 365 Day Standard due July 1, 2009

An agency that transports service recipients in its vehicles or permits transportation in

vehicles that belong to the agency’s personnel, foster parents, volunteers, or contractors

requires:

a.

the use of age-appropriate passenger restraint systems;

b.

adequate passenger supervision, as mandated by statute or regulation;

c.

proper maintenance of agency vehicles;

d.

current registration and inspection of vehicles;

e.

annual validation of licenses and driving records; and

f.

proper insurance for vehicles and passengers.

COA Finding: In substantial compliance - July 10, 2009 COA memorandum

Period 2 IP §II.7.: Child Placement

PA-KC 1.01

Families are screened and informed about:

a.

how well the family’s request matches the agency's services; and

b.

what services will be available, and when.

COA Finding: In compliance - March 1, 2010 COA report

PA-KC 1.02

Prompt, responsive screening practices:

a.

ensure equitable treatment;

156

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 165 of 180

b.

give priority to urgent needs and emergency situations;

c.

support timely initiation of services or immediate contact with the referral

source when the child and family cannot be served; and

d.

examine the child’s ability to participate in family and community life

without danger to themselves or others.

COA Finding: In compliance - March 1, 2010 COA report

PA-FC 17.01

Homestudies are completed prior to placement, and are updated:

a.

within two weeks of a reported change in the home composition; and

b.

at least once annually.

COA Finding: In compliance - May 18, 2010 COA report

PA-FC 17.02

The homestudy includes an assessment of factors that may impact the ability of prospective

foster parents to provide care, protection, and experiences that enhance healthy development

including:

a.

personal characteristics;

b.

motivation for providing foster care;

c.

willingness to provide care for a child or youth of a different race, ethnicity,

culture, or sexual orientation;

d.

cultural sensitivity and a willingness to support the child's cultural ties;

e.

family and marital functioning;

f.

mental health;

g.

parenting skills and experiences;

h.

social support networks; and

i.

the home environment.

COA Finding: In compliance - May 18, 2010 COA report

PA-KC 6.05

A regular assessment of each home verifies basic health and safety requirements are met,

including:

a.

appropriate sleeping arrangements;

b.

adequate heat, light, water, refrigeration, cooking, and toilet facilities;

c.

functional smoke detectors;

d.

intact doors, steps, windows, and window guards where necessary;

e.

no exposed wiring;

f.

no rodent or insect infestation; and

g.

walls and ceilings free of holes and lead paint.

COA Finding: In compliance - May 18, 2010 COA report

PA-CPS 11.02 The child is placed with siblings whenever possible, and is referred to an out-of-home care program that can provide the most appropriate placement that is in close proximity to the child’s parents and allows the child to maintain his or her cultural connections.
COA Finding: In compliance - March 1, 2010 COA report

157

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 166 of 180

PA-KC 6.01 The agency works with the child and parents to identify kin that can be a resource to the child.
COA Finding: In compliance - November 12, 2009 COA report

PA-KC 2.03

Family members are engaged, as appropriate, in a comprehensive assessment to determine:

a.

the strength of kinship bonds;

b.

relationships between the child, the parents, and the caregivers;

c.

caregiver readiness, capacity, and commitment to provide care; and

d.

caregiver willingness and ability to facilitate an ongoing relationship with the

parents.

COA Finding: In compliance - March 1, 2010 COA report

PA-CPS 10.03 - 365 Day Standard due July 1, 2009

The agency minimizes the negative effects removal can have on a child by:

a.

providing age-appropriate information about the removal process;

b.

identifying personal items the child will bring;

c.

collecting information about the child’s daily routine, preferred foods and activities,

needed therapeutic or medical care, and education;

d.

discussing how the child can maintain contact with the family; and

e.

discussing separation and loss.

COA Finding: In substantial compliance - July 10, 2009 COA memorandum

PA-CPS 11.01 All information available from intake, screening, assessment, and placement history are considered to identify the most family-like, least restrictive type of out-of-home care suitable to provide for the child’s safety, permanency, stability and well being.

COA Finding: In substantial compliance - March 1, 2010 COA report

PA-FC 6.05 - 365 Day Standard due July 1, 2009

The home environment is considered when identifying a family for the child, and foster care

homes have no more than:

a.

five children with no more than two children under age two; or

b.

two foster children with therapeutic needs.

COA Finding: In compliance - July 10, 2009 COA memorandum

PA-FC 16.05 - 365 Day Standard due July 1, 2009 Foster parents are trained in:

a.

basic first aid;

b.

medication administration;

c.

cardio-pulmonary resuscitation;

d.

recognizing and responding to child behaviors that jeopardize health and well-

being; and

e.

medical or rehabilitation interventions and operation of medical equipment required

for a child’s care.

COA Finding: In compliance - July 10, 2009 COA memorandum 158

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 167 of 180

PA-FC 6.03

A placement that can meet the child’s needs is selected in accordance with the following

priorities:

a.

with siblings;

b.

with kin; or

c.

with a family that resides within reasonable proximity to the child’s family and

home community.

COA Finding: In compliance - May 18, 2010 COA report

PA-FC 16.06 - 365 Day Standard due July 1, 2009 Foster parents sign a statement agreeing to refrain from the use of corporal and degrading punishment, and receive initial and ongoing training and support to promote positive behavior and use appropriate discipline techniques.

COA Finding: In compliance - July 10, 2009 COA memorandum

PA-FC 9.01

Foster parents provide each child in care with:

a.

a pleasant and safe atmosphere and nurturing family relationships that promote

positive attachment;

b.

a physical environment and materials that support the child’s development;

c.

nutritious meals and snacks;

d.

age-appropriate boundaries, supervision, and discipline;

e.

an orderly daily schedule that promotes positive participation in age-

appropriate educational, social, recreational, and community activities; and

f.

basic personal needs and an allowance, as appropriate.

COA Finding: In compliance - May 18, 2010 COA report

PA-BSM 1.02

Behavior support and management policies cover:

a.

practices used to maintain a safe environment and prevent the need

for restrictive behavior management interventions;

b.

whether isolation, manual or mechanical restraint, or locked

seclusion are permitted as emergency safety measures;

c.

other practices that may be used and under what circumstances; and

d.

prohibited practices.

COA Finding: Out of compliance - March 1, 2010 COA report

PA-BSM 2.01

The agency:

a.

provides an explanation for and offers a copy of its written behavior support

and management philosophy and procedures to service recipients or their

parents or legal guardians at admission;

b.

informs service recipients or parents or legal guardians of strategies used to

maintain a safe environment and prevent the need for restrictive behavior

management interventions;

c.

has procedures that address harassment and violence towards other service

recipients, personnel, and, as applicable, foster parents;

159

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 168 of 180

d.

obtains the service recipient’s or parent’s or legal guardian’s consent when

restrictive behavior management interventions are part of the treatment

modality; and

e.

when the service recipient is a minor, notifies the parents or legal guardians

promptly when manual restraint, mechanical restraint, or locked seclusion were

used.

COA Finding: Out of compliance - March 1, 2010 COA report

PA-BSM 2.03

The agency prohibits:

a.

the use of restrictive behavior management interventions by service recipients,

peers, or any person other than trained, qualified staff, or foster parents;

b.

chemical restraint;

c.

excessive or inappropriate use of restrictive behavior management interventions

as, for example, a form of discipline or compliance, or for the convenience of

staff or foster parents; and

d.

use of restrictive behavior management interventions in response to property

damage that does not involve imminent danger to self or others.

COA Finding: Out of compliance - March 1, 2010 COA report

Period 2 IP §II.8.: Developing and Maintaining Connections

PA-FC 7.03

A visitation plan is developed and updated in collaboration with parents, foster parents, and

the child and is appropriate to:

a.

the child’s age and developmental stage;

b.

the parents’ strengths and needs;

c.

the schedules of foster parents and parents;

d.

the social and cultural context of the family; and

e.

the status of the case and the permanency goal.

COA Finding: In compliance - November 12, 2009 COA report

PA-FC 7.05 Agency policy prohibits cancellation of visits as a disciplinary action.
COA Finding: In partial compliance - March 1, 2010 COA report

Period 2 IP §II.9.: Physical and Mental Health Care
PA-FC 2.04 - 365 Day Standard due July 1, 2009 The child receives an initial health screening from a qualified medical practitioner within 72 hours of entry into care to identify the need for immediate medical or mental health care, and assess for infectious and communicable diseases.

COA Finding: In compliance - July 10, 2009 COA memorandum

PA-FC 10.03 - 365 Day Standard due July 1, 2009

Qualified professionals provide the child with age-appropriate health services including:

a.

medical examinations according to well child guidelines;

b.

dental examinations every 6 months;

160

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 169 of 180

c.

developmental, mental health, and alcohol and drug screenings within 30 days after

entry into care, and when indicated to identify the need for further diagnostic

assessment; and

d.

needed therapeutic and treatment services.

COA Finding: In compliance - July 10, 2009 COA memorandum

PA-FC 10.04

Youth receive age appropriate support and education regarding:

a.

pregnancy prevention and responsible parenthood; and

b.

prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases.

COA Finding: In compliance - May 18, 2010 COA report

PA-KC 10.04

Qualified professionals provide the child with age-appropriate health care services including:

a.

medical examinations according to well-child guidelines;

b.

dental examinations every 6 months;

c.

developmental, mental health, and alcohol and drug screenings within 30 days

after entry into care, and when indicated to identify the need for further

diagnostic assessment; and

d.

needed therapeutic and treatment services.

COA Finding: In compliance - March 1, 2010 COA report

Period 2 IP §II.10.: Educational Services

PA-FC 9.04

The child receives support to achieve his/her full educational potential through:

a.

appropriate communication and collaboration between the foster care worker,

educators, foster parents, and parents;

b.

efforts to keep the child enrolled in a familiar school or, if change is

unavoidable, to enroll the child in the best educational setting available;

c.

educational assessments and an individual education plan when needed;

d.

early childhood care and development and early intervention services;

e.

tutoring; and

f.

advocacy.

COA Finding: In compliance - March 1, 2010 COA report

PA-FC 11.02 - 365 Day Standard due July 1, 2009

The treatment team develops an individualized treatment plan that:

a.

specifies a diagnosis;

b.

identifies current and anticipated needs, and specifies short- and long-term

therapeutic interventions;

c.

is reviewed by the treatment team weekly to coordinate an effective response to

current issues and behaviors; and

d.

is reviewed within 30 days of placement, and every 90 days, to evaluate continued

need for therapeutic foster care.

COA Finding: Not applicable for DFCS - July 10, 2009 COA memorandum

161

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 170 of 180

Period 2 IP §II.11.: Worker Contact and Monitoring

PA-CPS 9.04 - 365 Day Standard due July 1, 2009

Frequency and type of face-to-face visits with the child and family are appropriate to the

family’s needs and risk to the child, and visits occur at least once a month, to:

a.

establish effective working relationships;

b.

assess safety and well-being;

c.

monitor service delivery; and

d.

measure and support the achievement of agreed upon goals.

COA Finding: In substantial compliance - July 10, 2009 COA memorandum

PA-FC 12.01 - 365 Day Standard due July 1, 2009

The family foster care worker meets separately with the child and the parents at least once a

month to:

a.

assess safety and well-being;

b.

monitor service delivery; and

c.

support the achievement of permanency and other service plan goals.

COA Finding: In compliance - July 10, 2009 COA memorandum

PA-FC 12.02

The foster care worker regularly communicates with the foster parents and visits the home

at least once a month to:

a.

share all relevant and legally permissible information concerning the child;

b.

evaluate safety, needs, and well-being; and

c.

monitor service delivery and achievement of service and permanency plan

goals.

COA Finding: In compliance - November 12, 2009 COA report

Period 2 IP §II.13.: Case Closing and Aftercare
PA-AS 10.01 Case closing is a clearly defined process that involves the worker, the individual or family receiving services, and others, as appropriate.

COA Finding: Defendants’ response to COA pending - May 18, 2010 report and July 5, 2010 e-mail

PA-CPS 13.02

Planning for case closing:

a.

is a clearly defined process that includes assignment of staff responsibility;

b.

begins at intake;

c.

involves the family and others, as appropriate; and

d.

includes discussion with the family about the successful changes in behaviors

and conditions that reduced risk to the child, and plans and strategies for

maintaining those changes.

COA Finding: Out of compliance - March 1, 2010 COA report

PA-FC 14.03 Upon case closing, the agency notifies any collaborating service providers, including the courts and tribal governments, as appropriate.
162

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 171 of 180

COA Finding: In substantial compliance - May 18, 2010 COA report
PA-FC 15.01 The agency and the family develop an aftercare plan sufficiently in advance of case closing that specifies services needed or desired, and the steps for obtaining these services.
COA Finding: In substantial compliance - May 18, 2010 COA report
PA-KC 15.04 The agency follows up on the aftercare plan, as appropriate, when possible, and with the permission of the family.

COA Finding: In compliance - May 18, 2010 COA report

Period 2 IP §II.14.: Recruitment and Retention of Foster Families and Therapeutic Service Providers

PA-FC 16.03

The agency determines the appropriate amount of mandatory pre-service and in-service

education necessary to ensure that foster parents understand:

a.

the agency's mission, philosophy, goals, and services;

b.

the needs of abused and neglected children;

c.

how to integrate the child into the family;

d.

the importance of culture and ethnicity, and methods to maintain the child's

connection to his or her cultural community or tribe;

e.

the partnership role foster parents play in supporting the family;

f.

how to assist with visitation;

g.

sensitive and responsive practices to use with biological parents; and

h.

the use of foster care as a temporary intervention.

COA Finding: In compliance - May 18, 2010 COA report

PA-FC 16.04

Foster parents receive pre-service training on rights and responsibilities including:

a.

specific duties of foster parents;

b.

identification and reporting of abuse and neglect;

c.

reimbursement for services and compensation for damages caused by children

placed in the home;

d.

notice of and participation in any review or hearing regarding the child;

e.

complaint procedures; and

f.

circumstances that will result in closing a home.

COA Finding: In compliance - May 18, 2010 COA report

PA-FC 18.01 Outreach strategies connect foster parents with respite care before they become overwhelmed with care-giving responsibilities.
COA Finding: In compliance - May 18, 2010 COA report

163

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 172 of 180

PA-FC 18.05

Close supervision of children ensures their safety and improves service quality, and respite

care provider homes have no more than:

a.

five children with no more than two children under age two; or

b.

two foster children with therapeutic needs.

COA Finding: In compliance - May 18, 2010 COA report

PA-KC 12.03

Caregivers receive help obtaining support services including:

a.

financial assistance;

b.

legal services;

c.

housing assistance;

d.

transportation;

e.

food and clothing;

f.

physical and mental health care;

g.

homemaker services; and

h.

respite care.

COA Finding: In compliance - May 18, 2010 COA report

V. CONCLUSION The defendants are beyond the halfway mark in the five-year remedial process mandated by the Settlement Agreement. Among other reforms, the Settlement Agreement anticipated that by this point the DFCS policy and procedure manual would be revised, an adequately resourced staff training program would be implemented, and specified improvements in case practice – fueled by a functional CQI system – would be underway on a statewide basis. According to the Settlement Agreement, defendants should be implementing plans to improve the quality and array of services afforded to children in DFCS custody and their families, bolstered by a performance based contracting system and initiatives to increase federal revenue. The Settlement Agreement contemplated that by now defendants should have the ongoing capacity to measure accurately required performance indicators related to case practices and service delivery. As this report demonstrates, progress has been limited.

164

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 173 of 180
Since 2008, DFCS has been reorganized and restructured under a new management team with a committed workforce that cares deeply about the children in defendants’ custody. Critically-needed funding has been appropriated to subsidize increases in social worker and supervisory staffing levels, and the management of COA accreditation activities has improved. There also has been progress implementing some, but not all, of the required initiatives intended to ensure child safety.
Nevertheless, in the broader context of the required reform effort, both the pace and the breadth of defendants’ progress are inconsistent with the Settlement Agreement’s requirements. In many instances, the defendants made efforts to satisfy specific Settlement Agreement requirements, but as a general matter, these efforts were belated, and in some respects, they were not minimally adequate. In a few instances, there is no evidence that defendants made credible efforts to comply with specific requirements by the end of Period 2, including requirements that should have been satisfied during the first year of the reform process.
The assessments of foster care services conducted by the defendants’ consultants have identified significant deficits in DFCS case practice and service delivery. Defendants have worked with their consultants on the development of a practice model, which constitutes the centerpiece of defendants’ strategy to improve case practice. The practice model will be phasedin on a regional basis over a 48-month period that extends beyond the Settlement Agreement’s five-year timetable. In the wake of a six-month planning process, efforts have been underway since July 2010 to implement the practice model in two of DFCS’s 13 regions. Although the schedule is inconsistent with the Settlement Agreement’s timetable, the implementation plan for the practice model represents the first credible plan for improving the quality and consistency of case practice. However, its success is dependent on a number of reforms in management and
165

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 174 of 180
administrative capacity that were anticipated by the Settlement Agreement, but have not
occurred.
The September 1, 2010 deadline for defendants to satisfy requirements in a corrective
action plan crafted to address a narrow subset of the unmet Period 2 requirements has lapsed.
The Monitor will evaluate and report on defendants’ performance, as required; however,
regardless of the outcome of that assessment, the parties must confront the fact that at the end of
this calendar year, there will be two years left in the required five-year reform process, and there
is an apparent misalignment between the Settlement Agreement’s requirements and the
implementation strategy that the defendants have adopted as well as the results that the
defendants have achieved to date.
/s/ Grace M. Lopes____________________ Grace M. Lopes (MBN 45693 pro hac vice) Court Monitor 1350 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 232-8311 gmlopes@oymonitor.org
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on September 8, 2010, the Court Monitor’s Report to the Court Regarding Defendants’ Progress Toward Meeting Period 2 Requirements was transmitted electronically to the following counsel of record in this matter:
Dewitt L. (“Rusty”) Fortenberry Jr. Kenya Key Rachal Ashley Tullos Young Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC 428 I-55 North Meadowbrook Office Park Jackson, Mississippi 39211
166

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 175 of 180
Harold E. Pizzetta, III Assistant Attorney General General Civil Division Carroll Gartin Justice Building 430 High Street Jackson, MS 39201 W. Wayne Drinkwater, Jr. BRADLEY ARANT ROSE & WHITE LLP 188 East Capital Street, Suite 450 Jackson, Mississippi 39201 Marcia Robinson Lowry Shirim Nothenberg Jessica Polansky CHILDREN’S RIGHTS 330 Seventh Avenue New York, New York 10001 John Lang John Piskora LOEB & LOEB LLP 345 Park Ave. New York, New York 10154
/s/ Grace M. Lopes__
167

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 176 of 180

The Court Monitor’s Report to the Court Regarding Defendants’ Progress Toward Meeting Period 2 Requirements Index to Exhibits

Ex. 1A Ex. 1B Ex. 1C Ex. 1D Ex. 2
Ex. 3
Ex. 4
Ex. 5
Ex. 6 Ex. 7 Ex. 8
Ex. 9

Resume of Linda Southward, Ph.D., ACSW
Resume of Stacy Ferraro, Esq.
Curriculum vitae of Troy Blanchard, Ph.D.
Draft – Reporting Workload Summary, August 18, 2008, excerpt
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Caseworker and Area Social Work Supervisor Hiring, Attrition, and Workforce Size, FY 2007 – FY 2010
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Number of Caseworkers and Supervisors Employed by MDHS/DFCS on May 31, 2010 Hired by State Between May 1, 2009 and April 30, 2010, by Year and Month Hired
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Status of Caseworker and Area Social Work Supervisor Positions as of May 31, 2010 and July 22, 2010
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Year that Area Social Work Supervisors and Caseworkers Employed by State of Mississippi as of May 31, 2010 Were Hired
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Status of Caseworker Positions as of May 31, 2010, by County
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Status of Area Social Work Supervisor Positions as of May 31, 2010, by County
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Caseworker and Area Social Work Supervisor Positions, by Status, for 20 Counties Employing Largest Number of MDHS/DFCS Staff
Draft – MDHS - Division of Family and Children’s Services, Workforce Plan, State Fiscal Year 2010, Recruitment and Retention, Revised as of 1/20/10 (The pagination of this document is not sequential. It goes from pages two to six and then continues with pages two to five; however, the document appears to be complete.)

Index - 1

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 177 of 180

Ex. 10 Ex. 11 Ex. 12 Ex. 13 Ex. 14 Ex. 15 Ex. 16 Ex. 17 Ex. 18 Ex. 19 Ex. 20 Ex. 21 Ex. 22 Ex. 23

Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Average Salaries of Caseworkers Employed by MDHS/DFCS as of May 31, 2010, by Year Hired
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Average Salaries of Area Social Work Supervisors Employed by MDHS/DFCS as of May 31, 2010, by Year Hired
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Average Salaries of MDHS/DFCS Caseworkers Hired by State in 2008-2010 vs. Average Budgeted Salaries for Caseworker Vacancies as of May 31, 2010
DHS - Area Social Work Supervisor – Position Description
Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children’s Services, Worker and Supervisor Qualification Plan, January 21, 2010
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Total MDHS/DFCS Agency Positions as of May 31, 2010, by Status
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Number of Employees Working for MDHS/DFCS on May 31, 2010 Hired by State Between May 1, 2009 and April 30, 2010, by Year, Month, and Position
DFCS Policy Manual, Volume IV, Section A, Revised October 2009, Administration Staff Development/Training Policy, excerpt
2010 Training Unit Plan, Division of Family and Children’s Services
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Months Between Hiring and Start of Training Reported by Caseworkers Hired Between May 1, 2009 and February 16, 2010, by Region
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Reported Work Assignments for Caseworkers Hired Between May 1, 2009 and February 16, 2010 Prior to Completion of Training
Practice Guidelines on Documenting Caseworker Visits with Children
Section V: Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) Recommendations, excerpt, Mississippi Practice Model Final Report, August 7, 2009, Center for the Support of Families, Inc., Draft
MDHS, Continuous Quality Improvement

Index - 2

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 178 of 180

Ex. 24 Ex. 25 Ex. 26 Ex. 27 Ex. 28 Ex. 29 Ex. 30 Ex. 31 Ex. 32 Ex. 33 Ex. 34
Ex. 35 Ex. 36 Ex. 37 Ex. 38 Ex. 39 Ex. 40

Draft – Fiscal Year 2009, Continuous Quality Improvement Operational Plan
Mississippi Division of Family and Children’s Services, Performance and Quality Improvement Operational Plan, SFY 2010, Draft
Child and Family Services Reviews Onsite Review Instrument
Statewide Impact of CQI Implementation
CQI Reviews, Onsite Review Instrument
Mississippi Foster Care Services Assessments, Final Report, October 13, 2009, Center for the Support of Families, Inc.
MACWIS Accomplishments, September 2009 – July 2010
Photograph of interior of DFCS Hancock County trailer #18, taken by Grace M. Lopes, May 5, 2010
Methodology for Validating MACWIS Data Reports
Mississippi Practice Model, Final Report, Appendix B/Practice Guide, Strengths and Needs Assessments, September 25, 2009
Bulletin 6276, Revised Intake Policy, October 1, 2009, Child Protective Services Procedure for Service Activity, Mississippi, Volume IV, Section B
Termination of Parental Rights Assessment, Final Report, November 24, 2009, Center for the Support of Families, Inc. (redacted)
DFCS investigation of October 16, 2009 report regarding maltreatment of S.S. (Motion to File Under Seal pending)
DFCS investigation of August 14, 2009 report regarding maltreatment of J.A. (Motion to File Under Seal pending)
DFCS investigation of May 26, 2009 report regarding maltreatment of A.W. (Motion to File Under Seal pending)
DFCS investigation of May 21, 2009 report regarding maltreatment of D.C. and K.P. (Motion to File Under Seal pending)
DFCS investigation of December 7, 2009 report regarding maltreatment of J.W. and J.W. (Motion to File Under Seal pending)
Index - 3

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 179 of 180

Ex. 41 Ex. 42 Ex. 43 Ex. 44 Ex. 45 Ex. 46 Ex. 47 Ex. 48 Ex. 49 Ex. 50 Ex. 51
Ex. 52 Ex. 53 Ex. 54 Ex. 55 Ex. 56

DFCS investigation of February 8, 2010 report regarding maltreatment of P.O. (Motion to File Under Seal pending)
DFCS investigation of November 16, 2009 report regarding maltreatment of R.R., E.R., and R.R. (Motion to File Under Seal pending)
DFCS investigation of June 12, 2009 report regarding maltreatment of S.T. (Motion to File Under Seal pending)
DFCS investigation of October 22, 2009 report regarding maltreatment of D.S. and M.S. (Motion to File Under Seal pending)
DFCS investigation of February 4, 2010 report regarding maltreatment of N.M. (Motion to File Under Seal pending)
DFCS investigation of April 5, 2010 report regarding maltreatment of J.B. (Motion to File Under Seal pending)
DFCS investigation of February 11, 2010 report regarding maltreatment of S.H. (Motion to File Under Seal pending)
Bulletin 6200, Family Team Meetings and Individual Team Meetings, June 4, 2009, Mississippi, Volume IV, Revised June 2009, Section D
Mississippi Practice Model, Final Report, Appendix B/Practice Guide, Mobilizing Appropriate Services Timely, September 25, 2009
Mississippi Practice Model, Final Report, Appendix B/Practice Guide, Individualized Case Planning, September 25, 2009
Excerpt from Mississippi Department of Human Services Division of Family and Children’s Services, Child Welfare Professional Development Unit, Newsletter, Vol. 2, Issue 5, May 2010 (redacted)
Adoption Specialist Job Duties, Draft 06-26-09
Protocol for Adoption Meetings
External Adoption Consultant (redacted)
MDHS, DFCS, Bulletin 6154, Mandatory Reporting Requirement, January 24, 2008
Excerpt from Mississippi Department of Human Services Division of Family and Children’s Services, Child Welfare Professional Development
Index - 4

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 503 Filed 09/08/10 Page 180 of 180

Ex. 57 Ex. 58 Ex. 59 Ex. 60
Ex. 61 Ex. 62
Ex. 63A Ex. 63B Ex. 63C Ex. 63D Ex. 63E Ex. 63F Ex. 63G Ex. 63H

Unit, Newsletter, Vol. 2, Issue 2, February 2010, Mandating Reporting Reminder
Scope of Services, Social Work p.r.n., Central Intake, 24-Hour Hotline and Disaster Preparedness Plan
Special Safety Review – Group Home/Residential Facility, MACWIS Resource ID Number: 000008648 (Motion to File Under Seal pending)
Special Safety Review – Group Home/Residential Facility,, MACWIS Resource ID Number: 000041084 (Motion to File Under Seal pending)
Summary of the Court Monitor’s Findings from Case Record Review Conducted During Period 2 – Investigations Related to Reports of Maltreatment In Care
Mississippi Practice Model, Final Report, Appendix B/Practice Guide, Preserving and Maintaining Connections, September 25, 2009
Mississippi Practice Model, Final Report, Appendix B/Practice Guide, Involving Children and Families in Case Activities and Decision Making, September 25, 2009
COA, DFCS First Quarter Deliverables Report, Year 2 Implementation Plan, August 4, 2009
COA, DFCS Third Quarter Deliverables Report, Year 2 Implementation Plan, March 1, 2010
August 6, 2009 e-mail correspondence from James Mooney to Jenni Murray regarding Year 2 First Quarter Deliverables
COA, DFCS Second Quarter Deliverables Report, Year 2 Implementation Plan, November 12, 2009
July 10, 2009 memorandum from James Mooney to Jenni Murray regarding 365 Day Deliverables
September 17, 2009 e-mail correspondence from James Mooney to Jenni Murray regarding Official Resubmission of BSM
COA, DFCS Fourth Quarter Deliverables Report, Year 2 Implementation Plan, May 18, 2010
July 5, 2010 e-mail correspondence from James Mooney to Jenni Murray regarding Year 2 Fourth Quarter Deliverables
Index - 5

 
 Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 1 of 105

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION

OLIVIA Y., et al.

PLAINTIFFS

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:04CV251LN

HALEY BARBOUR, as Governor of the State of Mississippi, et al.

DEFENDANTS

______________________________________________________________________________

THE COURT MONITOR’S REPORT TO THE COURT REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ PROGRESS TOWARD MEETING PERIOD-1 REQUIREMENTS ______________________________________________________________________________

Table of Contents, Report Narrative, Index to Exhibits, and Appendix: Exhibits 1A – 19D

June 5, 2009

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 2 of 105

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ................................................2

II.

BACKGROUND ...........................................................................................................7

A. Structure of the Settlement Agreement ........................................................7

B. Relevant Procedural Background.................................................................8

III. METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................10

IV. FINDINGS...................................................................................................................12

Settlement Agreement §I. Reform Planning and Implementation...............................12 Settlement Agreement §I.C....................................................................................12 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §I.C............................................13 Period 1 IP §I. ........................................................................................................16 Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §I. ................................................................16
Settlement Agreement §II. Standards ..........................................................................21 Settlement Agreement §II.A. Administration and Management Standards. .........21 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.A.1.a. and b..........................22 Period 1 IP §I.1. .....................................................................................................23 Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §I.1. ............................................................23 Settlement Agreement §II.A.2.a. ...........................................................................25 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.A.2.a. ...................................26 Period 1 IP §I.2.a. ..................................................................................................35 Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §I.2.a............................................................35 Period 1 IP §I.2.b. ..................................................................................................36 Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §I.2.b. ..........................................................37 Settlement Agreement §II.A.2.c. ...........................................................................39 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.A.2.c.4. ................................39 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.A.2.c.5. ................................42 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.A.2.c.6. ................................44 Period 1 IP §I.2.c. ..................................................................................................45 Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §I.2.c............................................................46 Period 1 IP §I.2.d. ..................................................................................................48 Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §I.2.d. ..........................................................48 Settlement Agreement § II.A.3. .............................................................................49 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.A.3. ......................................49 Period 1 IP §I.3. .....................................................................................................50 Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §I.3. .............................................................51 Settlement Agreement §II.A.4. ..............................................................................51 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.A.4. ......................................51 Settlement Agreement §II.A.5. ..............................................................................51 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.A.5.b. ...................................52 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.A.5.c. ...................................53 Period 1 IP §I.5. .....................................................................................................55

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 3 of 105
Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §I.5. ............................................................55 Period 1 IP §I.6. .....................................................................................................56
Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §I.6. .............................................................56 Settlement Agreement §II.A.7. ..............................................................................56
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.A.7.a. ...................................56 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.A.7.b. ...................................57 Period 1 IP §I.7. .....................................................................................................57 Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §I.7. .............................................................57 Period 1 IP §II. .......................................................................................................57 Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §II. ...............................................................57 Period 1 IP §II. .......................................................................................................59 Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §II. ...............................................................59 Period 1 IP §II.1.....................................................................................................60 Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §II.1. ............................................................60 Period 1 IP §II.2.....................................................................................................61 Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §II.2. ............................................................61 Period 1 IP §II.3.a.1.-2...........................................................................................62 Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §II.3.a.1.-2. ..................................................62 Period 1 IP §II.3.c. .................................................................................................62 Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §II.3.c. .........................................................62 Period 1 IP §II.3.d..................................................................................................65 Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §II.3.d. .........................................................65 Period 1 IP §II.3.e. .................................................................................................66 Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §II.3.e. .........................................................66 Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.f. ............................................................................70 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.f.3. .................................70 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.f.4. .................................71 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.f.5. .................................73 Period 1 IP §II.3.f...................................................................................................74 Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §II.3.f...........................................................74 Settlement Agreement §II.B.4. ..............................................................................76 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.4.d. ...................................77 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.4.e.....................................78 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.4.f. ....................................78 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.4.g. ...................................78 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.4.h. ...................................79 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.4.i. ....................................80 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.4.j. ....................................80 Period 1 IP §II.4.....................................................................................................81 Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §II.4. ............................................................81 Settlement Agreement §II.B.5. ..............................................................................83 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.5.i. ....................................83 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.5.j. ....................................84 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.5.k. ...................................84 Period 1 IP §II.5.....................................................................................................85 Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §II.5. ............................................................85
ii

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 4 of 105

Period 1 IP §II.6.....................................................................................................86 Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §II.6. ............................................................86
Period 1 IP §II.7.....................................................................................................86 Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §II.7. ............................................................86
Period 1 IP §II.8.....................................................................................................86 Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §II.8. ............................................................87
Period 1 IP §II.10...................................................................................................87 Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §II.10. ..........................................................87
Period 1 IP §II.11...................................................................................................87 Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §II.11. ..........................................................87
Settlement Agreement §II.B.13. ...........................................................................88 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.13.e...................................89 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.13.g.. ................................89 Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.13.h. .................................90
Period 1 IP §II.13...................................................................................................90 Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §II.13. ..........................................................90
Period 1 IP §III.A...................................................................................................91 Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §III.A...........................................................91
Period 1 IP §III.B...................................................................................................92 Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §III.B. ..........................................................92

V.

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................92

iii

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 5 of 105

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION

OLIVIA Y., et al.

PLAINTIFFS

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:04CV251LN

HALEY BARBOUR, as Governor of the State of Mississippi, et al. DEFENDANTS ______________________________________________________________________________
THE COURT MONITOR’S REPORT TO THE COURT REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ PROGRESS TOWARD MEETING PERIOD-1 REQUIREMENTS ______________________________________________________________________________
This report summarizes the Court Monitor’s (“Monitor”) assessment of defendants’ progress toward meeting the first-year requirements of the Mississippi Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan (“Settlement Agreement”) approved by the Court on January 4, 2008, including the requirements contained in the first implementation plan (“Period 1 IP”).1 It was provided to the parties and to representatives from the Council on Accreditation (“COA”)2 in draft form for review and comment on April 29, 2009. The Monitor has considered and addressed all comments, as appropriate, in this final version of the report.
The report is divided into five sections. The Introduction and Summary of Findings outlines the progress that has been made during Period 1 as well as the primary initiatives that are underway to promote the required reforms. It also identifies certain challenges that will need to be overcome in order for the defendants to make continued progress. The Background section

1 The Settlement Agreement refers to the first-year implementation plan as both the “Year 1 Implementation Plan”
and the “Period 1 Annual Implementation Plan.” For purposes of this report, the term “Period 1 IP” refers to the
first-year implementation plan incorporated into the Settlement Agreement at Appendix A. 2 COA is an independent, non-profit, accrediting organization that accredits human services entities, including child
and family services agencies in the public sector.

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 6 of 105
describes how the Settlement Agreement is structured and presents the relevant procedural history. The Methodology section explains the process used to evaluate defendants’ progress. The Findings section presents the Monitor’s assessment of the progress that has been made toward meeting each of the Period 1 requirements. The Conclusion is followed by an appendix that includes the report’s exhibits, which, as appropriate, have been redacted in the final version of the report to delete information that identifies individual children, their family members and/or other caregivers, and, in limited case-specific instances, the names of caseworkers and their supervisors.
The pace of progress during Period 1 did not meet the Settlement Agreement’s requirements. As a result, defendants will need to accelerate and intensify their efforts to accomplish the required systemic reforms within the prescribed five-year timetable. Nonetheless, there have been some significant accomplishments. In addition, several key initiatives have been introduced and are being managed by a newly-installed and experienced executive team of child welfare professionals who are committed to the reform process. The efforts and motivation of this promising leadership team, coupled with the strengths and talents of their staff, should result in substantial progress during Period 2, provided that this reform initiative is adequately resourced and appropriately managed. Defendants’ accomplishments, and the challenges that must be overcome, are described in detail in this report.
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The Period 1 requirements focused on building the capacity of the Mississippi Department of Human Services (“MDHS”) Division of Family and Children’s Service (“DFCS”) to achieve the Settlement Agreement’s goals and outcomes. A lynchpin of Period 1 was the requirement that defendants appoint a qualified leader for DFCS who could recruit a
2

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 7 of 105
management team capable of assisting with the reform process. In recognition of the fact that systemic changes are not anticipated to substantially alter case practice during the initial stage of the reform process, Period 1 requirements also included interim safeguards to promote child safety.
As the management team was established, the Period 1 requirements contemplated that defendants would build key elements of the DFCS infrastructure through either specifically defined initiatives or a prescribed planning process. Pivotal capacity-building steps required during Period 1 included: 1) finalizing policies and procedures; 2) implementing a method for tracking caseworker and supervisory workloads; 3) establishing a Training Unit for employees; and, 4) adopting an independent continuous quality improvement system (“CQI”). As an adjunct to these initiatives, Period 1 requirements also called for a planning process based on assessments of DFCS’s administrative and management operations, including an assessment of the Mississippi Automated Child Welfare Information System (“MACWIS”),3 and of the service delivery system.4 In most instances, the goal of these assessments was to identify any critical shortcomings in the administrative, management and service delivery systems and to use these data to plan the remedial strategies that were required to be introduced during Period 1 or, as specified, Period 2.
The evidence shows that despite considerable early efforts by DFCS management and staff, progress toward meeting Period 1 requirements was limited until July 2008 when the thennewly appointed executive director of MDHS began to recruit an experienced leadership team to
3 In addition to MACWIS, assessments of the workforce, training curricula, contracting practices, the CQI system, and fiscal and financial management were required by the Period 1 IP. 4 Specific assessments of foster care services include reunification, independent living, foster care support, medical, dental and mental health services; case processing and practices related to termination of parental rights (“TPR”), parent/child and sibling visitation and reports of child maltreatment; and, the array of DFCS placements.
3

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 8 of 105
manage DFCS. In part, as a result of the delay in establishing the DFCS management team, many Period 1 requirements were not met and are now required to be completed during Period 2. This outcome should be considered in light of the progress that has occurred, the initiatives that are now underway, and the formidable challenges that defendants will need to overcome, most of which are described below.
Since July 2008, MDHS has been led by a seasoned public manager who actively supports the goals of the Settlement Agreement, and has made them a priority. A newlyestablished MDHS deputy position is responsible for overseeing DFCS. The MDHS deputy, appointed in September 2008, is an experienced child welfare professional with the credentials, commitment and vision to lead the reform effort. Under this new leadership, DFCS has been reorganized and restructured to eliminate certain historical impediments to reform: an organizational structure reflecting 13 instead of seven regions has been established to more readily institute new management initiatives and to strengthen accountability; an executive management structure more closely aligned with family-centered practice has been created; and, a career ladder designed to bolster the recruitment and retention of social workers has been developed and approved, albeit, as noted below, it remains unfunded.
In the wake of a significant DFCS budget increase, which in itself is an important accomplishment, defendants report that there was a net statewide increase of approximately 115 social workers and 12 supervisors during Period 1. In addition, a qualified and committed core team of child welfare professionals is now managing DFCS. As of May 2009, most, but not all, key DFCS management positions in the MDHS state office were filled, and all of the six new regional directors were hired. In addition, two key operational units within DFCS were
4

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 9 of 105
established: the CQI Unit and the Training Unit. It is anticipated that both units will fuel the reform effort, but they must be adequately staffed and resourced to do so.
Defendants also made progress toward meeting initial COA accreditation requirements during Period 1. In December 2007, COA was engaged by MDHS to begin the accreditation process outlined in the Settlement Agreement. Staff and managers received COA training on accreditation and performance quality improvement. Ongoing technical assistance related to the accreditation process was provided to DFCS by a COA consultant, and COA conducted two assessments to determine DFCS’s readiness for accreditation. In mid-March 2009, COA determined that the defendants successfully met the initial series of COA accreditation standards for Period 1. The defendants recently reorganized the DFCS management of the accreditation process in order to strengthen executive management oversight and internal coordination of preaccreditation tasks and activities.
In addition to these accomplishments, there has been recent progress on several other key capacity-building projects which are underway and expected to be completed during Period 2. During January 2009, defendants engaged a national expert to work with DFCS on the development of a family-centered practice model that will serve as the conceptual framework for required improvements in case practice. In order to bolster their efforts to promote the implementation of the practice model, the defendants applied through a competitive process for federally-funded technical assistance from a team of national experts. At the end of May 2009, DFCS was notified that it has been selected to participate in this project.5 Moreover, during
5 On May 27, 2009, defendants were notified that DFCS had been selected to participate in the first round of a twoyear implementation project with the Atlantic Coast Child Welfare Information Center (“ACCWIC”), a training and technical assistance center established by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau (“Children’s Bureau”) to provide in-depth and long-term consultation in implementing change strategies to state and tribal child welfare agencies. The project will focus on the
(continued…) 5

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 10 of 105
January 2009 defendants launched an inter-related project, engaging an experienced child welfare consultant to review and revise the DFCS policy manual to ensure its conformity with the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. These projects must be completed in order to finalize the pre-service and in-service training curriculum for caseworkers and supervisors – a Period 1 requirement that must be completed during Period 2.
During early 2009, defendants also began to plan the Period 1 special safety reviews. Two experienced social workers, who were hired to conduct the reviews, started working at DFCS in January 2009. Thereafter, safety review instruments were developed and piloted. Despite challenges in identifying the specific homes and facilities subject to this requirement, the safety reviews of foster homes and congregate facilities are underway.
Many of the required administrative and management assessments and foster care services assessments were not completed during Period 1. Thus, key aspects of the reform planning process contemplated by the Period 1 requirements were delayed and must be completed during Period 2. However, now that most of the core DFCS management team is in place, it is anticipated that they will benefit from and contribute to the planning and assessment process. This should enhance the quality of the assessments and the quality of the remedial plans that are developed in response to the assessments. Moreover, it may help to promote timely implementation of the strategies that are developed to address any shortcomings identified by the assessment process.
Despite the delay in completing many Period 1 requirements, there have been demonstrable accomplishments that evidence progress toward building the capacity necessary to support this reform effort. In order to make measureable progress that can be sustained over
implementation of the new practice model in Harrison and Forrest counties with an ultimate goal of developing strategies and methodologies to promote the institutionalization of the practice model on a statewide basis.
6

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 11 of 105
time, the defendants must resolve several formidable challenges, which have impeded the reform process. These challenges are described more fully in Section IV of this report. Key obstacles defendants must overcome are listed below:
• First, defendants must bolster the current capacity of MDHS and DFCS administrative operations, including processes related to federal revenue maximization; processing, tracking and reporting, accurately and in real-time, on hiring and other personnel actions; and contracting and procurement functions.
• Second, defendants must invest in the DFCS workforce by funding and hiring a sufficient number of qualified employees, including caseworkers and supervisors, and providing them with the required pre-service and in-service training and the equipment necessary to appropriately serve class members.
• Third, defendants must implement CQI and performance management systems. Substantial improvement in the quality and accuracy of the information that is available to guide management decisions and promote improvements in individual case practice will be needed. Among other measures, this includes resolving significant shortcomings in the DFCS management information system, MACWIS, so that it produces accurate, complete and reliable data related to the requirements in this case, which can be analyzed and validated.
II. BACKGROUND A. Structure of the Settlement Agreement The Settlement Agreement includes standards and outcomes the defendants are required to meet by January 4, 2013, or earlier as specified in the Settlement Agreement, through an incremental remedial process that measures progress in terms of annual benchmarks and interim milestones. The benchmarks are established by the Settlement Agreement. Interim milestones – the steps with corresponding timelines that must be accomplished each year to achieve the benchmarks and ultimately overall compliance with the Settlement Agreement – are contained in annual implementation plans that the defendants are required to develop jointly with plaintiffs
7

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 12 of 105
and COA. Each implementation plan is incorporated into the Settlement Agreement.6 Such a structure permits the parties and the Court to measure progress over time according to clearly defined standards, and affords the flexibility to develop annual requirements based on real-time information about defendants’ progress.
Among other substantive provisions, the Settlement Agreement requires DFCS to meet standards related to the administration, management and delivery of foster care services, and certain outcome measures related to child well-being, safety and permanency. In addition, the Settlement Agreement requires that DFCS achieve COA accreditation pursuant to relevant COA management and service standards.7 The first-year requirements are reflected in the Settlement Agreement’s first-year benchmarks and in the Period 1 IP’s interim milestones. The Settlement Agreement includes the Period 1 IP.8 It has been superseded by the Period 2 Implementation Plan (“Period 2 IP”) which was filed by the parties on May 4, 2009 and covers the period May 1, 2009 through April 31, 2010. The findings presented herein, were submitted initially to the parties in outline form during February 2009, and used to inform the development of the Period 2 IP.
B. Relevant Procedural Background On October 21, 2008, the Monitor filed a preliminary status report,9 summarizing defendants’ accomplishments and certain shortcomings, which are described more fully below. The Monitor reported that the delay in hiring a key administrator resulted in a much slower than anticipated start to the Period 1 reform process.10 This, in turn, delayed defendants’ self-
6 Settlement Agreement §I.B. 7 Id. §IV. 8 Id. at Appendix A. 9 The Court Monitor’s Preliminary Status Report, October 21, 2008 [hereinafter October 21, 2008 Status Report]. 10 Id. at 4.
8

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 13 of 105
assessment, as well as certain aspects of the Monitor’s assessment of progress during Period 1. Because formulation of the Period 2 IP was contingent upon a comprehensive assessment of progress during Period 1, the parties filed a motion to extend the time to file the Period 2 IP.11 Pursuant to a consent order filed on January 6, 2009, the court enlarged the deadline for filing the Period 2 IP to April 1, 2009, and also extended the term of the Period 1 IP until such time as the Period 2 IP would be signed by the parties and thereby incorporated into the Settlement Agreement.12
The January 6, 2009 consent order required the parties to develop a Period 2 IP based on Period 1 compliance data submitted to the parties by the Monitor during February 2009.13 On February 12, 2009, the Monitor provided the parties with an initial outline of her Period 1 findings. Thereafter, the parties continued their negotiation of the Period 2 IP in consultation with COA and the Monitor. A subsequent consent order granting a consent motion for an additional extension of time enlarged the deadline for filing the Period 2 IP to May 1, 2009.14 The Period 2 IP was filed on May 4, 2009.15
11 Agreed Motion for Consent Order Extending Time to File the Year Two Implementation Plan, December 30, 2008. 12 Consent Order, January 6, 2009 ¶¶6 - 7. 13 Id. ¶6. 14 Consent Order, March 27, 2009. 15 The parties attempted to file the Period 2 IP on May 1, 2009, as required; however, due to technical difficulties related to the ECF system, they were unable to do so. Instead, the Period 2 IP was transmitted to the Court’s chambers via electronic mail on May 1, 2009 and filed in the record on May 4, 2009. See Declaration of Technical Difficulties, filed May 4, 2009.
9

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 14 of 105
III. METHODOLOGY
The Monitor’s assessment of defendants’ progress toward meeting the Period 1 IP requirements included site visits to regional and county offices16 as well as interviews with MDHS and DFCS managers, supervisors, and caseworkers. In addition, interviews were conducted with foster and adoptive parents, service providers from private agencies that contract with DFCS, youth court judges and staff, attorneys and others who practice in the youth court, representatives from university social work programs, members of child welfare organizations and advocacy groups, representatives from COA, and other public and private child welfare system stakeholders. The Monitor convened and participated in periodic meetings with the parties and COA representatives and also received informal status updates from defendants and their counsel on a regular basis.
Relevant documents, memoranda and other records were reviewed and analyzed, including the following: budget documents; staffing reports; procurement data, including requests for proposals (“RFPs”) and contracts; federal audit reports and related corrective action plans; reports and other data generated by the DFCS foster care review program; reports and memoranda prepared by COA; training curricula and related materials for DFCS caseworkers, supervisors and resource parents;17 MACWIS data such as monthly and special reports, change order requests, a draft user manual and training materials; DFCS policies and practice guides; personnel data, including position descriptions, vacancy postings, and resumes; survey data related to staff qualifications; individual case records; serious incident reports; investigative
16 Site visits to DFCS offices included county offices in Hinds, Hancock, Jackson, Harrison, Forrest, and East Bolivar as well as offices located in Tunica, Grenada, Greenville and Tupelo. The Monitor expects to increase the number and frequency of such site visits during Period 2. 17 The term “resource parents” is used to refer to both foster and adoptive parents.
10

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 15 of 105
reports; DFCS submissions to COA; licensure requirements for resource families and private agencies; and, materials provided to youth in the independent living program. The Monitor also consulted with various child welfare system experts and a statistician during Period 1.
In certain instances noted in the Findings section of this report, the Monitor has indicated that the defendants’ performance will be evaluated through a case record review process that will be conducted during Period 2. The Monitor began planning for the Period 2 case record reviews during early 2009. Two separate case record review instruments were developed in consultation with child welfare and statistical experts, and they are currently in draft form. The instruments will be finalized by the Monitor in consultation with the parties, field tested, piloted, and modified, as appropriate. Thereafter, the Monitor expects to conduct two distinct case record reviews in coordination with DFCS.
The first case record review will assess baseline performance related to the Settlement Agreement’s child safety standards through an in-depth review of a representative statewide sample of investigative and licensure files. The second will assess baseline performance related to most of the Settlement Agreement’s other foster care services standards through an in-depth review of a representative statewide sample of the individual case records of children in foster care. Each review will be conducted by a team composed of both independent and DFCS reviewers. The Monitor will analyze the results of the case record reviews and report to the Court and the parties on her findings, as appropriate.
As contemplated by the Settlement Agreement and explained more fully below, until MACWIS can produce accurate, complete and reliable data related to the requirements in this
11

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 16 of 105
case, that can be independently analyzed and validated,18 periodic case record reviews must be undertaken to measure defendants’ progress.19 The Monitor plans to structure the Period 2 case
record reviews in a manner that will promote the development of defendants’ capacity to conduct
case record reviews and analyze the results subject to the Monitor’s independent validation.
IV. FINDINGS
This section presents the Monitor’s findings regarding the defendants’ progress toward
meeting the Period 1 requirements reflected in Sections I - III of the Settlement Agreement and in
the Period 1 IP. Each requirement is set out in bold type-face. The Monitor’s findings appear in
the narrative section below each requirement.
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT: §I. REFORM PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION The first section of the Settlement Agreement, Reform Planning and Implementation,
describes, inter alia, the annual implementation plan process as well as fiscal planning and
related requirements. The Monitor’s findings regarding Period 1 fiscal planning and related
requirements are addressed below.
Settlement Agreement §I.C. Defendants do not speak for the Mississippi Legislature, which has the power under Mississippi law to determine the appropriations for the State’s child welfare programs. However, at least annually after Court approval of this Plan, 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 Plan 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
18 Settlement Agreement §II.A.5.a. 19 Settlement Agreement §VI.B., in relevant part, requires the Monitor to “confirm independently the data reports and statistics provided pursuant to this Plan and the annual implementation plans [and to] conduct independent case record and other qualitative reviews . . . .”
12

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 17 of 105
budgetary needs assessments. Nothing in this paragraph in any way limits Defendants’ obligations under this Plan.
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.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §I.C.: As explained below, there were
certain substantive efforts to address the Settlement Agreement’s fiscal planning requirements
during Period 1. However, because the defendants did not conduct a required external
assessment of actual and anticipated federal funding levels, the Monitor cannot determine
whether the defendants’ FY 2010 request for federal funding and authorization is realizable and
consistent with regular budgetary needs assessments. This is a crucial fiscal planning
requirement that defendants must now satisfy during Period 2.
Chronic funding deficits have contributed to many of the shortcomings in DFCS’s
performance that the Settlement Agreement is designed to address.20 The evidence shows that
defendants made demonstrable efforts to address this problem during and in anticipation of
Period 1. However, defendants report that increased funding is needed during the fiscal year that
starts in July 2009 (FY 2010) to subsidize core capacity-building initiatives related to the
20 See, e.g., Ex. 1A, State Level Citizen Review Board, DFCS Five-Year Plan Review and Recommendations, June 14, 2002, excerpt at 1 (“Severe funding and staffing shortages will undo and indeed rapidly reverse whatever gains have been achieved.”); Ex. 1B, MDHS, DFCS, Child and Family Service Review, Statewide Self Assessment, December 2003, excerpt at 1987, (noting intensive training course interrupted, limited and delayed due to travel restrictions and budget shortages); Ex. 1C, MDHS, DFCS, Child and Family Service Review, Program Improvement Plan, March 24, 2005, excerpt at 4 (noting DFCF’s struggle to maintain improvements due to a number of factors, including budget cuts); Ex. 1D, MDHS, DFCS, FY 2004 Budget Request, August 2, 2002, excerpt at 40 (“vacant positions have not been filled due to lack of general fund dollars . . . .Our Social Workers are working under extremely stressful conditions. The inability to fill vacancies have resulted [sic] in a decrease in the quality of care and has resulted in a higher turnover because staff can’t work under these conditions for long periods of time.”); Ex. 1E, Deposition Transcript, March 16, 2006, testimony of Peter Boulette, director of Division of Budgets and Accounting, MDHS [hereinafter Boulette Deposition], excerpt at 20, (noting DFCS was underfunded during some years).
13

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 18 of 105
Settlement Agreement’s requirements, including staffing increases and the establishment of a
comprehensive training program. Absent an adequate number of caseworkers and supervisors to
deliver basic services, and the establishment of a viable training program to promote
improvements in case practice, defendants will be unable to meet the Settlement Agreement’s
minimum requirements. The Settlement Agreement’s fiscal planning provisions expressly
recognize that requests for federal funding authorization must be realizable – an undertaking that
requires a strategic assessment and planning process that is not yet underway. Each of these
matters is addressed in greater detail, below.
To their credit, defendants have sought and obtained recent increases in the DFCS budget. Appropriated state funds21 have more than doubled since the outset of the 2007 fiscal year (“FY 2007”)22 to fund staffing increases, among other necessary operating expenses.23 The
defendants’ FY 2010 budget request, which is before the legislature, proposes additional increases in DFCS’s funding,24 while exempting DFCS, along with a number of other entities, from a four percent across-the-board budget reduction.25 According to defendants’ initial FY
2010 budget submission, the requested increase would fund certain critical costs associated with
the Settlement Agreement, such as increases in the monthly board rate payments for resource providers;26 increases in adoption subsidies;27 upgrades to the MACWIS system;28 and funding
21 For budget purposes, state funds are characterized as “general funds.” 22 Ex. 1F, table submitted on September 26, 2008 to the Monitor by Peter B. Boulette, director of Division of Budgets and Accounting, MDHS (reflecting the increases, including an appropriation of $18,626,387 in state funds for FY 2007 and an appropriation of nearly double that sum – $37,301,243 – in state funds for FY 2009). The table also shows an increase in DFCS’s authorized positions; however, all authorized positions have not been funded. 23 See, e.g., Ex. 1G, S.B. 2495, 2007 Leg. Reg. Sess. (MS. 2007), §9, supplemental appropriation for FY 2007. 24 Ex. 1H, MDHS, Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Request, Family and Children Services [hereinafter MDHS FY10 Budget Request], excerpt at 3. The FY 2010 budget request is for $54,015,287 in state funds. 25 Ex. 1I, Office of the Governor, Executive Budget Recommendation for Fiscal Year 2010, November 17, 2008 at 12, (citing this lawsuit and exempting DFCS from the four percent budget cuts). 26 Ex. 1H, MDHS FY10 Budget Request, supra note 24, at 26. These payments are for expenses such as housing, transportation, food, clothing, and other items, i.e., personal care items, entertainment and reading materials.
(continued…) 14

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 19 of 105
for 137 new positions to meet the caseload requirements.29 The defendants report that pending
before the legislature is a supplemental budget request for the additional funding necessary to
support the DFCS reorganization and realignment that was approved by the Mississippi State
Personnel Board (“SPB”) during November 2008, after the submission of the initial DFCS FY 2010 budget request.30
Other key costs associated with funding to implement the requirements in this case have
not yet been calculated; however, in certain instances, the preliminary work needed to inform
some aspects of the necessary fiscal planning is underway. For example, defendants contracted
for a required assessment of board rates for foster parents caring for children in foster care with special needs and for congregate care facilities.31 In addition, DFCS is currently implementing a
federally mandated Program Improvement Plan (“PIP”) as the result of a finding by the
Children’s Bureau that defendants’ foster care maintenance program is not in substantial
compliance with federal eligibility requirements that trigger certain significant federal funding reimbursements.32
Payments to non-relative resource providers are referred to as foster payments; payments to relatives who are providers of foster care services are referred to as kinship payments. See Settlement Agreement §II.B.13. 27 Ex. 1H, MDHS FY10 Budget Request, supra note 24, at 26; See Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.f. 28 Ex. 1H, MDHS FY10 Budget Request, supra note 24, at 27; See Settlement Agreement §II.A.5. 29 Defendants received position identification numbers for the 137 positions in FY 2009; however, the positions were not funded and thus they remain vacant. Ex. 1H MDHS FY10 Budget Request, supra note 24, at 29. See Settlement Agreement §II.A.2. a.. 30 The Monitor has requested, but not received, documentation related to the supplemental budget request; see also infra pp. 26-27. 31 Settlement Agreement §II.B.13.g.; see also infra p. 89. 32 Ex. 1J, MDHS, DFCS, Title IV-E Program Improvement Plan, February 2009. Foster care maintenance payments are authorized pursuant to Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 672, which provides for federal matching funds to reimburse certain foster care expenses that a state has already paid, including maintenance or room and board payments that have been made to licensed foster care providers. Reimbursement for certain administrative and training costs are also authorized.
15

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 20 of 105
Defendants’ FY 2010 budget request for DFCS indicates that federal revenue will provide over double the amount of state funds during the fiscal year.33 As a threshold matter, in order to
make a determination regarding whether such amounts are realizable and consistent with regular
budgetary needs assessments, the Settlement Agreement requires the defendants to obtain an
external assessment of actual and anticipated federal funding levels and to create an implementation program to increase federal funding.34 As noted above, the required assessment
was not conducted during Period 1, and defendants are now required to engage an expert to perform the assessment by January 1, 2010.35 Satisfaction of this requirement is crucial to
advancing the reform process.
Period 1 IP §I. I. Administration and Management Assessment and Implementation Steps
Within six months of Court approval of the Plan, Defendants, in conjunction with the Council on Accreditation (COA), shall conduct an assessment of DFCS administration and management capacity and needs consistent with COA Policies. The Administration and Management Assessment shall include the following:
a) A workforce assessment consistent with PA-HR 2, b) A training assessment of training curricula and the Training Unit, c) A DFCS contracting practices assessment, d) A quality improvement system assessment, e) A MACWIS assessment, and f) A fiscal and financial management assessment.
Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §I.: The Period 1 IP contemplated that the assessment
of administration and management functions would serve as the first phase of reform planning.
Indeed, the Period 1 IP required that the needs identified by the assessments would be addressed in the Period 2 IP.36 Because many of the required assessments were more limited in scope and
33 Ex. 1H, MDHS FY10 Budget Request, supra note 24, at 9. 34 Settlement Agreement §II.A.7.a. 35 Period 2 IP §I.7.a. 36 Period 1 IP §I.1.
16

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 21 of 105
depth than contemplated, and thus do not satisfy the requirements of this subsection, the Period 2
IP requires assessments of administration and management functions.
Defendants planned to assess DFCS’s administration and management capacity as part of
the initial stage of the COA accreditation process. COA representatives report that this stage of
the process evaluates an entity’s readiness for accreditation, i.e., whether the infrastructure
necessary to support accreditation is intact. COA, in consultation with the defendants, completed the first phase of an accreditation readiness assessment during July 2008.37 The assessment
addressed each of the administrative and management functions identified by the Settlement Agreement,38 in varying depth as described below.
a) The Workforce Assessment
COA based the workforce assessment on the following COA standard that defendants
were required to meet within 180 days of the Court’s approval of the Settlement Agreement:
PA-HR 2: HUMAN RESOURCES PLANNING The agency reassesses its workforce as part of annual planning and prepares for future needs by:
a. conducting a gap analysis between the current workforce composition, including number of employees, skills, and demographics, and projected workforce needs; and
b. determining how to close gaps when possible, through recruiting, training or outsourcing.39
The assessment focused on whether defendants had satisfied PA-HR 2. According to the COA
report, the following factors were considered: recent staffing increases; planned development of a system for tracking caseloads through MACWIS;40 recruitment activities; delays in processing new hires; the introduction of a new career ladder program, and internship programs.41 COA
determined that a comprehensive personnel gap analysis and resulting plan for meeting staffing
37 Ex. 2, Council on Accreditation, Mississippi Department of Family and Children’s Services, Accreditation Readiness Assessment, Part 1, July 21, 2008 [hereinafter COA Assessment Report] (appendix omitted). 38 Id. at 17-40. 39 Period 1 IP §III.A. 40 See infra pp. 25-35 for related findings concerning the tracking of caseloads/workloads. 41 Ex. 2, COA Assessment Report, supra note 37, at 23-24.
17

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 22 of 105
needs had not yet been developed.42 The COA report outlines a series of recommendations for
defendants to consider as they formulate the gap analysis and conduct related workforce planning.43 The Period 2 IP requires the defendants to develop and begin to implement a written
plan to recruit and retain the DFCS professional and support staff necessary to comply with the caseload requirements of the Settlement Agreement.44
b) The Training Assessment
COA conducted a preliminary review of the pre-service and in-service employee training program,45 commending the Training Unit for a quick start. The assessment found that curricula and training schedules for the program had not been finalized,46 and concluded that additional
progress would be necessary in order for the Training Unit to meet COA standards. The COA
assessment report recommended that defendants address a series of elements, including quality
assurance; training uniformity; on-the-job training requirements; staff evaluation; documentation and tracking; licensure requirements; and, in-service training.47 Because of the challenges that
will be placed on the Training Unit as staffing levels for DFCS are increased, the assessment recommended that the defendants develop a plan to address these phenomena.48 The Period 2 IP
42 Id. at 24. 43 Id. at 24-27. A threshold issue that is not addressed by the COA report, but fundamental to the capacity to produce a reliable gap analysis, is the need for the defendants to record and report on complete and accurate personnel and caseload/workload data. This matter is addressed in greater detail infra pp. 25-35. 44 Period 2 IP §I.2.a.; see Settlement Agreement §II.A.2.a. for the workload requirements and the related discussion infra pp. 25-35. 45 Ex. 2, COA Assessment Report, supra note 37, at 36-40. 46 Id. at 38. As described infra pp. 39-48, the Training Unit has made progress since the COA assessment was conducted. Nonetheless, the Training Unit is substantially under-resourced and the curriculum cannot be finalized until each of the required Period 1 policies and practice guides have been completed. See, e.g., infra pp. 60-61 for a discussion of the team meeting protocols. 47 Ex. 2, COA Assessment Report, supra note 37, at 38-40. 48 Id. at 39; see infra pp. 39-48 for a summary of the current status of the Training Unit.
18

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 23 of 105
requires the defendants to develop and begin implementing a written plan to provide the training
required by the Settlement Agreement by September 1, 2009.49
c) Assessment of Contracting Practices
COA conducted a preliminary review of contracting practices,50 concluding that DFCS’s
contracting practices appeared to meet COA standards.51 The assessment did not address the
Period 1 performance-based contracting requirements.52 In addition, the assessment report
includes recommendations which are characterized as preliminary pending a more in-depth
assessment.53 The Period 2 IP requires the defendants to work in conjunction with a qualified
independent consultant to develop a plan for a performance-based contracting system.54
d) Assessment of Quality Improvement System
The COA assessment of the DFCS CQI system found that some of the building blocks for
such a system exist as evidenced by certain MACWIS capabilities and the foster care review
process.55 The assessment report identifies challenges that will need to be addressed, including
the development of an overall DFCS strategic plan; review and analyses of trend data in
formulating corrective action plans; and, the adoption of qualitative measurements and related
culture changes.56 The Period 2 IP requires the defendants, in conjunction with an independent
consultant, to develop and begin to implement a written CQI plan by September 30, 2009.57
49 Period 2 IP §I.2.d.1.; see Settlement Agreement §II.A.2.c. 50 Ex. 2, COA Assessment Report, supra note 37, at 33-36. 51 Id. at 35. 52 Id. at 33-36; see Period 1 IP§I.2.d., requiring the design and implementation of a performance-based contracting system during Period 1. 53 Ex. 2, COA Assessment Report, supra note 37, at 22 and 35. 54 Period 2 IP §I.2.e.; see Settlement Agreement §II.A.2.d. for the performance-based contracting requirement and the related discussion infra pp. 48-49. 55 Ex. 2, COA Assessment Report, supra note 37, at 30. 56 Id. at 30-33. Defendants recognize that the capacity to extract and analyze reliable system performance data on an on-going basis, use it to inform remediation strategies, implement and monitor implementation of such strategies, and use the resulting data to promote improvement, is intrinsic to a successful reform process. As explained infra
(continued…) 19

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 24 of 105
e) MACWIS Assessment
COA found that MACWIS meets most relevant COA standards.58 The assessment report
indicates that there are a few areas “where MACWIS might be improved/changed and where
DFCS might do a better job in utilizing the information it produces.”59 The assessment does not
address the reliability of MACWIS data, or the efficacy of the management reports it generates.
Moreover, the report does not address whether MACWIS meets or has the capacity to meet the
ten categories of requirements defined by the Settlement Agreement.60 These issues are
addressed below.61 The Period 2 IP requires defendants to validate specified MACWIS data at
certain intervals and to contract for a specified assessment of MACWIS that must be completed
within a defined time period.62
f) Fiscal and Financial Management Assessment
COA found that DFCS’s financial practices appear to meet COA standards.63 The
assessment report makes several recommendations, including that defendants assess the viability
of its funding sources and explore additional funding streams as part of a strategic plan64 as well
as conduct a cost analysis of each DFCS program.65 As noted above, the Period 2 IP requires
defendants to contract for an external assessment of actual and anticipated federal funding levels
pp. 49-50, a consultant with substantial expertise in this area is advising the defendants about the design of at least some aspects of the DFCS CQI program. 57 Period 2 IP §I.3.a.; see Settlement Agreement §II.A.3.a. for the CQI program requirements. 58 Ex. 2, COA Assessment Report, supra note 37, at 20. 59 Id. 60 §II.A.2.5.a. Settlement Agreement includes detailed requirements related to MACWIS which are addressed in several sections of this report, see, e.g., infra pp. 64-69. 61 See infra pp. 51-52. 62 Period 2 IP §I.5.b., d.; see Settlement Agreement §II.A.5.a. for the requirements related to MACWIS functionality. 63 Ex. 2, COA Assessment Report, supra note 37, at 22. 64 The assessment report does not address federal funding except to note that it has declined. See supra p. 17 and infra p. 56 for a discussion of the required assessment. 65 Ex. 2, COA Assessment Report, supra note 37, at 22.
20

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 25 of 105
and to develop a plan to establish the resources and infrastructure necessary to maximize federal revenue.66
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT: §II. STANDARDS
This section of the Settlement Agreement addresses two distinct sets of standards: standards related to DFCS’s administration and management functions and standards related to foster care services. The standards related to administration and management are grouped into seven categories: agency leadership; human resource management; performance and quality improvement; legal and regulatory compliance; information management and use; case recordings, and financial management. Defendants’ progress toward meeting the Period 1 requirements related to the administration and management standards is described below. A discussion of progress concerning the foster care services standards follows this section.
Settlement Agreement §II.A. Administration and Management Standards 1. Agency Leadership
The Administration and Management Standards regarding DFCS leadership address hiring requirements for the agency’s director as well as for its management team. The Settlement Agreement contemplated that a qualified director would be hired during the first quarter of the 2008 calendar year and a full management team would be in place by the end of the year. This timetable was not met. As is evident from this report, the delay affected defendants’ ability to meet other substantive Period 1 requirements in a timely fashion. Thus defendants must now complete many Period 1 requirements during Period 2.67 Nonetheless, as of April 1, 2009, most
66 Period 2 IP §I.7.a. 67 As noted in the introductory section of this report, qualified leadership is a prerequisite to meeting many of the Period 1 requirements.
21

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 26 of 105
of the core members of the DFCS leadership team were hired and they have been working to promote this reform effort.
a. The director of DFCS shall be qualified by: an advanced degree from an accredited college or university in a field related to the agency’s mission and services; five years of related experience at minimum; competence in administering and providing services to individuals, families, and/or children; management skills in addressing human resources and financial matters; and the ability to coordinate the agency’s services with other community resources.
b. Within 90 calendar days of Court approval of this Plan, DFCS will hire and maintain a director for DFCS who meets the Plan’s qualification requirements for the position.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.A.1.a. and b.: There was a substantial delay in the selection of a DFCS director with the qualifications required by the Settlement Agreement.68 Although defendants initially appointed a new DFCS director on January 22, 2008, plaintiffs’ counsel objected to the appointment on the grounds that the designee did not satisfy the qualification criteria. This opinion was shared by COA’s representatives. Thereafter, defendants created a new position for a deputy administrator at MDHS with responsibility for managing DFCS. The position was posted during the first half of March 2008, and it included minimum qualification requirements that generally exceeded the qualification requirements specified in the Settlement Agreement.
Shortly after Don Thompson’s July 2008 appointment as the new administrator of MDHS, Lori L. Woodruff was hired as the MDHS deputy administrator for family and children’s services (“deputy administrator”). Ms. Woodruff, a licensed master social worker with both master of social work (“MSW”) and master of education (“M.Ed.”) degrees, assumed the deputy administrator position on September 2, 2008. Ms. Woodruff is a highly regarded child welfare expert with over two decades of relevant experience. Because the deputy administrator is
68 See the related discussion in the Monitor’s October 21, 2008 Status Report at 6.
22

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 27 of 105
responsible for the management and oversight of DFCS, and because Ms. Woodruff’s qualifications exceed the Settlement Agreement’s qualification standards for the DFCS director position,69 both plaintiffs’ counsel and the Monitor consider Ms. Woodruff’s appointment to satisfy the spirit of the Settlement’s Agreement’s qualification requirements for the DFCS director position. Unlike the January 2008 appointment, the defendants consulted with plaintiffs’ counsel, COA representatives and the Monitor during the process that led to Ms. Woodruff’s appointment.
Period 1 IP §I.1. I. Administration and Management Assessment and Implementation Steps 1. Agency Leadership The new DFCS director will assemble a management team capable of assisting with the reform process at DFCS.
Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §I.1.: The Period 1 IP requires the new DFCS director to assemble a management team capable of assisting with the reform process by the end of the first year. As explained below, in the wake of Ms. Woodruff’s appointment, following an assessment and the approval of an agency reorganization plan by the SPB, with the exception of two pivotal positions, most of the key DFCS management team positions were filled by April 1, 2009, before the end of Period 1. On June 1, 2009, one of the two key remaining management vacancies was filled.70
Following Ms. Woodruff’s appointment, defendants hired Robert Michael “Mike” Gallarno to serve as the DFCS director of performance and quality assurance (“CQI Director”)71
69 A copy of Ms. Woodruff’s resume is included in the Appendix as Ex. 3. 70 The director of the Permanency Planning and Placement Unit began employment at DFCS on June 1, 2009. 71 The Settlement Agreement and Period 1 IP refer to DFCS’s performance and quality assurance functions in various ways. For purposes of this report, the acronym “CQI” will be used to refer to requirements that are referred to in the Settlement Agreement and/or the Period 1 IP as either “performance and quality assurance” requirements or “continuous quality improvement” requirements.
23

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 28 of 105
– a key management team position.72 Shortly thereafter, MDHS management undertook an
assessment of the DFCS organizational structure in collaboration with SPB staff. The defendants
anticipated that the assessment would serve to inform, and in some instances define, the
composition of the DFCS management team. Thus, recruitment of staff to fill DFCS’s
management team positions was stayed pending the results of the assessment, which was
conducted on an expedited basis. The assessment resulted in recommendations to reorganize
DFCS in two primary ways: 1) by redefining and consolidating administrative and management
functions to more closely correlate with core program areas; and, 2) by reorganizing the statewide
program for delivering child welfare services from the then-existing seven geographic regions,
each with its own regional director reporting to one field director, into 13 geographic regions,
each with its own regional director reporting to one of two field directors.73 The SPB approved
the reorganization on November 20, 2008.74
As expected, the reorganization plan affected the composition of DFCS’s management
team. Five DFCS management positions with direct reporting responsibility to the MDHS
deputy administrator were established.75 All of these core management positions, as well as the
six new regional director positions and the two field director positions, were filled by April 1,
72 Mr. Gallarno assumed his position at DFCS on September 16, 2008. Mr. Gallarno, who holds an MSW degree, is a licensed clinical social worker [hereinafter LCSW] with substantial public management experience. His resume is attached as Ex. 4A. 73 Ex. 4B, MDHS, DFCS, Mississippi state map depicting the 13 geographic regions approved by the SPB on November 20, 2008. 74 The reorganization was effective retroactively to November 1, 2008. See Ex. 4C, MDHS, DFCS, Reorganization and Non-Budgeted Upward Reallocations, for further detail regarding the approved reorganization plan. 75 The following management team positions report directly to the MDHS deputy administrator: the director of DFCS; the CQI director; the director of administration and finance; the director of the training unit, and the accreditation coordinator. The director of DFCS is responsible for the delivery of child welfare services statewide. Both of the directors of field operations, the director of the prevention/protection unit and the director of permanency planning/placement report to the DFCS director. The CQI director is responsible for the foster care review program, evaluation and monitoring, including licensure, special investigations and complaints, and MACWIS. The director of administration and finance is responsible for budget and financial planning, contracts and grants, and revenue management. The director of the training unit is responsible for the management of the pre-service and in-service training program.
24

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 29 of 105
2009. As of June 1, 2009, the MACWIS director position was still vacant. Defendants report
ongoing efforts to upgrade the position in order to recruit more qualified candidates. Many of the
managers who were hired are either former DFCS managers or have other substantial public
sector management experience. They are generally seasoned and appropriately credentialed managers76 who appear capable of assisting with the reform effort.77
Settlement Agreement §II.A.2.a. 2. Human Resources Management
Period 1 requirements concerning human resource management addressed DFCS’s
staffing levels and the qualifications of direct service and supervisory staff; assessment and
planning measures to ensure the adequacy of the workforce; the establishment of a
comprehensive pre-service and in-service training program for direct service and supervisory
staff; and contracting matters. These requirements constituted critical components of Period 1
capacity building. Absent a sufficient number of qualified and properly trained staff, the
mandated case practice standards cannot be achieved. Progress toward meeting each set of
human resources management requirements is addressed below.
a. Workforce: By the end of implementation Period 1: 7) At least 30% of DFCS caseworkers shall carry a caseload that does not exceed Plan caseload requirements. No more than 30% of caseworkers shall carry a caseload exceeding twice the Plan caseload requirements. No caseworkers shall carry a caseload exceeding three times the Plan caseload requirements. 8) No more than 30% of supervisors who are responsible for supervising DFCS caseworkers shall be responsible for supervising more than five caseworkers. 9) Caseworkers shall have access to a supervisor by telephone 24 hours a day.
76 The Monitor has addressed a specific concern with both parties that may require further review, as appropriate, during Period 2. 77 For example, the newly hired DFCS director is an MSW who is a seasoned manager with over a decade of experience supervising DFCS direct service staff. See Ex. 4D, Resume of Linda Millsap.
25

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 30 of 105
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.A.2.a.: Due to significant limitations in
the data collection, recording and analysis systems and practices related to caseworker and
supervisory workloads, the Monitor cannot determine whether the Period 1 workload
requirements were satisfied. These limitations, and defendants’ efforts to remedy them, are
described more fully below.
Historically, the lack of funding for a sufficient number of caseworker and supervisory
positions has had a substantial impact on defendant’s ability to adequately serve class members.78
In turn, high caseloads have fueled attrition levels and raised substantial recruitment challenges.79
The Settlement Agreement’s workload requirements were crafted to address these issues.
In an effort to bolster recruitment and retention initiatives, during fall 2008, MDHS’s new
management supported the SPB’s efforts to establish a career ladder for social workers employed
throughout state government. Effective November 1, 2008, the SPB approved a statewide career
ladder for social work professionals.80 The SPB action addresses salary increases, minimum
requirements, job specifications and a more streamlined licensure verification process for new
78 See e.g., Ex. 5A, Kiran Chawla, DHS Takes Hot Seat, WJTV, December 15, 2008, at 1, http://www.wjtv.com/jtv/news/local/article/-JTV_2008_12_15_0015/9453/ (last visited on April 20, 2009) noting MDHS’s acknowledgment of staff shortages over a long period of time; Ex. 5B, Julie Goodman, Social Workers: Kids Endangered, THE CLARION-LEADER, April 24, 2002 at 1, citing social worker’s testimony at legislative hearing that staff shortages and lack of funds are endangering children and families in Mississippi; Ex 5C, Julie Goodman, DHS, An Agency in Crisis, THE CLARION-LEADER, June 3, 2002 at 1, reporting that MDHS was “running without 27 percent of its staff…causing the agency to scramble to protect thousands of vulnerable children across the state.”; Ex. 1E, Boulette Deposition, supra note 20, at 70 wherein Peter Boulette, director of the Division of Budgets and Accounting, MDHS, states that DFCS had informed him of the need for more funding in FY 2006 and FY 2007 for staffing. 79 See e.g., Ex. 5D, Patrice Sawyer and Julie Goodman, DHS, An Agency in Crisis, THE CLARION-LEADER, June 1, 2002 at 1, stating that “Harrison County has 22 slots for social workers, but five full-time social workers are currently handling well over 100 cases each.”; Ex 5E, Beth Musgrave, Understaffed DHS is Failing Our Children; Harrison Co. Says Money Solves Only Part of the Problem, THE SUN HERALD, January 19, 2003 at 2, reporting that “[c]aseloads for some social workers are pushing well past 130, nearly six times what child advocates say is an acceptable amount.”; Ex. 5A, supra note 78 at 1, noting MDHS’s acknowledgment of workers’ high caseloads for a long period of time and the difficulty recruiting and retaining social workers; Ex. 5B, supra note 78 at 1, describing social workers testimony at 2002 legislative hearing regarding heavy caseloads; Ex. 1H, MDHS FY10 Budget Request, supra note 24 at 13, noting “[r]ecruitment and retention of workers for the DFCS continues to be an issue.” 80 Ex. 5F State Personnel Board, Class Establishment, Reclassification Authority, and Selection Exemption, effective November 1, 2008.
26

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 31 of 105
hires. Approval of a career ladder for DFCS social workers is encouraging; however, the salary increases that have been authorized are not yet funded.81 As noted above, defendants report that
following the SPB’s approval of the career ladder, a request for the funding to implement it was
made in a supplemental budget request that followed on the heels of the initial DFCS FY 2010 budget request.82 This request is pending before the legislature.
As part of the Monitor’s assessment of DFCS’s caseloads, MDHS and DFCS staffing
reports and other data related to hiring and attrition levels were reviewed. These data indicate
that there was a demonstrable increase in caseworker and supervisory staffing levels during
Period 1. However, because of the manner in which DFCS personnel data are collected and
maintained, the defendants were unable to provide precise information about the number of supervisors and caseworkers hired during Period 1.83 And while defendants reported on an
“approximate” number of all newly hired supervisors, the total number of caseworkers hired during this period, or an approximation thereof, could not be readily produced.84 The ability to
accurately track and report on basic personnel data, combined with the limitations in MACWIS
workload data that are described below, constitute capacity deficits which defendants will need to
address in order to manage the workforce in a manner that will promote compliance with the
81 A similar effort to provide recruitment and retention incentives through the establishment of a career ladder was adopted but not funded in FY 2005. See, Ex. 5G, Deposition Transcript, June 21, 2005 testimony of Teressa Jackson, former DFCS director of administration, excerpt at 26. 82 As noted supra note 30, the Monitor has requested, but has not yet received, any documentation related to this supplemental request. 83 The Period 1 data were requested for the timeline starting January 1, 2008 (several days before the start of Period 1) and ending March 31, 2009. Defendants produced personnel data responsive to this request on April 13, 2009. Some of the data that were produced are summarized in Ex. 5H, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Number of Authorized, Funded and Filled Caseworker Positions, by Year, January 2004 – March 2009, based on April 13, 2009 data from DFCS Personnel Unit and Ex. 5I, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Number of Filled and Vacant ASWS Positions, by Year, January 2004 – March 2009, based on April 13, 2009 data from DFCS Personnel Unit. 84 Instead, defendants reported on the “approximate” number of workers hired after attrition. Defendants could not readily identify how many workers hired during this period were terminated. Ex. 5H, supra note 83.
27

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 32 of 105
Settlement Agreement’s workload standards and, ultimately, with the Settlement Agreement’s
foster care services standards. Notwithstanding the limitations in the staffing data that are described above,85 according
to defendants,86 the number of both authorized and funded caseworker positions and the number
of filled caseworker positions increased. In January 2004, 308 of DFCS’s 387 authorized
caseworker positions were filled. Four years later, within less than one month following
approval of the Settlement Agreement, 433 of DFCS’s 536 authorized caseworker positions were filled.87 As of March 31, 2009, 549 of DFCS’s 639 funded caseworker positions were filled, an
increase of 78 percent since January 2004. As of March 2009, there were 137 unfunded positions.88 Staff in the DFCS Personnel Unit report that 2009 was the first year since at least
2004 in which there were unfunded caseworker positions in DFCS. Unlike past experience,
defendants report that between January 1, 2008 and March 31, 2009, hiring outpaced attrition:
although the total number of newly hired caseworkers during this period is unknown, defendants
report that approximately 115 new caseworkers – a subset of the total number of caseworkers hired during this period – remained employed at the agency as of March 31, 200989 and that during this period there were 108 terminations, mostly attributable to resignations.90
85 These limitations raise questions about data accuracy which will need to be resolved. 86 Ex. 5H, supra note 83. 87 Because the number of funded authorized positions changed each year, it is difficult to draw conclusions from year-to-year comparisons of vacancy rates. 88 These 137 unfunded positions are in addition to the 639 funded positions. As of March 2009, 82 of the 639 funded positions were vacant. Until these 82 positions are filled, there is no practical consequence to the lack of funding for the 137 positions; however, if DFCS continues to hire in 2009 at the same rate as 2008, the lack of funding will prevent hiring at some point during Period 2. 89 The Monitor has not verified the entry-on-duty dates for these employees, and thus does not know what percentage of these caseworkers represent recent hires. This factor would be relevant to an assessment of retention rates. 90 Id. The termination data are not reflected in Ex. 5H, supra note 83; these data were submitted to the Monitor along with the hiring data on April 13, 2009 by staff in the DFCS Personnel Unit.
28

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 33 of 105
Defendants report that there also has been a recent increase in supervisory staffing levels.91 According to defendants’ data, in January 2004 there were 83 filled area social work supervisor (“ASWS”) positions out of 90 funded positions. The number of authorized and funded ASWS positions generally declined during the next three years to a low of 80 authorized positions of which 70 were filled in 2006, and 89 authorized and funded positions of which 60 were filled in January 2007, a decline of 28 percent over the three-year period. According to defendants, this trend started to change during 2007, and by January 2008, DFCS filled 91 of 114 authorized ASWS positions. As of March 31, 2009, defendants reported a continued increase in supervisory staffing with 103 of 147 authorized ASWS positions filled, a 72 percent increase over approximately two years.92 DFCS staff report that because of the smaller number of supervisory positions involved, more accurate hiring data for ASWS positions can be produced.
The Settlement Agreement specifies three types of requirements related to caseloads and caseworker supervision: caseloads for caseworkers with dedicated caseloads; caseloads for caseworkers with mixed caseloads; and the maximum number of caseworkers each DFCS supervisor may supervise. As explained below, due to limitations in the accuracy and completeness of the workload data for caseworkers and supervisors that are collected and reported by MACWIS, the Monitor currently cannot assess whether the caseload requirements were met during Period 1. Defendants are working to address these limitations.
91 Ex. 5I, supra note 83. 92 Id. As with the caseworker data, because the number of authorized positions changed annually, year-to-year comparisons of vacancy rates may be misleading.
29

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 34 of 105
For caseworkers with dedicated caseloads, the Settlement Agreement specifies eight
unique service categories, each with different caseload requirements.93 Data provided by the
defendants reflect that, as of February 2009, virtually all DFCS caseworkers had mixed caseloads
instead of dedicated caseloads. For caseworkers with mixed caseloads, the Settlement
Agreement identifies 11 distinct service categories.94 For each service category, the Settlement
Agreement prescribes the number of minutes per month that a case within each category should
be allotted for purposes of calculating a caseworker’s caseload. Each caseworker’s mixed
caseload may not exceed a total of 6,960 minutes of case-related work per month, computed
according to the Settlement Agreement’s minute allotments.95
Because nearly all DFCS caseworkers carry mixed caseloads, defendants must track
caseload data according to the 11 service categories and the corresponding minute requirements,
defined in the Settlement Agreement. Defendants use MACWIS to record and track these data.
According to the draft MACWIS user manual that defendants provided to the Monitor, MACWIS
enables defendants to track caseworker workloads according to 26 different service types.96 Five
of the service types in MACWIS are for casework services not specified in the Settlement
Agreement, and two additional service types are not used by DFCS employees.97 Caseworkers
93 These categories are adoption, child protection, ongoing foster care, new application licensing, dedicated in-home protection, dedicated in-home dependency/prevention, dedicated renewal licensing, and dedicated abuse and neglect. Settlement Agreement §II.A.2.a.1. 94 The service categories identified for mixed caseloads are adoption, child protection investigation, foster care, licensing-new application, in-home dependency-protection, in-home dependency-prevention, licensing, general intake, intra-state home studies, inter-state compact for the placement of children [hereinafter ICPC], and courtesy interviews. Id. §II.A.2.a.2. 95 For example, adoption cases are allotted 807 minutes per case per month and foster care cases are allotted 507 minutes per case per month. Id. While the Settlement Agreement defines what constitutes a case for purposes of the dedicated caseload calculation, it is silent on what constitutes a case for purposes of the generic caseload calculation. Compare Id. §II.A.2.a.1. with Id. §II.A.2.a.2. 96 Ex. 5J, Draft – Reporting Workload Summary, August 18, 2008, excerpt pp. 1, 4. The draft manual lists 25 service types, however, the Monitor has identified at least one additional service category that apparently was added to MACWIS after the draft manual was produced. 97 This is based on information provided by MACWIS staff with substantial experience working with the system.
30

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 35 of 105

use the remaining 19 service types to record their work according to the categories in the

Settlement Agreement. One casework service in the Settlement Agreement is not tracked, nor is it trackable as a service in the current version of MACWIS.98 The table below lists each of the

Settlement Agreement service types with cross references to the service types that DFCS’s

employees can record in MACWIS.

Settlement Agreement Type
Adoption Child protection investigation Foster care
Licensing In-home dependency—protection
In-home dependency—prevention
Licensing—renewal General intake Intra-state home studies Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children (ICPC) Courtesy Interviews

Minutes Per Month Required by
Settlement Agreement 807 484
507
470
410

MACWIS Service Type
Adoption COS Investigation Level 2; or Investigation Level 3
Placement COR; and Placement COS -------------OR------------Placement R&S
Resource Inquiry; and Resource Home Study
Protective Service COR; and Protective Service COS -------------OR------------Protective Service R&S

275

Prevention COR; and

Prevention COS

-------------OR-------------

Prevention R&S

191

Resource Renewal

59

General Intake

282

Court Ord Rltv Appl; or

ICPC Application

106

ICPC Incoming

65

Not captured in MACWIS

Minutes Assigned in MACWIS
807 480 480
132 375 -------507
338 132
60 351 ------410
60 215 ------275
191 60 282 282 106
0

There are at least two ways in which MACWIS stores casework data that significantly reduce the accuracy of the data. First, caseload minutes corresponding to five of the services specified in the Settlement Agreement – adoption; ICPC; foster care; in-home dependency prevention; and, in-home dependency protection – are over-counted in MACWIS. MACWIS does not prorate the number of minutes that a caseworker works on a case in these service groups

98 Courtesy interviews are not tracked.
31

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 36 of 105
according to the day of the month the case worker is assigned to the case and the day of the month the caseworker closes the case. Rather, if a caseworker has an assigned case that falls within one of these five service categories for one or more days in a given month, the caseworker’s caseload calculation reflects the entire minute allotment for the case for that month. MACWIS’s method of counting caseworker minutes results in an overstatement of the number of minutes used to calculate individual caseloads, which in turn could cause an understatement of the number of caseworkers working at or below the levels prescribed by the Settlement Agreement. A preliminary review of caseworker workload data suggests that this is happening in some cases.99
A second problem with the data collected in MACWIS is that certain casework services are not accurately accounted for in all of the months a caseworker is assigned to and required to be working on a case. Specifically, the minute allocations for four services – intra-state home studies, child protective investigations, licensing, and licensing-renewal – are not accounted for on a pro-rated basis or otherwise during each of the months a caseworker is assigned to one of these types of cases. Rather, the monthly minute allocation established by the Settlement Agreement is recorded in a caseworker’s workload data only in the month that the case is closed in MACWIS.
Unlike the other service types identified in the Settlement Agreement, for caseload computation purposes, defendants have interpreted the monthly minute allocation requirements for these four types of services to constitute both the ceiling and the floor for the number of
99 For example, Ex. 5K, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Washington County, Average Number of Hours Worked on Casework Per Week, by Caseworker, February 1-28, 2009, based on MACWIS Report No. MWASAW9D, presents MACWIS data regarding the number of minutes worked by caseworkers in Washington County during the month of February 2009. The chart reflects that 18 of the 26 caseworkers listed in the MACWIS report had caseloads that were over the limit prescribed by the Settlement Agreement, many by more than two times the limit.
32

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 37 of 105
minutes allocated to these service types for the duration of a caseworker’s assignment to the case. However, even assuming such an interpretation of the Settlement Agreement is appropriate,100 the minutes are not proportionately allocated across the months in which the case is assigned to the caseworker. If a caseworker began and completed the casework in a single calendar month, this would not create a problem. However, if the casework extended over two or more months, as is often the case, the caseworker’s caseload data in MACWIS would only reflect the case in the month the case was closed in MACWIS. The result is that in some months the caseworker’s caseload would be under-counted, and in others it would be over-counted.
Defendants produce several monthly reports that are based on MACWIS workload data. These reports do not present a reliable calculation of DFCS caseworker and supervisory workloads because in addition to the limitations in data accuracy described above, the reports do not track workload data according to each of the workload requirements of the Settlement Agreement. The reports provide workload data on a geographic basis, generally either at a county or regional level, broken down into various subcategories, including service types, number of caseworkers, number of clients served, and total number of minutes worked. Some of the reports address the percentage of caseworkers with caseloads that exceed the 6960 minute monthly limit; however, even if these calculations were computed accurately, the reported percentage cannot be readily verified. Verification will require the Monitor to analyze the underlying data upon which the reports are based in future reporting periods – a time-consuming
100 The generic caseload requirements do not draw the distinctions the defendants have applied to the minute calculation for these four types of services.
33

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 38 of 105
process that should not be undertaken until the limitations in the accuracy and completeness of the MACWIS workload data described above are addressed.101
In addition, defendants’ workload reports do not provide data on the percentage of
caseworkers exceeding twice and three times the Settlement Agreement’s caseload requirements.
It appears that MACWIS collects the data that are necessary to report on these requirements;
however, there is no evidence that these data have been analyzed. The same is true of the
MACWIS data regarding supervisors who are responsible for supervising more than five
caseworkers. The Monitor used one of defendants’ management reports to perform a county-by-
county analysis of supervisor-to-caseworker ratios. The analysis is based on the number of
supervisors and caseworkers in each county; however, because the analysis is based on aggregate
data, it was not possible to identify the actual number of caseworkers each supervisor supervised, as required by the Settlement Agreement.102
The Monitor has recommended that the parties consider modifying the Settlement
Agreement’s caseload requirements at least in part because the minute calculations complicate caseload management and reporting.103 The parties have been working on a modification
proposal. Defendants expect to modify the monthly MACWIS workload reports to incorporate
101 According to the relevant February 2009 MACWIS report, MWASA9S2, (which is based on unvalidated data reflecting the limitations described above), between February 1 and February 28, 2009, 47 percent of DFCS caseworkers were assigned to individual caseloads that exceeded the 6960 minute standard. These data show substantial variability among counties in the number of assigned caseworkers and the percentage of the caseworkers in those counties working over 6960 minutes. See, e.g., Ex. 5L, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor based on MACWIS Report No. MWASA9S2, Number of Caseworkers, by County, by Number Exceeding Caseload Requirements, February 1-28, 2009, showing the distribution of caseworkers across counties, broken down by those with caseloads exceeding 6960 minutes and those with caseloads under 6960 minutes during February 2009. Ex. 5M, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor based on MACWIS Report No. MWASA9S2, Percentage of Caseworkers with Caseloads that Exceed 6960 Minutes, by County, February 1-28, 2009, showing the caseload data by county, broken down by the percentage of caseworkers with caseloads below the 6960 minute limit. Ex. 5M is based on the same data as Ex. 5L. 102 Ex. 5N, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor based on MACWIS Report No. MWZPWKRB, December 1- 31, 2008, Ratio of Workers to Supervisors, By County. 103 If reporting could be simplified, this would promote improvements in caseload management.
34

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 39 of 105
the modification and to better align the caseload computations with the requirements of the
Settlement Agreement. The Monitor expects to work with the parties to help ensure that the data
upon which future reports are based are recorded in a manner that is consistent with Settlement
Agreement requirements and that the data are accessible for review, validation, and analysis.104
Finally, the Settlement Agreement requires caseworkers to have access to a supervisor 24
hours per day. The current ASWS job description indicates that supervisors are required to be
on-call on a 24-hour basis.105 Because the Monitor has not had an opportunity to evaluate the
prevalence of this practice, this requirement has been included in the Period 2 IP.106
Period 1 IP §I.2.a. I. Administration and Management Assessment and Implementation Steps
2. Human Resources Management a. Workforce: Defendants shall, in conjunction with COA, develop and begin implementing a written plan to meet the needs identified in the required Administration and Management Workforce Assessment. Such plan shall identify strategies, timeframes, and recruitment resources to be allocated to ensure that there are sufficient DFCS professional and support staff to achieve compliance with the caseload requirements specified in the Plan.
Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §I.2.a.: The plan was not developed during Period 1,
and as a result, the Period 2 IP requires the defendants to develop and begin implementing a
written plan to recruit and retain the staff necessary to comply with the Settlement Agreement’s
caseload requirements.107 The relevant background is addressed below.
104 As described above, the current caseload requirements in the Settlement Agreement use caseworkers as the basic unit of analysis (i.e., the percentage of caseworkers who are at or below defined workload standards). This structure provides some incentive to distribute workloads among caseworkers in a manner that may satisfy the Settlement Agreement’s caseload standards but undercut improvements in case practice. A modification to caseload requirements could address this issue and ensure a reasonable distribution of cases among caseworkers. Focusing on cases as the unit of analysis rather than caseworker workloads may provide a more direct and robust measure of whether cases are managed by caseworkers who have reasonable workloads. The Monitor plans to discuss these issues with the parties. 105 Ex. 5O, DHS-Area Social Work Supervisor, position description, at 5. 106 Period 2 IP §I.2.b. 107 Id. §I.2.a.
35

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 40 of 105
As explained herein,108 the Administration and Management Workforce Assessment that
is a prerequisite to formulating the required workforce plan has not been completed.109 Several
challenges must be resolved before a viable plan to achieve compliance with the workload
requirements can be formulated. For example, the defendants will need to evaluate and adapt
their business practices to the new practice model and the newly revised policy and practice
guides that are under development as part of the current reform process.110 Implicit in such an
undertaking is an assessment of the support and professional staffing necessary to maintain the
new practice model.111 In addition, the defendants will need to develop the capacity to track and
report on all personnel actions, including the employment status of all DFCS employees, in an
accurate and timely fashion.112 Moreover, the defendants will need to develop the capacity to
track and report accurately, as required, on caseworker and supervisory workloads.113
Defendants are working currently to resolve some of these challenges.114
Period 1 IP §I.2.b. I. Administration and Management Assessment and Implementation Steps
2. Human Resources Management b. Worker and Supervisor Qualifications: Defendants shall, in conjunction with COA, develop and begin to implement a plan with timeframes and specific action steps for
108 See supra pp. 17-18. 109 The assessment is required by Period 1 IP §I.a. 110 The practice model is being developed, and the policy and practice guides are being modified, to conform to or otherwise promote administrative, management and case practices that are consistent with the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. See infra pp. 57-59 for a discussion of the practice model and the modified policies and practice guides. 111 In addition, defendants will need to consider staffing needs based on the explicit requirements of the Settlement Agreement, such as the establishment of the adoption specialist positions that were required by Period 1 IP §II.3.f., and the staffing that will be necessary to promote progress toward the Settlement Agreement’s prescribed outcomes, such as staff with specialized expertise to support the performance-based contracting that was required in Period 1, Id. at §I.2.d., and must now be instituted in Period 2, pursuant to Period 2 IP §I.2.e., revenue maximization activities pursuant to Settlement Agreement §II.A.7., and MACWIS remediation requirements, Id. at II.A.5. 112 This includes aggregated statewide data on hiring and termination dates, leave status, assigned positions, and vacancies as well as an analysis by region and county. See supra pp. 25-29 for a discussion of this issue. 113 See supra pp. 29-36 for a discussion of the certain limitations in tracking and reporting on caseworker and supervisory workloads. 114 See supra pp. 29-36.
36

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 41 of 105
bringing its current staff into compliance with the worker and supervisor qualification requirements of the Plan.
Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §I.2.b.: The required plan to bring current DFCS staff into compliance with the qualification requirements was not developed during Period 1, and thus defendants are now required to develop and begin to implement the plan during Period 2.115 Defendants’ progress and related background information are summarized below.
The caseworker and supervisor qualification requirements of the Settlement Agreement establish qualification criterion that apply to the hiring and promotion of caseworkers and supervisors. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, DFCS may only hire caseworkers who have “an advanced degree in social work or a comparable human service field, or a BA in social work or a comparable human service field with two years related experience.”116 Newly hired or promoted caseworker supervisors must have “an advanced degree in social work or a comparable human service field and two years of experience working with children and families, preferably in foster care.”117 Period 1 requirements did not address qualifications for newly hired staff. Rather, the Period 1 IP required defendants to develop and implement a plan to bring the current workforce into compliance with the Settlement Agreement’s qualification criterion for hiring and promotion.
Although the required plan to bring current staff into compliance with the worker and supervisor qualification requirements of the Settlement Agreement has not been developed, defendants have made progress collecting data that are relevant to the formulation of such a plan. During 2008, staff from the University of Southern Mississippi (“USM”) School of Social Work conducted a survey of case workers, supervisors, and other foster care program managers. The
115 Period 2 IP §I.2.c. 116 Settlement Agreement §II.A.2.b.1. 117 Id. §II.A.2.b.2.
37

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 42 of 105
results of the survey were published in an October 6, 2008 report.118 The survey elicited information from 482 respondents119 about educational status, including whether respondents were enrolled in MSW programs and if not whether they had plans to do so. The survey asked respondents to identify the particular universities and types of programs (e.g., evening, weekend) they were interested in attending as well as what they perceived as the obstacles to their enrollment.120
Significantly, 11 percent of the respondents reported holding MSW degrees, six percent of those without a degree reported current enrollment in an MSW program, three percent reported pending applications for enrollment, 23 percent reported an intention to apply for admission into an MSW program in the near term, 55 percent reported an intention to apply to an MSW program at some indeterminate time in the future, and 19 percent said they had no plans to obtain an advanced degree.121 Defendants report that they are presently working with several universities to expand MSW program opportunities for DFCS staff. As of April 2009, approximately 35 DFCS staff were enrolled in an MSW program at USM.122
The data derived from the survey and the experiences of staff members who are enrolled in an MSW program will help inform the development of the required plan. Among other initiatives, the defendants will need to develop, monitor and enforce hiring standards that are consistent with the Settlement Agreement’s qualification criteria as well as establish a system for
118 Ex. 6, Social Work Education Among MDHS Employees, USM, School of Social Work, Training Academy, October 6, 2008. 119 The report does not address the survey’s response rate. 120 The survey data regarding obstacles to enrollment were not analyzed. 121 Id. at 12. 122 According to the interim director of the School of Social Work at USM, DFCS staff members are enrolled in two different classes. Six hours of classes have been offered on Mondays and Fridays to accommodate the DFCS compressed work week. At least one on-line class will be offered in addition to regular classes during the summer semesters.
38

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 43 of 105
verifying, tracking and reporting on the educational credentials and the relevant employment history of current DFCS caseworkers and supervisors.
Settlement Agreement § II.A.2.c. II. STANDARDS
A. Administration and Management Standards 2. Human Resources Management c. Training: By the end of implementation Period 1: 4) DFCS shall establish and maintain a Training Unit, headed by a qualified director of training, with sufficient staffing and resources to provide comprehensive child welfare pre-service and ongoing training to all caseworkers and supervisors. Supervisory personnel will no longer be detailed from the field to provide training.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.A.2.c.4.: Although defendants made demonstrable progress toward building the required Training Unit, these Period 1 requirements were not satisfied and are addressed in the Period 2 IP.123 A Training Unit led by a qualified director was established during Period 1. The Training Unit is understaffed and does not have the other resources necessary to deliver the comprehensive training required by the Settlement Agreement. Defendants’ progress is described below.
The establishment of a staff training program is an essential component of the reform effort, and its viability is tied to several key factors, including skilled leadership, experienced trainers, a comprehensive curriculum (based on a clearly defined practice model, sound policy and practical guidance, and CQI data), instructional equipment, and the tools to track and monitor employee participation in such a program. Despite substantial efforts by the new training director and her staff, progress has been impeded by formidable resource limitations. Absent the functional, integrated, pre-service and in-service training program contemplated by
123 Period 2 IP §§I.2.d.1.-7.
39

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 44 of 105
the Settlement Agreement, it will not be possible for the defendants to meet the Settlement
Agreement’s required case practice standards and outcomes.
Prior to April 2008, training for caseworkers and their supervisors was conducted on an
ad hoc and regional basis by casework supervisors and other employees who were temporarily
reassigned from direct service and other DFCS program areas to provide training to new
employees. This practice began to change during the second quarter of the 2008 calendar year when Denise Brown-Rouse was assigned to serve as the permanent DFCS training director.124
Ms. Brown-Rouse holds an MSW with a clinical specialty and has almost 15 years experience working at DFCS as a caseworker, supervisor and trainer.125 She is responsible for the DFCS
pre-service and in-service employee training program on a statewide basis.
Three training coordinators were hired shortly before Ms. Brown-Rouse’s appointment.
Two additional training coordinators were assigned to the Training Unit during May 2008, and a
sixth training coordinator began employment during May 2009. In addition to the training coordinators, the Training Unit is staffed with a program specialist,126 a curriculum writer,127 and one clerk.128 The staffing plan for the Training Unit was designed initially to correspond to the
seven former DFCS geographic regions. Assuming the FY 2010 budget request is approved,
defendants expect that beginning on July 1, 2009, the Training Unit will have 13 additional
124 Ms. Brown-Rouse served in this position in an acting capacity between January and March, 2008, but she did not have management authority. The training director’s office is maintained at the MDHS offices in Pearl River County, Mississippi. 125 See Ex. 7A, Resume of Denise Brown-Rouse. After she was hired, Ms. Brown-Rouse reported to two different DFCS managers; however, she is now a member of the DFCS executive management team and reports directly to the MDHS Deputy who oversees DFCS. 126 A program specialist works in the Training Unit to assist with training clerical staff assigned to the county offices. This training involves basic bookkeeping, payment coding, new clerk training and other administrative procedures. The program specialist conducts training statewide, but is assigned to an office in Region II. 127 The curriculum writer started in February 2009. 128 Also assigned to the Training Unit and working out of the Pearl River County office is a clerk who started in January 2009. The clerk provides basic administrative assistance to the training director such as the entry of staff training data into MACWIS.
40

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 45 of 105
training coordinator positions, including six new trainers for each of the six new regions and at least five additional trainers to conduct supervisory and resource worker training statewide.
In addition to being understaffed, the Training Unit has other basic resource deficits. Training equipment and program space are in short supply. For example, a key section of the training curriculum centers on MACWIS case record requirements.129 In order to train staff on how to use MACWIS for entering and retrieving case record data, the classroom training necessarily includes hands-on sessions with a computer. According to defendants, there are only enough laptops to provide training in three of the DFCS 13 regions.130 In addition, most of the regions do not have sufficient classroom space for trainings and this has both logistical and fiscal implications.131 Because there are an insufficient number of trainers statewide, the training coordinators have been deployed from one part of the state to another to provide training. This practice necessitates a level of administrative support that is unavailable and contributes to travel costs that would otherwise be avoidable.
Notwithstanding significant efforts by the training director and her staff, as described more fully below, the fact that the Training Unit has been under-resourced affected defendants’ ability to meet other Period 1 requirements related to the staff training program. Moreover, DFCS policy has not yet been revised to incorporate the Settlement Agreement’s training requirements – an important step toward building accountability for program delivery as well as staff participation in the required training program.
129 There are initial and refresher training modules related to MACWIS. 130 Defendants report an inventory of fewer than 30 functional laptop computers which are moved from site to site – a burdensome process that causes wear and tear of the equipment, some of which is already antiquated and in poor condition. In order to provide required training, defendants estimate that a minimum of ten laptops, a PowerPoint projector, and multiple wireless routers are needed for each of the 13 regions. 131 Staff are diverted from substantive work in order to locate and secure suitable rentable space to serve as classrooms for the training sessions.
41

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 46 of 105
By the end of implementation Period 1: 5) All new caseworkers and supervisors will complete their service training
consistent with the Plan requirements before they assume their respective responsibilities for carrying cases and supervising.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.A.2.c.5.: The evidence shows that there
was progress toward meeting the pre-service training requirements during Period 1. However,
because the requirements were not satisfied, the Period 2 IP requires that defendants develop and
implement a written plan to deliver the comprehensive training required by the Settlement
Agreement.132 The progress defendants made during Period 1 is described below.
The Settlement Agreement’s substantive requirements concerning pre-service and pre-
supervisory service training for caseworkers and their supervisors, in relevant part, provide:
c. Training: 2) Subsequent to Court approval of this Plan, all new caseworkers hired by DFCS shall receive a minimum of 270 hours of pre-service training, including instructional training and supervised field training, prior to assuming any case responsibilities; all new caseworker supervisors hired or promoted by DFCS shall receive a minimum of 40 hours of in-service training directed specifically at the supervision of child welfare caseworkers prior to assuming any supervisory responsibilities; . . . . 3) The caseworker training shall be based on clearly identified learning objectives and culminate in competency-based testing, which will need to be successfully completed for the training to be credited. The curriculum shall be drawn from current research and data.
Settlement Agreement §II.A.2.c.2.-3.
Historically, DFCS caseworkers have been assigned to cases, and supervisors have been
assigned to supervise caseworkers, before completing pre-service and/or pre-supervisory service
training programs.133 Defendants began to implement a 270-hour pre-service training program
for all newly hired caseworkers and supervisors at the end of the 2008 calendar year. This
training is referred to as the Child Welfare Professional Development (“CWPD”) pre-service
132 Period 2 IP §I.2.d.1. 133 See, e.g., Ex. 7B, MDHS Administrative Policy, AP-19, Staff Training and Employee Development Policy, January 1, 1993. The current DFCS training policy, issued in 1993, authorizes three types of training: on-the-job; inservice, and out-service. None contemplates that employees will be trained in policy, procedures, and case practice standards before assuming direct responsibility for casework and/or supervision of caseworkers.
42

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 47 of 105
training.134 The CWPD is a ten-week course designed to deliver 270 hours of training, consisting of a four-week workshop of classroom instruction135 and six weeks of on-the-job (“OJT”) training.136 During Period 1, the Training Unit conducted 14 CWPD four-week workshops.137
The anecdotal evidence suggests that the incidence of newly hired caseworkers being assigned to
cases before completing pre-service training decreased but was not eliminated, as required, during Period 1.138 The Period 2 IP requires caseworkers to complete pre-service training before assuming case-carrying responsibilities.139
During the latter part of 2008, a 40-hour pre-supervisory service training curriculum was
developed by DFCS in collaboration with the SPB for all new supervisors. The training is
designed to take place over a five-day period and will be offered at the MSPB Training Center in
Jackson. The first four days, conducted by MSPB staff, includes instruction on basic supervisory
skills. The fifth day, conducted by the DFCS training director, focuses more specifically on child
welfare topics and DFCS practices. The pre-supervisory service training curriculum was piloted during February and March 2009.140 Based on the pilot, the curriculum was revised and a
subsequent pilot session was scheduled for May 19, 2009. Newly hired and promoted
supervisors have continued to perform supervisory duties without participating in the pre-
134 Defendants provided a copy of the CWPD curriculum to the Monitor, including all instructional materials, trainers’ manuals, associated PowerPoint presentations, tests and answer keys. In addition, the Monitor received a copy of the manual used by supervisors. 135 Classroom time runs from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Thursday, and from 8:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Fridays, with a one-hour lunch break each day. 136 OJT takes place in the county offices under the direction of supervisors. 137 Four workshops were conducted in both Region I and Region VI, one workshop was conducted in Region II, three workshops were conducted in Region III, and two workshops were conducted in Region IV. 138 Because these training programs were only recently adopted, the Monitor has not conducted a systematic review to determine the prevalence of this practice, but expects to do so during Period 2. 139 Period 2 IP §I.2.d.4. 140 Two pilot sessions were conducted for new supervisors, acting supervisors, and acting as well as permanently appointed supervisors who assumed supervisory positions as of January 1, 2008.
43

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 48 of 105
supervisory service training required by the Period 1 IP. The Period 2 IP requires the cessation
of this practice.141
The Settlement Agreement contemplates that the curricula for the pre-service and pre-
supervisory service training programs will integrate the practice model and also incorporate the
DFCS policies and practice guides required during Period 1.142 However, because these policies
and practice guides were not finalized,143 and, in turn, the training curriculum was not revised,
defendants are now required to revise the training curriculum during Period 2, after the practice
model and the policies and practice guides have been completed.144
By the end of implementation Period 1:
6) The ongoing training curriculum for caseworkers and supervisors will be completed and ongoing training will have been initiated.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.A.2.c.6.: As explained below,
defendants are in the early stages of developing the required in-service training program, but the
curriculum for the program was not completed and ongoing training was not initiated during
Period 1. Thus, defendants must satisfy this requirement during Period 2.145
The in-service146 training requirements in the Settlement Agreement are set forth below:
c. Training: 2) Subsequent to Court approval of this Plan, . . . all caseworkers shall
receive a minimum of 40 hours of ongoing in-service training each year; and all supervisors shall receive a minimum of 24 hours of ongoing in-service training each year. 3) The caseworker training shall be based on clearly identified learning objectives and culminate in competency-based testing, which will need to be successfully completed for the training to be credited. The curriculum shall be drawn from current research and data. Settlement Agreement §II.A.2.c.2.-3.
141 Period 2 IP §I.2.d.4. 142 See infra pp. 57-59 for a discussion of these inter-related projects. 143 See infra pp. 57-59. 144 Period 2 IP §I.2.d.2. 145 Id. §II.d.5. 146 The Settlement Agreement uses the terms “ongoing in-service training” and “ongoing training” interchangeably to refer to in-service training. This report uses the term “in-service training” to refer to both.
44

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 49 of 105
Except for a promising advanced professional development session on court
procedures,147 the Training Unit offered limited in-service training opportunities to DFCS
caseworkers and supervisors during Period 1.148 In December 2008, defendants announced that
effective January 1, 2009, on an annual basis, caseworkers would be required to attend 40 hours
of in-service training and their supervisors would be required to attend 24 hours of in-service
training.149 However, these requirements are not yet incorporated into a comprehensive in-
service training curriculum.150 Even if such a comprehensive curriculum is finalized, absent a
Training Unit that is adequately staffed, and other necessary resources, defendants will be unable
to administer and manage the in-service training program as required.
Period 1 IP §I.2.c. I. Administration and Management Assessment and Implementation Steps
2. Human Resources Management c. Training: Defendants shall, in conjunction with COA, develop and begin implementing a written plan to meet the needs identified in the required Administration and Management Training Assessment.
Defendants shall implement competency-based testing to assess knowledge acquisition of newly hired staff following the completion of pre-service training, including newly hired or newly promoted supervisors following the completion of supervisory training. Training
147 The curriculum for the training was finalized in July 2008 by DFCS in collaboration with the Administrative Office of the Courts Court Improvement Program. Twenty-one sessions were conducted on a statewide basis. The training provides an overview of the state court system, and focuses on preparing caseworkers for court appearances. Topics such as professional conduct, courtroom etiquette, guidance for interaction with the Court, case preparation, and various aspects of court proceedings are addressed by the curriculum. 148 Statewide, four MACWIS refresher trainings were held during 2008. The training was discontinued because the server that is used for the MACWIS sessions malfunctioned. In addition, and on a statewide basis, three training sessions were conducted for the clerical staff and two train-the-trainer sessions in resource family finance were also offered. Defendants provide some in-service training to supervisors and managers in each region on a monthly basis through a contract with USM. This program, which is referred to as the “Learning Lab” program, is operated independently of the Training Unit and is not part of any formal and comprehensive in-service training program. Defendants also provide on-the-job training to supervisors using the supervisory level 1 curriculum. The curriculum is based on a mentoring model and intended for new supervisors. Heretofore, regional ASWSs have provided the training for new supervisors using this curriculum. Regional ASWSs mentor and supervise the ASWSs assigned to their regions. 149 See Ex. 7C, Training Unit Newsletter, December 2008. The announcement was not part of a policy directive. 150 Id.; see also Ex. 7D, MDHS, DFCS, Child Welfare Professional Development Unit Newsletter, Volume 1, Issue 1, January 2009. This is the second newsletter issued by the Training Unit. It notifies staff of various matters related to training, including a pilot of the 40-hour supervisory training.
45

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 50 of 105
credit shall only be given to those new hires who demonstrate sufficient knowledge acquisition. Defendants shall implement a system to track staff participation in all required training.
Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §I.2.c.: Defendants made progress but did not satisfy
these training requirements during Period 1. As a result, these provisions are included in the Period 2 IP.151 Defendants’ progress during Period 1 is described below.
As noted herein, the training assessment was conducted during the nascent stages of the Training Unit’s development, shortly after the training director was appointed.152 The
assessment was preliminary and undertaken before curricula and training schedules were
completed. Nonetheless, a series of recommendations related to the training program were included in the assessment report.153 A written plan has not been developed to address the needs identified in the report.154 As explained below, competency-based testing has been instituted for
the pre-service and the pre-supervisory service training programs; however, a revised testing
program will need to be developed after the curriculum is modified to comport to the
requirements of the Settlement Agreement and to the case practice model. Moreover, defendants
are making progress on building a system to track staff participation in the training program.
The CWPD incorporates pre-training and post-training testing. The pre-test is
administered at the beginning of the course. Weekly tests associated with the classroom
instruction are given throughout the course, and weekly worksheets are completed by trainees
151 Period 2 IP §I.2.d.1., 6., 7. 152 The assessment is addressed supra pp. 18-19 and the report is included in the Appendix as Ex. 2, COA Assessment Report, supra note 37. 153 Ex. 2, COA Assessment Report, supra note 37, at 38-40. 154 The assessment indicated that defendants would need to address the following areas: training uniformity; on-thejob training requirements; staff evaluation; documentation and tracking; licensure requirements; and, in-service training. The assessment also recommended that defendants develop a plan for addressing the demands that would be made on the Training Unit as defendants hire new staff to meet the Settlement Agreement’s caseload requirements. Id.
46

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 51 of 105
during their participation in the OJT components of the course. The course concludes with a final comprehensive examination on principles and concepts taught in the classroom and during the OJT segments of the program. According to the training director, staff members who fail the comprehensive examination may take the examination a second time. If the staff member fails the second test, the regional director meets with the employee’s supervisor to determine whether an additional re-test will be offered or whether the employee will be terminated.155 Defendants report that the pre-supervisory service training course includes competency-based testing. The Monitor expects to review both testing programs after the pre-service and pre-supervisory service curricula are finalized and implemented. Thereafter, the Monitor will report to the Court and the parties, as appropriate.
Defendants have begun to develop a system to track staff participation in DFCS training programs. MACWIS can collect employee training data by training type, the beginning and end dates for each training program, the number of training hours an employee completes, test scores, and whether the training session was eligible for Title IV-E reimbursement.156 Defendants report that employee training data are entered into MACWIS by certain training coordinators who have MACWIS access157 as well as by the Training Unit’s clerical staff, and that most in-house employee training records are up-to-date insofar as participation in training sessions conducted since January 2008. In addition, defendants report that the employee training data are linked to their personnel files, which are accessible to the supervisors and managers who are responsible for monitoring employee compliance with training requirements. As of March 2009, MACWIS
155 As of April 2009, the training director reported that no one had failed the comprehensive examination during her tenure. 156 Ex. 8, Personnel Menu Functions and Screens, Personnel/Master Training, Personnel/Employee Detail, screen shots from MACWIS Desk Reference Guide – V1.3, Revised August 14, 2008, training director copy. 157 Defendants report that efforts are being made to modify MACWIS in order to allow the training coordinators who do not have the requisite MACWIS access to enter the data.
47

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 52 of 105
did not have the capacity to alert DFCS managers about employees with training requirements
that were past due or incomplete. Defendants report that they are working to address this issue.
The Monitor has not audited defendants’ training records, but expects to do so, and report to the
Court and parties as appropriate, after the required pre-service and in-service training curricula
are finalized and implemented.
Period 1 IP §I.2.d. I. Administration and Management Assessment and Implementation Steps
2. Human Resources Management d. Contract Agency Requirements: Defendants shall, in conjunction with COA, develop and begin implementing a written plan to meet the needs identified in the required Administration and Management Contracting Assessment. Defendants shall notify all private agencies that provide protective, preventive, foster care, or adoption case work services under contract with DFCS that those agencies will be required to abide by all related terms of the Plan, including, but not limited to, provisions regarding training curricula, minimum training hours, and caseload standards. DFCS shall design and begin implementing a performance-based contracting system with the capacity to monitor and enforce contract performance on all related terms of the Plan.
Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §I.2.d.: These requirements were not satisfied during Period 1. As discussed above,158 the administrative and management contracting assessment has not been completed.159 In addition, as of April 2009, private agencies that were under contract
with DFCS to provide protective, preventive, foster care, or adoption casework services had not
yet received formal notification of a contractual requirement to abide by all relevant terms of the
Settlement Agreement. The required performance-based contracting system – a centerpiece of
the service delivery reform strategy – has not been designed. This is a substantive undertaking
that requires significant preparation and planning, including substantial collaboration with private
158 The contracting assessment is addressed supra p. 19. 159 The assessment was preliminary and limited in scope, see supra p. 19.
48

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 53 of 105
providers. Defendants report that the newly hired director of the DFCS Administration and Financial Planning Unit has undertaken a preliminary review of performance-based contracting practices in other jurisdictions.160 Further progress regarding performance-based contracting is required during Period 2.161
Settlement Agreement §II.A.3. II. STANDARDS
A. Administration and Management Standards 3. Performance and Quality Improvement By the end of implementation Period 1: a. DFCS shall begin implementing a separate continuous quality improvement (CQI) system.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.A.3.: A separate CQI system was not implemented during Period 1, and as a result, the system is now required to be implemented during Period 2.162 Defendants’ progress is described below.
The Settlement Agreement envisions the establishment of a CQI system as an integral part of Period 1 capacity building. At its simplest, such a system is designed to promote improvements in agency performance through ongoing assessments of practices and outcomes using qualitative and quantitative measures to inform operational strategies and decisionmaking.163 The CQI process provides a framework for informing management decisions, and requires the active participation of agency staff and managers as well as external stakeholders. A crucial component of child welfare agency reform initiatives, a fully-implemented CQI program is ultimately an indicator of defendants’ capacity to sustain required reforms. Although the
160 The director, Bryan Rushing, began working at DFCS on February 1, 2009. 161 Period 2 IP §I.2.e. 162 Id. §I.3.b. 163 For further background information on CQI systems in the child welfare context, see, e.g., O’Brien, Mary and Watson, Peter, A Framework for Quality Assurance in Child Welfare, National Child Welfare Resource Center for Organizational Improvement, Edmund S. Muskie School of Public Service, March 2002.
49

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 54 of 105
defendants have not begun to implement a separate CQI system, some of the elements of the system are being developed.
A CQI Unit was established during the latter part of 2008 as part of the restructuring and reorganization of DFCS that was approved by the SPB. The CQI Unit is managed by a seasoned director who oversees three discrete program areas: foster care review; evaluation and monitoring and MACWIS. Currently, the foster care review section is performing certain case record review functions related to the federally-mandated administrative review process. Defendants plan to harmonize and integrate some of these functions into the design of the CQI program. The foster care review section is led by an experienced program manager; however, as of June 1, 2009, managers had not yet been hired for either the evaluation and monitoring or MACWIS sections. Defendants have engaged a national expert to consult with DFCS management on the design of the CQI program.164 The expert’s recommendations are expected by September 30, 2009, and they will be used to inform the final design for the CQI program.
Period 1 IP §I.3. I. Administration and Management Assessment and Implementation Steps
3. Performance and Quality Improvement Defendants shall, in conjunction with COA, develop and begin implementing a written plan to meet the needs identified in the required Administration and Management Quality Improvement Assessment. The plan shall include specific steps and timeframes for the implementation of a separate continuous quality improvement (CQI) system that meets COA standards and Plan requirements. Defendants shall develop, in conjunction with COA, and begin implementing a CQI assessment tool that measures compliance with the Plan’s management and foster care service standards.
164 The expert hired to develop the practice model and the rate setting analysis also was engaged to provide these recommendations. See supra p. 5 and infra pp. 58-59 for a discussion of the practice model.
50

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 55 of 105
Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §I.3.: As noted above,165 the assessment identified a
series of needs related to performance and quality improvement. Defendants did not develop the
required plan to address the needs identified by the assessment, or the assessment tool, during
Period 1. They are required to do so during Period 2.166
Settlement Agreement §II.A.4. II. STANDARDS
A. Administration and Management Standards 4. Legal and Regulatory Compliance DFCS shall comply with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.A.4.: There are no Period 1
requirements related to this subsection.
Settlement Agreement §II.A.5. II. STANDARDS
A. Administration and Management Standards 5. Information Management and Use
The Settlement Agreement requires the defendants to operate an automated child welfare
information system that conforms to a set of ten standards related to the timeliness of data
access;167 specifications for data collection, tracking and reporting; and certain functional
capacities.168 Period 1 requirements relate to building the capacity to operate such a system.
For the most part, MACWIS does not report accurately and as required on performance related
to the requirements in this case. In some instances, the system has the capacity to collect the
required data, but not report on it. In others, this capacity does not exist.169 Moreover, even in
situations in which reports can be generated, the underlying data cannot be readily extracted,
165 The assessment is addressed supra p. 19. 166 Period 2 IP §I.3.a., c. 167 MACWIS serves many other reporting and data collection purposes that must be considered by the defendants as they build the system’s capacity to meet the requirements in this case. 168 Settlement Agreement §II.A.5.a.(1)-(10). 169 The Monitor has provided the parties with a table outlining these specific findings. The information in the table is derived from a review of MACWIS reports and consultation with one of defendants’ senior and most knowledgeable MACWIS system analysts.
51

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 56 of 105
analyzed and validated as required.170 In addition, there is a substantial body of evidence that
raises significant concerns about the reliability of the MACWIS data.171 As explained below,
defendants have been working to address these issues which are likely to attenuate the reform
process if they are not resolved within a reasonable time period.
By the end of implementation Period 1: b. DFCS shall provide to all county agency staff with child welfare
responsibilities access to basic computer services, consisting of access to MACWIS, word processing, and electronic mail.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.A.5.b.: There has been significant
progress toward meeting this requirement; however, as explained below, additional progress is
needed and it is required by the Period 2 IP.172
Staff and managers alike agree that access to MACWIS, word processing and electronic
mail has improved significantly over time. However, the DFCS inventory of computer
equipment is old, and there are many reports of substantial delays in procuring replacement
equipment.173 This phenomenon limits meaningful access to basic computer services, impeding,
instead of facilitating, the development of adequate case records.174
c. MACWIS data related to compliance with the Plan’s Foster Care Service Standards II.B.1-12 will be collected, analyzed, and disseminated at least monthly to DFCS regional and county staff.
170 Settlement Agreement §VI.B. 171 See, e.g., supra pp. 26-32 (workload data) and infra pp. 67-69 (special permanency reviews). 172 Period 2 IP §I.5.a. 173 Defendants’ FY 2010 budget request acknowledges this issue and in this regard states: “The Division of Family and Children’s Services is requesting an increase of $557,800 in Equipment for the purpose of upgrading current staff’s equipment. [sic] The current equipment is out-dated and beginning to malfunction.” See Ex. 1H, MDHS FY10 Budget Request, supra note 24, at 28. 174 Most DFCS staff, including caseworkers, do not have voice mail on their desktop telephones. However, defendants report that caseworkers have voice mail on the cell phones that are issued to them by DFCS and used on a routine basis to retrieve messages. The Settlement Agreement does not require defendants to provide staff with desktop telephones with voice mail capabilities. However, the Settlement Agreement contemplates that defendants will provide DFCS staff with the basic tools necessary to perform their duties in accordance with minimum professional standards.
52

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 57 of 105
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.A.5.c.: This requirement was not satisfied during Period 1. A strategy expected to lead toward compliance with this requirement is incorporated into the Period 2 IP.175 These matters are described more fully below.
Some MACWIS data related to the Settlement Agreement’s foster care standards are collected, analyzed and disseminated monthly to DFCS staff on a shared network system.176 As noted above, the data upon which these reports are based cannot be extracted, analyzed or validated, and the reports do not generally measure compliance with the Settlement Agreement’s precise requirements.177 Defendants have attempted to improve MACWIS capacity to collect and report on data relevant to compliance with the Settlement Agreement’s foster care service standards. However, defendants report chronic delays in processing MACWIS change requests.178
During January 2009, the Monitor and an information management systems expert met with defendants as part of the Monitor’s assessment of Period 1 performance to identify the strengths and limitations in MACWIS’s data collection, tracking and reporting capacity. This undertaking included a review of MACWIS’s capacity to collect and report on data related to 58 separate Period 1 and Period 2 requirements. The Monitor concluded that as of February 1, 2009, MACWIS did not have the capacity to issue the required report for 45 of the 58 requirements, and with respect to 16 of the 45 requirements, MACWIS did not have the threshold capacity to collect and track the data. At the time of the Monitor’s assessment, requests to
175 Period 2 IP §I.5. 176 A comprehensive index of all posted reports has not been produced. The reports generally do not include aggregated data summaries – a format that would make the information more readily accessible to managers and staff. 177 See, e.g., supra pp. 26-32. 178 The change requests constitute forms DFCS submits to the MDHS MIS Department, a unit in MDHS responsible for processing and managing modifications to MACWIS.
53

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 58 of 105
produce reports and/or modify system capacity related to 34 of the 45 requirements had been made; however, DFCS staff reported protracted delays in resolving previous modification requests. Defendants are making efforts to address these issues.
During January 2009, the MDHS deputy responsible for the agency’s management information systems and the DFCS CQI director established a committee to review and manage remediation efforts related to MACWIS. Defendants report that the committee has been working to prioritize and accelerate the processing of MACWIS change orders, including change orders requesting adaptations to meet the data collection and reporting requirements in this case. This undertaking is complicated by the fact that it is likely defendants will elect to replace MACWIS with a more modern automated system that could also meet applicable federal requirements.
In consultation with staff from the Children’s Bureau, defendants have been working to develop a MACWIS remediation strategy. As an initial step, defendants are collaborating with the Children’s Bureau on a RFP to contract for an external assessment of MACWIS, including an evaluation of the system’s capacity to function as prescribed by §II.A.5.a.(1)-(10) of the Settlement Agreement.179 Defendants have explained that the assessment was intended to satisfy the Period 1 MACWIS assessment requirement,180 and that it is required by the Children’s Bureau as a predicate to federal funding to support any MACWIS remediation initiative. According to the defendants, the process leading to the assessment has been protracted at least in part because of certain procedural steps required by the Children’s Bureau. Even after a contract for the assessment is issued, the defendants do not expect to obtain a report presenting the results of the assessment for a 12-month period. For these reasons, the Period 2 IP requires the
179 Defendants provided a draft of the RFP to plaintiffs’ counsel and the Monitor for review and comment in February 2009. 180 Period 1 IP §I.e. The assessment that was undertaken during Period 1 is discussed supra p. 20.
54

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 59 of 105
defendants to undertake all reasonable efforts to expedite the RFP, and in any event, to issue the
RFP by September 1, 2009, and to execute a contract for the assessment that by its terms requires the assessment to be completed within a 12-month period.181
The limitations in MACWIS are well known. Defendants must expedite and intensify
their efforts to address these shortcomings in order for the reform process to make continued and
meaningful progress. For these reasons, the Monitor has recommended that defendants consult
with officials from the Children’s Bureau to determine whether any of the procedural steps
related to the MACWIS remediation process can be waived or accelerated.
Period 1 IP §I.5. I. Administration and Management Assessment and Implementation Steps
5. Information and Management Use Defendants shall, in conjunction with COA, develop and begin implementing a written plan to meet the needs identified in the required Administration and Management MACWIS Assessment. Defendants will develop and begin implementing a plan that will ensure MACWIS maintains statewide placement resource information such as current availability, capacity limitations, census, suitability by age, sex and special needs, and any related licensing and maltreatment investigations information accessible to DFCS county staff.
Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §I.5.: As explained above, the assessment did not
address the Settlement Agreement’s specific requirements, and thus a remedial plan was not developed during Period 1.182 Statewide placement resource information is maintained in
MACWIS and readily accessible; however, there is evidence indicating the data are not routinely reliable because of both programming and user limitations.183
181 Period 2 IP §§I.5.c.-d. 182 See supra p. 20 for a discussion of the assessment. 183 Indeed, defendants report that placement data are not always up-to-date or accurately reported in MACWIS. The incidence of inaccurate placement data reportedly increased due to the placements made pursuant to the Period 1 IP’s expedited relative home licensure requirement, which could not be tracked in MACWIS for most of Period 1. See Period 1 IP §II.B.5.i. and the related discussion infra p. 84.
55

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 60 of 105
Period 1 IP §I.6. I. Administration and Management Assessment and Implementation Steps
6. Case Recordings Defendants, in conjunction with COA, shall implement a system to regularly review whether DFCS child welfare case records are current, complete, made by authorized personnel only, signed and dated by the person who provided the service, and signed and dated by supervisors, where appropriate, in accordance with federal and state law and regulations.
Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §I.6.: This requirement was not met during Period 1
and as a result it is included in the Period 2 IP.184 However, defendants routinely review case
records as part of the administrative review process. These reviews include a determination
regarding whether some of the specific elements of the case record addressed by this requirement
are current and complete.185 Thus, it may be possible, without compromising the purpose of the
administrative review process, for the ongoing foster care reviews to serve as a foundation for
defendants’ efforts to meet these requirements.
Settlement Agreement §II.A.7. II. STANDARDS
A. Administration and Management Standards 7. Financial Management By the end of implementation Period 1: a. Defendants shall conduct an external assessment of actual and anticipated federal funding levels and create an implementation program to increase federal funding available to DFCS.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.A.7.a.: As addressed above, the required
assessment was not conducted during Period 1.186 It is now required to be performed during
Period 2 and will serve as the basis for the implementation plan to increase federal funding.187
184 Period 2 IP §I.6. 185 See Ex. 9A, MDHS, DFCS, Form 4253, Periodic Administrative Determination on Children in State’s Custody, revised July 1, 2008, which is the form used for the administrative case reviews that are conducted at six-month intervals for all in-custody cases; Ex. 9B, Foster Care Review Program, Periodic Administative [sic] Determination Concise Guide, the guidelines used to conduct the administrative case reviews. 186 An initial fiscal assessment conducted by COA during Period 1 is addressed supra p. 20-21. 187 Period 2 IP §I.7.a.
56

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 61 of 105
b. Funds realized as a result of revenue maximization activities shall not supplant appropriated state funds but shall be used in furtherance of the reforms and outcome measures provided for herein and to improve child welfare services.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.A.7.b.: As a predicate to assessing
compliance with this requirement, the external assessment required by §II.A.7.a. must be
completed, and a revenue maximization initiative must be instituted. Thus, this requirement is
included in the Period 2 IP.188
Period 1 IP §I.7. I. Administration and Management Assessment and Implementation Steps
7. Financial Management Defendants shall, in conjunction with COA, develop and begin implementing a written plan to meet the needs identified in the required Administration and Management Fiscal Assessment, including addressing any identified deficiencies in financial management practices.
Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §I.7.: As explained herein, the assessment conducted by
COA included several recommendations related to fiscal management.189 A written plan to
address these recommendations was not developed during Period 1.
Period 1 IP §II. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
Within 180 calendar days of Court approval of the Plan, Defendants, in conjunction with COA, shall identify and begin revision of DFCS policies and practice guides as necessary to reflect the COA foster care services standards and the requirements set forth in Section II.B of the Plan, and identify any related training needs.
Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §II.: The required review and revision process was
initiated during Period 1, but it was not completed. As a result, this requirement must be satisfied
during Period 2.190
This Period 1 requirement is based on the recognition that an initial step in the reform
process is for DFCS policies and practice guides to be consistent with the Settlement Agreement.
188 Id. §I.7.b. 189 Ex. 2, COA Assessment Report, supra note 37, at 22-23. 190 Id. §II.1.
57

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 62 of 105
The DFCS policy manual represents a lengthy compendium of policy directives that are, at times, inconsistent with each other and that evidence a reactive and piece-meal approach to policymaking. As described more fully below, defendants commenced a comprehensive review of DFCS policy during Period 1, and a related initiative to develop a practice model is proceeding on a corresponding track.191
In mid-January 2009, defendants engaged an experienced child welfare professional to coordinate the required policy review. The consultant was charged with drafting proposed revisions to existing policy; he was not tasked with revising related practice guides. The review and revision process is ongoing, and defendants predict that this project will be completed by September 30, 2009.
An inter-related project that defendants have initiated, which is not required by the Settlement Agreement, is the development of a practice model. To defendants’ credit, during early 2009, a national expert was engaged to work with DFCS on crafting a family-centered practice model and its implementation plan. Defendants have explained that the practice model will be based on the DFCS mission, goals and values, and serves as a framework for improving the quality of casework. It is intended to promote child safety, permanency and well being through integrated processes that guide casework. Various legal requirements related to DFCS case practice, including requirements imposed by the Settlement Agreement, are expected to be infused into the model. Defendants anticipate that the consultant will make recommendations about the infrastructure necessary to support the practice model, as part of a comprehensive set of recommendations that will be issued by September 30, 2009. It is anticipated that DFCS policy
191 These projects must be concluded in order for defendants to finalize the DFCS training curriculum for caseworkers and supervisors as addressed supra pp. 44-45.
58

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 63 of 105
and practice guides, as well as staff training curricula, will require further revision after the
practice model is completed.
Period 1 IP §II. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
Within nine months of Court approval, Defendants, in conjunction with COA or a COA designee, shall conduct a Foster Care Services Assessment, which shall include: a) A reunification services needs assessment, b) A termination of parental rights (TPR) assessment to identify those
children who have been in custody more than 15 of the previous 22 months and for whom DFCS has not filed a TPR petition or documented an available exception under the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) as required, c) A child safety assessment of DFCS practice prioritizing, screening, assessing, and investigating reports of maltreatment of children to determine the extent to which DFCS investigations and decisions are based on a full and systematic evaluation of the factors that may place a child at risk, d) A placement assessment of current needs for achieving compliance with the placement standards set forth in Section II.B.5 of the Plan, which shall include (1) the structure of the placement process, including the role and efficacy of the state office placement unit; (2) the services and supports available to support enhanced placement stability, including out-patient or in-home assessment and treatment services to avoid the frequent use of time-limited assessment and treatment placement programs; and (3) the placement resources needed to meet the placement needs of children in custody, e) An assessment of case practice associated with parent/child and sibling visitation to identify barriers to meeting the visitation standards set forth in Section II.B.6 of the Plan, f) A service provider needs assessment to identify available medical, dental, and mental health services and gaps in services, g) An assessment of the quality and array of independent living services available to foster children ages 14-20, and h) A recruitment and retention assessment to determine the need for additional foster care support services. COA may, at its discretion, refer to and utilize previous external assessments of DFCS in its completion of the above assessments.
Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §II.: The Period 1 assessments of foster care services
are intended to inform the next stage of the remedial process by providing the parties with
baseline data about key aspects of agency performance, including data related to case practices,
placements and the delivery of services to class members and their caregivers. The required
59

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 64 of 105
assessments were not conducted during Period 1, and are now, with certain modifications, required to be performed during Period 2.192
Period 1 IP §II.1. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
1. Screening and Assessment Within 180 calendar days of Court approval of the Plan, DFCS, in conjunction with COA, shall develop a protocol for both individual and family team meetings and develop a training module on such protocols that shall be incorporated into the pre-service and in-service training curricula.
Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §II.1.: As explained below, defendants made efforts to
develop the required protocols, but they were not finalized during Period 1. The Period 2 IP
requires the defendants to develop the protocols and to conduct the associated training during Period 2.193
Shortly after the Settlement Agreement was approved, defendants established a work
group structure to address various policy initiatives required by the Settlement Agreement,
including policy directives and other documents related to the 180-day COA standards. The
work groups were managed by the DFCS state office staff and included the agency’s managers, supervisors and other staff.194 A review of work group records, and interviews with work group
participants, indicate that many of the work groups made substantial efforts to respond to
assigned tasks, drafting policies and other documents for executive management review. Drafts
of family team meeting (“FTM”) and individual team meeting (“ITM”) protocols were developed
through the work group process during the 2008 calendar year; however, as of June 1, 2009, the
drafts were not finalized.
192 Period 2 IP §§II.2.a.-g. The Period 2 IP requires defendants to engage a qualified independent consultant approved by the Monitor to perform the required assessments. In May 2009, a consultant proposed by the defendants was approved by the Monitor. 193 Id. §II.3.a. 194 In some instances, external stakeholders participated on the work groups.
60

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 65 of 105
During early 2009, defendants reconfigured the management and composition of the work
groups to streamline the review process, promote efficiency, maximize available resources and
improve the coordination between and communication among the groups. At least preliminarily,
this effort has been encouraging. The draft FTM and ITM protocols that were developed by the
work groups in 2008 were revised in early February 2009. Drafts of the revised protocols have
been reviewed by DFCS senior management and COA representatives, and defendants report that
the protocols will be issued in final form in the near term.195
Period 1 IP §II.2. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
2. Service Planning and Monitoring The revised policies and practice guides shall require that each service plan and revision of such plan include the elements and meet the requirements of COA Standards PA-FC 2.06, 3.01, 3.04, and 3.05, as well as incorporate and track the child’s educational needs and goals.
Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §II.2.: A draft policy addressing Individual Service
Plans (ISPs) for adults and children was developed through the work group process and reviewed
by DFCS senior management and COA representatives. The policy was not finalized during
Period 1,196 and it is now required to be completed during Period 2.197
195 The most current drafts of the protocols that have been submitted to the Monitor are dated February 5, 2009. 196 The COA Standards cited by this provision include the following requirements:
PA-FC 2.06, Assessments are completed within timeframes required by the agency, and are updated periodically; PA-FC 3.01, A service plan is developed with the full participation of the child, the family and the foster parents; PA-FC 3.04, The service plan is based on the assessment and includes: service goals, desired outcomes, and timeframes for achieving them; services and supports to be provided, and by whom; and the signature of the parents and, when appropriate, the child or youth; PA-FC 3.05, The service plan addresses as appropriate: unmet service and support needs that impact safety, permanency and well being; maintaining and strengthening relationships; and the need for culturally responsive services and the support of the family’s informal social network. Council on Accreditation, Council on Accreditation Standards, Foster Care Services, 8th Ed., (2008) 197 Period 2 IP §II.4.
61

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 66 of 105
Period 1 IP §II.3.a.1.-2. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
3. Child and Youth Permanency a. Permanency Plan: The revised policies and practice guides shall require that:
1) All permanency plans contain specific information about: a) How the permanency goal will be achieved; b) What services are necessary to make the accomplishment of the goal likely; c) Who is responsible for the provision of those services; d) When the services will be provided; and e) The date by which the permanency goal is likely to be achieved.
2) All services documented in the case record as necessary for the achievement of the permanency goal are provided within the time period in which they are needed, by either providing those services directly, contracting with a private provider for those services, or referring to an existing service provider for the provision of those services.
Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §II.3.a.1.-2.: The policies and practice guides related to
permanency plans were not revised during Period 1, and as a result defendants are required to
completed the revisions during Period 2.198
Period 1 IP §II.3.c. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
3. Child and Youth Permanency c. Permanency Plan Updating and Review Defendants shall establish and begin implementing a system to facilitate a court review for every foster child within 12 months of initial placement and annually thereafter. That system shall include (1) tracking scheduled annual court reviews, and notifying the Youth Court with jurisdiction over the child of any reviews that need to be scheduled or re-scheduled so as to meet Plan requirements; (2) providing to the Youth Court with jurisdiction as ordered by the Court or no later than 30 calendar days before such a court review is due a detailed up-to-date report on the current status of the child’s placement, visitation, permanent plan progress, and service needs; and (3) ensuring that the child’s assigned caseworker or supervisor attends any such scheduled court review.
Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §II.3.c.: The system to facilitate court reviews for every
foster child within 12 months of initial placement and thereafter on an annual basis has not been
198 Id. §II.5.a.
62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 67 of 105
established. As explained below, defendants have made certain efforts to develop a component of the required system, but progress during Period 1 was limited.
Defendants report that their long-term plan for meeting this requirement is, in large part, contingent upon the daily transfer of accurate and complete MACWIS data to the Mississippi Youth Court Information Delivery System (“MYCIDS”), a management information system currently implemented in youth courts in 42 counties by the Mississippi Supreme Court through the Administrative Office of the Courts (“AOC”) and the Mississippi Court Improvement Program.199 According to AOC staff, as of April 2009, statewide implementation of MYCIDS was projected to occur within approximately 18 to 24 months. The expectation is that the required tracking of all court reviews and the timely filing of all required reports will be accomplished through an electronic interface between MACWIS and MYCIDS that will initially transfer specified DFCS case data on a daily basis, and ultimately result in the exchange of data between the two systems. As explained below, there are several obstacles to implementation of the interface that the defendants have been working to resolve.
During the latter part of 2006, MDHS staff and AOC staff started to formulate plans for the initial transfer of data from MACWIS to MYCIDS.200 The interface was piloted in Adams County during January 2009. There was one reported successful exchange of test data during January 2009. Other than this instance, as of April 2009, defendants were unable to successfully transfer MACWIS data to MYCIDS. According to both DFCS management and AOC staff, two
199 Ex. 10A, MYCIDS, Mississippi Youth Court Information Delivery System, Youth Court Case Management System – Overview, provides a more detailed description of the basic functions of MYCIDS. Ex. 10B, MYCIDS, February 26, 2009, annotated map of Mississippi provided by AOC staff showing, inter alia, current and proposed MYCIDS sites. 200 Ex. 10C, June 28, 2007 letter of understanding from Jaworski Davenport to Mike Jones and MYCIDS programming staff, reflecting defendants’ understanding of the initial plan for the data exchange. AOC staff report that the letter also reflects the AOC’s understanding of the agreement. The Monitor has reviewed a more detailed description of the business processes related to the interface, dated June 28, 2009, that was prepared by the Mississippi Supreme Court staff and the AOC staff.
63

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 68 of 105
factors have impeded the data transfers: 1) MACWIS, which is a main-frame based system, and MYCIDS, which is web-based, are not readily compatible; and 2) the data are not accurately or completely entered into MACWIS by DFCS staff.201
MDHS and DFCS management have afforded substantial time and resources to resolving this problem. Following the comment period on the draft version of this report, the Monitor was informed by the defendants that there has been very recent progress toward resolving some data transfer issues. In addition, defendants report that staff members from AOC and MDHS have finalized the terms of a memorandum of understanding (“MOU”) to clarify system and interface issues. Defendants expect the MOU to be executed in the near term. Defendants also report that, at times, caseworkers have been required by some Youth Court personnel and/or judicial officers, to enter data into MYCIDS on a manual basis and that this has inappropriately diverted DFCS staff from their casework duties at DFCS.202 It is anticipated that the MOU will define the appropriate roles and responsibilities of DFCS staff to clarify that their duties do not include the manual entry of data into MYCIDS.
The MACWIS assessment described above,203 is expected to include an evaluation of the MYCIDS/MACWIS interface and recommendations to facilitate implementation of the interface. The fact that the RFP will not be issued until September 2009 and the assessment will take a substantial period of time to complete, coupled with the fact that MYCIDS has not been implemented statewide, underscores the fact that the interface does not represent a viable shortterm strategy for promoting permanency by facilitating timely court reviews and adjudications.
201 Defendants report that data had not been entered in some mandatory fields. 202 The Monitor has not had an opportunity to determine the prevalence of such practices, but there is at least some evidence which suggests that this has occurred in more than one isolated instance. 203 The assessment defendants are planning is described supra p. 54.
64

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 69 of 105
Until the interface can be implemented on a statewide basis, defendants indicate that a short-term alternative is being developed. DFCS managers report that courts routinely set two hearing dates per year to account for the annual permanency hearing and case review. There are no tickler mechanisms in MACWIS to alert caseworkers to past-due or pending hearing dates and MACWIS does not have the current capacity to generate the reports necessary to track hearing dates in individual cases. A request for MACWIS to issue such reports is being processed, but defendants do not anticipate the reports can be generated until February 2010. DFCS management reports that practices for tracking hearing dates and delivering case reports to the courts are not uniform throughout the State. They recognize that a standardized system to ensure that hearings are conducted on a timely basis is needed and is not currently being implemented. Defendants are required to develop an interim resolution to these issues during Period 2.204
Period 1 IP §II.3.d. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
3. Child and Youth Permanency d. Reunification Services Defendants shall, in conjunction with COA, develop and begin implementing a written plan to meet the needs identified in the required Foster Care Services Reunification Needs Assessment, with specific steps and timetables for addressing gaps in the availability of effective services.
Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §II.3.d.: As indicated above, the foster care reunification needs assessment was not completed during Period 1; thus, the written plan has not been developed.205 Defendants are required to develop and begin implementing the plan during Period 2.206
204 Period 2 IP §II.5.b. 205 The formulation of the plan should benefit as a result of input from the new DFCS management team as noted supra p. 6. 206 Period 2 IP §II.5.c.
65

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 70 of 105
Period 1 IP §II.3.e. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
3. Child and Youth Permanency e. Termination of Parental Rights/Special Permanency Reviews For each child who has been, or reaches, more than 15 of the previous 22 months in foster care, for whom DFCS has not filed a TPR petition or documented an available ASFA exception, DFCS shall begin holding special permanency reviews. Such reviews shall include the DFCS caseworker, the caseworker’s direct supervisor, and at least one individual with expertise in permanency planning who has not held direct casework or supervisory responsibility for the case. The review will produce a written plan of action setting forth the steps to be taken by DFCS, the contract agency, and/or any other provider of services, in order to move the child to permanency as quickly as possible. Such permanency reviews shall be documented in the child’s case record, and reconvened monthly until all barriers to permanency have been resolved, a TPR petition has been filed, or an available ASFA exception has been documented in the child’s case record.
DFCS shall begin the implementation of a “tickler” system for notifying caseworkers and caseworker supervisors when a case assigned to them has reached the following milestones: 12 months after a child entered custody; 30 calendar days after the establishment of adoption as the primary permanency goal; 30 calendar days after a TPR referral has been made; and, 10 calendar days after a TPR packet has been returned to DFCS because of a legal deficiency.
Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §II.3.e.: Neither the special permanency reviews nor
the required tickler system were instituted during Period 1, and as a result these requirements are
included in the Period 2 IP.207 The defendants’ progress is described below.
Adaptations to MACWIS that are needed to implement the tickler system and to identify
each of the children and youth who are eligible for the special permanency reviews are being
developed.208 As of April 23, 2009, the modifications to MACWIS had not been completed.
These limitations, like other limitations in MACWIS, have a significant impact on defendants’
ability to allocate resources and effectively manage their efforts to address the requirements in
this subsection and other case practice and processing requirements in this case.
207 Id. §II.5.d. 208 MACWIS is designed currently to transmit a tickler to the caseworker ten months after a child has entered custody in preparation for the 12-month permanency hearing.
66

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 71 of 105
The Adoption and Safe Families Act (“ASFA”),209 includes safeguards to ensure child welfare systems focus on permanent placements for children in foster care. Among other mandates, ASFA requires that when a child has been in foster care for any 15 of the past 22 months, the state must file a petition to terminate parental rights unless one of the following exceptions applies: 1) the child is being cared for by a relative; 2) the state has documented a “compelling reason for determining that filing such a petition would not be in the best interests of the child;”210 3) or, if applicable, the state has not provided the timely services deemed necessary, as documented in the case plan, to safely return the child to the home.211
In order to effectively manage the process and allocate the resources necessary for conducting the special permanency reviews, defendants must identify all children who have been in custody for 15 of the most recent 22 months for whom a TPR petition has not been filed or for whom an ASFA exception has not been documented. However, MACWIS does not have the current capacity to identify each of these children, and a viable alternative method for identifying and tracking is not in place. MACWIS undercounts the children in DFCS custody for 15 of the most recent 22 months because it only identifies children who have been in custody for a consecutive 15-month period immediately prior to the date of each MACWIS report. In addition, although it sorts this group into three categories (i.e., those who have been legally freed for adoption; those for whom a request to file a TPR petition has been made; and those for whom a request to file a TPR petition has not been made), it does not distinguish whether any of the children for whom a TPR petition has not been filed has a documented ASFA exception in their case records.
209 42 U.S.C. 670. 210 Compelling reasons include a determination that is supported by the evidence that adoption is not an appropriate goal for the child. 45 CFR §1356.21(i)(2)(ii)(A). 211 42 U.S.C. §675(5)(E).
67

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 72 of 105
These limitations have significant implications for case processing, case management and resource allocation. By its express terms, this subsection of the Period 1 IP requires that three staff members – the caseworker, the caseworker’s direct supervisor and at least one additional individual with expertise in permanency planning – participate in each special permanency review on a monthly basis in each case implicated by this requirement until all barriers to permanency are resolved, a TPR petition is filed, or an available ASFA exception is documented in the individual case record. Absent the ability to track and accurately account for each child who is required to have a permanency review, through MACWIS or otherwise, defendants cannot allocate the staff and other resources needed to conduct the reviews, or for that matter, avert the need to conduct at least some reviews by ensuring that the required TPR requests are initiated on a timely basis.
A review of recent reports generated by MACWIS for four counties with the highest caseloads indicates that as of March 14, 2009, there was a combined total of 480 children in custody for the previous 15 consecutive months in the four counties.212 As described above, MACWIS cannot identify which, if any, of these children have a documented ASFA exception in their case records, nor can it identify the other children, if any, in these counties who were in custody for any non-immediate and non-consecutive 15-month period within the past 22 months. In order to effectively plan and appropriately allocate the resources needed to undertake the required reviews in these counties – much less the resources needed to implement the plans generated by the reviews – DFCS managers must know the number of cases that are subject to
212 Ex. 11A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Median Case Processing Times for Certain Children in Custody for 15 Consecutive Months Ending on March 14, 2009 in Four Counties with the Highest Caseloads, based on MACWIS report MWZ0141B, reflecting that there were a total of 480 children and youth in the four counties who had been in custody for 15 consecutive months immediately preceding the report date and this sum was distributed as follows: Forrest County, 74; Harrison County, 122; Hinds County, 131; and Jackson County, 153.
68

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 73 of 105
the reviews. If most of the 480 case records have documented ASFA exceptions, the staffing and
other resources needed to conduct the special permanency reviews will be very different than the
staffing and other resources needed if none of them do. Moreover, the available MACWIS data
show substantial variance in case processing times both within and between the four counties.213
A determination of the factors that contribute to these variances is crucial to developing effective
strategies for accelerating case processing on a systemic basis.
The evidence indicates that programming MACWIS to capture and report accurately on
the data fields relevant to this subsection will not in itself yield the accurate and complete data
that can be relied upon to ensure the required permanency reviews are conducted. Defendants
regularly discover cases of children in care that should have been opened, but were not opened in
MACWIS, as well as cases of children in care that should have been closed, but were not closed,
in MACWIS.214 The delays in opening and closing cases on a timely basis often appear to be
protracted and are attributed by defendants to user errors, supervision failures and limitations or
malfunctions in MACWIS. To their credit, defendants recognize and are working to address
these issues which affect the accuracy of data derived from MACWIS statewide.
213 Id.; Ex. 11B, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Certain Case Processing Times for Children in Custody for 15 Consecutive Months Ending on March 14, 2009, by Child, Forrest County, based on MACWIS report MWZ0141B; Ex. 11C, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Certain Case Processing Times for Children in Custody for 15 Consecutive Months Ending on March 14, 2009, by Child, Harrison County, based on MACWIS report MWZ0141B; Ex. 11D, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Certain Case Processing Times for Children in Custody for 15 Consecutive Months Ending on March 14, 2009, by Child, Hinds County, based on MACWIS report MWZ0141B; Ex. 11E, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Certain Case Processing Times for Children in Custody for 15 Consecutive Months Ending on March 14, 2009, by Child, Jackson County, based on MACWIS report MWZ0141B. 214 See, e.g., Ex. 11F, excerpt from April 24, 2009 report, DFCS Performance Improvement Unit/Foster Care Review, MWZ078RB, April 4, 2009, Region 2-W, case record shows child emancipated on November 6, 2008, but supervisor states that as of February 12, 2009, MACWIS would not permit the case to be closed; Ex. 11G, excerpt from April 24, 2009 report, DFCS Performance Improvement Unit/Foster Care Review, MWZ078RB, April 4, 2009, Region 3-S, five cases listed as open in MACWIS that should have been closed but were not, one additional case that supervisor claimed staff tried but were unable to close, and case in which the child came into custody on August 1, 2008 but the case was not entered into MACWIS until March 16, 2009; Ex. 11H, excerpt from April 24, 2009 report, DFCS Performance Improvement Unit/Foster Care Review, MWZ078RB, April 4, 2009, Region 7-East, five cases listed in MACWIS as open that should have been closed but were not.
69

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 74 of 105
Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.f. II. STANDARDS
B. Foster Care Service Standards 3. Child and Youth Permanency f. Adoption
The Settlement Agreement’s Period 1 requirements related to adoption addressed
licensure requirements designed to minimize placement disruptions and facilitate timely
adoptions; the process for notifying prospective adoptive families of the availability of adoption
subsidies; post-adoptive services; staffing requirements; and protocols for adoption meetings.
By the end of implementation Period 1: 3) DFCS shall provide and maintain an approval process by
which foster parents and adoptive parents may be approved simultaneously, so that whenever possible and appropriate, placement moves can be minimized and foster parents can be eligible to adopt the children for whom they have been providing foster care. A foster parent who has been providing foster care for a child for 12 months shall be given preference as an adoptive parent for that child should he/she become legally available for adoption, unless DFCS documents why the placement is unsuitable for adoption.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.f.3.: The current approval process is
in large part consistent with the general spirit of this Period 1 requirement, but the related policy
and practice guides will require certain modifications that are described more fully below.
On October 29, 2007, defendants finalized a resource family licensure policy that is
currently in effect.215 The policy, which is supplemented by a Resource Family Licensure
Guide,216 appears to provide for the same screening, interview, home study, training and
background check processes for foster and adoptive families, thereby enabling foster parents to
readily become adoptive parents. However, contrary to the requirements of this subsection, the
policy could be interpreted to give a preference to the foster parent as an adoptive parent when
215 Ex.12A, MDHS, DFCS, Bulletin 6115, Final Rule Resource Family/Licensure Policy, October 29, 2007 [hereinafter Resource Family Licensure Policy]. 216 MDHS, DFCS, Resource Family Licensure Practice Guide, September 2007. The 70-page practice guide is not included in the Appendix, but copies will be provided to the Court and the parties, upon request.
70

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 75 of 105
the child has been in the resource home for six months or more.217 As required by both the
Period 1 and Period 2 IPs,218 the policy and the practice guide must be reviewed, and revised, as
appropriate, to conform to the requirements in this case.219
4) DFCS shall implement and maintain a process for advising all potential adoptive families, including any foster family caring for a child who has become legally available for adoption, of the availability of adoption subsidies. This notification shall be documented in the child’s record, and the family’s access to such subsidies shall be facilitated.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.f.4.: As explained below, this
requirement was not satisfied during Period 1. Defendants are now required to meet the
requirements of this subsection during Period 2.220
According to current DFCS policy governing the licensure of resource families, adoption
subsidies will be considered if the following eligibility criteria are satisfied:221 1) a written court
order states it was in the child’s best interest to be removed from her/his family and the child
cannot or should not be returned home; 2) the child is determined by DFCS to have one or more
special needs;222 3) the child has significant emotional ties with the resource family, if the child is
217 Ex. 12A, Resource Family Licensure Policy supra note 215, §XVII. at 4532. 218 Period I IP §II.; Period 2 IP §II.1. 219 The policy and related practice guide will require substantive review and revision. Compare, e.g., Settlement Agreement, §II.B.5.b. (requiring that “[n]o foster home shall provide care for more than three foster children or for a total of more than five children [including foster, biological and adoptive children] at any given time.”) with Ex. 12A, Resource Family Licensure Policy, supra note 215, §VII.J. at 4511. (DFCS policy, in relevant part, states: “[t]he Resource Parent/s shall provide foster care for no more than six (6) foster children in their home at any given time. . . . The parent/s shall care for no more than eight (8) children 18 years of age and under, including the Resource Parents own biological or adopted children.”). 220 Period 2 IP §II.5.e.6. 221 Ex. 12A, Resource Family Licensure Policy, supra note 215, §XX at 4536, in relevant part states: “[a]doption Subsidy is designed as a supplemental financial benefit to assist families adopting an eligible child with special needs who would be unlikely to be adopted otherwise. The purpose of the Adoption Subsidy is to reduce financial barriers that may impede the special needs of the child toward an opportunity to be adopted. [sic] The child must be determined eligible for Adoption Subsidy by the Resource Specialist and approved by the Resource Family ASWS. If the Adoptive Family is willing to adopt a special needs child without financial supplement, children can be adopted without subsidy.” 222 Id. The policy describes six categories of special needs: 1) physical disability; 2) mental (I.Q. of 70 or less), emotional and/or developmental (25 percent delay) disability; 3) child is six years old or older; 4) two or more siblings are placed together, even if at different times; 5) medical conditions; 6) factors in the child’s or the child’s
(continued…) 71

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 76 of 105
being adopted by the resource family; 4) reasonable but unsuccessful efforts were made to place
the child without the adoption subsidy.223 Although the relevant DFCS policy and practice
guides address the availability of adoption subsidies, the processes for notifying potential
adoptive families of the availability of such subsidies, and how they can be obtained, are not
clearly set out in the policy, the practice guide, or on the DFCS website.224
Adoptive parents are notified of the availability of the subsidies during the training that
DFCS sponsors for resource families.225 However, the subsidy eligibility criteria described in the
training curriculum is not fully consistent with the related DFCS policy and practice guides.226
Finally, neither the policy nor the practice guides address documentation of the notification in the
child’s case record. MACWIS does not have the capacity to track and report on the notice
requirement, and efforts to expand the system’s capacity to do so were not undertaken during
Period 1.227
5) DFCS shall establish and maintain a system of post-adoptive services to stabilize and maintain adoptive placements. All adoptive families eligible for adoption subsidies shall have access to these services, which shall include respite services; counseling, mental health treatment, and crisis intervention; family preservation and stabilization services; and peer support.
biological family’s background or medical history, place the child at risk of acquiring a medical condition, a physical, mental or developmental disability or an emotional disorder. The licensure policy recognizes that such factors may include, an unknown parent, abandoned children and safe babies. However, the eligibility criteria set forth in the licensure policy are generally but not fully consistent with the eligibility criteria listed in the DFCS policy manual section that addresses this matter. Compare Ex. 12B, MDHS, DFCS Policy Manual, Volume IV, excerpt, Adoption Services, Adoption Assistance, Section F [hereinafter DFCS Policy Manual] at 4603-4604 with Ex. 12A, Resource Family Licensure Policy, supra note 215, §XX at 4536. 223 Ex. 12A, Resource Family Licensure Policy, supra note 215, §XX at 4538. 224 See, e.g., Ex. 12C, excerpts from MDHS, DFCS, September 2007 Resource Family Licensure Practice Guide; Ex. 12D, DFCS Website, Opt to adopt…, http://www.mdhs.state.ms.us/fcs_adoptall.html (last visited April 11, 2009). 225 The training is referred to as the “PATH” (Parents as Tender Healers) Training. 226 Compare Ex. 12E, excerpts from MDHS, DFCS, Mississippi PATH (Parents as Tender Healers), Participant’s Handbook, A Curriculum for Foster, Adoptive and Kinship Care Parents (Resource Families), with Ex. 12A, Resource Family Licensure Policy, supra note 215, §XX at 4536-4538 and Ex. 12B, DFCS Policy Manual, supra note 222, §F at 4603-4604. 227 See generally supra pp. 53-55 for the efforts undertaken to address the MACWIS capacity issues.
72

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 77 of 105
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.f.5.: As explained below, the
Monitor has not had an opportunity to complete the assessment related to this requirement.
Defendants have provided certain post-adoptive services intended to stabilize and
maintain adoptive and foster placements for children with special needs through a contract with a private agency during Period 1.228 Services have been coordinated by the agency’s seven
permanency specialists who work in consultation with DFCS staff to facilitate, and in certain
instances deliver, the following types of services statewide: crisis management; respite; an on-
call telephone service; resource coordination, including inter-agency collaboration and
information and referral services; parent and family training; and, supportive services, including
family support groups, a quarterly newsletter, an informational website and a lending library. In
additions, the private agency has provided case management and referral services. Referrals for
more intensive home-based therapeutic services have been made by DFCS to two providers with whom DFCS maintains contracts to serve a combined total of 235 family cases per year.229
The Monitor has not had an opportunity to assess whether the contractual capacity to
deliver post-adoptive services provides meaningful access to all required services for all eligible
families. In addition, the Monitor has not had an opportunity to determine whether eligible families receive adequate notice of the availability of post-adoptive services.230 The Monitor
expects to assess both matters and report to the Court and the parties, as appropriate.
228 Ex. 12F, proposed scope of work incorporated into contract for post-adoptive services, Southern Christian Services for Children and Youth, Inc. [hereinafter SCS], Harden House Adoption/Foster Care Program, Partners in Permanency, Goals, Objectives, Indicators, Outcomes. 229 Ex. 12G, scope of services excerpted from contract for family preservation services, Youth Villages, Inc., January 1, 2009-September 30, 2009 (family preservation services for up to 75 family cases statewide); Ex. 12H, scope of services excerpted from contract for family preservation services, Mississippi Children’s Home Society, October 1, 2008-September 30, 2009 (family preservation services for up to 160 family cases statewide). 230 DFCS staff and contractors have indicated that adoptive families receive notification regarding the availability of services in bulletins that are mailed with the adoption subsidy checks. The Monitor has not yet confirmed this practice or determined whether such notification is adequate.
73

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 78 of 105
Period 1 IP §II.3.f. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
3. Child and Youth Permanency f. Adoption Within 180 calendar days of Court approval of the Plan, DFCS, in conjunction with COA, shall define the job description, responsibilities, and qualifications for the position of adoption specialist. The adoption specialist responsibilities shall include consulting with private and public professionals and identifying and ensuring the provision of targeted services necessary for the child to be adopted.
DFCS shall implement and maintain a process for making legal risk placements that assures that children for whom the permanency plan is adoption, but who are not yet legally free for adoption, are placed in appropriate adoptive homes.
DFCS shall take reasonable steps to hire (or promote) and train a sufficient number of adoption specialists to meet the adoption requirements of Section II.B.3.f of the Plan. Adoption status meetings consistent with the Plan will start being held by the end of Period 1.
Within 180 calendar days of Court approval of the Plan, DFCS, in conjunction with COA, shall develop a protocol for adoption meetings, which are to be held to review the progress being made in achieving the goal of adoption for legally free children.
Within a year of Court approval of the Plan, DFCS shall have identified external adoption consultants who DFCS can contract with to provide adoption recruitment assistance to children who have been free for adoption for six or more months and who are not yet placed in an approved adoptive home.
Status of Progress, Period I IP §II.3.f.: These requirements were not satisfied during
Period 1 and as a result the defendants are now required to satisfy these requirements during
Period 2.231 The defendants’ progress is summarized below.
A job description for adoption specialists was not developed during Period 1. Instead,
defendants report that a job description for resource specialists was developed. The job
description was set out in a draft document that did not include the qualifications for the
position.232 According to the draft, the resource specialist is responsible for, among other duties,
231 Period 2 IP §§II.5.e.1.-5. 232 Ex. 13A, MS State Personnel Board, Performance Appraisal Review Report, Resource Specialist, revised draft, June 2008.
74

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 79 of 105
recruiting resource families (i.e., foster and adoptive families), planning and conducting training
for all resource families, performing resource home licensure activities, providing retention
services to resource homes, as well as providing adoption and adoption preparation services.
Defendants have explained that the resource specialist position was intended by the former
MDHS management to satisfy the requirements for the adoption specialist position. However,
given the recognized need for the required positions, and the fact that the Period 1 requirements
prescribed a specialized and intensive function that could not be satisfied by the dual role
defendants established for the resource specialists, defendants are required to establish the adoption specialist positions during Period 2.233
In addition to the job description for resource specialists, a protocol for adoption status meetings was finalized and transmitted to DFCS managers and staff on August 18, 2008.234 The
protocol refers to the duties of the resource specialist, but it is inconsistent with the Settlement
Agreement’s requirements regarding adoption meetings. Defendants are required to revise the protocol during Period 2.235 Because external adoption consultants with whom DFCS could contract were not identified during Period 1,236 and because the parties recognize that the process
governing legal risk placements would benefit from clarification, both requirements must be satisfied during Period 2.237
233 Period 2 IP §II.5.e.1. 234 Ex. 13B, MDHS, DFCS, Bulletin 6176, Protocol for Adoption Status Meetings, August 18, 2008. 235 Period 2 IP §II.5.e.2. 236 Defendants do not currently contract for adoption consultants. DFCS receives limited external consultation at no cost through a private agency which handles a maximum caseload of 12 to 15 children in DFCS custody. The private agency, SCS, has been operating this program since 2006 through a grant from the Dave Thomas Foundation. A description of the program is included in Ex. 13C, SCS, Wendy’s Wonderful Kids, A Signature Program of the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption. The program, which finalized seven adoptions during 2008, limits its caseload to referrals received directly from MDHS pursuant to a November 15, 2007 letter agreement. Ex. 13D, November 15, 2007 correspondence to Ms. Rita Sorenon from Donald R. Taylor and Susannah K. Cherney. 237 Period 2 IP §II.5.e.3., 5.
75

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 80 of 105
Settlement Agreement §II.B.4. II. STANDARDS
B. Foster Care Service Standards 4. Child Safety
The Period 1 IP included a series of requirements that were intended to promote child safety during the initial stages of the remedial process before many of the systemic reforms required by the Settlement Agreement would be instituted. As explained below, progress toward meeting these Period 1 requirements was slower than anticipated. However, since the latter part of 2008, there have been certain advancements. Because these requirements were not completed during Period 1, they are incorporated into the Period 2 IP.238
In order to determine baseline measurements for performance related to some of the requirements in this subsection, the Monitor will be conducting a systematic case record review of a representative statewide sample of child protection investigation and licensure records.239 As noted above,240 the Monitor has developed an initial draft of the case record review instrument which will be provided to the parties for comment in the near term. After the instrument is finalized, it will be field tested, and revised, if indicated. Thereafter, the Monitor will develop a training curriculum for the reviewers. The Monitor plans to establish a review team of independent reviewers who will partner with DFCS case reviewers. This collaboration is intentional and designed to promote the agency’s capacity to self-monitor. The findings from the case record review process will be presented to the parties and filed with the Court. The Monitor anticipates the review will be conducted during the current calendar year and followed by a much broader review of the case records of individual class members.241
238 Id. §II.6. 239 Based on preliminary data, it appears that over 200 sets of case records will need to be reviewed. 240 The case record review process is addressed supra pp. 11-12. 241 See supra pp. 11-12.
76

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 81 of 105
The progress defendants have made toward meeting the Period 1 child safety
requirements that can be assessed independently of the case record review process is described
below.
By the end of implementation Period 1: d. DFCS shall assure that standardized decision-making criteria are
used for prioritizing, screening, and assessing all reports of maltreatment, including corporal punishment, of children in DFCS custody.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.4.d.: This requirement was not satisfied during Period 1 and as a result it must be completed during Period 2.242 Defendants
made progress toward building the capacity necessary to meet this requirement by introducing
the first phase of a centralized intake system during Period 1. The full implementation of the required centralized intake system,243 which is now required to occur during Period 2, is likely to have a significant impact upon the intake screening and assessment process.244 Defendants are
required to modify the screening and assessment process by revising relevant policy and practice
guides to incorporate centralized intake protocols and to otherwise conform the process for
screening and assessment of reports of maltreatment to the other requirements of the Settlement Agreement during Period 2.245
e. All investigations into reports of maltreatment, including corporal punishment, of children in DFCS custody must be initiated within 24 hours and completed within 20 calendar days, including supervisory approval. DFCS shall assure that such investigations and decisions are based on a full and systematic evaluation of the factors that may place a child in DFCS custody at risk.
242 Period 2 IP §II.6.b. 243 See Period 1 IP §II.4. for the Period 1 requirement governing centralized intake and the related discussion infra pp. 81-82. 244 This is a pivotal requirement that must be completed during Period 2. 245 See Ex. 14, MDHS, DFCS, Bulletin No. 6103, Revised Final Rule – Intake, Screening and Assessment, April 12, 2007, establishing current DFCS policy. The related practice guidelines, Intake and Investigation Child Abuse and Neglect, October 2006, provide guidance to staff.
77

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 82 of 105
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.4.e.: The Monitor’s assessment of
defendants’ performance is not complete. DFCS policy was not consistent with this Period 1
requirement, and instead required the caseworker to complete an investigation within 25 days of
the date of assignment, and the supervisor to make an approval decision within five days thereafter.246 The Period 2 IP requires maltreatment investigations to be to completed within 30 calendar days.247 The Monitor will assess the timeliness of maltreatment investigations involving
children in custody during the case record review process described above. In addition, the
Monitor expects to review and evaluate corresponding MACWIS data. These matters will be
addressed in the Monitor’s report regarding the findings of the case record reviews.
f. Any foster child who remains in the same out-of-home placement following an investigation into a report that he or she was maltreated, or subject to corporal punishment, in that placement shall be visited by a DFCS caseworker twice a month for three months after the conclusion of the investigation to assure the child’s continued safety and well-being.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.4.f.: This requirement is included in the Period 2 IP.248 Defendants’ performance will be evaluated through the case record review
process and the results, including an evaluation of the accuracy of the corresponding MACWIS
data, will be addressed in the Monitor’s report on the findings of the case record reviews.
g. When a maltreatment investigation involves a foster home, DFCS shall file a copy of the approved final investigative report, and any recommendations and/or corrective actions DFCS has deemed necessary, in the case record of the foster child, in the file of the foster or adoptive parents with a copy of the letter of notification to the foster or adoptive parents, and in the DFCS State Office. DFCS shall also provide those records to the Youth Court Judge with jurisdiction over the child and to the Monitor.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.4.g.: Defendants’ performance will be
evaluated through the case record review process, and addressed in the Monitor’s report on the
246 Id. at 2022, 2024. 247 Period 2 IP §II.6.g. 248 Id. §II.6.h.
78

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 83 of 105
findings derived from the case record reviews. Additionally, the Monitor has not routinely received the final approved investigative reports. Defendants have indicated that they are working to improve the distribution process to ensure such reports are transmitted to the Monitor in a timely fashion. However, despite several assurances that the reports would be forthcoming, they have not been transmitted to the Monitor on a regular basis. This requirement is addressed in the Period 2 IP.249 Moreover, defendants have not established a centralized system for connecting maltreatment investigations with the corresponding final investigative reports. The Monitor has encouraged the defendants to adopt such a system.
h. When a maltreatment investigation involves an agency group home, emergency shelter, private child placing agency foster home, or other facility licensed by DFCS, a copy of the final investigative report shall be filed in the child’s case record, in the facility licensing file, and in the DFCS State Office. DFCS shall provide the report to the Youth Court Judge with jurisdiction over the child and to the Monitor.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.4.h.: Defendants’ performance will be evaluated through the case record review process, and the results will be addressed in the Monitor’s report on the findings derived from the case record reviews. Like the investigative reports involving allegations of maltreatment in foster homes, the Monitor has not routinely received the final approved investigative reports involving maltreatment investigations in congregate and other settings. As noted above, defendants have indicated that they are working to improve the distribution process to ensure such reports are transmitted to the Monitor in a timely fashion. The Period 2 IP requires defendants to do so.250
i. DFCS shall undertake a special safety review, including an unannounced site visit, of all currently licensed foster homes with two or more reports of maltreatment, including corporal punishment, within the last three years to determine whether any children placed in those homes are at risk of harm
249 Id. §II.6.i. 250 Id. §II.6.j.
79

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 84 of 105
and any licensing standards related to child safety are not being met. Any necessary corrective actions will be identified and tracked.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.4.i.: As explained below, the special safety reviews were initiated during Period 1, but they were not completed. Defendants are required to complete the reviews during Period 2.251
In order to move forward on this initiative, during the latter part of 2008, the defendants recruited two new staff members for the CQI unit who began working at DFCS on January 6, 2009. Shortly thereafter, a draft of a safety review instrument was developed in consultation with two consultants from the Training Academy at USM’s School of Social Work.252 The safety reviews were piloted on March 12, 2009. At that time, a preliminary list drawn from MACWIS identified 14 foster homes meeting the criterion for review. As of April 14, 2009, 11 reviews were completed. Because the initial list of homes targeted for review did not constitute an exhaustive list of all foster homes implicated by this requirement, a more comprehensive list of the homes subject to this requirement was developed. As of May 14, 2009, the reviews were ongoing and defendants were making continued efforts to identify each of the homes subject to this requirement.
j. DFCS shall undertake a special safety review, including an unannounced site visit, of all group homes and other residential facilities that house children in custody with three or more reports of maltreatment, including corporal punishment, within the last two years to determine whether any children placed in those facilities are at risk of harm and any licensing standards related to child safety are not being met. Any necessary corrective actions will be identified and tracked.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.4.j.: Defendants did not initiate the special safety reviews of group homes and other residential facilities until April 28, 2009, shortly before the end of Period 1. As a result, defendants are required to complete the required reviews
251 Id. §II.6.e. 252 Plaintiffs’ counsel and the Monitor commented on the draft during February 2009.
80

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 85 of 105
during Period 2.253 The safety review instrument was developed as part of the process that was
used to develop the instrument for the foster home safety reviews. As of April 14, 2009, a list of
congregate settings subject to the review had not been generated; however, an initial list was
produced shortly thereafter. Defendants are making ongoing efforts to identify the congregate
facilities that are subject to this requirement.
Period 1 IP §II.4. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
4. Child Safety Within 30 calendar days of Court approval of the Plan, Defendants shall instruct all DFCS staff that as mandated reporters they are required to formally report any suspicions of maltreatment, including corporal punishment, of children in custody.
Defendants, in conjunction with COA, shall revise DFCS policies and procedures for screening and investigating reports of child maltreatment, including corporal punishment, to incorporate the child safety standards and requirements set forth in Section II.B.4 of the Plan.
Within 180 calendar days of Court approval of the Plan, all calls to the hotline shall immediately be entered into the statewide computer information system, and the worker or supervisor receiving the report shall use the information system to determine whether there have been prior reports of abuse and/or neglect in that family or concerning that child.
If a report is screened in, information regarding any prior reports shall immediately be made available to the worker to whom the case has been assigned for investigation.
Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §II.4.: As explained below, except for the processing of
screened-in reports which will be evaluated during the case record review process, the evidence
shows the defendants made progress in certain areas but did not meet these requirements during
Period 1. As a result, they must be completed during Period 2.254
Defendants issued a policy bulletin on January 24, 2008 to instruct all DFCS staff that as
mandated reporters they were required to formally report any suspicions of maltreatment,
253 Id. §II.6.f. 254 Id. §II.6.a., c., d.
81

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 86 of 105
including corporal punishment, of children in custody. The bulletin did not meet the requirements of this subsection because it was limited to maltreatment reports in resource homes and not in other types of settings.255 DFCS has not revised its policies and procedures for screening and investigating reports of maltreatment in conjunction with COA to incorporate the child safety standards set forth in Section II.B.4. However, it is anticipated the relevant policies and procedures will be revised as part of the ongoing policy and practice guide review process that was initiated in Period 1 and now required to be completed in Period 2.256
Defendants are in the process of phasing in a 24-hour statewide hotline for reporting child abuse and/or neglect.257 The Period 2 IP requires implementation of the hotline by September 1, 2009.258 A centralized hotline that receives and records all abuse and/or neglect reports statewide will help to ensure that all maltreatment reports are entered into MACWIS on a timely basis, screened by trained and experienced staff in an appropriate manner through the consistent application of a structured process, and according to best practice standards.
Currently, the initial intake for reports of child abuse and/or neglect is performed during business hours by staff in each of the DFCS county offices. Until recently, evening and weekend coverage was rotated on a monthly basis among the seven former DFCS regions. All regions shared one cellular telephone that was used to receive all after-hours and weekend reports of abuse and neglect. In December 2008, a private vendor assumed responsibility for staffing a centralized after-hours and weekend hotline. Defendants view this contract as a necessary step toward implementing the 24-hour centralized hotline.
255 Ex. 15, MDHS, DFCS, Bulletin 6154, Mandatory Reporting Requirement, January 24, 2008. 256 This process is described supra pp. 57-58. 257 Settlement Agreement §II.B.4.a. 258 Period 2 IP §II.6.d.
82

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 87 of 105
In March 2009, defendants provided plaintiffs’ counsel and the Monitor with a draft RFP
for a 24-hour centralized hotline that is intended to meet the Settlement Agreement’s
requirements. The Monitor and plaintiffs’ counsel provided comments on the draft. The RFP
was subsequently issued, and defendants report that the contract is expected to be awarded by
July 2009. Assuming this schedule is maintained, the hotline will be operational within the
timeline established by the Period 2 IP.
During the case record review process, the Monitor will evaluate the requirement in this
subsection pertaining to the immediate dissemination of information regarding prior
maltreatment reports to the caseworker who is assigned to conduct the investigation. Thereafter,
the Monitor will report on her findings, as appropriate.
Settlement Agreement §II.B.5. II. STANDARDS
B. Foster Care Service Standards 5. Child Placement By the end of implementation Period 1: i. All foster care settings, including relative placements, shall be screened prior to the initial placement of foster children to ensure that children receive safe, sufficient, and appropriate care. Additional screens shall be completed at least once annually thereafter and within two weeks of a reported change in the residents of a foster home. Screens shall include criminal and child welfare background checks of all household members who are at least 14 years old. No foster child shall be placed in a home prior to DFCS receipt of the background check results.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.5.i.: Defendants revised the DFCS
policy related to this subsection during August 2008259 in an effort to address this requirement,260
259 Ex. 16A, MDHS, DFCS, Bulletin 6199, Expedited Resource Home Licensure, August 18, 2008 (prohibiting the placement of foster children in any “home” prior to receipt of background check results); Ex. 16B, MDHS, DFCS, Bulletin 6177, Criminal History and Background Checks, August 14, 2008 (addressing requirements related to initial and subsequent criminal and child welfare background checks for “applicants or household members”). 260 The revised policy may be narrower than intended by this requirement which distinguishes between all foster care settings and resource homes. Ex. 16A distinguishes between foster care settings and resource homes, and by its terms prohibits placement in a “home” – as opposed to all other foster care settings – prior to receipt of the background check results. Ex. 16B appears to be limited to criminal history and background checks in resource homes as opposed to in all foster care settings. The policy distinguishes between “applicants” and “household
(continued…) 83

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 88 of 105
which has been incorporated into the Period 2 IP.261 The Monitor will assess screening and
placement policies and practices related to this subsection during the case record review process
and report on her findings as appropriate.
j. DFCS shall develop and implement an expedited process for licensing screened relative caregivers to enable a child to be placed quickly with relatives upon entering placement. All relative placements approved for expedited placement shall undergo the full licensing procedure within 120 calendar days of the child’s placement in the home.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.5.j.: Defendants revised the DFCS
licensure policy during August 2008, in an effort to address this requirement,262 which has been
incorporated into the Period 2 IP.263 The Monitor will assess policies and practices related to this
subsection during the case record review process and report on her findings as appropriate.
k. No foster child shall remain in an emergency or temporary facility for more than 45 calendar days, unless, in exceptional circumstances, the Division Director has granted express written approval for the extension that documents the need for the extension.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.5.k.: Defendants’ current policy is
inconsistent with this requirement.264 The Period 2 IP includes the requirements in this
members” and could be read to require the application of different standards, at least insofar as the criminal history requirements, for applicants and household members. The revised policy also modified the October 29, 2007 resource family licensure policy, Ex. 12A, Resource Family Licensure Policy, supra note 215, at 4510, by limiting the potential for exclusion as a child care provider or Resource Family to those with felonies, rather than misdemeanors, and providing that all other convictions will be considered on a case-by-case basis. In addition, the August 14, 2008 policy limits the requirement for a background check to those over 14 years of age. Further, the new policy provides for annual background screening for all household members and a background screening within two weeks for anyone over 14 years of age who moves into the household. 261 Period 2 IP §II.7.a. 262 Ex. 16A. This policy requires a completed criminal and child welfare background check prior to a relative placement. The policy is not clearly written. It appears to require a home visit and assessment based on use of the safety checklist and a face-to-face contact. It is unclear whether the child can be placed in the home after the safety checklist and background checks are completed, but before a required face-to-face contact. In addition, the policy does not specify with whom the face-to-face contact should be made: the child or the relative or both. 263 Period 2 IP §II.7.c. 264 Ex. 16C, MDHS, DFCS, Bulletin No. 5921, Emergency Shelter Extensions, December 8, 2004 (including, among other inconsistencies, a 90-day threshold for prior written approval by the Division Director).
84

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 89 of 105
subsection.265 The Monitor will assess policies and practices concerning the length of stay in
emergency or temporary placements during the case record review process and report on her
findings as appropriate.
Period 1 IP §II.5. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
5. Child Placement Within 90 calendar days of Court approval of the Plan, DFCS shall implement a formalized mechanism to provide foster parents with all appropriate and available information about a child prior to or at the time of placement and for supplementing that information as further information is gathered.
Defendants shall develop and begin implementing a plan with specific action steps and timeframes to address policy and structural changes to the placement process that the placement assessment has identified as necessary to comply with the placement requirements set forth in Section II.B.5 of the Plan. That plan shall also include the development of the position of placement specialists in each region, and a protocol for the placement stability meetings that the Plan requires that DFCS hold when a worker has knowledge that a placement is at risk of disruption.
Defendants, in conjunction with COA, shall develop and begin the implementation of a written plan to ensure the speedy licensing of all current unlicensed caregivers to be phased in by the end of the second implementation period.
Within 180 days of Court approval of the Plan, no foster child entering custody will be placed in an unlicensed relative placement, subject to the allowance of the emergency licensing process that allows 120 days for the licensing process to take place.
Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §II.5.: These requirements were not satisfied during
Period 1. The defendants have not developed a formalized mechanism to provide foster parents
with all appropriate and available information prior to or at the time of placement and for
supplementing that information as further information is gathered. The required plans to address
policy and structural changes to the placement process, and to ensure the speedy licensing of
unlicensed caregivers, have not been developed. Moreover, defendants report substantial
265 Period 2 IP §II.7.f.
85

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 90 of 105
difficulty achieving timely licensure of unlicensed relative placements. Defendants are now required to meet these requirements during Period 2.266
Period 1 IP §II.6. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
6. Developing and Maintaining Connections Defendants will develop and begin implementing a written plan to address the barriers identified in the visitation practice assessment.
Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §II.6.: The required plan was not developed during
Period 1.
Period 1 IP §II.7. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
7. Physical and Mental Health Care Defendants shall, in consultation with state Medicaid and mental health officials, develop and begin implementing specific and focused regional plans to recruit and develop service providers in areas identified in the needs assessment as having gaps in required services.
Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §II.7.: The required plans were not developed during Period 1. Defendants are now required to meet these requirements during Period 2.267
Defendants initiated a strategic planning process during the latter part of Period 1 that includes
aspects of the required inter-agency consultative process. These efforts are expected to serve as
the foundation for the planning and implementation process required by this subsection.
Period 1 IP §II.8. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
8. Educational Services DFCS shall develop and implement a protocol for conducting a general and special education screen of children entering foster care.
DFCS shall develop and begin implementing a plan for providing, either directly or through contract, the following educational services in each county: tutoring, preparation for a general equivalency diploma (GED), and college preparation.
266 Id. §II.7.b., c., e., j. 267 Id. §II.9.
86

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 91 of 105
Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §II.8.: Neither the protocol nor the plan were developed
during Period 1. Defendants are now required to meet these requirements during Period 2.268
Period 1 IP §II.10. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
10. Worker Contact and Monitoring Defendants’ revised policies and practice guides shall reflect the issues to be addressed during worker contacts with parents, children, and foster care providers. Defendants shall revise DFCS training as necessary to ensure instruction on the quality, frequency, purpose, and structure of meeting with foster children, biological parents, and foster care providers. The training shall specifically address communicating with, interviewing, and observing foster children.
Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §II.10.: Policies and practice guides were developed
through the work group process during 2008, but remained in draft form during Period 1.
Defendants are required to finalize the policies and practice guides during Period 2.269
Period 1 IP §II.11. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
11. Transition to Independent Living Defendants shall develop and begin implementing a written plan to address identified independent living service gaps.
Defendants shall develop and begin implementing a system for ensuring that emancipating youth have obtained, prior to transitioning to independent living, the necessary documents and information identified in the COA standards for such youth.
DFCS will develop for each region the capacity and current resource guides necessary to assist youth in locating and/or enrolling in educational or vocational programs appropriate to their needs, interests, abilities, and goals, such as high school or GED programs; colleges or universities; vocational training programs; and special education services.
Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §II.11.: As summarized below, defendants made
progress but did not meet these requirements during Period 1. They are required to do so during
Period 2.270
268 Id. §II.10. 269 Id. §II.11. 270 Id. §II.12.
87

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 92 of 105
Until recently, the independent living program did not have a permanent director.
Statewide two DFCS employees have managed the program. Their efforts have been augmented
by a contract with a private provider for nine staff members who have been deployed statewide to
deliver independent living services for youth who are 14-20 years of age.271 A limited aftercare
program has been available for emancipated youth.272
The required assessment of independent living services was not completed during Period
1, and the written plan to address independent living service gaps was not finalized. Initial work
on the assessment commenced in 2008, including the development of a survey instrument to
assess the needs of transitioning youth. The requisite system for ensuring that emancipating
youth have received, prior to transitioning to independent living, the documents and information
identified in COA standards, has not been implemented. Defendants revised the statewide
resource guide that is used by the independent living program during 2008.273 It provides general
information on colleges and technical and vocational schools, as well as job training programs.
The resource guide also includes information for accessing crisis intervention and other hotlines,
somatic and mental health services and social service programs.
Settlement Agreement §II.B.13. II. STANDARDS
B. Foster Care Service Standards 13. Recruitment and Retention of Foster Families and Therapeutic Service Providers e. By January 2008, Defendants shall establish and begin to pay to all licensed resource families at least the following basic monthly foster care maintenance payments plus an $80 monthly clothing allowance: for each child ages 0-3, $350; for each child ages 4-5, $355; for each child ages 6-9, $355 + $30 child allowance; for each
271 Among other services, the contractor provides strengths/needs-based assessments that are used to develop individual independent living plans as well as counseling and mentoring. A full description of the services delivered by the contractor is included in Ex. 17A, SCS, P.R.E.P.A.R.E. Independent Living Handbook. Independent living skills classes in topics such as employment, money management and housing are also provided as part of a standardized curriculum described more fully in Ex. 17B, SCS, “Just Wait”/P.R.E.P.A.R.E. Curriculum Guide. 272 The aftercare program is described in Ex. 17C, SCS, Independent Living Aftercare Services, Prepare Program. 273 Ex. 17D, MDHS, Resource Guide for Living Independently in Mississippi, revised 2008.
88

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 93 of 105
child ages 10-12, $360 + $40 child allowance; for each child ages 13-15, $370 + $50 child allowance; for each child ages 16-21, $370+ $60 child allowance.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.13.e.: A policy directive that meets
these requirements was issued on October 16, 2008.274 Defendants report the policy is being
implemented. The Monitor has not had an opportunity to independently verify these
representations, but plans to do so and report on her findings, as appropriate.
g. Defendants shall, within 180 days of the Court’s approval of the Plan, engage a qualified independent consultant to assess board payment rates currently being paid to foster parents caring for special needs foster children and to congregate care facilities to determine the extent to which those rates meet the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 675(4)(A) and reflect the actual cost of caring for special needs foster children and children placed in congregate care facilities, including the necessary and reasonable costs of facility administration and operation. The selection of the independent consultant shall be subject to approval by the Monitor; said approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.13.g.: On January 20, 2009,
defendants preliminarily selected an independent consultant to conduct the required assessment
of board payment rates. The consultant was approved by the Monitor and the contract was
finalized during February 2009.
h. Within a year of Court approval of the Plan, the consultant shall deliver to the Parties and the Monitor a written report setting forth (1) findings regarding the adequacy of the current schedule of foster care maintenance payments made to foster care providers serving special needs children and facilities providing congregate foster care in relation to the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 675(4)(A) and the actual cost in the state of Mississippi to provide such care; (2) the methodology utilized to determine the actual costs in the state of Mississippi to provide such care; and (3) a schedule of recommended rates for foster care providers serving special needs children and facilities providing congregate foster care. Plaintiffs shall have 30 days to raise any written objection to the schedule of recommended rates as determined by the consultant. Should Plaintiffs raise objections and should the Parties be unable to reach agreement, the consultant’s schedule and Plaintiffs’ objection shall be submitted to the Court for final determination.
274 Ex. 18A, MDHS, DFCS, Bulletin 6216, Resource Board Payment Breakdown, October 16, 2008. The policy provides for each child ages 0-5, $355; for each child ages 6-8, $355 plus $30 child allowance; for each child ages 912, $360 plus $40 child allowance.
89

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 94 of 105
Status of Progress, Settlement Agreement §II.B.13.h.: Due to the delay in engaging
the consultant, the written report was not finalized during Period 1. The Period 2 IP requires the
rate-setting assessment to be completed by November 1, 2009.275
Period 1 IP §II.13. II. Foster Care Services Assessment and Implementation Steps
13. Recruitment and Retention of Foster Families and Therapeutic Service Providers
Defendants shall develop and begin implementing a written plan for targeted recruitment and development of a range of family and facility placements that will adequately meet the placement needs of the foster care population as identified by DFCS’s previous regional selfassessments and the assessment required herein.
Defendants shall develop and begin implementing a written plan to provide services for foster parents in every county to prevent and reduce stress and family crisis.
In consultation with Mississippi foster parents, DFCS shall identify additions and revisions to the current foster parent training curriculum that are necessary to adequately train foster parents to meet the needs of the children placed in their care. Foster parent training classes based upon the revised curriculum shall be available in every region.
DFCS shall implement a system of dual foster/adopt licensing and any necessary policy and practice changes to prevent the underutilization of licensed and approved foster families.
DFCS shall create a resource family workgroup (consisting of staff and resource families) to develop and implement resource family practices and protocols that address the types of information that should be provided to resource families prior to taking a child into the home, what type of training is needed, what emergency procedures need to be in place for resource families, what strategies are effective in recruiting, and how resource families can be included in case planning.
DFCS shall regionalize its recruitment and retention efforts, and for each region have in place a stakeholder recruitment and retention team to identify local needs and develop and implement plans for recruiting, supporting, and utilizing foster and adoptive parents.
Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §II.13.: With the exception of a dual licensing program,
which was introduced in 2007,276 the initiatives related to the recruitment and retention of foster
275 Period 2 IP §II.14.a.; see also Ex. 18B, MDHS, DFCS, Center for the Support of Families, Inc., Practice Model/Rate Setting Analysis, Scope of Services.
90

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 95 of 105
families and therapeutic service providers were not undertaken during Period 1. Defendants are required to meet each of the above-listed requirements during Period 2.277
Period 1 IP §III.A. III.A. Council on Accreditation Standards
These COA standards are applicable to children in custody and are to be implemented within 180 days of Court approval of the Mississippi Settlement Reform Plan. [standards omitted]
Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §III.A.: The Period 1 IP required the defendants to implement, within 180 days of Court approval of the Settlement Agreement, a series of COA standards, including standards related to human resource planning, employee and client rights, grievance procedures, and intake screening. COA found that defendants met the 180-day standards on March 15, 2009.278 The fact that there has been a COA determination that the standards have been met does not necessarily mean that the standards are being implemented. Rather, it means that the defendants have proffered sufficient documentation of policies and procedures that are consistent with the specified COA standards.
COA conducted several site visits during the 2008 calendar year to assess defendants’ capacity to become accredited.279 These site visits included interviews with MDHS and DFCS managers and staff, interviews with pubic and private child welfare system stakeholders, visits to several regional and county offices, and reviews of a limited number of child welfare case records. In addition, during the first quarter of 2008, COA assigned a child welfare expert to coordinate the accreditation process and to consult with the defendants on a regular basis regarding their efforts to meet the 180-day standards. Defendants’ initial efforts to meet the 180-
276 See Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.f.3. and the related discussions supra pp. 70-71. 277 Period 2 IP §§II.14.b.-f. 278 Ex. 19A, March 15, 2009 e-mail from James J. Mooney to Jenni Murray (noting that the final 180-day deliverable requirements had been satisfied). 279 Ex. 2, COA Assessment Report, supra note 37.
91

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 96 of 105
day standards evidenced some significant shortcomings.280 As a result, defendants restructured
their internal management of the accreditation process, centralizing coordination of accreditation-
related activities in a DFCS staff member who reports directly to the MDHS deputy director.
The preliminary evidence suggests that this has contributed to certain improvements, including a better managed and coordinated internal process.281
COA representatives have attended various meeting with the parties and the Monitor and
have collaborated with the parties on the development of the Period 2 IP. During Period 2,
defendants are required to meet a host of COA accreditation standards at staggered intervals.
Period 1 IP §III.B. III.B. Council on Accreditation Standards
These COA standards are applicable to children in custody and are to be implemented within 365 days of Court approval of the Mississippi Settlement Reform Plan. [standards omitted]
Status of Progress, Period 1 IP §III.B.: The defendants did not meet the 365-day COA
standards during Period 1. Defendants are working on an ongoing basis with COA
representatives in order to satisfy the 365-day standards, and they are required to do so during Period 2.282
V. CONCLUSION
The pace of defendants’ progress during Period 1 did not match the Settlement
Agreement’s required timetable. Nonetheless, as outlined in this report, there have been some
significant accomplishments, and several key capacity-building initiatives have been instituted.
280 Ex. 19B, June 4, 2008 memorandum to Kate McMillin from Reid Scher regarding initial deliverable review; Ex. 19C, September 29, 2008 memorandum to Don Thompson, Lori Woodruff, Rusty Fortenberry and Kenya Key Rachal from Reid Scher, addressing the adequacy of certain written submissions that were revised to respond to the result of the June 4, 2008 deliverables review. 281 See, e.g., Ex. 19D, MDHS-DFCS, COA Quarterly Report, January through March 2009 for a summary of the initiatives defendants have undertaken to better coordinate accreditation activities. 282 The Period 2 IP annotates the COA standards to designate each of the 365-Day Standards. See, e.g., Period 2 IP at 26, PA-FC 4.01.
92

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 97 of 105
However, in order to meet the Settlement Agreement’s substantive requirements and timelines,
the defendants need to accelerate and intensify their efforts to build the capacity to support the
reform effort and address long-standing challenges. DFCS has significant strengths, including a
leadership team of experienced child welfare professionals and a committed workforce that care
deeply about the children in DFCS custody. Defendants recognize the challenges they must
resolve and are working to address some of the most serious obstacles to the reform process.
Assuming the achievements contemplated by the Period 1 IP are accomplished in the near term,
defendants will have many of the tools necessary to realize and sustain significant progress. The
Monitor looks forward to more substantive advancement during Period 2.
Respectfully submitted,
/s Grace M. Lopes___________ Grace M. Lopes, Court Monitor 1350 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 232-8311 gmlopes@oymonitor.org
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 5, 2009, I electronically filed with the Court, using the ECF system, the foregoing Court Monitor’s Report to the Court Regarding Defendants’ Progress Toward Meeting Period-1 Requirements, which sent notification of filing to the following:
Dewitt L. (“Rusty”) Fortenberry Jr., Esq. Kenya Key Rachal, Esq. Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC 428 I-55 North Meadowbrook Office Park Jackson, Mississippi 39211
93

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 98 of 105

Harold E. Pizzetta, III, Esq. Assistant Attorney General General Civil Division Carroll Gartin Justice Building 430 High Street Jackson, Mississippi 39201
Marcia Robinson Lowry Shirim Nothenberg Jessica Polansky Children’s Rights 330 Seventh Avenue New York, New York 10001
W. Wayne Drinkwater, Jr., Esq. Bradley Arant Rose & White LLP 188 East Capitol Street, Suite 450 Jackson, Mississippi 39201
Stephen H. Leech 618 Crescent Boulevard, Suite 103 Ridgeland, MS 39157 P.O. Box 3623 Jackson, Mississippi 39207
John Lang, Esq. Christian Carbone John Piskora Loeb & Loeb LLP 345 Park Avenue New York, New York 10154

/s Grace M. Lopes_________

94

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 99 of 105

The Court Monitor’s Report to the Court Regarding Defendants’ Progress Toward Meeting Year-One Requirements Index to Exhibits

Ex. 1A

State Level Citizen Review Board, DFCS Five-Year Plan Review and Recommendations, June 14, 2002, excerpt

Ex. 1B

Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children’s Services, Child and Family Service Review, Statewide Self Assessment, December 2003, excerpt

Ex. 1C

Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children’s Services, Child and Family Service Review, Program Improvement Plan, March 24, 2005, excerpt

Ex. 1D

Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children’s Services, FY 2004 Budget Request, August 2, 2002, excerpt

Ex. 1E

Deposition Transcript, March 16, 2006, testimony of Peter Boulette, director, Division of Budgets and Accounting, Mississippi Department of Human Services, excerpt

Ex. 1F

Table submitted on September 26, 2008 to Grace M. Lopes by Peter B. Boulette, director, Division of Budgets and Accounting, Mississippi Department of Human Services

Ex. 1G

S.B. 2495, 2007 Leg. Reg. Sess. (MS. 2007), supplemental appropriation for FY 2007

Ex. 1H

Mississippi Department of Human Services, Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Request, Division of Family and Children’s Services, excerpt

Ex. 1I

Office of the Governor, Executive Budget Recommendation for Fiscal Year 2010, November 17, 2008

Ex. 1J

Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children’s Services, Title IV-E Program Improvement Plan, February 2009

Ex. 2

Council on Accreditation, Mississippi Department of Family and Children’s Services, Accreditation Readiness Assessment, Part 1, July 21, 2008

Ex. 3

Resume of Lori Lynn Woodruff

Ex. 4A

Resume of Michael Gallarno

Index - 1

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 100 of 105

Ex. 4B Ex. 4C Ex. 4D Ex. 5A Ex 5B Ex. 5C Ex. 5D Ex. 5E Ex. 5F Ex. 5G Ex. 5H
Ex. 5I
Ex. 5J

Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children’s Services, regional map, approved November 20, 2008
Mississippi Department of Human Services – Division of Family and Children’s Services, Reorganization and Non-Budgeted Upward Reallocations
Resume of Linda Millsap
Kiran Chawla, DHS Takes Hot Seat, WJTV, December 15, 2008
Julie Goodman, Social Workers: Kids Endangered, The Clarion-Leader, April 24, 2002,
Julie Goodman, DHS, An Agency in Crisis, The Clarion-Leader, June 3, 2002
Patrice Sawyer and Julie Goodman, DHS, An Agency in Crisis, The Clarion-Leader, June 1, 2002
Beth Musgrave, Understaffed DHS is Failing Our Children; Harrison Co. Says Money Solves Only Part of the Problem, The Sun Herald, January 19, 2003
State Personnel Board, Class Establishment, Reclassification Authority, and Selection Exemption, effective November 1, 2008
Deposition Transcript, June 21, 2005, testimony of Teressa Jackson, former Division of Family and Children’s Services, director of administration, excerpt
Chart of Number of Authorized, Funded and Filled Caseworker Positions, by Year, January 2004-March 2009, prepared by Office of the Court Monitor based on April 13, 2009 data produced from Personnel Unit, Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children’s Services
Chart of Number of Filled and Vacant ASWS Positions, by Year, January 2004-March 2009, prepared by Office of the Court Monitor based on April 13, 2009 data produced from Personnel Unit, Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children’s Services
Draft – Reporting Workload Summary, August 18, 2008, excerpt

Index - 2

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 101 of 105

Ex. 5K
Ex. 5L Ex. 5M
Ex. 5N Ex. 5O Ex. 6 Ex. 7A Ex. 7B Ex. 7C Ex. 7D Ex. 8 Ex. 9A Ex. 9B

Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor based on MACWIS Report No. MWASAW9D, Washington County, Average Number of Hours Worked on Casework Per Week, by Caseworker, February 1-28, 2009, redacted version
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor based on MACWIS Report No. MWASA9S2, Number of Caseworkers, by County, by Number Exceeding Caseload Requirements, February 1-28, 2009
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor based on MACWIS Report No. MWASA9S2, Percentage of Caseworkers Working with Caseloads that Exceed more than 6960 Minutes, by County, February 128, 2009
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor based on MACWIS Report No. MWZPWKRB, December 1- December 31, 2008, Ratio of Workers to Supervisors, By Counties
DHS – Area Social Work Supervisor – Position Description
University of Southern Mississippi, School of Social Work, Training Academy, Social Work Education Among MDHS Employees, October 6, 2008
Resume of Denise Brown-Rouse
MDHS Administrative Policy-AP-19, Staff Training and Employee Development Policy, January 1, 1993
Training Unit Newsletter, December 2008
Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children’s Services, Child Welfare Professional Development Unit Newsletter, Volume 1, Issue 1, January 2009
Personnel/Master Training, Personnel Menu Functions and Screens, Personnel/Employee Detail, screen shots from MACWIS Desk Reference Guide – V1.3, Revised August 14, 2008, Training Director Copy
Mississippi Department of Human Services, DFCS Form 4253, Periodic Administrative Determination on Children in State’s Custody, revised July 1, 2008
Foster Care Review Program, Periodic Administative (sic) Determination Concise Guide

Index - 3

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 102 of 105

Ex. 10A Ex. 10B Ex. 10C Ex. 11A Ex. 11B Ex. 11C Ex. 11D Ex. 11E Ex. 11F Ex. 11G Ex. 11H

MYCIDS, Mississippi Youth Court Information Delivery System, Youth Court Case Management System – Overview
MYCIDS, February 26, 2009, map showing current and proposed MYCIDS sites
June 28, 2007 letter of understanding from Jaworski Davenport to Mike Jones and MYCIDS programming staff
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor based on MACWIS Report No. MWZ0141B, Median Case Processing Times for Certain Children in Custody for 15 Consecutive Months Ending on March 14, 2009 in the Four Counties with the Highest Caseloads
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor based on MACWIS Report No. MWZ0141B, Certain Case Processing Times for Children in Custody for 15 Consecutive Months Ending on March 14, 2009, by Child – Forrest County, redacted version
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor based on MACWIS Report No. MWZ0141B, Certain Case Processing Times for Children in Custody for 15 Consecutive Months Ending on March 14, 2009, by Child – Harrison County, redacted version
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor based on MACWIS Report No. MWZ0141B, Certain Case Processing Times for Children in Custody for 15 Consecutive Months Ending on March 14, 2009, by Child – Hinds County, redacted version
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor based on MACWIS Report No. MWZ0141B, Certain Case Processing Times for Children in Custody for 15 Consecutive Months Ending on March 14, 2009, by Child – Jackson County, redacted version
MACWIS Report No. MWZ078RB, Listing of Children Currently in Custody with a Conference Date More Than 6 Months Overdue, Region 2-W, April 4, 2009, redacted version
MACWIS Report No. MWZ078RB, Listing of Children Currently in Custody with a Conference Date More Than 6 Months Overdue, Region 3-S, April 4, 2009, redacted version
MACWIS Report No. MWZ078RB, Listing of Children Currently in Custody with a Conference Date More Than 6 Months Overdue, Region 7-East, April 4, 2009, redacted version

Index - 4

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 103 of 105

Ex. 12A Ex. 12B Ex. 12C Ex. 12D Ex. 12E Ex. 12F
Ex. 12G Ex. 12H Ex. 13A Ex. 13B Ex. 13C Ex. 13D

Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children’s Services, Bulletin 6115, Final Rule Resource Family/Licensure Policy, October 29, 2007
Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children’s Services Policy Manual, Adoptive Services, Adoption Assistance, Volume IV, excerpt, revised May 1, 1999
Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children’s Services, Resource Family Licensure Practice Guide, September 2007, excerpts
Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children’s Services, Opt to Adopt website home page
Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children’s Services, Mississippi PATH (Parents as Tender Healers), Participant’s Handbook, excerpts
Southern Christian Services for Children and Youth, Inc., Harden House Adoption/Foster Care Program, Partners in Permanency, Goals, Objectives, Indicators, Outcomes (proposed scope of work incorporated into contract)
Youth Villages, Inc., Family Preservation Service Contract, Scope of Services, January 1- September 30, 2009
Mississippi Children’s Home Society, Family Preservation Program, Scope of Services, October 1, 2008 – September 30, 2009
MS State Personnel Board, Performance Appraisal Review Report, Resource Specialist, revised draft, June 2008
Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children’s Services, Bulletin 6176, Protocol for Adoption Status Meetings, August 18, 2008
Southern Christian Services for Children and Youth, Inc., Wendy’s Wonderful Kids, A Signature Program of the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption
November 15, 2007 correspondence to Rita Sorenon from Donald R. Taylor and Susannah K. Cherney

Index - 5

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 104 of 105

Ex. 14 Ex. 15 Ex. 16A Ex. 16B Ex. 16C Ex. 17A Ex. 17B Ex. 17C Ex. 17D Ex. 18A Ex. 18B Ex. 19A Ex. 19B Ex. 19C

Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children’s Services, Bulletin No. 6103, Revised Final Rule – Intake, Screening and Assessment, April 12, 2007
Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children’s Services, Bulletin 6154, Mandatory Reporting Requirement, January 24, 2008
Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children’s Services, Bulletin 6199, Expedited Resource Home Licensure, August 18, 2008
Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children’s Services, Bulletin 6177, Criminal History and Background Checks, August 14, 2008
Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children’s Services, Bulletin No. 5921, Emergency Shelter Extensions, December 8, 2004
Southern Christian Services for Children and Youth, Inc., P.R.E.P.A.R.E. Independent Living Handbook
Southern Christian Services for Children and Youth, Inc., “Just Wait”/P.R.E.P.A.R.E. Curriculum Guide
Southern Christian Services for Children and Youth, Inc., Independent Living Aftercare Services, Prepare Program
Mississippi Department of Human Services, Resource Guide for Living Independently in Mississippi, revised 2008
Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children’s Services, Bulletin 6216, Resource Board Payment Breakdown, October 16, 2008
Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children’s Services, Center for the Support of Families, Inc., Practice Model/Rate Setting Analysis, Scope of Services
March 15, 2009 e-mail from James J. Mooney to Jenni Murray
June 4, 2008 memorandum to Kate McMillin from Reid Scher
September 29, 2008 memorandum to Don Thompson, Lori Woodruff, Rusty Fortenberry and Kenya Key Rachal from Reid Scher

Index - 6

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-JCS Document 488 Filed 06/05/2009 Page 105 of 105

Ex. 19D

MDHS-DFCS COA Quarterly Report, January through March 2009

Index - 7

 
 Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 1 of 251

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION

OLIVIA Y., et al.

PLAINTIFFS

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:04CV251LN

PHIL BRYANT, as Governor of the State of Mississippi, et al.

DEFENDANTS

______________________________________________________________________________

THE COURT MONITOR’S REPORT TO THE COURT REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD 3 AND THE JUNE 24, 2013 ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________

Table of Contents, Report Narrative, Index to Exhibits, Appendix A: Exhibits 1 - 61, and Appendix B: Exhibits 1 - 62E

May 8, 2014

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 2 of 251

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.

BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ..................................................3

A. Background ...............................................................................................................6 B. Summary of Findings ..............................................................................................12

Summary Table: Statewide Performance...............................................................24 Summary Table: Practice Model Performance ......................................................30

II.

METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................38

III. FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................41

A. Statewide Requirements........................................................................................41

Period 3 Implementation Plan (“IP”) §I.A.1.a. ......................................................41 Period 3 IP §I.A.1.b. ..............................................................................................41 Period 3 IP §I.A.1.c. ..............................................................................................42 Period 3 IP §I.A.1.d. ..............................................................................................43 Modified Settlement Agreement (“MSA”) §§II.A.2.a.8. and II.A.2.a.9.a.............44 MSA §II.A.2.a.9.b..................................................................................................55 MSA §II.A.2.a.9.c. ................................................................................................59 MSA §II.A.2.a.9.d. ................................................................................................60 Period 3 IP §I.A.2.a. ..............................................................................................61 Period 3 IP §§I.A.2.b. and I.A.2.c.3. .....................................................................63 Period 3 IP §I.A.2.c.1. ...........................................................................................67 Period 3 IP §I.A.2.c.2. ...........................................................................................69 Period 3 IP §I.A.2.c.4. ...........................................................................................70 Period 3 IP §I.A.2.c.5.............................................................................................72 Period 3 IP §I.A.2.c.6. ...........................................................................................73 MSA §II.A.2.c.6.a. ................................................................................................75 MSA §II.A.2.c.6.b. ................................................................................................78 MSA §II.A.2.c.6.c. ................................................................................................79 Period 3 IP §I.A.3.a.1. ...........................................................................................82 Period 3 IP §I.A.3.a.2. ...........................................................................................82 Period 3 IP §I.A.3.a.3. ...........................................................................................83 Period 3 IP §I.A.3.a.4. ...........................................................................................83 Period 3 IP §I.A.3.b.1. ..........................................................................................85 Period 3 IP §I.A.3.b.2. ...........................................................................................85 Period 3 IP §I.A.3.c.1. ...........................................................................................86 Period 3 IP §I.A.3.c.2. ...........................................................................................86 Period 3 IP §I.A.3.c.3. ...........................................................................................86 Period 3 IP §I.A.3.c.4. ...........................................................................................87 MSA §II.A.2.d.2.a. ................................................................................................87 MSA §II.A.2.d.2.b. ...............................................................................................88

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 3 of 251
Period 3 IP §I.A.4. ................................................................................................89 Period 3 IP §I.B.1. .................................................................................................92 Period 3 IP §I.B.2. .................................................................................................93 Period 3 IP §I.B.3. .................................................................................................97 Period 3 IP §I.B.4. .................................................................................................97 Period 3 IP §I.B.5. .................................................................................................97 Period 3 IP §I.B.6. .................................................................................................98 Period 3 IP §I.B.7. .................................................................................................98 Period 3 IP §I.B.8. .................................................................................................98 Period 3 IP §I.B.9. .................................................................................................99 Period 3 IP §I.B.10. ...............................................................................................99 Period 3 IP §I.B.11. ...............................................................................................99 Period 3 IP §I.B.12. .............................................................................................100 Period 3 IP §I.B.13. .............................................................................................100 Period 3 IP §I.B.14. .............................................................................................100 Period 3 IP §I.B.15. .............................................................................................101 Period 3 IP §I.B.16. .............................................................................................101 Period 3 IP §I.B.17. .............................................................................................101 Period 3 IP §I.B.18.a. ..........................................................................................101 Period 3 IP §I.B.19. .............................................................................................103 Period 3 IP §I.C. ..................................................................................................103 MSA §II.A.5.c.1. .................................................................................................104 MSA §II.A.5.c.2. .................................................................................................106 MSA §II.A.5.c.3. .................................................................................................108 MSA §II.A.5.c.4. .................................................................................................109 Period 3 IP §I.D.1.a.-c. .......................................................................................111 Period 3 IP §I.D.2. ..............................................................................................111 Period 3 IP §I.D.3. ...............................................................................................112 Period 3 IP §I.D.4. ..............................................................................................112 Period 3 IP §I.E. ..................................................................................................113 Period 3 IP §I.F.1. ...............................................................................................113
Requirement 1, July 12, 2012 Agreement Regarding Enhancement of Federal Funding ......................................................................................115 Requirement 1a. .........................................................................................115 Requirement 1b. .........................................................................................116 Step 2, July 12, 2012 Agreement Regarding Enhancement of Federal Funding ......................................................................................117 Requirement 2a. .........................................................................................117 Requirement 2b. .........................................................................................118 Requirement 2c. .........................................................................................118 Requirement 3, July 12, 2012 Agreement Regarding Enhancement of Federal Funding ......................................................................................118 Step 4, July 12, 2012 Agreement Regarding Enhancement of Federal Funding ..........................................................................................119 Requirement 4a. .........................................................................................119 Requirement 4b. .........................................................................................120
ii

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 4 of 251
Requirement 4c. .........................................................................................121 Step 5, July 12, 2012 Agreement Regarding Enhancement of Federal Funding ..........................................................................................121 Requirement 5a. .........................................................................................121 Requirement 5b. .........................................................................................122 Requirement 6, July 12, 2012 Agreement Regarding Enhancement of Federal Funding ......................................................................................122 Requirements 6 a.-e. ..................................................................................123 Period 3 IP §I.F.2. ...............................................................................................124 MSA §II.A.6.b.2. ................................................................................................124 MSA §II.A.7.e.1. .................................................................................................125 Period 3 IP §II.A.1. .............................................................................................127 Period 3 IP §II.A.2.a.-c. ......................................................................................128 Period 3 IP §II.A.3.a.-e. ......................................................................................128 Period 3 IP §II.A.4. .............................................................................................128 Period 3 IP §II.B.1.a. ..........................................................................................129 Period 3 IP §II.B.1.b. ..........................................................................................130 Period 3 IP §II.B.1.c. ..........................................................................................130 Period 3 IP §II.B.2.a. ..........................................................................................131 Period 3 IP §II.B.2.b. ..........................................................................................131 Period 3 IP §II.B.3.a.-d. ......................................................................................132 Period 3 IP §II.B.4.a.1.-3. ...................................................................................133 Period 3 IP §II.B.4.b. ..........................................................................................135 Period 3 IP §II.B.5.a. ..........................................................................................140 Period 3 IP §II.B.5.b. ..........................................................................................141 Period 3 IP §II.B.5.c. ..........................................................................................141 Period 3 IP §II.B.5.d ............................................................................................141 Period 3 IP §II.B.5.e. ..........................................................................................142 Period 3 IP §II.B.5.f. ...........................................................................................142 MSA §II.B.1.e.1. .................................................................................................142 MSA §II.B.1.e.2. .................................................................................................144 MSA §II.B.1.e.3. .................................................................................................145 MSA §II.B.1.e.4. .................................................................................................146 MSA §II.B.1.e.5. .................................................................................................147 MSA §II.B.1.e.6. .................................................................................................148 Period 3 IP §II.C.1. .............................................................................................149 Period 3 IP §II.C.2. .............................................................................................151 Period 3 IP §II.C.3.a.-e. ......................................................................................152 Period 3 IP §II.C.4. .............................................................................................154 MSA §II.B.2.p.1. .................................................................................................156 MSA §II.B.2.p.2. .................................................................................................157 MSA §II.B.2.p.3. .................................................................................................158 MSA §II.B.2.p.4. .................................................................................................158 MSA §II.B.2.p.5. .................................................................................................159 MSA §II.B.2.p.6. .................................................................................................159 MSA §II.B.2.p.7. .................................................................................................160
iii

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 5 of 251
MSA §II.B.2.p.8. .................................................................................................160 MSA §II.B.2.p.9. .................................................................................................161 MSA §II.B.2.p.10. ...............................................................................................161 MSA §II.B.2.p.11. ...............................................................................................162 MSA §II.B.2.p.12. ...............................................................................................162 MSA §II.B.2.p.13. ...............................................................................................163 MSA §II.B.2.p.14. ...............................................................................................163 MSA §II.B.2.p.15. ...............................................................................................164 MSA §II.B.2.p.16. ...............................................................................................165 MSA §§II.B.2.s.1. and II.B.2.t.1. ........................................................................165 Period 3 IP §II.D.1. .............................................................................................166 Period 3 IP §II.D.2. .............................................................................................167 Period 3 IP §II.E.1. .............................................................................................168 Period 3 IP §II.E.2. .............................................................................................169 MSA §II.B.3.i.1. .................................................................................................169 MSA §II.B.3.i.2. .................................................................................................170 MSA §II.B.3.i.3. .................................................................................................170 MSA §II.B.3.i.4. .................................................................................................171 MSA §II.B.3.i.5. .................................................................................................172 MSA §II.B.3.i.6. .................................................................................................172 MSA §II.B.3.i.7. .................................................................................................173 MSA §II.B.3.i.8. .................................................................................................174 MSA §§II.B.3.l.1. and II.B.3.m.1. ......................................................................174 Period 3 IP §II.F.1. ..............................................................................................175 Period 3 IP §II.F.2. ..............................................................................................175 Period 3 IP §II.G.1. .............................................................................................177 Period 3 IP §II.G.2. .............................................................................................177 Period 3 IP §II.H.1. .............................................................................................178 Period 3 IP §II.H.2. .............................................................................................179 MSA §II.B.4.b.1. .................................................................................................179 MSA §§II.B.4.e.1. and II.B.4.f.1. .......................................................................180 Period 3 IP §II.I.1. ...............................................................................................182 Period 3 IP §II.I.2. ...............................................................................................183 MSA §II.B.5.e.1. .................................................................................................184 MSA §§II.B.5.h.1. and II.B.5.i.1. .......................................................................184 MSA §II.B.5.e.2. .................................................................................................185 MSA §§II.B.5.h.2. and II.B.5.i.2. .......................................................................186 MSA §II.B.5.e.3. .................................................................................................188 MSA §§II.B.5.h.3. and II.B.5.i.3. .......................................................................190 MSA §§II.B.7.d. and II.B.7.e. .............................................................................193 MSA §II.C.1.b.1. .................................................................................................194 MSA §II.C.2.b.1. .................................................................................................194
iv

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 6 of 251

B. Regional Requirements.......................................................................................196
MSA §III.A.1.a. ...................................................................................................197 MSA §III.B.1.d.1. ................................................................................................198 MSA §§III.B.1.e.1. and III.B.1.f.1. .....................................................................198 MSA §§III.B.1.e.2. and III.B.1.f.2. .....................................................................199 MSA §§III.B.2.c.1. and III.B.2.d.1. ....................................................................200 MSA §§III.B.2.c.2. and III.B.2.d.2. ....................................................................200 MSA §§III.B.3.a.6.a. and III.B.3.a.7.a. ...............................................................201 MSA §§III.B.3.a.6.b. and III.B.3.a.7.b. ..............................................................203 MSA §§III.B.3.b.2.a. and III.B.3.b.3.a. ..............................................................203 MSA §§III.B.3.c.4.a. and III.B.3.c.5.a. ...............................................................204 MSA §§III.B.3.c.4.b. and III.B.3.c.5.b. ..............................................................205 MSA §§III.B.3.d.4.a. and III.B.3.d.5.a. ..............................................................206 MSA §§III.B.3.e.2.a. and III.B.3.e.3.a. ...............................................................207 MSA §§III.B.3.e.2.b. and III.B.3.e.3.b. ..............................................................208 MSA §§III.B.4.b.1. and III.B.4.c.1. ....................................................................209 MSA §§III.B.5.d.1. and III.B.5.e.1. ....................................................................210 MSA §§III.B.6.d.1. and III.B.6.e.1. ....................................................................211 MSA §§III.B.6.d.2. and III.B.6.e.2. ....................................................................212 MSA §§III.B.7.e.1. and III.B.7.f.1. .....................................................................213 MSA §§III.B.7.e.2. and III.B.7.f.2. .....................................................................214 MSA §§III.B.8.d.1. and III.B.8.e.1. ....................................................................216 MSA §§III.C.1.a.1. and III.C.1.b.1. ....................................................................217 MSA §§III.C.2.a.1. and III.C.2.b.1. ....................................................................218

IV.

CONCLUSION .........................................................................................................219

APPENDICES
Index to Exhibits .........................................................................Index-1 – Index-21
Appendix A App. A, Ex. 1 – App. A, Ex. 61
Appendix B Ex. 1 – Ex. 62E

v

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 7 of 251

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION

OLIVIA Y., et al.

PLAINTIFFS

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:04CV251LN

PHIL BRYANT, as Governor of the State of Mississippi, et al.

DEFENDANTS

______________________________________________________________________________

THE COURT MONITOR’S REPORT TO THE COURT REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD 3 AND THE JUNE 24, 2013 ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________

This report sets forth the Court Monitor’s (“Monitor”) findings regarding defendants’ progress toward meeting the requirements of the Modified Settlement Agreement (“MSA”), including the requirements contained in the Period 3 Implementation Plan (“Period 3 IP”).1 It also addresses progress related to the June 24, 2013 Order2 and, to a much more limited extent, progress during Period 4. A detailed report regarding defendants’ progress during Period 4 will be submitted after Period 4 ends.
A draft version of this report was provided to the parties for review and comment on April 15, 2014. All comments were received by May 5, 2014. The Monitor has considered the parties’ comments, and to the extent appropriate, addressed them in this final report.

1 The MSA and Period 3 IP were approved by the Court on July 6, 2012. 2 Project Schedule for Defendants’ Production of Data Reports Required by Appendix C of the Modified Settlement
Agreement [hereinafter June 24, 2013 Order], filed June 24, 2013.

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 8 of 251
The report is divided into five sections. The Background and Summary of Findings
section describes how the MSA is structured, presents the relevant procedural history, and
provides an overview of the progress that has been made since the start of Period 3, including
remedial actions required by the June 24, 2013 Order and the Period 4 Implementation Plans
(“Period 4 IPs”). It also includes tabular summaries of statewide and regional performance
relative to MSA outcome requirements. The Methodology section explains the process used by
the Monitor to evaluate defendants’ progress. The Findings section is divided into two parts.
The first part addresses Period 3 requirements that defendants were required to implement on a
statewide basis and the second part addresses Period 3’s regional requirements. The Conclusion is followed by an Appendix that includes the report’s exhibits.3 The
Appendix is divided into two sections. All charts with corresponding tables reflecting the
underlying data supporting the Monitor’s findings related to the MSA’s Period 3 outcome requirements are contained in Appendix A (“App. A”).4 Also included in Appendix A is a summary of the status of the data reports required by the June 24, 2013 Order.5 Appendix B includes documentary evidence supporting the Monitor’s findings.6
As explained in more detail in this report, while they did not do so during Period 3, the
defendants eventually produced validated data related to Period 3 performance for most, but not
all, required reports. However, in many instances these data do not address the complete MSA
3 Certain exhibits have been redacted to delete information that falls within the purview of the August 5, 2004 Confidentiality Order. See Confidentiality Order, August 5, 2004. 4 An index to the exhibits contained in Appendix A follows immediately after the text of this report. All charts and the corresponding tables are included as App. A, Ex. 3A - App. A, Ex. 59B. Included as App. A, Ex. 2B is a guide to reading the performance charts. 5 App. A, Ex. 2A, Status of Data Reports Required by June 24, 2013 Order, Attachment Two. For the convenience of the Court and the parties, also included in Appendix A is App. A, Ex, 1, Attachment Two to the June 24, 2013 Order. 6 Unlike the prefix used to denote the exhibits that are included in Appendix A (i.e., “App. A”), the exhibits in Appendix B are simply identified by a sequential number (followed by a letter in some instances) without a prefix (e.g., “Ex. 1” or “Ex. 1A”).
2

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 9 of 251
requirement. In some of these instances, the MSA requirement is subject to a qualitative assessment for which relevant data cannot be captured in a management information system. In others, defendants have not yet developed the capacity to either collect and/or report on the required data. Nevertheless, the parties have agreed upon remedial actions to address the remaining gaps in the data.7 On an interim basis pending the submission of more complete data, for some requirements that fall within this category, the Monitor has been able to make findings regarding defendants’ performance relative to the applicable Period 3 standards. Additionally, for some requirements for which defendants have not submitted performance data relative to the complete MSA requirement, the Monitor has assessed defendants’ performance using the submitted data to the extent that the performance data allowed.8 As noted above, the Monitor has summarized her findings in two tables that are included in the next section of this report.
I. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS9 The Mississippi Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan (“Settlement Agreement”), which was approved by the Court on January 4, 2008, was intended to ensure the safety and wellbeing of children in defendants’ custody and their timely placement in permanent and nurturing homes. Since January 2008, the defendants have been ordered to implement four annual implementation plans, a corrective action plan, and a remedial order related to data accuracy,
7 The Monitor recommends that the parties’ agreements be incorporated into a schedule reflected in the Period 5 Implementation Plan [hereinafter Period 5 IP]. 8 For example, an MSA requirement might have both a timeline requirement and substantive service delivery requirements, but the submitted data might report only on the former. In these cases, the Monitor assessed defendants’ performance as reported, noting the limitations in the data provided. 9 This section of the report condenses the discussion of the procedural background that is presented in the Monitor’s January 25, 2013 Status Report. The Court Monitor’s Status Report to the Court Regarding Progress During Period Three [hereinafter January 2013 Report], filed January 25, 2013 [Dkt. No. 580]. For more detailed information, see January 2013 Report at 4-13.
3

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 10 of 251
validation and production.10 In July 2012, at the time the Court approved the Period 3 IP, the MSA was adopted. As explained in more detail below, the MSA reflects a regionally-based approach to implementation of the requirements imposed by this lawsuit. This approach is designed to reduce, on an interim basis, the number of statewide requirements the defendants must meet while they phase-in, on a region-by-region basis, a family-centered Practice Model that serves as the centerpiece of the defendants’ reform strategy.
Defendants’ performance during Period 3 evidences wide regional variations in progress implementing MSA requirements. Generally, albeit not always, regions that implemented the Practice Model earlier tended to perform better on average than later implementing regions, relative to MSA regional and statewide requirements. Nonetheless, broadly speaking, by the end of Period 3, and in a number of instances through September 2013, the evidence establishes a substantial gap between reported and required performance levels with respect to both statewide and regionally-based requirements, for those regions to which the latter applied. Furthermore, defendants have not demonstrated consistent regional capacities to implement and sustain reform efforts. Given the regionally-based structure of defendants’ reform effort, regional capacity is essential.
The evidence establishes that there are continuing capacity deficits that must be addressed in order for defendants to satisfy the terms of the MSA. Human resource management has been a central concern of this lawsuit since its inception. While defendants have continued to make progress hiring caseworkers and building the pre-service and in-service staff training programs during Period 3, it has not been possible to assess whether these efforts have been sufficient. Indeed, despite repeated requirements to produce complete and accurate data regarding
10 Defendants are currently working to implement the Period 4 IP, which ends in July 2014.
4

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 11 of 251
caseworker workloads, as of May 6, 2014, defendants still had not produced these data. Moreover, the data that have been produced regarding supervisory workloads indicate that despite certain efforts reported herein, the defendants have not been successful in hiring a sufficient number of supervisors. Absent a sufficient number of supervisors, it is likely that critically needed improvements in case practice will be difficult to achieve and caseworker attrition will continue to impede performance.
In addition, while the evidence shows that required continuous quality improvement (“CQI”) activities have been undertaken, corrective action is not consistently timely and accountability mechanisms are not consistently effective. And while there has been substantial progress building the Mississippi Department of Human Services (“MDHS”) Division of Family and Children’s Services (“DFCS”) data validation and reporting functions, additional progress is necessary before defendants have the capacity to report appropriately on all applicable MSA requirements. The absence of complete, accurate, and timely data for all applicable requirements will only inhibit defendants’ efforts to identify and correct performance deficiencies that have prevented them from meeting MSA requirements.
Finally, like the limitations in data reporting, there are other instances in which defendants have been unable to satisfy MSA requirements that date back to Period 1, most notably the development and implementation of a performance-based contracting system. When implemented, these initiatives can fuel the reform effort while ensuring the children in defendants’ custody and their families receive critically needed support and services.
The data that the defendants have produced bring into sharper focus the need to refine and accelerate the current reform effort. The children in defendants’ custody represent a vulnerable population. Defendants’ burden to protect their safety and ensure their well being is a heavy one,
5

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 12 of 251
and the cost of failing to do so can have tragic and lifelong consequences. While progress in every area cannot occur immediately, the current pace of the reform effort must be accelerated. There are many talented and hard-working staff throughout MDHS/DFCS whose efforts must be more effectively harnessed to achieve the goals of the MSA. The parties must work together to identify a focused path forward, setting clear priorities among the broad array of possible remedial strategies. Defendants’ progress is described below.
A. Background The first implementation plan, referred to as the Period 1 Implementation Plan (“Period 1 IP”), extended from January 4, 2008 through April 30, 2009.11 The Period 1 requirements focused on building the capacity of MDHS/DFCS to achieve the Settlement Agreement’s goals and outcomes, and also addressed interim initiatives related to child safety. The defendants made limited progress meeting Period 1 requirements, and as a result they were required to meet many Period 1 requirements during Period 2. Period 2 began on May 1, 2009 and ended on April 30, 2010. Defendants made efforts to satisfy many Period 2 requirements, but in large part these efforts were belated and, at least in some circumstances, they were not minimally adequate. In certain instances, there was no evidence of credible efforts to satisfy Period 2 requirements, including requirements that dated back to Period 1. Because of the limitations in defendants’ performance, instead of developing a Period 3 IP, the parties finalized an agreement on specific corrective action measures that defendants were required to implement according to a series of deadlines between May 1 and September 1, 2010.12 This agreement, referred to as the “Bridge Plan,” was approved by the Court in an
11 Period 1 was extended on two occasions pursuant to consent orders issued on January 6, 2009 and March 27, 2009. 12 This four-month period is referred to in the Agreed Order as the “Bridge Period.”
6

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 13 of 251
Agreed Order issued on June 10, 2010.13 It required the defendants to demonstrate the ability to
satisfy a very narrow sub-set of unmet Period 1 and Period 2 requirements14 by supplementing
their management and planning capabilities through a contract for technical assistance with the
Center for the Support of Families (“CSF”).15 Defendants satisfied most, albeit not all, of the
Bridge Plan’s requirements, with substantial technical assistance from CSF.
During October 2010, based on violations of the Settlement Agreement and the Period 2
Implementation Plan (“Period 2 IP”), plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the Court find
defendants in contempt and appoint a general receiver with full authority to administer
Mississippi’s child welfare system.16 On May 17, 2011, following briefing and a hearing,17 the
Court issued an order denying the motion and directing the parties to work toward a modified
agreement.18 The Court found that plaintiffs had made a prima facie showing of contempt,
recognizing that the defendants had not complied with most of the Period 1 and Period 2
requirements and also had not complied fully with the Bridge Plan.19 Nonetheless, the Court did
not issue a finding of contempt because it was “apparent to the court that defendants lacked the
capability to comply fully, or even substantially, with all the requirements of the Period Two
Plan within the time frame established,”20 and because the Court determined that a contempt
13 Conceptually, the Bridge Plan was intended to serve as a bridge between Period 2 and Period 3. 14 The Bridge Plan addressed contracting for a fiscal assessment and related strategic plan to maximize federal funding. Other requirements included policy development, data collection and reporting, staffing, training, and planning activities related to mandated improvements in the array and quality of services and placements available to children in defendants’ custody as well as planning for the expansion of the DFCS workforce. In addition, the Bridge Plan required specified corrective action related to child safety, including mandated training for all DFCS caseworkers assigned to conduct maltreatment investigations. 15 As explained infra at 8, defendants had an existing contractual relationship with CSF dating to January 2009. 16 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Contempt and for the Appointment of a Receiver, filed October 5, 2010. 17 The hearing was conducted on May 13, 2011. 18 Order, filed May 17, 2011, at 10. 19 The Court noted it was “undisputed” that defendants had failed to comply with “nearly all” of the Period 1 requirements, id. at 5-6, and “most” of the Period 2 requirements, id. at 4. 20 Id. at 7. The Court indicated that the additional requirements and related time frames for meeting these requirements in the Period 2 IP were “highly ambitious” and seemed to be “ultimately unrealistic.” Id.
7

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 14 of 251
finding would not “serve any fruitful purpose.”21 The Court clarified that by denying the
contempt motion, it was not excusing defendants’ performance or minimizing the gravity of the problems identified in the motion.22 Indeed, the Court asserted “that the shortcomings identified by plaintiffs and the Court Monitor must be confronted and rectified.”23 The Court directed the
parties “to work together, in consultation with the Court Monitor, to craft appropriate modifications of their existing agreements.”24 Among other directives, the Court required the parties to prioritize goals and objectives and establish realistic timelines for their achievement.25
Thereafter, the parties negotiated the terms of the MSA, which was approved by the Court
on July 6, 2012. The MSA supersedes the initial Settlement Agreement and incorporates the Period 3 IP.26 As noted above, it reflects a very different approach to the remedial process,
substantially reducing defendants’ obligations to meet many MSA requirements on a statewide
basis through Periods 3 and 4. This new approach aligns the MSA with the sequential, region-
by-region implementation schedule that is a cornerstone of defendants’ “Practice Model” reform
strategy.
Implementation of the Practice Model began in 2009. During January 2009, defendants
contracted with CSF to work with DFCS managers and staff on the development of the Practice Model, which is intended to guide improvements in case practice.27 As conceptualized,
21 Id. at 10. 22 Id. 23 Id. at 9. 24 Id. 25 Id. 26 See MSA, Appendix B for the text of the Period 3 IP. 27 The Practice Model has represented a fundamental change in defendants’ business policies and practices, incorporating six categories of activities that are designed to promote safety, permanency and the well-being of children and families. The activities fall within the following categories: 1) safety assurance and risk management; 2) strengths and needs assessments; 3) involving children and families in case planning and decision-making; 4) individualizing case planning; 5) mobilizing appropriate services timely; and 6) preserving and maintaining connections.
8

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 15 of 251

implementation of the model is promoted through a data-driven CQI process that is used to monitor each DFCS region’s progress.
The introduction of the Practice Model started in January 2010, over the course of a twoyear period, at staggered intervals, in each of DFCS’s 13 regions. On a regional basis, the Practice Model is phased-in through a multi-stage process: 1) a six-month planning phase;28 2) a one-year initial implementation stage;29 and 3) a one-year full/ongoing implementation stage. These stages are followed by a data-tracking year. The Practice Model implementation schedule as it appears in the MSA is set forth below:

Practice Model Rollout Schedule30

Regions
I-South, II-West V-West
IV-North
I-North, III-South, IV-South V-East
III-North, VII-East II-East, VI, VII-West

Planning (6 months)
January – June 2010 July – December 2010 July – December 2010 January – June 2011
July – December 2011 July 2011 – June 2012 (12 months) July – December 2012

Implementation Phase Dates

Initial

Full/Ongoing

Implementation

Implementation

(One Year)

(One Year)*

July 2010 –

Approx. Sept. 2011 –

June 2011

August 2012

January –

Approx. March 2012 –

December 2011

February 2013

January 2011 –

Approx. Sept. 2012 –

June 2012 (18 months) August 2013

July 2011 –

Approx. Sept. 2012 –

June 2012

August 2013

January – December 2012 July 2012 – June 2013 January – December 2013

Approx. March 2013 – February 2014 Approx. Sept. 2013 – August 2014 Approx. March 2014 – February 2015

Data Tracking (One Year)
September 2012 – August 2013 March 2013 – February 2014 September 2013 – August 2014 September 2013 – August 2014
March 2014 – February 2015 September 2014 – August 2015 March 2015 – February 2016

28 Practice Model implementation starts with the six-month planning phase. Among other activities that are expected to occur during this phase, DFCS staff and stakeholders participate in an orientation program. In addition, barriers to implementation are identified and plans to address the barriers are formulated. A CQI review is conducted at the conclusion of the planning phase to establish baseline performance measures, which serve as the basis for measuring progress. 29 A 12-month initial implementation phase follows the planning phase. Among other activities expected to occur in each region during this phase, supervisors and caseworkers are trained on the Practice Model and participate in an intensive coaching program. Following the initial implementation stage, a two-month period is used for a follow-up CQI review and planning for the full implementation stage based on the preliminary results of the review. 30 MSA, Appendix A.
9

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 16 of 251
The MSA has two sets of requirements related to systemic infrastructure standards, foster
care service standards and outcome measures. These requirements are reflected in §§II and III of
the MSA. Section II of the MSA includes two types of requirements that defendants must
satisfy:31 1) requirements that are subject to statewide performance measures; and, to a lesser
degree 2) requirements that are subject to both statewide performance measures and regional
performance measures.32 Section III of the MSA relates exclusively to regional performance
requirements. With respect to the regional performance measures in §§II and III, there are two
performance thresholds triggered at different points. The first is triggered when a region has
fully implemented the Practice Model; the second, which institutes higher performance
standards, is triggered when a region has reached the 12-month mark following full
implementation.33 For purposes of the regional measurement requirements in §§II and III of the
MSA, a region is deemed to have fully implemented the Practice Model at the start of the data-
tracking year.34 Accordingly, at a minimum,35 during the two and two-third years that a region is
undergoing the Practice Model phase-in process, regional performance under the MSA is not
measured.36
31 In certain instances, defendants are not required to meet the statewide requirements in §II of the MSA until the end of the remedial phase, and thus there are no interim implementation requirements. See, e.g., MSA §II.A.2.b. In other instances, performance related to some but not all implementation periods is specified. See, e.g., id. §II.A.2.c. And in some instances, statewide measures as well as separate regional measures related to Practice Model implementation are specified in §II. See, e.g., id. §II.B.5.e.-i. 32 See, e.g., MSA §§II.B.4.a.-f. and II.B.7.a.-e. 33 MSA §I.A. 34 According to the MSA, “[a]djustments may be made to the timing of the planning and/or implementation phases based on a region's progress. The two-month period between the end of the Initial Implementation phase and the beginning of the Full Implementation phase is in place to permit the follow-up CQI review after the first 12 months of implementation and an opportunity to revise the Regional Implementation Plan based on preliminary results of the review going into the next phase of implementation.” MSA, Appendix A. 35 In the following three regions, defendants extended the implementation process because a determination was made that additional time was needed for a specific implementation phase: III-North (afforded an additional six months for planning); IV-North (afforded an additional six months for coaching); and VII-East (afforded an additional six months for planning). 36 The MSA expressly recognizes that for those requirements that must be met from the time that a region has fully implemented the Practice Model, regional compliance is not measured by looking back in time at practice that pre-
10

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 17 of 251
The first two DFCS regions introduced to the Practice Model, Regions I-S and II-W, began implementation planning in January 2010 and commenced the data-tracking year in September 2012. The other DFCS regions have been added to the implementation process at intervals of six to twelve months. The last three DFCS regions to implement the Practice Model began the planning phase in July 2012. After all 13 DFCS regions have fully implemented the Practice Model, the MSA requires that all of its standards, benchmarks and outcome measures shall be measured and required statewide and shall no longer be measured on a region-by-region basis.37
Period 3 began in July 2012 when the MSA was approved by the Court. Essentially, during Period 3 the defendants were required to implement both a statewide and regional structure to manage the reform effort; address unmet requirements related to the staff training program, performance-based contracting, policy development and other DFCS administrative operations; undertake initiatives related to staffing, focusing on DFCS county offices with particularly substantial staffing deficits; conduct and report on a series of CQI assessments; maximize federal funding for eligible child welfare program components; and undertake other programmatic and remedial activities intended to address child safety, permanency and access to services. The defendants were also required to produce, on a monthly basis, a subset of accurate and validated data reports related to DFCS performance relative to a range of MSA requirements that had been due since Period 1.
Because the defendants failed to satisfy the Period 3 data reporting requirements, a remedial order was issued on June 24, 2013, before the end of Period 3, requiring the defendants
dates full implementation. For requirements that must be met 12 months after full implementation of the Practice Model, compliance is not measured by practice that pre-dates the 12-month period following full implementation. MSA §§II and III. 37 MSA §III.
11

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 18 of 251
to undertake the following, among other actions: export relevant performance data from their existing data system and store it in an independent relational database that could be used to produce data reports responsive to the MSA requirements; establish and implement a data cleansing and validation plan to ensure that all data maintained in the independent database are complete and accurate; develop and finalize report specifications; and complete any indicated gap analyses in order to identify the required data that are not currently collected and/or reported and to implement alternative data collection and reporting methods for certain types of required data elements.
B. Summary of Findings The data reporting requirements in the June 24, 2013 Order were identical to the Period 3 reporting requirements that defendants were unable to satisfy. While there were significant limitations in the data produced during Period 3 as well as in some of the data the defendants produced pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order,38 by January 15, 2014, defendants submitted data reports responsive to 49 of the 53 reporting requirements included in the June 24, 2013 Order.39 Thus, over a relatively short time frame in the context of this lawsuit, defendants have made accelerated, albeit long overdue, progress producing more accurate data regarding their performance relative to key elements of many MSA requirements. Given the protracted period during which the Monitor repeatedly reported on defendants’ inability to produce these reports,
38 See January 2013 Report at 33-38 for relevant background information. 39 For the remaining four reporting requirements, the parties agreed that either the foster care review [hereinafter FCR] instrument would be modified or a case record review would be conducted on an interim basis. With respect to the reports produced regarding the 49 reporting requirements for which the defendants submitted data, in some cases defendants produced multiple reports in response to a single reporting requirement. In total, defendants submitted 57 reports, many with monthly versions, as required, dating back to the start of Period 3. The Monitor produced final analyses for 53 of the 57 reports submitted by defendants. The Monitor did not produce final analyses for the remaining four reports because of questions or issues regarding the quality of the submitted data, which are detailed in this report. See also App. A, Ex. 2A, supra note 5, for a tabular summary of the status of the data reports defendants produced pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order.
12

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 19 of 251
this is no small feat, notwithstanding certain remaining limitations in the data that are described in this report.
The changes defendants made to their data collection, storage, and performance report production practices (“data management practices”) pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order have been consequential with respect to the parties’ and the Monitor’s understanding of defendants’ performance. As expected, based on the data cleansing and validation processes defendants implemented pursuant to the order, in numerous instances underlying data regarding core DFCS services or operations changed subsequent to the data cleansing and validation processes. For example, in September 2013, the Monitor reported that the data defendants produced showed that as of April 30, 2013, there were a total of 3,777 children in DFCS custody.40 The same data report produced pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order, which went through a data scrubbing and validation process, indicates that as of April 30, 2013, there were 3,809 children in custody, a difference of 32 children.41 While on its face this number is not large, it is noteworthy that the reported number of children in defendants’ custody on a specific date increased by nearly one percent based on changes made to MDHS/DFCS data management practices.
In other cases, changes to data management practices enabled defendants to report on their performance in a manner that was consistent with MSA requirements whereas previously they were not able to do so,42 as illustrated by the following examples. The MSA requires that for certain children with a permanency goal of reunification, those children will be provided a
40 See The Court Monitor’s Update to the Court Regarding Progress During Period 3 As Reflected in Certain Data Reports Produced by the Defendants [hereinafter September 2013 Report], filed September 5, 2013 [Dkt. No. 591], at Ex. 2. 41 This is based on Mississippi Automated Child Welfare Information System [hereinafter MACWIS] Report SZ0510. 42 It is not clear whether or not defendants could have produced the reports in question using their prior data management practices. Defendants represented numerous times to the Monitor that significant changes to reporting practices using their existing technology would be unduly burdensome and impractical.
13

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 20 of 251
90-day trial home visit, during which time a DFCS caseworker shall meet with the child in the home at least two times per month, and each meeting shall occur without the parent or caretaker present.43
Prior to the changes required by the June 24, 2013 Order, defendants reported on their performance
over one-month periods rather than over the required three-month periods, a substantially lower performance bar.44 After the changes were made to their data storage and reporting practices, defendants were able to build a report capturing performance as defined by the MSA.45 Based on the
previous one-month period, defendants reported performance as of April 30, 2013 at 52 percent. The
revised reports, however, indicate that defendants’ performance with respect to the three-month
requirement as of the same date was 30 percent, a significant difference in the portrayal of defendants’ performance with respect to the related MSA requirement.46
Another example of improved performance reporting relates to the MSA requirement that all
maltreatment investigations must be initiated within 24 hours and completed within 30 days, with supervisory approval.47 The Monitor’s September 2013 Report presented an analysis of the data defendants produced related to this performance requirement. 48 At that time, the data reports that the
defendants had submitted calculated separately whether investigations were initiated timely and
whether they were completed timely, but did not assess whether each individual investigation was
both initiated and completed timely. Furthermore, in a given month, defendants reported initiation
and closure rates contingent upon investigations’ closure during the reporting month; investigations
that remained open at the end of a reporting period were not factored into the calculations. And,
43 See MSA §III.B.8.b. 44 See September 2013 Report at Ex. 21A. 45 See App. A, Ex. 3A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, During Trial Home Visit Period, Number of Children Who Met With Their Caseworker or Family Preservation Caseworker in the Home Twice in a OneMonth Period or At Least Once Monthly if 15 Days or Less for 90 Days, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, By Region, One-Month Periods 7/31/12 through 9/30/13; see also App. A, Ex. 3B, corresponding table with underlying data. 46 The Monitor calculated the 30 percent figure based upon the data submitted by defendants in MACWIS Report MWLS54A. That calculation is not explicitly reflected on either App. A, Exs. 3A or 3B. 47 See MSA §II.B.1.e.2. 48 See September 2013 Report at Exs. 6A and 7A.
14

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 21 of 251
because the data were reported in a format that was not manipulable (i.e., in PDF format), it was not practical for the Monitor to attempt to use the data to recalculate defendants’ performance consistent with MSA requirements.
However, based on the changes that were made to MDHS/DFCS data storage and report production practices, defendants were able to design a report that reflected performance related to this MSA requirement. Whereas the performance reports included in the Monitor’s September 2013 Report indicated that among investigations closed during April 2013, defendants initiated investigations within 24 hours in 76 percent of cases, and completed investigations within 30 days in 56 percent of cases, the performance reports produced in the wake of the June 24, 2013 Order indicate that among all investigations initiated in April 2013, defendants initiated and completed investigations consistent with MSA timeline requirements for 48 percent of investigations.49
These are only a few of the important ways in which defendants were able to produce more accurate performance reports because of the changes made in data storage and reporting practices that were required by the June 24, 2013 Order. In fact, when the Monitor compared defendants’ reported performance as reflected in 25 performance reports presented in the September 2013 Report with the comparable performance reports defendants produced pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order, there were differences identified in reported performance relative to MSA requirements in every report.50
The availability of high quality data, by itself, will not improve defendants’ performance with respect to MSA requirements. It does, however, facilitate problem identification, more efficient resource allocation, and ultimately better decision making. After operating almost six years under the remedial phase of this lawsuit, defendants now have much more usable data that
49 According to the data submitted by defendants subsequent to the June 24, 2013 Order, among all investigations initiated during April 2013, the percentage of investigations initiated within 24 hours was 71 percent and the percentage of investigations completed within 30 days was 60 percent. 50 A 26th performance report that was addressed in the September 2013 Report could not be included in the comparative analysis because there is an outstanding question related to the data that defendants produced pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order.
15

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 22 of 251
provide a broad view of their performance – both statewide and on a regional basis – across a range of foster care services and outcomes. Defendants are now at a juncture where they must begin to capitalize on this data to accelerate the rate of improvement.
Based on the performance reports defendants produced pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order, the Monitor assessed defendants’ performance with respect to numerous statewide and regionally-based performance requirements. The Monitor analyzed reports that defendants produced regarding performance requirements related to the following categories of statewide MSA standards:
 Human Resources Management;  Child Safety, including Maltreatment in Care;  Child Placements;  Physical and Mental Health Care;  Therapeutic Services;  Worker Contact and Monitoring; and  Number of Placements.
As explained in more detail in the Findings section of this report, the performance reports that defendants submitted pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order did not always include data regarding the full MSA requirement for which performance was reported, and thus in many cases the Monitor was unable to determine whether the related MSA requirement was met. Nevertheless, with respect to the data that defendants did produce under these seven categories, the Monitor analyzed performance with respect to 33 statewide requirements. For 23 of these requirements, the Monitor was able to make a finding about some aspect of the defendants’ performance relative to the MSA requirement. For the 10 remaining requirements, the Monitor has reported defendants’ performance as indicated by the data submission, but makes no finding because of concerns about data reliability or completeness.
Of the 23 reports for which the Monitor was able to make a finding, defendants demonstrated that they met or exceeded portions of ten of the MSA requirements on which they
16

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 23 of 251
reported their performance. For the remaining 13 requirements, based on the data the defendants submitted, they did not meet the MSA requirement.51
The Monitor also analyzed reports that defendants produced regarding performance
requirements related to the following categories of regionally-based MSA standards:
 Therapeutic Services;  Worker Contact and Monitoring;  Comprehensive Family Assessments;  Individualized Case Planning;  Child and Youth Permanency;  Developing and Maintaining Connections;  Educational Services;  Transition to Independent Living;  Case Closing and Aftercare;  Reunification; and  Time to Adoption Finalization.
As with the statewide performance reports that the defendants submitted, in many cases,
and for a variety of reasons related principally to inherent limitations in the data that can be
collected through the Mississippi Automated Child Welfare Information System (“MACWIS”)
and/or limitations in the alternative data collection processes and instruments defendants have
employed, the performance reports that were submitted related to the regionally-based standards did not include data regarding performance related to the full MSA requirement.52 Thus, the
Monitor’s findings with respect to the data submitted were limited to those portions of the MSA
covered by the data submitted. Nevertheless, with respect to the data that defendants did
produce, under these 11 categories, the Monitor analyzed performance data with respect to 26
regionally-based performance requirements using data regarding performance through the point
51 See Summary Table: Statewide Performance Based on Reports Received Through February 28, 2014, infra at 2429. With respect to four requirements, the Monitor was not able to measure performance as of June 30, 2013 because of limitations in the data. In these cases, a proximate date subsequent to June 30, 2013 was used for the purposes of calculating performance. 52 The inherent limitations in MACWIS are related to either system functionality or the fact that qualitative data related to MSA requirements cannot be readily collected and extracted through an automated system.
17

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 24 of 251
at which each region fully implemented the Practice Model.53 Seven of the 13 DFCS regions had fully implemented the Practice Model by September 30, 2013, the date of the last implementation period included in the analyses addressed by this report. Two of the seven regions had fully implemented the Practice Model for at least 12 months, triggering higher regional performance requirements for those two regions. For nine of the 26 regionally-based performance requirements, the Monitor was not able to make a finding because of questions regarding the reliability of the data.
Among the seven regions to have fully implemented the Practice Model, the Monitor’s analyses revealed the following: Region III-S met or exceeded performance levels established by the MSA for three of 26 requirements as of the date of full implementation of the Practice Model; Regions I-S,54 V-W,55 I-N, and IV-N met or exceeded performance levels for five of the 26; Region IV-S56 met or exceeded performance levels with respect to six of the 26; and Region II-W met or exceeded performance levels for seven of the 26.57
Among the two regions that fully implemented the Practice Model for 12 months before the end of the time frame included in the Monitor’s analysis, Region II-W met or exceeded performance levels for three of the 26 and Region I-S met or exceeded performance levels for four of the 26 by 12 months following full implementation of the Practice Model.
These point-in-time measurements against fixed performance thresholds paint an incomplete picture of defendants’ performance and it would be ill-advised to reach any broad conclusions about progress based solely on the figures cited above. As the individual analyses
53 This included, in certain instances, multiple performance reports for one MSA reporting requirement. 54 Defendants did not provide reliable data for one performance requirement. 55 Defendants did not provide reliable data for one performance requirement. 56 With respect to one measure, there were no children to whom the associated requirement applied in this region on the date in question. 57 Defendants did not provide reliable data for one performance requirement.
18

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 25 of 251
associated with each performance requirement illustrate, defendants’ performance often varied
widely by MSA standard, by region, and over time. In some cases, defendants narrowly missed achieving required performance levels.58 In other cases, despite not meeting a required performance standard, defendants’ performance improved consistently over time.59 Point-in-time
summaries of performance against fixed thresholds do not account for these scenarios.
In order to assess whether there was evidence that defendants’ implementation of the
Practice Model was having a general positive impact on performance in regions that
implemented the model earlier, the Monitor analyzed defendants’ performance with respect to 26 statewide performance requirements on a comparative regional basis.60 Rather than assess strictly each individual region’s performance with respect to the statewide standard,61 each
region’s performance was assessed against the performance of other regions. For each of the 26
requirements, each region’s performance was ranked against all other regions and then analyzed
in terms of the number of times each region performed in the top and the bottom quintile as of June 30, 2013.62
The analysis indicates that, in general, regions that implemented the Practice Model
earlier tended to perform more frequently in the top quintile and less frequently in the bottom
58 See, e.g., App. A, Ex. 51A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Percentage of Children Turning Three Years Old During the Period Under Review Who Received a Dental Examination Within 90 Calendar Days of Their Third Birthday, by Region, Six-Month Periods Ending 7/31/12 Through 9/30/13; see also App. A, Ex. 51B, corresponding table with underlying data. 59 See, e.g., App. A, Ex. 13A, chart prepared by Office of the Court Monitor, Twice Monthly In-Person Visits With Child by Assigned Caseworkers, by Region, One-Month Periods Ending 7/31/12 through 9/30/13; see also App. A, Ex. 13B, corresponding table with underlying data. 60 This analysis is consistent with an analysis presented in the Monitor’s September 2013 Report. See September 2013 Report at 14-15 and Ex. 3. 61 For statewide requirements, unless otherwise indicated in the MSA, no specific regions are required to surpass the statewide standard. 62 Regions performing in the top quintile performed in the top 20 percent of all regions and regions in the bottom quintile performed in the bottom 20 percent of all regions with respect to a given MSA requirement.
19

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 26 of 251
quintile than those regions that implemented the Practice Model later.63 Furthermore, the analysis indicated that two regions in particular – III-S and VII-W – stood out for the number of times they performed in the bottom quintile, with respect to 12 and 20 requirements, respectively.
All 26 reports were analyzed a second time, using data regarding performance as of September 30, 2013, three months after the period covered by the initial analysis. The data showed mixed results.64 The single worst performing region showed incremental progress, performing less frequently in the bottom quintile; however, other regions, especially certain laterimplementing regions, showed an increased frequency in the number of instances in which they performed in the bottom quintile.
There are some broad observations to be made based on the data defendants have provided pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order. As mentioned above and in the Monitor’s prior reports, there are substantial regional differences in performance levels with respect to most MSA requirements.65 As defendants craft and refine reform strategies, it will become increasingly important to identify different plans for different regions, tailored to each one’s specific strengths and weaknesses. As the Monitor’s analyses of relative regional performance illustrate, some regions excel across a wide range of MSA requirements while others consistently struggle in performing with respect to those same MSA requirements.66
Defendants must develop the capacity at the regional level to use the data that are now available to design, assess, and revise their implementation efforts. By creating regular feedback loops of data analysis, plan development, implementation, and analysis of progress, defendants
63 See App. A, Ex. 60, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Relative Regional Performance With Respect to 26 Statewide Performance Reports, by Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, as of June 30, 2013. 64 See App. A, Ex. 61, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Relative Regional Performance With Respect to 26 Statewide Performance Reports, by Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, as of September 30, 2013. 65 See, e.g., September 2013 Report at 10-11. 66 See App. A, Exs. 60 and 61, supra notes 63 and 64.
20

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 27 of 251
can make informed management decisions. But in order to do so, defendants must create or buttress the regional capacities to perform these functions. Moreover, there must be a division of labor among the regions and state executive staff. Whereas regions are ultimately responsible for implementation, state management staff must ensure that there are appropriate support and accountability mechanisms in place to drive progress. State management staff must ensure that regional managers have, among other resources, sufficient and qualified staff, adequate training, appropriate technology, placement resources, and management information. State-level managers must also build in appropriate accountability mechanisms to monitor progress at the regional level and intervene as appropriate. These needs are not new; however, with improved and more timely data, resource and accountability gaps will become evident much more quickly than in the past.
The need to think about reform on a regional basis is perhaps most clearly illustrated in two specific regions. In the September 2013 Report, the Monitor noted that two regions in particular – III-S and VII-W – were struggling to meet MSA requirements.67 Furthermore, the Monitor noted that “Region III-S concluded the full implementation phase of practice model implementation at the end of August 2013. This region will likely represent the most challenging region in which the practice model will have been implemented fully to date.”68 The analyses of defendants’ performance presented in this report confirm both of these points. Regions III-S and VII-W continue to struggle to meet MSA requirements more than other regions and, despite having fully implemented the Practice Model in August 2013, Region III-S appears to confront more challenges than the other six regions that implemented the Practice Model fully by September 30, 2013, the end of the period analyzed for this report. As stated previously, not only
67 September 2013 Report at 11-12. 68 Id. at 11.
21

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 28 of 251
did Region III-S meet or exceed only three of the regional MSA requirements analyzed in this report by the date the Practice Model was fully implemented, it also performed in the bottom quintile of all regions more frequently than the other six regions that fully implemented the Practice Model by September 30, 2013.
The Final Period 4 IP69 required defendants to develop a remediation plan specifically for Regions III-S and VII-W, and they have done so.70 It is noteworthy that Region VII-W, the region serving the largest number of children in custody in the state, has certain unique challenges, not the least of which is the rapid growth of the already large number of children in custody in the region. Between July 31, 2012 and September 30, 2013, the population of children in custody in the region increased by 44 percent from 736 children to 1060 children. This population growth only exacerbates the management challenges in a region already falling short of meeting MSA requirements.
The data defendants submitted also illustrate that, despite repeated attempts, defendants continue to struggle to provide accurate data regarding certain resources that are foundational to their reform efforts. For example, defendants have not been able to provide complete and accurate data regarding caseloads for caseworkers who carry mixed caseloads, a cohort representing the overwhelming majority of the caseworker workforce.71 Appropriate caseload levels are central to defendants’ ability to meet the requirements of the MSA. Defendants’ longstanding inability to track and report these data evidences a capacity deficit that has frustrated the remedial process.
69 Final Period 4 Implementation Plan [hereinafter Final Period 4 IP], filed January 8, 2014, §V.A.3. 70 The Monitor makes no finding regarding the sufficiency of defendants’ submission and looks forward to discussing it with the parties, informed by defendants’ reported performance relative to MSA requirements in these two regions. 71 Defendants submitted updated data regarding caseworkers with mixed caseloads in correspondence dated March 31, 2013. As explained infra at 53-54, the Monitor has concerns about the quality of these data that will need to be resolved in the near term.
22

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 29 of 251
The safety and well being of children in DFCS custody depend on defendants’ ability to meet the MSA requirements. The data that defendants have produced combined with the capacity deficits addressed in this report highlight substantial shortcomings in the defendants’ performance that put children at a continuing and unreasonable risk of harm. These findings underscore the need for defendants to act with urgency on identified priorities.
The following tables summarize the Monitor’s findings regarding the status of defendants’ performance relative to each Period 3 statewide and regional outcome standard.72 Presentation of the regional findings follow the statewide findings.
72 The summary tables are color coded as a visual guide to assessing defendants’ performance against required MSA performance levels. The colors are not an indication of the Monitor’s assessment of defendants’ performance relative to the full MSA requirement. Rather, cells shaded green indicate where defendants’ reported performance met or exceeded required MSA performance thresholds only to the extent that the reported data was responsive to the MSA requirement. Cells shaded red indicate where defendants’ reported performance did not meet the required MSA performance threshold. In numerous instances, multiple data reports were submitted to report performance with a single MSA requirement. In these instances, if the performance reflected in one report met or exceeded required MSA thresholds and performance reflected in the other report did not meet required MSA performance thresholds, the cells were shaded half in red and half in green. Additionally, some cells in the tables are shaded gray to indicate that the Monitor cannot make a finding because of unresolved concerns about the accuracy of the data defendants submitted.
23

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 30 of 251

Summary Table: Statewide Performance Based on Reports Received Through February 28, 201473
[Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor Based on DFCS Data]

Cite

MSA Requirement

Associated DFCS

Report

MSA II.A.2 Human Resources Management

MSA II.A.2.c.2., II.A.2.c.3., and II.A.2.c.6.b.
MSA II.A.2.a.9.b. and II.A.2.a.6.
MSA II.A.2.a.9.a. and II.A.2.a.1.

The MSA requires that by the end of Period 3 all new caseworkers and supervisors will complete their pre‐service training consistent with MSA requirements before they assume their respective responsibilities for carrying cases and supervising. MSA requires by the end of Period 3, no more than 10% of supervisors who are responsible for supervising caseworkers shall be responsible for directly supervising more than five caseworkers. Hancock, Harrison, Hinds, and Jackson Counties are exempt during Period 3. MSA requires by the end of Period 3, at least 75% of caseworkers shall carry a caseload that does not exceed MSA requirements. No more than 10% of caseworkers shall carry a caseload exceeding twice the MSA requirements. No caseworkers shall carry a caseload exceeding three times the MSA requirements. Hancock, Harrison, Hinds, and Jackson Counties are exempt during Period 3.

Manual Report [Training Reports]
Manual Report [AR2]
Manual Report [AR3]
Dedicated Caseload

[Note: Defendants report separately on workload data for caseworkers with dedicated and mixed caseloads. For the purposes of MSA requirements, the workload data must be analyzed together.]

Manual Report [AR1]
Mixed Caseload

Performance Requirement
100%

Statewide Performance as of June 30, 2013
(unless otherwise specified below)
100%

< 10% 75%
75%

Excluding Hancock, Harrison, Hinds, and Jackson Counties, as of 7/31/13:
16.8% Excluding Hancock, Harrison, Hinds, and Jackson Counties, as of August 31, 2013:
79% [30 of 38 caseworkers carrying a
caseload not exceeding MSA requirements as of 8/31/13]
8% [3 of 38 caseworkers carrying a caseload exceeding twice the MSA requirements]
0% [0 of 38 caseworkers carrying a caseload
exceeding three times the MSA requirements]
As of May 6, 2014 fully validated accurate data not received

73 In some instances the data defendants produced do not reflect performance related to the full MSA requirement. Thus the performance levels set forth above may not be indicative of performance related to the full MSA requirement.
24

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 31 of 251

Cite

MSA Requirement

Associated DFCS

Performance

Report

Requirement

MSA II.B.1 Child Safety

MSA II.B.1.e.2. MSA II.B.1.e.3.

MSA requires by end of Period 3, 100% of maltreatment investigations shall be initiated within 24 hours and completed with supervisory approval within 30 days.
MSA requires by end of Period 3, 100% of children who remain in the same out of home placement following an investigation of maltreatment or corporal punishment in that placement shall be visited by a caseworker two times per month for three months after the conclusion of the investigation.

MWZ1271G MWLS55SA

MSA II.B.2 Child Placement

MSA II.B.2.a. and II.B.2.p.2.

The MSA requires that by the end of Period 3, no foster child shall be placed or remain in a foster care setting that does not meet DFCS licensure standards consistent with MSA requirements, unless so ordered by the Youth Court over DFCS objection.

MWLS319D (originally MWZ0151)

MSA II.B.2.p.2., II.B.2.p.4.‐5., and II.B.2.a.
MSA II.B.2.p.13. and II.B.2.h.

MSA requires by the end of Period 3, 100% of children shall be placed or remain in a foster care setting that meets licensure standards consistent with MSA requirements, unless so ordered by the Youth Court over DFCS objection. MSA requires by the end of Period 3, 80% of siblings who entered custody at or near the same time be placed together consistent with MSA requirement.

PAD7 MWLS316

MSA II.B.2.p.8. and II.B.2.k.
MSA II.B.2.p.6.

MSA requires by end of Period 3, no foster children shall remain in an emergency or temporary facility for more than 45 days unless exceptional circumstances and Field Operations Director has granted express written approval.
MSA requires by end of Period 3, no more than 40 children under 10 placed in congregate care unless exceptional needs and/or sibling group member and express written approval by Regional Director.

MWLS50D MWLS52HS

100% 100%
0 children 100% 80%
0 children < 40 children

Statewide Performance as of June 30, 2013
(unless otherwise specified below) 36% 87.5%
471 children
90% 85% 24 children
11 children

25

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 32 of 251

Cite

MSA Requirement

Associated DFCS

Report

MSA II.B.2.m.

MSA requires that sibling groups in which one or more of the siblings are under the age of 10 shall not be placed in congregate care settings for more than 45 days.

MWLS53HS

MSA II.B.2.g. and II.B.2.p.16.

MSA requires that by the end of Period 3 at least 85% of children who entered DFCS custody shall be placed within his/her own county or within 50 miles of the home from which he/she was removed unless one of the exceptions provided in the MSA is documented as applying.

MWLS314

MSA II.B.2.e. and II.B.2.p.11.
MSA II.B.2.f. and II.B.2.p.12.

MSA requires by the end of Period 3, 60% of children with special needs shall be matched with placement resources that can meet their therapeutic and medical needs.
MSA requires by the end of Period 3, 75% of children in custody shall be placed in the least restrictive setting that meets their individual needs, consistent with MSA requirements.

PAD‐8m1m2m3 PAD‐9

MSA II.B.2.j. and II.B.2.p.15.

MSA requires that by the end of Period 3, at least 35% of children in DFCS custody with a documented indication that they were to be subject to a potential or actual placement disruption during the Period shall receive a meeting to address placement stability consistent with MSA requirements.

MSA II.B.2.i. and II.B.2.p.14.

MSA requires by the end of Period 3, 40% of children placed in a new placement during the period shall have their currently available medical, dental, educational, and psychological information provided to their resource parents or facility staff no later than at the time of any new placement during the period.

PAD‐11 PAD‐10

MSA II.B.3 Physical and Mental Health Care

MSA II.B.3.i.1.

MSA requires by the end of Period 3, 50% of children entering custody receive a health screening evaluation as recommended by American Academy of Pediatrics from a qualified medical practitioner within 72 hours after placement.

MWLS315

Performance Requirement
0 sibling groups

Statewide Performance as of June 30, 2013
(unless otherwise specified below)
13 sibling groups

85%

94%

(excludes sibling exception)

98%

(includes sibling exception)

60%

45%

75%

97%

35%

62%

40%

19%

50%

28%

26

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 33 of 251

Cite

MSA Requirement

Associated DFCS

Report

MSA II.B.3.i.2. and II.B.3.b.

MSA requires by the end of Period 3, 50% of children entering custody receive a comprehensive health assessment within 30 calendar days consistent with MSA requirement.

MSA II.B.3.g. and II.B.3.i.8.
MSA II.B.3.f. and II.B.3.i.6.
MSA II.B.3.e. and II.B.3.i.4.

MSA requires by the end of Period 3, 30% of children ages birth through three, and older children if warranted, shall receive a developmental assessment by a qualified professional within 30 days of placement and all needed developmental services.
MSA requires that by the end of Period 3 at least 50% of children four years old and older entering custody during the Period or in care and turning four years old during the Period shall receive a mental health assessment by a qualified professional within 30 calendar days of foster care placement or their fourth birthday, respectively.
MSA requires by the end of Period 3, 60% of children three years old and older entering custody or in care and turning three years old during the Period shall receive a dental examination within 90 days of placement or their third birthday.

MSA II.B.3.e. and II.B.3.i.5.
MSA II.B.3.e. and II.B.3.i.4.

MSA requires that by the end of Period 3, at least 60% of children in custody during the Period shall receive a dental examination every six months consistent with MSA requirements and all medically necessary dental services. MSA requires by the end of Period 3, 60% of children three years old and older entering custody or in care and turning three years old during the Period shall receive a dental examination within 90 days of placement or their third birthday.

MWLS315 PAD‐26m1m2m3
PAD‐25 PAD‐27m1m3 PAD‐27m2m3 PAD‐27m2m3

MSA II.B.3.d. and II.B.3.i.3.

MSA requires by the end of Period 3, 75% of children in custody shall receive periodic medical examinations and all medically necessary follow‐up services and treatment, consistent with MSA requirements.

PAD‐24

Performance Requirement
50% 30% 50%
60%
60% 60%
75%

Statewide Performance as of June 30, 2013
(unless otherwise specified below) 34% 7%
49%
47%
54% 57%
63%

27

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 34 of 251

Cite

MSA Requirement

Associated DFCS

Report

MSA II.B.4 Therapeutic Services

MSA II.B.4.a. and II.B.4.b.1.

MSA requires by the end of Period 3, 60% of children requiring therapeutic and/or rehabilitative services because of a diagnosis of significant medical, developmental, emotional, or behavioral problems shall be provided with a treatment plan and services in accordance with their plan.

PAD‐17m1m2m3

MSA II.B.5 Worker Contact and Monitoring

MSA II.B.5.e.3. and II.B.5.c.

MSA requires by the end of Period 3, 40% of therapeutic resource parents have a worker visit the home monthly consistent with MSA requirements.

MWZPLMB

MSA II.B.5.c. and II.B.5.e.3.

MSA requires by the end of Period 3, 40% of therapeutic resource parents have a worker visit the home monthly to share relevant information, evaluate the child's safety, needs, and well being, and monitor service delivery and achievement of service goals.

MSA II.B.5.e.1. and II.B.5.a.

MSA requires by the end of Period 3, 60% of children shall receive documented twice‐monthly in‐person visits by the assigned caseworker consistent with MSA requirement.

MSA II.B.5.b. and II.B.5.e.2.

MSA requires by end of Period 3, 40% of children with a goal of reunification shall have their assigned DFCS caseworker meet monthly with the child's parents, during the Period, consistent with MSA requirements, and the visit shall be documented in the case record.

MSA II.B.5.c. and II.B.5.e.3.

MSA requires by the end of Period 3, 40% of non‐therapeutic resource parents have a worker visit the home monthly consistent with MSA requirements.

MSA II.B.5.c. and II.B.5.e.3.

MSA requires by the end of Period 3, 40% of non‐therapeutic resource parents have a worker visit the home monthly to share relevant information, evaluate the child's safety, needs, and well being, and monitor service delivery and achievement of service goals.

PAD3 MWZWC5D MWZWCR3 MWZPLMC
PAD2

Performance Requirement

Statewide Performance as of June 30, 2013
(unless otherwise specified below)

60%

66%

40%

40%

40%

70%

60%

55%

40%

as of 11/30/13 = 29%

[Note: Accurate Period 3 data were not

available.]

40%

45%

40%

70%

28

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 35 of 251

Cite

MSA Requirement

Associated DFCS

Report

MSA II.C.1.b.1. MSA II.C.2.b.1.

MSA II.C Outcome Measures

MSA requires by the end of Period 3, at least 60% of children state‐wide in care less than 12 months from the time of latest removal from home shall have had two or fewer placements. MSA requires that by the end of Period 3, the rate of abuse or maltreatment in care shall not exceed 1.00%.

MWZPLM5S MWBRD06

Performance Requirement

Statewide Performance as of June 30, 2013
(unless otherwise specified below)

60% < 1.00%

77% as of 10/31/13 = .98%

29

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 36 of 251 Summary Table: Practice Model Performance Based on Reports Received Through February 28, 201474
[Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor Based on DFCS Data]75
74 In some instances the data defendants produced do not reflect performance related to the full MSA requirement. Thus the performance levels set forth above may not be indicative of performance related to the full MSA requirement. 75 In the table below, some regional performance levels are reported as zero percent relative to the relevant performance requirement. Zero percent performance indicates that there were cases in the region to which the performance requirement applied, but defendants did not meet the requirement in any of the cases.
30

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 37 of 251 31

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 38 of 251 32

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 39 of 251 33

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 40 of 251 34

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 41 of 251 35

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 42 of 251 36

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 43 of 251 37

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 44 of 251
II. METHODOLOGY The Monitor’s assessment of defendants’ progress toward meeting Period 3 IP requirements included site visits to DFCS’s regional and county offices.76 In addition, during Period 3, face-to-face interviews were conducted with over 91 MDHS and DFCS managers, supervisors, caseworkers and practice coaches.77 Foster and adoptive parents, service providers from private agencies that contract with DFCS, representatives from university social work programs, members of child welfare organizations and advocacy groups, child welfare practice and information technology consultants under contract with the defendants, and other public and private child welfare system stakeholders also were interviewed. The Monitor and/or her consultants attended state implementation team (“SIT”) meetings, meetings of foster parent support groups, regional implementation team (“RIT”) and CQI sub-team meetings, permanency roundtables, and pre-service training sessions. Relevant documents, memoranda and other records maintained by MDHS/DFCS,78 have been reviewed and analyzed, including the following: meeting agendas and minutes as well as work plans generated by the SIT, its sub-teams, and by regional sub-teams; electronic and paper case records for children in foster care and their families; serious incident reports (“SIRs”) concerning reports of maltreatment in care; maltreatment investigation reports and documents associated with the maltreatment in care review process; the CQI plan and annual report as well as reports and tracking documents generated by the CQI process, including FCR and Evaluation
76 Site visits to DFCS county offices during Period 3 included Hancock, Harrison, Hinds, Rankin, DeSoto, Coahoma and Washington Counties, some of which were visited on multiple occasions. 77 Structured face-to-face interviews were conducted between July 24, 2012 and July 6, 2013 with over 91 DFCS staff and managers. Some staff and managers were interviewed on numerous occasions. Although some interviews were conducted in less than one hour, many were several hours in duration. The Monitor has continued to interview MDHS and DFCS managers and staff on an ongoing basis about performance during Period 3 and thereafter. 78 These documents, memoranda and other records were either obtained directly by the Monitor from MDHS/DFCS staff or submitted more formally by defendants’ counsel.
38

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 45 of 251
and Monitoring Unit (“EMU”) reports, and corrective action tracking records generated by the “HEAT” system;79 staffing and personnel data, including organizational charts, records related to
hiring and attrition, position descriptions and vacancy postings; requests for proposals (“RFPs”)
and contracting documents; training records, including testing records, curricula, sign-in sheets,
and schedules; data reports generated by the MACWIS and by the FCR process; policies and
practice guides; licensure protocols; budget and other fiscal reports related to federal claims and
grants; and documents maintained by defendants to track the processing of petitions for
termination of parental rights (“TPR”). The Monitor also has evaluated various planning documents and protocols submitted by defendants pursuant to MSA requirements.80
As reflected in the September 2013 Report, the Monitor analyzed performance data submitted by defendants during Period 3, covering the period through April 2013.81 However,
the Monitor acknowledged in the report the known limitations in the data submitted by
defendants and indicated that the data might be used to identify trends rather than actual performance levels.82 Beginning in September 2013, the Monitor reviewed and analyzed data
reports submitted by defendants pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order. Each report was reviewed
for conformity with the specifications that were agreed upon by the parties and the Monitor. The
specifications were developed collaboratively by the defendants in consultation with plaintiffs’
79 The Help Desk Expert Automated Tool, referred to as the “HEAT” system, provides detailed information for tracking service issues related to MDHS/DFCS information technology operations. It has been adapted by the defendants to track corrective actions identified by the CQI process. 80 Included among these documents are the required Workforce Development Plan (Period 3 IP §§I.A.2.b. and I.A.2.c.3.), the youth court strategies plan (id. §I.A.2.c.4.), the service array plan (id. II.F.2.), and the educational protocol (id. §II.G.2.). 81 The quantitative analysis in this report was conducted by Mark Jordan, a consultant to the Office of the Court Monitor. Mr. Jordan’s academic background and professional experience are summarized in the September 2013 Report at Ex. 28. Mia Caras, Special Assistant to the Court Monitor, also conducted data analysis and provided extensive support to Mr. Jordan. 82 September 2013 Report at 6.
39

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 46 of 251
counsel and the Monitor through a protracted and resource-intensive process that was wellmanaged by the defendants.83
Preliminary tests were conducted by the Monitor on a sample of the data from each report submitted by defendants. A variety of tests of the data were performed, including comparisons of analyzed versions of the data produced by defendants against the same analysis produced independently by the Monitor.
The Monitor identified problems with a number of data reports produced by defendants pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order, which she communicated to the parties.84 Based on the Monitor’s preliminary reviews, defendants revised and resubmitted data reports and associated analyses for a number of reports.85 After the Monitor identified problems with a number of defendants’ data submissions, defendants reported that they had enhanced the data quality assurance methods that they previously employed in order to promote greater data accuracy. As described in this report, the Monitor was ultimately able to produce final analyses of 53 of the 57 data reports defendants submitted, subject to limitations detailed in this report.
Informal status updates were provided by the defendants and their counsel on a periodic basis. Defendants have cooperated fully with the Monitor and assisted her, in specific circumstances, with information gathering activities. The Monitor also has consulted with child welfare system and information technology experts since the start of Period 3.86
83 This process was contemplated by the June 24, 2013 Order. See June 24, 2013 Order §VI.A. 84 Defendants also identified and corrected errors in the data prior to submission to the Monitor and plaintiffs. 85 The Monitor summarized these issues during the November 8, 2013 status hearing. 86 In situations in which an expert assisted the Monitor with a specific assessment of defendants’ performance during Period 3, the expert is identified in the corresponding text of this report.
40

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 47 of 251
III. FINDINGS
A. Statewide Requirements
Period 3 Implementation Plan (“IP”) §I.A.1.a. 1. Management a. By 30 days following the Court's approval of the Modified
Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall establish a Statewide Implementation Team. The Statewide Implementation Team will be responsible for prioritizing, managing, and making decisions relating to implementation of the requirements of the Modified Settlement Agreement, this Plan, and the Practice Model. The Statewide Implementation Team will consist of the MDHS Executive Director, MDHS Deputy Executive Director, DFCS Deputy Administrator, DFCS Director, DFCS Field Operations Director, DFCS CQI Director, and a CSF Officer or designee.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.A.1.a.: The defendants established the SIT on a
timely basis to coordinate and administer the reform effort.87 The team is comprised of MDHS
and DFCS executive staff as well as representatives from CSF.88 Interviews with MDHS and
DFCS managers and staff, as well as periodic reviews of meeting minutes and related materials,
indicate that during Period 3 the SIT generally managed the implementation of the MSA and the
Practice Model.89 While not a Period 4 requirement, defendants continue to use the SIT for these
management purposes.
Period 3 IP §I.A.1.b. 1. Management b. By 30 days following the Court's approval of the Modified
Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall establish the following Statewide Implementation Sub-Teams: CQI, Training, Resource Development, Policy, Legal and Judicial, Resource Parent Recruitment and Retention, and Caseload/Staffing. These Statewide Implementation Sub-Teams will be responsible for designing and guiding the work plans necessary to implement the requirements of the Modified Settlement Agreement and this Plan in their respective functional areas. The Statewide Implementation Sub-Teams will report to and be directed by the Statewide Implementation Team. The Statewide Implementation Sub-Teams shall meet no less frequently than monthly, with the exception of the CQI Sub-Team and the
87 Indeed, the SIT was established before the commencement of Period 3. 88 See January 2013 Report at 16-17, for additional background information. 89 During Period 3, the Monitor regularly reviewed SIT meeting agendas and minutes as well as other documents submitted to the SIT by MDHS/DFCS managers and staff.
41

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 48 of 251
Resource Home Recruitment and Retention Sub-team which shall meet at least quarterly, and shall issue progress reports to the Statewide Implementation Team no less frequently than every three months and which shall discuss accomplishments, challenges, and anticipated next steps. The Statewide Implementation Sub-Teams’ membership will include the Unit Director responsible for that Sub-Team’s particular function, a Regional Director, and such other staff persons the Statewide Implementation Team has deemed responsible for carrying out the particular Sub-Team’s function. Sub-Teams may also include representatives of other state agencies or stakeholders the Statewide Implementation Team has deemed necessary to carry out the Sub-Team’s function.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.A.1.b.: The defendants established the required sub-
teams on a timely basis. In addition to the specific sub-teams required by the Period 3 IP,
defendants established a sub-team to address finance issues and another to address MACWIS and
data issues. A review of work plans, progress reports, scheduling documents, and meeting
summaries, combined with interviews with many sub-team members, indicates that most of the
sub-teams generally functioned as contemplated by the Period 3 IP. Nonetheless, as the Monitor
has reported previously, certain sub-team work products related to several pivotal Period 3
requirements raise substantial concerns about defendants’ capacity to implement several core
MSA requirements.90
Period 3 IP §I.A.1.c. 1. Management c. By 30 days following the Court's approval of the Modified
Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall establish Regional Implementation Teams in Regions I-N, I-S, II-W, III-S, IV-N, IV-S, V-E and V-W. The Regional Implementation Teams will be chaired by the respective Regional Director and the membership will consist of appropriate staff persons and may also include representatives of other state agencies or stakeholders the Statewide Implementation Team has deemed necessary to carry out the Team’s function. The Regional Implementation Teams shall meet no less frequently than quarterly and shall issue progress reports to the Statewide Implementation Team no less frequently than quarterly. These reports shall discuss accomplishments, challenges, and anticipated next steps. The Regional Implementation Teams
90 The Monitor has reported previously about this issue. See January 2013 Report at 16-20 (describing limitations in the workforce development plan required by §I.A.2.b. of the Period 3 IP); see also infra at 89-92 (performancebased contracting).
42

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 49 of 251
will include Sub-Teams in the following practice areas: CQI and Resource Parent Recruitment and Retention.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.A.1.c.: The RITs were established in the targeted
eight regions at various points prior to and during Period 3. Notwithstanding efforts to
strengthen the operation of the RITs, many of the teams did not function as intended during Period 3.91 The RITs are conceptualized as an important Practice Model implementation tool.
Indeed, a primary purpose of the RITs is to guide implementation of the Practice Model. The
RITs are required to maintain several operable sub-teams, including the Regional CQI Sub-
Teams. The Regional CQI Sub-Teams have the following functions: 1) review regional
performance data generated by MACWIS or other sources on a regular basis; 2) review the
results of all regional CQI unit reviews; 3) identify regional performance trends that warrant
attention; 4) issue recommendations concerning the quality of casework and/or services as well
as the region’s capacity to implement the Practice Model; 5) participate in the development and
monitoring of regional improvement plans; and 6) monitor regional progress. These functions
play a critical role in advancing regional performance; however, there is continuing evidence that the shortcomings in the RITs that were identified during Period 3 have not yet been remedied.92
Period 3 IP §I.A.1.d. 1. Management d. Within six (6) months of the start of Implementation Period 3,
each of the Statewide Implementation Sub-Teams shall have finalized the work plans as described in I.A.1.b. above.
91 See Ex. 1, Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, September 2012, redacted excerpt, at 20-21 (referring to “the struggle that the majority of RDs [regional directors] have shared concerning maintaining active involvement of team members and in the overall creation of functional RIT’s” [sic]; stating that “[a] number of RDs have reported inconsistent attendance [at team meetings] from members along with uncertainty about how to maintain their involvement in revising and updating the plans”; indicating that “[s]everal RDs have acknowledged that they have not been able to schedule meetings on a quarterly basis and some do not yet have functional CQI and Resource Recruitment sub-teams”; describing efforts to strengthen the RITs, but noting that additional attention to the limitations in the RITs was needed). 92 See Ex. 21, infra note 277, at 7 for additional information about how the RITs are intended to function.
43

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 50 of 251
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.A.1.d.: Section I.A.1.b. of the Period 3 IP plainly
requires defendants to establish specified sub-teams “responsible for designing and guiding the
work plans necessary to implement the requirements of the Modified Settlement Agreement and
[the Period 3 Implementation] Plan in their respective functional areas.” In response to the
Monitor’s request, during February 2013 the defendants submitted a series of documents that
they referred to as the work plans generated by the required sub-teams.93 With few notable
exceptions, the documents that were submitted do not provide the basic detail necessary to guide
the work of the sub-teams in their respective functional areas.94
Modified Settlement Agreement (“MSA”) §§II.A.2.a.8. and II.A.2.a.9.a. 2. Human Resources Management
a. Workforce 8) Within 90 days following the start of Implementation Period Three, DFCS shall formulate and begin implementing a methodology for producing accurate and validated caseworker and supervisor caseload data reports, if such reports do not currently exist. Data reports shall be produced in each county monthly. Within 120 days of the date this Modified Settlement Agreement is filed, DFCS shall provide the Plaintiffs and the Monitor with county-by-county caseload data on a monthly basis.
9) By the end of Implementation Period Three: (a) At least 75% of DFCS caseworkers shall carry a caseload that does not exceed Modified Settlement Agreement caseload requirements. No more than 10% of caseworkers shall carry a caseload exceeding twice the Modified Settlement Agreement caseload requirements.
93 See Ex. 2A, February 14, 2013 e-mail to Grace M. Lopes from Ginger Gibson with redacted attachments (seven documents reported to constitute all of the sub-team work plans except MACWIS and CQI); Ex. 2B, February 23, 2013 e-mail to Grace M. Lopes from Ginger Gibson with redacted attachment (CQI work plan). A separate document, referred to as the MACWIS work plan, was transmitted to the Monitor on July 8, 2013, see Ex. 2C, July 8, 2013 e-mail to Mia Caras from Ginger Gibson with attached document, Requirements Matrix for the Modified Settlement Agreement (MSA) and Year III Implementation Plan (IP). 94 As part of their February 14, 2013 submission, defendants transmitted a document entitled Mississippi Diligent Recruitment of Families for Children, Implementation Plan – Phase II, Version A [hereinafter Diligent Recruitment Plan] and an additional document titled, State Implementation Finance Sub-Team Project Plan [hereinafter Finance Project Plan]. The finance project plan constitutes the equivalent of a work plan crafted to address specific MSA requirements. However, the finance work plan was not required by this subsection of the MSA. The Diligent Recruitment Plan was developed to satisfy requirements related to a multi-year federal grant addressed in Appendix “D” to the MSA, see infra 182-183 for a discussion of this grant. While it does not constitute the work plan contemplated by this MSA requirement, it is closer to a work plan than many of the remaining submissions, which, at best, appear to constitute tracking documents.
44

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 51 of 251
No caseworkers shall carry a caseload exceeding three times the Modified Settlement Agreement caseload requirements. Hancock, Harrison, Hinds, and Jackson Counties (the “Carve Out Counties”) are exempt from these requirements during Implementation Period Three.
Status of Progress, MSA §§II.A.2.a.8 and II.A.2.a.9.a.: As explained below, these
requirements were not satisfied during Period 3. The ability to report accurately and at regular
intervals on caseworker caseloads is a predicate for hiring and maintaining an adequate
workforce and for balancing the workload among caseworkers. Caseworker staffing affects the
defendants’ ability to meet the MSA’s core case practice requirements, and as the record in this
case demonstrates it can have a significant and tragic impact on the safety and well-being of the
children who are in defendants’ custody.95
The MSA establishes two types of caseload requirements: 1) dedicated caseload
requirements, which pertain to caseworkers who are assigned to only one specific type of case
such as investigations, adoptions or foster care cases;96 and 2) generic caseload requirements,
which pertain to caseworkers who are assigned to a mixed caseload.97 Most DFCS caseworkers
carry mixed caseloads. For purposes of measuring dedicated caseloads, the MSA specifies eight
unique service categories, each with its own caseload requirements.98 For purposes of measuring
mixed caseloads, the MSA identifies 25 distinct service categories.99 Each service category is
95 See, e.g., infra at 149-151 (staffing shortages in the county where a two-year old child who died while in custody was placed resulted in the failure to assign a caseworker to the child’s case; while different staff reportedly visited the placement, safety issues were not addressed). 96 MSA §II.A.2.a.1. 97 Id. §II.A.2.a.2. 98 Id. §II.A.2.a.1. The service categories for dedicated caseloads are adoption, child protection, ongoing foster care, new application licensing, in-home protection, in-home dependency/prevention, renewal licensing, abuse and neglect intake. 99 Id. §II.A.2.a.2. The service categories for mixed caseloads are adoption county of service [hereinafter COS], interstate compact for the placement of children [hereinafter ICPC] incoming, outgoing, and application; placement county of responsibility [hereinafter COR], COS, responsibility and service [hereinafter R&S]; prevention COR, COS and R&S; protective services COR, COS and R&S; case management intake; court ordered relative application; investigation level 2, level 3; general intake; resource inquiry; adoption addendum; foster home addendum; resource home study; resource home supervision; resource renewal; and courtesy interviews.
45

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 52 of 251
allotted a certain number of minutes or units per month.100 Pursuant to the MSA, a caseworker’s
mixed caseload may not exceed 6,960 minutes, the equivalent of 100 units of case-related work per month.101
Defendants have been required to produce accurate and validated reports on caseworker caseloads since the start of Period 1 in 2008.102 Notwithstanding the importance of these reports, they failed to do so.103 Accordingly, during Period 3, §II.A.2.a.8. of the MSA required the
defendants to formulate by early October 2012, and to begin implementing by early November
2012, a methodology for producing accurate and validated caseload reports on a county-by-
county basis at monthly intervals. Pursuant to this subsection, defendants were required to
provide the monthly reports to plaintiffs and the Monitor within 120 days of the filing date of the MSA or by November 3, 2012.104 As explained below, although the defendants made efforts to
satisfy this requirement, the required methodology was not developed and the reports were not
produced, as required.
On December 3, 2012, after almost five months had lapsed in Period 3, the defendants
informed plaintiffs’ counsel and the Monitor that the caseload data reports would be delayed due
to many unanticipated difficulties related to implementation of the Family Service Plan (“FSP”).105 Defendants stated that redesign work would need to be conducted and that the first
100 Because the minute calculations proved impractical for supervisors and caseworkers to apply on a daily basis, the MSA modified the caseload requirements by, among other things, converting the minutes allocated for each service type into units based on a 100-point scale. Compare Settlement Agreement §II.A.2.a.2. with MSA §II.A.2.a.2. 101 For example, courtesy interviews are allotted 65 minutes or 1.0 units per month. MSA §II.A.2.a.2. 102 Settlement Agreement §§II.A.2.a.7. and II.A.2.a.10. 103 See The Court Monitor’s Report to the Court Regarding Defendants’ Progress Toward Meeting Period-1 Requirements [hereinafter June 2009 Report], filed June 5, 2009 [Dkt. No. 488], at 25-35 for background related to defendants’ performance. 104 MSA §II.A.5.c.2. and App. C at 2. 105 The FSP is a key case planning and management tool that is used to facilitate permanency. For additional descriptive data related to the FSP, see Ex. 3, Mississippi, DFCS Policy, Section D, Foster Care, Revised 7-22-13, §VII.B.4., at 62-65.
46

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 53 of 251
reports would be run by March 5, 2013.106 Thereafter, the defendants informed the Monitor that the reports would be delayed even further.
Because defendants failed, during Period 3, to produce accurate and validated caseload reports on a monthly basis, both the June 24, 2013 Order107 and the Initial Period 4 Implementation Plan (“Initial Period 4 IP”)108 required production of the monthly reports that were due during Period 3 by a date certain and thereafter on an ongoing, monthly basis. Defendants were also required to produce by October 1, 2013, and monthly thereafter, data reports addressing whether caseworkers with mixed and dedicated caseloads carried caseloads that exceeded MSA requirements for each month during the 12-month period beginning July 2012 and ending July 2013. More specifically, defendants were required to produce by September 1, 2013, and monthly thereafter, data reports addressing whether caseworkers with mixed and dedicated caseloads carried twice the MSA caseload requirements for each month during the 12-month period beginning July 2012 and ending July 2013.
As required by the June 24, 2013 Order, defendants worked collaboratively with the Monitor and plaintiffs’ counsel to develop specifications for the caseload reports. The specifications for both the dedicated caseload and the mixed caseload reports were finalized by late August 2013.109 Because the collaborative process related to the development of the specifications was more protracted than the process utilized for other reports, there was an informal agreement to afford some latitude to defendants with respect to the September 1
106 Ex. 4A, December 3, 2012 correspondence to Miriam Ingber from Kenya Key Rachal. In subsequent correspondence, defendants clarified this representation, indicating that they anticipated the reports would be run by March 5, 2013. See Ex. 4B, January 2, 2013 correspondence to Miriam Ingber from Kenya Key Rachal; Ex. 4C, February 1, 2013 correspondence to Miriam Ingber from Kenya Key Rachal. 107 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.E., Attachments One and Two. 108 Initial Period 4 IP §II.C.1.a.-c. 109 There was agreement to run the report weekly for a three-month period and thereafter for defendants, in consultation with plaintiffs and the Monitor, to determine whether the report should be run less frequently.
47

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 54 of 251
deadline. On September 4, 2013, in response to an inquiry from the Monitor, defendants advised
that the report was being developed and would be produced as soon as it became available.110
On October 1, 2013, defendants produced a data report related to the dedicated caseload
requirement for August 31, 2013, a one-day snapshot.111 Based on these data, the Monitor has
analyzed defendants’ performance with respect to dedicated caseload requirements. The results
of this analysis are addressed at the conclusion of this section.112 At the time that the defendants
submitted the dedicated caseload report, they explained that none of the required dedicated
caseload data for Period 3 could be produced because defendants had learned, presumably after
the June 23, 2013 Order and Initial Period 4 IP were finalized, that MACWIS does not maintain
the data needed to produce historical caseload reports.113
Thus far, defendants’ efforts to produce accurate mixed caseload reports have proven to
be more challenging. On November 1, 2013, the defendants reported that they had run the mixed
caseload report as of September 30, 2013, but during the validation process a determination was
made that a number of programming “fixes” were needed.114 They indicated that the final fix
had been completed that week, but noted that there was insufficient time to accommodate the
field validation process.115 Additionally, they expressed skepticism about the practicality of field
110 Ex. 5A, September 4, 2013 e-mail to Grace M. Lopes from Kenya Rachal (referencing the parties’ previous agreement). 111 Defendants have continued to submit monthly reports regarding dedicated caseloads. 112 See infra at 54. 113 Ex. 5B, October 2, 2013 correspondence to Miriam Ingber from Kenya Key Rachal (the dedicated caseload report is referred to in the correspondence as “AR3,” the report’s designated tracking number); see also Ex. 5C, September 3, 2013 correspondence to Miriam Ingber from Ashley C. Tullos (noting, in the context of addressing a data reporting requirement related to supervisory workloads, that during the validation process the defendants discovered the start and end dates of supervisory and caseworker assignments were not recorded in MACWIS). 114 Ex. 5D, November 1, 2013 correspondence to Miriam Ingber from Kenya Key Rachal (The mixed caseload report is referred to in the correspondence as “AR1 Detail Report Workload.” AR1 constitutes the mixed caseload report’s designated tracking number.). 115 The field validation process requires managers and other staff in each DFCS county office to verify the accuracy of the caseload data in the reports. Defendants reported that it takes eight days to accomplish field validation of the caseload report. Id. at 4. More recently, in March 31, 2014 correspondence to plaintiffs’ counsel, defendants
48

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 55 of 251
staff validating historical caseload data. Thus, defendants stated that they planned to run a new
mixed caseload report as of November 1, 2013, and complete a “face validity check” as well as the field validation process.116 For this reason, defendants reported that the mixed caseload report would be submitted on December 1, 2013.117
On December 2, 2013 defendants disclosed that they had “discovered some data entry errors that impact the location/title of some workers.”118 They indicated that the errors were
“being corrected” and that they expected to produce the mixed caseload report by the end of the week.119 Because MACWIS does not maintain the historical caseload data, instead of producing
the 16 monthly reports that defendants were required to produce starting in July 2012, defendants
produced a November 1, 2013 point-in-time report regarding mixed caseloads on December 6, 2013.120 No limitations in the report were identified by the defendants at the time it was produced.121 Thereafter, on December 20, 2013, defendants produced an additional point-intime report dated November 30, 2013.122
The Monitor’s analysis of the November 1, 2013 point-in-time data for mixed caseloads
revealed that over ten percent, or 71 of the 631 DFCS employees listed as carrying cases, were supervisors and not caseworkers.123 In light of the fact that the data defendants produced
regarding supervisory assignments was inconsistent with other information obtained by the
reported that it takes an average of two to three weeks to conduct a 100 percent field validation of the mixed caseload report in each DFCS region. 116 The face validity check contemplates a preliminary review of the report to ensure, among other matters, that the data presented conform to the report specifications, and that mathematical calculations are accurate. 117 Id. at 4. 118 Ex. 5E, December 2, 2013 correspondence to Julia Davis from Kenya Key Rachal. 119 Id. 120 Ex. 5F, December 6, 2013 correspondence to Julia Davis from Kenya Key Rachal. 121 Id. 122 Ex. 5G, December 20, 2013 correspondence to Julia Davis from Kenya Key Rachal. 123 Ex. 5H, chart prepared by Office of the Court Monitor, Caseworkers with Mixed Caseloads Meeting MSA Requirements, by Region, One-Day Snapshot 11/1/13 (graphically depicting the results of the Monitor’s analysis of the November 1, 2013 mixed caseload data submitted by the defendants).
49

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 56 of 251
Monitor during the course of Period 3,124 and the fact that the MSA expressly prohibits the
defendants from assigning primary casework responsibility to supervisors (except in extenuating circumstances),125 the Monitor informed the parties that she had concerns about the accuracy of
the data reports that the defendants produced.
Thereafter, on January 8, 2014, the defendants were required by the Final Period 4 IP to take remedial action to correct the mixed caseload data they had submitted.126 The Final Period
4 IP required that by January 15, 2014, the defendants, in consultation with the Monitor,
undertake a process to correct the November 1 and November 30, 2013 mixed caseload data and
any subsequent monthly mixed caseload data reports insofar as they addressed supervisory case assignments.127 It also required that by January 24, 2014, the defendants produce to the Monitor
supplemental information to correct the November 1 and November 30, 2013 mixed caseload reports insofar as the supervisory assignments were concerned.128 Beginning the week of
February 1, 2014, it required the defendants to produce mixed caseload reports on a weekly basis
for a three-month period, and thereafter to determine reporting intervals for the mixed caseload reports, in consultation with plaintiffs and the Monitor.129
The defendants consulted with the Monitor and undertook a process to correct the mixed
caseload reports on a timely basis, as required. Thereafter, on January 24, 2014, defendants
submitted a narrative explaining why the November 1 and 30, 2013 data reports incorrectly listed
124 As indicated supra at 38, the Monitor interviewed members of the DFCS management team as well as a large number of caseworkers and their supervisors in multiple regions during the course of Period 3. The interview data did not suggest supervisory assignments to cases were as widespread as was indicated by the mixed caseload data the defendants produced. 125 MSA §II.A.2.a.9.d. (prohibiting, by the end of Period 3, supervisors to be assigned primary responsibility for providing direct casework for any cases absent extenuating circumstances and only for a time-limited duration with management approval); id. §II.A.2.a.6. 126 Final Period 4 IP §II.A.1-3. 127 Id. §II.A.1. 128 Id. §II.A.2. 129 Id. §II.A.3.
50

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 57 of 251
supervisors as assigned to certain cases as well as spreadsheets itemizing the cause of the errors
in each instance.130 Spreadsheets with “corrected” November 1 and 30, 2013 case assignments
were also provided.131
The defendants’ January 24, 2014 submission identified several factors that contributed
to the inaccuracies in the caseworker/supervisory assignment data that had been reported by
MACWIS.132 Significantly, defendants explained that 119 cases should not have been included
in the reports at all, much less identified as assigned to a supervisor, because they were closed
cases, some dating back to 2001, that had not been closed out properly in MACWIS.133 The
defendants are well aware that the failure to properly close cases in MACWIS is an issue that
affects the reliability of caseload data.134 Indeed, it is a limitation that the defendants have
repeatedly recognized and attempted but failed to correct.135 In large part, the June 24, 2013
Order was intended to address these types of shortcomings in defendants’ performance.136
130 Ex. 5I, January 24, 2014 correspondence to Grace Lopes from Kenya Key Rachal, redacted, with supplementary data explaining each incorrect supervisory case assignment and “corrected” data. 131 Id. 132 For example, defendants reported that the data report was programmed in a way that extracted data from a data field in MACWIS that was not uniformly populated with the name of the caseworker assigned to a case. In other instances, cases that were no longer active had not been closed in MACWIS and therefore erroneously appeared on the caseload data report submitted by defendants. There were an additional number of cases that defendants identified as erroneously appearing on the caseload data report for reasons defendants could not specify at the time they submitted the document. 133 Id. at DHS 362238-362248. 134 See, e.g., January 2013 Report at 23-24 and Ex. 2 (stating that the SIT sub-team for caseload and staffing had reported in November 2012 that MACWIS caseload reports did not accurately reflect actual staffing needs, specifically in the carve-out counties, where numerous cases identified in MACWIS as open should have been closed). 135 Ex. 5J, Division of Family and Children’s Services, Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) Sub Team Quarterly Report (July 2012 – October 2012), redacted excerpt, at 4 (recognizing that defendants were unable for many years to end the custody date recorded in MACWIS within 60 days of custody termination, and commenting that defendants’ failure rate had climbed to 19 percent); Ex. 5K, Continuous Quality Improvement Sub Team Meetings Meeting Minutes, October 2, 2012, redacted, at 2 (recognizing that the problem is worse in some areas, and that there is a need for improvements in tracking and monitoring); Ex. 5L, Division of Family and Children’s Services, Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) Sub Team Quarterly Report (February 21, 2013 through June 30, 2013), redacted excerpt, at 4 (noting modest improvement in performance, that case “clean up” efforts likely to “escalate” percentage of erroneous data, and that DFCS CQI staff continues to monitor children exiting custody and the reasons that custody terminations are not reflected in MACWIS). 136 See, e.g., June 24, 2013 Order §§II., III., and IV.
51

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 58 of 251
The explanations defendants have provided for the inaccuracies in the caseload data raise very serious concerns about the reliability of DFCS’s enhanced data validation process, adopted in the wake of the June 24, 2013 Order. Defendants created a specialized and labor-intensive validation process for the caseload reports that requires face validity checks and a 100 percent validation in the field for all cases and case assignments. This type of process should have identified the incorrect supervisory assignments that were included in the November 1 and 30, 2013 mixed caseload reports, and enabled the defendants to determine on a more timely basis the causes of this shortcoming.
In any event, on February 3, 2014, following defendants’ January 24, 2014 submission, they reported that the mixed caseload report that was required by the Final Period 4 IP to be produced on a weekly basis starting the week of February 1, 2014 would be delayed once more.137 Defendants indicated that while reviewing supervisory caseload assignments, DFCS discovered that some lines of services appeared erroneously in the report.138 Defendants noted that DFCS was working to address the issue and that the report would be produced as soon as possible.139 On February 7, 2014, the Monitor asked defendants whether the issue discovered with the mixed caseload data report due at the start of February affected the validity, accuracy and/or completeness of the “corrected” November 1 and November 30, 2013 mixed caseload reports.140 One week later, on February 14, 2014, defendants responded to this inquiry, advising the Monitor that the identical errors had been found in the “corrected” November 1 and November 30, 2013 caseload reports. Thereafter, on February 24, 2014, defendants advised that the November 1 and 30, 2013 mixed caseload reports could not be corrected. On February 25,
137 Ex. 5M, February 3, 2014 correspondence to Julia Davis from Kenya Key Rachal. 138 Id. 139 Id. 140 Ex. 5N, February 7, 2014 e-mail to Kenya Rachal from Grace M. Lopes.
52

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 59 of 251
2014, defendants reported that they had made a series of changes in MACWIS to improve the accuracy of the mixed caseload reports, and that they would begin to run the reports starting the week of March 3, 2014. Defendants also reported that they would undertake a 100 percent field validation process on a region by region basis in order to identify and decrease data entry errors.141 On February 27, 2014, plaintiffs submitted a notice of noncompliance related to the mixed caseload reports pursuant to MSA §VII.B., triggering the MSA corrective action and dispute resolution process. On March 31, 2014, in response to plaintiffs’ February 27, 2014 correspondence, defendants reported that they were submitting mixed caseload data for March 3, 12, and 20, 2014. The Monitor received these data on April 2, 2014.
In light of the history related to defendants’ efforts to produce accurate mixed caseload data, the Monitor assessed the processes defendants implemented to improve the accuracy of the mixed caseload reports that she received on April 2, 2014. During the course of this assessment, DFCS representatives responsible for the mixed caseload validation process reported that a member of the field staff discovered certain data omissions in the mixed caseload data that was produced on April 10, 2014. Upon analysis of the omissions, defendants determined that a report programming error resulted in the exclusion of certain caseload carrying caseworkers from the mixed caseload data report. This programming error reportedly impacted the weekly caseload data that was produced and submitted to the Monitor on April 2, 2014. Defendants reported that they were able to correct the data beginning with the weekly data produced on April 10, 2014. As of May 6, 2014, the Monitor had not received those data.
141 Ex. 5O, February 25, 2014 e-mail to Grace M. Lopes and Julia Davis from Kenya Rachal with annotated February 24, 2014 e-mail to Kenya Rachal and Julia Davis from Grace M. Lopes, redacted.
53

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 60 of 251
Because of the continuing limitations in defendants’ performance, the Monitor cannot report on defendants’ performance relative to the Period 3 caseload requirements.142 However, as noted above, the Monitor was able to analyze caseloads for a small subset of DFCS caseworkers – those assigned to a dedicated caseload. Although defendants were unable to report on performance as of the end of Period 3, the data that were produced show that for the cohort of caseworkers who have dedicated caseloads and excluding the four carve-out counties, as of August 31, 2013, 79 percent of caseworkers with a dedicated caseload carried a caseload that did not exceed MSA requirements; eight percent of this cohort carried a caseload exceeding twice the MSA requirements; and none of the caseworkers in this cohort carried a caseload exceeding three times the MSA requirements.143
Understanding caseworker caseloads is fundamental to defendants’ ability to assess their performance levels with respect to innumerable MSA requirements. For many MSA requirements, if performance is lagging, defendants must be able to determine quickly and at a detailed level whether performance levels are being driven by caseworkers with caseloads that are too high. The importance of the data to defendants hiring and casework assignment practices cannot be overstated.
The Monitor’s analysis of caseworker hiring and attrition for the period beginning January 1, 2010 and ending December 31, 2013 indicates that overall defendants had a net gain of 128 caseworkers during this four-year period. In Period 3, defendants made substantial gains
142 See January 2013 Report at 34. This issue has been addressed in multiple reports filed by the Monitor. See. e.g., June 2009 Report at 29, 32-35; The Court Monitor’s Report to the Court Regarding Defendants’ Progress Toward Meeting Period 2 Requirements [hereinafter September 2010 Report], filed September 8, 2010 [Dkt. No. 503], at 1922; The Court Monitor’s November 23, 2010 Report to the Court Regarding the June 10, 2010 Agreed Order for Corrective Action [hereinafter November 2010 Report], filed November 23, 2010 [Dkt. No. 528], at 22; January 2013 Report at 34. 143 App. A, Ex. 15A, chart prepared by Office of the Court Monitor, Caseworkers with Dedicated Caseloads Exceeding MSA Requirements, by Region, One-Day Snapshots, 8/31/13 and 9/30/13.
54

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 61 of 251
in hiring caseworker staff, gaining a net of 45 new caseworker staff. These findings are presented in the following chart:
This recent progress represents an encouraging development, but it is a poor substitute for actual caseworker caseload data. Defendants must produce complete and accurate caseload data so that the parties and the Monitor can assess, among other things, the impact of defendants’ hiring on caseload levels.
MSA §II.A.2.a.9.b. 2. Human Resources Management
a. Workforce 9) By the end of Implementation Period Three: (b) No more than 10% of supervisors who are responsible for supervising DFCS caseworkers shall be responsible for directly supervising more than five caseworkers. Hancock, Harrison, Hinds, and Jackson Counties are
55

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 62 of 251
exempt from this requirement during Implementation Period Three.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.A.2.a.9.b.: As explained below, this requirement was not satisfied during Period 3. There is a critical need for defendants to more effectively address this pivotal staffing issue.
Like the caseworker caseload reports addressed in the preceding section of this report, defendants have been required to provide accurate and validated reports on supervisory workloads since the start of Period 1.144 They failed to do so, and thus during Period 3 the MSA required defendants to begin producing monthly supervisory workload reports to plaintiffs’ counsel and the Monitor by November 3, 2012.145 Defendants reported that they made efforts to satisfy this requirement, but they were unable to produce the reports during Period 3.146
Because defendants failed to produce accurate and validated supervisory workload reports during Period 3, both the June 24, 2013 Order and the Initial Period 4 IP required production of the reports that had been due during Period 3 by September 1, 2013, and thereafter on a monthly basis.147 On September 3, 2013 defendants produced a supervisory workload report for July 31, 2013.148 They reported that they were unable to produce the reports that were due during Period 3 because MACWIS does not retain historical supervisory workload data.149 The next day defendants informed the Monitor that there was an issue with the Excel version of the report that they had sent the previous day, but that the PDF version that also had been transmitted had no limitations. They indicated that they were working to address the issue and
144 Settlement Agreement §II.A.2.a.7.-8. 145 MSA §II.A.5.c.2. and App. C at 3. 146 See Ex. 4A, Ex. 4B, and Ex. 4C, supra note 106 (explaining the report was delayed due to many unanticipated difficulties in implementation of the FSP). 147 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.E., Attachments One and Two; Initial Period 4 IP §II.C.1.a.-c. 148 See Ex. 5C, supra note 113. The supervisory workload reports are based on point-in-time snapshots. 149 Id.
56

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 63 of 251
would send the revised Excel version as soon as it was ready.150 Defendants were required by
the Initial Period 4 IP to produce the reports in Excel format so the data could be more readily
verified, manipulated and analyzed.151 On September 18, 2013, defendants transmitted a revised
Excel version of the report. Since that time they have produced the supervisory workload reports
at monthly intervals as required.152
Pursuant to the MSA, no more than 10 percent of supervisors in the non-carve-out
counties who are responsible for supervising caseworkers may supervise more than five
caseworkers.153 Based on the data defendants produced, as of July 31, 2013, shortly after the end
of Period 3, 16.8 percent of supervisors in the non-carve-out counties were supervising more
than five caseworkers.154 On August 31, 2013, the data indicate that 19.4 percent of supervisors
were supervising more than five caseworkers, and one month later, on September 30, 2013, the
data show 20.6 percent of supervisors were supervising more than five caseworkers. This
downward trend in supervisory staffing levels is not new. Indeed, the Monitor has reported on
this phenomenon on multiple occasions.155
The Monitor analyzed supervisory hiring and separation data over a four-year period
from 2010 through 2013. The data, presented in the chart below, indicate that during Period 3,
defendants lost 17 more supervisors than they hired.
150 See Ex. 5A, supra note 110. 151 Initial Period 4 IP §II.C.1.c. 152 Ex. 6A, September 18, 2013 correspondence to Miriam Ingber from Kenya Key Rachal. 153 As noted in the narrative related to Period 3 IP §§I.A.2.b. and I.A.2.c.3., infra at 63-67 during Period 3, Hancock, Harrison, Hinds, and Jackson Counties were exempted from the MSA requirements because of the parties’ shared recognition that long-standing staffing deficits justified subjecting these counties to different requirements. Hence, they are referred to in the MSA and the Period 3 IP as the “carve-out” counties. 154 App. A, Ex. 14A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Number of Supervisors Supervising One to Five and Six or More Case Workers, by Region, One-Day Snapshot, 7/31/13, 8/31/13, and 9/30/13. 155 See, e.g., The Court Monitor’s Report to the Court Regarding Findings From the Second Case Record Review And Other Matters Relevant to Defendants’ Progress Toward Satisfying the Requirements of the Settlement Agreement [hereinafter June 2012 Report], filed June 29, 2012 [Dkt. No. 570], at 41 (noting net loss of four supervisors between January 2010 and April 2012); January 2013 Report at 28-29 (noting net loss of three supervisors during Period 3).
57

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 64 of 251
Supervisors are a lynchpin in defendants’ reform strategy. In order to change case practice, DFCS must have a sufficient number of qualified supervisors available to support caseworkers and hold them accountable for meeting DFCS policy guidelines and MSA practice standards. The defendants recognize there is a critical need to increase supervisory staffing levels and have undertaken a specific initiative to address this issue. On January 16, 2014, defendants requested an exemption from the Council on Accreditation (“COA”)156 to
156 COA is an independent, non-profit, accrediting organization that accredits human services entities, including public sector child and family services agencies. Like the Settlement Agreement, the MSA requires defendants to obtain COA accreditation. See Settlement Agreement §IV; MSA §IV.
58

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 65 of 251
accreditation standards that require supervisory staff to have advanced degrees.157 The
defendants’ request for the exemption cited attrition, a rapid increase in caseworker staffing levels, and an increase in the number of children in custody as justification for the request.158
COA granted a temporary exemption on February 26, 2014, which will be “revisit[ed]” in March 2015.159 The exemption, which defendants report was approved by the State Personnel Board
(“SPB”) on or about April 1, 2014, permits DFCS to hire supervisors without advanced degrees
if they are enrolled in a graduate program and working toward an advanced degree in social work or a comparable human service field.160 The revised job description was posted on the SPB
website on April 14, 2014. As noted elsewhere in this report,161 because of supervisory staffing shortages,
defendants have reassigned staff in other critical positions, on a temporary basis, to supervisory
positions. This is not a long-term solution. Moreover, it can impede progress in the program areas from which the staff are reassigned.162
MSA §II.A.2.a.9.c. 2. Human Resources Management
a. Workforce 9) By the end of Implementation Period Three: (c) Caseworkers shall have access to a supervisor by telephone 24 hours a day.
157 Ex. 6B, January 16, 2014 correspondence to Rebecca Tedesco from Mark A. Smith, redacted, with attached excerpt from January 2013 Report. During 2013 COA granted a temporary exemption to the supervisory educational qualification requirements that was limited to the carve-out counties. 158 Id. Defendants also cited the relevant findings regarding ASWS staffing levels reflected in the Monitor’s January 2013 Report. 159 Ex. 6C, February 26, 2014 correspondence to Mark Smith from Rebecca Tedesco, redacted. 160 Id. According to the terms of the exemption, candidates must be hired with an expected date by which they will receive the degree. 161 See, e.g., infra note 172. 162 See also the narrative related to Period 3 IP §§I.A.2.b. and I.A.2.c.3., infra at 62, for a discussion regarding the temporary reassignments of the practice coaches.
59

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 66 of 251
Status of Progress, MSA §II.A.2.a.9.c.: This requirement has been satisfied. The current ASWS position description requires supervisors to remain on-call on a 24-hour basis.163
Interviews with DFCS caseworkers and supervisors indicate that this policy is being
implemented statewide. On-call schedules are established periodically on a rotational basis, and
they are communicated to county office staff. The Monitor has interviewed hundreds of
caseworkers during her tenure on this case, and with very few exceptions, they have reported no
difficulty communicating with their supervisors at all hours of the day and night, including on
weekends and holidays.
MSA §II.A.2.a.9.d. 2. Human Resources Management a. Workforce
9) By the end of Implementation Period Three: (d) Supervisors will not be assigned primary responsibility for providing direct casework for any cases, unless under the extenuating circumstances exception as described above.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.A.2.a.9.d.: As reported in the narrative related to MSA §II.A.2.a.8.,164 defendants failed to report on this requirement during Period 3, and
notwithstanding the requirements of the June 24, 2013 Order and the Initial Period 4 IP, they have been unable to produce accurate and validated data related to this requirement.165
Interviews with supervisors and caseworkers indicate that supervisors have been assigned
primary responsibility for cases, particularly in some DFCS regions; however, the Monitor is
unable to report on this requirement absent an analysis of validated mixed caseload data which defendants are required to produce pursuant to MSA §II.A.2.a.9.a.166 As described in the
163 Ex. 7, DHS-Area Social Work Supervisor, Position Description for Hancock County, at 5. While this position description related to an ASWS position in Hancock County, the 24-hour on-call job duty extends statewide. 164 Supra at 44-54. 165 Id. 166 See id. for the narrative related to MSA §II.A.2.a.9.a. regarding the status of the mixed caseload data.
60

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 67 of 251
narrative related to MSA §§II.A.2.a.8. and II.A.2.a.9.a.,167 as of May 6, 2014, defendants had not produced complete and validated caseload data to the Monitor.
Period 3 IP §I.A.2.a. 2. Workforce a. By August 1, 2012, Defendants shall maintain a practice coach
in Regions I-N, I-S, II-E, II-W, III-N, III-S, IV-N, IV-S, V-E, VW, VI, VII-E, and VII-W to facilitate Practice Model implementation.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.A.2.a.: As explained below, by the August 1, 2012 deadline, practice coaches were assigned to most but not all DFCS regions; however, there was at least one coach assigned to each of DFCS’s 13 regions by January 2013. While defendants have generally maintained at least one practice coach in each region, the coaches and the DFCS manager charged with oversight of Practice Model implementation have been subject to temporary, and sometimes protracted, reassignments to address staffing deficits in their own or other DFCS regions.
Two types of coaching have been used to promote implementation of the Practice Model. CSF has provided coaches in each DFCS region to train and work with regional directors and supervisors on Practice Model implementation. Additionally, DFCS has hired employees to serve as Practice Model coaches to train and mentor caseworkers. The DFCS coaches work oneon-one with the caseworkers. This requirement targets the DFCS coaches.
Interviews with practice coaches, DFCS managers and CSF contractors responsible for supporting the implementation of the Practice Model, as well as a review of monthly reports related to Practice Model implementation, establish that as of August 1, 2012, at least one DFCS practice coach was assigned to ten of DFCS’s 13 regions.168 By the August 1 deadline, coaches
167 Supra at 44-54. 168 At that time, two practice coaches were assigned to Regions II-W, III-N, and V-E.
61

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 68 of 251
had been identified for two of the three regions that did not have a practice coach assigned.169 By
November 2012, at least one coach had been hired for all 13 regions and all coaches were
working in their assigned regions by January 2013. Since that time, defendants generally have
maintained at least one coach in each DFCS region. In fact, many regions have two coaches and
one region has three coaches.170
Defendants also have created an administrative management structure for the coaches,
requiring them to report to one of two coaching supervisors who in turn report to a DFCS
manager responsible for Practice Model implementation statewide.171 Unfortunately, since mid-
September 2013, the statewide manager for practice coaching has been serving as an acting
ASWS, and more recently as an acting regional director, in an understaffed DFCS region.172
Moreover, because of staffing deficits, defendants have been reassigning a number of the
regional practice coaches on a temporary basis to other positions in their assigned regions as well
as in other DFCS regions. These reassignments undercut defendants’ efforts to improve case
practice.173
169 The three regions that did not have at least one practice coach as of August 2012 were Regions I-N, VI, and VIIW. 170 Region VII-W has three Practice Model coaches. 171 The coaching supervisor for the northern half of the state was a former regional practice coach. She assumed the supervisory position in October 2012 and is based in Region I-S. The coaching supervisor for the southern half of the state is a former DFCS regional director who is based in Region VI. She assumed the supervisory position in June 2013, but was resigned effective May 31, 2014. Defendants report that efforts are ongoing to fill this key position. 172 Because of the shortage of supervisory staff in Region VI, the manager was assigned on September 16, 2013 to serve on a temporary basis as an ASWS in Forrest County and thereafter as one of two temporarily assigned regional directors in Region VI. Defendants report that a new regional director began working in Region VI on April 28, 2014. Because this manager must participate in the DFCS pre-service training program, defendants plan for the DFCS practice coach manager to remain in Region VI for the near term. 173 For example, according to the February 2014 Monthly Status Report on Practice Model Implementation submitted to the Monitor by CSF during February 2014, the practice coach assigned to Region IV-S was deployed to a special assignment in Region VI, leaving Region IV-S without a practice coach. Id. at 7. Similarly, during February 2014, the practice coach assigned to Region II-E was also on special assignment and unavailable to perform any coaching; however, the practice coaches in an adjacent region were able to provide coaching to a limited number of Region II-E staff. Id. at 11. Also during February 2014, one of two practice coaches assigned to Region VI was assigned to conduct investigations during the month instead of coaching. Id.
62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 69 of 251
Period 3 IP §§I.A.2.b. and I.A.2.c.3. 2. Workforce b. Within nine (9) months of the start of Implementation Period 3,
Defendants shall have finalized and begun implementing a Workforce Development Plan. This Workforce Development Plan shall address the recruitment and retention of DFCS professional and support staff as well as bring its current staff into substantial compliance with the worker and supervisor qualification requirements of the Modified Settlement Agreement. The Workforce Development Plan shall identify the specific steps, strategies, financial resources, and short- and long-term staffing goals with related timeframes that are necessary to meet the staffing requirements of the Modified Settlement Agreement. The Workforce Development Plan shall be approved by the Monitor as meeting the requirements of this Period 3 Implementation Plan and shall include a section focused specifically on recruitment and retention in Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson Counties (“Coast”), as well as strategies to support staff on the Coast, and shall also include a separate section focused specifically on recruitment, retention, and support strategies in Hinds County.
c. Defendants shall actively engage in recruitment and retention activities to address the workload issues in Hancock, Harrison, Hinds, and Jackson Counties as follows: 3) By September 1, 2012, Defendants shall have written the Coast and Hinds County sections of the Workforce Plan as required in Section I.A.2.b above.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §§I.A.2.b and I.A.2.c.3.: Although defendants issued
revised versions of the workforce development plan that improved upon earlier versions, as
explained below, the Monitor has not been able to approve any of defendants’ submissions
because they have not satisfied the requirements of this subsection.
Defendants were required to submit and begin implementing a workforce development
plan during Period 1.174 Because they were unable to do so,175 the Period 2 IP required
development and implementation of the workforce development plan by September 1, 2009.176
Defendants submitted a draft plan during Period 2; however, the submission did not meet Period
174 Period 1 IP §I.2.a. 175 See June 2009 Report at 35-36 for background information related to defendants’ performance during Period 1. 176 Period 2 IP §I.2.a.
63

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 70 of 251
2 requirements.177 As a result, the June 10, 2010 Agreed Order required defendants to develop and begin implementing the plan by August 2, 2010.178 The Monitor reported that while defendants’ submission represented a significant improvement over the plan submitted during Period 2, it had substantial shortcomings.179
During Period 3, Hancock, Harrison, Hinds and Jackson Counties were exempted from the MSA caseload and workload requirements180 based on the parties’ shared recognition that long-standing staffing deficits justified subjecting these counties to different requirements.181 As the Monitor has reported previously, the carve-out counties have been treated differently because of chronic understaffing of caseworkers and their supervisors in these specific counties, the serious problems associated with the failure to maintain adequate staffing levels, and the large number of children in custody in these counties relative to other counties in the state.182 In fact, as reflected in the pie charts presented below, data produced by DFCS show that as of November 30, 2012, the four carve-out counties accounted for 39 percent of children in DFCS custody; by January 31, 2014, a little over one year later, that percentage increased to 43 percent of children in DFCS custody.
177 For example, the draft did not address the number of professional and support staff needed to satisfy caseload requirements. See September 2010 Report at 26-27 for additional background data. 178 June 10, 2010 Order ¶7.h. 179 November 2010 Report at 59-62. 180 The exemption also applies to Period 4. MSA §II.A.2.a.10.a.-b. 181 January 2013 Report at 18, citing MSA §II.A.2.a.9.a.-b. and Period 3 IP §I.A.2.c. 182 January 2013 Report at 18.
64

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 71 of 251

Number of Children in Custody, By County One‐Month Period Ending November 30, 2012
[Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor Based on DFCS Data, MACWIS MWZ0510]

78 Non‐Carve Out Counties 2192 Children 61%

Hinds County 398 Children
11%
Jackson County 255 Children
7%
Hancock County 214 Children 6%
Harrison County 528 Children 15%

Number of Children in Custody By County One‐Month Period Ending January 31, 2014
[Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor Based on DFCS Data, MACWIS MWZ0510]

78 Non‐Carve Out Counties 2351 Children 56%

Hinds County 524 Children
12%
Jackson County 272 Children 6%
Hancock County 350 Children 8%
Harrison County 706 Children 17%

65

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 72 of 251
During Period 3, the defendants were required to address understaffing in the carve-out counties through informed planning on an expedited timetable. Thus, defendants were required to complete the sections of the Workforce Development Plan related to the carve-out counties by September 1, 2012. On September 4, 2012, defendants submitted a workforce development plan for the carve-out counties.183 Among other limitations, and notwithstanding the express terms of §I.A.2.b. of the Period 3 IP, the defendants’ submission failed to address recruitment activities in the carve-out counties. The Monitor notified defendants of her concerns regarding the adequacy of their submission on September 12, 2012, and documented her concerns in an October 1, 2012 e-mail memorandum.184 On April 8, 2013, following discussions with the Monitor,185 defendants submitted the complete workforce development plan,186 which they reported was being implemented. Due to conflicting priorities stemming in large part from activities related to the development and implementation of the June 24, 2013 Order, the Monitor was unable to make a determination regarding defendants’ April 8, 2013 submission before negotiations related to the Period 4 IP commenced. As a result, §II.A.1. of the Initial Period 4 IP required the Monitor to make a determination regarding approval of the defendants’ April 8, 2013 submission by August 15, 2013.
Thereafter, on August 14, 2013, the Monitor informed the parties that the Plan was a substantial and encouraging improvement over previous submissions; however, the Monitor
183 Ex. 8A, Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children Services (MDHS/DFCS), Workforce Development Plan, Phase I, Harrison, Hancock, Jackson and Hinds Counties, redacted. See January 2013 Report at note 74 for additional background regarding this document. 184 Ex. 8B, October 1, 2013 e-mail to Mark Smith from Grace M. Lopes, redacted. For additional background regarding the September 12, 2012 meeting, see January 2013 Report at note 76. 185 The defendants provided the Monitor with a draft of the complete plan on January 1, 2013, which the Monitor reviewed and discussed with defendants’ representatives. 186 Ex. 8C, Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children Services (MDHS/DFCS), Workforce Development Plan, April 2013, redacted.
66

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 73 of 251
reported that she had a number of questions to resolve before making a determination.187
Following a series of interviews, site visits and follow up communications with the parties, the
Monitor advised the parties on October 9, 2013 that she could not approve the Plan because in
certain instances clarification and supplementation were necessary to satisfy MSA requirements.188 The Monitor transmitted detailed findings regarding defendants’ April 8, 2013 submission to the parties on October 15, 2013.189 Essentially, the Monitor reported that she
could not approve the Plan because it failed to address with sufficient specificity the following
requirements of this subsection: strategies, financial resources, short- and long-term staffing
goals and related time frames. For example, the plan failed to address how many caseworkers,
supervisors and support staff are needed statewide to meet MSA requirements and whether there
was a gap between the number of positions that were funded and the number of positions needed to satisfy MSA requirements.190 Additionally, except for one position in one county, the
defendants’ submission did not address recruitment and retention of support staff as required.
Thereafter, on November 6, 2013, defendants submitted a superseding version of the Workforce Development Plan.191 With one exception, the revision did not address the issues detailed in the Monitor’s October 15, 2013 transmission.192 Accordingly, on November 18, 2013, the Monitor advised the parties that she could not approve the revision.193
Period 3 IP §I.A.2.c.1. 2. Workforce c. Defendants shall actively engage in recruitment and retention
activities to address the workload issues in Hancock, Harrison, Hinds, and Jackson Counties as follows:
187 Ex. 8D, August 14, 2013 e-mail to Kenya Rachal and Miriam Ingber from Grace M. Lopes. 188 Ex. 8E, October 9, 2013 e-mail to Kenya Rachal and Miriam Ingber from Grace M. Lopes. 189 Ex. 8F, October 15, 2013 e-mail to Kenya Rachal and Miriam Ingber from Grace M. Lopes. 190 This underscores the need for accurate caseload data. See supra at 44-55 for a discussion of the caseload data. 191 Ex. 8G, Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children Services (DFCS), Workforce Development Plan, April 2013, Revised, November 2013, redacted. 192 Ex. 8H, November 8, 2013 e-mail to Kenya Rachal and Julia Davis from Grace M. Lopes. 193 Id.
67

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 74 of 251
1) By 30 days following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall have defined the role of a case aide to support caseworkers in Hancock, Harrison, Hinds, and Jackson Counties.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.A.2.c.1.: As explained below, the case aide role was
not defined as required. Although the Period 3 IP exempted the carve-out counties from the
caseload and supervisory work load requirements of the MSA, it required special initiatives in
the carve-out counties to address staffing deficits. Among these initiatives was the requirement
to define the role of a case aide to support caseworkers in Hancock, Harrison, Hinds and Jackson
counties.
Interviews with DHS and DFCS personnel unit managers and a review of the case aide
position description establish that defendants have not revised the job description for case aides
employed at DFCS since 2006, except for changing the title from social work aide to case aide and adding to the educational qualifications for the position.194 The job description includes clinical duties that should be performed by a caseworker and not a case aide.195
Insofar as the Period 3 IP requirement that defendants define the role of case aide in the
carve-out counties, interviews with DHS and DFCS personnel managers as well as with
management and supervisory staff in the carve-out counties indicate that a written description of
the role was not developed. However, interviews with these staff members as well as with case
aides indicate that case aides generally support the work of caseworkers by driving children to
appointments, locating records and performing other administrative support tasks that do not
constitute casework or otherwise require clinical social work skills. This is the case not only in
194 Compare Ex. 9A, Social Work Aide, Position Description, Rev: 6/06, with Ex. 9B, DHS-Case Aide job description, downloaded February 26, 2014 from the Job Seekers section of the Mississippi State Personnel Board website, http://agency.governmentjobs.com/mississippi/default.cfm. 195 See, e.g., Ex. 9B, supra note 194 (“conducts relative or court ordered placement home studies directed by a supervisor” and “[v]isits clients’ home and monitors clients’ home and interactions” are among the examples listed in the position description of work performed by the case aide that require clinical skills and should be performed by a caseworker).
68

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 75 of 251
the carve-out counties but in several other counties as well.196 DFCS personnel assignment
records indicate that since the start of Period 3, defendants have hired two case aides in both Hancock and Hinds Counties197 and four in both Harrison and Jackson counties.
Period 3 IP §I.A.2.c.2. 2. Workforce c. Defendants shall actively engage in recruitment and retention
activities to address the issues in Hancock, Harrison, Hinds, and Jackson Counties as follows:
2) By 30 days following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall have determined the number of case aides needed in Hancock, Harrison, Hinds, and Jackson Counties and shall begin recruiting case aides in those counties.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.A.2.c.2.: The Monitor inquired on multiple
occasions during Period 3, but did not identify any written evidence of a determination of the
number of case aides needed for each of the carve-out counties. During the comment period on
the draft version of this report, the defendants confirmed that a formal assessment was not
conducted, explaining that they could not effectively assess the need for support staff until they
had more caseworkers and supervisory staff on board. Regardless of the merit of this position, it
would have been incumbent upon defendants to raise this issue with plaintiffs and the Monitor
during Period 3 and, if appropriate, to seek the Court’s approval of a modification of this
requirement.
According to data provided by defendants, as of July 1, 2013, there were five case aides assigned to Hancock County;198 seven in Harrison County; one in Hinds County;199 and two in
196 As of January 31, 2014, records provided by the DHS personnel unit indicate that in addition to the carve-out counties, case aides were assigned to Adams, DeSoto, Forrest, and Rankin counties. 197 Unfortunately, there has been a reduction since the start of Period 3 in the number of case aides assigned to Hinds County because the salaries for several case aides who were assigned there were paid by Hinds County itself. During 2013, the County stopped paying those salaries. These costs have not been assumed by DFCS. 198 There were two additional vacant case aide positions as of July 1, 2013. 199 There was one additional vacant case aide position as of July 1, 2013.
69

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 76 of 251
Jackson County.200 There were 13 additional case aides assigned to non-carve-out counties as of
the same date. Moreover, as of January 31, 2014, there were five case aides assigned to Hancock County;201 six in Harrison County;202 none in Hinds County;203 and three in Jackson County.204
There were 13 additional case aides assigned to non-carve-out counties as of the same date.
Period 3 IP §I.A.2.c.4. 2. Workforce c. Defendants shall actively engage in recruitment and retention
activities to address the workload issues in Hancock, Harrison, Hinds, and Jackson Counties as follows:
4) By July 1, 2012, the Legal and Judicial Statewide Implementation Sub-Team shall develop and begin implementing written strategies for promoting implementation of the Olivia Y. standards in the Mississippi Youth Courts. These strategies shall be implemented in Regions VII-E, VII-W, and III-S by the end of Implementation Period 3.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.A.2.c.4.: Defendants have reported that practices in
the Youth Courts in the carve-out counties have adversely impacted implementation of MSA
requirements in two respects. First, they have claimed that the Youth Courts have had an impact
on staff attrition. Second, they have reported that certain practices in the Youth Courts violate
MSA requirements and in turn contribute to the challenges defendants have experienced in
attempting to satisfy MSA requirements. For these reasons, this provision was added to the
Period 3 IP.
On July 2, 2012, the defendants submitted “Strategies for Promoting Implementation of
the Olivia Y. Standards in the Mississippi Youth Courts,” a document prepared by the DFCS
200 There were two additional vacant case aide positions as of July 1, 2013. 201 There were no vacant case aide positions as of January 31, 2014. 202 There was one vacant case aide position as of January 31, 2014. 203 There were two vacant case aide positions as of January 31, 2014. 204 There was one vacant case aide position as of January 31, 2014.
70

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 77 of 251
Legal and Judicial Sub-Team in response to this Period 3 requirement.205 Thereafter, on
September 12, 2012, the Monitor advised the defendants of her view regarding the substantial
shortcomings in this submission.206 Among other limitations, and contrary to the requirements
of this subsection, the document that defendants submitted did not identify the specific Olivia Y.
standards that had not been implemented and it did not address implementation issues. Further,
it framed many of the initiatives presented in terms of strategies the Youth Courts agreed to
implement instead of strategies that defendants would be required to implement.207
As a result of discussions with the Monitor regarding the limitations in defendants’ July
2012 submission, the defendants developed a revised version of the Youth Court strategies
document in consultation with CSF consultants.208 The revision was submitted on July 8,
2013,209 and it represents a substantial improvement over the previous submission in several
respects. Unlike the initial submission, it identifies specific MSA requirements that implicate
directly the actions of the Youth Court,210 as well as specific MSA outcome standards which are,
at least in part, dependent upon the actions of the Youth Courts.211 Moreover, the revision
summarizes in significant detail the methodology that was utilized to identify issues implicating
Youth Court operations.212
205 Ex. 10, Strategies for Promoting Implementation of the Olivia Y. Standards in the Mississippi Youth Court, with attached correspondence to the Honorable Elise Epperson Deano, the Honorable Sanford R. Steckler, the Honorable Sharon Sigalas, the Honorable Margaret Alfonso, and the Honorable William Skinner from Mary Fuller, redacted. 206 During the course of a September 12, 2012 meeting with defendants’ representatives, the Monitor outlined her concerns regarding this document and several other Period 3 submissions. 207 See Ex. 11, September 28, 2012 e-mail to Mark Smith from Grace M. Lopes for more detailed information regarding the limitations in this submission. The submission was mailed on July 2, 2012, and received by the Monitor on July 5, 2012. Thus it is referred to in Ex. 11 as a July 5, 2012 submission. 208 To their credit, the defendants developed the revision on their own initiative. Unlike certain other Period 3 requirements, the Monitor’s approval of the Youth Court Strategies submission was not required by the Period 3 IP. 209 Ex. 12, State of Mississippi, Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children’s Services, Youth Court Strategies Plan, redacted. 210 Id. at 2-4. 211 Id. at 4-6. 212 Id. at 7-10. Defendants report that they convened discussions with DFCS leadership, meetings with judicial officers in the carve-out counties, and focus groups. They also conducted an electronic survey of DFCS staff, and
71

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 78 of 251
Notwithstanding these improvements, however, in many instances the revision does not
present the findings from data collection activities with the specificity necessary to understand
how the findings relate to implementation of MSA requirements in the Youth Courts. For
example, among the revision’s 16 findings that defendants conclude “need attention” are the
following: 1) “issues with the expedited placement process”; 2) “need for more placement resources”; and 3) “lack of communication and services available to resource parents.” 213 The
revision does not present the findings in a way that provides insight into how specific Youth
Court operations are implicated. For example, the plan presents MACWIS data and survey data related to the expedited placement process in the carve-out counties.214 However, it does not
examine how, if at all, the reported outcomes reflected in the MACWIS data or the conclusions
reflected in the survey data implicate Youth Court operations. Absent an understanding of how
Youth Court operations have impacted defendants’ ability to satisfy MSA standards related to
the expedited placement process, the adequacy of placement resources, and communication and services to resource parents,215 there can be no basis for developing strategies related to these
matters.
Period 3 IP §I.A.2.c.5. 2. Workforce c. Defendants shall actively engage in recruitment and retention
activities to address the workload issues in Hancock, Harrison, Hinds, and Jackson Counties as follows:
5) Defendants shall offer starting salaries for employees in the counties of Hancock, Harrison, Hinds, and Jackson, as indicated below:
obtained assistance from CSF to analyze relevant MACWIS and survey data. Moreover, defendants report that they received technical assistance from the National Child Welfare Resource Center on Legal and Judicial Issues, id. at 910. 213 Id. at 37-38. 214 Id. at 16. 215 The term “resource parents” is used to refer to both foster and adoptive parents.
72

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 79 of 251

Job Title
Family Protection Worker I
Family Protection Specialist
Family Protection Specialist, Senior Family Protection Specialist, Advanced Area Social Work Supervisor

Starting Salary $27,190.12 $31,757.88 $34,557.43
$37,605.49
$43,138.52

Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.A.2.c.5.: As explained below, this requirement was

satisfied.

Among other factors, very low starting salaries have been viewed as an impediment to

caseworker and supervisory recruitment as well as a factor that contributes to attrition,

particularly in the carve-out counties. Accordingly, during the latter part of 2011 the defendants

applied for authorization from the SPB to increase the starting salary for caseworker and

supervisory positions in the carve-out counties. A 15 percent increase, referred to as a

“recruitment flex” increase, for DFCS caseworkers and supervisors in the carve-out counties was

approved on December 15, 2011. Although this elevated the starting salary in the carve-out

counties to required levels, defendants determined that it was insufficient. Accordingly, 13

months later, on January 17, 2013, the defendants received authorization to increase caseworker

and supervisory salaries by an additional 20 percent in Harrison, Hancock and Jackson counties.216

Period 3 IP §I.A.2.c.6. 2. Workforce c. Defendants shall actively engage in recruitment and retention
activities to address the workload issues in Hancock, Harrison, Hinds, and Jackson Counties as follows:
6) The counties listed below shall have no fewer than the total number of full time caseworkers assigned to the counties as specified:

216 This is referred to as a type/duty/location increase. The salary for regional directors was also increased.
73

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 80 of 251

 Hancock County: 16 caseworkers  Harrison County: 42 caseworkers  Hinds County: 50 caseworkers  Jackson County: 34 caseworkers
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.A.2.c.6.: As reflected in the following bar chart,
personnel data produced by the defendants and analyzed by the Monitor indicate that defendants
exceeded caseworker staffing requirements in the carve-out counties by the end of Period 3.

Number of Caseworkers Assigned to Carve‐Out Counties As of July 1, 2013
[Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor Based on DFCS Data]

90

42 Required Total as of July 1, 2013 = 79

50 Required Total as of July 1, 2013 = 72

80 11

1 70

60

50

40

16 Required Total as of July 1, 2013 = 26 30

2

20

9

2 10
13

0 HANCOCK

34 10 33 HARRISON

15
36 1 19 HINDS

34 Required Total as of July 1, 2013 = 48
6
25
5 12 JACKSON

DHS‐FAMILY PROTECTION SPEC, SR DHS‐FAMILY PROTECTION SPEC, ADV DHS‐FAMILY PROTECTION SPECIALIST DHS‐FAMILY PROTECTION WORKER II DHS‐FAMILY PROTECTION WORKER I

Moreover, analysis of these data indicates that as of January 31, 2014, with the exception of Hinds County which lost five caseworkers relative to July 1, 2013 levels, staffing levels in the carve-out counties have continued to increase. The January 31, 2014 caseworker staffing levels that are reflected in the staffing records submitted by the defendants are reflected in the following chart:

74

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 81 of 251

Number of Caseworkers Assigned to Carve‐Out Counties As of January 31, 2014
[Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor Based on DFCS Data] 90
Total as of January 31, 2014 = 83
3 80

Total as of January 31, 2014 = 67 70
1

60

38 14

Total as of January 31, 2014 = 46 50

40 Total as of January 31, 2014 = 30

30

1

3

20

11

1
10 14

0 HANCOCK

14 28 HARRISON

33
1 18 HINDS

7
23
6 10 JACKSON

DHS‐FAMILY PROTECTION SPEC, SR DHS‐FAMILY PROTECTION SPEC, ADV DHS‐FAMILY PROTECTION SPECIALIST DHS‐FAMILY PROTECTION WORKER II DHS‐FAMILY PROTECTION WORKER I

MSA §II.A.2.c.6.a. 2. Human Resources Management
c. Training 6) By the end of Implementation Period Three: (a) Defendants shall establish and maintain a Training Unit, headed by a qualified director of training, with sufficient staffing and resources to provide or contract for the provision of comprehensive child welfare pre-service and in-service training to all caseworkers and supervisors.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.A.2.c.6.a.: By the end of Period 3, defendants had
established a viable training unit with the capacity to administer the required pre-service training
program. They had also significantly improved the in-service training program, although
additional progress is needed in that program particularly with regard to monitoring and tracking
staff participation. The MSA establishes standards for the DFCS pre-service and in-service
training programs in order “to assure that it can provide comprehensive child welfare training to
75

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 82 of 251
enable all caseworkers, supervisors, and other child welfare agency employees to comply with
the relevant mandates of [the MSA], DFCS policy, and reasonable professional standards.”217
Pursuant to the MSA, caseworkers must receive at least 270 hours of pre-service training before
they may assume any case responsibilities.218 Similarly, all new caseworker supervisors must
receive a minimum of 40 hours of pre-supervisory service training before they may be assigned
to supervise caseworkers.219 In addition, on an annual basis, caseworkers must receive a
minimum of 40 hours, and supervisors must receive a minimum of 24 hours, of ongoing in-
service training.220
The establishment of an appropriately resourced training unit with the capacity to deliver
pre-service and in-service training to caseworkers and their supervisors has been an annual
implementation plan requirement since Period 1.221 Because progress was limited, the
requirements of §II.A.2.c.6.a. of the MSA, among others related to staff training, were included
among the Period 3 requirements.222
217 MSA §II.A.2.c.1. 218 Id. §II.A.2.c.2. According to the MSA, pre-service training must include both instructional and field training. 219 Id. §II.A.2.c.3. 220 Id. §II.A.2.c.4. 221 Settlement Agreement §II.A.2.c.4. Although there was some progress, defendants failed to satisfy this requirement during Period 1. (For additional background information see June 2009 Report at 39-41; see also id. at 42-48 for information concerning defendants’ progress toward meeting other Period 1 requirements related to the delivery of pre-service training to newly hired staff, competency-based testing for trainees, the development of an inservice training curriculum, and implementation of a system to track all required staff training.) As a result, the Period 2 implementation plan included requirements that were intended to address the shortcomings in defendants’ performance. See Period 2 IP §§I.2.d.1-7 (requiring development and implementation of a written plan to provide comprehensive pre-service and in-service training for caseworkers and supervisors as well as development of a revised training curriculum to reflect Settlement Agreement requirements; directing that supervisors should not be detailed to the training unit to provide training; requiring caseworkers and supervisors to complete their respective pre-service training programs before being assigned to cases or staff supervision; mandating that all caseworkers and supervisors participate in a minimum number of hours of in-service training annually; and requiring competencybased testing and implementation of a system to track staff participation in all required training). 222 See September 2010 Report at 30-49 for a detailed description of defendants’ performance during Period 2.
76

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 83 of 251
A review of relevant DFCS records,223 observation of training sessions, interviews with
contract trainers and staff from the DFCS training unit as well as with caseworkers and their
supervisors, establish that by the end of Period 3 defendants had developed a viable training unit
with the capacity to administer the required pre-service training program.224 Moreover,
defendants made significant improvements during Period 3 in developing the in-service training
program; however, additional progress, particularly with respect to monitoring and tracking staff
participation in the program, is necessary. These matters are explained more fully below.
Pre-service training for caseworkers is based on a 270-hour curriculum that is delivered
during an eight-week period, alternating on a weekly basis between classroom and on-the-job
training (“OJT”) sessions. Since the start of 2012, the classroom component of the pre-service
training program has been conducted by trainers from the University of Mississippi.225 On
alternating weeks, DFCS trainers are assigned to work with trainees on the OJT components of
the pre-service training curriculum – a helpful innovation that has strengthened the OJT
component of the program.226
223 Among other documents, service contracts, curricular materials, training schedules, sign-in records, and testing reports were reviewed. 224 The Monitor’s assessment of the DFCS training program was informed by an ongoing evaluation of the program conducted during Period 3 by Linda Southward, Ph.D., M.S.W., ACSW. Dr. Southward currently serves as Research Professor and Coordinator of the Family and Children Research Unit at Mississippi State University. Her credentials and experience are summarized in her curriculum vitae, included in the September 2010 Report at Ex. 1A. 225 In early October 2011, the defendants contracted with the University of Mississippi to revise the pre-service training curriculum. By the end of the 2011 calendar year, the curriculum was revised and it has been used since early 2012 for training newly hired caseworkers and supervisors. 226 In addition to the DFCS trainer, the OJT training involves the caseworker’s supervisor as well as a “training buddy” who is typically a more experienced DFCS caseworker. Depending on the size of the training class, DFCS trainers typically work in small group sessions with new caseworkers during the OJT segments of the pre-service training. During Period 2, there was evidence that the OJT component of the pre-service training had not been implemented uniformly, and in some instances it was not being implemented at all in various regions throughout the state. Some supervisors, who were at that time responsible for providing the OJT training to newly hired caseworkers, reported that they were unaware of the existence of the training manual that they were expected to follow. See September 2010 Report at notes 145-146 for additional background information related to shortcomings in the OJT program.
77

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 84 of 251
The pre-service supervisory training is based on a 40-hour curriculum that is delivered in
a classroom setting by University of Mississippi contractors.227 The classroom component is
followed by a 24-week OJT program, during which trainers from the University of Mississippi
are assigned to mentor new supervisors.228
In February 2013, defendants hired a qualified training director who began working
under the supervision of the director of the DFCS professional development unit.229 Although
defendants did not hire any new trainers during Period 3, by the end of Period 3 the training unit
was staffed with nine trainers supported by three administrative staff members.230 Shortly
thereafter, the staffing levels in the training unit increased and by mid-September 2013 the unit
had a complement of 13 full-time trainers. Currently, defendants report that they are recruiting to
fill six additional training coordinator positions.231 Defendants indicate that they have had
difficulty in the past filling these positions, which are needed to expand the in-service training
program and launch a specialized training program for resource and adoption workers.232
MSA §II.A.2.c.6.b. 2. Human Resources Management
c. Training 6) By the end of Implementation Period Three: (b) All new caseworkers and supervisors will complete their pre-service training consistent with the Modified Settlement Agreement requirements before they assume
227 If a newly hired supervisor has not received the updated 270-hour pre-service caseworker training, s/he is required to complete it before attending the pre-service supervisory training. Unlike the curriculum that was in use before 2012, the new supervisory training curriculum focuses primarily on child welfare supervision for the first three days followed by a two-day administrative component. 228 Supervisors may be assigned to supervise caseworkers after the 40-hour classroom component of the pre-service training has been completed. Like the use of DFCS trainers for the OJT component of pre-service caseworker training, the use of University of Mississippi consultants as mentors for newly appointed supervisors has helped to promote a much more structured approach to the OJT aspect of the supervisory training program. 229 The director of the professional development unit also served as the training director between January 2011 and February 2013. 230 The administrative staff include a secretary-principal and two special projects officers. 231 Defendants plan for one of the positions to be staffed by a specialist in resource licensure and adoption. There is a critical need for specialized training for this cohort, which defendants are beginning to address. See infra note 246 for information regarding the newly introduced coaching labs for resource and adoption staff. 232 Resource workers recruit and license foster homes.
78

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 85 of 251
their respective responsibilities for carrying cases and supervising.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.A.2.c.6.b.: According to data provided by defendants, between July 1, 2012 and June 30, 2013, 322 caseworkers233 began pre-service training, 313 of whom (97 percent) completed the training.234 According to defendants, none of the individuals
who began pre-service training performed any casework prior to completing the training.
According to data provided by defendants, between July 1, 2012 and June 30, 2013, 18
supervisors completed pre-service training consistent with MSA requirements before assuming supervisory responsibilities.235 In addition to these 18 supervisors, 18 additional DFCS staff
members completed the pre-service caseworker supervisor training despite the fact that they did
not hold supervisory positions. According to the director of the DFCS professional development
unit, DFCS allows some non-supervisory staff to complete the caseworker supervisor training,
which qualifies these staff members to serve in an acting capacity as caseworker supervisors.
Interviews with several DFCS managers and non-supervisory staff who received the caseworker
supervisory training confirm that DFCS allows non-supervisory staff to supervise caseworkers if they have received the requisite training.236
MSA §II.A.2.c.6.c. 2. Human Resources Management
c. Training 6) By the end of Implementation Period Three:
233 This total includes some supervisory staff who were not already employed by the agency. 234 App. A, Ex. 16A, chart prepared by Office of the Court Monitor, Number of Individuals Who Started Caseworker Pre-Service Training, by Quarter and Training Completion Status, Three-Month Periods Ending September 2012 through December 2013 and App. A, Ex. 16B, corresponding table with underlying data. 235 App. A, Ex. 17A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Number of Individuals Who Started PreService Caseworker Supervisory Training, by Quarter and Training Completion Status, Three-Month Periods Ending September 2012 through December 2013 and App. A, Ex. 17B, corresponding table with underlying data. One of the 18 supervisors was a regional director and not an ASWS. 236 Not all of the non-supervisory caseworkers who received caseworker supervisory staff training meet the qualification standards for caseworker supervisors. Additionally, not all non-supervisory caseworkers who received supervisory caseworker training ultimately supervised caseworkers.
79

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 86 of 251
(c) The in-service training curriculum for caseworkers and supervisors will be developed and in-service training will have been initiated.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.A.2.c.6.c.: The MSA establishes in-service training requirements. On an annual basis, caseworkers must receive a minimum of 40 hours and their supervisors must receive a minimum of 24 hours of in-service training. Prior to Period 3, the defendants had not developed an in-service training program that satisfied MSA requirements.237 However, defendants have made significant progress. The evidence shows that by the end of Period 3, the defendants developed an in-service training curriculum and initiated the related training program for caseworkers and supervisors. As explained below, additional progress is warranted, particularly with respect to managing and tracking staff participation in the program.
Defendants, in collaboration with contract staff from the University of Mississippi, began to develop the curriculum for a structured in-service training program during May 2012, shortly before the start of Period 3.238 Following a planning and development stage, the program was introduced to DFCS staff on July 1, 2013. According to defendants, at least half of the annual inservice training hours for caseworkers and their supervisors must be obtained through participation in a DFCS training class.239 The remaining in-service training hours may be obtained through participation in external programs. In order to qualify for in-service training
237 See, e.g., June 2009 Report at 44-45 and September 2010 Report at 30-38 for more detailed background information regarding defendants’ past performance. 238 Starting in May 2012, DFCS trainers received instruction on curriculum development from University of Mississippi consultants. Thereafter, DFCS trainers were tasked with developing curriculum for a series of in-service training topics, including individual case planning; facilitating groups and team meetings; advanced non-violent crisis intervention; appropriate and quality documentation; and parenting skills. 239 Thus, caseworkers must participate in at least 20 hours, and supervisors must participate in at least 12 hours, of DFCS in-service training sessions on an annual basis.
80

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 87 of 251
credit, enrollment in any external training program must be approved by a DFCS supervisor or
regional director.240
In-service training sessions are conducted by both DFCS trainers and University of
Mississippi consultants. The curriculum is intended to integrate DFCS policy and Practice
Model principles, building on the pre-service training curriculum. Defendants report that the
curriculum has evolved in response to feedback from pre-service training participants, a review
of CQI data, staff survey data,241 and consultation with external consultants.242 As expected in
these circumstances, the refinement of the curriculum is described by DFCS managers as an
ongoing process.243
Additionally, since the start of Period 3, defendants have supplemented in-service
offerings with specialized training initiatives, including a training program related to Practice
Model implementation,244 and a clinical training program for supervisors developed by
defendants in collaboration with CSF.245 These sessions represent important additions to the
DFCS in-service training program. As appropriate, in response to identified performance
concerns, specialized in-service training initiatives have continued during Period 4.246
Notwithstanding this progress, defendants must improve the system for tracking whether
DFCS staff have satisfied in-service training requirements. As addressed in the narrative related
240 See Ex. 13 for the description of the in-service training program provided to DFCS employees on the MDHS MACWIS internal portal at http://dfcsmacweb/DFCSWEB/PDF/ProfessionalDevelopment/Year%2032013%20OJT%20Manual%20Final%20Copy%201-23-2014.pdf, last visited on March 10, 2014. 241 For example, caseworker and supervisors consistently point to the need for more MACWIS training. In response, refresher training sessions related to MACWIS were added to the in-service curriculum. 242 Defendants report that CSF and University of Mississippi consultants have suggested training topics. 243 See Ex. 14, for a redacted copy of the in-service training topics offered by the DFCS training unit at the end of Period 3 through June 30, 2014. 244 See, e.g., infra at 86-87 regarding the Practice Model training conducted during Period 3. 245 Defendants refer to this supervisory training as the level two clinical supervision training. It consists of three modules tied to administrative, educational and supportive supervisory functions. Defendants, in collaboration with CSF, are in the process of finalizing a level three supervisory training, which focuses on safety and risk assessments. 246 For example, during Period 4, in collaboration with CSF, defendants launched a safety assessment coaching lab for resource and adoption caseworkers and their supervisors. The need for this type of training was underscored by the findings of the F.M. fatality review, addressed infra at 149-151 in the narrative related to Period 3 IP §II.C.1.
81

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 88 of 251
to Period 3 IP §I.A.3.a.4., defendants recognize this limitation and indicate that they are working
to address it.247
Period 3 IP §I.A.3.a.1. 3. Training
a. Pre-Service Training 1) By 30 days following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall have a revised preservice training curriculum. The revised training shall include training on the quality, frequency, purpose, and structure of meetings with foster children, parents, and foster care providers and address communicating with, interviewing, and observing foster children.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.A.3.a.1.: As noted above, defendants contracted with
the University of Mississippi during the latter part of 2011 to revise the pre-service training
curriculum. The revised curriculum was implemented by early 2012. Each of the topics required
by this sub-section of the Period 3 IP are addressed in the revised curriculum,248 which
incorporates MSA requirements, updated DFCS policy guidance, and Practice Model principles.
During 2013, defendants added a full week of MACWIS instruction to the pre-service training
curriculum. These modifications have strengthened the pre-service training program.
Period 3 IP §I.A.3.a.2. 3. Training
a. Pre-Service Training 2) By July 1, 2012, Defendants shall maintain nine (9) full-time trainers.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.A.3.a.2.: As reported in the narrative related to MSA
§II.A.2.c.6.a.,249 by the end of Period 3 the training unit was staffed with nine full-time trainers,
and since mid-September 2013, there have been 13 full-time trainers assigned to the unit. As of
mid-April 2014, defendants were attempting to fill six additional training coordinator positions.
247 See infra at 83-85. 248 Defendants bolstered the OJT component of the pre-service training program by revising the curriculum, and integrating it more closely with the curriculum used in the classroom. 249 See supra at 75-77.
82

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 89 of 251
DFCS managers report that these vacancies must be filled in order to provide specialized training
to resource and adoption staff and to expand the array of in-service training classes.
Period 3 IP §I.A.3.a.3. 3. Training
a. Pre-Service Training 3) By September 1, 2012, Defendants shall strengthen the competency-based testing to ensure that trainees have acquired adequate competencies in the areas of interviewing, critical thinking skills, and documentation skills related to child safety assessments and to preparing case summaries for submission to the Youth Court.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.A.3.a.3.: As noted above,250 the pre-service training
program for caseworkers includes four weeks of classroom instruction. At the conclusion of
each week of classroom instruction, trainees are tested. The tests, which are in multiple choice
format, do not fully address the acquisition of the skills required by this sub-section of the Period
3 IP. This is especially true with respect to critical thinking, interviewing, and child safety
documentation skills. There are opportunities during the classroom and OJT components of the
pre-service training to assess and provide feedback on these specific skills; however, the
assessment and feedback process is not incorporated into the competency-based testing that is
administered to trainees.
Period 3 IP §I.A.3.a.4. 3. Training
a. Pre-Service Training 4) Defendants shall have implemented an accurate and reliable system to track staff participation in all required training.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.A.3.a.4.: Defendants did not implement an accurate
and reliable system to track staff participation in all required training during Period 3.
Thereafter, as explained below, a tracking system for all required pre-service training was
implemented, which appears to be reliable. Moreover, a functional tracking system for in-service
250 See supra at 76.
83

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 90 of 251
training was not established during Period 3. Defendants report that they subsequently developed
a system to track all required in-service training; however, even if the system is adequate, the
evidence shows it is not being implemented as intended.
Pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order, defendants were required to report by November 1, 2013 and quarterly thereafter251 on whether caseworkers and supervisors received required preservice training during Period 3.252 On November 1, 2013, defendants produced training data for
July and August 2013, but not for Period 3. At that time, defendants notified plaintiffs’ counsel
and the Monitor that they had failed to track caseworker participation in the OJT hourly
requirements for the training program during Period 3, but began to do so starting in October 2013.253 Thereafter, defendants produced the caseworker pre-service training reports for Period
3 on December 11, 2013 and the supervisory pre-service training reports for Period 3 on January 14, 2014.254
As a preliminary test of the training data’s completeness, the Monitor attempted to cross
reference two independent data sources: hiring data and pre-service training records.
Preliminarily, the Monitor identified what appeared to be gaps in the training data (i.e., names of
individuals who appeared to be newly hired caseworkers who did not appear in the training
database); however, after additional data gathering and discussions with defendants, all of the
discrepancies that were identified were accounted for. The Monitor will conduct a deeper review
of individual training records, as indicated, and report to the parties and the Court as appropriate.
251 The June 24, 2013 Order required defendants to report on Period 3 performance in quarterly reports to be submitted by October 1, 2013. Id. at Attachment One and Attachment Two, Report 12. However, the October 1, 2013 deadline was erroneous because it did not account for quarterly reporting. See Ex. 15A at 2, October 3, 2013 correspondence to Miriam Ingber from Kenya Key Rachal, redacted (explaining the error in the schedule specified by the June 24, 2013 Order). 252 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.E., Attachment One, and Attachment Two, Report 12. 253 Ex. 15B, November 1, 2013 correspondence to Miriam Ingber from Kenya Key Rachal. 254 Defendants produced training data for July through August 2013 on November 1, 2013, but failed to produce the data related to performance during Period 3. After the Monitor brought this omission to defendants’ attention, they produced the required Period 3 data on December 11, 2013 for caseworkers and January 14, 2014 for supervisors.
84

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 91 of 251
In addition, as noted above, defendants did not maintain a functional system for tracking
in-service training during Period 3. While efforts were made to initiate a tracking system starting on July 1, 2013,255 the evidence establishes that the system is not working as intended. Indeed,
as of March 12, 2014, a review of the tracking data required to be submitted by DFCS managers
indicates that managers in only three of DFCS’s 13 regions have submitted any information whatsoever regarding staff participation in in-service training sessions since July 2013.256
Period 3 IP §I.A.3.b.1. 3. Training
b. Supervisor Training 1) By 30 days following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall have a newly developed clinical supervisory training curriculum.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.A.3.b.1.: The clinical supervisory training was
developed during the spring of 2013, and delivered through the summer of 2013 to DFCS supervisors.257 It represents a significant improvement in the supervisory training program.
Period 3 IP §I.A.3.b.2. 3. Training
b. Supervisor Training 2) All Area Social Work Supervisors (ASWSs) hired between January 1, 2012 and April 1, 2013 shall have received training pursuant to the newly developed clinical supervisory training curriculum.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.A.3.b.2.: Defendants undertook a comprehensive
training initiative related to this requirement. The Monitor will report on defendants’
performance after reconciling DFCS hiring and training records related to the clinical supervisory
training.
255 See Ex. 13, supra note 240 (addressing the in-service training approval process and tracking process). 256 Ex. 16, DFCS tracking spreadsheets for in-service training, redacted, downloaded from DFCS internal network on March 12, 2014 (showing spreadsheets for 10 regions completely blank and very limited entries for two of the remaining three regions). 257 See supra at 81 for additional information regarding the training.
85

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 92 of 251
Period 3 IP §I.A.3.c.1. 3. Training
c. Other Training 1) By 30 days following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall have provided training to all Foster Care Review and Evaluation and Monitoring staff employed with Defendants as of January 1, 2012 on data indicators of the six (6) practice model components and systemic factors to measure and evaluate improvement efforts.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.A.3.c.1.: A review of sign-in sheets and interviews
with staff and managers indicate that the required training was provided to FCR and EMU staff
on February 27, 2012, before the start of Period 3.
Period 3 IP §I.A.3.c.2. 3. Training
c. Other Training 2) By 30 days following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall have provided training on the Use of Data in Management to all DFCS State Office staff employed with Defendants as of January 1, 2012, who hold the position of Bureau Director II, Bureau Director I, Division Director II, Division Director I, Office Director II, or Office Director I, as well as to all Regional Directors.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.A.3.c.2.: Defendants required the managers
identified in this sub-section to attend a one-day training session related to this requirement.
Two training sessions were conducted with the assistance of representatives from the National
Resource Center for Child Welfare and Data Technology on March 19 and 20, 2012, before the
start of Period 3. The documentation the Monitor has reviewed indicates that 46 DFCS staff
members and four consultants attended the training sessions.
Period 3 IP §I.A.3.c.3. 3. Training
c. Other Training 3) By July 1, 2012, Defendants shall have provided training for Region V-E on the six (6) components of the practice model.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.A.3.c.3.: The training program related to the
components of the Practice Model is delivered in four one-day sessions. Defendants conducted
86

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 93 of 251
multiple sessions for Region V-E staff between February 27, 2012 and April 5, 2012. It appears
that with limited exceptions, the staff and managers assigned to Region V-E received the
required training.258
Period 3 IP §I.A.3.c.4. 3. Training
c. Other Training 4) By the end of Implementation Period 3, Defendants shall have provided training for Regions II-E, III-N, VI, VII-E and VII-W on the six (6) components of the practice model.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.A.3.c.4.: DFCS records and interviews with DFCS
managers, DFCS staff and CSF consultants indicate that the required training was conducted for
staff in the five targeted regions by the end of Period 3.259
MSA §II.A.2.d.2.a. 2. Human Resources Management
d. Contract Agency Requirements 2) By the end of Implementation Period Three: (a) All therapeutic resource parents who have one or more foster children residing in the home shall be visited in the home at least once per month by their private agency caseworker. These visits shall be in addition to the monthly home visit conducted by DFCS. Beginning in Implementation Period Three, all contracts executed between Defendants and private agencies that provide services to foster children shall require that the private caseworker (1) share all relevant and legally disclosable information concerning the foster child; (2) evaluate the foster child’s safety, needs, and well-being; and (3) monitor service delivery and the achievement of service goals. DFCS shall require that such visits occur, that they are documented in the child’s case record, and that remedial action is taken if such visits are not taking place.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.A.2.d.2.a.: Because the Monitor was not confident that she
had obtained all Period 3 contracts between defendants and private agencies that provide services
to foster children, she requested that defendants identify all contracts that fall within the purview
of this subsection during the comment period on the draft version of this report. Defendants
258 According to records submitted by the defendants, 63 staff members in Region V-E received the training on a timely basis and five participated in make-up sessions that were completed by August 31, 2012. 259 Available records indicate that supervisors and caseworkers in each of the regions were trained between July 31, 2012 and June 18, 2013.
87

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 94 of 251
submitted all of the applicable contract documents by May 7, 2014. The Monitor’s preliminary
review of these documents has identified limitations in some of the contracts, which the Monitor
intends to discuss and resolve with the parties in the near term. Thereafter, the Monitor will
report to the Court as appropriate.
MSA §II.A.2.d.2.b. 2. Human Resources Management
d. Contract Agency Requirements 2) By the end of Implementation Period Three: (b) Beginning in Implementation Period Three, all contracts executed between Defendants and private agencies that provide protective, preventive, foster care, or adoption case work services shall require the contract agencies to abide by all related terms of the Modified Settlement Agreement, including, but not limited to, provisions regarding training curricula, minimum training hours, and caseload standards, with the exception that contract agency caseworkers shall not be required to undertake the hours of pre-service training required of DFCS caseworkers that pertain to MACWIS instruction and DFCS-specific workplace procedures. The training requirement of the Modified Settlement Agreement shall apply only to contract agency caseworkers and supervisors responsible for making case planning decisions and/or recommendations.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.A.2.d.2.b.: In an effort to satisfy this requirement, during
Period 3, the defendants incorporated terminology in the contracts between MDHS and private
agencies that provide protective, preventive, foster care, or adoption case work services. A
review of the applicable contracts that were finalized during Period 3 indicates that the
terminology intended to satisfy the requirements of this subsection does not require the contract
agency to abide by all related terms of the MSA.260 The same is true for contracts that have been
in effect during Period 4.261
260 During November 20, 2012, a member of the Court Monitor’s staff requested that the responsible DFCS staff member from the Administration Unit, (a unit which is responsible for all DFCS contracts), provide all contracts entered into by defendants since July 5, 2012 with private agency providers of protective, preventive, foster care, or adoption case work services. Ex. 17A, November 20, 2012 e-mail to Wendy Benoit from Mia Caras and November 20, 2012 e-mail to Mia Caras from Wendy Benoit. In response, defendants transmitted seven subgrant agreements with private providers for the various services described in this sub-section of the MSA. Each contract covered the identical performance period, October 1, 2012 – September 30, 2013, and each contains the following terminology
88

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 95 of 251
Period 3 IP §I.A.4. 4. Contract Agency Requirements
Defendants shall work with Casey Family Programs, or another consultant approved by the Monitor, for technical assistance with developing a plan with specific action steps and timeframes for a performance based contracting system with the capacity to monitor and enforce contract performance.
related to the MSA: “Subgrantee shall provide, perform, and complete, in a reasonable manner as determined by MDHS, the services and activities described in the ‘Scope of Services’ attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference and the ‘Modified Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan,” attached hereto as Exhibit . . . .” See Ex. 17B, Agreement Between the Mississippi Department of Human Services and Catholic Charities, Inc., redacted, §I. (community-based child abuse prevention services); Ex. 17C, Agreement Between the Mississippi Department of Human Services and Starkville School District, §I. (prevention services); Ex. 17D, Agreement Between the Mississippi Department of Human Services and Southern Christian Services for Children and Youth, Inc., redacted, §I. (independent living services); Ex. 17E, Agreement Between the Mississippi Department of Human Services and Mississippi Children’s Home Society, §I. (family preservation and reunification services); Ex. 17F, Agreement Between the Mississippi Department of Human Services and Family Resource Center of Northeast Mississippi, §I. (forensic interviewing); Ex. 17G, Agreement Between the Mississippi Department of Human Services and Southern Christian Services for Children and Youth, Inc., §I. (permanency/post adoption services); Ex. 17H, Agreement Between the Mississippi Department of Human Services and Catholic Charities, Inc., §I. (therapeutic foster homes, therapeutic group homes and independent living home placements). 261 Some of the more recent contracts incorporate certain specific MSA requirements, see. e.g., Ex. 18A, State of Mississippi, Mississippi Department of Human Services, Contract for Personal or Professional Services between the Division of Family and Children’s Services, Mississippi Department of Human Services and Sunnybrook Children’s Home, Inc., July 1, 2013-June 30, 2014, §3. and in the attached Scope of Services, §§A.- C. (reflecting some specific MSA requirements, including requirements related to group homes, sibling placements, placement proximity, and medical, dental and mental health care). However, the more recent contracts that the Monitor has reviewed do not specifically incorporate all applicable MSA requirements and each contract contains the following provisions in the scope of services section: “[t]he Independent Contractor shall perform and render the following services, attached hereto as ‘Exhibit A’ and the Modified Mississippi Settlement Agreement, attached hereto as ‘Exhibit B’.” This language does not require the contractor to abide by all applicable provisions of the MSA. Id. §3. See also Ex. 18B, State of Mississippi, Mississippi Department of Human Services, Contract for Personal or Professional Services between the Division of Family and Children’s Services, Mississippi Department of Human Services and Pine Vale Children’s Home, July 1, 2013-June 30, 2014, §3; Ex. 18C, State of Mississippi, Mississippi Department of Human Services, Contract for Personal or Professional Services, between the Division of Family and Children’s Services, Mississippi Department of Human Services and Impact Missions, Inc., July 1, 2013-June 30, 2014, §3; Ex. 18D, State of Mississippi, Mississippi Department of Human Services, Contract for Personal or Professional Services between the Division of Family and Children’s Services, Mississippi Department of Human Services and GardnerSimmons Home for Girls, Inc., July 1, 2013-June 30, 2014, §3; Ex. 18E, State of Mississippi, Mississippi Department of Human Services, Contract for Personal or Professional Services between the Division of Family and Children’s Services, Mississippi Department of Human Services and Berean Children’s Home, Inc., July 1, 2013June 30, 2014, §3; Ex. 18F, State of Mississippi, Mississippi Department of Human Services, Contract for Personal or Professional Services between the Division of Family and Children’s Services, Mississippi Department of Human Services and Christians in Action, Inc., July 1, 2013-June 30, 2014, §3; Ex. 18G, State of Mississippi, Mississippi Department of Human Services, Contract for Personal or Professional Services between the Division of Family and Children’s Services, Mississippi Department of Human Services and Sally Kate Winters Family Services, July 1, 2013-June 30, 2014, §3; Ex. 18H, State of Mississippi, Mississippi Department of Human Services, Contract for Personal or Professional Services, between the Division of Family and Children’s Services, Mississippi Department of Human Services and Mississippi Children’s Home Society, July 1, 2013-June 30, 2014, §3; Ex. 18I, State of Mississippi, Mississippi Department of Human Services, Contract for Personal or Professional Services between the Division of Family and Children’s Services, Mississippi Department of Human Services and Hope Village for Children, Inc., July 1, 2013-June 30, 2014, §3; Ex. 18J, State of Mississippi, Mississippi Department of Human Services, Contract for Personal or Professional Services, between the Division of Family and Children’s Services, Mississippi Department of Human Services and Faith Haven, Inc., July 1, 2013-June 30, 2014, §3.
89

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 96 of 251
That plan shall be complete by the end of Implementation Period 3.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.A.4.: This requirement was not satisfied during Period 3. Indeed, a performance-based contracting plan has not yet been developed. As explained below, although the defendants made efforts to develop the required plan for a performance-based contracting system, they failed to do so. Defendants recognize the limitations in their performance and report that they plan to obtain additional technical assistance in order to complete the plan.
Performance-based contracting is a contracting method used by public human services agencies to procure services with private providers. Essentially, these types of contracts are designed to promote accountability and improvements in service delivery by correlating required performance outcomes to financial incentives.262 Defendants were required to design and implement a performance-based contracting system by the end of Period 1.263 Because they did not meet this requirement,264 the Period 2 IP required the defendants to work with a qualified independent consultant to begin developing a performance-based contracting system with the capacity to monitor and enforce contract performance relative to all applicable requirements established by this lawsuit.265 As the Monitor has reported previously, the defendants did not engage the consultant or begin to develop the plan during Period 2.266
262 For background information related to performance-based contracting in the context of public child welfare agencies, see MARK F. TESTA & JOHN POERTNER, FOSTERING ACCOUNTABILITY: USING EVIDENCE TO GUIDE AND IMPROVE CHILD WELFARE POLICY 291-327 (Oxford University Press 2010). 263 Period 1 IP §I.2.d. 264 For additional background information about defendants’ performance during Period 1, see June 2009 Report at 48-49. 265 Period 2 IP §I.2.e. 266 September 2010 Report at 50-51.
90

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 97 of 251
At the start of Period 3, Casey Family Programs267 and the American Public Human
Services Association (“APHSA”)268 agreed to provide technical assistance to DFCS related to
development of a performance-based contracting plan. Thereafter, DFCS managers and staff
participated in a series of meetings and conference calls with an APHSA consultant and
convened a working group within DFCS staff to develop the plan. Defendants also conducted an
introductory session with private providers during February 2013.269
In response to requests from the Monitor,270 on December 10, 2013, the defendants
produced a document that they maintained was the performance-based contracting plan required
by this sub-section.271 The document the defendants produced includes an 11-page summary of
activities, which generally describes various meetings or planning activities for meetings, most
but not all of which appear to be related in some way to performance-based contracting. In
addition to the summary, the document includes a table that is titled, “Action Plan,” which lists
21 items referred to as general remedies with corresponding tasks, responsible groups,
anticipated completion dates, and status notes.272 While the action plan does not constitute the
required plan for performance-based contracting, it refers to documents that might constitute or
267 Casey Family Programs is a private foundation that focuses on foster care and promoting improvements in the child welfare system by providing research and technical assistance to child welfare system managers and legislators. For more information about the foundation, see http://www.casey.org/AboutUs/. Casey Family Programs also has provided technical assistance and support to DFCS on the permanency roundtable initiative required by Period 3 IP §II.B.1.a., addressed infra at 129-131. 268 APHSA is a non-profit membership organization that represents state and local human services agencies. For more information, see http://www.aphsa.org/content/APHSA/en/the-association. 269 The preliminary meeting included a presentation to private providers that was made by, among others, a CSF consultant with substantial experience overseeing implementation of performance-based contracting in the public sector child welfare agency context. The meeting was conducted on February 12, 2013, as part of a two-day strategic planning conference. Providers report that the introductory session was informative and constructive, but that there has been no follow through by DFCS staff. 270 The Monitor received contradictory information about the status of the plan, and did not have an opportunity to follow up on this matter until early December 2013. 271 Ex. 19A, Performance Based Contracting, May 31, 2013 PBC Plan, redacted. 272 Id. at Appendix B: Action Plan.
91

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 98 of 251
be part of the required plan. For this reason, on January 16, 2014, the Monitor requested many of the documents listed in the plan.273
In early February 2014, defendants transmitted the documents that the Monitor requested. None of the documents satisfy the requirements of this sub-section.274 The Monitor has
discussed her concerns regarding defendants’ performance with defendants’ counsel. It appears
that defendants recognize the shortcomings in their performance and report that they recently
engaged a consultant to assist them with the development of this plan.
The history of defendants’ performance related to this requirement indicates that
defendants do not have the capacity to complete the required plan even when they have engaged
external consultants to provide technical assistance. Threshold questions that are prerequisites
for developing a performance-based contracting plan remain unrecognized and unaddressed,
including the choice of an operational model, the selection of a funding model, and the outcomes
and key performance indicators that will become terms of the contracts.
Period 3 IP §I.B.1. B. Continuous Quality Improvement
1. By 30 days following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall finalize and begin implementing the Evaluation and Monitoring instrument that was submitted in draft form during the Bridge Period.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.B.1.: This requirement was satisfied. The evaluation
and monitoring instrument was finalized over one year before the start of Period 3, in May 2011.275 Thereafter, it was piloted on a very limited number of cases in Region I-N. It was
implemented more broadly during June 2011 in Regions I-S and II-W, the first two regions to
273 Ex. 19B, January 16, 2014 e-mail to Debbie Brewer from Grace M. Lopes; December 10, 2013 e-mail to Grace M. Lopes from Debbie Brewer. 274 These documents are voluminous. Accordingly, the documents that defendants produced in response to the Monitor’s request have not been included in the appendix to this report. 275 Ex. 20, MDHS Division of Family and Children’s Services, Safety, Permanency, and Well-Being, Continuous Quality Improvement Review Instrument (copy downloaded May 1, 2012).
92

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 99 of 251
implement the Practice Model. Defendants began to use the automated version of the instrument
routinely starting in March 2012 in Region V-E. Since that time, the defendants report that the
instrument has undergone minor modifications.276
Period 3 IP §I.B.2. B. Continuous Quality Improvement
2. By 30 days following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants, in conjunction with CSF or another consultant, shall revise and begin implementing a written plan to implement a continuous quality improvement (CQI) system. That written plan shall explicitly specify the resources and staffing necessary to adequately operate the CQI unit in both the state and regional offices.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.B.2.: This requirement was satisfied; however, as
explained below, there are shortcomings related to the implementation of the CQI plan that must
be addressed.
Defendants finalized the CQI plan in collaboration with CSF consultants during July
2012. The plan was transmitted to plaintiffs’ counsel and the Monitor on August 6, 2012.277 The
plan provides a conceptual and structural framework for implementation of an appropriate CQI
system with ongoing quality assurance and quality improvement processes. 278
By design, the CQI system reflected in the plan is aligned with the Practice Model, which
in turn reflects core practice-related requirements of the MSA.279 The plan includes an initial
implementation schedule. As explained below, the plan could benefit from a clearer and more
276 The instrument is used by the DFCS CQI unit to conduct case reviews. It is comprehensive, eliciting data about a wide range of case practices related to Practice Model implementation. 277 Ex. 21, Mississippi Division of Family and Children’s Services, Continuous Quality Improvement Plan, July 2012, redacted. 278 According to the plan, quality assurance [hereinafter QA] processes are designed to measure child welfare practice relative to the goals, mission and values of MDHS/DFCS as well as conformity with the standards that guide the agency’s work with children and families. In contrast, quality improvement processes lead to improvements over time in the delivery of services based on data obtained through quality assurance activities. Id. at 3. 279 The Practice Model incorporates six categories of activities: mobilizing appropriate services timely; safety assurance and risk management; involving families and children in case planning and decision-making; strengths and needs assessments for families and children; preserving connections and relationships; and individualized and timely case planning. Id. at 4.
93

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 100 of 251
detailed description of staffing levels and resources, not all of which were addressed with sufficient specificity in defendants’ Period 3 submission.
Essentially, through ongoing review, evaluation, analysis, and reporting processes, the CQI system is intended to identify strengths and limitations in performance. The data that are generated from these processes are used to inform corrective action processes, which, in turn, can advance accountability, promote systemic improvements in performance, and also address shortcomings in case practice. An adequately resourced CQI process is essential to promoting the reforms required by the MSA.
The CQI plan that defendants submitted in August 2012 addresses the structure of the CQI unit in the MDHS State Office. The unit is structured to administer statewide CQI functions, including evaluation and monitoring, foster care review, MACWIS, COA coordination, and Court improvement.280 An organizational chart that addresses staffing levels for many but not all of these functions is included in the plan.281 For example, while the plan recognizes that additional staff would be necessary to manage the accountability process in the regions associated with the maltreatment in care reviews,282 the staffing level needed to support this function is not addressed by the plan. Moreover, while the plan recognizes that the
280 Id. at 9. 281 Id. at 10 (organizational chart specifying, among other matters, the number of foster care reviewers and supervisors as well as the number of evaluation and monitoring liaisons and supervisors). The chart neither specifies staffing levels for reviewers of in-care maltreatment investigations nor for complaints. Id. However, the plan indicates that among other planned activities for defendants to accomplish during 2012 are the following: “[d]etermine the number of staff needed, hire and train the additional CQI staff to implement the reviews of investigations.” Id. at 29. Defendants initially determined that two reviewers were needed to complete the MIC reviews; however, defendants report that they plan to hire an additional reviewer. See the narrative related to Period 3 IP §II.C.4., infra at 154-156 for a discussion of performance related to the MIC review process. The CQI plan is silent with respect to the staffing levels needed to address complaints. 282 Id. at 27
94

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 101 of 251
MACWIS unit is a critical component of the CQI program,283 and that its staff provide initial
validation and periodic revalidation of the data reports used by the CQI program,284 the plan does
not address staffing levels for the MACWIS data validation team.285
These omissions are noteworthy, especially in light of the limitations that have been
revealed in defendants’ CQI program. While defendants have, to their credit, designed, staffed
and made demonstrable progress implementing a CQI program since the start of Period 3,286
neither the accountability process nor the data validation and analyses processes have been
appropriately staffed with sufficient numbers of staff with the experience and qualifications
needed to perform these functions. With regard to the accountability process, the CQI Plan
contemplates that when deficiencies in case practice are identified through CQI reviews and
evaluations, they are documented, reported to the appropriate managers, tracked, followed up and
resolved.287 The Monitor’s review of the Period 3 corrective action process related to the
findings from CQI reviews identified substantial limitations in the timeliness and efficacy of the
corrective action process.288 As a result, the Final Period 4 IP required defendants to address the
283 Id. at 9 (explicitly stating that the State Office CQI Unit includes the MACWIS Unit); see also id. at 10 (including MACWIS Unit as a component of the CQI Unit on the organizational chart); id. at 17 (recognizing “many of [the MACWIS Unit’s] functions and reports are directly related to the CQI Office functions and needs”). 284 Id. at 17-18. 285 Id. at 11. 286 Defendants failed to hire a supervisor for the safety review unit, and experienced many challenges maintaining staffing levels for the reviewers assigned to the foster care review unit and the liaisons assigned to the evaluation and monitoring units. As of March 21, 2014, the FCR unit had four vacancies out of a staffing complement of 14 reviewers as well as a vacancy in the sole program manager position, and the EMU unit had two reviewer vacancies. Defendants expected one of the two EMU vacancies to be filled by April 1, 2014. 287 The CQI plan specifically describes this corrective action process when issues of concern that affect the immediate safety of a child are identified through CQI processes, including through EMU functions and the foster care review process, see, e.g., id. at 16. A more detailed corrective action process is outlined in the plan with respect to findings from the maltreatment in care review process. Id. at 19. This process also falls within the purview of §II.C.2. of the Period 3 IP, addressed infra at 152. 288 Interviews with DFCS managers and a review of tracking records established that as of the latter part of the 2013 calendar year, the defendants had not built an effective tracking infrastructure that could be used to hold staff and managers accountable for taking corrective action on a timely basis. See, e.g., Ex. 22, November 5, 2013 e-mail to Grace M. Lopes from Robert Hamrick (transmitting CQI Corrective Action Open and Closed Heat Ticket Report as of November 4, 2013 [November 2013 Tracking Report]). According to the November 2013 tracking report, there were 72 open corrective action matters that had been assigned to DFCS regional managers for corrective action as a
95

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 102 of 251
process and to report on a monthly basis to plaintiffs and the Monitor documenting the timeliness
of corrective actions.289
Additionally, while the CQI plan recognizes that it is “imperative for the CQI system to
have access to aggregate data to monitor and evaluate indicators and outcomes[,]”290 the plan
does not assess staffing needs related to data validation and analyses. Defendants’ capacity in
these areas is limited and must be bolstered.
Ultimately, a CQI system is intended to track progress and fuel improvement in service
delivery. To become an effective mechanism for driving a rapid reform process, the system must
provide managers responsible for implementing the Practice Model with frequent and
comprehensive reports on their progress so that they can assess the strengths and weaknesses of
their programmatic activities and make course corrections as needed. Managers also will need
more targeted data to help them understand the factors that may be affecting performance in
order to design and implement effective solutions. In the same way that agency executives
require regular reports on agency performance, regional directors require access to frequent,
periodic regional performance data to inform resource allocation and other management
result of findings from the maltreatment in care review process. Fifty-six of the 72 open corrective actions were overdue for between 126 and one day (i.e., no corrective action taken after more than five days had lapsed in situations in which a safety issue was identified and no corrective action taken after 20 business days had lapsed in situations in which a practice issue was identified). The median number of days the 56 corrective action matters were overdue was 29 days and the distribution, by region, insofar as days overdue was as follows: Region I-N, 13 overdue (17, 19, 28, 29, 37, 51, and 77 days and two for 16, 48, and 65 days); Region II-W, seven overdue (one, three, eight, 23, 27, 29, and 36 days); Region III-N, one overdue (22 days); Region V-E, four overdue (14 and 54 days and two for 22 days); Region VI, 20 overdue (12, 18, 26, 39, 50, 65, 67, 82, 119, and 121 days, two for eight, 70, and 126 days, and four for 36 days); and Region VII-W, 11 overdue (eight, 28, 36, 57, and 65 days and two for three, 23, and 29 days). Additionally, there were 26 open corrective action matters that had been assigned to DFCS regional managers for corrective action as a result of findings from the foster care review process. Twenty of the 26 open corrective actions were overdue for between 125 and 3 days for a median of 29 days and the distribution, by region, insofar as days overdue was as follows: Region II-E, two overdue (69 and 125 days); Region III-N, one overdue (12 days); Region III-S, two overdue (35 and 75 days); and Region VII-W, 15 overdue (three, five, six, 11, 27, and 34 days, two for 29, 43, and 68 days, and three for nine days). Some regions had no open corrective actions during this period. 289 Final Period 4 IP §II.B.2. 290 Ex. 21, supra note 277, at 17.
96

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 103 of 251
decisions. To actualize such a system, defendants must ensure that the appropriate resources are
available to regional management teams to guide and support their efforts.
Period 3 IP §I.B.3. B. Continuous Quality Improvement
3. By 30 days following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall maintain one (1) Program Administrator, Sr. to work in the Evaluation and Monitoring Unit.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.B.3.: This requirement was satisfied during Period 3.
According to the organizational chart in the CQI Plan, two senior Program Administrators should be assigned to the Evaluation and Monitoring Unit.291 As of March 1, 2012, there were two
senior program administrators assigned to the EMU unit. However, one of the positions became
vacant on June 1, 2013 and remained vacant until September 1, 2013.
Period 3 IP §I.B.4. B. Continuous Quality Improvement
4. By 30 days following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall complete a baseline CQI Review for Region V-E.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.B.4.: This requirement was satisfied. The baseline
CQI review for Region V-E was initiated in March 2012. A report reflecting on-site case review
findings, foster care review data, and the results of a stakeholder survey was issued on June 19,
2012 based on a comprehensive review instrument.
Period 3 IP §I.B.5. B. Continuous Quality Improvement
5. By 30 days following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement Defendants shall complete a followup CQI Review for Region I-N.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.B.5.: This requirement was satisfied. The follow up
on-site review in Region I-N was conducted between May 22 and 25, 2012. Defendants
291 Id. at 10. These positions are referred to as EMU supervisors in the organizational chart.
97

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 104 of 251
completed the related report on August 1, 2012, and submitted it to counsel for the plaintiffs and
the Monitor on August 6, 2012.
Period 3 IP §I.B.6. B. Continuous Quality Improvement
6. By 45 days following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall hire three (3) Evaluation and Monitoring Unit liaisons.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.B.6.: This requirement was not satisfied. As noted
above,292 defendants have had difficulty maintaining the full staffing complement for the EMU
Unit.293 According to data provided by the defendants only two liaisons were hired during 2012
following approval of the MSA, and only one of the hires was timely.294
Period 3 IP §I.B.7. B. Continuous Quality Improvement
7. By 45 days following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall complete an annual CQI report covering June 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.B.7.: This requirement was satisfied. Defendants
submitted the completed annual report to plaintiffs’ counsel and to the Monitor on August 24,
2012.295
Period 3 IP §I.B.8. B. Continuous Quality Improvement
292 See supra note 286. 293 Defendants reported that at least two factors have contributed to the challenges they have experienced staffing these positions. First, they have had difficulty identifying candidates who satisfy the qualification criteria for these positions, i.e., licensed social workers with at least four years of experience. Second, defendants report that during at least part of Period 3, official recruitment notices did not list the correct counties to which the positions were assigned and the notices erroneously described the jobs as front line social work positions. Compare, Ex. 23A, Vacancy Announcement from the State Personnel Board website, DHS-Family Protection Spec, Adv (describing job in evaluation and monitoring unit with closing date of April 18, 2012 as front line social work position in Hinds County) with Ex. 23B, memorandum, Mississippi Department of Human Services, April 11, 2012, In-House Promotional Opportunities, (internal notification to MDHS staff of three positions in the Evaluation and Monitoring Unit with closing date of April 18, 2012, noting that the candidates do not need to be housed in the county that is advertised, but must be housed in one of three specific DFCS regions). 294 A liaison hired for Region V-W was hired effective August 1, 2012, and a liaison hired for Region V-E was hired effective September 1, 2012. 295 Ex. 24, Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children’s Services, Continuous Quality Improvement [CQI] Annual CQI Report, redacted.
98

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 105 of 251
8. By July 1, 2012, Defendants shall complete a second followup CQI Review for Regions I-S and II-W.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.B.8.: This requirement was satisfied. The second follow up on-site reviews in Regions I-S and II-W were conducted between June 12 -15, 2012 and June 26, 29, 2012, respectively. Defendants completed the related report for Region I-S on September 5, 2012, and submitted it to counsel for the plaintiffs and the Monitor on September 7, 2012. The related report for Region II-W was completed on September 8, 2012 and submitted to counsel for plaintiffs and the Monitor on September 12, 2012.
Period 3 IP §I.B.9. B. Continuous Quality Improvement
9. By August 1, 2012, Defendants shall complete a base-line CQI Review for Region III-N.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.B.9.: This requirement was satisfied. The baseline on-site review in Region III-N was conducted between July 24 and 27, 2012. The related report was completed on October 17, 2012 and submitted to counsel for the plaintiffs and the Monitor on October 23, 2012.
Period 3 IP §I.B.10. B. Continuous Quality Improvement
10. By September 1, 2012, Defendants shall complete a follow-up CQI Review for Region IV-S.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.B.10.: This requirement was satisfied. The follow up on-site review in Region IV-S was conducted between August 21 and 24, 2012. The related report was completed on November 14, 2012 and submitted to counsel for the plaintiffs and the Monitor on November 16, 2012.
Period 3 IP §I.B.11. B. Continuous Quality Improvement
11. By October 1, 2012, Defendants shall complete a follow-up CQI Review for Region III-S.
99

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 106 of 251
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.B.11.: This requirement was satisfied. The follow up on-site review in Region III-S was conducted between September 18 and 21, 2012. The related report was completed on December 10, 2012 and submitted to counsel for the plaintiffs and the Monitor on December 11, 2012.
Period 3 IP §I.B.12. B. Continuous Quality Improvement
12. By November 1, 2012, Defendants shall complete a baseline CQI Review for Region VII-W.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.B.12.: This requirement was satisfied. The baseline on-site review in Region VII-W was conducted between October 23 and 26, 2012. The related report was completed on January 25, 2013 and submitted to counsel for the plaintiffs and the Monitor on January 31, 2013.
Period 3 IP §I.B.13. B. Continuous Quality Improvement
13. By December 1, 2012, Defendants shall complete a baseline CQI Review for Region VI.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.B.13.: This requirement was satisfied. The baseline on-site review in Region VI was conducted between November 13 and 16, 2012. The related report was completed on February 5, 2012 and submitted to counsel for the plaintiffs and the Monitor on February 8, 2012.
Period 3 IP §I.B.14. B. Continuous Quality Improvement
14. By February 1, 2013, Defendants shall complete a baseline CQI Review for Region II-E.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.B.14.: This requirement was satisfied. The baseline on-site review in Region II-E was conducted between January 22 and 25, 2013. The related report was completed on April 5, 2013 and submitted to counsel for the plaintiffs and the Monitor on April 9, 2013.
100

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 107 of 251
Period 3 IP §I.B.15. B. Continuous Quality Improvement
15. By March 1, 2013, Defendants shall complete a second follow-up CQI Review for Region V-W.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.B.15.: This requirement was satisfied. The second
follow up on-site review in Region V-W was conducted between February 12 and 15, 2013. The
related report was completed on May 13, 2013 and submitted to counsel for the plaintiffs and the
Monitor on May 17, 2013.
Period 3 IP §I.B.16. B. Continuous Quality Improvement
16. By April 1, 2013, Defendants shall complete a follow-up CQI Review for Region V-E.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.B.16.: This requirement was satisfied. The follow up
on-site review in Region V-E was conducted between March 26 and 29, 2013. The related report
appears to have been completed on June 24, 2013296 and submitted to counsel for the plaintiffs
and the Monitor on June 28, 2013.
Period 3 IP §I.B.17. B. Continuous Quality Improvement
17. By June 1, 2013, Defendants shall complete a follow-up CQI Review for Region VII-E.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.B.17.: This requirement was satisfied. The follow up
on-site review in Region VII-E was conducted between May 14 and 17, 2013. The related report
was completed on August 14, 2013 and submitted to counsel for the plaintiffs and the Monitor on
August 16, 2013.297
Period 3 IP §I.B.18.a. B. Continuous Quality Improvement
18. Within 60 days of completing each CQI Review, Defendants shall complete a report regarding that review.
296 Unlike most of the other evaluation and monitoring reports generated by the EMU unit, the report is not dated; however, a member of EMU management staff reports that it was completed on June 24, 2013. 297 Pursuant to a gubernatorial proclamation, July 5, 2013 was a holiday. Thus, the report was completed in 60 business days as required by Period 3 IP §I.B.18.a.
101

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 108 of 251
a. Within five (5) business days thereafter, Defendants will provide the completed report to Plaintiffs and to Monitor.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.B.18.a.: As indicated in the narratives related to Period 3 IP §§I.B.4, 5, 8-17,298 defendants conducted the required CQI reviews on a timely basis
and all of the 12 required CQI reports were finalized within 46 to 60 business days. All required
reports were submitted to counsel for the plaintiffs and the Monitor within five days following completion.299
The CQI reviews are conducted by the liaisons assigned to the Evaluation and Monitoring
Unit. The reviews track the Practice Model implementation schedule. A baseline review is
conducted as each DFCS region begins the initial implementation phase of the Practice Model.
Approximately twelve months following the baseline review, after each region completes the
initial Practice Model implementation phase, a follow up review is conducted. Thereafter,
reviews are scheduled on an annual basis. The reviews are designed to combine qualitative data
– obtained through case reviews, stakeholder interviews, and surveys – with quantitative data
reflected in MACWIS reports, in order to assess performance related to each of the six
components of the Practice Model. According to the CQI Plan, reports must be issued within 60 days of each on-site baseline and annual review.300
As noted above,301 the review instrument is comprehensive.302 The reviews conducted in each region are limited to a random sample of 24 cases.303 Fourteen cases in each sample
298 Supra at 97-101. 299 All of the reports were submitted to plaintiffs’ counsel and the Monitor within one to four days following their completion. 300 Ex. 21, supra note 277, at 15. 301 Supra at 97. 302 In addition to assessing case practice, the process is also designed to evaluate systemic factors, including training, the service array, placement resources, caseloads, oversight and monitoring, court processes and data quality and usage. See Ex. 21, supra note 277, at 14 for descriptive information regarding these factors. 303 The sample size is based on the Federal Child and Family Services Review process.
102

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 109 of 251
concern class members, i.e., children in foster care. The reports are submitted to DFCS
management and the regional director in the targeted region, and are used in combination with
aggregate data to inform regional CQI activities.304
In light of the fact that, by design, the sample size of class members is small, the intervals
between reviews extend for a one-year period, and much more aggregate performance data has
become available in the wake of the June 24, 2013 Order, the CQI reviews serve a narrow, albeit
important, function in defendants’ CQI architecture.305
Period 3 IP §I.B.19. B. Continuous Quality Improvement
19. Defendants shall have hired the staff and obtained the resources required as specified in the CQI Plan developed pursuant to Section I.B.2. of the Period 3 Implementation Plan.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.B.19.: As noted above in the narrative related to
Period 3 IP §I.B.2.,306 defendants made substantial progress in hiring staff to perform some but
not all of the CQI functions contemplated by the CQI Plan. Moreover, defendants must bolster
DFCS capacity to perform certain CQI activities, including ongoing data validation and analyses.
Period 3 IP §I.C. C. Legal and Regulatory Compliance
By 30 days following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall have implemented the policies and procedures necessary to comply with the public child fatality reporting requirements of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment and Adoption Reform Act.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.C.: The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
(“CAPTA”), as amended, 42 USC §5101, et seq., provides for public disclosure of findings or
304 See id. at 15-16 for more information about the design of the regional CQI process. Among other measures, regional directors are required to update their Practice Model implementation plans based on the findings reflected in the CQI reports. Id. at 15. 305 For examples of the types of reports generated by the CQI review process, see, e.g., Ex. 25A, Region 3-South, Continuous Quality Improvement Baseline Report, August 2011, redacted; Ex. 25B, Region 3-South, Continuous Quality Improvement Annual Follow-Up Report, September 2012, redacted; Ex. 25C, Region 3-South Continuous Quality Improvement Annual Report, October 2013, redacted. 306 Supra at 93-97.
103

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 110 of 251
information about a case in instances of child abuse and/or neglect resulting in a fatality or near fatality of a child.307 Section 43-21-261 of the Mississippi Code provides for an exception to the confidentiality of MDHS/DFCS records in these circumstances, permitting the release of the child’s name, address or location, and verification from MDHS/DFCS of case status. If a case that falls within the purview of CAPTA exists, the statute provides for disclosure of the type of report or case, intake date(s), investigation(s), and whether the report was substantiated or unsubstantiated.308 The relevant DFCS policy restates the statutory exception and indicates that the information reflected in the exception should immediately be provided by the county supervisor to the DFCS deputy director, who has authority to release the information.309 The policy directive does not include clear procedures related to disclosure of the exempted information, which appear to be contemplated by this Period 3 requirement. In the Monitor’s view, the policy would benefit from clarification about the circumstances that would trigger the transmission of the information to the deputy director, the relevant timeline, and the deputy director’s obligations with respect to release of the information that falls within the statutory exception.
MSA §II.A.5.c.1. 5. Information Management and Use
c. By the end of Implementation Period Three: 1) DFCS shall provide to all county agency staff with child welfare responsibilities access to basic computer services, consisting of access to MACWIS, word processing, and electronic mail.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.A.5.c.1.: At the outset of the remedial process, the DFCS inventory of computer equipment in county offices was old and at times unreliable. Staff
307 For purposes of CAPTA, a near fatality exists when a physician determines that a child is in “serious” or “critical” condition. CAPTA, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5106a(b)(2)(B)(x) and (b)(4)(A). 308 Miss. Code. Ann. § 43-21-261(18) (2014). 309 See Ex. 46, infra note 453, at 59-60.
104

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 111 of 251
reported substantial delays in procuring replacement equipment and as a result access to basic computer services was unduly limited.310 During the latter part of 2009 and 2010, defendants initiated a replacement process, upgrading many DFCS users.311 More recently, although there
have been some exceptions that the Monitor has identified, caseworkers and their supervisors in county offices have generally had access to basic computer services.312
However, DFCS staff with child welfare responsibilities in county offices continue to
report system problems that undercut their ability to access MACWIS on a consistent basis,
including lengthy delays logging into MACWIS; difficulty remaining logged on to MACWIS;
loss of data entered into MACWIS; very slow response times; and system freezes and shut downs.313 Defendants have been working to address these issues, although progress has been
slow. At the start of the 2010 calendar year, defendants contracted with a vendor to address login and connectivity issues.314 Nonetheless, these problems continued, and in early 2012 the
defendants contracted for an assessment of the DFCS information technology infrastructure. During May 2012, an assessment report was issued.315 The report identified system performance
deficits and presented both short- and long-term recommendations for ameliorating them.
Shortly after the assessment was conducted, defendants began to implement the
recommendations as well as other strategies intended to improve the access DFCS staff have to MACWIS.316 Notwithstanding defendants’ efforts, as the Monitor has reported previously, login
310 June 2009 Report at 52. 311 September 2010 Report at 60-61. 312 These exceptions have been limited. However, interviews with DFCS county staff during the second half of 2013 identified several caseworkers in Region VII-W who did not have access to a computer until several months after they were hired and completed training. 313 January 2013 Report at 31-32; September 2010 Report at 61-62. 314 See September 2010 Report at 62-63 for a more detailed description of defendants’ efforts to address these problems. 315 For a copy of the assessment report, see January 2013 Report at Ex. 20. 316 For a more detailed description of the actions undertaken by the defendants, see id. at 32-33.
105

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 112 of 251
and connectivity problems persisted throughout Period 2 and Period 3.317 In January 2013, the
Monitor found that these limitations adversely affected both the reliability of MACWIS case
records and defendants’ ability to use data about system performance to make the changes in case
practice required by the MSA.318
These and other MACWIS-related issues were addressed by the parties and the Monitor
during the February 21, 2013 status hearing, leading to the issuance of the June 24, 2013 Order.
The June 24, 2013 Order includes requirements related to the remediation of the log-in and
connectivity issues,319 and while progress in some related areas has not been as timely as
expected, defendants report that key requirements will be satisfied according to timelines
required by the June 24, 2013 Order.320 The Monitor will report in more detail about this matter
in a subsequent report.
MSA §II.A.5.c.2. 5. Information Management and Use
c. By the end of Implementation Period Three: 2) Consistent with the schedule set forth in Appendix "C", data related to compliance with the Modified Settlement Agreement’s Foster Care Service Standards will be collected, analyzed, and disseminated at least monthly to DFCS regional and county staff.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.A.5.c.2.: This requirement was not satisfied. While
defendants disseminated data to DFCS regional and county staff during Period 3, in many
instances the data that was disseminated did not conform to the requirements of Appendix C.
As noted above,321 in many instances, the defendants did not produce accurate and
validated data relating to MSA requirements during Period 3. Accordingly, the Court issued the
317 September 2010 Report at 63; January 2013 Report at 29-33. 318 January 2013 Report at 31. 319 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.D.1. (requiring defendants to submit and implement a written plan to improve, on an expedited basis, the hardware and network infrastructure that support MACWIS). 320 Defendants encountered an unanticipated problem implementing a necessary software upgrade, which they have been working to solve. Except for this issue, defendants report that the plan is on track. 321 See, e.g., supra at 11-12.
106

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 113 of 251
June 24, 2013 Order to remedy the shortcomings in defendants’ performance. The Period 3 IP
required the defendants to produce a discrete set of “accurate and validated reports . . . that reflect
county-by-county performance” related to specific MSA requirements.322 The reports, delineated
in Appendix C of the MSA (“Appendix C reports”), include reports derived from case record
data collected in MACWIS and reports derived from data collected during the periodic and
structured reviews of case records that are conducted for each child in DFCS custody at six
month intervals as part of the foster care review process (“FCR reports”).323
In the Monitor’s January and September 2013 reports, the Monitor addressed defendants’
performance with respect to the data reporting requirements established by the Period 3 IP.324
The reports defendants produced in Period 3 evidenced significant limitations in the information
management systems and data validation processes utilized by DFCS.325 For example, during
Period 3, defendants did not produce certain validated and accurate reports that have been
required but not produced since Period 1.326 Moreover, in a number of the instances in which
defendants produced reports in response to the Period 3 IP, the reports did not reflect
performance relative to the MSA’s actual requirements.327 Additionally, although in some
322 Period 3 IP §I.D.1.a.-c. The specific reports are itemized in the MSA in Appendix C. 323 FCR reports represent an alternative data collection method that relies upon the “foster care review.” See infra at 108 for additional information regarding the foster care review process. 324 January 2013 Report at 33-38; September 2013 Report at 2-6. 325 January 2013 Report at 33; September 2013 Report at 3-4. 326 January 2013 Report at 34 (noting that defendants were unable to produce accurate and validated reports on caseworker workloads); September 2013 Report at 3-4. 327 January 2013 Report at 34-35 (describing several examples, including, the following: for children with the goal of reunification, the assigned DFCS caseworker is required to meet with the child’s parent(s) with whom the child is to be reunified at least once each month to assess service delivery and achievement). MSA §§II.B.5.b. and II.B.5.e.2. Although defendants were required to report on this requirement during Period 3, see Period 3 IP §I.D.1.a.-c., MSA, App. C at 1, MACWIS MWZWCR3, defendants informed the Monitor that they were unable to report on this requirement accurately because MACWIS did not enable DFCS staff to identify and track with sufficient specificity those cases in which a child is to be reunified with only one parent.). See also September 2013 Report at 3-4, 17 (MSA §II.B.1.e.3. requires that for children who remain in an out-of-home placement following a maltreatment investigation, a DFCS worker must visit the child two times per month for three months; data produced by defendants was limited to visits during one-month periods instead of three-month periods, likely overstating performance).
107

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 114 of 251
instances MACWIS captured the data the defendants were required to report on,328 the reports
that defendants produced during Period 3 did not report on the MSA requirement because they were not designed to do so.329 Defendants disseminated these reports to DFCS staff and they
were used to draw conclusions about agency performance and service quality. To advance the
reforms required by the MSA, defendants will need to use performance data to guide
management decisions, and it is essential that the data be timely, complete, and accurate.
MSA §II.A.5.c.3. 5. Information Management and Use
c. By the end of Implementation Period Three: 3) Defendants shall automate the DFCS foster care review instrument to include the foster care review data indicators as listed on Appendix "C". The child’s foster care review record shall become part of the child’s case file.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.A.5.c.3.: The foster care review (“FCR”) represents an
administrative case review process that is conducted at six-month intervals for all children who
have been in foster care at least six months. Foster care reviewers, who are assigned to the FCR
section of the DFCS CQI Unit, conduct these structured reviews using an automated instrument
that was developed during 2012 in response to the requirements of this subsection and the MSA’s data reporting requirements.330 The defendants refer to the automated instrument as the periodic
administrative determination (“PAD”).
Because of the limitations associated with data reports derived from individual case
records generated by MACWIS, and as an alternative to the data collected through the MACWIS
case record, the defendants expanded the data collected during the FCR process in an attempt to
328 As noted above, some MSA requirements are subject to qualitative assessment which cannot be captured by a MACWIS report. 329 January 2013 Report at 36-37 (listing a series of examples, including data reports limited to caseworker visits with children on a single month basis despite requirements for caseworker visits with children at least twice each month for three months). In addition, as explained in the Monitor’s January 2013 Report, during Period 3 the defendants produced some Appendix C reports with obvious calculation errors, raising concerns about the reliability of the MDHS/DFCS data validation process. Id. at 37-38. 330 See MSA, Appendix C at 3-5.
108

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 115 of 251
capture specified data elements relevant to performance under the MSA. Foster care reviewers
began to collect data with an expanded version of the PAD in February 2012. Starting July 2012,
defendants began to collect data in MACWIS using a revised and automated version of the PAD.331 Defendants began producing the MSA-required FCR data reports to the Monitor and
plaintiffs’ counsel during April 2013.
Additional sets of FCR reports were submitted throughout the balance of Period 3 and
during Period 4. There are limitations in the instruction guide used by the reviewers to interpret the questions included in the PAD, and the instrument has undergone several revisions.332 Most
recently, as part of the report specification development process required by the June 24, 2013 Order,333 defendants have collaborated with plaintiffs’ counsel and the Monitor both on
modifications to the PAD and on revisions to the written guidance. Because of the need to
bolster PAD reviewer training and the guidance provided to reviewers related to several specific
MSA requirements concerning health care, during February 2014 the parties agreed that pending
a determination that the FCR process can report accurately on the targeted requirements, performance would be reviewed in a special case record review.334
MSA §II.A.5.c.4. 5. Information Management and Use
c. By the end of Implementation Period Three: 4) The Director of the Foster Care Review Division of the CQI Unit of DFCS ("FCR Director") shall regularly review the documentation of the foster care reviews to ensure that the foster care reviewers are appropriately utilizing the foster care review protocol. When the FCR Director identifies concerns regarding foster care reviews, DFCS shall remediate the concerns.
331 The PAD was automated by July 2012. Additional modifications were made to the instrument in October 2012. 332 PAD reviewers must have a deep knowledge of DFCS policy, case practice, and MSA standards. 333 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.A. 334 See, e.g., infra at 179-180 for narrative related to MSA §II.B.4.b.1.
109

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 116 of 251
Status of Progress, MSA §II.A.5.c.4.: All children in DFCS custody for at least six months are subject to the foster care review process at six-month intervals throughout the time period they remain in custody. The purpose of the review is to expedite the process of moving children out of foster care and into permanent and nurturing homes. The DFCS CQI program relies in part on the foster care review process to identify issues of concern that affect the immediate safety of children.335 According to the DFCS CQI Plan, issues of concern that are identified during the FCR reviews are required to be reported to the FCR director who provides a written report to DFCS management for follow up.336 The CQI Plan requires that the concerns are tracked by the FCR Unit for the purpose of continuous quality assurance and accountability.337
Interviews with DFCS CQI managers and staff indicate that during Period 3 the FCR director regularly reviewed the instruments completed by the FCR reviewers as well as tracked and reported to DFCS managers the case-specific concerns, including safety concerns, identified during the reviews. Indeed, during Period 3, the FCR director maintained a spreadsheet to track the initiation and resolution of corrective actions undertaken by DFCS management in response to the specific issues identified during the foster care reviews conducted in each region. A review of these spreadsheets indicates that as a general matter, and contrary to the requirements of this subsection, the remedial process was not timely even in instances when serious safety concerns were identified.338
335 Ex. 21, supra note 277, at 16. 336 Id. 337 Id. 338 See, e.g., Ex. 26A, FCR Corrective Action Spreadsheet, redacted, submitted by defendants on February 13, 2013 in response to the Monitor’s request (indicating no data available with respect to corrective action in many instances); Ex. 26B, FCR Corrective Action Spreadsheet, redacted, submitted by defendants on July 29, 2013 in response to Monitor’s request (indicating no data available with respect to corrective action in many instances).
110

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 117 of 251
As noted above, the Monitor reported informally to the parties on the shortcomings in this
and other aspects of the CQI corrective action process. As a result, the Final Period 4 IP includes
remedial action.339 The Monitor will report on defendants’ progress in a forthcoming report.
Period 3 IP §I.D.1.a.-c. D. Information Use and Management
1. Defendants shall produce accurate and validated reports as identified in Appendix “C” to the Modified Settlement Agreement that reflect county-by-county performance.
a. The reports that are noted as available in Appendix “C” as of the beginning of Implementation Period 3 shall be produced beginning one month from the beginning of Implementation Period 3 and every thirty (30) days thereafter.
b. Defendants shall begin producing those reports that do not exist as of the beginning of Implementation Period 3 by the dates set forth in Appendix “C.”
c. Data reports shall be provided to the Monitor and the Plaintiffs within thirty (30) days of the date the report becomes available and every thirty (30) days thereafter, with the exception of the data report on training of DFCS caseworkers which shall be produced quarterly.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.D.1.a.-c.: As explained above,340 and in the
Monitor’s January and September 2013 reports,341 defendants did not meet these MSA reporting
requirements for Period 3 and, consequently, the Court issued an order on June 24, 2013
requiring remedial action.
Period 3 IP §I.D.2. D. Information Use and Management
2. Defendants shall ensure that the computer and electronic access problems identified in Dkt. No. 502, ps. 68-72 of the Court Monitor's September 8, 2011 report to the Court are remedied.
339 See Final Period 4 IP §II.B.3. 340 See, e.g., supra at 11-12. 341 See January 2013 Report at 33-38 and September 2013 Report at 2-6.
111

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 118 of 251
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.D.2.: Although there was progress, this requirement
was not satisfied during Period 3. Defendants’ performance with respect to this Period 3
requirement is addressed above in the narrative related to MSA §II.A.5.c.1.342
Period 3 IP §I.D.3. D. Information Use and Management
3. Consistent with the schedule set forth in Appendix “C,” Defendants shall collect, analyze and disseminate data, related to compliance with the Foster Care Service Standards set forth in Sections II.B and III.B of the Modified Settlement Agreement, at least monthly, to DFCS regional and county staff.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.D.3.: This requirement was not satisfied during
Period 3. Defendants’ performance with respect to this Period 3 requirement is addressed above
in the narrative related to MSA §II.A.5.c.2.343
Period 3 IP §I.D.4. D. Information Use and Management
4. Defendants shall provide training for all foster care reviewers on the foster care review instrument and on processes related to addressing concerns identified during a foster care review.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.D.4.: DFCS managers and staff report that the
required training was provided during the first half of 2012 and prior to the last quarter of 2012 in
anticipation of several modifications to the instrument. More recently, in response to the PAD
report specification development process contemplated by the June 24, 2013 Order, a CSF
consultant has provided additional training to the reviewers. In large part, the additional training
is intended to clarify MSA requirements.
342 Supra at 104-106. This subsection of the Period 3 IP refers to the Monitor’s findings related to Period 2 IP §I.5.a., which required defendants to provide to all county agency staff with child welfare responsibilities access to basic computer services, consisting of access to MACWIS, word processing, and electronic mail. These findings are reflected in the Monitor’s September 2010 Report [Dkt. No. 503] at 68-72. The reference in this subsection to the Monitor’s September 8, 2011 Report [Dkt. No. 502] appears to represent a transcription error. 343 See supra at 106-108.
112

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 119 of 251
Period 3 IP §I.E. E. Case Recordings and Information
Defendants shall revise the Supervisory Administrative Review process to require a review of whether DFCS child welfare case records are current, complete, made by the appropriate caseworker, and signed and dated by supervisors.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.E.: Defendants revised the Supervisory
Administrative Review process as required during Period 3. According to DFCS policy, the
supervisory administrative review of the case record is completed on all open cases by the
assigned supervisor within 90 calendar days of a child’s placement into DFCS custody and
thereafter at established intervals.344 The review is completed in MACWIS using a structured
evaluation tool. In response to the requirements of this subsection, effective July 8, 2013,
defendants introduced a revised tool in MACWIS, which, among other changes, incorporates
documentation of an assessment by the supervisor about whether the case record is current,
complete, and documented by the assigned caseworker. 345
Period 3 IP §I.F.1.346 F. Financial Management
1. By the end of Implementation Period 3, Defendants shall have implemented and shall maintain implementation of those recommendations made by Hornby Zeller Associates ("HZA") and the Center for Support of Families negotiated and agreed to by the Parties, and filed with the Court by July 14, 2012. The recommendations negotiated and agreed to by the Parties and filed with the Court shall become an enforceable part of this Period 3 Implementation Plan.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.F.1.: The evidence shows that the defendants have
implemented most, but not all, of the requirements of the July 14, 2012 agreement. Indeed,
344 Ex. 27A, Mississippi, DFCS Policy, Section D, Foster Care, Revised 7-22-13, §VII.D.1., at 109. The policy was revised during 2013 to require supervisory administrative reviews at 12-month intervals after the required 15th month review. 345 Ex. 27B, MACWIS Technical Assistance Bulletin, July 22, 2013, Issue #16, redacted (providing instructions to MACWIS users on the revised supervisory administrative review tool). 346 See also MSA §II.A.6.b.1. (requiring the defendants to satisfy a requirement that is, in effect, identical to the requirement set forth in Period 3 IP §I.F.1.).
113

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 120 of 251
guided by their fiscal management team, defendants have made encouraging progress building
their capacity to increase federal revenue. These accomplishments are outlined below.
The Settlement Agreement required defendants to conduct an external assessment of
actual and anticipated federal funding levels during Period 1, and to develop an implementation program for MDHS/DFCS to increase federal funding.347 Because the Period 1 requirement was not satisfied,348 the defendants were required during Period 2 to contract for an external
assessment of actual and anticipated funding levels as well as for the development of a plan to
establish the resources and infrastructure necessary to maximize the amount of federal funds received by the agency.349 Defendants took steps to satisfy the Period 2 requirement, but there were limitations in their performance.350 Ultimately, in order to promote efficiencies and
maximize the efficacy of the assessment, the June 10, 2010 Agreed Order for Corrective Action
(“Agreed Order”) required defendants to contract with CSF for the fiscal assessment required by the Period 2 IP.351
Consistent with the terms of the Agreed Order, CSF subcontracted with Hornby Zeller
Associates, Inc., an organization with substantial expertise in financial/fiscal assessments in the public sector human services context,352 to conduct the assessment and develop an implementation plan to guide revenue maximization efforts.353 Assessment activities began in
early September 2010. A report presenting the assessment’s findings with recommended steps for enhancing federal revenue was issued by Hornby Zeller in May 2011.354 The report’s
347 Settlement Agreement §II.A.7.a. 348 See June 2009 Report at 56 for the Monitor’s Period 1 findings. 349 Period 2 IP §I.7.a 350 See September 2010 Report at 68-69 for a summary of defendants’ performance during Period 2. 351 June 10, 2010 Agreed Order ¶5. 352 See http://www.hornbyzeller.com for background data regarding Hornby Zeller. 353 See June 2009 Report at 16 for additional details related to the scope of services. 354 Ex. 28, Financial Assessment Findings and Recommendations, May 2011, Hornby Zeller Associates, Inc. under contract to Center for the Support of Families, Inc.
114

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 121 of 251
recommendations formed the basis for the parties’ agreement regarding the steps defendants
would be required to implement by the end of Period 3 to enhance federal funding. The
agreement was approved by the Court in an order issued on July 12, 2012.355 Defendants’
performance with respect to each of the agreement’s requirements is addressed below.
Requirement 1, July 12, 2012 Agreement Regarding Enhancement of Federal Funding Career Preparation and Development Training Program. Title IV-E funding shall be sought for eligible expenditures of the “career preparation and development training program” through the Master of Social Work and Bachelor of Social Work cohort partnerships with the University of Mississippi, University of Southern Mississippi and Jackson State University.
Background: Historically, defendants have used state funds to subsidize some DFCS
staff participation in degree programs leading to a Master of Social Work (“MSW”). Because
these expenditures are eligible for federal funding reimbursement under Title IV-E of the Social
Security Act, Hornby Zeller’s May 2011 report recommended that the defendants seek federal
reimbursement for various types of expenditures associated with DFCS employee participation in
MSW programs.356 The report recognized the possibility of an expansion to Bachelor of Social
Work (“BSW”) programs,357 and outlined the steps necessary for implementation of its
recommendations with respect to both MSW and BSW programs. These steps were incorporated
into the July 2012 Agreement, became Period 3 requirements, and are addressed below.358
a. Update the Child and Family Service Plan (“CFSP”) to describe the Master of Social Work and Bachelor of Social Work partnerships with the universities. The method of funding shall be included in the CFSP update.
355 Ex. 29, Agreement Regarding the Enhancement of Federal Funding, July 12, 2012 [Dkt. No. 573]. 356 See Ex. 28, supra note 354, at 18-24. 357 Id. at 23. 358 The Monitor engaged Judith Meltzer, the co-director of the Center for the Study of Social Policy in Washington, D.C., to provide consultative services related to defendants’ performance implementing the requirements of the July 2012 Agreement. See www.cssp.org for additional information related to Ms. Meltzer’s qualifications and experience. Ms. Meltzer also has served as a consultant to the Monitor on other aspects of child welfare practice since Period 1.
115

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 122 of 251
Status of Progress, Requirement 1a.: The evidence shows that consistent with the
Hornby Zeller recommendations, the defendants updated the Child and Family Service Plan
(“CFSP”)359 to describe the MSW partnerships with universities.360 However, defendants report
that DFCS management decided it was “not feasible” to pursue partnerships with BSW
programs.361
b. Utilize the Reimbursement Calculator created by HZA to facilitate retroactive claims for reimbursement of expenditures eligible for federal Title IV-E funding.
i. Utilize the Reimbursement Calculator created by HZA to analyze and maximize allowable IV-E reimbursement of MSW or BSW coursework reimbursed by DFCS to its current and prospective staff.
ii. Utilize the Reimbursement Calculator created by HZA to facilitate quarterly filing for federal reimbursement on a retroactive basis for the Title IV-E eligible expenditures.
Status of Progress, Requirement 1b.: Hornby Zeller developed the reimbursement
calculator for the defendants,362 and this tool was used by MDHS/DFCS staff to compute a
reimbursement claim related to MSW coursework for the first quarter of the 2013 calendar year.
Defendants report that they have continued to use the calculator to prepare claims related to
MSW coursework. The revenue generated by these claims through the end of the 2013 calendar
359 The updated CFSP is a prerequisite that must be met in order for a state to claim costs in this area. 360 See Ex. 28, supra note 354, at 22-24 for a description of the relevant recommendations made in the May 2011 Hornby Zeller report; compare Ex. 30A, State of Mississippi, Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children’s Services, Mississippi FY 2011, submitted June 30, 2012, Annual Progress and Services Report, at 69 (excerpt) with Ex. 30B, State of Mississippi, Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children’s Services, Mississippi FY 2012, submitted June 26, 2013, Annual Progress and Services Report, redacted, at 49 (excerpt) (describing MSW Partnerships with universities). 361 Defendants disclosed this matter to plaintiffs’ counsel and the Monitor in a July 8, 2013 submission. See Ex. 31A, July 8, 2013 correspondence to Miriam Ingber from Kenya Key Rachal with attached Report on Impact of Hornby Zeller Associates’ (HZA) Recommendations, Agreement Regarding Enhancement of Federal Funding, Responses to Requirements of the Modified Settlement Agreement (MSA) and Implementation Plan for Period 3 (Y3IP), Status Report on Implementation of Agreement Regarding the Enhancement of Federal Funding Filed with the Court on July 12, 2012 [Status Report], and State Fund Appropriations by Year, redacted. The disclosure is included in the Status Report [DHS 345523-345527] at 1 [DHS345523]. In comments submitted to the Monitor on the draft version of this report, defendants have explained that an unanticipated change in legislation related to state funding for DFCS staff participation in BSW programs led defendants to conclude that the BSW partnerships were no longer feasible. 362 The reimbursement calculator is essentially a customized software tool in Microsoft Access that is used to compute reimbursement claims in this context.
116

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 123 of 251
year has been itemized by the defendants and is reflected in the appendix to this report.363 As
noted in the narrative related to Requirement 1a. of the July 2012 Agreement,364 the defendants
have elected not to pursue partnerships with university BSW programs.
Step 2, July 12, 2012 Agreement Regarding Enhancement of Federal Funding Pre-service Training Program for New Caseworkers and Supervisors. Title IV-E funding shall be sought for eligible expenses of the “pre-service training program for new caseworkers and supervisors” through the sub-grant with the Child Welfare Training Academy at the University of Mississippi.
Background: As described above,365 defendants have bolstered the pre-service training
program provided for new case workers and supervisors through, among other changes, a
contract with the Child Welfare Training Academy at the University of Mississippi. Because
many of the costs associated with the pre-service training program are eligible for federal funding
reimbursement, the Hornby Zeller report recommended that the defendants implement specified
steps to maximize reimbursement.366 The required performance by the end of Period 3 is
described below.
a. Update the CFSP to describe the state’s training program and costs which are to be funded with Title IV-E monies.
Status of Progress, Requirement 2a.: The CFSP is updated through submissions of the
Annual Progress and Services Report (“APSR”). Interviews with MDHS/DFCS fiscal division
managers and a review of the June 2012 and June 2013 versions of the APSR submitted by the
defendants to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children
363 Ex. 31B, spreadsheet submitted on January 8, 2014 in response to Monitor’s request by MDHS/DFCS division of budget and financial planning (reflecting the amount of both current and retroactive claims for federal reimbursement and revenue received for calendar years 2009-2013 as of January 8, 2014). Defendants report that the “2013 to date” column in the far right of this spreadsheet represents revenue for one quarter in 2013 for the MSW cohort, one quarter for tuition, one quarter for the pre-services training university contract, three quarters for the in-house pre-service training staff, and for pre-service training for workers and supervisors, one quarter for administrative technical assistance, and three quarters for supportive services. Among other matters, the table reflects that as a result of implementing the Hornby Zeller recommendations, current claims for training have increased from $59,398 in calendar year 2011 to $694,279 in calendar year 2013. 364 Supra at 115-116. 365 Supra at 77-78. 366 Ex. 28, supra note 354, at 26-31.
117

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 124 of 251
and Families (“ACF”) establishes that the defendants updated the CFSP367 as recommended by
Hornby Zeller to describe the training program and costs eligible for reimbursement.368
b. Update the CFSP to specify that new caseworkers will not carry a caseload until all pre-service training has been completed; the work experience component of the training is an integral component of the plan; that staff will receive more intensive supervision during the on-the-job training period; and that the trainees’ performance is closely monitored and assessed.
Status of Progress, Step 2b.: Interviews with MDHS/DFCS fiscal division managers
and a review of the June 2012 and June 2013 versions of the APSR submitted by the defendants
to ACF establish that the defendants updated the CFSP as recommended by Hornby Zeller in
response to this requirement.369
c. Assign new caseworkers to the training cost pool for the first eight weeks so that the appropriate portion of the costs will be eligible for Title IV-E reimbursement.
Status of Progress, Requirement 2c.: Defendants report that this has been
accomplished through the implementation of new accounting procedures. As a result of the
changes, MDHS/DFCS can now identify casework staff in their first eight weeks of employment
with time billable to Title IV-E training.
Requirement 3, July 12, 2012 Agreement Regarding Enhancement of Federal Funding Supervisory Learning Labs and Administrative Technical Assistance. All eligible expenses of the Supervisory Learning Labs and Administrative Technical Assistance established by sub-grant with the University of Southern Mississippi shall be allocated to the administrative cost pool, which will be eligible for Title IVE reimbursement.
367 See infra note 369 and related text. 368 Ex. 32, State of Mississippi, Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children’s Services, Mississippi FY 2012, submitted June 26, 2013, Annual Progress and Services Report, redacted, at 49-53 (excerpts) (describing the training program and costs eligible for reimbursement). 369 Ex. 32, supra note 368, at 50. The update is consistent with each of the specifications in this subsection except in one respect: it is not consistent with the requirement that the CFSP be updated to specify that new caseworkers will not carry a caseload until all pre-service training has been completed. Instead, the relevant text in the APSR update states: “New caseworkers will carry no caseload during non-classroom training.” Id.
118

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 125 of 251
Status of Progress, Requirement 3.: Defendants report that they did not implement this
requirement because of the administrative burden that would have been imposed if they began to track reimbursable activities. As described above,370 defendants restructured the supervisory
training program. As a result, effective June 30, 2013, they no longer maintained a contractual
arrangement with the University of Southern Mississippi for supervisory learning labs and
administrative technical assistance. In light of these circumstances, defendants’ explanation for the failure to implement this requirement appears reasonable.371
Step 4, July 12, 2012 Agreement Regarding Enhancement of Federal Funding In-House Training. Title IV-E funding shall be sought for eligible in-house training costs.
Status of Progress, Requirement 4.: The Hornby Zeller assessment report addressed
the expansion of the DFCS in-house training program and made recommendations for capturing federal revenue for eligible training expenditures.372 Defendants’ performance with respect to the
recommendations incorporated into the June 2012 Agreement is addressed below.
a. Develop and implement a process for ensuring that the PINS of full-time trainers are assigned to the proper cost pools.
Status of Progress, Requirement 4a.: Every position at DFCS is assigned a PIN, or
personnel identifier number. PINS are assigned to cost pools. Cost pools are used to track
expenses, by category, for a range of accounting purposes, including to allocate appropriately
staff time and expenses eligible for federal reimbursement. The Hornby Zeller report identifies
two general issues related to assigning PINS to proper cost pools. First, Hornby Zeller’s
assessment report found that actual staff duties were not always connected properly to the
370 See supra at 78, 81. 371 See Ex. 31A, supra note 361. Defendants disclosed this matter to plaintiffs’ counsel and the Monitor in their July 8, 2013 submission. See id. at Status Report [DHS 345523-345527], at 3 [DHS345525]. This was disclosed to the Monitor earlier, during a June 27, 2013 meeting with DFCS managers and Ms. Meltzer. Nevertheless, timely notice to plaintiffs’ counsel and the Monitor was indicated. 372 Ex. 28, supra note 354, at 33. Moreover, the Hornby Zeller report indicates that the defendants did not file a claim for in-house training costs eligible for federal reimbursement during the 2010 fiscal year and it recommends that the defendants file a retroactive claim for eligible in-house training costs. Id. at 34.
119

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 126 of 251
assigned PIN. The MDHS/DFCS process of reassigning an employee’s PIN to the correct cost pool when job functions change is labor intensive and as a result the reassignment is not always timely, and it may not occur at all.373 The Hornby Zeller report notes that this affects the accuracy of the cost pool and may impede proper claiming in certain circumstances.374 Second, the report states that the defendants have not updated the DFCS cost allocation plan to reflect newly created administrative units within the agency such as the CQI or Resource Development Units.375 As a result, the report points out that PINS are assigned to either broad categories (e.g., DFCS) or on an ad hoc basis to incorrect categories, which can result in a loss of federal funds. Accordingly, the report recommended that the full-time trainers be properly assigned to PINS that are associated with the proper cost pools.
The defendants reported that they were unable to realign the PINS for the full time trainers, as recommended by Hornby Zeller. Nevertheless, they have reported that procedures have been implemented to ensure that the allowable costs associated with the full-time trainers can be tracked and charged appropriately.376 The evidence of increased cost-claiming for trainers and other training costs suggests that defendants’ approach has worked.
b. Develop and implement a process for ensuring that all expenditures associated with training (including meeting rooms, staff travel, and related expenses) are charged to Title IV-E training when the subject of the training is relevant.
Status of Progress, Requirement 4b.: Defendants report that the appropriate procedures have been implemented. The reported claims made and federal revenue received for in-house
373 Id. at 4. 374 Id. 375 Id. 376 See id. at 6-8 for a discussion of this issue.
120

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 127 of 251
training expenses between the 2009 and 2013 calendar years indicate that defendants have made significant improvements in the tracking and claiming process.377
c. Ensure that all costs for trainers (excluding office space) are allocated to the training pool, which will be eligible for Title IV-E reimbursement.
Status of Progress, Requirement 4c.: Defendants report that appropriate procedures have been implemented. As noted in the preceding narrative related to Requirement 4b.,378 the
federal revenue received for in-house training expenses between the 2009 and 2013 calendar
years indicates that defendants have made significant improvements in the tracking and claiming process.379
Step 5, July 12, 2012 Agreement Regarding Enhancement of Federal Funding Supportive Services Expenditures. Title IV-E funding shall be sought for eligible supportive services expenditures.
Status of Progress, Requirement 5.: The Hornby Zeller assessment determined that
defendants were subsidizing the costs associated with expenditures for supportive services for
children and families with state funds as well as with funds from two federal grant programs:
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (“TANF”) and the Social Services Block Grant
(“SSBG”). The Hornby Zeller report points out that both TANF and SSBG funds are capped and
fully expended on an annual basis. Because Title IV-E or Title XIX represent alternative and
uncapped funding streams, Hornby Zeller recommended that defendants should not rely on
TANF and SSBG and should seek to reduce the amount of state funds required to fund support services for those cases in which the child is Title IV-E or Title XIX eligible.380
a. Where allowable, use the Support Services Calculator created by HZA to discontinue the use of TANF and SSBG funding for support services for Title IV-E (or Title XIX) eligible children, and begin charging those services as a Title IV-E (Or Title XIX) maintenance or cost.
377 See Ex. 31B, supra note 363 (showing very substantial increases in federal reimbursement for the DFCS inhouse professional development unit between the 2009 and 2013 calendar years). 378 Supra at 120-121. 379 Id. 380 Ex. 28, supra note 354, at 14.
121

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 128 of 251
Status of Progress, Requirement 5a.: As of January 2014, this process had not been
implemented. Defendants have explained that the process would require a determination of whether the costs relate to Title IV-E eligible children before the expenditure is made.381
Eligibility is a pre-requisite to claiming Title IV-E funds. Defendants report that, because they
cannot currently determine a child’s eligibility upfront, they are filing retroactive claims once
eligibility is determined. It appears that improvements in MACWIS and implementation of a
planned but not yet initiated statewide accounting system are necessary prerequisites in order to
support Title IV-E claiming for supportive services on the front end.
b. Institute a process for the quarterly filing of retroactive Title IV-E eligible expenditure claims.
Status of Progress, Requirement 5b.: Defendants report that they implemented
procedures to file retroactive claims pursuant to Title IV-E on a quarterly basis prior to the start
of Period 3. An initial claim covering eight quarters was filed before the start of Period 3 in
March 2011. Subsequent retroactive claims were made quarterly between March 2012 and
March 2013. According to the data reported by defendants, over $1.5 million has been received
as the result of the retroactive quarterly Title IV-E claims that have been filed since March 2011.382
Requirement 6, July 12, 2012 Agreement Regarding Enhancement of Federal Funding Random Moment Sampling Process. Restructure the random moment sampling (RMS) process to require workers and supervisors to define activity codes separately from case types. This shall be implemented by collaboration between HZA, MDHS, and Interactive Voice Associates, MDHS’ implementation partner for its new RMS system.
381 Ex. 31A, supra note 361, Status Report at 4 [DHS 345526]. 382 Id., Report on Impact at 4 [DHS 345512] (includes table listing quarterly claim filed, period covered, number of quarters covered by claim, amount of claim, and amount of revenue received). There has been a decrease in claiming for supportive services since 2011. Defendants attribute this phenomenon to changes in accounting practices.
122

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 129 of 251
Status of Progress, Requirement 6.: MDHS/DFCS uses the Social Worker Random
Moment Survey (“RMS”) process as the basis for measuring the federal share of personnel and
other indirect costs charged to multiple federal funding sources for the agency’s child welfare
program. The RMS is a component of the DFCS cost allocation plan and it is subject to federal
approval. The Hornby Zeller assessment identified limitations in the RMS process utilized by
DFCS, finding that in certain instances it did not permit staff to report accurately on the activities
they were engaged in at the time that the random sample was conducted.383 Accordingly, the
Hornby Zeller report recommended specific modifications in the RMS process and associated
revisions to the cost allocation plan.384 These recommendations are reflected in Requirements 6
a.-e. of the July 2012 Agreement, which state:
a. Define a set of activities, case- and non-case specific, to be used for the new RMS.
b. Using DFCS’ current definitions and case practices, as well as those of agencies of other states, develop a set of activities and their definitions.
c. Identify case types. d. Prepare a matrix that maps activities to case types. e. Amend the cost allocation plan to reference the new RMS system in
sufficient detail to obtain federal approval.
Defendants’ progress is described below. Status of Progress, Requirements 6 a.-e.: The defendants report that they revised the
RMS process as required and began implementing the new process starting in April 2012. The
revised process is reflected in an amended cost allocation plan,385 which was submitted for
federal approval on July 19, 2012 and approved on February 13, 2013.386 Approval of the plan
was contingent upon the defendants submitting an updated allocation plan following the issuance
of a final report related to a pilot administrative cost review conducted by federal officials in May
383 Ex. 28, supra note 354, at 4-5. 384 Id. 385 Ex. 33, State of Mississippi, Department of Human Services Cost Allocation Plan, Effective July 1, 2012, excerpt, Appendix C: Random Moment Sampling. 386 Ex. 34, February 13, 2013 correspondence to Earl D. Walker, Director, Division of Budgets and Accounting, Mississippi Department of Human Services from Arif Karim, Director, Division of Cost Allocation, United States Department of Health and Human Services (approving the amended cost allocation plan).
123

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 130 of 251
2012. The final report was issued on March 27, 2013. The revised RMS process was not
evaluated during the pilot review. However, the final report requires the defendants to submit a
revised cost allocation plan describing the new RMS process.387 Defendants report the revised
plan was submitted on March 4, 2013, amended over one year later on March 11, 2014, and is
currently undergoing a federal review process.
Period 3 IP §I.F.2. F. Financial Management
2. Defendants shall issue a written report on the impact of HZA’s recommendations on Defendants’ ability to increase federal funding and any barriers to implementation. Defendants shall share the report with the Monitor and Plaintiffs.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.F.2.: As noted above,388 the report was provided to
plaintiffs’ counsel and the Monitor on July 8, 2013. The report represents a thoughtful and
informative summary of the impact of the recommendations on the defendants’ ability to increase
federal revenue.389
MSA §II.A.6.b.2. 6. Financial Management
b. By the end of Implementation Period Three: 2) Funds realized as a result of revenue maximization activities shall not supplant appropriated state funds but shall be used in furtherance of the reforms and outcome measures provided for herein and to improve child welfare services.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.A.6.b.2.: There is no evidence that since 2011, federal
funds received through Title IV-E have supplanted DFCS’s state funded budget.390
387 Ex. 35A, March 27, 2013 correspondence to Richard A. Berry from Joseph J. Bock, redacted (transmitting findings from pilot administrative cost review); Ex. 35B, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families, Mississippi Title IV-E Foster Care Program Administrative Cost Review Pilot Final Report On-Site Review May 7-11, 2012 (excerpt) at 41. 388 Supra note 361. 389 See Ex. 31A, supra note 361. 390 It is noteworthy that during the five fiscal years between 2009 and 2013, the only year in which there was an annual decrease in the state funded portion of the DFCS budget was fiscal year 2011, which experienced a two percent decrease in state funds. There is no evidence that this decrease in state appropriations was made in anticipation of increased federal revenues stemming from the anticipated Title IV-E funds.
124

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 131 of 251
MSA §II.A.7.e.1. 7. Recruitment and Retention of Foster Families and Therapeutic
Service Providers e. By the end of Implementation Period Three:
1) The rate structure recommended by the consultant for foster care providers to special needs children and for facilities providing congregate care, as agreed upon by the Parties or determined by the Court, shall be fully implemented. Defendants shall determine the funding source for this rate structure.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.A.7.e.1.: As explained below, during Period 3, in response
to this requirement, the parties reached an agreement regarding the rate structure for foster care
providers for children in therapeutic group homes. Moreover, consistent with the consultant’s
recommendations, defendants increased the per diem rate paid to emergency shelter providers on
July 1, 2013.
During Period 1, defendants were required to engage a consultant to assess whether board
payment rates paid by DFCS to foster care providers for children with special needs and to
congregate care facilities satisfied federal statutory requirements and reflected the actual costs of caring for children with special needs and children in congregate facilities.391 Because the assessment report was not completed during Period 1,392 it was required to be completed during Period 2.393 In fact, the Settlement Agreement also required that the rate structure recommended
by the consultant, as agreed upon by the parties or determined by the Court, be fully implemented by the end of Period 2.394
CSF, which had been engaged to conduct the required assessment, issued a final
assessment report, Mississippi Rate Setting Final Report (“Rate Setting Report”) on September
391 Settlement Agreement §§II.B.13.g.-h. 392 The report was not completed due to a delay in engaging the consultant. See June 2009 Report at 90. 393 Period 2 IP §II.14.a. 394 Settlement Agreement §II.B.13.i.
125

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 132 of 251
25, 2009.395 Among other matters, the Rate Setting Report addressed the adequacy of foster care
maintenance payments made to foster care providers serving special needs children and facilities
providing congregate foster care relative to federal statutory requirements. In addition, it
included recommended rates for foster care providers serving special needs children and for
facilities providing congregate foster care.
In a December 1, 2009 letter, plaintiffs’ counsel objected to the Rate Setting Report’s finding regarding the per diem rate calculation for therapeutic group homes.396 This matter was
the subject of protracted negotiations culminating in a November 2012 agreement between the parties regarding the rate schedule for therapeutic group homes.397 The agreement required
defendants to raise the per diem foster care maintenance payments to therapeutic group homes to $95.11, on an interim basis, beginning on July 1, 2013.398 Defendants report and providers
confirm that the rate was raised to the required interim level in a timely manner.
According to the parties’ November 2012 agreement, defendants will determine the final
per diem foster care maintenance rate for therapeutic group homes by July 2015. That
determination will be based on an analysis of cost reporting and accounting data that defendants
report they will receive from therapeutic group home providers in response to contracting requirements that were instituted at the conclusion of the December 2013 calendar year.399
The November 2012 agreement also specifies that pending approval from the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”), therapeutic group homes compliant with Mississippi
395 Mississippi Rate Setting Final Report, September 25, 2009, Center for the Support of Families, Inc. The report was submitted to the Monitor and counsel for the plaintiffs on November 2, 2009. 396 See September 2010 Report at 129-130 for additional background data regarding plaintiffs’ objections. 397 See Ex. 36, November 2, 2012 correspondence to Miriam Ingber from Ashley Christin Tullos (setting forth the terms of a proposal that was agreed upon by the parties). 398 The per diem rate through June 2013 was $72. 399 The November 2012 agreement anticipates that the defendants would satisfy Period 3 requirements related to the development of a performance-based contracting plan. Ex. 36, supra note 397, at 2. However, as described in the narrative of this report related to Period 3 IP §I.A.4., supra at 90-92, these requirements were not satisfied.
126

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 133 of 251
Division of Medicaid (“DOM”) requirements would also be eligible to receive a treatment foster
care per diem rate of $131 from DOM for the delivery of therapeutic services to children in DFCS custody.400 There was a substantial delay in the CMS application and approval process during Period 3.401 As a result, the Initial Period 4 IP requires the defendants to make all reasonable efforts to seek CMS approval of the $131 per diem rate for treatment foster care.402
Defendants report that, until that approval is granted, therapeutic group homes will remain eligible for an intensive outpatient services rate of roughly $122 daily from DOM.403 Providers
were notified of the availability of the intensive outpatient services rate in a notice issued pursuant to a Period 4 requirement.404
Period 3 IP §II.A.1. A. Policy
1. Defendants shall have completed all revisions to the DFCS policies and practice guides as necessary to reflect the COA foster care services standards and the requirements set forth in Sections II.B and III.B of the Modified Settlement Agreement, and shall assess what training is necessary in order to effectuate any new and revised policies and develop training curricula.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §II.A.1.: The revisions to the DFCS policies and practice guides,405 were completed during Period 3. Additionally, there is evidence that training
curricula have been developed in response to new and revised policies. The training curriculum
was assessed, as required, and defendants report that they continue to assess the curriculum on an
ongoing basis in light of newly introduced modifications to DFCS policies and practices.
400 Id. 401 See Ex. 37, June 20, 2013 correspondence to Miriam Ingber from Ashley Christin Tullos (reporting on the chronology related to this matter in response to an inquiry from plaintiffs’ counsel). 402 Initial Period 4 IP §III.B.1. 403 See Ex. 37, supra note 401, at 2. 404 See Initial Period 4 IP §III.B.2. 405 The revisions in DFCS policies were initially required during Period 1. See Period 1 IP §II.
127

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 134 of 251
Period 3 IP §II.A.2.a.-c. A. Policy
2. Service Planning and Monitoring: The revised policies shall require that each service plan, and revision of such plan, meet the requirements of Section III.B.2 of the Modified Settlement Agreement and: a. are based on the assessment required by Section III.B.1 of the Modified Settlement Agreement; b. include: service goals, desired outcomes, and timeframes for achieving them; services and supports to be provided, and by whom; and the signature of the parent(s) with whom reunification is planned and, when appropriate, the child or youth; and c. address, as appropriate: unmet service and support needs that impact safety, permanency, and well-being; maintaining and strengthening relationships; educational needs and goals; and the need for culturally responsive services and the support of the family’s informal social network.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §II.A.2.a.-c.: Defendants revised DFCS policy to
conform to these requirements during Period 3.406
Period 3 IP §II.A.3.a.-e. A. Policy
3. Permanency Plan: The revised policies shall require that Individual or Family Service Plans the following: a. how the permanency goal will be achieved; b. what services are necessary to make the accomplishment of the goal likely; c. who is responsible for the provision of those services; d. when the services will be provided; and e. the date by which the permanency goal is likely to be achieved.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §II.A.3.a.-e.: DFCS policy was revised to reflect these
requirements during Period 3.407
Period 3 IP §II.A.4. A. Policy
4. Defendants shall develop a process for the Foster Care Review Unit to assess and report on whether permanency plans contain all of the elements listed in Section II.A.3 above.
406 See Ex. 3, supra note 105. 407 Id.
128

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 135 of 251
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §II.A.4.: Interviews with DFCS supervisory staff
responsible for the administration of the PAD and a review of the PAD establish that the required
process was not developed during Period 3.408
Period 3 IP §II.B.1.a. 1. Permanency Roundtables
a. In addition to Regions II-W, 5-W, and VII-E, which have already conducted permanency roundtables, by July 1, 2012, Defendants, with the assistance and support of Casey Family Programs, shall have conducted permanency roundtables in Regions I-N, I-S, and II-E. The permanency roundtables will target a population of children who have been in Defendants’ custody for at least thirty-six (36) months with the goal of moving these children toward permanency.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §II.B.1.a.: Defendants introduced the permanency
roundtable process in 2010, with substantial support from Casey Family Programs. 409
Permanency roundtables are an intervention intended to promote permanency for targeted
children in custody for 36 months or longer.410 The roundtables constitute structured case
consultations involving the assigned caseworker, her/his supervisor, and a designated scribe,
facilitator, and master practitioner.411 The roundtables result in strategies for accelerating
permanency in individual cases, which are incorporated into an action plan. They are also used
to identify and address systemic barriers to permanency. DFCS staff receive two days of training
before participating in the roundtable process.412
408 The PAD was not revised in response to this requirement. Guided by the PAD, reviewers evaluate the following elements of Period 3 IP §II.A.3. in circumstances in which the FSP has been developed within 30 days of custody: whether it includes a permanency goal as well as timeframes and activities to achieve/support permanency. Although defendants report that the PAD Reference Guide was updated during Period 3, the updates did not address the requirements in this subsection. Compare Ex. 38A, PAD Q11, cut and pasted from the automated version of the PAD on July 25, 2012 with Ex. 38B, FCR Periodic Administrative Determination Reference Guide (excerpt), Q11, revised May 1, 2013 and submitted to the Monitor on July 29, 2013. 409 For additional information about the permanency roundtable process see http://www.casey.org/Resources/Initiatives/PermanencyRoundtables/default.htm. 410 MACWIS reports identifying all children in custody for three years or more are generated and validated by regional staff in order to identify the cohort of children whose cases will be subject to review. 411 Consultants from the Casey Family Foundation participate on the teams. 412 Defendants report and the Monitor’s office has observed that each roundtable session takes at least two hours.
129

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 136 of 251
Interviews with DFCS regional staff and managers, as well as a review of sign-in sheets
and scheduling data, establish that roundtables were conducted in Regions I-N, I-S and II-E
during April 2012 as required by this subsection. According to defendants, by the end of Period
3, 10 of DFCS’s 13 regions had participated in roundtables involving 341 cases. Defendants
continue to implement the roundtable process. They have reported a need to refine processes for
monitoring the implementation of action plans, which are especially challenging because
roundtable team members include participants from many different DFCS regional offices.
Period 3 IP §II.B.1.b. 1. Permanency Roundtables
b. By 45 days following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants, in consultation with Casey Family Programs, shall develop a schedule for permanency roundtables in four(4) additional regions and those roundtables shall be conducted prior to the end of Implementation Period 3.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §II.B.1.b.: This requirement was satisfied. Interviews
with DFCS regional staff and managers as well as a review of sign-in sheets, scheduling data,
and observations of roundtables establish that roundtables were conducted in Regions V-E and VI during October 2012 and Regions IV-N and IV-S during November 2012.413
Period 3 IP §II.B.1.c. 1. Permanency Roundtables
c. Each permanency roundtable shall be conducted in accordance with Section II.B.6.a.2 of the Modified Settlement Agreement.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §II.B.1.c.: MSA §II.B.6.a.2. requires that permanency
roundtables be conducted by a team that consists of a master practitioner and/or a permanency
consultant, a scribe, a neutral facilitator, a caseworker and the caseworker’s supervisor.
Additionally, this subsection requires that participating DFCS staff, court personnel and
community stakeholders receive training on the roundtable process. The evidence indicates that
413 Roundtables were observed on October 17, 2012, involving cases from Regions V-E and VI (Pearl River, Forrest, Lincoln and Copiah counties).
130

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 137 of 251
the roundtable teams were comprised of the required participants who received the requisite
training. As a general matter, neither court personnel nor community stakeholders participated in
the roundtable process. According to the defendants, DFCS management and representatives
from Casey Family Programs made a joint decision to conduct the roundtables without
representatives from external stakeholder groups.414
Period 3 IP §II.B.2.a. 2. Permanency Planning Updating and Review
a. Within six (6) months of the start of Implementation Period 3, Defendants shall develop a system for tracking the annual court reviews for each child in care. Defendants’ policy shall require that the Youth Court with jurisdiction is provided with a detailed up-to-date report on the current status of the child’s placement, visitation, permanent plan progress, and service needs. Defendants shall begin implementing that system before the end of Implementation Period 3.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §II.B.2.a.: The defendants did not implement the
required system during Period 3; however, DFCS policy was revised to require the submission of
a detailed and up-to-date report to the Youth Court with jurisdiction over the child.415
Period 3 IP §II.B.2.b. 2. Permanency Planning Updating and Review
b. The child’s assigned caseworker or supervisor shall attend every child’s annual court review unless there are exceptional circumstances that do not allow attendance.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §II.B.2.b.: Based on interviews with DFCS managers
and staff, the assigned caseworker, and in many instances the supervisor, attend the hearings as a
matter of routine practice. However, DFCS policy lists the assigned worker and supervisor
among those who may have relevant testimony and may be invited.416 It appears the policy
would benefit from clarification to closely conform to the requirements of this subsection.
414 External stakeholders, including Youth Court judges and court personnel, were introduced to the roundtable process during a Permanency Summit that was sponsored by Casey Family Programs. The Summit was held during November 2010 in Natchez, Mississippi. 415 Ex. 39, Mississippi, DFCS Policy, Section D, Foster Care, Revised 7-22-13, §VII.D.4.d.-e., at 118-121. 416 Id. §VII.D.4.e.3., at 120.
131

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 138 of 251
Period 3 IP §II.B.3.a.-d. 3. Service Array
In order to build the capacity of Defendants to begin meeting the needs identified in the “Foster Care Services Reunification Needs Assessment,” Defendants shall, by the end of Implementation Period 3: a. develop a Foster Care Unit; b. hire a Division Director II to lead the Foster Care Unit; c. hire a Medical-Mental Health Specialist; and d. hire six (6) workers to build the resource service array.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §II.B.3.a.-d.: As explained below, defendants met each
of the requirements in this subsection except for hiring the required number of workers to build
the resource service array. The defendants established a foster care unit and hired a division
director II to lead the unit on April 16, 2012, before the start of Period 3. Thereafter, the unit was
staffed with a program manager on November 1, 2012 and two program specialists. The
program specialists began working in the unit on November 16, 2013. The foster care unit is
responsible for tracking expedited unlicensed relative placements and coordinating permanency
roundtables. The unit also responds, as needed, to inquiries from DFCS staff and foster parents.
On February 1, 2012 a nurse IV program director began working in the DFCS Resource Development Unit.417 This program director is responsible for assessing and addressing
availability of medical, dental and mental health providers statewide; promoting the use of an
electronic health record to assure timely access to medical, dental and mental health records for
children in foster care; and assessing and addressing systemic issues related to the use of
psychotropic medications. Starting in January 2013, the program director was also assigned to
serve as the chief DFCS liaison with Magnolia Health Care, the primary Medicaid provider for children in foster care.418 The program director resigned on September 9, 2013. Although
417 This employee has a Bachelor of Science in Nursing as well as a background in hospital and school nursing. See also narrative related to Period 3 IP §II.F.2., infra at 175-177, for a discussion of requirements related to this management position. 418 Magnolia is one of two Medicaid-managed care providers in Mississippi. It became the primary provider of health services for foster children in January 2013. According to the defendants, they have been relying on
132

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 139 of 251
defendants report that efforts have been made to fill this critical position, it has been vacant since
that time.
Prior to the start of Period 3, in December 2010, a division director II was hired to
manage a staff of six resource coordinators. According to DFCS managers and staff, the
coordinators are responsible for developing resource guides for each county in DFCS’s 13
regions, to facilitate referrals in individual cases, and to work on county-based and regional
initiatives to expand the service array. Defendants were required to hire six workers to serve as
resource coordinators. They failed to do so.419
Period 3 IP §II.B.4.a.1.-3. 4. Termination of Parental Rights/Special Permanency Reviews a. Within six (6) months of the start of Implementation Period 3,
Defendants, in conjunction with a qualified independent consultant, shall develop a remedial plan with related action steps and time frames necessary to address the deficiencies found by the TPR Assessment in case practice and documentation related to the timely filing of termination of parental rights on behalf of children who have spent 17 of the previous 22 months in foster care, and for whom an available exception under the Adoption and Safe Families Act (“ASFA”) has not been documented. The issues that the remedial plan shall address include: 1) accurately identifying children for whom the ASFA TPR
requirements apply; 2) adequate training for caseworkers regarding the
circumstances that qualify as exceptions to filing TPRs pursuant to ASFA; and 3) appropriately documenting exceptions.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §II.B.4.a.1.-3.: As explained below, during Period 3,
defendants developed a remedial plan, albeit not within the required six-month time frame, to
Magnolia to develop the electronic health record, which they expected to introduce by January 2014. Implementation has been delayed. Defendants have been unable to provide a precise count of the number of foster children who have been enrolled in Magnolia; however, as of February 2014 they estimate 2,800 children were enrolled. Defendants report that Magnolia relies on a network of 15,000 providers statewide. 419 Initially, two resource coordinators were hired, one in April and the other in May 2012. A third resource coordinator started in July 2012, but left the agency before the end of the year. Thus, the Resource Development Unit was staffed with only two of the six required coordinators from December 2012 through February 2014, when an additional coordinator was hired. The manager responsible for the resource coordinators started working in the position during December 2010, but from December 2012 through August 2013, she was temporarily reassigned to a management assistance team in Region VII-W.
133

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 140 of 251
correct the deficiencies in case practice and documentation addressed by this subsection. The plan satisfies the requirements of this subsection.
Pursuant to the Period 2 IP, defendants engaged CSF to conduct a TPR assessment for the purpose of identifying children in custody for 15 of the previous 22 months for whom the defendants had not filed a TPR petition or documented an applicable exception for not doing so under the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act (“ASFA”).420 The findings from the assessment were documented in a report that was issued in November 2009.421 Essentially, the assessment found substantial limitations and inaccuracies in the data recorded in MACWIS, which affected the defendants’ ability to accurately identify the appropriate cohort of children in custody.422 Moreover, the assessment indicated that the circumstances which qualify as ASFA exceptions to filing timely TPR petitions were not documented in the case records; there was no evidence of a reliable and uniform process for determining when TPR petitions were filed; and there was an absence of systemic monitoring to ensure timely filing of petitions and appropriately documented exceptions. The TPR Assessment Report presented a series of remedial recommendations to address the deficiencies identified during the assessment.
In response to the requirements of this subsection, on May 28, 2013, the defendants submitted the requisite remedial plan.423 The plan was developed with substantial assistance from CSF consultants. It addresses the major recommendations in the November 2009 assessment report. In addition, it describes how defendants have addressed the recommendations
420 Period 2 IP §II.2.e. 421 For a copy of the report, see September 2010 Report at Ex. 35, Termination of Parental Rights Assessment, Final Report, November 24, 2009, Center for the Support of Families, Inc. (redacted) [hereinafter TPR Assessment Report]. 422 See September 2010 Report at 74-79 for a more detailed summary of the findings reflected in the TPR Assessment Report. 423 Ex. 40, May 28, 2013 e-mail to Miriam Ingber and Grace M. Lopes from Gwen Long with attached Termination of Parental Rights Remediation Plan, May 2013, redacted.
134

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 141 of 251
in the assessment report, and in instances in which remedial action was not taken, it outlines the
action needed, action steps, persons responsible, and anticipated completion dates.
Period 3 IP §II.B.4.b. 4. Termination of Parental Rights/Special Permanency Reviews
b. Defendants shall have begun implementing the TPR remedial plan by the end of Implementation Period 3.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §II.B.4.b.: Interviews with DFCS managers and staff
and a manager in the Office of the Attorney General (“OAG”) with responsibility for tracking
and coordinating the TPR process, as well as a review of records that are maintained by the
defendants related to remedial activities indicate that the defendants began to implement the remedial plan by the end of Period 3.424 However, as explained below, the evidence also shows
that the corrective action process is not working as intended due to an apparent failure to hold
managers in certain DFCS regions accountable for remedying processing delays, to provide
sufficient support to managers, or some combination of these factors. Moreover, the evidence
also indicates that defendants must improve DFCS tracking of the petition process.
As noted, the evidence shows that defendants began to implement the remedial plan
during Period 3 and have continued implementation activities. For example, the remedial plan
includes a recommendation with a related action step and timeline for the defendants to
strengthen DFCS policy related to TPR petitions by addressing in more detail the statutory exceptions to filing petitions as well as the required documentation and approval process.425 The defendants revised the DFCS TPR policy on July 22, 2013.426 Consistent with the remedial plan,
the revision modifies the presentation of the statutory exceptions in several respects and it adds
424 Among the records the Monitor reviewed are the following: MACWIS reports; DFCS policy directives; tracking documents issued by the OAG and posted on the internal DFCS network; tracking documents maintained by the DFCS TPR Coordinator; Overdue TPR packet reports compiled by the FCR unit; training schedules; and Legal and Judicial Subteam meeting minutes and quarterly reports. 425 Ex. 40, supra note 423, at 5-6. 426 Ex. 41A, Mississippi, DFCS Policy, Section D, Foster Care, Revised 7-22-13, §VII.D.5., Termination of Parental Rights, at 121-134.
135

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 142 of 251
approval and documentation requirements.427 Moreover, consistent with the remedial plan, before the end of Period 3, the defendants developed and began delivering training to DFCS staff on the TPR process and related documentation requirements.428
In order to promote improvements in the accuracy of the MACWIS reports generated to track the TPR status of children in defendants’ custody, the remedial plan recommended that defendants undertake two distinct initiatives. First, the plan recommended that the CQI subteam develop and implement a formalized plan to distribute findings related to untimely submissions to the field and to track corrections. While a written plan was not developed, defendants have explained that they have relied on the findings from the FCR process to distribute findings to the field. During the last quarter of 2012, defendants report that they began publishing a spreadsheet on the internal DFCS network that listed all overdue TPR petitions identified during the FCR process. Thereafter, during November 2013, defendants began using the HEAT process for notification to regional managers of overdue petitions identified through the FCR process and for tracking corrective action. In addition to the fact that the defendants have not demonstrated an ability to use the HEAT system to promote accountability and prompt corrective action,429 the approach defendants have adopted has substantial limitations given that the FCR process cannot provide timely data about overdue TPR petitions. There is a critical need for defendants to address this issue.
Second, the remedial plan also recommends additional training and support for the DFCS staff assigned to validate MACWIS reports related to TPR status in order to achieve increased
427 Compare id. §VII.D.5.d., Exceptions and Compelling Reasons not to File TPR, at 125-126 with Ex. 41B, Mississippi, DFCS Policy, Section D, Foster Care, Revised 5-29-13, §VII.D.5.d., Exceptions and Compelling Reasons not to File TPR, at 124-125. 428 For example, between June 12, 2013 and January 24, 2014, the defendants conducted training on the TPR process and related documentation requirements for staff in Regions VII-W, V-E and II-W. 429 See, e.g., discussion regarding the corrective action process, supra at 95.
136

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 143 of 251
accuracy in the reports.430 This training and support was provided as a remedial strategy
implemented pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order. As a result, during Period 4 there have been
improvements in the quality of the MACWIS data reports that the defendants produced concerning their performance relative to MSA TPR-related requirements.431 These data indicate
that additional remediation is necessary in order for defendants to meet MSA regional
performance requirements concerning the timeliness of TPR processing, particularly in specific DFCS regions.432
In addition to the above-recommended initiatives, the TPR remediation plan includes
recommendations intended to improve communications related to TPR processing between DFCS and the OAG as well as to improve tracking and corrective action.433 While there is evidence of improved communications and implementation of certain tracking processes, 434 the
Monitor has not identified evidence that the defendants have implemented an effective corrective
action process as contemplated by the remedial plan.
430 Although defendants produced data reports related to the TPR status of children in defendants’ custody during Period 3, because there were substantial questions about the data presented, the Monitor did not conduct an analysis of the data. 431 Notwithstanding the improvements in the quality of the data reports that defendants have produced, the Monitor has raised questions about defendants’ analysis of the data which have not been resolved. See Ex. 42, December 6, 2013 e-mail to Kenya Key Rachal from Grace M. Lopes with related December 6, 2013 e-mail to Grace M. Lopes from Mark Jordan (describing apparent variance between analysis required by report specification and analysis reflected in the report that was produced). 432 See App. A, Exs. 34A and 35A for charts regarding TPR processing; see also, App. A, Exs. 34B and 35B for corresponding tables with underlying data. 433 Ex. 40, supra note 423, at 6-10. 434 Both the OAG and the DFCS TPR Coordinator generate monthly reports that are posted on the internal DFCS network. See, e.g., Ex. 43A, October 9, 2013 correspondence to Onetta S. Whitley, Deputy Attorney General, from M. Earl Scales, Assistant Attorney General, redacted, transmittal correspondence summarizing status of all pending TPR requests processed by the OAG by date application received, date petition filed and legal status; Ex. 43B, one of two tracking forms maintained by the DFCS TPR Coordinator, redacted (used to track status of incomplete TPR packets that are submitted to the MDHS State Office).
137

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 144 of 251
The Monitor’s review of the most current list of overdue TPR packets identified by the FCR process raises very serious concerns about the efficacy of the corrective action process.435
The list reflects the names of 88 children in six of DFCS’s 13 regions whose cases were reviewed
between June 2012 and February 2014. According to the list, the TPR packets have been
overdue for the 88 children for periods ranging from 20 to 1,638 days, or nearly four and one half
years, and the median number of days overdue was 381 days, or over one year. Only six of the
88 packets were overdue for less than 100 days. The FCR data indicate that three of the six
DFCS regions with overdue TPR packets have a high number of delayed submissions: Regions III-N, III-S and VII-W.436 The failure to implement corrective action in a reasonable period of
time indicates a failure to hold DFCS regional managers as well as county office supervisors and
caseworkers accountable for submitting TPR packets on a timely basis.
Moreover, there are many other milestones in the administrative processing of TPR
applications that contribute to delays. According to data maintained by the DFCS TPR Coordinator, there are very substantial delays between the date completed TPR packets437 are submitted to the OAG and the date TPR petitions are filed in court.438 Indeed, a review of
tracking data maintained by the DFCS TPR Coordinator indicates that between January 29, 2010
and March 14, 2014, 914 TPR packets were submitted to the OAG by DFCS staff. Of that
number, 127 TPR petitions were filed as of March 25, 2014. Because five of the filed petitions
435 Ex. 43C, Unresolved FCR Overdue TPR Packets, June 2012 - February 2014, redacted. This list was the list posted on the DFCS Connection website as of March 25, 2014. 436 Of the 88 children, 3 children in Region II-W had TPR packets overdue for 227 days; 21 children in Region III-S had TPR packets overdue between 121 and 1,473 days; 21 children in Region III-North had TPR packets overdue between 20 and 1,638 days; one child in IV-N had a TPR packet overdue for 591 days; six children in Region VI had TPR packets overdue between 144 and 270 days; and 36 children in Region VII-W had TPR packets overdue between 97 and 1,139 days. 437 See Ex. 41A, supra note 426, §VII.D.5.g. for a list of the documents that are submitted as part of the TPR packet. 438 See Ex. 43D, TPR Tracking System at State Office, redacted (spreadsheet maintained by the DFCS TPR Coordinator, updated as of March 25, 2014, and reflecting, among other matters, the date a TPR packet is submitted to the Office of the Attorney General, the date a petition is filed in court, and the date a judgment is received).
138

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 145 of 251
had invalid date ranges,439 the time between submission of the packet to the OAG and the filing of the petition could not be analyzed. Of the remaining 122 TPR petitions that resulted in a filed petition, according to this data, the petitions were filed between five and 642 days following submission of the TPR packet to the OAG, with a median of 49 days.
There were 787 TPR packets listed on the spreadsheet maintained by the TPR Coordinator that had not been filed as of March 25, 2014. The length of time each packet has been pending in the OAG was calculated for 784 of the TPR packets.440 The Monitor’s analysis of the pendency of these packets revealed that 45 percent have been pending for over one year without a petition filed.441 However, during the comment period on the draft version of this report, defendants indicated that except for a recent six-month period, the data maintained by the TPR Coordinator was incorrect. Defendants reported that they were in the process of revising the tracking system used by the TPR Coordinator and that the records maintained by the OAG constitute the most accurate tool for tracking the TPR petition process. According to defendants, between January 1, 2010 and May 2, 2014, the OAG received a total of 1,839 TPR packets for individual children and filed 769 petitions. Defendants state that many of these petitions have been filed on behalf of multiple children. The TPR processing data maintained by the DFCS TPR Coordinator is published monthly on the DFCS network for DFCS staff to access as contemplated by the TPR remedial plan that defendants developed pursuant to Period 3 IP §II.B.4.a.1.-3.442 Clearly these data should have been reconciled by the defendants with the TPR processing data maintained by the OAG. The significant disparities between the data reflected in
439 The date the petition was filed that was entered on the spreadsheet was before the date reflected on the spreadsheet that the petition was sent to the Office of the Attorney General. 440 The length of time that three TPR packets were pending could not be calculated because of an apparent error in the submission date. 441 Ex. 43D, supra note 438. 442 See supra at 133-135 for a discussion of the remedial plan and Ex. 40, supra note 423, at 11, DHS 332105.
139

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 146 of 251
the tracking documents maintained by the DFCS TPR Coordinator and by the OAG indicate that
defendants are not implementing a key requirement of the remedial plan required by the Period 3
IP. There is a critical need for accurate tracking data in order to facilitate the timely processing
of TPR petitions. The Monitor will follow up on this matter and report to the parties and the
Court as appropriate.
Period 3 IP §II.B.5.a. 5. Adoption
a. By 30 days following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall implement a process for advising all potential adoptive families, including any resource family caring for a child who has become legally available for adoption, of the availability of adoption subsidies. This notification shall be documented in the child’s record, and Defendants shall facilitate the family’s access to such subsidies.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §II.B.5.a.: DFCS conducts a training program for all
foster and adoptive parents. The curriculum for the training was revised during February 2012 and is designed to provide information about the adoption subsidy program.443 DFCS policy
requires the assigned adoption specialist to inform resource families of the possibility of adoption assistance if it appears the child is eligible.444 However, DFCS policy does not require staff to
document the notification in the case record. The relevant DFCS policies and a separate
procedure manual address the process that DFCS staff must follow with respect to processing applications for adoption subsidies.445 These policies and procedures address the eligibility
determination and post-eligibility processes.
443 Ex. 44A, MDHS Division of Family & Children’s Services, Mississippi PATH (Parents as Tender Healers), A Curriculum for Foster, Adoptive and Kinship Care Parents (Resource Families), redacted excerpt at 2, 125, 132-141. 444 Ex. 44B, Mississippi, DFCS Policy, Section D, Foster Care, Revised 7-22-13, §VII.C.5.b., at 106-108. 445 Id.; see also Ex. 44C, Mississippi, DFCS Policy, Section G, Adoption Services, Revised 5-3-12, §V.A., at 39 (requiring that every case of a child legally freed for adoption must be reviewed for determining eligibility for adoption assistance, and if the child is eligible, DFCS is required to share this information with prospective adoptive parents); Ex. 44D, Resource Family Procedures Manual, Child’s File Checklist and various documents related to adoption assistance, redacted.
140

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 147 of 251
Period 3 IP §II.B.5.b. 5. Adoption
b. By 45 days following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall define the job description, responsibilities, and qualifications for the position of adoption specialist. The adoption specialist’s responsibilities shall include consulting with private and public professionals and identifying and ensuring the provision of targeted services necessary for the child to be adopted.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §II.B.5.b.: The job description for the adoption
specialist position was revised in April 2012, before the start of Period 3. It addresses the
responsibilities and qualifications for the position and meets the spirit of this requirement.446
Period 3 IP §II.B.5.c. 5. Adoption c. By 45 days following the Court's approval of the Modified
Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall revise the protocol for adoption meetings such that it provides sufficient information to guide case practice on how to review the progress being made in achieving the goal of adoption for legally free children.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §II.B.5.c.: The required protocol was developed and
issued to DFCS staff in July 2012 at the start of Period 3.447
Period 3 IP §II.B.5.d. 5. Adoption
d. By 45 days following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall develop and begin implementing a process for making legal risk placements that assures that children for whom the permanency plan is adoption but who are not yet legally free for adoption are placed in appropriate adoptive homes.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §II.B.5.d.: The procedures are outlined in DFCS policy
guidance that was revised before the start of Period 3.448
446 Ex. 45A, Job Content Questionnaire, Adoption Specialist, MDHS/DFCS; Ex. 45B, MS State Personnel Board, Performance Appraisal Review Report, SPB Form 800-3, Revised April 2012, Adoption Specialist. See also Ex. 44B, supra note 444 (DFCS policy guidance addressing specific responsibilities of the adoption specialist in achieving adoption). 447 Ex. 45C, Initial Planning Meeting (Adoption Status Meeting), DFCS Form 7/10/12 (includes guidance for initial adoption status meeting as well as subsequent meetings). 448 Ex. 45D, Mississippi DFCS Policy, Section G, Adoption Services, Revised 5-13-12, §IV.C.2.c., at 23-25; see also Ex. 45E, Resource Family Procedures Manual (excerpt), Adoptive Placements and Legal Risk Adoptive Placements at 1-5 and Form DHS-SS-4406A, 05-01-12, Legal Risk Adoptive Placement Agreement, redacted.
141

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 148 of 251
Period 3 IP §II.B.5.e. 5. Adoption
e. By 45 days following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall have begun to hire and train adoption specialists.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §II.B.5.e.: Based on hiring data provided by
defendants, the Monitor was unable to identify the number of adoption specialists defendants
hired during the required time period. In response to a request from the Monitor, during the
comment period on the draft version of this report, defendants reported that they hired 11
adoption specialists who received specialized training during July and September 2012 and
during January and February 2013. The Monitor has not had an opportunity to confirm
attendance at these training sessions.
Period 3 IP §II.B.5.f. 5. Adoption
f. Defendants shall have taken reasonable steps to hire (or promote) and train a sufficient number of adoption specialists to meet the adoption requirements of the Modified Settlement Agreement and adoption status meetings shall have begun to be held.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §II.B.5.f.: Defendants did not produce accurate and
validated caseload reports during Period 3, and these data are no longer stored in MACWIS.
Accordingly, the Monitor cannot make a determination about whether a sufficient number of
adoption specialists were hired and trained.
MSA §II.B.1.e.1. 1. Child Safety
e. By the end of Implementation Period Three: 1) Defendants shall assure that standardized decision-making criteria are used for prioritizing, screening, and assessing all reports of maltreatment, including corporal punishment, of children in DFCS custody.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.1.e.1.: In order to promote standardized decision-
making regarding the initial screening and prioritization of reports of maltreatment involving
children in DFCS custody, the defendants were required during Period 1 to establish a centralized 142

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 149 of 251
24-hour statewide hotline for reporting child abuse and/or neglect.449 Because this requirement was not satisfied, defendants were required to implement the hotline during Period 2,450 and to assure the implementation of standardized decision-making criteria for prioritizing, screening and assessing all reports of maltreatment in care.451 The hotline was established as required during Period 2. However, because the Monitor found significant deficiencies in the screening and evaluation process, the MSA required compliance with this subsection during Period 3.452
DFCS policy was strengthened during Period 3 to mandate implementation of standardized decision-making criteria for prioritizing and screening all reports of maltreatment involving children in DFCS custody.453 An automated tool is used to facilitate the screening process. All reports of abuse or neglect of children in custody are automatically assigned to the same priority level, requiring that the investigation of the report be initiated within 24 hours by a face-to-face meeting with the child and completed with supervisory approval within 30 calendar days. 454
The hotline is operated by a private vendor with staff who are trained on and required to follow DFCS intake and screening policies. As expected, in this context, the implementation of the hotline has proved challenging for DFCS staff and stakeholders. In an effort to promote improvements in hotline operations and work to ensure standardization of the intake and screening process, the defendants established a new administrative unit in the DFCS state office
449 Settlement Agreement §II.B.4.a. and d.; Period 1 IP §II.4. 450 Period 2 IP §II.6.d. 451 Id. §II.6.b. 452 See September 2010 Report at 97-99 for background information regarding the Monitor’s findings; see also June 2009 Report at 81-83. Remedial action related to the investigation process was mandated before the start of Period 3, during the Bridge Period. See Agreed Order ¶7.b. 453 Ex. 46, State of Mississippi, Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children’s Services, Section B: Intake/Assessment Policy, Revised 7-22-13, at 1-26. 454 Id. at 19, 27-28.
143

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 150 of 251
to perform CQI and training functions. The Monitor has not had an opportunity to assess the
operations of this new unit, but expects to do so.
The Monitor has reported previously on significant limitations in defendants’ assessments
of maltreatment reports which were identified by CSF consultants as a result of an evaluation
conducted pursuant to Period 2 requirements.455 The Period 3 IP includes remedial requirements
related to these limitations, which are addressed below.456
MSA §II.B.1.e.2. 1. Child Safety
e. By the end of Implementation Period Three: 2) All investigations into reports of maltreatment, including corporal punishment, of children in DFCS custody must be initiated within 24 hours and completed within 30 calendar days, including supervisory approval. Defendants shall assure that such investigations and decisions are based on a full and systematic evaluation of the factors that may place a child in custody at risk.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.1.e.2.: This requirement was not satisfied. Defendants
were unable to produce validated data reports addressing both initiation and completion of
investigations during Period 3.457 However, pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order, during
September 2013 the defendants began to produce monthly data responsive to this requirement for
performance during Period 3.458 The Monitor’s analyses of these data indicate that as of June 30,
2013, six days before the end of Period 3, statewide performance related to this requirement was
455 CSF conducted an assessment of DFCS practices for prioritizing, screening, assessing and investigating reports of child maltreatment to determine the extent to which investigations and decisions are based on a full and systematic evaluation of factors that place children at risk pursuant to Period 2 IP §II.2.f. The assessment identified key limitations in the investigative process that were consistent with the Monitor’s determinations. See September 2010 Report at 74, 76-79. 456 See narrative related to Period 3 IP §§II.C.3.a.-e. and II.C.4., infra at 152-156. 457 Defendants produced reports related to initiation of investigations and separate reports related to completion of investigations during Period 3; however, they were unable to produce data reports responsive to the full MSA requirement. See September 2013 Report at 17-18 for background information concerning the data defendants produced during Period 3. 458 Data for the one-month period starting May 31, 2012 was produced.
144

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 151 of 251
36 percent.459 On a regional basis, the analyses show that there is a substantial variation both in
the volume of investigations and in performance from one region to the next. Regions that
implemented the Practice Model earlier tended to perform better than later implementing regions.
Six of the seven regions that fully implemented the Practice Model by September 30, 2013
performed above median regional performance levels. In light of the significant safety concerns
implicated throughout the investigative process, there is a critical need for defendants to improve
the timeliness of the investigative process on an expedited basis.
MSA §II.B.1.e.3. 1. Child Safety
e. By the end of Implementation Period Three: 3) Any foster child who remains in the same out-of-home placement following an investigation into a report that he or she was maltreated or subject to corporal punishment in that placement shall be visited by a DFCS caseworker twice a month for three months after the conclusion of the investigation to assure the child’s continued safety and wellbeing.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.1.e.3.: This requirement was not satisfied. The data
reports produced by defendants during Period 3 contained data that was limited to one-month
performance periods and not three-month performance periods as required.460 However, pursuant
to the June 24, 2013 Order, defendants now report whether, for each child, required visits were
made for three consecutive months rather than only for one month. Analyses of these data show
that as of June 30, 2013, just before the end of Period 3, statewide performance related to this
459 App. A, Ex. 5A. Maltreatment Investigations Initiated Within 24 Hours and Completed With Supervisory Approval Within 30 Days, by Month Investigation Initiated, One-Month Periods 5/31/12 through 6/30/13. The chart reflects performance by DFCS region as well as performance statewide. See also App. A, Ex. 5B for corresponding table with underlying data; App. A, Ex. 4A, Total Number of Maltreatment Investigations Open One or More Days During Period, By Region and Month, One-Month Periods 7/1/12 through 9/30/13; App. A, Ex. 4B, table with underlying data corresponding to App. A, Ex. 4A. The data reflected in App. A. Exs. 4A and 4B present important information about the investigation workload and processing delays on a regional basis. 460 See September 2013 Report at 17 for background information concerning the data defendants produced during Period 3.
145

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 152 of 251
requirement was 87.5 percent.461 The number of children to whom this requirement applies in a
given month is relatively low. Nevertheless, some regions demonstrated consistent problems
meeting this requirement. Because defendants have not provided accurate caseload data for this
time period, it is not possible to assess the extent to which regional performance may be related
to caseloads.
MSA §II.B.1.e.4. 1. Child Safety
e. By the end of Implementation Period Three: 4) When a maltreatment investigation involves a resource home, DFCS shall file a copy of the approved final investigative report, and any recommendations and/or corrective actions DFCS has deemed necessary, in the case record of the foster child, in the file of the foster or adoptive parents with a copy of the letter of notification to the foster or adoptive parents, and in the DFCS State Office. DFCS shall also provide those records to the Youth Court Judge with jurisdiction over the child and to the Monitor.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.1.e.4.: As explained below, defendants did not produce
all investigative reports that fall within the purview of this provision to the Monitor in a timely
manner during Period 3. DFCS policy requires that a copy of the final approved investigative
report be distributed as indicated by this subsection.462 The Monitor has not had an opportunity
to audit whether practices are consistent with this policy directive.
Approximately two months before the start of Period 3, the Monitor informed defendants
that a review of DFCS records for the period October 12, 2010 through March 31, 2012 revealed
461 App. A, Ex. 6A, Children in Custody Remaining in the Same Placement Following Maltreatment Investigation Who Met Face-to-Face With Worker Twice in a One-Month Period or At Least Once if 15 Days or Less For Three Months Following Completed Maltreatment Investigation, By Region, One-Month Periods Ending 7/31/12 through 9/30/13. See also App. A, Ex. 6B for corresponding table with underlying data. 462 Ex. 46, supra note 453, §II.F.2.a.14., at 52. The policy also requires that a copy be provided to the guardian ad litem. However, unlike other directives in DFCS policy, the applicable provision does not indicate what specific category of employee assigned to the case has responsibility for these activities (e.g., the assigned investigator, the assigned caseworker, the supervisor). In relevant part, the policy states: “[w]hen a maltreatment investigation involves a resource home, DFCS shall file a copy of the approved final investigation report, and any recommendations and/or corrective actions DFCS has deemed necessary, in the case record of the foster child, the file of the foster/adoptive parents . . . .” [emphasis added]. Id. Other directives in this section of the policy assign responsibility for specific tasks to specific categories of employees. See, e.g., id. §II.F.2.a.1.-3., 6. and 10., at 50-51.
146

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 153 of 251
that defendants had not transmitted over 40 investigative reports involving children in custody to
the Monitor. The Monitor noted that improvements were warranted and that defendants might
need to undertake additional efforts to ensure the Monitor received investigative reports in a
timely manner.463 Defendants produced the missing reports; however, during the latter part of
2012, it appeared to the Monitor and counsel for the parties that an undetermined number of
additional investigative reports were not produced during Period 3. Thereafter, the defendants
developed a more rigorous method for identifying and transmitting all required reports to the
Monitor. Starting in early April 2013, the defendants began transmitting investigative reports to
the Monitor pursuant to this method,464 which has undergone further refinement in response to
Period 4 requirements.465 Thereafter, on June 4, 2013, defendants provided the Monitor with
copies of 338 investigative reports that previously had not been submitted, covering the period
January 1, 2012 to January 31, 2013.466 While applicable requirements during Period 3 did not
establish precise time limits within which investigative reports should be submitted to the
Monitor, the substantial delay in the submission of these investigative reports was unwarranted
under any reasonable standard.
MSA §II.B.1.e.5. 1. Child Safety
e. By the end of Implementation Period Three: 5) When a maltreatment investigation involves an agency group home, emergency shelter, private child placing agency resource home, or other facility licensed by DFCS, a copy of the final investigative report shall be filed in the child’s case record, in the DFCS State Office licensing file, and sent to the licensed provider facility. DFCS shall provide the report to
463 Ex. 47, May 4, 2012 e-mail to Kenya Rachal from Grace M. Lopes with attached May 4, 2012 e-mail to Grace M. Lopes from Mia Caras, redacted. This correspondence also refers to serious incident reports [hereinafter SIRs]. Unlike investigative reports, defendants are not obligated under the MSA to provide SIRs to the Monitor absent a specific request. 464 On April 5, 2013, defendants submitted investigative reports for investigations that were completed during February 2013. 465 Initial Period 4 IP §III.A.1. and 2. 466 Ex. 48, June 4, 2013 correspondence to Grace M. Lopes from Kenya Key Rachal.
147

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 154 of 251
the Youth Court Judge with jurisdiction over the child and to the Monitor.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.1.e.5.: DFCS policy requires that a copy of the final approved investigative report be distributed as indicated by this subsection.467 As noted in the
narrative related to MSA §II.B.1.e.4., the Monitor has not had an opportunity to audit whether
practices are consistent with this policy directive. However, as addressed in the narrative related to MSA §II.B.1.e.4.,468 defendants did not produce to the Monitor in a timely manner during
Period 3 all investigative reports that fall within the purview of this requirement.
MSA §II.B.1.e.6. 1. Child Safety
e. By the end of Implementation Period Three: 6) For investigations of agency group homes, emergency shelters, and private child placing agency resource homes, DFCS shall undertake a separate investigation of the contract provider’s compliance with DFCS licensure standards.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.1.e.6.: The Monitor has not audited the licensure
investigation process and makes no finding at this time about whether all required investigations
were conducted during Period 3. In all situations in which a maltreatment report involving a
DFCS licensed group home, emergency shelter, and private child placing agency resource home
has been received, DFCS policy requires that licensure investigations are conducted in addition to and independent of the maltreatment investigation.469 Staff assigned to a congregate
care/licensure unit in the MDHS/DFCS state office are responsible for conducting the
investigations according to the terms of a detailed protocol that was developed during the latter part of Period 3 and that has been in effect since July 2013.470 Staff in the congregate
care/licensure unit track the status of the licensure investigations. Starting in November 2013,
467 Ex. 46, supra note 453, §II.F.2.b., at 53. 468 Supra at 146-147. 469 Id. §II.F.2.b., at 52-54. 470 Ex. 49, DFCS Licensure Investigations Protocol, redacted.
148

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 155 of 251
pursuant to the Initial Period 4 IP, defendants began to submit these tracking reports to plaintiffs and the Monitor.471
Period 3 IP §II.C.1. C. Child Safety
1. By 30 days following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall conduct an assessment of the FM fatality, including an assessment of any failings by Defendants in the provision of foster care services, in case practice, and in licensing practice. The written assessment shall be provided to the Monitor and Plaintiffs and shall include recommendations for ways to improve child safety and address any identified failings.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §II.C.1.: In order to promote improvements in case
practice, defendants must develop the capacity to assess case practices and licensing practices in
situations in which a child dies or is seriously injured while in DFCS custody. Accordingly,
defendants were required during Period 3 to conduct an assessment related to the death of F.M., a
two-year old child who died during 2011 in a relative foster home licensed by DFCS,
approximately six months after being placed in DFCS custody. As explained below, the Monitor
concluded that defendants’ initial submissions in response to this requirement had substantial
shortcomings. Accordingly, the Initial Period 4 IP required the defendants to implement remedial recommendations following the Monitor’s approval of the recommendations.472 The
evidence shows that during Period 4, the defendants bolstered their assessment capacity and have
been working to implement a number of the remedial recommendations included in the
assessment report.
At the time of his death, F.M. was living in a relative resource home that had been
licensed by DFCS. Because F.M.’s death was characterized by police as suspicious, unusual or
unnatural, an autopsy was performed; however, the cause and manner of death could not be
471 Initial Period 4 IP §II.C.2. As required, defendants began producing the licensure investigation reports dating back to the start of Period 4 on November 1, 2013. Id. at Appendix 1, Report 1. 472 Initial Period 4 IP §III.A.3.
149

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 156 of 251
determined. The case record indicates that F.M. was inadequately supervised and drowned in
either a cooler of water473 or in a toilet in the resource home.474 The Monitor’s review of the case
record and the various fatality assessment reports defendants have produced, indicate that some
of the most basic safeguards established by the MSA and DFCS policy to protect the children in
defendants’ custody from harm were not implemented as required in F.M.’s case.475 In addition
to shortcomings related to the licensure process, the case record documents substantial
deficiencies in case practice protocols that are intended to keep children safe. Chief among them
is that there was no DFCS caseworker assigned to F.M.’s case in the county in which he was
placed. As a result, several different workers and a supervisor visited or attempted to visit the
473 According to the case record, the water supply to the home had been disconnected on June 6, 2011, over one week before F.M.’s death. A cooler was used to store water in the bathroom where F.M. was found. There were conflicting reports about where F.M. was found: in the toilet, the cooler or the bathtub. 474 There were at least three reports of maltreatment by F.M.’s biological mother between July and November 2010 that were screened in and preceded F.M.’s placement in DFCS custody. Ex. 50A, November 5, 2013 e-mail to Grace M. Lopes from Gwen Long with revised Child Fatality Review [DHS 361609-361636; 345588-345608], redacted, at DHS 361614-361615. The record related to prior maltreatment reports is not consistently and clearly documented in the case record. A prevention case was open and DFCS was working with the mother at the time that a custody determination was made. The mother had left F.M. in the care of a relative for several weeks prior to the determination to place F.M. in DFCS custody. Id. at DHS 361615. When F.M. entered DFCS custody, his placement became the home of this relative. 475 For example, the resource home was licensed by DFCS notwithstanding significant violations of DFCS licensure policy which directly implicate MSA requirements. First, there were serious safety issues identified during the licensure inspection process. Id. at DHS 361634-361635. As part of the licensing process for resource homes, a DFCS resource worker conducts a home study. The home study conducted in this case, dated February 23, 2011 and approved February 24, 2011, lists a series of safety issues related to the condition of the home. Among other conditions determined by the resource worker to constitute safety issues, it states: “Worker is also concerned that the children in care [i.e., F.M. and his sibling] have a door that leads to the bathroom. [Resource parent] said [F.M.] goes to the bathroom alone sometime at night and sometimes he gets her up. Worker told her he is too young to go to the bathroom by himself especially at night when everyone is sleeping. Worker pointed out to her the safety risk of [F.M.] falling in the toilet or turning on the water in the tub, and he could drown from too much water in his lungs from both. Worker advised that she keeps [sic] the door closed and locked for safety measures.” Id. at DHS 361615-361616. According to the case record, F.M. was found unresponsive in a different bathroom, adjacent to the resource parents’ bedroom. There were a series of safety issues observed and documented in the home on the date of F.M.’s. death. Id. at DHS 361634, 345607-345608. In addition, the defendants found that the licensure process was not conducted in a timely manner, although there is a discrepancy in the case record about the actual date of licensure. Id. at DHS 361618. Second, the resource parents did not complete training prior to licensure approval. Id. Third, there was a failure to conduct timely criminal background checks on the resource parents. Id. Fourth, the number of children in the resource home exceeded licensure standards. Id. There were five children in the home before F.M. and his sibling were placed there. The MSA and DFCS licensing standards establish a numerical limitation, for good reason, on the number of children who can be placed in a resource home without supervisory approval for the exception. See MSA §II.B.2.d.; see also Mississippi, DFCS Policy, Section D, Foster Care, Revised 7-22-13, §V.G.2.
150

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 157 of 251
home during F.M.’s custody episode; however, these efforts fell substantially short of DFCS
policy and MSA requirements.476
Defendants produced the written assessment report in response to this Period 3
requirement on August 6, 2012. Among other material shortcomings, the report failed to include
any assessment of foster care services, case practice or licensing practice in light of applicable
standards, including DFCS policy and MSA requirements.477 Thereafter, on July 8, 2013,
defendants submitted a revised version of the assessment.478 The Monitor was required by the
Initial Period 4 IP to determine whether to approve the recommendations in the assessment by
September 1, 2013.479 On August 30, 2013, the Monitor requested additional information that
had not been included in the revised report.480 Thereafter, on September 26, 2013, the Monitor
notified the parties that she approved the recommendations set forth in the modified assessment
subject to specified supplementation to address several categories of omissions.481 On November
5, 2013, the defendants submitted a superseding assessment report,482 with recommendations that
the Monitor approved on November 18, 2013.483
Period 3 IP §II.C.2. C. Child Safety
2. Defendants shall have developed and begun implementing a plan to ensure that DFCS utilizes standardized decision-
476 Ex. 50A, supra note 474, at DHS 361616-361617 (chronology of casework and supervisory visits as summarized by defendants). The MSA requires the assigned caseworker to meet with the child in person at least twice monthly to assess safety and well-being, service delivery and achievement of permanency goals. Additionally, at least one visit must be in the placement. MSA §II.B.5.a. 477 See Ex. 11, supra note 207, for a more detailed presentation of the Monitor’s evaluation of defendants’ August 6, 2012 submission. 478 Ex. 50B, Child Fatality Review, submitted July 8, 2013 [DHS 345560-345608], redacted. 479 Initial Period 4 IP §III.A.3. 480 Based on the Monitor’s misunderstanding about the status of the final autopsy report, the Monitor requested a copy of the autopsy report, which had been included in defendants’ initial submission. 481 Ex. 50C, September 26, 2013 e-mail to Kenya Rachal and Miriam Ingber from Grace M. Lopes, redacted (explaining the specific recommendations for which supplementation was indicated). Among the issues identified by the Monitor was the fact that the recommendations regarding licensure did not address the fact that seven children were in the household in violation of DFCS policy and the MSA. See supra note 475. 482 Ex. 50A, supra note 474. 483 Ex. 50D, November 18, 2013 e-mail to Kenya Rachal and Julia Davis from Grace M. Lopes.
151

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 158 of 251
making criteria for prioritizing, screening, and assessing all reports of maltreatment of children via centralized intake.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §II.C.2.: The Monitor requested that defendants
produce the plan developed in response to this requirement. There is no evidence that the
required plan was developed in written format. However, as addressed in the narrative related to
MSA §II.B.1.e.1.,484 the defendants have established an administrative unit in the DFCS state
office to perform CQI and training functions for hotline staff. The Monitor has not had an
opportunity to assess the unit’s operations, but expects to do so.
Period 3 IP §II.C.3.a.-e. C. Child Safety
3. Defendants shall have developed the training and processes required for: a. review of in-care maltreatment investigations to identify case practice deficiencies; b. identification of remedial actions necessary to ensure the safety of the child who is the subject of the investigation as well as any other child in the home or placement; c. identification of any corrective action that is necessary to address deficiencies in case practice demonstrated by the investigation; d. monitoring of the initiation and completion of the remedial actions regarding individual child safety and notification to the ASWS, Regional Director, and Director of Field Operations when such remedial actions have not been initiated within five (5) days of identification or timely completed; and e. monitoring of the initiation and completion of the remedial actions regarding case practice and notification to the ASWS, Regional Director, and Director of Field Operations when such remedial actions have not been initiated within twenty (20) working days of identification or timely completed.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §II.C.3.a.-e.: This requirement was satisfied. The
evidence shows that defendants developed the training and processes required by this subsection
of the MSA,485 hired two reviewers, piloted a review instrument, and began to undertake regular
484 Supra at 142-144. 485 See, e.g., Ex. 51A, DFCS CQI Maltreatment in Care Review Process, redacted.
152

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 159 of 251
reviews of maltreatment investigations before the end of Period 3.486 However, during March 2013, as plans for the maltreatment in care review (“MIC review”) unit’s operations were finalized, the defendants elected to forgo hiring a safety review supervisor to oversee the MIC review process. Instead, defendants assigned the manager of the CQI EMU unit to oversee the MIC review unit notwithstanding the fact that separate supervisory positions for each unit are included in the CQI Plan the defendants are required to implement pursuant to Period 3 IP §I.B.2.487 During February 2014, defendants reported that they planned to hire a supervisor for the MIC review unit.
As addressed in the narrative related to Period 3 IP §II.C.4., below,488 there have been significant shortcomings in the MIC review process, which defendants report that they are working to address. The MIC reviews represent a critical safeguard designed to ensure children in DFCS custody remain safe. For this reason, and also because of the important role the review process can play in promoting improvements in the quality of maltreatment investigations, the Monitor has engaged two expert consultants to assess both the quality of maltreatment investigations and the efficacy of the remediation strategies that the defendants have implemented, including the review process required by this subsection of the Period 3 IP. The assessment is ongoing. The Final Period 4 IP contemplates that the assessment will be used by the defendants to inform additional remediation strategies, which the defendants will be required to implement.489 The Monitor will report on the findings from the assessment in a forthcoming report.
486 See Ex. 51B, Safety Review Unit, Maltreatment in Care Review Instrument, Revised 02-21-2014. 487 See Ex. 21, supra note 277, at 10 (requiring both EMU director and Safety Review Supervisor). 488 Infra at 154-156. 489 Final Period 4 IP §III.A.2.
153

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 160 of 251
The shortcomings in the quality of investigations concerning maltreatment reports related
to children in DFCS custody are well-documented and long-standing.490 Defendants have made
efforts to address these deficiencies,491 but thus far the Monitor has not identified evidence of
substantial improvement. To their credit, the defendants recognize the need to improve the
process and have taken several key steps to promote improvements.492 Currently, defendants are
at work restructuring the investigative process by establishing a centralized special investigations
unit that will report directly to the MDHS/DFCS deputy administrator as required by the Final
Period 4 IP.493
Period 3 IP §II.C.4. C. Child Safety
4. The maltreatment investigation review process shall be fully implemented.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §II.C.4.: This requirement was not satisfied. As
explained below, the MIC review process was not fully implemented during Period 3. Although
defendants indicate they are implementing corrective action strategies, two critical shortcomings
must be addressed.
First, defendants failed to review all investigations involving children in custody as
required. The MIC review process is intended to assess case practices associated with all
490 As noted in the narrative related to MSA §II.B.1.e.2., supra at 144-145, during October 2009, in response to Period 2 IP §II.2.f. requirements, CSF conducted a safety assessment that addressed the quality of maltreatment investigations. (For a copy of the assessment report, see September 2010 Report at Ex. 29, Mississippi Foster Care Services Assessments, Final Report, October 13, 2009, Center for the Support of Families, Inc.). The assessment identified critical limitations in the investigative process which were consistent with the Monitor’s independent findings. For additional background regarding the limitations in the investigative process, see, e.g., September 2010 Report at 76-79. 491 For example, in an effort to promote improvements in the quality of investigations, a training initiative was undertaken during 2010 pursuant to requirements included in the June 2010 Agreed Order. June 2010 Agreed Order ¶7.b. 492 During February 2012, defendants assigned a staff attorney to assess, review, and track all maltreatment investigations involving children in custody. The staff attorney is working directly with the MDHS deputy responsible for oversight of DFCS on strategies to reduce the incidence of maltreatment in care and to improve the quality of maltreatment investigations. 493 Final Period 4 IP §III.A.3.-4. As required, defendants have hired a supervisor to lead this specialized unit and are in the process of hiring the unit’s investigators.
154

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 161 of 251
investigations of reports of maltreatment related to children in custody within 30 days following the completion of the investigation.494 In order to identify all completed investigations in a timely manner, defendants developed a special weekly MACWIS report.495 Unfortunately, the report failed to capture all maltreatment investigations involving children in custody. On February 14, 2014, over seven months following implementation of the MIC reviews, the defendants notified the Monitor that the MACWIS report was incomplete and as a result they had failed to review all completed investigations as required. Defendants report that they notified the Monitor as soon as this problem was identified. Shortly thereafter, defendants reported that they had identified 147 investigations that should have been reviewed but were not reviewed.
On February 27, 2014 plaintiffs submitted written notice of noncompliance to defendants pursuant to MSA §VII.B., triggering the MSA’s dispute resolution and corrective action processes. In their response, defendants clarified that there were 125 investigations involving 170 children that were completed between July 1, 2013 and February 23, 2014 that were not reviewed through the MIC review process. On April 30, 2014, during the comment period on the draft version of this report, defendants produced a summary table which indicates that they completed a review of 122 of the 125 investigations that had not been reviewed.496 Because of the efforts associated with finalizing this report, the Monitor has not had an opportunity to evaluate defendants’ submission, review related documents, and interview key DFCS staff involved in the corrective action process. The Monitor expects to do so and will report to the parties and as appropriate to the Court on her findings.
494 Ex. 51A, supra note 485, at 4. 495 Id. 496 No explanation for the variance in the reported number of investigations reviewed was provided with defendants’ April 30, 2014 submission.
155

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 162 of 251
Second, the defendants have failed to ensure on a consistent basis that field managers and
staff take timely corrective action. The MIC review process that the defendants developed
pursuant to the requirements of Period 3 IP §II.C.3., requires reviewers to catalogue three types
of concerns identified during the course of the review: imminent concerns related to child safety;
case practice concerns; and case-specific concerns related to permanency and well-being.497 The
time frame within which field supervisors and staff must undertake corrective action is
contingent upon the type of concern that has been identified.498 Moreover, the MIC review
process includes guidelines for reporting, tracking and implementing corrective action.499
Interviews with DFCS managers and staff as well as a review of the documents used by
defendants to identify and track corrective actions indicate that the corrective action process is
not timely and it is not being implemented as intended.500
MSA §II.B.2.p.1. 2. Child Placement
p. By the end of Implementation Period Three: 1) All foster care settings, including relative placements, shall be screened prior to the initial placement of foster children in accordance with this Modified Settlement Agreement.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.2.p.1.: As part of the pre-placement screening process,
including for relative placements, DFCS policy requires a home visit as well as criminal and
497 Id. at 6. 498 Id. at 6-10. 499 Id. 500 See Ex. 22, supra note 288, and related text; see also Ex. 51C, January 20, 2014 e-mail to Grace M. Lopes and Mia Caras from Robert Hamrick (transmitting CQI Corrective Action Open and Closed Heat Ticket report as of January 10, 2014 [hereinafter January 2014 Tracking Report]). According to the January 2014 Tracking Report, there were 85 open corrective action matters that had been assigned to DFCS regional managers for corrective action as a result of findings from the maltreatment in care review process. Sixty-seven of the 85 open corrective actions were overdue for between 193 days and one day (i.e., no corrective action taken after more than five days had lapsed in situations in which a safety issue was identified and no corrective action taken after 20 business days had lapsed in situations in which a practice issue was identified). The median number of days the 67 corrective actions were overdue was 48 days and the distribution, by region, insofar as days overdue was as follows: Region II-W, one overdue (94 days); Region III-N, one overdue (17 days); Region III-S, three overdue (five, 27, and 66 days); Region IV-S, one overdue (three days); Region VI, 25 overdue (13, 16, 25, 33, 36, 45, 48, 63, 79, 84, 93, 110, 117, 149, and 186 days and two for six, 53, 103, 115, and 193 days); and Region VII-W, 36 overdue (three, six, nine, 20, 23, 26, 28, 39, 40, 42, 44, 53, 60, 67, 68, 73, 90, 103, 124, and 132 days, two for one, five, 13, 16, 25, and 96 days, and four for 48 days). Some regions had no open corrective actions during this period.
156

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 163 of 251
child welfare background checks of all members of the household who are at least 14 years
old.501 Defendants were unable to report on this requirement during Periods 1 and 2, and they
were not required to do so during Period 3. However, pursuant to the Final Period 4 IP,
defendants are required to report on their compliance with this requirement on a monthly basis
starting June 30, 2014.502 Thereafter, the Monitor will report on defendants’ performance as
appropriate.
MSA §II.B.2.p.2. 2. Child Placement
p. By the end of Implementation Period Three: 2) No foster child shall be placed or remain in a foster care setting that does not meet DFCS licensure standards consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements, unless so ordered by the Youth Court over DFCS objection.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.2.p.2.: This requirement was not satisfied. The data
produced by defendants pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order had some limitations, which are
being corrected.503 Nevertheless, the data that was produced indicate that this requirement was
not met by the end of Period 3.504 During the one-month period ending June 30, 2013, analysis
of the MACWIS data produced by the defendants indicates that there were 471 children in a
foster care setting that did not meet DFCS licensure standards.505 Data derived from the FCR
process indicate that for the six-month period ending June 30, 2013, 90 percent of the children
501 See, e.g., Ex. 52, Mississippi, DFCS Policy, Section D, Foster Care, Revised 7-22-13, §V.G.1.d., at 37-39 (screenings related to expedited relative placements). 502 Final Period 4 IP §II.C. and App. 3, Report 5. 503 On February 7, 2014, the defendants agreed to change the guidance FCR reviewers receive related to collection of one aspect of this data in order to conform the data collected to MSA requirements. 504 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.E., Attachment One, and Attachment Two, Report 21. 505 App. A, Ex. 28A, chart prepared by Office of the Court Monitor, Children Placed in Unlicensed Foster Care Settings That Do Not Meet DFCS Licensure Standards and Children Placed in Expedited Pending Relative Resource Homes For More Than 90 Days, One-Month Periods 7/31/12 through 9/30/13; see also App. A, Ex. 28B, corresponding table with underlying data. Over half of these children were in Region VII-W. The MACWIS data do not indicate whether placements were ordered over DFCS objection. That information is in the associated PAD report.
157

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 164 of 251
who were reviewed through the FCR process were in a foster care setting that either met MSA
licensure standards or was ordered by the Youth Court over DFCS objection.506
MSA §II.B.2.p.3. 2. Child Placement
p. By the end of Implementation Period Three: 3) Within 120 days of the start of Implementation Period 3, Defendants shall develop and implement an expedited process for licensing screened relative caregivers to enable a child to be placed quickly with relatives upon entering placement.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.2.p.3.: This process was timely developed and is
included in DFCS policy.507 During Period 3, defendants did not produce data related to this
requirement that could be analyzed. The Initial Period 4 IP required defendants to produce this
data starting on November 1, 2013.508 Defendants have produced data in response to this Period
4 requirement. Defendants’ Period 3 performance is addressed in the narrative related to MSA
§II.B.2.p.5.509
MSA §II.B.2.p.4. 2. Child Placement
p. By the end of Implementation Period Three: 4) All unlicensed placements in which foster children are residing as of the date the Court approves this Modified Settlement Agreement that meet the requirements of the licensure process shall be licensed. All children who have been living in any of those unlicensed placements that do not meet the requirements of the licensure process shall have been moved into licensed and appropriate resource home placements, unless the Youth Court orders that the child not be moved.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.2.p.4.: The defendants have not produced data for the
requisite time periods that would enable the Monitor to make a finding regarding this
506 App. A, Ex. 29A, chart prepared by Office of the Court Monitor, Children Placed or Remaining In a Foster Care Setting Meeting DFCS Licensure Standards Consistent with MSA Requirements, Unless Ordered by the Youth Court Over DFCS Objections, Six-Month Periods Ending 4/30/13 Through 9/30/13; see also App. A, Ex. 29B, corresponding table with underlying data. 507 See Ex. 52, supra note 501, at 38-39 for an excerpt of the relevant policy directive. 508 Initial Period 4 IP §II.C.2. and Appendix 1, Report 2. 509 Infra at 159.
158

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 165 of 251
requirement. Moreover, defendants report that they do not yet track all elements of this Period 3
requirement.
MSA §II.B.2.p.5. 2. Child Placement
p. By the end of Implementation Period Three: 5) All placements approved for relative placement after the date the Court enters this Modified Settlement Agreement shall undergo the full licensing procedure within 90 days of a child’s placement.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.2.p.5.: As noted in the narrative related to MSA
§II.B.2.p.3., data related to defendants’ performance was not produced during Period 3.510 The
MACWIS data defendants have produced pursuant to the Initial Period 4 IP indicate that this
requirement was not satisfied at the end of Period 3.511 Specifically, the data indicate that as of
June 30, 2013, there were 277 children in 176 unlicensed relative placements and 185 of these
children were in a total of 119 unique court-ordered placements.512
MSA §II.B.2.p.6. 2. Child Placement
p. By the end of Implementation Period Three: 6) No more than 40 children under 10 years of age shall be placed in a congregate care setting (including group homes and shelters) unless the child has exceptional needs that cannot be met in a relative or foster family home or the child is a member of a sibling group, and the Regional Director has granted express written approval for the congregate-care placement.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.2.p.6.: This requirement was satisfied. The data
produced by defendants pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order513 indicate that 11 children under 10
were placed in a congregate care setting without an exception and approval of the regional
510 Supra at 158. 511 Initial Period 4 IP §II.C.2. and Appendix 1, Report 2. 512 Based on analysis of data included in MWLS319D. See also App. A, Ex. 28A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Placed in Unlicensed Foster Care Settings That Do Not Meet DFCS Licensure Standards and Children Placed in Expedited Pending Relative Resource Homes For More Than 90 Days, One-Month Periods 7/31/12 though 9/30/13 and App. A, Ex. 28B, corresponding table with underlying data. 513 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.E., Attachment One, and Attachment Two, Report 29. Because MACWIS cannot report on the approval process, the parties have agreed that this information will be captured by a case record review, if indicated.
159

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 166 of 251
director; however, the data do not indicate whether the regional director’s approval was based on
the relevant MSA criteria.514
MSA §II.B.2.p.7. 2. Child Placement
p. By the end of Implementation Period Three: 7) No more than 180 children shall be placed in more than one emergency or temporary facility within one episode of foster care, unless an immediate placement move is necessary to protect the safety of the child or of others as certified in writing by the Regional Director.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.2.p.7.: The MACWIS data produced by defendants
pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order do not appear to conform fully to this requirement.515
Defendants were notified of this issue on February 25, 2014.516 On May 5, 2014, in comments
submitted on the draft version of this report, defendants attributed the limitations in the data to
limitations in the report specifications and indicated that a proposed revision to the specifications
would be submitted to plaintiffs’ counsel and the Monitor as soon as possible. Until these data
issues are resolved, the Monitor cannot make a finding regarding defendants’ performance.
MSA §II.B.2.p.8. 2. Child Placement
p. By the end of Implementation Period Three: 8) No foster child shall remain in an emergency or temporary facility for more than 45 calendar days, unless, in exceptional circumstances, the Field Operations Director has granted express written approval for the extension that documents the need for the extension.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.2.p.8.: The data produced by the defendants do not
address whether the Field Operations Director granted the requisite approval. However, the data
that was produced in response to the June 24, 2013 Order indicate that this requirement was not
514 App. A, Ex. 39A, chart prepared by Office of the Court Monitor, Children Under Age 10 Housed in a Congregate Care Setting With and Without Exception and Regional Director Approval, By Region, One-Month Periods Ending 7/31/12 through 9/30/13; see also App. A, Ex. 39B, corresponding table with underlying data. 515 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.E., Attachment One, and Attachment Two, Report 31. 516 Ex. 53, February 25, 2014 e-mail to Kenya Rachal from Mark Jordan with attached redacted specification for MACWIS report SLS51D.
160

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 167 of 251
satisfied at the end of Period 3.517 The MACWIS data produced by the defendants indicate that
for the month ending June 30, 2013, there were 24 children in an emergency or temporary facility
for over 45 days without the requisite management approval.518
MSA §II.B.2.p.9. 2. Child Placement
p. By the end of Implementation Period Three: 9) No child shall spend more than 12 hours at a time in a DFCS office or other non-residential facility that provides intake functions. Defendants shall be exempt from maintaining and producing data reports regarding this requirement.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.2.p.9.: DFCS policy includes a prohibition that mirrors
this requirement.519 Interviews with DFCS staff in county offices indicate that while it is at times
very challenging and time consuming for staff to identify appropriate placements, as a general
matter, children do not spend more than 12 hours in a DFCS office awaiting placement.
MSA §II.B.2.p.10. 2. Child Placement
p. By the end of Implementation Period Three: 10) No more than 30% of resource homes shall provide care to a number of children in excess of the Modified Settlement Agreement resource home population limitations.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.2.p.10.: Defendants were not required to produce data
related to this requirement during Period 3. The Initial Period 4 IP requires defendants to begin
producing data related to this requirement on a monthly basis starting on May 31, 2014.520
Accordingly, the Monitor will report on defendants’ progress in a later report.
517 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.E., Attachment One, and Attachment Two, Report 28. The parties have agreed that a case record review will be conducted to capture the unreported data, if indicated. 518 App. A, Ex. 38A, chart prepared by Office of the Court Monitor, Children in Emergency Shelter or Temporary Facility for Over 45 Days With and Without Approval, By Region, One-Month Periods Ending 7/31/12 through 9/30/13; see also App. A, Ex. 38B, corresponding table with underlying data. Most of the children were in Region VII-W. 519 Ex. 54, Mississippi, DFCS Policy, Section D, Foster Care, Revised 7-22-13, §V.B., at 33. 520 Initial Period 4 IP §II.C.2.a. and Appendix 1, Report 5 (noting data availability may be limited initially for fields that require a MACWIS system change).
161

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 168 of 251
MSA §II.B.2.p.11. 2. Child Placement
p. By the end of Implementation Period Three: 11) At least 60% of children with special needs shall be matched with placement resources that can meet their therapeutic and medical needs.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.2.p.11.: The data defendants produced do not address
the full MSA requirement because they are limited to children with developmental and/or mental
health diagnoses.521 These data, which were produced in response to the June 24, 2013 Order do,
however, indicate this requirement was not satisfied at the end of Period 3.522 The data produced
by defendants for the six-month period ending June 30, 2013, indicate that 45 percent of children
with special needs who were reviewed through the FCR process were matched with placement
resources that met their therapeutic and medical needs.523
MSA §II.B.2.p.12. 2. Child Placement
p. By the end of Implementation Period Three: 12) At least 75% of children in DFCS custody shall be placed in the least restrictive setting that meets their individual needs consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.2.p.12.: The data defendants produced pursuant to the
June 24, 2013 Order524 are not fully responsive to this MSA requirement.525 The data produced
by defendants for the six-month period ending June 30, 2013 do, however, indicate that 97
521 The parties have agreed that the data tailored to the full MSA requirement will be collected through a special case record review. 522 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.E., Attachment One, and Attachment Two, Report 47. 523 App. A, Ex. 55A, chart prepared by Office of the Court Monitor, Children With Special Needs Matched to a Placement That Can Meet Their Therapeutic and Medical Needs, by Region, Six-Month Periods Ending 4/30/13 Through 9/30/13; see also App. A, Ex. 55B, corresponding table with underlying data. 524 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.E., Attachment One, and Attachment Two, Report 48. 525 MSA §II.B.2.f. states that whether the placement is least restrictive must be determined by a review of all intake, screening, assessment, and prior placement information on the child available at the time of placement. Defendants have agreed to revise the guidance provided to FCR reviewers to include this instruction.
162

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 169 of 251
percent of children in DFCS custody who were reviewed through the FCR process were placed in
the least restrictive setting that met their individual needs.526
MSA §II.B.2.p.13. 2. Child Placement
p. By the end of Implementation Period Three: 13) At least 80% of siblings who entered DFCS custody at or near the same time shall be placed together consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.2.p.13.: The data defendants produced do not address
the MSA requirement related to the DFCS obligations that are triggered if a sibling group is
separated at initial placement.527 Nonetheless, subject to this limitation, the data that were
produced by the defendants pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order528 indicate that for the twelve-
month period ending June 30, 2013, 85 percent of siblings who entered DFCS custody at or near
the same time were placed together consistent with MSA requirements.529
MSA §II.B.2.p.14. 2. Child Placement
p. By the end of Implementation Period Three: 14) At least 40% of children in DFCS custody placed in a new placement during the Period shall have their currently available medical, dental, educational, and psychological information provided to their resource parents or facility staff no later than at the time of any new placement during the Period.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.2.p.14.: The data produced by defendants pursuant to
the June 24, 2013 Order530 indicate this requirement was not satisfied at the end of Period 3.531
526 App. A, Ex. 56A, chart prepared by Office of the Court Monitor, Children Placed in Least Restrictive Setting That Meets Their Individual Needs, by Region, Six-Month Periods Ending 4/30/13 Through 9/30/13; see also App. A. Ex. 56B, corresponding table with underlying data. 527 The data defendants produced do not address the following requirement in §II.B.2.h. of the MSA: if a sibling group is separated at initial placement, defendants must make immediate efforts to locate or recruit a family in whose home the siblings can be reunited. The parties have agreed that these data will be captured in a future case record review, if indicated. 528 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.E., Attachment One, and Attachment Two, Report 27. 529 App. A, Ex. 37A, chart prepared by Office of the Court Monitor, Sibling Groups Who Entered Custody At Or Around the Same Time Placed Together, By Region, 12-Month Periods Ending 7/31/12 through 9/30/13; see also App. A, Ex. 37B, corresponding table with underlying data. 530 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.E., Attachment One, and Attachment Two, Report 53.
163

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 170 of 251
Although data related to the medical, dental, educational, and psychological information
provided at the time of placement were not produced, defendants did produce data derived from
the FCR process related to whether these categories of information about the child were provided
to resource parents or facility staff within 15 days of placement. According to the data that
defendants produced for the six-month period ending June 30, 2013, the required information
was provided within 15 days of placement to resource parents or facility staff for 19 percent of the children reviewed during the period.532
MSA §II.B.2.p.15. 2. Child Placement
p. By the end of Implementation Period Three: 15) At least 35% of children in DFCS custody with a documented indication that they were to be subject to a potential or actual placement disruption during the Period shall receive a meeting to address placement stability consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.2.p.15.: Defendants have not produced data responsive to this precise requirement. However, pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order,533 defendants have
produced FCR data addressing whether DFCS took all reasonable steps to avoid a placement
disruption and ensure placement stability in situations in which a placement was identified as at risk of disruption at the time of the FCR conference.534 Analysis of these data indicates that for
the six-month period ending June 30, 2013, DFCS took all reasonable steps to avoid a placement
531 See infra at 166-167 for the narrative regarding performance related to Period 3 IP §II.D.1. (concerning implementation of related policy). 532 App. A, Ex. 59A, chart prepared by Office of the Court Monitor, Children for Whom Their Resource Parents or Facility Staff Were Provided the Foster Care Information Form Within 15 Days of Placement, by Region, Six-Month Periods Ending 7/31/12 through 9/30/13; see also App. A, Ex. 59B, corresponding table with underlying data. 533 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.E., Attachment One, and Attachment Two, Report 52. 534 This method would exclude from the review children whose placement was at risk of disruption prior to the point of the review. In some cases, those placements may have in fact resulted in disruptions.
164

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 171 of 251
disruption for 62 percent of children who were in a placement identified as at risk of disruption
when the FCR was completed.535
MSA §II.B.2.p.16. 2. Child Placement
p. By the end of Implementation Period Three: 16) At least 85% of children who entered DFCS custody shall be placed within his/her own county or within 50 miles of the home from which he/she was removed unless one of the exceptions provided in the Modified Settlement Agreement is documented as applying.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.2.p.16.: The data produced by defendants pursuant to
the June 24, 2013 Order indicate that defendants satisfied this requirement by the end of Period
3.536 Analysis of the MACWIS data produced by the defendants indicates that for the one-month
period ending June 30, 2013, 98 percent of the children in DFCS custody537 were placed within
their own county or within 50 miles of the home from which they were removed.538
MSA §§II.B.2.s.1. and II.B.2.t.1. 2. Child Placement
s. Beginnings by the date set forth in Appendix “A” that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 80% of the foster children in that region who enter custody or experience a placement change shall be placed in accordance with each of the child placement requirements of Section II.B.2.
t. Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 90% of the foster children in that region who enter custody or experience a placement change shall be placed in accordance with each of the child placement requirements of Section II.B.2.
535 App. A, Ex. 58A, chart prepared by Office of the Court Monitor, Percentage of Children Whose Placement Was at Risk of Disruption at the Time of PAD Completion for Whom DFCS Took All Reasonable Steps to Avoid the Disruption and Ensure Placement Stability, by Region, Six-Month Periods Ending 7/31/12 Through 9/30/13; see also App. A, Ex. 58B, corresponding table with underlying data. 536 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.E., Attachment One, and Attachment Two, Report 32. 537 This percentage includes placing siblings together as a qualifying exception to this requirement. Plaintiffs disagreed that placing siblings together was a qualifying exception. The parties resolved to report the data both ways. As the chart reflects, under either interpretation defendants met the requirement. 538 App. A, Ex. 41A, chart prepared by Office of the Court Monitor, Percentage of Children Who Entered DFCS Custody Who Were Placed Within Their Own County or Within 50 Miles of the Home From Which He/She Was Removed Consistent With MSA Requirements, by Region, One-Month Periods 7/31/12 Through 9/30/13; see also App. A, Ex. 41B, corresponding table with underlying data.
165

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 172 of 251
Status of Progress, MSA §§II.B.2.s.1. and II.B.2.t.1.: Defendants have produced MACWIS data related to some MSA placement requirements,539 but not with respect to all of the
numerous child placement requirements reflected in MSA §II.B.2. The Monitor expects to
finalize with the parties a plan related to ongoing collection and reporting of these data.
Period 3 IP §II.D.1. D. Child Placement 1. By 45 days following the Court's approval of the Modified
Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall implement policy to provide resource parents with all appropriate and available information about a child prior to or at the time of placement and for supplementing that information as further information is gathered.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §II.D.1.: As explained below, the available data
indicate that additional efforts are indicated to promote consistent and timely implementation of
the policy.
DFCS policy requires staff to have a discussion with resource parents or facility staff
when a child is being considered for placement, and to provide sufficient information about the
child to enable the resource parents to make a decision about whether they can accept the child.540 At the time of placement, staff is required to provide the resource parents or facility
staff with the child’s currently available medical, dental, educational and psychological
information, including a copy of the child’s Medicaid card. Pursuant to the policy directive, staff
members are required to collect and provide to resource parents or facility staff all additional information that falls within these categories within 15 calendar days of placement.541 In
addition to specified health information, the policy lists the categories of information that should
539 See, e.g., supra at 156-165. 540 Ex. 55A, Mississippi, DFCS Policy, Section D, Foster Care, Revised 7-22-13, §VII.A.1., at 51-53. See supra at 163-164 for the narrative regarding performance related to MSA §II.B.2.p.14. (requiring that currently available medical, dental, educational and psychological information be provided to resource parents of facility staff for 40 percent of children in new placement). 541 Ex. 55A, supra note 540, at 51-52.
166

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 173 of 251
be shared with resource parents or facility staff.542 A Foster Child Information Form, which is
signed by the caseworker and the resource parent or facility staff member, is intended to
document the information provided to the resource parents or facility staff at the time of placement.543 The form is required to be maintained in the case record.544
Defendants are monitoring implementation of the policy through the FCR process.
According to the data defendants have produced, for the six-month period ending June 30, 2013,
the foster child information form was provided to resource parents or facility staff within 15 days of placement in 19 percent of the children’s records that were reviewed.545 The data defendants
have produced do not distinguish between resource homes and facilities.
Period 3 IP §II.D.2. D. Child Placement 2. Defendants shall develop and begin implementing a plan with
specific action steps and timeframes to address changes in the State Office’s therapeutic placement process identified as necessary to ensure the most appropriate placement for children in need of therapeutic placement.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §II.D.2.: As explained below, the required plan was
developed and there is evidence of implementation. However, progress on certain action steps
has been delayed. Defendants report that these delays were due to staffing shortages, which were
recently addressed.
Defendants consider therapeutic placements to be resource or group homes that are
licensed by MDHS/DFCS and certified by the Mississippi Department of Mental Health
(“DMH”) to provide care to children with serious behavioral, psychological, emotional and/or
physical impairments. In order to place a child in a therapeutic placement, the DFCS caseworker
542 Id. at 52-53. 543 Ex. 55B, Mississippi, DFCS Policy, Section D, Foster Care, Revised 7-22-13, at Appendix F, sample Foster Child Information form, at 186-187. 544 Ex. 55A, supra note 540, at 52. 545 See App. A, Ex. 59A, supra note 532.
167

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 174 of 251
must submit a referral to the DFCS State Office Permanency Planning and Placement Unit,
which is responsible for identifying and approving the therapeutic placement.
The Foster Care Services Assessment,546 which was conducted in 2009 in response to
Period 2 IP requirements,547 documented significant shortcomings in the therapeutic placement
process, finding that the process resulted in neither timely nor appropriate placements.548 As a
result, during Period 3, the Defendants were required to develop and implement an action plan to
address these issues. The evidence shows that during Period 3 the defendants developed a timely
plan with action steps and timelines designed to improve operations in the State Office
therapeutic placement process.549 The development process was thorough and included work
group meetings, structured consultations with providers, polling of regional managers, a targeted
provider survey, and a review of the tools and documents used in the process.550
While there has been progress implementing some aspects of the plan,551 defendants
report that implementation was delayed due to recently corrected staffing shortages in the
administrative unit responsible for processing placements requests.552
Period 3 IP §II.E.1. E. Developing and Maintaining Connections 1. Defendants shall ensure caseworkers are provided training that
addresses case practice associated with parent-child and sibling visitation as a component of the Practice Model training.
546 See September 2010 Report at Ex. 29 for a copy of the report; see also supra note 490. 547 Period 2 IP §II.2. 548 September 2010 Report, Ex. 29 at 109. 549 Ex. 56, Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children’s Services, Permanency Planning and Placement Unit/Congregate Care, Changes to the Therapeutic Placement Process, without attachments. 550 Id. at 2-3. 551 For example, tracking logs were developed and the Residential Services Application [hereinafter RSA] was revised and is available to staff in electronic format. 552 During 2013, one of the two staff members assigned to the unit that processes these requests died and the other was reassigned, leaving management staff to process the therapeutic placements instead of working to implement the action steps in the plan.
168

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 175 of 251
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §II.E.1.: This is a component of the Practice Model
training that has been delivered statewide.
Period 3 IP §II.E.2. E. Developing and Maintaining Connections 2. Defendants shall track the frequency of parent-child and
sibling visitation in MACWIS.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §II.E.2.: As addressed in the narrative related to MSA §§III.B.5.d.1. and III.B.5.e.1., below,553 the defendants are tracking in MACWIS and reporting
monthly pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order on whether children in custody are, within 24 hours
of placement, provided with contacts with their parents and with siblings who are not in the same placement.554 Additionally, pursuant to the Final Period 4 IP, defendants are required to begin reporting on parent-child and sibling visitation plans by May 30, 2014.555
MSA §II.B.3.i.1. 3. Physical and Mental Health Care
i. By the end of Implementation Period Three: 1) At least 50% of children entering custody during the Period shall receive a health screening evaluation from a qualified medical practitioner within 72 hours after placement that is in accordance with the health screening recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.3.i.1.: The data produced by the defendants pursuant to
the June 24, 2013 Order do not reflect whether the screenings were conducted by a qualified
medical practitioner and in accordance with American Academy of Pediatrics (“AAP”) standards.556 The data that were produced indicate that health screenings were not conducted as required during Period 3.557 For the twelve-month period ending June 30, 2013, the data
553 Infra at 210-211. 554 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.E., Attachment One, and Attachment 2, Report 26. 555 Final Period 4 IP §II.C.2. and Appendix 3, Report 7. 556 The parties have agreed that these categories of data will be collected by a special case record review. 557 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.E., Attachment One, and Attachment 2, Report 22.
169

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 176 of 251
produced by defendants indicate that 28 percent of children entering custody during the period
received an initial health screening within 72 hours of entering custody.558
MSA §II.B.3.i.2. 3. Physical and Mental Health Care
i. By the end of Implementation Period Three: 2) At least 50% of children entering custody during the Period shall receive a comprehensive health assessment consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements within 30 calendar days of entering care.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.3.i.2.: The data produced by the defendants pursuant to
the June 24, 2013 Order do not reflect whether the screenings were conducted by a qualified
medical practitioner and in accordance with AAP standards.559 These data do, however, indicate
that comprehensive health assessments were not conducted within required timeframes during
Period 3.560 For the twelve-month period ending June 30, 2013, the data produced by defendants
indicate that 34 percent of children entering custody during the period received a comprehensive
health assessment within 30 days of entering custody.561
MSA §II.B.3.i.3. 3. Physical and Mental Health Care
i. By the end of Implementation Period Three: 3) At least 75% of children in custody during the Period shall receive periodic medical examinations and all medically necessary follow-up services and treatment consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.3.i.3.: The data produced by the defendants pursuant to
the June 24, 2013 Order indicate that periodic medical examinations and medically necessary
follow-up services were not provided as required during Period 3.562 The data produced by
558 App. A, Ex. 30A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Entering Custody Who Received an Initial Health Screening Within 72 Hours of Entering Custody, 12-Month Periods Ending 7/31/12 Through 9/30/13; see also App. A, Ex. 30B, corresponding table with underlying data. 559 The parties have agreed that these categories of data will be collected by a special case record review. 560 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.E., Attachment One, and Attachment 2, Report 22. 561 App. A, Ex. 31A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children in Custody 30+ Days Who Received a Comprehensive Health Assessment Within 30 Days of Entering Custody, 12-Month Periods Ending 7/31/12 Through 9/30/13; see also App. A, Ex. 31B, corresponding table with underlying data. 562 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.E., Attachment One, and Attachment 2, Report 44.
170

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 177 of 251
defendants indicate that, for the six-month period ending June 30, 2013, 63 percent of the
children reviewed through the FCR process received required periodic medical examinations and
medically necessary follow up services and treatment.563 The Monitor has concerns about the
reliability of these data, which she has addressed with the parties.564 Because of the need to
bolster the training and guidance that the defendants provide to FCR reviewers related to this
requirement, the parties agreed during February 2014 that pending a determination that the FCR
process can report accurately on this requirement, performance related to this requirement will be
reviewed along with other health-related requirements that are not solely timeline related in a
special case record review.
MSA §II.B.3.i.4. 3. Physical and Mental Health Care
i. By the end of Implementation Period Three: 4) At least 60% of children three years old and older entering custody during the Period or in care and turning three years old during the Period shall receive a dental examination within 90 calendar days of foster care placement or their third birthday, respectively.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.3.i.4.: The data produced by defendants pursuant to the
June 24, 2013 Order indicate these requirements were not satisfied during Period 3.565 For the
six-month period ending June 30, 2013, the data defendants produced indicate that 47 percent of
children age three and older who entered custody and were reviewed through the FCR process566
during the period received a dental examination within 90 days.567 The data for the same period
563 App. A, Ex. 52A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Receiving Periodic Medical Examinations and All Medically Necessary Follow-Up Services and Treatment, by Region, Six-Month Periods Ending 4/30/13 Through 9/30/13; see also App. A, Ex. 52B, corresponding table with underlying data. 564 These concerns stem from limitations in the guidance that was provided by the defendants to the FCR reviewers about how to interpret this requirement. 565 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.E., Attachment One, and Attachment Two, Reports 40 and 41. 566 The defendants have revised the guidance provided to FCR reviewers in response to concerns raised by the Monitor about the adequacy of the guidance to convey the full MSA requirement. 567 App. A, Ex. 49A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Age 3 and Older Who Entered Custody and Received a Dental Examination Within 90 Days, by Region, Six-Month Periods Ending 7/31/12 Through 9/30/13; see also App. A, Ex. 49B, corresponding table with underlying data.
171

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 178 of 251
also show that 57 percent of children who turned three years old during the period and who were
reviewed through the FCR process received a dental examination within 90 days of their third
birthday.568
MSA §II.B.3.i.5. 3. Physical and Mental Health Care
i. By the end of Implementation Period Three: 5) At least 60% of children in custody during the Period shall receive a dental examination every six months consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements and all medically necessary dental services.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.3.i.5.: The data produced by defendants pursuant to the
June 24, 2013 Order indicate that the part of this requirement that addresses the six-month
intervals for dental examinations was not satisfied during Period 3.569 For the six-month period
ending June 30, 2013, the data defendants produced indicate that 54 percent of children age three
and older who were reviewed through the FCR process received a dental exam every six
months.570
MSA §II.B.3.i.6. 3. Physical and Mental Health Care
i. By the end of Implementation Period Three: 6) At least 50% of children four years old and older entering custody during the Period or in care and turning four years old during the Period shall receive a mental health assessment by a qualified professional within 30 calendar days of foster care placement or their fourth birthday, respectively.
568 App. A, Exs. 51A and Ex. 51B, supra note 58. 569 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.E., Attachment One, and Attachment Two, Report 41. The defendants did not produce data related to whether a child received all medically necessary dental services. Because of the need to bolster the training and guidance that the defendants provide to FCR reviewers related to this part of the requirement, the parties agreed during February 2014 that, pending a determination that the FCR process can report accurately with respect to whether a child received all medically necessary dental services, performance related to this part of MSA §II.B.3.i.5. requirement will be reviewed along with other specified health-related requirements in a special case record review. 570 App. A, Ex. 50A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Ages Three and Older at the Start of the Period Under Review Who Were Provided a Dental Exam Every Six Months, by Region, Six-Month Periods 7/1/12 Through 9/30/13; see also App. A, Ex. 50B, corresponding table with underlying data.
172

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 179 of 251
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.3.i.6.: The June 24, 2013 Order does not require defendants to report on children turning four during Period 3.571 Thus, defendants produced data
reports limited to children four years old or older who entered custody during Period 3 and were
reviewed through the FCR process. The data defendants produced indicate that for the six-month
period ending June 30, 2013, 49 percent of this cohort of children received a mental health examination within 30 days of placement.572
MSA §II.B.3.i.7. 3. Physical and Mental Health Care
i. By the end of Implementation Period Three: 7) At least 70% of children who received a mental health assessment during the period shall receive all recommended mental health services pursuant to their assessment.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.3.i.7.: The June 24, 2013 Order required defendants to
produce monthly data reports responsive to this requirement for Period 3 and thereafter starting on January 1, 2014.573 During December 2013, defendants notified plaintiffs’ counsel and the
Monitor of limitations they had identified in the FCR review process which prevented them from
producing data corresponding to this precise requirement. Accordingly, there was agreement that
the available data should not be produced. Thereafter, in early February 2014, the parties, in
consultation with the Monitor, agreed that pending a determination that the FCR process can
report accurately on this requirement, performance related to this requirement will be reviewed
along with certain other health-related requirements that are not solely timeline related in a
special case record review.
571 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.E., Attachment One, and Attachment Two, Report 39. 572 App. A, Ex. 48A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Percentage of Children Four Years Old or Older Entering Custody During the Period Who Received A Mental Health Assessment Within 30 Days of Placement, by Region, Six-Month Periods Ending 7/31/12 Through 9/30/13; see also App. A, Ex. 48B, corresponding table with underlying data. 573 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.E., Attachment One, and Attachment Two, Report 43.
173

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 180 of 251
MSA §II.B.3.i.8. 3. Physical and Mental Health Care
i. By the end of Implementation Period Three: 8) At least 30% of children in custody ages birth through three during the Period, and older children if factors indicate it is warranted, shall receive a developmental assessment by a qualified professional within 30 calendar days of foster care placement and all needed developmental services.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.3.i.8.: The data produced by the defendants pursuant to
the June 24, 2013 Order indicate that developmental assessments and all needed developmental
services for children ages birth through three were not provided as required during Period 3.574
For the six-month period ending June 30, 2013, the data produced by defendants indicate that
seven percent of the children reviewed through the FCR process received a timely developmental
assessment and necessary follow up services.575 The Monitor has concerns about the reliability
of these data, particularly with respect to data collected regarding needed developmental services
and older children.576 Because of the need to bolster the training and guidance that the
defendants provide to FCR reviewers related to this requirement, the parties agreed during
February 2014 that pending a determination that the FCR process can report accurately on this
requirement, performance related to this requirement will be reviewed along with other health-
related requirements that are not solely timeline related in a special case record review.
MSA §§II.B.3.l.1. and II.B.3.m.1. 3. Physical and Mental Health Care
l. Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix “A” that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 80% of foster children in that region who enter custody shall received physical and mental health care in accordance with each of the Modified Settlement Agreement Requirements.
574 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.E., Attachment One, and Attachment Two, Report 38. 575 App. A, Ex. 47A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Ages 0-3 Receiving a Timely Developmental Assessment and Necessary Follow-Up Services, by Region, Six-Month Periods Ending 7/31/12 Through 9/30/13; see also App. A, Ex. 47B, corresponding table with underlying data. 576 These concerns stem from limitations in the FCR instrument and related guidance.
174

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 181 of 251
m. Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 90% of foster children in that region who enter custody shall receive physical and mental health care in accordance with each of the Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
Status of Progress, MSA §§II.B.3.l.1. and II.B.3.m.1.: Neither the June 24, 2013 Order
nor the Initial or Final Period 4 IPs requires defendants to report on these requirements. The
Monitor expects that data related to defendants’ performance can be obtained during a
forthcoming special case record review.
Period 3 IP §II.F.1. F. Physical, Dental, and Mental Health
1. By 30 days following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall maintain a staff person in the Resource Development Unit whose job responsibility it will be to develop and coordinate a broader and more geographically diverse array of physical, dental, and mental health services available to foster children.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §II.F.1.: As indicated in the narrative related to Period
3 IP §II.B.3.c.,577 the program director assigned to this position started working at DFCS on
February 1, 2012, resigned on September 9, 2013 and has not been replaced. Defendants report
that efforts have been ongoing to fill this position.
Period 3 IP §II.F.2. F. Physical, Dental, and Mental Health
2. The physical, dental, and mental health program manager shall have developed a written plan for increasing the array of services available to foster children.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §II.F.2.: As explained below, this requirement was
satisfied by the end of Period 3.
The defendants produced an initial plan for increasing the array of medical, dental and
mental health services to plaintiffs’ counsel and the Monitor on July 8, 2013, at the end of Period
577 Supra at 132-133.
175

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 182 of 251
3.578 The plan summarizes relevant MSA requirements, outlines the general steps caseworkers must take in individual cases to implement those requirements,579 and describes the initiatives
DFCS has undertaken or plans to undertake in order to expand access to the medical, dental and
mental health services available to children in foster care.
As explained in the plan, in order to expand the service array, on January 1, 2013, the
DOM contracted with the Magnolia Health Plan (“Magnolia”), a managed care organization, to provide medical, dental and mental health services for foster children.580 Defendants report that
Magnolia has providers in each of Mississippi’s 82 counties, with a total of approximately 15,000 providers statewide.581 Moreover, enrollment in Magnolia also affords foster children access to out-of-state specialists, if needed. Consistent with MSA requirements,582 Magnolia medical
providers are required to use AAP forms, which guide the scope of initial screenings and comprehensive assessments.583
The plan also addresses the electronic health passport, CQI activities related to
monitoring and promoting improvements in the timely delivery of services, and staff training.
Each of these initiatives is intended to promote timely access to necessary services; however,
progress has not kept pace with expectations. For example, the electronic health passport consolidates and updates on an ongoing basis a child’s health information584 so that it is available
578 Ex. 57, Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children Services, Resource Development Unit, Physical, Dental, and Mental Health Services Plan; see also Ex. 31A, supra note 361, July 8, 2013 correspondence to Miriam Ingber from Kenya Rachal. 579 Ex. 57, supra note 578, at 1-7. 580 Magnolia will provide services for foster children from birth to age 19. Thereafter, the plan provides that foster children will receive services directly through Medicaid. 581 See id. at 7-29 for more detailed information about the services provided through the Magnolia managed care program. 582 MSA §II.B.3.a.-d. 583 Ex. 57, supra note 578, at 9. 584 The passport contains basic information about the child, including date of birth, Medicaid ID number as well as name and contact information for all health care providers. It also may include records of visits to health care providers, a list of known health problems, allergies and immunizations.
176

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 183 of 251
to providers and others who need access to it in order to make health care decisions.585 The plan
relies on Magnolia for implementation of the passport system. According to the plan,
implementation was expected by January 2014; however, defendants report that implementation
has been delayed.586
Period 3 IP §II.G.1. G. Educational Services
1. By 30 days following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall have hired a staff person in the Resource Development Unit whose job responsibility will be to promote and coordinate educational services including tutoring, preparation for a general equivalency diploma (GED), and college preparation available to foster children.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §II.G.1.: This requirement was satisfied. The required
staff member was hired on June 15, 2012.
Period 3 IP §II.G.2. G. Educational Services
2. By September 1, 2012, Defendants shall have developed a protocol and associated caseworker training for conducting a review of a child’s educational record for the purpose of identifying the child’s general and, if applicable, special educational needs.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §II.G.2.: This requirement was satisfied. The protocol
and associated training were developed and provided to plaintiffs’ counsel and the Monitor on
September 4, 2012.587
585 For example, it can be provided to the assigned caseworker, adoptive parents, children who are emancipated, or caregivers when a child is discharged from custody. 586 The resignation of the nurse program manager, addressed supra at 132-133, has slowed the pace of the intended follow up training for DFCS field staff. Ex. 57, supra note 578, at 29. Similarly, the plan contemplates that the FCR and EMU processes will capture CQI data necessary to monitor performance and determine where services are needed. Id. However, not all data related to MSA requirements are currently being captured through the FCR process. Moreover, while data derived from the EMU process may be helpful, the sample size is far too small to be used as a basis for measuring statewide performance. It appears that additional consideration of this matter may be warranted in light of these issues and the other issues discussed in the narrative related to Period 3 IP §I.B.18.a., supra at 102-103. 587 Ex. 58A, Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children Services, Educational Plan (protocol with guide for educational review and training schedule); Ex. 58B, Special Education Advocacy, Children in Foster Care (training materials), redacted. The training schedule was designed to track, on a regional basis, the Practice Model implementation schedule.
177

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 184 of 251
Period 3 IP §II.H.1. H. Transition to Independent Living
1. By 30 days following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall develop a current resource guide necessary to assist youth in locating and/or enrolling in educational or vocational programs appropriate to their needs, interests, abilities, and goals, such as high school or GED programs, colleges or universities, vocational training programs, and special education services. This guide shall provide information on resources for all regions.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §II.H.1.: The defendants revised the resource guide on
a timely basis. The revision expands and improves upon the previous version.588 However, with
the exception of one section which covers three pages of the 89-page guide,589 there are no
descriptions of any of the services provided by the entities included in the guide.590 This limits
the utility of the information provided, making the resource guide more like a telephone directory
and less likely to help youth identify and enroll in programs suited to their individual needs.
For example, the “Mississippi Colleges and Universities” category lists 19 institutions,
along with their respective contact information.591 However, no other information is provided,
such as general admission requirements or information explaining how to obtain tuition
assistance in order to pay for college. Similarly, the “Community Colleges/Technical/Vocational
Schools” category lists 35 institutions along with relevant contact information, but it does not
include any other information.592 Moreover, the guide includes approximately 49 pages of
“County Resources” that list, by county, the contact information for each county’s Department of
Human Services, Department of Health, State Extension Services, Community Hospital and
588 Ex. 59A, Mississippi Department of Human Services, Resource Guide for Living Independently in Mississippi, Revised 2012. 589 Id. at 85-87. The “Additional Resources” section represents the only section of the resource guide that includes narrative descriptions of the entities that are listed. These descriptions are helpful and constitute the types of information that might be more appropriately included in other categories. 590 In some instances, only the name of the organization and a telephone number or a URL for a website is provided. 591 Id. at 78-81. 592 Id. at 81-85.
178

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 185 of 251
Regional Medical Center. However, there is no comparable listing, for all Regions, of
educational or vocational training programs.593
Period 3 IP §II.H.2. H. Transition to Independent Living
2. By 45 days following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, all youth ages sixteen (16) and older in DFCS custody shall have been offered a copy of the resource guide.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §II.H.2.: Defendants made extensive efforts to offer
and deliver the resource guide to all youth in custody ages 16 and older, identifying 747 youths
eligible to receive the guide. Through a combination of efforts, defendants report that the guide
was ultimately offered to 571 youths.594 The justification for why the guide was not offered to
each of the remaining youth has been provided to the Monitor and appears appropriate.595
MSA §II.B.4.b.1. 4. Therapeutic Services
b. By the end of Implementation Period Three: 1) At least 60% of children in custody during the Period requiring therapeutic and/or rehabilitative foster care services because of a diagnosis of significant medical, developmental, emotional, or behavioral problems shall be provided with a treatment plan and services in accordance with their plan.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.4.b.1.: This MSA standard includes statewide
performance requirements as well as regional performance requirements. The regional
593 A visit to the website of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau, (https://www.childwelfare.gov/outofhome/independent/resources.cfm) provides a resource page, Child Welfare Information Gateway, that links to various resources, including examples of state and local resource handbooks for youth transitioning from foster care to independent living (i.e., resource handbooks from Michigan, Texas, North Carolina, Oregon, Delaware, Florida, New York State, New York City). These documents illustrate how descriptive information can be included in a directory of resources to provide guidance to youth in order to help them identify and enroll in educational and vocational programs appropriate for their individual needs, interests, abilities and goals. See, e.g., Ex. 59B, Texas Foster Youth Justice Project, A Guide for Those “Aging Out” of Foster Care in Texas, Second Edition, excerpt (descriptive information related to educational and job training programs). 594 A summary of the efforts that defendants undertook was provided to the Monitor by the Director of the DFCS Independent Living Program during September 2012, and it is attached hereto as Ex. 59C, Resource Guide Implementation. 595 During September 2012, defendants submitted a spreadsheet listing each youth, whether the resource guide was offered, and in instances in which it was not offered, the reason it was not offered. The spreadsheet illustrates limitations in MACWIS that are well documented, including some children no longer being in custody and others with case records missing current placement data.
179

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 186 of 251
requirements, which specify higher performance levels in light of Practice Model implementation
timelines, are addressed below in the narrative related to MSA §§II.B.4.e.1. and II.B.4.f.1.596
The defendants did not produce data related to children with a diagnosis of significant medical
problems.597 Insofar as statewide performance with respect to the other elements of this MSA
requirement, the data produced by the defendants pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order indicate
that the requirement was satisfied.598 These data show that 66 percent of children in custody
reviewed through the FCR process for the six-month period ending June 30, 2013, who required
therapeutic or rehabilitative services because of a diagnosis of significant developmental,
emotional, or behavioral problems, received a treatment plan and were provided with services in
accordance with the plan.599
The Monitor has concerns about the reliability of these data which she has addressed with
the parties.600 Because of the need to bolster the training and guidance that the defendants
provide to FCR reviewers related to this requirement, during February 2014 the parties agreed
that pending a determination that the FCR process can report accurately on this requirement,
performance related to this requirement will be reviewed along with other health-related
requirements that are not solely related to a timeline in a special case record review.
MSA §§II.B.4.e.1. and II.B.4.f.1. 4. Therapeutic Services
e. Beginnings by the date set forth in Appendix “A” that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 80% of the foster children in that region who are in custody and require therapeutic and/or rehabilitative
596 Infra at 181. 597 The parties have agreed that data related to children with a significant medical diagnosis will be collected during a special case record review. 598 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.E., Attachment One, and Attachment Two, Report 37. 599 App. A, Ex. 46A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children With a Diagnosis of Developmental and/or Emotional/Behavioral/Mental Health Problems That Were Provided With a Treatment Plan and Services Tied to the Plan, by Region, Six-Month Periods Ending 7/31/12 Through 9/30/13; see also App. A, Ex. 46B, corresponding table with underlying data. 600 These concerns stem from limitations in the guidance that was provided by the defendants to the FCR reviewers about how to interpret this requirement.
180

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 187 of 251
foster care services because of a diagnosis of significant medical, developmental, emotional, or behavioral problems shall be provided with a treatment plan and services during that period in accordance with their plan.
f. Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 90% of the foster children in that region who are in custody and require therapeutic and/or rehabilitative foster care services because of a diagnosis of significant medical, developmental, emotional, or behavioral problems shall be provided with a treatment plan and services during that period in accordance with their plan.
Status of Progress, MSA §§II.B.4.e.1. and II.B.4.f.1.: The requirements of MSA
§II.B.4.e.1. apply to the following seven regions: I-S, II-W, V-W, III-S, I-N, IV-N and IV-S.
Given the time frame covered by this report, the requirements of MSA §II.B.4.f.1. apply only to
the first two regions to implement the Practice Model: I-S and II-W. According to the data
defendants produced, described in the preceding narrative related to MSA §II.B.4.b.1.,601
performance for each of the seven targeted regions relative to the 80 percent performance
standard established by MSA §II.B.4.e.1. was as follows by the date each region was required to
satisfy the standard:602 I-S, 37 percent and II-W, 91 percent (as of August 31, 2012); V-W, 100
percent (as of February 28, 2013); III-S, 53 percent, I-N, 47 percent, IV-N, 84 percent, and IV-S,
81 percent (as of August 31, 2013).603 Insofar as the performance requirements in MSA
§II.B.4.f.1. related to the higher 90 percent standard applicable to DFCS regions 12 months
following full implementation, the data produced indicate that as of August 31, 2013, I-S was at
72 percent and II-W was at 46 percent.604
601 Supra at 179-180. See supra at 180 regarding the Monitor’s concerns about the reliability of the statewide data related to this MSA performance standard. The same concerns apply to the regional data. 602 See Summary Table: Practice Model Performance Based on Data Received Through February 28, 2014, supra at 30-37. 603 App. A., Ex. 46B, supra note 599. 604 Id.
181

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 188 of 251
Period 3 IP §II.I.1. I. Recruitment and Retention of Resource Families and
Therapeutic Service Providers 1. By September 30, 2012, Defendants shall meet the Year 2
requirements as set forth in its implementation plan for the Diligent Recruitment of Families for Children as shown in attached Appendix “D.” The implementation plan for the Diligent Recruitment of Families for Children shall become an enforceable part of this Period 3 Implementation Plan.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §II.I.1.: During the last quarter of 2010, defendants
were awarded $2 million dollars over five years through a federal grant605 intended to subsidize
MDHS/DFCS initiatives to recruit families for children in foster care who wait the longest for
permanency.606 The implementation plan for the second through the fifth year of the grant was
included in Appendix D to the MSA.607 The implementation schedule for many of the initiatives
required by the grant is intended to follow a regional approach introduced on the heels of the
Practice Model phase-in schedule.
The implementation schedule for diligent recruitment activities that is required by this
section of the MSA is structured to address the following topical areas: recruitment activities;
resource licensure; the customer service model; contracting with licensed child placing agencies;
family/child matching; collaboration/public-private partnerships; the DFCS website; and
evaluation activities.
During Period 3, grant activities were on-going in four regions,608 including various
general recruitment activities, resource staff training,609 development of training materials for
605 See November 2010 Report at 41 for additional background information related to the grant. 606 This includes children from large sibling groups, children who have been sexually abused, teenagers, pregnant girls who plan to keep their babies, and children with physical, medical, emotional, intellectual and/or severe behavioral challenges. 607 Ex. 60A, Appendix “D” Modified Mississippi Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan, Mississippi Diligent Recruitment of Families for Children, Implementation Plan - Phase II, Version A (included in the appendix to this report for the convenience of the Court and the parties). 608 Regions I-S, II-W, V-W and IV-N. Initial grant activities were also undertaken in three additional regions, i.e., IV-S, III-S and I-N. 609 This training was delivered by CSF consultants.
182

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 189 of 251
prospective resource families, and a limited upgrade to the DFCS website.610 Managers have
reported that the pace of implementation varied by DFCS region during Period 3. Defendants
applied for renewal of the grant in May 2013, shortly before the end of Period 3.611 By that time,
there was demonstrable progress, although contracting and several other initiatives required by
this subsection of the MSA were delayed, in part because of limitations in MACWIS.612 On
September 18, 2013, defendants received notification from federal authorities that the grant had
been renewed.613
Period 3 IP §II.I.2. I. Recruitment and Retention of Resource Families and Therapeutic
Service Providers 2. In consultation with Mississippi resource parents, Defendants shall identify additions and revisions to the current resource parent training curriculum that are necessary to adequately train resource parents to meet the needs of the children placed in their care. Resource parent training classes based upon the revised curriculum shall be available in every region.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §II.I.2.: This requirement was satisfied. The revisions
to the training curriculum for resource parents were completed during February 2012, before the
start of Period 3.614 Training classes based on the revised curriculum are periodically conducted
in DFCS regions.615
610 A link was added to the DFCS website to address recruitment. 611 Ex. 60B, May 30, 2013 correspondence to Bernard Morgan and Taffy B. Compain from Richard A. Berry, redacted. 612 Ex. 60C, Program and Budget Narrative, excerpt from May 30, 2013 grant renewal application, at 2. The grantyear periods and the MSA implementation periods are not aligned. Year-Three of the grant began in September 2012 and Year-Four began in September 30, 2013. The grant application materials list areas of progress and delays, noting, among other things, that implementation in Region III-S was delayed due to “staffing concerns, high caseloads, and other opportunities for improved practice within the region.” Id. 613 Ex. 60D, Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families, Notice of Award, September 18, 2013 (notification of renewal for the period September 30, 2013 – September 29, 2014). 614 Ex. 61A, Mississippi PATH, Parents as Tender Healers, Resource Applicant Handbook, Revised, February 2012 (cover page and table of contents), redacted; see also Ex. 61B, document summarizing the updates to the PATH Handbook distributed to resource supervisors during February 2012, redacted. At least some of these revisions were also contemplated by the Diligent Recruitment Grant implementation schedule, Ex. 60A, supra note 607, §2.B., Resource Family Training. 615 The Monitor has not had an opportunity to review systematically the training schedules for each DFCS region. Field staff in some regions have reported that at times scheduling has been affected by staffing limitations.
183

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 190 of 251
MSA §II.B.5.e.1. 5. Worker Contact and Monitoring
e. By the end of Implementation Period Three: 1) At least 60% of children in custody shall receive documented twice-monthly in-person visits by the assigned DFCS caseworker during the Period, consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.5.e.1.: MSA §II.B.5.a. requires that children in foster
care placements must be visited in person by their assigned caseworker at least twice monthly,
and alone where age-appropriate. At least one monthly visit must take place in the child’s
placement. The purpose of the visit is to assess the child’s safety and well-being as well as
service delivery and achievement of permanency and other service goals. This MSA standard
includes statewide performance requirements as well as regional performance requirements. The
regional requirements, which specify higher performance levels in light of Practice Model
implementation timelines, are addressed below in the narrative related to MSA §§II.B.5.h.1. and
II.B.5.i.1.616 Insofar as statewide performance, the data produced by the defendants in response
to the June 24, 2013 Order do not address whether the child was seen alone if age appropriate.617
Nevertheless, these data indicate that this requirement was not satisfied.618 For the one-month
period ending June 30, 2013, the data show that 55 percent of children in DFCS custody received
documented twice-monthly in-person visits from their assigned caseworkers consistent with
MSA requirements.619
MSA §§II.B.5.h.1. and II.B.5.i.1. II. Requirements to be Implemented Statewide B. Foster Care Services Standards
5. Worker Contact and Monitoring h. Beginning by the date as set forth in Appendix “A” that a
DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 70% of children in custody in that region shall
have received documented twice-monthly in-person visits
616 Infra at 185. 617 The parties have agreed that the data report that defendants produce will be modified to include the relevant omitted information. 618 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.E., Attachment One, and Attachment Two, Report 8. 619 App. A, Exs. 13A and 13B, supra note 59.
184

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 191 of 251
by the assigned DFCS caseworker during the preceding 12-month period, consistent with Modified Plan requirements.
i. Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 90% of foster children in custody in that region shall receive documented twice-monthly in-person visits by the assigned DFCS caseworker, consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
Status of Progress, MSA §§II.B.5.h.1. and II.B.5.i.1.: The requirements of MSA
§II.B.5.h.1. apply to the following seven regions: I-S, II-W, V-W, III-S, I-N, IV-N and IV-S. In
light of the time frame covered by this report, the requirements of MSA §II.B.5.i.1. apply to the
first two regions to implement the Practice Model: I-S and II-W. According to the data
defendants produced, described in the preceding narrative related to MSA §II.B.5.e.1.,620
performance for each of the seven targeted regions relative to the 70 percent performance
standard established by MSA §II.B.5.h.1. was as follows by the date each region was required to
satisfy the standard:621 I-S, 44 percent and II-W, 72 percent (as of August 31, 2012); V-W, 66
percent (as of February 28, 2013); III-S, 45 percent, I-N, 70 percent, IV-N, 65 percent, and IV-S,
75 percent (as of August 31, 2013). Insofar as the performance requirements in MSA
§II.B.5.i.1., related to the higher 90 percent standard applicable to DFCS regions 12 months
following full implementation, the data produced indicate that as of August 31, 2013, I-S was at
86 percent and II-W was at 79 percent.622
MSA §II.B.5.e.2. 5. Worker Contact and Monitoring
e. By the end of Implementation Period Three: 2) At least 40% of children with a goal of reunification shall have their assigned DFCS caseworker meet monthly with the child’s parents, during the Period, consistent with
620 Supra at 184. The limitations reflected in the statewide data also apply to the regional data. 621 See Summary Table: Practice Model Performance Based on Data Received Through February 28, 2014, supra at 30-37. 622 App. A, Ex. 13B, supra note 59.
185

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 192 of 251
Modified Settlement Agreement requirements, and this visit shall be documented in the child’s case record.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.5.e.2.: This MSA standard includes statewide
performance requirements as well as regional performance requirements. The regional
requirements, which require higher performance levels in light of Practice Model implementation
timelines, are addressed below in the narrative related to MSA §§II.B.5.h.2. and II.B.5.i.2.623
Insofar as statewide performance, the defendants did not provide data related to Period 3
performance regarding all of the elements of this requirement as required by the June 24, 2013
Order.624 Data for the one-month period ending November 30, 2013, the second month for which
validated data were available, indicate that for 29 percent of the children with a goal of
reunification, the assigned DFCS caseworker met with the child’s parent(s) with whom the child
was to be reunified at least once consistent with MSA requirements.625
MSA §§II.B.5.h.2. and II.B.5.i.2. II. Requirements to be Implemented Statewide
B. Foster Care Services Standards 5. Worker Contact and Monitoring h. Beginning by the date as set forth in Appendix “A” that a
DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 2) At least 80% of children in that region with a goal of
reunification shall have had their assigned DFCS caseworker meet monthly with the child’s biological parent(s) with whom that child is to be reunified consistent with Modified Plan requirements, as documented in the child’s case record.
i. Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model:
623 Infra at 187. 624 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.E., Attachment One, and Attachment Two, Report 4. MSA §II.B.5.b. requires that when a child has a permanency goal of reunification, the child’s assigned caseworker must meet at least monthly with the child’s parent(s) with whom the child is to be reunified for the following purposes: 1) to assess service delivery and achievement of service goals; 2) to keep the family informed and involved in decisions about the child; and 3) to remain current about the family’s circumstances. Because the data that the defendants produced do not address the full MSA requirement related to the content of these required visits, the parties have agreed that the guidance provided to FCR reviewers will be supplemented to address the content of the visits. 625 App. A, Ex. 7A, chart prepared by Office of the Court Monitor, Children With a Goal of Reunification Whose Assigned Caseworker Met Monthly With the Parent(s) With Whom the Child Was to be Reunified, by Region, OneMonth Periods 10/31/13 and 11/30/13; see also, App. A, Ex. 7B, corresponding table with underlying data.
186

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 193 of 251
2) At least 90% of foster children in that region with a goal of reunification shall have their assigned DFCS caseworker meet monthly with the child’s parent(s) with whom the child is to be reunified, consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements, as documented in the child’s case record.
Status of Progress, MSA §§II.B.5.h.2. and II.B.5.i.2.: As noted in the narrative related to MSA §II.B.5.e.2., above,626 the defendants did not provide accurate data for the applicable regions for the various fully implemented time periods and for the 12 months following full implementation time period as required by the June 24, 2013 Order.627 The data defendants produced for the one-month period ending October 31, 2013, the first month for which validated data were available, have the same limitations as the corresponding statewide data described in the narrative related to MSA §II.B.5.e.2.628 The data indicate that performance in Regions I-S and II-W was 62 percent and 45 percent, respectively.629 Pursuant to MSA §II.B.5.i.2., both regions should have reached the 90 percent performance standard by August 31, 2013, 12 months following full implementation of the Practice Model. Insofar as the five regions for which the 80 percent standard established by MSA §II.B.5.h.2. is applicable, analysis of the data produced for the one-month period ending October 31, 2013 showed Region V-W, which was required to meet the 80 percent standard by February 28, 2013, was at 33 percent. According to these data, performance for the regions required to meet the 80 percent standard by August 31, 2013 breaks down as follows for the one-month period ending October 31, 2013: III-S, 22 percent; I-N, 27 percent; IV-N, 44 percent; and IV-S, 26 percent.630
626 Supra at 186. 627 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.E., Attachment One, and Attachment Two, Report 4. 628 Supra at 186. 629 App. A, Ex. 7B, supra note 625. 630 Id.
187

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 194 of 251
MSA §II.B.5.e.3. 5. Worker Contact and Monitoring
e. By the end of Implementation Period Three: 3) At least 40% of resource parents (therapeutic and nontherapeutic) with at least one foster child residing in their home during the Period shall have a DFCS worker visit the home monthly, consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements, and this visit shall be documented in the children’s case records.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.5.e.3.: This MSA standard includes statewide
performance requirements as well as regional performance requirements. The regional
requirements, which specify higher performance levels in light of Practice Model implementation timelines, are addressed below in the narrative related to MSA §§II.B.5.h.3. and II.B.5.i.3.631
The June 24, 2013 Order requires defendants to report separately on caseworker visits to therapeutic and non-therapeutic resource parents.632 Defendants have relied on MACWIS to
produce data regarding the frequency of caseworker visits and the FCR process to produce data
addressing whether the content of the visits satisfies applicable MSA requirements. The MSA
requires that caseworkers regularly communicate with therapeutic and non-therapeutic resource
parents and visit the home at least monthly for the following purposes: 1) to share all relevant
and legally disclosable information about the child; 2) to evaluate the child’s safety, needs, and well-being; and 3) to monitor service delivery and achievement of service goals.633 The data
defendants produced address the frequency of visits; however, there are limitations in the data regarding the content of the visits.634
Insofar as the frequency of caseworker visits to the home of the non-therapeutic resource
parents, the data defendants produced indicate that the defendants exceeded the statewide 40
631 Infra at 190-193. 632 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.E., Attachment One, Attachment Two, Reports 5 and 6. 633 MSA §II.B.5.c. 634 Accordingly, the parties have agreed that defendants will modify the guidance provided to FCR reviewers in order to obtain more complete data regarding the content of the visits. The parties also have agreed that data related to the “regular communication” requirement will be obtained through a case record review, if necessary.
188

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 195 of 251
percent standard. These data show that for the one-month period ending June 30, 2013, 45 percent of non-therapeutic resource parents had a DFCS worker visit the home in that month.635
As noted above, the FCR data that the defendants produced regarding the content of the
caseworker visits during Period 3 has limitations, and it also uses children and not resource
parents as the unit of analysis. Moreover, the Period 3 data produced is limited to a six-month period ending June 30, 2013.636 Analysis of these data indicates that the content of the home
visits met MSA requirements for 70 percent of children subject to the FCR process and in nontherapeutic placements during this period.637
Insofar as the frequency of caseworker visits to the home of the therapeutic resource
parents, the data defendants produced indicate that the defendants met the statewide 40 percent
standard. These data show that for the one-month period ending June 30, 2013, 40 percent of therapeutic resource parents had a DFCS worker visit the home in that month.638 As noted
above, the FCR data that the defendants produced regarding the content of the caseworker visits during Period 3 has several significant limitations.639 Nevertheless, analysis of these data
indicate that the content of the home visits met MSA requirements for 70 percent of children subject to the FCR process and in therapeutic placements during this period.640
635 App A, Ex. 8A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Non-Therapeutic Placement Setting Contacts, By Region, One-Month Periods Ending 7/31/12 through 9/30/13; see also App. A, Ex. 8B, corresponding table with underlying data. 636 Defendants expanded the FCR process to include these MSA requirements during October 2012. 637 App. A, Ex. 9A, chart prepared by Office of the Court Monitor, Content of Non-Therapeutic Placement Setting Contacts, By Region, Six-Month Periods Ending 4/30/13 through 9/30/13; see also App. A, Ex. 9B, corresponding table with underlying data. 638 App A, Ex. 10A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Therapeutic Placement Setting Contacts, By Region, One-Month Periods 7/31/12 through 9/30/13; see also App. A, Ex. 10B, corresponding table with underlying data. 639 Supra note 634 and related text. 640 App. A, Ex. 11A, chart prepared by Office of the Court Monitor, Content of Therapeutic Placement Setting Contacts, By Region, Six-Month Periods Ending 4/30/13 through 9/30/13; see also App. A, Ex. 11B, corresponding table with underlying data.
189

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 196 of 251
MSA §§II.B.5.h.3. and II.B.5.i.3. II. Requirements to be Implemented Statewide
B. Foster Care Services Standards 5. Worker Contact and Monitoring
h. Beginning by the date as set forth in Appendix “A” that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model:
3) At least 80% of foster parents in that region with at least one foster child residing in their home during the preceding 12-month period shall have had a DFCS worker visit the home monthly, consistent with Modified Plan requirements, as documented in the children’s case records.
i. Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 3) At least 90% of resource parents in that region with at least one foster child residing in their home shall have a DFCS worker visit the home monthly, consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements, as documented in the children’s case records.
Status of Progress, MSA §§II.B.5.h.3. and II.B.5.i.3.: As required by the June 24, 2013
Order and as noted above regarding the corresponding statewide data, defendants reported the
regional data regarding visits to non-therapeutic and therapeutic placement settings separately
and produced MACWIS data to address the frequency of visits and FCR data to address the
content of the visits. The regional data addressing the content of visits have the same limitations
as those described above regarding the statewide data.641 Each data set related to the regional
requirements reflected in MSA §§II.B.5.h.3. and II.B.5.i.3. is addressed in turn below.
The requirements of MSA §II.B.5.h.3. apply to the following seven regions: I-S, II-W,
V-W, III-S, I-N, IV-N and IV-S. According to the regional data defendants produced in response
to this requirement,642 the performance of the seven regions that fall within the purview of MSA
§II.B.5.h.3., relative to the 80 percent performance standard applicable to the frequency of visits
to the homes of non-therapeutic resource parents, was as follows by the date each region was
641 Supra at 188. 642 These data are described in the preceding narrative related to MSA §II.B.5.e.3., supra at 188-189.
190

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 197 of 251
required to satisfy the standard:643 I-S, 73 percent and II-W, 83 percent (as of August 31, 2012); V-W, 75 percent (as of February 28, 2013); III-S, 32 percent, I-N, 43 percent, IV-N, 68 percent, and IV-S, 67 percent (as of August 31, 2013). The requirements of MSA §II.B.5.i.3. apply to the first two regions to implement the Practice Model, I-S and II-W. Insofar as performance related to the 90 percent standard applicable to DFCS regions 12 months following full implementation of the Practice Model, the data related to the frequency of visits to non-therapeutic resource homes indicate that as of August 31, 2013, I-S was at 80 percent and II-W was at 87 percent.644
As noted above, the FCR data that the defendants produced regarding the content of the caseworker visits during Period 3 use children and not resource parents as the unit of analysis and is limited to a six-month period ending June 30, 2013.645 Because of the absence of reliable data through the date of full implementation applicable to the three regions, performance related to the 80 percent standard for the content of visits to non-therapeutic placements at the time of full implementation that is established by MSA §II.B.5.h.3. could not be assessed for three of the seven regions that fall within the purview of this subsection.646 Performance relative to the 80 percent full implementation standard for the remaining four regions was as follows: III-S, 60 percent, I-N, 71 percent, IV-N, 94 percent, and IV-S, 73 percent.647 Insofar as the performance requirements in MSA §II.B.5.i.3. related to the higher 90 percent standard applicable to DFCS regions 12 months following full implementation of the Practice Model, analysis of these data indicates that the content of home visits to non-therapeutic placements were conducted in
643 App. A, Ex. 8B, supra note 635. 644 Id. 645 Defendants expanded the FCR process to include these MSA requirements during October 2012. 646 Performance relative to the content of visits to non-therapeutic resource homes could not be determined for Regions I-S, II-W, and V-W. 647 App. A, Ex. 9B, supra note 637.
191

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 198 of 251
accordance with MSA requirements in 97 percent of the visits in Region I-S and 77 percent of the visits conducted in Region II-W for the six-month period ending August 31, 2013.648
Insofar as the regional data defendants produced related to the frequency of caseworker visits to therapeutic resource homes, the performance of the seven regions that fall within the purview of MSA §II.B.5.h.3., which requires that a region achieve an 80 percent performance standard at the time of full implementation of the Practice Model, was as follows by the required date: I-S, 54 percent and II-W, 75 percent (as of August 31, 2012); V-W, 67 percent (as of February 28, 2013); III-S, 30 percent, I-N, 40 percent, and IV-N, 50 percent (as of August 31, 2013). IV-S did not have any children in therapeutic placements by its full implementation date.649 Insofar as performance related to the 90 percent standard applicable to DFCS regions 12 months following full implementation of the Practice Model, the data related to the frequency of caseworker visits to therapeutic resource homes indicate that as of August 31, 2013, I-S was at 100 percent and II-W was at 75 percent.650
The FCR regional data651 defendants produced related to the content of home visits to therapeutic placements could not be assessed for three of the seven regions that achieved full implementation of the Practice Model and fall within the purview of MSA §II.B.5.h.3. because of the absence of reliable data through the date each of the three regions achieved full implementation. Performance related to the 80 percent full implementation standard for the content of visits to therapeutic placements could be analyzed for three of the remaining four regions: III-S, 38 percent, I-N, 100 percent, and IV-N, 100 percent.652 The fourth region, IV-S,
648 Id. 649 App. A, Ex. 10B, supra note 638. 650 Id. 651 See supra at 188, 191 for a discussion of the limitations in the FCR data. 652 App. A, Ex. 11B, supra note 640.
192

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 199 of 251
did not have any therapeutic placements as of the date of full implementation.653 Pursuant to
MSA §II.B.5.i.3., the first two regions to implement the Practice Model, I-S and II-W, were
required to meet a 90 percent performance standard with respect to the content of visits to
therapeutic resource homes by August 31, 2013, 12 months following full implementation of the
Practice Model. The data produced indicate that by August 31, 2013, I-S was at 100 percent and
II-W was at 33 percent.654
MSA §§II.B.7.d. and II.B.7.e. 7. Adoption
d. Beginnings by the date set forth in Appendix “A” that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: At least 90% of children in custody in that region with the primary permanency goal of adoption during the Period shall have an assigned adoption specialist and an adoption plan that identifies the child-specific activities that Defendants will undertake to achieve adoption, and shall receive regular adoption status meetings consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements during the Period.
e. Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: At least 95% of children in custody in that region with the primary permanency goal of adoption during the Period shall have an assigned adoption specialist and an adoption plan that identifies the child-specific activities that Defendants will undertake to achieve adoption, and shall receive regular adoption status meetings consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements during the Period.
Status of Progress, MSA §§II.B.7.d. and II.B.7.e.: Defendants were not required to
produce data related to this requirement during Period 3. The Initial Period 4 IP requires
defendants to produce monthly data responsive to this requirement starting April 1, 2014.655 As
of April 4, 2014, the first report had not been produced. On May 5, 2014, in their comments on
the draft version of this report, defendants indicated that proposed specifications for this data
report were being drafted and would be submitted to plaintiffs’ counsel and the Monitor during
653 Id. 654 Id. 655 Initial Period 4 IP §II.C.2. and Appendix 1, Report 4.
193

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 200 of 251
the week of May 18, 2014. However, an explanation for the delay in developing the
specifications and in turn producing the required data has not been provided. The Monitor will
report more fully on this matter in a forthcoming report.
MSA §II.C.1.b.1. 1. Number of Placements (Temporary breaks in placement for
children who run away, require emergency hospitalization or respite care not exceeding 14 days, or who are in residential schools such as schools for the vision or hearing impaired or colleges and universities, and who return to their immediately prior placement, shall not count as additional placements.) b. By the end of Implementation Period Three: 1) In the last year, at least 60% of children state-wide in care
less than 12 months from the time of latest removal from home shall have had two or fewer placements.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.C.1.b.1.: Defendants produced data responsive to this
requirement pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order.656 Analysis of the data that was produced
indicates that defendants exceeded the Period 3 performance standard. The data show that for the
12-month period ending June 30, 2013, 77 percent of children in custody fewer than 12 months
from the time of the latest removal from home had two or fewer placements.657
MSA §II.C.2.b.1. II. Requirements to be Implemented Statewide
C. Outcome Measures 2. Abuse/Neglect/Maltreatment in Care (This measure shall apply to reports of abuse, neglect, or maltreatment of children while in DFCS custody.) b. By the end of Implementation Period Three: 1) The rate of abuse or maltreatment in care in the last year shall not exceed 1.00%.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.C.2.b.1.: The defendants produced data responsive to this
requirement pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order during September 2013.658 Because of
limitations in the data identified by the Monitor, defendants resubmitted corrected data during
January 2014 for the following time periods: August 1, 2011 through the 2012 calendar year; the
656 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.E., Attachment One, and Attachment Two, Report 13. 657 App. A, Ex. 18A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Number of Children in Custody Fewer Than 12 Months From Latest Removal From Home, by Number of Placements, 12-Month Periods Ending 7/31/12 through 10/31/13; see also App. A, Ex. 18B, corresponding table with underlying data. 658 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.E., Attachment One, and Attachment Two, Report 7.
194

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 201 of 251
12-month period ending July 31, 2013; and the 12-month period ending October 31, 2013. The Monitor’s analysis of these data revealed substantial inconsistencies between the rate of maltreatment defendants reported to federal authorities for the 2012 calendar year, which was 1.65 percent, and the rate of maltreatment reflected in the data defendants produced to the Monitor and counsel for plaintiffs for the identical period, which was .9 percent. Accordingly, on January 10, 2014, the Monitor requested that defendants provide information about the reasons for the differences in these data.659 This disparity was of significant concern to the Monitor because the specifications that had been agreed upon by the parties for this data report were based on the federal measurement.660
During the course of an e-mail exchange and telephone conferences that took place in January and February 2014 involving the parties and the Monitor, defendants provided explanations for the disparity in the data that were reported. Essentially, defendants explained that the relevant data report provided pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order was designed to conform to the federal measure, but that the differences in reported rates stemmed from several different causes.661
First, defendants explained that the federal data and the data used to produce the report pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order were extracted from different databases, and defendants
659 Ex. 62A, January 10, 2014 e-mail to Kenya Rachal and Julia Davis from Grace M. Lopes, without attachments. 660 Ex. 62B, Abuse/Neglect/Maltreatment in Care, DHS 356905-356910, at 1 (agreed specifications for rate of maltreatment data report, noting that report is based on federal measuring of rate of maltreatment). As a result of the collaborative process contemplated by §VI.A. of the June 24, 2013 Order, the parties agreed on the specifications for this data report. 661 Defendants reported that they researched this issue and as a result they provided increasingly detailed explanations for the differences between the data used for the calculation supplied to the federal government and the data produced to plaintiffs and the Monitor pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order. See Ex. 62C, January 17, 2014 email to Grace M. Lopes and Julia Davis from Kenya Rachal; Ex. 62D, February 6, 2014 e-mail to Grace M. Lopes from Kenya Rachal; Ex. 62E, February 28, 2014 e-mail to Grace M. Lopes and Julia Davis from Kenya Rachal, redacted.
195

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 202 of 251
believed the data submitted to the federal government contained some errors.662 Second, defendants explained that the federal rate calculation excluded from the denominator children housed in certain types of facilities. Third, the methodology used to produce the reports was different (i.e. the federal report aggregated two six-month submissions), which introduced the potential for more data discrepancies.
The data that the defendants produced to the Monitor and plaintiffs for the 12-month period ending June 30, 2013 indicate the rate of maltreatment in care was .72 percent.663 However, until all of the discrepancies in the two reported rates are resolved and the parties come to agreement regarding how the defendants will calculate the rate prospectively, the Monitor cannot make a finding concerning defendants’ performance relative to this requirement.
B. Regional Requirements In addition to the statewide requirements described above,664 the MSA requires defendants to meet certain performance requirements on a regional basis, keyed to the dates on which each region fully implements the Practice Model. By the end of the implementation process, the 13 DFCS regions will have phased in the Practice Model over six implementation dates between August 2012 and February 2015. At the point a region has fully implemented the Practice Model, it is required to meet a specified performance target. Furthermore, after a region has fully implemented the Practice Model for 12 months, the region is required to meet a higher
662 In response to concerns raised by the Monitor and plaintiffs’ counsel, defendants discovered errors in the maltreatment rate data that MDHS/DFCS submitted to the federal government for the 2013 Federal Fiscal Year [hereinafter FFY]. Defendants reported that they incorrectly included a cohort of children who were not in custody in the 2013 FFY data. Accordingly, defendants stated that they planned to investigate further and make corrections to the 2013 FFY submission by March 15, 2014. See Ex. 62E, supra note 661. The 2013 FFY began on October 1, 2012 and ended on September 30, 2013. 663 App. A, Ex. 12A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Rate of Maltreatment in Care, by Region, 12-Month Periods 7/31/12 through 10/31/13; see also App. A, Ex. 12B, corresponding table with underlying data. 664 As indicated in the preceding section of this report, there are corresponding regional requirements for a small number of the statewide requirements.
196

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 203 of 251
performance target. After all 13 regions have fully implemented the Practice Model, all MSA requirements become statewide requirements, measured on a statewide basis.665
The Monitor analyzed defendants’ regional performance data covering the period through
September 30, 2013. By that date, seven regions had fully implemented the Practice Model, two
of which had fully implemented the Practice Model for over 12 months. Because of the different
performance requirements and dates on which the seven regions were required to meet those
requirements, the Monitor has presented her findings with respect to regional requirements in
tabular format below.
MSA §III.A.1.a. 1. Continuous Quality Improvement
a. No later than the date set forth in Appendix "A" by which a region shall have fully implemented the Practice Model, the CQI system shall measure compliance in that region with the foster care service standard requirements of this Modified Settlement Agreement and shall ensure remediation of any identified deficiencies.
Status of Progress, MSA §III.A.1.a.: As addressed elsewhere in this report, there is a
substantial body of evidence that establishes the CQI system has been measuring compliance
with the foster care service standards of the MSA for regions that have fully implemented the Practice Model.666 However, as evidenced by the data charts and tables included in Appendix A
of this report, substantial gaps remain in performance relative to many regional MSA
requirements in the seven regions that had fully implemented the Practice Model by August 31,
2013. As a tool to enhance Practice Model implementation, defendants’ CQI system relies upon
the existence of well functioning RITs, which are described above. Among other functions, each
RIT is charged with having an operational CQI subcommittee, reviewing performance data,
identifying trends, and developing regional improvement plans. However, many regional
665 MSA §III. 666 See, e.g., narrative related to Period 3 IP §I.B.8. (second follow-up CQI Review for Regions I-S and II-W), supra at 99; id. §I.B.10. (follow-up CQI review for Region IV-S), supra at 99; id. §I.B.11. (follow-up CQI review for Region III-S), supra at 100; id. §I.B.15. (second follow-up CQI review for Region V-W), supra at 101.
197

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 204 of 251
directors are having difficulty maintaining an effective RIT process. Defendants recognize this
limitation and report that they have begun to address it through training and other remedial
measures. The Monitor will report on defendants’ progress in a forthcoming report. Unless
defendants can buttress these regional teams, the CQI system will have little force.
MSA §III.B.1.d.1. 1. Comprehensive Family Assessments
d. Beginnings by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has undergone the Initial Practice Model Implementation Period: 1) All caseworkers assigned to active cases, and their supervisors, will have undergone training on the family team meeting protocols.
Status of Progress, MSA §III.B.1.d.1.: This training was conducted for all regional
field staff as part of the Practice Model introductory training.
MSA §§III.B.1.e.1. and III.B.1.f.1. 1. Comprehensive Family Assessments
e. Beginnings by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 80% of foster children in that region who enter custody shall have a thorough screening and assessment, consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements, within 30 calendar days of entering custody.
f. Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 90% of foster children in that region who enter custody shall have a comprehensive family assessment, consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements, within 30 calendar days of entering custody.
Status of Progress, MSA §§III.B.1.e.1. and III.B.1.f.1.: Defendants produced data
responsive to this requirement pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order.667 The data that defendants
provided did not measure performance relative to the full MSA requirement.668 Based on the
data submitted by defendants, the Monitor’s findings regarding defendants’ performance with
667 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.E. Attachment One, and Attachment Two, Report 45. 668 The Monitor found that the report did not track whether the comprehensive family assessment was developed with required engagement of children, parents, and foster care providers as required by MSA §III.B.1.a. The parties have agreed that the guidance provided to FCR reviewers will be modified to track the full requirement.
198

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 205 of 251

respect to the seven regions that fully implemented the Practice Model, two of which had fully

implemented for at least 12 months prior to September 30, 2013, are summarized in the table below:669

Practice Model Full

Practice Model Full

Implementation: 8/31/12 Implementation: 2/28/13

12 Months Following: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 2/28/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 8/31/14

MSA Requirement
MSA requi res by the date regi on ful l y i mpl ements , a t l eas t 80% of fos ter chi l dren i n that regi on who enter cus tody s hal l ha ve a thorough s creeni ng and a s s es s ment, cons i s tent wi th MSA requi rements , wi thi n 30 ca l enda r da ys of enteri ng cus tody.

Performance

I‐S

II‐W

Requirement

Data unreliable; Data unreliable;

PAD corrected PAD corrected

80%

October 2012 October 2012 and therefore and therefore

data analyzable data analyzable

as of April 2013 as of April 2013

V‐W
Data unreliable; PAD corrected October 2012 and therefore data
analyzable as of April 2013

III‐S
13% (8/31/13)

I‐N
34% (8/31/13)

IV‐N
82% (8/31/13)

IV‐S
73% (8/31/13)

MSA requi res tha t by 12 months fol l owi ng the da te tha t a Regi on ful l y i mpl ements , a t l eas t 90% of fos ter chi l dren i n that regi on who enter cus tody s hal l ha ve a thorough s creeni ng and a s s es s ment, cons i s tent wi th MSA requi rements , wi thi n 30 ca l enda r da ys of enteri ng cus tody.

90%

74% (8/31/13)

62% (8/31/13)

MSA §§III.B.1.e.2. and III.B.1.f.2. e. Beginnings by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS
region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 2) In at least 80% of placement cases in that region in which the whereabouts of one or both parents is unknown, DFCS shall immediately institute a diligent search for the parent(s), which shall be documented in the child’s case record.
f. Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 2) In at least 90% of placement cases in that region in which the whereabouts of one or both parents is unknown, DFCS shall immediately institute a diligent search for the parent(s), which shall be documented in the child’s case record.
Status of Progress, MSA §§III.B.1.e.2. and III.B.1.f.2.: The defendants were unable to
produce data adequately addressing this requirement during Period 3 or thereafter pursuant to the

669 See App. A, Ex. 53A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Percentage of Children With a Comprehensive Family Assessment Completed Within 30 Days of Being Taken Into Custody With MSA Requirements, by Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, by Region, Six Month Periods Ending 4/30/13 through 9/30/13; see also App. A, Ex. 53B, corresponding table with underlying data.
199

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 206 of 251
June 24, 2013 Order.670 During February 2014, the parties agreed on revisions to the guidance
provided to FCR reviewers, which they expect will elicit data responsive to the requirement.
MSA §§III.B.2.c.1. and III.B.2.d.1. 2. Individualized Case Planning
c. Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 80% of foster children in that region who enter custody shall have a family team meeting and service plans shall be developed for both the child and the parents, consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements, within 30 calendar days of entry into foster care.
d. Beginning by 12 months following the date as set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 90% of foster children in that region who enter custody shall have a family team meeting and service plans shall be developed for both the child and the parents, consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements, within 30 calendar days of entry into foster care.
Status of Progress, MSA §§III.B.2.c.1. and III.B.2.d.1.: Defendants did not produce
data responding to these requirements during Period 3 or pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order.671
During February 2014, the parties agreed that the Monitor would assess relevant portions of this
requirement through a case review, if indicated.672
MSA §§III.B.2.c.2. and III.B.2.d.2. 2. Individualized Case Planning
c. Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 2) At least 80% of foster children in that region who enter custody shall have family team meetings at least quarterly, and their service plans shall be updated quarterly, as well as within 30 calendar days of any placement or other significant change, consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
670 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.E., Attachment One, and Attachment Two, Report 50. The language in the FCR instrument pertaining to this requirement did not conform to the MSA requirement. 671 Id. at Report 49. 672 Among other mandates, MSA §III.B.2.b. requires that defendants review and update service plans “more frequently as needed” than quarterly and within 30 calendar days of any placement or other significant change. Because the MSA does not address the circumstances that would trigger updates to these plans, the parties agreed that a case review might be appropriate.
200

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 207 of 251

d. Beginning by 12 months following the date as set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 2) At least 90% of foster children in that region who enter custody shall have family team meetings at least quarterly, and their service plans shall be updated quarterly, as well as within 30 calendar days of a placement change, consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
Status of Progress, MSA §§III.B.2.c.2. and III.B.2.d.2.: Defendants produced data
responsive to this requirement pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order.673 The Monitor’s findings

regarding defendants’ performance with respect to the seven regions that fully implemented the

Practice Model, two of which had fully implemented for at least 12 months prior to September 30, 2013, are summarized in the table below:674

Practice Model Full

Practice Model Full

Implementation: 8/31/12 Implementation: 2/28/13

12 Months Following: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 2/28/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 8/31/14

MSA Requirement

Performance Requirement

MSA requi res tha t by date Regi on ful l y i mpl ements , 80% of chi l dren s hal l ha ve a fa mi l y tea m meeti ng qua rterly, a nd s ervi ce pl ans upda ted quarterl y, as wel l a s wi thi n 30 da ys of any pl acement or other s i gni fi ca nt cha nge, cons i s tent wi th MSA requi rement.

80%

MSA requi res tha t by 12 months fol l owi ng the da te tha t a Regi on has ful l y i mpl emented, 90% of chi l dren s ha l l ha ve a fa mi l y team meeting qua rterl y, a nd s ervi ce pl a ns updated qua rterl y, a s wel l a s wi thi n 30 da ys of any pl a cement or other s i gni fi ca nt change, cons i s tent wi th MSA requi rement.

90%

I‐S
11% (8/31/12)
33% (8/31/13)

II‐W
21% (8/31/12)
19% (8/31/13)

V‐W
2% (2/28/13)

III‐S

I‐N

IV‐N

IV‐S

5% (8/31/13)

6% (8/31/13)

13% (8/31/13)

10% (8/31/13)

MSA §§III.B.3.a.6.a. and III.B.3.a.7.a. 3. Child and Youth Permanency
a. Permanency Plan: 6) Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: (a) At least 90% of foster children in that region who enter custody shall have a permanency plan within 30 calendar days of their entry into care consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.

673 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.E., Attachment One, and Attachment Two, Report 33. 674 See App. A, Ex. 42A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Who Had Family Team Meeting and Service Plan Reviewed and Updated Quarterly, Including Within 30 Days of Placement Change, by Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, by Region, Six-Month Periods Ending 7/31/12 Through 9/30/13; see also App. A, Ex. 42B, corresponding table with underlying data.
201

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 208 of 251

7) Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: (a) At least 95% of foster children in that region who enter custody shall have a permanency plan within 30 calendar days of their entry into care consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
Status of Progress, MSA §§III.B.3.a.6.a. and III.B.3.a.7.a.: Defendants produced data
responsive to this requirement pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order.675 The data that defendants
provided did not measure performance with the full MSA requirement.676 Based on the data

submitted by defendants, the Monitor’s findings regarding defendants’ performance with respect

to the seven regions that fully implemented the Practice Model, two of which had fully

implemented for at least 12 months prior to September 30, 2013, are summarized in the table below:677

Practice Model Full

Practice Model Full

Implementation: 8/31/12

Implementation: 2/28/13

12 Months Following: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 2/28/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 8/31/14

MSA Requirement

Performance

I‐S

Requirement

MSA requi res tha t by date Regi on ful l y i mpl ements , 90% of chi l dren s ha l l ha ve a perma nency pl a n wi thi n 30 ca l enda r days of thei r entry i nto ca re cons i s tent wi th MSA requi rement.

90%

MACWIS Report: 52%
PAD Report: 36%
(8/31/12)

II‐W
MACWIS Report: 61%
PAD Report: 41%
(8/31/12)

V‐W
MACWIS Report: 57% PAD Report: 36% (2/28/13)

III‐S

I‐N

IV‐N

IV‐S

MACWIS MACWIS MACWIS MACWIS Report: 26% Report: 28% Report: 36% Report: 17%

PAD Report: PAD Report: PAD Report: PAD Report:

14%

21%

58%

44%

(8/31/13) (8/31/13) (8/31/13) (8/31/13)

MSA requi res tha t by 12 months fol l owi ng the date tha t a Regi on ha s ful l y i mpl emented, 95% of chi l dren s ha l l ha ve a perma nency pl an wi thi n 30 ca l enda r da ys of thei r entry i nto care cons i s tent wi th MSA requi rement.

95%

MACWIS

MACWIS

Report: 76% Report: 73%

PAD Report: 68%
(8/31/13)

PAD Report: 82%
(8/31/13)

675 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.E., Attachment One, and Attachment Two, Report 17. 676 The Monitor found that the report defendants produced did not track whether service plans “addresse[d] the strengths, needs and services required for both the child and the parents as explored during [the] family team meeting,” and as required by MSA §III.B.2.a. The parties have agreed that the FCR instrument will be revised to incorporate this portion of the requirement. 677 See App. A, Ex. 23A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children With a Permanency Plan By Their 30th Day of Custody, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, By Region, 12-Month Periods Ending 7/31/12 through 9/30/13 and App. A, Ex. 23B, corresponding table with underlying data; see also App. A, Ex. 24A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Who Had a Permanency Plan Developed Within 30 Days of Initial Placement Specifying Permanency Goal, A Timeframe, and Activities to Support the Goal of Permanency, by Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, by Region, Six-Month Period Ending 7/31/12 Through 9/30/13 and App. A, Ex. 24B, corresponding table with underlying data.
202

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 209 of 251

MSA §§III.B.3.a.6.b. and III.B.3.a.7.b. 3. Child and Youth Permanency
a. Permanency Plan: 6) Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: (b) At least 90% of foster children in custody in that region shall have a permanency plan that is consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
7) Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: (b) At least 95% of foster children in custody in that region shall have a permanency plan that is consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
Status of Progress, MSA §§III.B.3.a.6.b. and III.B.3.a.7.b.: Defendants produced data
responsive to this requirement pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order.678 The Monitor’s findings

regarding defendants’ performance with respect to the seven regions that fully implemented the

Practice Model, two of which had fully implemented for at least 12 months prior to September 30, 2013, are summarized in the table below:679

Practice Model Full

Practice Model Full

Implementation: 8/31/12

Implementation: 2/28/13

12 Months Following: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 2/28/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 8/31/14

MSA Requirement

Performance Requirement

MSA requi res by the date Regi on ful l y i mpl ements , a t l ea s t 90% of fos ter chi l dren i n tha t regi on s hal l ha ve a perma nency pl a n tha t i s cons i s tent wi th MSA requi rements .

90%

MSA requi res tha t by 12 months fol l owi ng the date tha t a Regi on ful l y i mpl ements , a t l ea s t 95% of chi l dren i n that regi on s ha l l ha ve a perma nency pl an that i s cons i s tent wi th MSA requi rements .

95%

I‐S
100% (8/31/12)
100% (8/31/13)

II‐W
100% (8/31/12)
100% (8/31/13)

V‐W
100% (2/28/13)

III‐S

I‐N

IV‐N

IV‐S

95% (8/31/13)

100% (8/31/13)

93% (8/31/13)

75% (8/31/13)

MSA §§III.B.3.b.2.a. and III.B.3.b.3.a. 3. Child and Youth Permanency
b. Concurrent Planning: 2) Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: (a) At least 90% of children in custody in that region with the goal of reunification shall have case record documentation reflecting active concurrent

678 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.E., Attachment One, and Attachment Two, Report 36. 679 See App. A, Ex. 45A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Appropriateness of Permanency Goal for Children with Permanency Goals of DLC Guardianship, APPLA, Living Independently, Long Term Foster Care or Permanent Foster Care, by Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, by Region, Six-Month Periods Ending 7/31/12 through 9/30/13; see also App. A, Ex. 45B, corresponding table with underlying data.
203

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 210 of 251

permanency planning consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
3) Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: (a) At least 95% of children in custody in that region with the goal of reunification shall have case record documentation reflecting active concurrent permanency planning consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
Status of Progress, MSA §§III.B.3.b.2.a. and III.B.3.b.3.a.: Defendants produced data
responsive to this requirement pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order.680 The Monitor’s findings

regarding defendants’ performance with respect to the seven regions that fully implemented the

Practice Model, two of which had fully implemented for at least 12 months prior to September 30, 2013, are summarized in the table below:681

Practice Model Full

Practice Model Full

Implementation: 8/31/12

Implementation: 2/28/13

12 Months Following: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 2/28/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 8/31/14

MSA Requirement
MSA requi res tha t by date Regi on ful l y i mpl ements , 90% of chi l dren wi th the goa l of reuni fi cati on s ha l l ha ve ca s e record documentati on refl ecti ng acti ve concurrent perma nency pl a nni ng, cons i s tent wi th MSA requi rement.

Performance Requirement
90%

I‐S
26% (8/31/12)

II‐W
86% (8/31/12)

V‐W
43% (2/28/13)

III‐S

I‐N

IV‐N

IV‐S

35% (8/31/13)

73% (8/31/13)

50% (8/31/13)

81% (8/31/13)

MSA requi res tha t by 12 months fol l owi ng the date tha t a Regi on ha s ful l y i mpl emented, 95% of chi l dren wi th the goa l of reuni fi ca ti on s ha l l have ca s e record documenta ti on refl ecti ng a cti ve concurrent perma nency pl a nni ng, cons i s tent wi th MSA requi rement.

95%

79% (8/31/13)

91% (8/31/13)

MSA §§III.B.3.c.4.a. and III.B.3.c.5.a. 3. Child and Youth Permanency
c. Permanency Plan Updating and Review: 4) Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: (a) At least 90% of foster children in that region who have been in custody for at least six months shall have a timely court or administrative case review consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.

680 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.E., Attachment One, and Attachment Two, Report 34. 681 See App. A, Ex 43A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children With a Goal of Reunification Who Have Documentation Reflecting Active Concurrent Permanency Planning, by Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, by Region, Six-Month Periods Ending 7/31/12 Through 9/30/13; see also App. A, Ex. 43B, corresponding table with underlying data.
204

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 211 of 251

5) Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: (a) At least 95% of foster children in that region who have been in custody for at least six months shall have a timely court or administrative case review consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
Status of Progress, MSA §§III.B.3.c.4.a. and III.B.3.c.5.a.: Defendants produced data
responsive to this requirement pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order.682 The data that defendants
provided did not measure performance with the full MSA requirement.683 Based on the data

submitted by defendants, the Monitor’s findings regarding defendants’ performance with respect

to the seven regions that fully implemented the Practice Model, two of which had fully

implemented for at least 12 months prior to September 30, 2013, are summarized in the table below:684

Practice Model Full

Practice Model Full

Implementation: 8/31/12 Implementation: 2/28/13

12 Months Following: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 2/28/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 8/31/14

MSA Requirement

Performance Requirement

MSA requi res tha t by date Regi on ful l y i mpl ements , 90% of chi l dren i n cus tody for a t l eas t s i x months s hal l ha ve a ti mel y court or a dmi ni s trati ve ca s e revi ew cons i s tent wi th MSA requi rement.

90%

MSA requi res tha t 12 months fol l owi ng the da te a Regi on ha s ful l y i mpl emented, 95% of chi l dren i n cus tody for a t l eas t s i x months s hal l have a ti mel y court or a dmi ni s tra ti ve ca s e revi ew cons i s tent wi th MSA requi rement.

95%

I‐S
91% (8/31/12)
95% (8/31/13)

II‐W
95% (8/31/12)
98% (8/31/13)

V‐W
97% (2/28/13)

III‐S

I‐N

IV‐N

IV‐S

86% (8/31/13)

99% (8/31/13)

97% (8/31/13)

100% (8/31/13)

MSA §§III.B.3.c.4.b. and III.B.3.c.5.b. 3. Child and Youth Permanency
c. Permanency Plan Updating and Review: 4) Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: (b) At least 90% of foster children in that region who have been in custody for at least 12 months shall have a
682 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.E., Attachment One, and Attachment Two, Report 23. 683 The data submitted by defendants did not track whether the required written notice was provided to all parties required by MSA §III.B.3.c.1. The parties agreed that the FCR instrument will be revised to incorporate this portion of the requirement. 684 See App. A, Ex. 32A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children in Custody for Six months or More With an Administrative Review Every Six Months, by Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, by Region, 12-Month Periods Ending 7/31/12 through 9/30/13; see also App. A, Ex. 32B, corresponding table with underlying data.
205

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 212 of 251

timely annual court review consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
5) Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: (b) At least 95% of foster children in that region who have been in custody in that region for at least 12 months shall have a timely annual court review consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement.
Status of Progress, MSA §§III.B.3.c.4.b. and III.B.3.c.5.b.: Defendants produced data
responsive to this requirement pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order.685 The Monitor’s findings

regarding defendants’ performance with respect to the seven regions that fully implemented the

Practice Model, two of which had fully implemented for at least 12 months prior to September 30, 2013, are summarized in the table below:686

Practice Model Full

Practice Model Full

Implementation: 8/31/12 Implementation: 2/28/13

12 Months Following: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 2/28/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 8/31/14

MSA Requirement
MSA requi res tha t by date Regi on ful l y i mpl ements , a t l ea s t 90% of fos ter chi l dren i n tha t regi on who have been i n cus tody for a t l ea s t 12 months s ha l l have a ti mel y a nnua l court revi ew cons i s tent wi th MSA requi rements .

Performance Requirement
90%

I‐S
86% (8/31/12)

II‐W
97% (8/31/12)

V‐W
94% (2/28/13)

III‐S

I‐N

IV‐N

IV‐S

39% (8/31/13)

87% (8/31/13)

81% (8/31/13)

83% (8/31/13)

MSA requi res tha t by 12 months fol l owi ng the date tha t a Regi on ha s ful l y i mpl emented, a t l ea s t 95% of fos ter chi l dren i n tha t regi on who ha ve been i n cus tody i n that regi on for a t l eas t 12 months s ha l l ha ve a ti mel y a nnua l court revi ew cons i s tent wi th MSA requi rements .

95%

89% (8/31/13)

93% (8/31/13)

MSA §§III.B.3.d.4.a. and III.B.3.d.5.a. 3. Child and Youth Permanency
d. Reunification Services: 4) Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: (a) At least 80% of foster children in that region with a permanency goal of reunification shall have service plans for their parents that identify those services DFCS deems necessary to address the behaviors or conditions resulting in the child’s placement in foster care, and case record documentation that DFCS made

685 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.E., Attachment One, and Attachment Two, Report 24. 686 See App. A, Ex. 33A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children in Custody for 12 Months or More With a Timely Permanency Hearing, by Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, by Region, 12-Month Periods Ending 7/31/12 Through 9/30/13; see also App. A, Ex. 33B, corresponding table with underlying data.
206

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 213 of 251
those identified services available directly or through referral.
5) Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: (a) At least 90% of foster children in that region with a permanency goal of reunification shall have service plans for their parents that identify those services DFCS deems necessary to address the behaviors or conditions resulting in the child’s placement in foster care and case record documentation that DFCS made those identified services available directly or through referral.
Status of Progress, MSA §§III.B.3.d.4.a. and III.B.3.d.5.a.: Defendants were not
required to produce this data during Period 3 or pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order. The Initial
Period 4 IP required production of the data by April 1, 2014.687 The required data has not been
produced. In their May 5, 2014 comments on the draft version of this report, defendants
indicated that they would submit proposed report specifications to plaintiffs’ counsel and the
Monitor as soon as possible during the week of May 18, 2014. However, an explanation for the
delay in producing the required data has not been provided. The Monitor will report more fully
on this matter in a forthcoming report.
MSA §§III.B.3.e.2.a. and III.B.3.e.3.a. 3. Child and Youth Permanency
e. Termination of Parental Rights: 2) Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: (a) At least 80% of foster children in that region who reach the point at which they have spent 17 of the previous 22 months in foster care shall have a petition to TPR filed on their behalf or an available exception under the federal ASFA documented by the end of their seventeenth month in care.
3) Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: (a) At least 90% of foster children in that region who reach the point at which they have spent 17 of the previous 22 months in foster care shall have a petition to TPR filed on their behalf or an available exception
687 Initial Period 4 IP §II.C.2. and Appendix 1, Report 3.
207

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 214 of 251

under the federal ASFA documented by the last day of their seventeenth month in care.
Status of Progress, MSA §§III.B.3.e.2.a. and III.B.3.e.3.a.: Defendants produced data
responsive to this requirement pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order.688 The Monitor’s findings

regarding defendants’ performance with respect to the seven regions that fully implemented the

Practice Model, two of which had fully implemented for at least 12 months prior to September 30, 2013, are summarized in the table below:689

Practice Model Full

Practice Model Full

Implementation: 8/31/12

Implementation: 2/28/13

12 Months Following: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 2/28/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 8/31/14

MSA Requirement

Performance Requirement

MSA requi res tha t by date Regi on ful l y i mpl ements , a t l ea s t 80% of chi l dren i n that regi on who ha ve rea ched the poi nt a t whi ch they ha ve s pent 17 of the previ ous 22 months i n ca re s hal l ha ve a TPR peti ti on fi l ed on thei r beha l f or a n a va i l abl e excepti on under ASFA documented by the end of thei r 17th month i n ca re.

80%

MSA requi res tha t by 12 months fol l owi ng the date a Regi on has ful l y i mpl emented, a t l ea s t 90% of chi l dren i n tha t regi on who have rea ched the poi nt a t whi ch they have s pent 17 of the previ ous 22 months i n ca re s hal l ha ve a TPR peti ti on fi l ed on thei r beha l f or a n a va i l abl e excepti on under ASFA documented by the end of thei r 17th month i n ca re.

90%

I‐S
93% (8/31/12)
95% (8/31/13)

II‐W
85% (8/31/12)
89% (8/31/13)

V‐W
78% (2/28/13)

III‐S

I‐N

IV‐N

IV‐S

87% (8/31/13)

94% (8/31/13)

88% (8/31/13)

98% (8/31/13)

MSA §§III.B.3.e.2.b. and III.B.3.e.3.b. 3. Child and Youth Permanency
e. Termination of Parental Rights: 2) Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: (b) At least 80% of foster children in that region who have spent more than 17 of the previous 22 months in foster care without a TPR petition filed on their behalf or an available ASFA exception documented shall have such a petition filed or an available exception documented.
3) Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: (b) At least 90% of foster children in that region who have spent more than 17 of the previous 22 months in foster

688 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.E., Attachment One, and Attachment Two, Report 25. 689 See App. A, Ex. 34A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children in Custody at Least 17 of the Previous 22 Months For Whom a TPR Petition Was Filed or an Available ASFA Exception Has Been Documented by the Last Day of the Child’s Seventeenth Month in Care, by Practice Model Fully Implemented Date and Region, One-Month Periods 7/31/12 through 9/30/13; see also App. A, Ex. 34B, corresponding table with underlying data.
208

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 215 of 251

care without a TPR petition filed on their behalf or an available ASFA exception documented shall have such a petition filed or an available exception documented.
Status of Progress, MSA §§III.B.3.e.2.b. and III.B.3.e.3.b.: Defendants produced data
responsive to this requirement pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order.690 The Monitor’s findings

regarding defendants’ performance with respect to the seven regions that fully implemented the

Practice Model, two of which had fully implemented for at least 12 months prior to September 30, 2013, are summarized in the table below:691

Practice Model Full

Practice Model Full

Implementation: 8/31/12

Implementation: 2/28/13

12 Months Following: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 2/28/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 8/31/14

MSA Requirement

Performance Requirement

MSA requi res tha t by date Regi on ful l y i mpl ements , a t l ea s t 80% of chi l dren i n that regi on who ha ve s pent more than 17 of the previ ous 22 months i n care wi thout a TPR peti ti on fi l ed or a n a va i l abl e ASFA excepti on documented s ha l l ha ve a peti ti on fi l ed or a va i l a bl e excepti on documented.

80%

I‐S
100% (8/31/12)

II‐W
100% (8/31/12)

V‐W
18% (2/28/13)

III‐S

I‐N

IV‐N

IV‐S

76% (8/31/13)

33% (8/31/13)

60% (8/31/13)

100% (8/31/13)

MSA requi res tha t by 12 months fol l owi ng the date a Regi on has ful l y i mpl emented, a t l ea s t 90% of chi l dren i n tha t regi on who have s pent more than 17 of the previ ous 22 months i n ca re wi thout a TPR peti ti on fi l ed or a n a va i l abl e ASFA excepti on documented s ha l l ha ve a peti ti on fi l ed or a va i l a bl e excepti on documented.

90%

50% (8/31/13)

100% (8/31/13)

MSA §§III.B.4.b.1. and III.B.4.c.1. 4. Case Recordings
b. Beginning by the date as set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 90% of child welfare case records in that region will be current and complete.
c. Beginning by 12 months following the date as set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 95% of child welfare case records in that region will be current and complete.

690 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.E., Attachment One, and Attachment Two, Report 25. 691 See App. A, Ex. 35A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children in Custody at Least 17 of the Previous 22 Months Without a TPR Petition Filed or an Available ASFA Exception by the Last Day of the Child’s Seventeenth Month in Care For Whom a TPR Petition Was Filed or an Available ASFA Exception Was Subsequently Documented, by Practice Model Implemented Date and Region, One-Month Periods 7/31/12 through 9/30/13; see also App. A, Ex. 35B, corresponding table with underlying data.
209

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 216 of 251
Status of Progress, MSA §§III.B.4.b.1. and III.B.4.c.1.: Defendants were not required
to produce this data during Period 3 or pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order. The Final Period 4
IP indicates these data will be produced pursuant to a case record review.692
MSA §§III.B.5.d.1. and III.B.5.e.1. 5. Developing and Maintaining Connections
d. Beginning by the date as set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 80% of foster children in that region shall be provided with contacts with their parents and with any siblings not in the same placement consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements, unless it is documented that a parent or sibling failed to make himself or herself available.
e. Beginning by 12 months following the date as set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 90% of foster children in that region shall be provided with contacts with their parents and with any siblings not in the same placement consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements, unless it is documented that a parent or sibling failed to make himself or herself available.
Status of Progress, MSA §§III.B.5.d.1. and III.B.5.e.1.: Defendants produced data
responsive to this requirement pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order.693 The data that defendants
provided did not measure performance with the full MSA requirement.694 Based on the data
submitted by defendants, the Monitor’s findings regarding defendants’ performance with respect
to the seven regions that fully implemented the Practice Model, two of which had fully
implemented for at least 12 months prior to September 30, 2013, are summarized in the table
below:695
692 Final Period 4 IP §II.C.2. and Appendix 3, Report 6. 693 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.E., Attachment One, and Attachment Two, Report 26. 694 The Monitor found that the report did not track whether children were allowed, in certain instances, telephone calls to extended family members as provided for by MSA §III.B.5.b. The parties have agreed that the FCR instrument will be revised to incorporate this portion of the requirement. 695 See App. A, Ex. 36A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Child Contacts With Parents/Siblings Within 24 Hours of Custody, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, By Region, Six-Month Periods Ending 7/31/12 through 9/30/13; see also App. A, Ex. 36B, corresponding table with underlying data.
210

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 217 of 251

Practice Model Full

Practice Model Full

Implementation: 8/31/12

Implementation: 2/28/13

12 Months Following: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 2/28/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 8/31/14

MSA Requirement

Performance Requirement

MSA requi res tha t by date Regi on ful l y i mpl ements , a t l ea s t 80% of chi l dren i n that regi on be provi ded wi th conta cts wi th thei r parents a nd a ny s i bl i ngs not i n the s a me pl acement cons i s tent wi th MSA requi rements , unl es s i t i s documented tha t a pa rent or s i bl i ng fa i l ed to ma ke hi ms el f or hers el f a va i l abl e.

80%

MSA requi res tha t by 12 months fol l owi ng the date a Regi on has ful l y i mpl emented, a t l ea s t 90% of chi l dren i n tha t regi on be provi ded wi th conta cts wi th thei r parents a nd a ny s i bl i ngs not i n the s a me pl acement cons i s tent wi th MSA requi rements , unl es s i t i s documented tha t a pa rent or s i bl i ng fa i l ed to ma ke hi ms el f or hers el f a va i l abl e.

90%

I‐S
0% (8/31/12)
39% (8/31/13)

II‐W
0% (8/31/12)
0% (8/31/13)

V‐W
9% (2/28/13)

III‐S

I‐N

IV‐N

IV‐S

2% (8/31/13)

26% (8/31/13)

40% (8/31/13)

13% (8/31/13)

MSA §§III.B.6.d.1. and III.B.6.e.1. 6. Educational Services
d. Beginning by the date as set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 80% of school-age foster children in that region who enter custody shall have their educational records reviewed and their educational needs documented by their DFCS caseworker within 30 calendar days of their entry into foster care.
e. Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 90% of school-age foster children in that region who enter custody shall have their educational records reviewed and their educational needs documented by their DFCS caseworker within 30 calendar days of their entry into foster care.
Status of Progress, MSA §§III.B.6.d.1. and III.B.6.e.1.: Defendants produced data
responsive to this requirement pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order.696 The Monitor had concerns
regarding the validity of the data submitted by defendants.697 Based on the data submitted by the
defendants, the Monitor’s findings regarding defendants’ performance with respect to the seven

696 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.E., Attachment One, and Attachment Two, Report 46. 697 The Monitor found that the guidance provided to the DFCS staff conducting the FCRs did not incorporate the education protocol that defendants were required to implement pursuant to Period 3 IP §II.G.2., addressed supra at 177.
211

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 218 of 251

regions that fully implemented the Practice Model, two of which had fully implemented for at least 12 months prior to September 30, 2013, are summarized in the table below:698

Practice Model Full

Practice Model Full

Implementation: 8/31/12 Implementation: 2/28/13

12 Months Following: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 2/28/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 8/31/14

MSA Requirement

Performance Requirement

MSA requi res tha t by date Regi on ful l y i mpl ements , 80% of s chool ‐age chi l dren s ha l l ha ve thei r educa ti ona l records revi ewed a nd thei r educa ti ona l needs documented wi thi n 30 da ys of entry i nto ca re, cons i s tent wi th MSA requi rement.

80%

I‐S
54% (8/31/12)

II‐W
57% (8/31/12)

V‐W
69% (2/28/13)

III‐S

I‐N

IV‐N

IV‐S

20% (8/31/13)

28% (8/31/13)

89% (8/31/13)

80% (8/31/13)

MSA requi res tha t by 12 months fol l owi ng the date tha t a Regi on ha s ful l y i mpl emented, 90% of s chool ‐a ge chi l dren s ha l l ha ve thei r educa ti ona l records revi ewed a nd thei r educa ti ona l needs documented wi thi n 30 da ys of entry i nto ca re, cons i s tent wi th MSA requi rement.

90%

90% (8/31/13)

61% (8/31/13)

MSA §§III.B.6.d.2. and III.B.6.e.2. 6. Educational Services
d. Beginning by the date as set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 2) At least 80% of school-age foster children in that region who enter custody or are subject to a change in schools due to a placement move shall be registered for and attending an accredited school within three business days of the initial placement or placement change, including while placed in shelters or other temporary placements, unless delayed by the Youth Court.
e. Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 2) At least 90% of school-age foster children in that region who enter custody or are subject to a change in schools due to a placement move shall be registered for and attending an accredited school within three business days of the initial placement or placement change, including while placed in shelters or other temporary placements, unless delayed by the Youth Court.
Status of Progress, MSA §§III.B.6.d.2. and III.B.6.e.2.: Defendants produced data
responsive to this requirement pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order.699 The Monitor’s findings
regarding defendants’ performance with respect to the seven regions that fully implemented the

698 See App. A, Ex. 54A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Who Had Their Educational Record Reviewed Timely for General and Special Education Needs, by Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, by Region, Six-Month Periods Ending 7/31/12 Through 9/30/13; see also App. A, Ex. 54B, corresponding table with underlying data. 699 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.E., Attachment One, and Attachment Two, Report 51.
212

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 219 of 251

Practice Model, two of which had fully implemented for at least 12 months prior to September 30, 2013, are summarized in the table below:700

Practice Model Full

Practice Model Full

Implementation: 8/31/12

Implementation: 2/28/13

12 Months Following: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 2/28/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 8/31/14

MSA Requirement

Performance Requirement

MSA requi res by the date regi on ful l y i mpl ements , a t l ea s t 80% of s chool ‐a ge fos ter chi l dren i n tha t regi on who enter cus tody or a re s ubject to a cha nge i n s chool s due to a pl a cement move s ha l l be regi s tered for a nd attendi ng an a ccredi ted s chool wi thi n three bus i nes s da ys of the i ni ti a l pl a cement or pl a cement change, i ncl udi ng whi l e pl aced i n s hel ters or other tempora ry pl acements , unl es s del a yed by the Youth Court.

80%

MSA requi res tha t by 12 months fol l owi ng the date tha t a Regi on ful l y i mpl ements , at l ea s t 90% of s chool ‐age fos ter chi l dren i n tha t regi on who enter cus tody or a re s ubject to a cha nge i n s chool s due to a pl a cement move s ha l l be regi s tered for a nd attendi ng an a ccredi ted s chool wi thi n three bus i nes s da ys of the i ni ti a l pl a cement or pl a cement change, i ncl udi ng whi l e pl aced i n s hel ters or other tempora ry pl acements , unl es s del a yed by the Youth Court.

90%

I‐S
78% (8/31/12)
79% (8/31/13)

II‐W
44% (8/31/12)
26% (8/31/13)

V‐W
94% (2/28/13)

III‐S

I‐N

IV‐N

IV‐S

64% (8/31/13)

79% (8/31/13)

89% (8/31/13)

83% (8/31/13)

MSA §§III.B.7.e.1. and III.B.7.f.1. 7. Transition to Independent Living
e. Beginning by the date as set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 90% of foster children in that region who are 1420 years old shall be provided with Independent Living services as set forth in their service plan.
f. Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 95% of foster children in that region who are 1420 years old shall be provided with Independent Living services as set forth in their service plan during the Period.
Status of Progress, MSA §§III.B.7.e.1. and III.B.7.f.1.: Defendants produced data
responsive to this requirement pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order.701 The data that defendants

700 See App. A, Ex. 57A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Percentage of Children Who Enter Custody Or Change Placements Who Are Registered For And Attending School Within Three Days of Entering Custody or The Placement Change, by Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, by Region, Six-Month Periods Ending 7/31/12 Through 9/30/13; see also App. A, Ex. 57B, corresponding table with underlying data. 701 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.E., Attachment One, and Attachment Two, Report 16.
213

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 220 of 251

provided did not measure performance with the full MSA requirement.702 Based on the data

submitted by defendants, the Monitor’s findings regarding defendants’ performance with respect

to the seven regions that fully implemented the Practice Model, two of which had fully

implemented for at least 12 months prior to September 30, 2013, are summarized in the table below:703

Practice Model Full

Practice Model Full

Implementation: 8/31/12

Implementation: 2/28/13

12 Months Following: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 2/28/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 8/31/14

MSA Requirement

Performance Requirement

MSA requi res by the date regi on ful l y i mpl ements , 90% of chi l dren who a re 14‐ 20 s ha l l be provi ded wi th Independent Li vi ng s ervi ces a s s et forth i n thei r s ervi ce pl a ns .

90%

I‐S
MACWIS Report: 66%
PAD Report: 76%
(8/31/12)

MSA requi res tha t by 12 months fol l owi ng the date a Regi on ha s ful l y i mpl emented, 95% of chi l dren who a re 14‐20 s ha l l be provi ded wi th Independent Li vi ng s ervi ces a s s et forth i n thei r s ervi ce pl ans .

95%

MACWIS Report: 63%
PAD Report: 83%
(8/31/13)

II‐W
MACWIS Report: 68%
PAD Report: 84%
(8/31/12)
MACWIS Report: 75%
PAD Report: 87%
(8/31/13)

V‐W
MACWIS Report: 64% PAD Report: 83% (2/28/13)

III‐S

I‐N

IV‐N

IV‐S

MACWIS MACWIS MACWIS MACWIS Report: 29% Report: 39% Report: 74% Report: 36%

PAD Report: PAD Report: PAD Report: PAD Report:

53%

52%

75%

78%

(8/31/13) (8/31/13) (8/31/13) (8/31/13)

MSA §§III.B.7.e.2. and III.B.7.f.2. 7. Transition to Independent Living
e. Beginning by the date as set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 2) At least 80% of foster children in that region who are transitioning to independence shall have available an adequate living arrangement, a source of income, health care, independent living stipends, and education and training vouchers. DFCS shall also assist such children in obtaining, prior to transitioning to independent living, the necessary documents and information identified in the COA standard PA-FC 13.06 for emancipating youth. Those efforts shall be documented in the child’s case record.

702 The data that defendants submitted did not track whether the children to whom the requirement applied were provided an opportunity to participate in the creation of an independent living service plan and whether all of the services noted in the independent living services plan were provided as required by MSA §III.B.7.b. Defendants have agreed to modify the guidance provided to the FCR reviewers in order to collect and report on data related to these elements of the requirement. 703 See App. A, Ex. 21A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Ages 14-20 Receiving Independent Living Services of Any Kind, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, By Region, 12-Month Periods Ending 7/31/12 Through 9/30/13 and App. A, Ex. 21B, corresponding table with underlying data; see also App. A, Ex. 22A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Ages 14-20 Receiving Independent Living Services As Set Forth In Service Plan, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date and Region, Six-Month Periods Ending 7/31/12 Through 9/30/13 and App. A, Ex. 22B, corresponding table with underlying data.
214

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 221 of 251
f. Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 2) At least 90% of foster children in that region who are transitioning to independence shall have available an adequate living arrangement, a source of income, health care, independent living stipends, and education and training vouchers. DFCS shall assist such children in obtaining, prior to transitioning to independent living, the necessary documents and information identified in the COA standard PA-FC 13.06 for emancipating youth. Those efforts shall be documented in the child’s case record.
Status of Progress, MSA §§III.B.7.e.2. and III.B.7.f.2.: Defendants produced data responsive to this requirement pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order.704 The data that defendants provided did not measure performance with the full MSA requirement.705 Based on the data
submitted by defendants, the Monitor’s findings regarding defendants’ performance with respect
to the seven regions that fully implemented the Practice Model, two of which had fully
implemented for at least 12 months prior to September 30, 2013, are summarized in the table below:706
704 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.E., Attachment One, and Attachment Two, Report 35. 705 The Monitor found that the data did not adequately track the requirements of MSA §III.B.7.c. related to the availability of independent living stipends and health care. The parties have agreed that the FCR instrument will be revised to incorporate these portions of the requirement. 706 See App. A, Ex. 44A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Percentage of Foster Children Transitioning to Independence Who Have Available An Adequate Living Arrangement, a Source of Income, Health Care, Independent Living Stipends, and Education and Training Vouchers, by Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, by Region, Six Month Periods Ending 7/31/12 through 9/30/13; see also App. A, Ex. 44B, corresponding table with underlying data.
215

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 222 of 251

Practice Model Full

Practice Model Full

Implementation: 8/31/12

Implementation: 2/28/13

12 Months Following: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 2/28/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 8/31/14

MSA Requirement
MSA requi res by the date regi on ful l y i mpl ements , a t l ea s t 80% of fos ter chi l dren i n tha t regi on who a re tra ns i ti oni ng to i ndependence s ha l l have a va i l a bl e a n a dequa te l i vi ng a rrangement, a s ource of i ncome, hea l th ca re, i ndependent l i vi ng s ti pends , a nd educa ti on a nd tra i ni ng vouchers .
MSA requi res tha t by 12 months fol l owi ng the date tha t a Regi on ful l y i mpl ements , at l ea s t 90% of fos ter chi l dren i n tha t regi on who a re tra ns i ti oni ng to i ndependence s ha l l have a va i l a bl e a n a dequa te l i vi ng a rrangement, a s ource of i ncome, hea l th ca re, i ndependent l i vi ng s ti pends , a nd educa ti on a nd tra i ni ng vouchers .

Performance Requirement
80%
90%

I‐S
67% (8/31/12)
44% (8/31/13)

II‐W
50% (8/31/12)
25% (8/31/13)

V‐W
91% (2/28/13)

III‐S

I‐N

IV‐N

IV‐S

60% (8/31/13)

50% (8/31/13)

100% (8/31/13)

100% (8/31/13)

MSA §§III.B.8.d.1. and III.B.8.e.1. 8. Case Closing and Aftercare
d. Beginnings by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 70% of foster children in that region who are reunified and who were in custody longer than 90 days shall receive a 90-day trial home visit period or have case record documentation reflecting the Youth Court’s objection to such a trial home visit. During that trial home visit period, the child’s caseworker or a Family Preservation caseworker shall meet with the child in the home at least two times per month, and DFCS shall provide or facilitate access to all services identified in the child’s after-care plan, consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
e. Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 90% of foster children in that region who are reunified and who were in custody longer than 90 days shall receive a 90-day trial home visit period or have case record documentation reflecting the Youth Court’s objection to such a trial home visit. During that trial home visit period, the child’s caseworker shall meet with the child in the home at least two times per month, and DFCS shall provide or facilitate access to all services identified in the child’s after-care plan, consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.

216

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 223 of 251

Status of Progress, MSA §§III.B.8.d.1. and III.B.8.e.1.: Defendants produced data responsive to this requirement pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order.707 The Monitor’s findings

regarding defendants’ performance with respect to the seven regions that fully implemented the

Practice Model, two of which had fully implemented for at least 12 months prior to September 30, 2013, are summarized in the table below:708

Practice Model Full

Practice Model Full

Implementation: 8/31/12

Implementation: 2/28/13

12 Months Following: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 2/28/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 8/31/14

MSA Requirement

Performance Requirement

MSA requi res tha t by date Regi on ful l y i mpl ements , 70% of chi l dren who a re reuni fi ed a nd i n cus tody l onger tha n 90 days s ha l l recei ve a 90‐day THV; duri ng the THV the chi l d's cas eworker or fa mi l y pres erva ti on ca s eworker s hal l meet wi th the chi l d i n the home a t l ea s t two ti mes per month wi thout pa rent or ca retaker pres ent, cons i s tent wi th MSA requi rements . MSA requi res tha t by 12 months fol l owi ng the date a Regi on has ful l y i mpl emented, 90% of chi l dren who a re reuni fi ed a nd i n cus tody l onger tha n 90 days s ha l l recei ve a 90‐day THV; duri ng the THV the chi l d's cas eworker or fa mi l y pres erva ti on ca s eworker s hal l meet wi th the chi l d i n the home a t l ea s t two ti mes per month wi thout pa rent or ca retaker pres ent, cons i s tent wi th MSA requi rements .

70% 90%

I‐S
46% (8/31/12)
57% (8/31/13)

II‐W
45% (8/31/12)
50% (8/31/13)

V‐W
0% (2/28/13)

III‐S

I‐N

IV‐N

IV‐S

0% (8/31/13)

33% (8/31/13)

0% (8/31/13)

43% (8/31/13)

MSA §§III.C.1.a.1. and III.C.1.b.1. 1. Reunification
a. Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 60% of foster children in that region who are discharged from custody and reunified with their parents or caretakers shall be reunified within 12 months of the latest removal from home.
b. Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 70% of foster children in that region who are discharged from custody and reunified with their parents or caretakers shall be reunified within 12 months of the latest removal from home.

707 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.E., Attachment One, and Attachment Two, Report 1. Defendants indicate that they are not able to track children’s access to services identified in their aftercare plans. The parties have agreed that no modification will be made to MACWIS or the FCR instrument to address this matter. 708 See App. A, Exs. 3A and 3B, supra note 45.
217

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 224 of 251

Status of Progress, MSA §§III.C.1.a.1. and III.C.1.b.1.: Defendants produced data responsive to this requirement pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order.709 The Monitor’s findings

regarding defendants’ performance with respect to the seven regions that fully implemented the

Practice Model, two of which had fully implemented for at least 12 months prior to September 30, 2013, are summarized in the table below:710

Practice Model Full

Practice Model Full

Implementation: 8/31/12 Implementation: 2/28/13

12 Months Following: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 2/28/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 8/31/14

MSA Requirement
MSA requi res tha t by date Regi on ful l y i mpl ements , 60% of chi l dren who a re di s cha rged from cus tody a nd reuni fi ed wi th pa rents or careta kers s ha l l be reuni fi ed wi thi n 12 months from the l a tes t remova l from home.

Performance Requirement
60%

I‐S
56% (8/31/12)

II‐W
43% (8/31/12)

V‐W
59% (2/28/13)

III‐S

I‐N

IV‐N

IV‐S

73% (8/31/13)

69% (8/31/13)

50% (8/31/13)

62% (8/31/13)

MSA requi res tha t by 12 months fol l owi ng the date a Regi on has ful l y i mpl emented, 70% of chi l dren who a re di s cha rged from cus tody a nd reuni fi ed wi th pa rents or careta kers s ha l l be reuni fi ed wi thi n 12 months from the l a tes t remova l from home.

70%

55% (8/31/13)

44% (8/31/13)

MSA §§III.C.2.a.1. and III.C.2.b.1. 2. Time to Adoption Finalization
a. Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 25% of foster children in that region who are discharged upon finalization of an adoption shall have had the adoption finalized within 24 months of the latest removal from home.
b. Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 30% of foster children in that region who are discharged upon finalization of an adoption shall have had the adoption finalized within 24 months of the latest removal from home.
Status of Progress, MSA §§III.C.2.a.1. and III.C.2.b.1.: Defendants produced data
responsive to this requirement pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order.711 The Monitor’s findings

709 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.E., Attachment One, and Attachment Two, Report 14. 710 See App. A, Ex. 19A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Reunified With Parent or
Caretaker In Under 12 Months From Latest Removal, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, By Region, 12-
Month Periods Ending 7/31/12 through 9/30/13; see also App. A, Ex. 19B, corresponding table with underlying data. 711 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.E., Attachment One, and Attachment Two, Report 15.
218

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 225 of 251

regarding defendants’ performance with respect to the seven regions that fully implemented the

Practice Model, two of which had fully implemented for at least 12 months prior to September 30, 2013, are summarized in the table below:712

Practice Model Full

Practice Model Full

Implementation: 8/31/12 Implementation: 2/28/13

12 Months Following: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 2/28/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 8/31/14

MSA Requirement
MSA requi res tha t by date Regi on ful l y i mpl emented, 25% of chi l dren who were di s charged upon fi na l i za ti on of a n a dopti on s hal l ha ve the a dopti on fi nal i zed wi thi n 24 months from the l a tes t remova l from home.
MSA requi res tha t by 12 months fol l owi ng the date a Regi on has ful l y i mpl emented, 30% of chi l dren who were di s charged upon fi na l i za ti on of a n a dopti on s hal l ha ve the a dopti on fi nal i zed wi thi n 24 months from the l a tes t remova l from home.

Performance Requirement
25%
30%

I‐S
42% (8/31/12)
29% (8/31/13)

II‐W
15% (8/31/12)
9% (8/31/13)

V‐W
50% (2/28/13)

III‐S

I‐N

IV‐N

IV‐S

0% (8/31/13)

17% (8/31/13)

0% (8/31/13)

8% (8/31/13)

IV. CONCLUSION As this report explains, during Period 3 defendants were unable to produce validated data related to their performance relative to MSA requirements. This is a recurrent theme and a longstanding problem in this case, impeding both defendants’ reform efforts as well as plaintiffs’ and the Monitor’s ability to assess defendants’ performance. Consequently, a remedial process triggered by the February 21, 2013 status hearing was implemented and, for the first time in the history of this case, defendants have been able to produce data responsive to many key MSA requirements. While this remedial process has been resource intensive and challenging for the defendants, the management information reports that have been developed are already valuable to the reform effort. In fact, the performance levels reflected in the data reports that defendants have produced confirm that defendants continue to struggle to meet many MSA requirements. For example, in
712 See App. A, Ex. 20A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Length of Time Between Court Custody and Finalization of Adoption, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, By Region, 12-Month Periods Ending 7/31/12 through 9/30/13; see also App. A, Ex. 20B, corresponding table with underlying data.
219

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 226 of 251
Period 3 defendants met 10 of 23 statewide performance requirements for which the Monitor could make a finding, and among the seven DFCS regions that had fully implemented the Practice Model, the region that met or exceeded the most requirements at the time of full implementation did so for seven of the 16 requirements for which the Monitor could make a finding for that region. These performance levels underscore the need for defendants to act with far greater urgency to marshal the resources and build the necessary capacity to meet the requirements of the MSA.
At the same time, the data also provide a more nuanced understanding of defendants’ performance than was previously discernible. The performance reports suggest that in general, the Practice Model is having a broad, if slower than anticipated, impact on performance in those DFCS regions where the model was implemented earliest. The data reports illuminate substantial regional differences in performance and draw attention to the relative strengths and serious deficiencies in service delivery across the state. These data reports confirm that performance levels in certain regions are profoundly troubling, requiring concentrated and sustained remedial efforts. Specifically, Regions III-S and VII-W, in which significant numbers of children in custody are served, require immediate attention. Pursuant to Period 4 requirements, defendants have developed improvement plans for these regions which the Monitor expects to report on following the conclusion of Period 4.
The detailed, manipulable performance reports that the defendants have produced provide information that should be critical to DFCS managers at every level as they craft, monitor, and refine strategies to meet MSA requirements. But in order to realize the potential of these new data reports, defendants must continue to build management systems and invest in the human capital to support high quality and consistent service delivery at the regional level.
220

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 227 of 251
There is evidence that the building process is underway. During Period 3 there was notable progress hiring caseworkers, particularly in some DFCS regions that have had substantial difficulties recruiting and retaining qualified staff. In addition, extensive revisions to DFCS policies and procedures were completed in order to make them consistent with MSA requirements and build part of the foundation necessary to promote staff accountability. New accounting systems and related processes were developed to increase federal revenue streams, which in turn have helped to subsidize effective efforts to strengthen the pre-service and inservice training programs for DFCS caseworkers and supervisors.
But much critical work remains to be done. For example, it is still not possible to assess whether defendants’ seemingly hard-earned gains in caseworker staffing levels have translated into improvements in caseworker caseloads because, despite serial efforts, defendants have been unable to produce complete and validated reports on caseworker caseloads, a sine qua non for defendants’ capacity to diagnose the causes of many performance problems. Concurrently, caseworkers will be less likely to stay on the job unless defendants can staunch the relatively long-standing flow of supervisory staff out of the agency. Without a sufficient number of supervisors, caseworkers will lack the essential guidance and support they need to do what is unquestionably critical, but often exceptionally challenging work.
Moreover, while a comprehensive and promising CQI plan was developed and is being implemented, the related accountability systems are weak at best and do not ensure timely corrective action on a consistent basis. A performance-based contracting plan, intended to help fuel improvements in the array and quality of placements and services available to children in DFCS custody, has not yet been developed. In addition, while there has been notable progress upgrading the network and software infrastructure in order to address long-standing limitations in
221

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 228 of 251
DFCS staff access to MACWIS, further progress is needed on a far more condensed timetable to ensure that all staff have reasonable access to MACWIS, the primary repository for most case records, on a consistent basis.
To advance and accelerate progress toward meeting MSA requirements, defendants must have a clear strategy and a commitment to allocate the needed resources. The performance data reflected in this report suggest that different DFCS regions confront different service delivery challenges. It stands to reason that different regions may therefore require different resources. At this juncture, over half of the 13 regions in the state have fully implemented the Practice Model and by September of this year, 10 of the 13 regions will have fully implemented the model. Yet, to varying degrees, every region continues to struggle to deliver services consistently relative to the range of MSA requirements. Thus, there is a need not only to improve aggregate statewide performance, but there is also a need to achieve greater consistency in service delivery among the 13 regions.
Achieving this end will require skilled managers working across the state who are equipped by MDHS/DFCS management with the appropriate resources. Perhaps most importantly, this includes sufficient numbers of qualified and well trained caseworkers and supervisors. But it also includes resources such as timely management information in order to help managers understand how they are performing with respect to performance goals. Once regional managers are provided with the appropriate tools, defendants can more fairly and effectively rely on the performance management and CQI processes they have developed to hold managers accountable for producing results.
As the parties negotiate the Period 5 IP, they must consider the totality of evidence regarding defendants’ implementation of the Practice Model. There must be a specific and
222

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 229 of 251
credible strategy to enhance management systems and to allocate appropriate resources at the
regional level in order to deliver services that satisfy MSA requirements. The safety and well
being of the children in defendants’ custody depend on this.
The Monitor looks forward to addressing these matters with the Court and the parties at
the May 22, 2014 status hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
_________/ s / _______________________ Grace M. Lopes (MBN 45693 pro hac vice) Court Monitor 1220 19th Street, N.W. Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 232-8311 gmlopes@oymonitor.org
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on May 8, 2014, the Court Monitor’s Report to the Court Regarding Implementation Period 3 and the June 24, 2013 Order, was transmitted electronically to the following counsel of record in this matter:
Dewitt L. (“Rusty”) Fortenberry Jr. Kenya Key Rachal Ashley Tullos Young Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC 428 I-55 North Meadowbrook Office Park Jackson, Mississippi 39211
Harold E. Pizzetta, III Assistant Attorney General General Civil Division Carroll Gartin Justice Building 430 High Street Jackson, MS 39201
223

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 230 of 251
W. Wayne Drinkwater, Jr. BRADLEY ARANT ROSE & WHITE LLP 188 East Capital Street, Suite 450 Jackson, Mississippi 39201 Marcia Robinson Lowry Julia Davis Kathryn A. Wood CHILDREN’S RIGHTS 330 Seventh Avenue New York, New York 10001 John Lang John Piskora LOEB & LOEB LLP 345 Park Ave. New York, New York 10154
_________/ s / _______________
Grace M. Lopes
224

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 231 of 251

Index to Exhibits

Appendix A

App. A, Ex. 1 June 24, 2013 Order, Attachment Two

App. A, Ex. 2A Status of Data Reports Required By June 24, 2013 Order

App. A, Ex. 2B Guide to Reading Performance Charts

App. A, Ex. 3A

Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, During Trial Home Visit Period, Number of Children Who Met With Their Caseworker or Family Preservation Caseworker in the Home Twice in a One-Month Period or At Least Once Monthly if 15 Days or Less for 90 Days, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, By Region

App. A, Ex. 3B

Table with underlying data: During Trial Home Visit Period, Number of Children Who Met With Their Caseworker or Family Preservation Caseworker in the Home Twice in a One-Month Period or At Least Once Monthly if 15 Days or Less for 90 Days, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, By Region

App. A, Ex. 4A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Total Number of Maltreatment Investigations Open One or More Days During Period, By Region and Month

App. A, Ex. 4B Table with underlying data: Total Number of Maltreatment Investigations Open One or More Days During Period, By Region and Month

App. A, Ex. 5A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Maltreatment Investigations Initiated Within 24 Hours and Completed With Supervisory Approval Within 30 Days, by Month Investigation Initiated

App. A, Ex. 5B Table with underlying data: Maltreatment Investigations Initiated Within 24 Hours and Completed With Supervisory Approval Within 30 Days, by Month Investigation Initiated

App. A, Ex. 6A

Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children in Custody Remaining in the Same Placement Following Maltreatment Investigation Who Met Face-to-Face With Worker Twice in a One-Month Period or At Least Once if 15 Days or Less For Three Months Following Completed Maltreatment Investigation, By Region

App. A, Ex. 6B Table with underlying data: Children in Custody Remaining in the Same Placement Following Maltreatment Investigation Who Met Face-to-Face With Worker Twice in a One-Month Period or At Least Once if 15 Days

Index-1

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 232 of 251
or Less For Three Months Following Completed Maltreatment Investigation, By Region
App. A, Ex. 7A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children With a Goal of Reunification Whose Assigned Caseworker Met Monthly With the Parent(s) With Whom the Child Was to be Reunified, by Region
App. A, Ex. 7B Table with underlying data: Children With a Goal of Reunification Whose Assigned Caseworker Met Monthly With the Parent(s) With Whom the Child Was to be Reunified, by Region
App. A, Ex. 8A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Non-Therapeutic Placement Setting Contacts, By Region
App. A, Ex. 8B Table with underlying data: Non-Therapeutic Placement Setting Contacts, By Region
App. A, Ex. 9A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Content of NonTherapeutic Placement Setting Contacts, By Region
App. A, Ex. 9B Table with underlying data: Content of Non-Therapeutic Placement Setting Contacts, By Region
App. A, Ex. 10A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Therapeutic Placement Setting Contacts, By Region
App. A, Ex. 10B Table with underlying data: Therapeutic Placement Setting Contacts, By Region
App. A, Ex. 11A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Content of Therapeutic Placement Setting Contacts, By Region
App. A, Ex. 11B Table with underlying data: Content of Therapeutic Placement Setting Contacts, By Region
App. A, Ex. 12A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Rate of Maltreatment in Care, by Region
App. A, Ex. 12B Table with underlying data: Rate of Maltreatment in Care, by Region
App. A, Ex. 13A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Twice Monthly InPerson Visits With Child by Assigned Caseworkers, by Region
App. A, Ex. 13B Table with underlying data: Twice Monthly In-Person Visits With Child by Assigned Caseworkers, by Region
Index-2

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 233 of 251
App. A, Ex. 14A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Number of Supervisors Supervising One to Five and Six or More Caseworker, by Region
App. A, Ex. 14B Table with underlying data: Number of Supervisors Supervising One to Five and Six or More Caseworker, by Region
App. A, Ex. 15A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Caseworkers With Dedicated Caseloads Exceeding MSA Requirements, by Region
App. A, Ex. 15B Table with underlying data: Caseworkers With Dedicated Caseloads Exceeding MSA Requirements, by Region
App. A, Ex. 16A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Number of Individuals Who Started Caseworker Pre-Service Training, by Quarter and Training Completion Status
App. A, Ex. 16B Table with underlying data: Number of Individuals Who Started Caseworker Pre-Service Training, by Quarter and Training Completion Status
App. A, Ex. 17A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Number of Individuals Who Started Pre-Service Caseworker Supervisory Training, by Quarter and Training Completion Status
App. A, Ex. 17B Table with underlying data: Number of Individuals Who Started PreService Caseworker Supervisory Training, by Quarter and Training Completion Status
App. A, Ex. 18A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Number of Children in Custody Fewer Than 12 Months From Latest Removal From Home, by Number of Placements
App. A, Ex. 18B Table with underlying data: Number of Children in Custody Fewer Than 12 Months From Latest Removal From Home, by Number of Placements
App. A, Ex. 19A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Reunified With Parent or Caretaker In Under 12 Months From Latest Removal, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, By Region
App. A, Ex. 19B Table with underlying data: Children Reunified With Parent or Caretaker In Under 12 Months From Latest Removal, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, By Region
App. A, Ex. 20A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Length of Time Between Court Custody and Finalization of Adoption, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, By Region
Index-3

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 234 of 251
App. A, Ex. 20B Table with underlying data: Length of Time Between Court Custody and Finalization of Adoption, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, By Region
App. A, Ex. 21A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Ages 14-20 Receiving Independent Living Services of Any Kind, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, By Region
App. A, Ex. 21B Table with underlying data: Children Ages 14-20 Receiving Independent Living Services of Any Kind, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, By Region
App. A, Ex. 22A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Ages 14-20 Receiving Independent Living Services As Set Forth In Service Plan, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date and Region
App. A, Ex. 22B Table with underlying data: Children Ages 14-20 Receiving Independent Living Services As Set Forth In Service Plan, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date and Region
App. A, Ex. 23A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children With a Permanency Plan By Their 30th Day of Custody, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, By Region
App. A, Ex. 23B Table with underlying data: Children With a Permanency Plan By Their 30th Day of Custody, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, By Region
App. A, Ex. 24A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Who Had a Permanency Plan Developed Within 30 Days of Initial Placement Specifying Permanency Goal, A Timeframe, and Activities to Support the Goal of Permanency, by Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, by Region
App. A, Ex. 24B Table with underlying data: Children Who Had a Permanency Plan Developed Within 30 Days of Initial Placement Specifying Permanency Goal, A Timeframe, and Activities to Support the Goal of Permanency, by Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, by Region
App. A, Ex. 25A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Licensure Status of Relative and Non-Relative Foster Family Homes, By Region
App. A, Ex. 25B Table with underlying data: Licensure Status of Relative and Non-Relative Foster Family Homes, By Region
Index-4

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 235 of 251
App. A, Ex. 26A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Number of Relative and Non-Relative Resource Family Homes Pending Licensure With A Home Study Created, By Region
App. A, Ex. 26B Table with underlying data: Number of Relative and Non-Relative Resource Family Homes Pending Licensure With A Home Study Created, By Region
App. A, Ex. 27A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children in Foster Care By Placement Type, By Region
App. A, Ex. 27B Table with underlying data: Children in Foster Care By Placement Type, By Region
App. A, Ex. 28A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Placed in Unlicensed Foster Care Settings That Do Not Meet DFCS Licensure Standards and Children Placed in Expedited Pending Relative Resource Homes For More Than 90 Days
App. A, Ex. 28B Table with underlying data: Children Placed in Unlicensed Foster Care Settings That Do Not Meet DFCS Licensure Standards and Children Placed in Expedited Pending Relative Resource Homes For More Than 90 Days
App. A, Ex. 29A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Placed or Remaining In a Foster Care Setting Meeting DFCS Licensure Standards Consistent with MSA Requirements, Unless Ordered by the Youth Court Over DFCS Objections
App. A, Ex. 29B Table with underlying data: Children Placed or Remaining In a Foster Care Setting Meeting DFCS Licensure Standards Consistent with MSA Requirements, Unless Ordered by the Youth Court Over DFCS Objections
App. A, Ex. 30A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Entering Custody Who Received an Initial Health Screening Within 72 Hours of Entering Custody
App. A, Ex. 30B Table with underlying data: Children Entering Custody Who Received an Initial Health Screening Within 72 Hours of Entering Custody
App. A, Ex. 31A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children in Custody 30+ Days Who Received a Comprehensive Health Assessment Within 30 Days of Entering Custody
App. A, Ex. 31B Table with underlying data: Children in Custody 30+ Days Who Received a Comprehensive Health Assessment Within 30 Days of Entering Custody
Index-5

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 236 of 251
App. A, Ex. 32A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children in Custody for Six Months or More With an Administrative Review Every Six Months, by Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, by Region
App. A, Ex. 32B Table with underlying data: Children in Custody for Six Months or More With an Administrative Review Every Six Months, by Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, by Region
App. A, Ex. 33A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children in Custody for 12 Months or More With a Timely Permanency Hearing, by Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, by Region
App. A, Ex. 33B Table with underlying data: Children in Custody for 12 Months or More With a Timely Permanency Hearing, by Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, by Region
App. A, Ex. 34A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children in Custody at Least 17 of the Previous 22 Months For Whom a TPR Petition Was Filed or an Available ASFA Exception Has Been Documented by the Last Day of the Child's Seventeenth Month in Care, by Practice Model Fully Implemented Date and Region
App. A, Ex. 34B Table with underlying data: Children in Custody at Least 17 of the Previous 22 Months For Whom a TPR Petition Was Filed or an Available ASFA Exception Has Been Documented by the Last Day of the Child's Seventeenth Month in Care, by Practice Model Fully Implemented Date and Region
App. A, Ex. 35A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children in Custody at Least 17 of the Previous 22 Months Without a TPR Petition Filed or an Available ASFA Exception by the Last Day of the Child's Seventeenth Month in Care For Whom a TPR Petition Was Filed or an Available ASFA Exception Was Subsequently Documented, by Practice Model Fully Implemented Date and Region
App. A, Ex. 35B Table with underlying data: Children in Custody at Least 17 of the Previous 22 Months Without a TPR Petition Filed or an Available ASFA Exception by the Last Day of the Child's Seventeenth Month in Care For Whom a TPR Petition Was Filed or an Available ASFA Exception Was Subsequently Documented, by Practice Model Fully Implemented Date and Region
App. A, Ex. 36A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Child Contacts With Parents/Siblings Within 24 Hours of Custody, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, By Region
Index-6

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 237 of 251
App. A, Ex. 36B Table with underlying data: Child Contacts With Parents/Siblings Within 24 Hours of Custody, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, By Region
App. A, Ex. 37A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Sibling Groups Who Entered Custody At Or Around the Same Time Placed Together, By Region
App. A, Ex. 37B Table with underlying data: Sibling Groups Who Entered Custody At Or Around the Same Time Placed Together, By Region
App. A, Ex. 38A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children in Emergency Shelter or Temporary Facility for Over 45 Days With and Without Approval, By Region
App. A, Ex. 38B Table with underlying data: Children in Emergency Shelter or Temporary Facility for Over 45 Days With and Without Approval, By Region
App. A, Ex. 39A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Under Age 10 Housed in a Congregate Care Setting With and Without Exception and Regional Director Approval, By Region
App. A, Ex. 39B Table with underlying data: Children Under Age 10 Housed in a Congregate Care Setting With and Without Exception and Regional Director Approval, By Region
App. A, Ex. 40A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Number of Sibling Groups With At Least One Sibling Under Age 10 Placed in Congregate Care Housing For More Than 45 Days
App. A, Ex. 40B Table with underlying data: Number of Sibling Groups With At Least One Sibling Under Age 10 Placed in Congregate Care Housing For More Than 45 Days
App. A, Ex. 41A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Percentage of Children Who Entered DFCS Custody Who Were Placed Within Their Own County or Within 50 Miles of the Home From Which He/She Was Removed Consistent With MSA Requirements, by Region
App. A, Ex. 41B Table with underlying data: Percentage of Children Who Entered DFCS Custody Who Were Placed Within Their Own County or Within 50 Miles of the Home From Which He/She Was Removed Consistent With MSA Requirements, by Region
App. A, Ex. 42A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Who Had Family Team Meeting and Service Plan Reviewed and Updated Quarterly,
Index-7

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 238 of 251
Including Within 30 Days of Placement Change, by Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, by Region
App. A, Ex. 42B Table with underlying data: Children Who Had Family Team Meeting and Service Plan Reviewed and Updated Quarterly, Including Within 30 Days of Placement Change, by Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, by Region
App. A, Ex. 43A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children With a Goal of Reunification Who Have Documentation Reflecting Active Concurrent Permanency Planning, by Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, by Region
App. A, Ex. 43B Table with underlying data: Children With a Goal of Reunification Who Have Documentation Reflecting Active Concurrent Permanency Planning, by Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, by Region
App. A, Ex. 44A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Percentage of Foster Children Transitioning to Independence Who Have Available An Adequate Living Arrangement, a Source of Income, Health Care, Independent Living Stipends, and Education and Training Vouchers, by Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, by Region
App. A, Ex. 44B Table with underlying data: Percentage of Foster Children Transitioning to Independence Who Have Available An Adequate Living Arrangement, a Source of Income, Health Care, Independent Living Stipends, and Education and Training Vouchers, by Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, by Region
App. A, Ex. 45A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Appropriateness of Permanency Goal for Children with Permanency Goals of DLC Guardianship, APPLA, Living Independently, Long Term Foster Care or Permanent Foster Care, by Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, by Region
App. A, Ex. 45B Table with underlying data: Appropriateness of Permanency Goal for Children with Permanency Goals of DLC Guardianship, APPLA, Living Independently, Long Term Foster Care or Permanent Foster Care, by Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, by Region
App. A, Ex. 46A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children With a Diagnosis of Developmental and/or Emotional/Behavioral/Mental Health Problems That Were Provided With a Treatment Plan and Services Tied to the Plan, by Region
Index-8

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 239 of 251
App. A, Ex. 46B Table with underlying data: Children With a Diagnosis of Developmental and/or Emotional/Behavioral/Mental Health Problems That Were Provided With a Treatment Plan and Services Tied to the Plan, by Region
App. A, Ex. 47A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Ages 0-3 Receiving a Timely Developmental Assessment and Necessary Follow-Up Services, by Region
App. A, Ex. 47B Table with underlying data: Children Ages 0-3 Receiving a Timely Developmental Assessment and Necessary Follow-Up Services, by Region
App. A, Ex. 48A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Percentage of Children Four Years Old or Older Entering Custody During the Period Who Received A Mental Health Assessment Within 30 Days of Placement, by Region
App. A, Ex. 48B Table with underlying data: Percentage of Children Four Years Old or Older Entering Custody During the Period Who Received A Mental Health Assessment Within 30 Days of Placement, by Region
App. A, Ex. 49A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Age 3 and Older Who Entered Custody and Received a Dental Examination Within 90 Days, by Region
App. A, Ex. 49B Table with underlying data: Children Age 3 and Older Who Entered Custody and Received a Dental Examination Within 90 Days, by Region
App. A, Ex. 50A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Ages Three and Older at the Start of the Period Under Review Who Were Provided a Dental Exam Every Six Months, by Region
App. A, Ex. 50B Table with underlying data: Children Ages Three and Older at the Start of the Period Under Review Who Were Provided a Dental Exam Every Six Months, by Region
App. A, Ex. 51A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Percentage of Children Turning Three Years Old During the Period Under Review Who Received a Dental Examination Within 90 Calendar Days of Their Third Birthday, by Region
App. A, Ex. 51B Table with underlying data: Percentage of Children Turning Three Years Old During the Period Under Review Who Received a Dental Examination Within 90 Calendar Days of Their Third Birthday, by Region
Index-9

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 240 of 251
App. A, Ex. 52A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Receiving Periodic Medical Examinations and All Medically Necessary Follow-Up Services and Treatment, by Region
App. A, Ex. 52B Table with underlying data: Children Receiving Periodic Medical Examinations and All Medically Necessary Follow-Up Services and Treatment, by Region
App. A, Ex. 53A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Percentage of Children With a Comprehensive Family Assessment Completed Within 30 Days of Being Taken Into Custody Consistent With MSA Requirements, by Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, by Region
App. A, Ex. 53B Table with underlying data: Percentage of Children With a Comprehensive Family Assessment Completed Within 30 Days of Being Taken Into Custody Consistent With MSA Requirements, by Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, by Region
App. A, Ex. 54A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Who Had Their Educational Record Reviewed Timely for General and Special Education Needs, by Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, by Region
App. A, Ex. 54B Table with underlying data: Children Who Had Their Educational Record Reviewed Timely for General and Special Education Needs, by Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, by Region
App. A, Ex. 55A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children With Special Needs Matched to a Placement That Can Meet Their Therapeutic and Medical Needs, by Region
App. A, Ex. 55B Table with underlying data: Children With Special Needs Matched to a Placement That Can Meet Their Therapeutic and Medical Needs, by Region
App. A, Ex. 56A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Placed in Least Restrictive Setting That Meets Their Individual Needs, by Region
App. A, Ex. 56B Table with underlying data: Children Placed in Least Restrictive Setting That Meets Their Individual Needs, by Region
App. A, Ex. 57A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Percentage of Children Who Enter Custody Or Change Placements Who Are Registered For And Attending School Within Three Days of Entering Custody or The Placement Change, by Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, by Region
Index-10

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 241 of 251

App. A, Ex. 57B Table with underlying data: Percentage of Children Who Enter Custody Or Change Placements Who Are Registered For And Attending School Within Three Days of Entering Custody or The Placement Change, by Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, by Region

App. A, Ex. 58A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Percentage of Children Whose Placement Was at Risk of Disruption at the Time of PAD Completion for Whom DFCS Took All Reasonable Steps to Avoid the Disruption and Ensure Placement Stability, by Region

App. A, Ex. 58B Table with underlying data: Percentage of Children Whose Placement Was at Risk of Disruption at the Time of PAD Completion for Whom DFCS Took All Reasonable Steps to Avoid the Disruption and Ensure Placement Stability, by Region

App. A, Ex. 59A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children for Whom Their Resource Parents or Facility Staff Were Provided the Foster Care Information Form Within 15 Days of Placement, by Region

App. A, Ex. 59B Table with underlying data: Children for Whom Their Resource Parents or Facility Staff Were Provided the Foster Care Information Form Within 15 Days of Placement, by Region

App. A, Ex. 60

Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Relative Regional Performance With Respect to 26 Statewide Performance Reports, by Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, as of June 30, 2013

App. A, Ex. 61

Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Relative Regional Performance With Respect to 26 Statewide Performance Reports, by Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, as of September 30, 2013

Appendix B Ex. 1 Ex. 2A
Ex. 2B Ex. 2C

Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, September 2012, redacted excerpt
February 14, 2013 e-mail to Grace M. Lopes from Ginger Gibson with attached work plans for diligent recruitment, policy, training, caseload staffing, legal and judicial, resource development, and finance sub-teams, redacted
February 23, 2013 e-mail to Grace M. Lopes from Ginger Gibson with attached work plan for CQI sub-team, redacted
July 8, 2013 e-mail to Mia Caras from Ginger Gibson with attached work plan for MACWIS sub-team
Index-11

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 242 of 251

Ex. 3 Ex. 4A Ex. 4B Ex. 4C Ex. 5A Ex. 5B Ex. 5C Ex. 5D Ex. 5E Ex. 5F Ex. 5G Ex. 5H
Ex. 5I
Ex. 5J
Ex. 5K

Mississippi, Division of Family and Children’s Services (“DFCS”) Policy, Section D, Foster Care, Revised 7-22-13, §VII.B.4.c. and d.
December 3, 2012 correspondence to Miriam Ingber from Kenya Key Rachal
January 2, 2013 correspondence to Miriam Ingber from Kenya Key Rachal
February 1, 2013 correspondence to Miriam Ingber from Kenya Key Rachal
September 4, 2013 e-mail to Grace M. Lopes from Kenya Rachal
October 2, 2013 correspondence to Miriam Ingber from Kenya Key Rachal
September 3, 2013 correspondence to Miriam Ingber from Ashley C. Tullos
November 1, 2013 correspondence to Miriam Ingber from Kenya Key Rachal
December 2, 2013 correspondence to Julia Davis from Kenya Key Rachal
December 6, 2013 correspondence to Julia Davis from Kenya Key Rachal
December 20, 2013 correspondence to Julia Davis from Kenya Key Rachal
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Caseworkers with Mixed Caseloads Meeting MSA Requirements, by Region, One-Day Snapshot 11/1/13
January 24, 2014 correspondence to Grace Lopes from Kenya Key Rachal with supplemental information to correct caseworker mixed caseload data reports and explanation of ASWS appearance on mixed caseload report, redacted
Division of Family and Children’s Services, Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) Sub Team Quarterly Report (July 2012 – October 2012), redacted excerpt
Continuous Quality Improvement Sub Team Meetings, Meeting Minutes, October 2, 2012, redacted
Index-12

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 243 of 251

Ex. 5L
Ex. 5M Ex. 5N Ex. 5O
Ex. 6A Ex. 6B
Ex. 6C Ex. 7 Ex. 8A
Ex. 8B Ex. 8C
Ex. 8D Ex. 8E Ex. 8F Ex. 8G

Division of Family and Children’s Services, Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) Sub Team Quarterly Report (February 21, 2013 through June 30, 2013), redacted excerpt
February 3, 2014 correspondence to Julia Davis from Kenya Key Rachal
February 7, 2014 e-mail to Kenya Rachal from Grace M. Lopes
February 25, 2014 e-mail to Grace M. Lopes and Julia Davis from Kenya Rachal with annotated February 24, 2014 e-mail to Kenya Rachal and Julia Davis from Grace M. Lopes, redacted
September 18, 2013 correspondence to Miriam Ingber from Kenya Key Rachal
January 16, 2014 correspondence to Rebecca Tedesco from Mark A. Smith, redacted, with attached excerpt from The Court Monitor’s Status Report to the Court Regarding Progress During Period Three
February 26, 2014 correspondence to Mark Smith from Rebecca Tedesco, redacted
DHS-Area Social Work Supervisor Position Description for Hancock County, January 10, 2014
Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children Services (MDHS/DFCS), Workforce Development Plan, Phase I, Harrison, Hancock, Jackson, & Hinds Counties, redacted
October 1, 2012 e-mail to Mark Smith from Grace M. Lopes, redacted
Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children Services (MDHS/DFCS), Workforce Development Plan, April 2013, redacted
August 14, 2013 e-mail to Kenya Rachal and Miriam Ingber from Grace M. Lopes
October 9, 2013 e-mail to Kenya Rachal and Miriam Ingber from Grace M. Lopes
October 15, 2013 e-mail to Kenya Rachal and Miriam Ingber from Grace M. Lopes
Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children Services (DFCS) Workforce Development Plan, April 2013, Revised November 2013, redacted
Index-13

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 244 of 251

Ex. 8H Ex. 9A Ex. 9B Ex. 10
Ex. 11 Ex. 12 Ex. 13 Ex. 14 Ex. 15A Ex. 15B Ex. 16 Ex. 17A Ex. 17B Ex. 17C Ex. 17D Ex. 17E

November 18, 2013 e-mail to Kenya Rachal and Julia Davis from Grace M. Lopes
Social Work Aide, Position Description, Revised, June 2006
DHS-Case Aide Job Description, February 26, 2014
Strategies for Promoting Implementation of the Olivia Y. Standards in the Mississippi Youth Courts, with attached correspondence to the Honorable Elise Epperson Deana, the Honorable Sanford R. Steckler, the Honorable Sharon Sigalas, the Honorable Margaret Alfonso, and the Honorable William Skinner from Mary Fuller, redacted
September 28, 2012 e-mail to Mark Smith from Grace M. Lopes
State of Mississippi, Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children’s Services, Youth Court Strategies Plan, redacted
Description of DFCS In-Service Training Program
In-Service Training Schedule, June 2013 - June 2014, redacted
October 3, 2013 correspondence to Miriam Ingber from Kenya Key Rachal, redacted
November 1, 2013 correspondence to Miriam Ingber from Kenya Key Rachal
DFCS Tracking Spreadsheets for In-Service Training, redacted
November 20, 2012 e-mail to Wendy Benoit from Mia Caras and November 20, 2012 e-mail to Mia Caras from Wendy Benoit
Agreement between the Mississippi Department of Human Services and Catholic Charities, Inc., redacted
Agreement between the Mississippi Department of Human Services and Starkville School District
Agreement between the Mississippi Department of Human Services and Southern Christian Services for Children and Youth, Inc., redacted
Agreement between the Mississippi Department of Human Services and Mississippi Children’s Home Society
Index-14

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 245 of 251

Ex. 17F Ex. 17G Ex. 17H Ex. 18A Ex. 18B Ex. 18C Ex. 18D Ex. 18E Ex. 18F Ex. 18G Ex. 18H

Agreement between the Mississippi Department of Human Services and Family Resource Center of Northeast Mississippi
Agreement between the Mississippi Department of Human Services and Southern Christian Services for Children and Youth, Inc.
Agreement between the Mississippi Department of Human Services and Catholic Charities, Inc.
State of Mississippi, Mississippi Department of Human Services, Contract for Personal or Professional Services between the Division of Family and Children’s Services, Mississippi Department of Human Services and Sunnybrook Children’s Home, Inc., July 1, 2013 - June 30, 2014
State of Mississippi, Mississippi Department of Human Services, Contract for Personal or Professional Services between the Division of Family and Children’s Services, Mississippi Department of Human Services and Pine Vale Children’s Home, July 1, 2013 - June 30, 2014
State of Mississippi, Mississippi Department of Human Services, Contract for Personal or Professional Services between the Division of Family and Children’s Services, Mississippi Department of Human Services and Impact Missions, Inc., July 1, 2013 - June 30, 2014
State of Mississippi, Mississippi Department of Human Services, Contract for Personal or Professional Services between the Division of Family and Children’s Services, Mississippi Department of Human Services and Gardner-Simmons Home for Girls, Inc., July 1, 2013 - June 30, 2014
State of Mississippi, Mississippi Department of Human Services, Contract for Personal or Professional Services between the Division of Family and Children’s Services, Mississippi Department of Human Services and Berean Children’s Home, Inc., July 1, 2013 - June 30, 2014
State of Mississippi, Mississippi Department of Human Services, Contract for Personal or Professional Services between the Division of Family and Children’s Services, Mississippi Department of Human Services and Christians in Action, Inc., July 1, 2013 - June 30, 2014
State of Mississippi, Mississippi Department of Human Services, Contract for Personal or Professional Services between the Division of Family and Children’s Services, Mississippi Department of Human Services and Sally Kate Winters Family Services, July 1, 2013 - June 30, 2014
State of Mississippi, Mississippi Department of Human Services, Contract for Personal or Professional Services between the Division of Family and
Index-15

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 246 of 251

Ex. 18I
Ex. 18J
Ex. 19A Ex. 19B Ex. 20 Ex. 21 Ex. 22 Ex. 23A Ex. 23B Ex. 24
Ex. 25A Ex. 25B Ex. 25C Ex. 26A

Children’s Services, Mississippi Department of Human Services and Mississippi Children’s Home Society, July 1, 2013 - June 30, 2014
State of Mississippi, Mississippi Department of Human Services, Contract for Personal or Professional Services between the Division of Family and Children’s Services, Mississippi Department of Human Services and Hope Village for Children, Inc., July 1, 2013 - June 30, 2014
State of Mississippi, Mississippi Department of Human Services, Contract for Personal or Professional Services between the Division of Family and Children’s Services, Mississippi Department of Human Services and Faith Haven, Inc., July 1, 2013 - June 30, 2014
Performance Based Contracting, May 31, 2013, PBC Plan, redacted
January 16, 2014 e-mail to Debbie Brewer from Grace M. Lopes and December 10, 2013 e-mail to Grace M. Lopes from Debbie Brewer
MDHS Division of Family and Children’s Services, Safety, Permanency, and Well-Being, Continuous Quality Improvement Review Instrument
Mississippi Division of Family and Children’s Services, Continuous Quality Improvement Plan, July 2012, redacted
November 5, 2013 e-mail to Grace M. Lopes from Robert Hamrick
Vacancy Announcement, Mississippi State Personnel Board, DHSFamily Protection Spec[ialist], Adv[anced]
Memorandum, Mississippi Department of Human Services, April 11, 2012, In-House Promotional Opportunities
Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children’s Services, Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) Annual CQI Report, redacted
Region 3-South, Continuous Quality Improvement Baseline Report, August 2011, redacted
Region 3-South, Continuous Quality Improvement Annual Follow-Up Report, September 2012, redacted
Region 3-South, Continuous Quality Improvement Annual Report, October 2013, redacted
Foster Care Review (“FCR”) Corrective Action Spreadsheet (submitted on February 13, 2013), redacted
Index-16

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 247 of 251

Ex. 26B Ex. 27A Ex. 27B Ex. 28 Ex. 29 Ex. 30A Ex. 30B Ex. 31A
Ex. 31B Ex. 32 Ex. 33 Ex. 34

FCR Corrective Action Spreadsheet (submitted on July 29, 2013) , redacted
Mississippi, DFCS Policy, Section D, Foster Care, Revised 7-22-13, §VII.D.1.
MACWIS Technical Assistance Bulletin, July 22, 2013, Issue #16, redacted
Financial Assessment Findings and Recommendations, May 2011, Mississippi Department of Human Services Division of Family and Children’s Services, Hornby Zeller Associates, Inc.
Agreement Regarding the Enhancement of Federal Funding, July 12, 2012 [Dkt. No. 573]
State of Mississippi, Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children’s Services, Mississippi FY 2011 Annual Progress and Services Report, submitted June 30, 2012, excerpt
State of Mississippi, Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children’s Services, Mississippi FY 2012 Annual Progress and Services Report, submitted June 26, 2013, redacted excerpt
July 8, 2013 correspondence to Miriam Ingber from Kenya Key Rachal with attached documents: Report on Impact of Hornby Zeller Associates’ (HZA) Recommendations, Agreement Regarding the Enhancement of Federal Funding, Responses to Requirements of the Modified Settlement Agreement (MSA) and Implementation Plan for Period 3 (Y3IP), Status Report on Implementation of Agreement Regarding the Enhancement of Federal Funding Filed with the Court on July 12, 2012, and State Fund Appropriations by Year, redacted
Spreadsheet, submitted on January 8, 2014 by MDHS/DFCS division of budget and financial planning: current and retroactive claims for federal reimbursement and revenue received for calendar years 2009-2013
State of Mississippi, Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children’s Services, Mississippi FY 2012 Annual Progress and Services Report, submitted June 26, 2013, redacted excerpt
State of Mississippi, Department of Human Services Cost Allocation Plan, Effective July 2, 2012, excerpt, Appendix C: Random Moment Sampling
February 13, 2013 correspondence to Earl D. Walker, Director, Division of Budgets and Accounting, Mississippi Department of Human Services,
Index-17

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 248 of 251

Ex. 35A Ex. 35B
Ex. 36 Ex. 37 Ex. 38A Ex. 38B Ex. 39 Ex. 40
Ex. 41A Ex. 41B Ex. 42 Ex. 43A Ex. 43B Ex. 43C

from Arif Karim, Director, Division of Cost Allocation, United States Department of Health and Human Services
March 27, 2013 correspondence to Richard A. Berry from Joseph J. Bock, redacted
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Mississippi Title IV-E Foster Care Program Administrative Cost Review Pilot Final Report, On-Site Review May 711, 2012, excerpt
November 2, 2012 correspondence to Miriam Ingber from Ashley Christin Tullos
June 20, 2013 correspondence to Miriam Ingber from Ashley Christin Tullos
Periodic Administrative Determination (“PAD”) Q11, excerpted from the automated version of the PAD, July 25, 2012
FCR Periodic Administrative Determination Reference Guide, excerpt
Mississippi, DFCS Policy, Section D, Foster Care, Revised 7-22-13, §VII.D.4.d.-e.
May 28, 2013 e-mail to Miriam Ingber and Grace M. Lopes from Gwen Long with attached Termination of Parental Rights Remediation Plan, May 2013, redacted
Mississippi, DFCS Policy, Section D, Foster Care, Revised 7-22-13, §VII.D.5.
Mississippi, DFCS Policy, Section D, Foster Care, Revised 5-29-13, §VII.D.5.d.
December 6, 2013 e-mail to Kenya Key Rachal from Grace M. Lopes with attached December 6, 2013 e-mail to Grace M. Lopes from Mark Jordan
October 9, 2013 correspondence to Onetta S. Whitley, Deputy Attorney General, from M. Earl Scales, Assistant Attorney General, redacted
Tracking Form Maintained by DFCS Termination of Parental Rights (“TPR”) Coordinator, redacted
Unresolved FCR Overdue TPR Packets, June 2012-February 2014, redacted
Index-18

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 249 of 251

Ex. 43D Ex. 44A
Ex. 44B Ex. 44C Ex. 44D Ex. 45A Ex. 45B Ex. 45C Ex. 45D Ex. 45E
Ex. 46
Ex. 47 Ex. 48 Ex. 49 Ex. 50A
Ex. 50B

TPR Tracking System Maintained by DFCS TPR Coordinator, Updated as of March 25, 2014, redacted
MDHS Division of Family & Children’s Services, Mississippi PATH (Parents as Tender Healers), A Curriculum for Foster, Adoptive and Kinship Care Parents (Resource Families), redacted excerpt
Mississippi, DFCS Policy, Section D, Foster Care, Revised 7-22-13, §VII.C.5.b.
Mississippi, DFCS Policy, Section G, Adoption Services, Revised 5-3-12, §V.A.
Resource Family Procedures Manual, redacted excerpts
Job Content Questionnaire, Adoption Specialist, MDHS/DFCS
Mississippi State Personnel Board, Performance Appraisal Review Report, SPB Form 800-3, Revised April 2012, Adoption Specialist
Initial Planning Meeting (Adoption Status Meeting), DFCS Form 7/10/12
Mississippi, DFCS Policy, Section G, Adoption Services, Revised 5-13-12, §IV.2.C.
Resource Family Procedures Manual, excerpt, Adoptive Placements and Legal Risk Adoptive Placements; Legal Risk Adoptive Placement Agreement, redacted
State of Mississippi, Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children’s Services, Section B: Intake/Assessment Policy, revised 7-22-13
May 4, 2012 e-mail to Kenya Rachal from Grace M. Lopes with attached May 4, 2012 e-mail to Grace M. Lopes from Mia Caras, redacted
June 4, 2013 correspondence to Grace M. Lopes from Kenya Key Rachal
DFCS Licensure Investigations Protocol, redacted
November 5, 2013 e-mail to Grace M. Lopes from Gwen Long with attached Child Fatality Review, revision submitted November 5, 2013, redacted
Child Fatality Review, submitted July 8, 2013, redacted

Index-19

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 250 of 251

Ex. 50C Ex. 50D Ex. 51A Ex. 51B Ex. 51C Ex. 52 Ex. 53 Ex. 54 Ex. 55A Ex. 55B Ex. 56
Ex. 57
Ex. 58A Ex. 58B Ex. 59A

September 26, 2013 e-mail to Kenya Rachal and Miriam Ingber from Grace M. Lopes, redacted
November 18, 2013 e-mail to Kenya Rachal and Julia Davis from Grace M. Lopes
DFCS CQI Maltreatment in Care Review Process, redacted
Safety Review Unit, Maltreatment in Care Review Instrument, Revised 02-21-2014
January 20, 2014 e-mail to Grace M. Lopes and Mia Caras from Robert Hamrick
Mississippi, DFCS Policy, Section D, Foster Care, Revised 7-22-13, §V.G.1.d.
February 25, 2014 e-mail to Kenya Rachal from Mark Jordan with attached redacted specification for MACWIS Report SLS51D
Mississippi, DFCS Policy, Section D, Foster Care, Revised 7-22-13, §V.B.
Mississippi, DFCS Policy, Section D, Foster Care, Revised 7-22-13, §VII.A.1.
Mississippi, DFCS Policy, Section D, Foster Care, Revised 7-22-13, Appendix F, Sample Foster Child Information Form
Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children’s Services, Permanency Planning and Placement Unit/Congregate Care, Changes to the Therapeutic Placement Process (without attachments)
Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children Services, Resource Development Unit, Physical, Dental, and Mental Health Services Plan
Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children Services, Educational Plan
Special Education Advocacy, Children in Foster Care, redacted
Mississippi Department of Human Services, Resource Guide for Living Independently in Mississippi, Revised 2012

Index-20

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 604 Filed 05/08/14 Page 251 of 251

Ex. 59B Ex. 59C Ex. 60A
Ex. 60B Ex. 60C
Ex. 60D Ex. 61A
Ex. 61B Ex. 62A Ex. 62B Ex. 62C Ex. 62D Ex. 62E

Texas Foster Youth Justice Project, A Guide for Those “Aging Out” of Foster Care in Texas, Second Edition, excerpt
Resource Guide Implementation (without attachments)
Appendix “D” Modified Mississippi Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan, Mississippi Diligent Recruitment of Families for Children, Implementation Plan – Phase II, Version A
May 30, 2013 correspondence to Bernard Morgan and Taffy B. Compain from Richard A. Berry, redacted
Program and Budget Narrative, excerpt from May 30, 2013 grant renewal application for HHS-2011-ACF-CONT-ACYF-CB-CO, Diligent Recruitment of Families for Children in the Foster Care System in the State of Mississippi; Grant No. 90CO1052
Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families, Notice of Award, September 18, 2013
Mississippi PATH, Parents as Tender Healers, Resource Applicant Handbook, Revised, February 2012 (cover page and table of contents) , redacted
Summary of updates to the PATH Handbook, distributed February 2012, redacted
January 10, 2014 e-mail from Grace M. Lopes to Kenya Rachal and Julia Davis, without attachments
Abuse/Neglect/Maltreatment in Care, DHS 356905-356910
January 17, 2014 e-mail to Grace M. Lopes and Julia Davis from Kenya Rachal
February 6, 2014 e-mail to Grace M. Lopes from Kenya Rachal
February 28, 2014 e-mail to Grace M. Lopes and Julia Davis from Kenya Rachal, redacted

Index-21

 
 Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 618-1 Filed 12/23/14 Page 1 of 8
EXHIBIT 1

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 618-1 Filed 12/23/14 Page 2 of 8
Modified Mississippi Settlement Agreement And Reform Plan Period 5 Implementation Plan
PERIOD 5 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
This is the Period 5 Implementation Plan required by Section I.D. of the Modified Mississippi Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan (the "Modified Settlement Agreement" or "MSA") (Dkt. No. 571). Period 5 shall run for a 12-month period beginning on July 7, 2014. Defendants shall substantially comply with the Period 5 Implementation Plan requirements by the end of Period 5, or as specified therein.
I. Reform Planning and Implementation
A. Pursuant to Section I.E. of the MSA, the Parties, working with the Monitor, shall begin to negotiate the Period 6 Implementation Plan by April 7, 2015.
II. Administration and Management Implementation Steps
A. Human Resources Management
1. By Sept. 1, 2014, Defendants will have formed Data, Monitoring, Administration, Fiscal and Practice Subcommittees to aid with the process of developing and implementing a performance-based contracting ("PBC ") system.
2. The Subcommittees described in Paragraph II.A.1. above will be comprised of MDHS-DFCS representatives and appropriate and related agency representatives.
3. Defendants shall maintain Regional Implementation Teams ("RIT") in all Regions. The RITs shall be chaired by the respective Regional Directors and the membership will consist of appropriate staff persons and may also include representatives of other state agencies or stakeholders the Statewide Implementation Team ("SIT") has deemed necessary to carry out the Team's function. The RITS shall meet no less frequently than quarterly and shall issue progress reports to the SIT no less frequently than quarterly. These reports shall discuss accomplishments, challenges, and anticipated next steps. The RITS will include Sub-Teams in the following practice areas: Continuous Quality Improvement ("CQI") and Resource Parent Recruitment and Retention.
4. No later than Nov. 15, 2014, Defendants will retain a technical assistance consultant to work with Defendants in developing performance-based contracts in the areas of emergency shelters, regular group homes, therapeutic group homes and therapeutic resource homes.
5. By November 1, 2014, Defendants will have in place an executed contract with Chapin Hall/Center for State Child Welfare Data ("Chapin Hall") for membership in the State Data Center.
Page 1 of7

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 618-1 Filed 12/23/14 Page 3 of 8
Modified Mississippi Settlement Agreement And Reform Plan Period 5 Implementation Plan
6. By November 1, 2014, Defendants will provide Chapin Hall with the MACWIS data files needed for developing the analytic files that will provide the information necessary to guide the development of the PBC strategy and timeframes.
7. By February 15, 2015, Defendants shall contract with Chapin Hall for the research and data analysis necessary to develop a PBC strategy and timeline that are informed by the information provided through the data analysis performed by Chapin Hall.
8. Defendants' contract with Chapin Hall shall require delivery of the analytic data files needed to guide the PBC strategy and time frames to DFCS no later than February 28, 2015.
9. By May 31, 2015, Defendants, in collaboration with the technical assistance consultant and Chapin Hall, will complete a written strategy for executing performance-based contracts with foster care placement providers that is guided by and based on the information generated by the analytic data files. The data in the analytic files will be used to develop the baselines, performance standards, outcomes, and any other measurable indicators necessary for developing the strategy.
10. Not later than June 15, 2015, Defendants and the technical assistance consultant will provide the Monitor with the scope of services for the emergency shelter providers request for proposals ("RFP"). The proposed scope of services developed by the Defendants and technical assistance consultant shall contain standards, required reporting and monitoring as well as a method for incentivizing required performance which shall be incorporated into each of the contracts. While the method for incentivizing required performance may be phased in and/or adjusted over time, its initial implementation shall commence upon the contract effective date.
11. By August 1, 2015, Defendants will 1ssue an RFP for emergency shelter providers.
12. By December, 1, 2015, Defendants will have signed performance-based contracts with emergency shelter providers. These contracts shall become effective no later than December 1, 2015.
13. Not later than October 1, 2015, Defendants and the technical assistance consultant will provide the Monitor with the scope of services provisions for the RFPs for regular group home providers, therapeutic group home providers and therapeutic resource home providers. The proposed scope of services developed by the Defendants and technical assistance consultant shall contain standards, required reporting and monitoring as well as a method for incentivizing required performance which shall be incorporated into each of the contracts. While the
Page 2 of7

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 618-1 Filed 12/23/14 Page 4 of 8
Modified Mississippi Settlement Agreement And Reform Plan Period 5 Implementation Plan
method for incentivizing required performance may be phased in and/or adjusted over time, its initial implementation shall commence upon the contract effective date.
14. By January 1, 2016, Defendants will issue RFPs for performance-based contracts for regular group home providers, therapeutic group home providers, and therapeutic resource home providers.
15. By March 1, 2016, Defendants will have signed performance-based contracts with regular group home providers, therapeutic group home providers, and therapeutic resource home providers. These contracts shall become effective no later than March 1, 2016.
B. Continuous Quality Improvement
1. Defendants shall continue to implement and maintain a CQI system in accordance with MSA Section II.A.3.
2. Defendants shall continue to produce CQI Review Reports within 60 business days of completing each CQI Review, based on the following schedule:
a) By September 1, 2014, Defendants shall complete a second follow-up CQI Review for Region III-North.
c) By September 1, 2014, Defendants shall complete a third follow-up CQI Review for Region IV-North.
d) By October 1, 2014, Defendants shall complete a third follow-up CQI Review for Region IV-South.
e) By November 1, 2014, Defendants shall complete a third follow-up CQI Review for Region III-South.
f) By December 1, 2014, Defendants shall complete a third follow-up CQI Review for Region I-North.
g) By January 1, 2015, Defendants shall complete a second follow-up CQI Review for Region VII-West.
h) By February 1, 2015, Defendants shall complete a second follow-up CQI Review for Region VI.
i) By March 1, 2015, Defendants shall complete a second follow-up CQI Review for Region II-East.
Page 3 of7

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 618-1 Filed 12/23/14 Page 5 of 8
Modified Mississippi Settlement Agreement And Reform Plan Period 5 Implementation Plan
j) By April 1, 2015, Defendants shall complete a fourth follow-up CQI Review for Region V-West.
k) By May 1, 2015, Defendants shall complete a third follow-up CQI Review for Region Y-East.
1) By June 1, 2015, Defendants shall complete a third follow-up CQI Review for Region VII-East.
3. By the end of Period 5, Defendants will further clarify the policy regarding compliance with the public child fatality reporting requirements of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment and Adoption Reform Act regarding the circumstances that would trigger transmission of the required information to the Deputy Director, the relevant timeline, and the Deputy Director's obligations with respect to release of the information that falls within the statutory exception.
C. Information Management and Use
1. By January 30, 2015, the Parties will have documented identifiable remaining gaps in reporting required under the Period 3 and Period 4 Implementation Plans and appendices and the Parties will have come to agreement on how each gap in reporting will be addressed in forthcoming reporting and the deadlines for such reporting. 1
2. Except as modified by the gap agreement referenced in Section II.C.l. above, Defendants shall continue to disseminate reports set forth in Attachment 1 and 2 of the Initial IP4 Plan and Appendix 3 of the Final IP4 Plan.
3. By June 1, 2015, the Monitor shall produce a report to the Pa1iies on the results of a case record review which shall measure Defendants' performance related to: the maintaining of complete records; the provision of physical health, dental, mental and behavioral health assessments and services; and educational continuity as required by MSA Sections III.B.4.a; II.B.3 .a and b; II.B.3.f and g; II.B.4.a; II.B.3.d; II.B.2.e; and III.B.6.c (the "Health and Education Care Case Record Review").
a) The Monitor shall work in consultation with the parties and any subject matter experts she deems appropriate on the design of the case record review, including the formulation of a data collection instrument to guide the review. The case record review shall be conducted by the Monitor, in collaboration with Defendants. The Defendants shall assign a sufficient number of staff experienced in case reviews to work with the Monitor on this project.
1 As documented in the data reconciliation table of August 22,2014, and subsequent, related electronic conespondence, the parties recognize that certain information cannot be cunently captured by MACWIS data or FCR PAD reports. The parties agree that this information may be reported on through other means such as a case record review and such reporting may not be available retrospectively or on a monthly basis.
Page 4 of7

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 618-1 Filed 12/23/14 Page 6 of 8
Mod ified Mississippi Settlement Agreement And Refo r m Plan Period 5 Implementation Plan
b) Within 45 days of receipt of the Monitor's final report on the results of the case record review, Defendants shall develop and submit a plan and timeline for reporting on the physical health, dental, mental, and behavioral health assessment and services required by MSA Section II.B.3 .a and b; II.B.3.f and g; and II.B.3.d. (the "Health Care Reporting Plan") to Plaintiffs and to the Monitor for the Monitor's review and approval.
c) Defendants shall implement the Health Care Reporting Plan following the Monitor's approval.
4. By October 1, 2014, Defendants will hire a Lead Programmer/Analyst and a Senior Programmer/Analyst who will focus on the new SACWIS system
III. Foster Care Service Standards
A. Child Safety
1. By December 23, 2014, Defendants shall submit a letter describing their implementation of the activities contained in their MIC Timeliness Letter required under the Final Period 4 Implementation Plan Section III.A.1.
2. By December 23 , 2014, Defendants shall submit a letter describing their implementation of the activities contained in their MIC Reduction Letter required under the Final Period 4 Implementation Plan Section III.A.2.
B. Child and Youth Permanency
1. By December 23, 2014, Defendants shall conduct an analysis of the existing tracking system for the timeliness of all TPR Petitions.
2. By December 23, 2014, Defendants shall provide to Plaintiffs and the Monitor a letter outlining steps for implementing improvements in the tracking system, addressing necessary staffing, technologies and protocols necessary to establish a single, centralized process including reporting within DFCS for tracking the timeliness of all TPR petitions (the "TPR Letter"). Defendants will implement the improvements contained in the TPR Letter by the end of Period 5.
3. By May 1, 2015, Defendants will revise policy to require staff to document in the child's record, notification to all potential adoptive families and any resource family caring for a child who has become legally available for adoption, of the availability of adoption subsidies.
4. During Period 5, Defendants shall maintain a Medical-Mental Health Specialist whose job responsibility will be to develop and coordinate a broader and more geographically diverse array of physical, dental, and mental health services available to foster children.
Page 5 of7

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 618-1 Filed 12/23/14 Page 7 of 8
Modified Mississippi Settlement Agreement And Reform Plan Period 5 Implementation Plan
5. During Period 5, Defendants shall hire 3 additional workers to build the resource service array which will result in a total of 6 workers in the resource development unit.
6. Defendants shall continue to maintain a process for making legal risk placements. C. Recruitment and Retention of Resource Families and Therapeutic Service
Providers 1. Within 10 business days prior to the date established by Centers of Medicare and
Medicaid Services ("CMS") for the filing of a reconsideration request or appeal, if available, of the CMS decision on the Treatment Foster Care per diem rate of $ 131.00, Defendants shall provide the Monitor and Plaintiffs with a written update summarizing the status of Defendants' decision whether or not to seek reconsideration or appeal, if available, of said decision. Additional updates, if appropriate, will follow within 30 calendar days of each preceding action, including providing copies of any related correspondence. IV. Practice Model Implementation A. Defendants shall receive practice model implementation repmts from Defendants' consultant Center for Support of Families ("CSF") at least quarterly and produce to Plaintiffs and the Monitor copies of any such practice model implementation reports whenever they are received, but in no event less than quarterly, within 30 calendar days of receipt. Prior to producing the practice model implementation reports to Plaintiffs, Defendants will redact any information that pertains to non-class members.
Page 6 of7

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 618-1 Filed 12/23/14 Page 8 of 8
Modified Mississippi Settlement Agreement And Reform Plan Period 5 Implementation Plan
DATED: December 23,2014 AGREED TO BY:
Is/Marcia Robinson Lowry Marcia Robinson Lowry (MBN 43991 pro hac vice) Sara R. Robinson-Glasser (MBN 47547pro hac vice) A BETTER CHILDHOOD, INC. 1095 Hardscrabble Road Chappaqua, New York 10510 Telephone: (844) 422-2425 PLAINTIFFS ' COUNSEL
W. Wayne Drinkwater, Jr. (MBN 6193) BRADLEY ARANT RosE & WHITE LLP 188 East Capitol Street, Suite 450 Jackson, Mississippi 39201 Telephone: (601) 948-8000
Christian D. Carbone (MBN 43986 pro hac vice) John Piskora (MBN 44474 pro hac vice) LOEB & LOEB LLP 345 Park Avenue New York, New York 10154 Telephone: (212) 407-4000 PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL
Is/Dewitt L. ("Rusty") Fortenberry, Jr. Dewitt L. ("Rusty") Fortenberry, Jr. (MSB #5435) Kenya Key Rachal (MSB # 99227) Ashley C. Tullos (MSB # 101839) BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC 4268 I-55 North Meadowbrook Office Park P.O. Box 14167 Jackson, Mississippi 39211 Telephone: (601) 351-2400
Harold Pizzetta, III, Esq. Assistant Attorney General General Civil Division Carroll Gartin Justice Building 430 High Street Jackson, Mississippi 39201 DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL
Page 7 of7

 
 Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 1 of 204

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION

OLIVIA Y., et al.

PLAINTIFFS

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:04CV251LN

PHIL BRYANT, as Governor of the State of Mississippi, et al.

DEFENDANTS

______________________________________________________________________________

THE COURT MONITOR’S REPORT TO THE COURT REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD 4
______________________________________________________________________________

Table of Contents, Report Narrative, Index to Exhibits, Appendix A: Exhibits 1A - 30, and Appendix B: Exhibits 1 - 33

June 15, 2015

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 2 of 204

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.

BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ..................................................3

A. Progress under the Settlement Agreement ................................................................4 B. The Introduction of the MSA and the Practice Model ..............................................5

 Practice Model Rollout Schedule .........................................................................7

C. Progress During Period 3 and Related Remedial Action ..........................................9 D. Data Considerations ................................................................................................12 E. Progress During Period 4.........................................................................................14

 Summary Table: Statewide Performance ...........................................................21  Summary Table: Practice Model Performance ..................................................28

II.

METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................36

III. FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................38

Initial Period 4 Implementation Plan (“IP”) §§I.A. and I.B. .................................39 Final Period 4 IP §I.B. ...........................................................................................41 Ongoing Requirement, Period 3 IP §I.A.1.a. .........................................................41 Ongoing Requirement, Period 3 IP §I.A.1.b..........................................................43 Ongoing Requirement, Period 3 IP §I.A.1.c. .........................................................44 Initial Period 4 IP §II.A.1. .....................................................................................45 Final Period 4 IP §§II.A.1., II.A.2., and II.A.3. .....................................................45 Final Period 4 IP §II.A.4.a. ....................................................................................57 Final Period 4 IP §§II.A.4.b.i. and II.A.4.b.ii. .......................................................60 Final Period 4 IP §II.A.4.c. ....................................................................................60 Final Period 4 IP §II.A.4.d.....................................................................................61 Final Period 4 IP §II.A.4.e. ....................................................................................62 Final Period 4 IP §II.A.4.f. ....................................................................................62 Final Period 4 IP §II.A.4.g.....................................................................................63 Ongoing Requirement, Period 3 IP §I.A.2.a. .........................................................63 Modified Settlement Agreement (“MSA”) §II.A.2.a.10.a.....................................66 MSA §II.A.2.a.10.b................................................................................................69 Ongoing Requirement, Period 3 IP §I.A.3.a.2. ......................................................70 Ongoing Requirement, Period 3 IP §I.A.3.a.4. ......................................................71 Ongoing Requirement, MSA, §II.A.2.c.6.b. ..........................................................72 MSA §II.A.2.c.7.a..................................................................................................72 MSA §II.A.2.c.7.b..................................................................................................73 Ongoing Requirement, Period 3 IP §I.B.2. ............................................................74 Ongoing Requirement, Period 3 IP §I.B.3. ............................................................79 Initial Period 4 IP §II.B.1.a. ...................................................................................79 Initial Period 4 IP §II.B.1.b....................................................................................80

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 3 of 204
Initial Period 4 IP §II.B.1.c. ...................................................................................80 Initial Period 4 IP §II.B.1.d....................................................................................81 Initial Period 4 IP §II.B.1.e. ...................................................................................81 Initial Period 4 IP §II.B.1.f. ...................................................................................81 Initial Period 4 IP §II.B.1.g....................................................................................81 Initial Period 4 IP §II.B.1.h....................................................................................82 Initial Period 4 IP §II.B.1.i.....................................................................................82 Initial Period 4 IP §II.B.1.j.....................................................................................82 Initial Period 4 IP §II.B.1.k....................................................................................83 Initial Period 4 IP §II.B.1.l.....................................................................................83 Final Period 4 IP §II.B.1. .......................................................................................83 Final Period 4 IP §II.B.2. .......................................................................................84 Final Period 4 IP §II.B.3.a. ....................................................................................85 Final Period 4 IP §II.B.3.b. ....................................................................................89 Final Period 4 IP §II.B.3.c. ....................................................................................89 Initial Period 4 IP §II.C.1.......................................................................................89 Initial Period 4 IP §II.C.2.......................................................................................90 Initial Period 4 IP §II.C.3.......................................................................................91 Final Period 4 IP §II.C.1. .......................................................................................92 Final Period 4 IP §II.C.2. .......................................................................................98 MSA §II.A.5.d.1. ...................................................................................................99 MSA §II.A.7.a......................................................................................................101 MSA §II.B.1.d and Ongoing Requirement, Period 3 IP §II.C.4..........................102 Ongoing Requirement, MSA §II.B.1.e.2. ............................................................107 Ongoing Requirement, MSA §II.B.1.e.3. ............................................................109 Ongoing Requirement, MSA §II.B.1.e.4. ............................................................110 Ongoing Requirement, MSA §II.B.1.e.5. ............................................................110 Ongoing Requirement, MSA §II.B.1.e.6. ............................................................111 Initial Period 4 IP §III.A.1. ..................................................................................111 Initial Period 4 IP §III.A.2. ..................................................................................112 Initial Period 4 IP §III.A.3. ..................................................................................112 Final Period 4 IP §III.A.1. ...................................................................................114 Final Period 4 IP §III.A.2. ...................................................................................116 Final Period 4 IP §III.A.3. ...................................................................................119 Final Period 4 IP §III.A.4. ...................................................................................119 MSA §II.B.2.m ....................................................................................................119 Ongoing Requirement, MSA §II.B.2.p.1. ............................................................121 Ongoing Requirement, MSA §II.B.2.p.2. ............................................................121 Ongoing Requirement, MSA §II.B.2.p.8. ............................................................122 MSA §II.B.2.q.1...................................................................................................123 MSA §II.B.2.q.2...................................................................................................124 MSA §II.B.2.q.3...................................................................................................124 MSA §II.B.2.q.4...................................................................................................124 MSA §II.B.2.q.5...................................................................................................125 MSA §II.B.2.q.6...................................................................................................125 MSA §II.B.2.q.7...................................................................................................126
ii

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 4 of 204
MSA §II.B.2.q.8...................................................................................................126 MSA §II.B.2.q.9...................................................................................................127 MSA §II.B.2.q.10.................................................................................................128 MSA §II.B.2.q.11.................................................................................................128 MSA §§II.B.2.s.1. and II.B.2.t.1..........................................................................129 Ongoing Requirement, Period 3 IP §II.F.1. .........................................................129 MSA §II.B.3.j.1. ..................................................................................................130 MSA §II.B.3.j.2. ..................................................................................................131 MSA §II.B.3.j.3. ..................................................................................................132 MSA §II.B.3.j.4. ..................................................................................................132 MSA §II.B.3.j.5. ..................................................................................................133 MSA §II.B.3.j.6. ..................................................................................................134 MSA §II.B.3.j.7. ..................................................................................................135 MSA §II.B.3.j.8. ..................................................................................................136 MSA §§II.B.3.l.1. and II.B.3.m.1. .......................................................................136 MSA §II.B.4.c.1...................................................................................................137 MSA §§II.B.4.e.1. and II.B.4.f.1 .........................................................................137 MSA §II.B.5.f.1. ..................................................................................................138 MSA §II.B.5.f.2. ..................................................................................................139 MSA §II.B.5.f.3. ..................................................................................................139 MSA §§II.B.5.h.1. and II.B.5.i.1. ........................................................................141 MSA §§II.B.5.h.2. and II.B.5.i.2. ........................................................................142 MSA §§II.B.5.h.3. and II.B.5.i.3. ........................................................................143 MSA §II.B.6.b.1...................................................................................................145 MSA §II.B.6.b.2...................................................................................................145 MSA §II.B.7.b......................................................................................................146 MSA §§II.B.7.d. and II.B.7.e...............................................................................147 MSA §II.C.1.c.1...................................................................................................148 MSA §II.C.2.c.1...................................................................................................148 Final Period 4 IP §IV.A. ......................................................................................149 Final Period 4 IP §V.A.........................................................................................149 Final Period 4 IP §V.B.........................................................................................151 MSA §III.A.1.a. ...................................................................................................152 Initial Period 4 IP §III.B.1. ..................................................................................152 Initial Period 4 IP §III.B.2. ..................................................................................153 Initial Period 4 IP §III.B.3. ..................................................................................154 MSA §III.B.1.d.1. ................................................................................................156 MSA §§III.B.1.e.1. and III.B.1.f.1.......................................................................157 MSA §§III.B.1.e.2. and III.B.1.f.2.......................................................................158 MSA §§III.B.2.c.1. and III.B.2.d.1.. ....................................................................159 MSA §§III.B.2.c.2. and III.B.2.d.2.. ....................................................................159 MSA §§III.B.3.a.6.a. and III.B.3.a.7.a.................................................................161 MSA §§III.B.3.a.6.b. and III.B.3.a.7.b. ...............................................................162 MSA §§III.B.3.b.2.a. and III.B.3.b.3.a. ...............................................................164 MSA §§III.B.3.c.4.a. and III.B.3.c.5.a.................................................................165 MSA §§III.B.3.c.4.b. and III.B.3.c.5.b. ...............................................................166
iii

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 5 of 204

MSA §§III.B.3.d.4.a. and III.B.3.d.5.a. ...............................................................167 MSA §§III.B.3.e.2.a. and III.B.3.e.3.a.................................................................169 MSA §§III.B.3.e.2.b. and III.B.3.e.3.b. ...............................................................170 MSA §§III.B.4.b.1. and III.B.4.c.1. .....................................................................171 MSA §III.B.5.a. ...................................................................................................172 MSA §§III.B.5.d.1. and III.B.5.e.1. .....................................................................173 MSA §III.B.6.c. ...................................................................................................174 MSA §§III.B.6.d.1. and III.B.6.e.1.. ....................................................................175 MSA §§III.B.6.d.2. and III.B.6.e.2.. ....................................................................176 MSA §III.B.7.d. ...................................................................................................177 MSA §§III.B.7.e.1. and III.B.7.f.1.......................................................................178 MSA §§III.B.7.e.2. and III.B.7.f.2.......................................................................179 MSA §III.B.8.c. ...................................................................................................181 MSA §§III.B.8.d.1. and III.B.8.e.1. .....................................................................181 MSA §§III.C.1.a.1. and III.C.1.b.1. .....................................................................183 MSA §§III.C.2.a.1. and III.C.2.b.1. .....................................................................184 MSA §IV..............................................................................................................185

IV.

CONCLUSION .........................................................................................................186

APPENDICES
Index to Exhibits ................................................................................... Index-1 – 10
Appendix A App. A, Ex. 1A – App. A, Ex. 30
Appendix B App. B, Ex. 1 – App. B, Ex. 33

iv

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 6 of 204

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION

OLIVIA Y., et al.

PLAINTIFFS

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:04CV251LN

PHIL BRYANT, as Governor of the State of Mississippi, et al.

DEFENDANTS

______________________________________________________________________________
THE COURT MONITOR’S REPORT TO THE COURT REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD 4
______________________________________________________________________________

This report sets forth the Court Monitor’s (“Monitor”) findings regarding defendants’ progress toward meeting the requirements of the Modified Settlement Agreement (“MSA”),1 including the requirements contained in the Initial and Final Period 4 Implementation Plans (“Period 4 IPs”).2 It also addresses to a much more limited extent progress during Period 5. A detailed report regarding defendants’ progress during Period 5 will be filed after Period 5 ends.
A draft version of this report was provided to the parties for review and comment on June 1, 2015. All written comments and related information regarding the draft were submitted to the Monitor by June 10, 2015. The Monitor has considered the parties’ comments, and to the extent appropriate, addressed them in this report.

1 The MSA was approved by the Court on July 6, 2012. 2 The Initial Period 4 IP was filed on July 18, 2013 and the Final Period 4 IP was filed on January 8, 2014.

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 7 of 204
The evidence shows that in most instances defendants did not meet Period 4 performance
requirements. Based on the history of defendants’ performance since 2008 when the remedial
stage of this lawsuit began, it appears that defendants do not have the capacity to meet many of
the MSA’s most basic requirements. Defendants’ ongoing failure to meet these requirements has
a substantial and continuing impact on the safety and well being of the thousands of children in
defendants’ custody every year and their timely placement in permanent and nurturing homes.
The parties and the Court must confront this reality and determine a course that will protect the
children in defendants’ custody on an urgent timeline.
The report is divided into five sections. The Background and Summary of Findings
section presents the relevant procedural history and provides an overview of the progress that has
been made in this case. It also includes tabular summaries of statewide and regional performance
relative to MSA outcome requirements. The Methodology section explains the process used by
the Monitor to evaluate defendants’ progress. The Findings section addresses Period 4
requirements that defendants were required to implement on a statewide and regional basis
during Period 4. The Conclusion is followed by an Appendix with the report’s exhibits.3 The Appendix is
divided into two sections. Appendix A (“App. A”) includes tables summarizing the status of the data reports required by the June 24, 2013 Order, Initial Period 4 IP, and Final Period 4 IP.4 All
3 Certain exhibits have been redacted to delete any information that may fall within the purview of the August 5, 2004 Confidentiality Order. See Confidentiality Order, August 5, 2004. 4 For the convenience of the Court and the parties, App. A includes App. A, Ex. 1A, Attachment Two to the June 24, 2013 Order (which lists all data reports defendants were required by the June 24, 2013 Order to produce), App. A, Ex. 1B, Initial Period 4 Implementation Plan, Appendix 1 (which lists all data reports defendants were required by the Initial Period 4 Implementation Plan to produce), and App. A, Ex. 1C, Final Period 4 Implementation Plan, Appendix 3 (which lists all data reports defendants were required by the Final Period 4 Implementation Plan to produce). The tables summarizing the status of each required data report are included as App. A, Ex. 2A, Status of Data Reports Required by June 24, 2013 Order and Initial Period 4 Implementation Plan; App. A, Ex. 2B, Status of Data Reports Required By July 18, 2013 Initial Period 4 IP at Appendix 1; and App. A, Ex. 2C, Status of Data Reports Required By January 8, 2014 Final Period 4 IP at Appendix 3.
2

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 8 of 204
charts reflecting analyses of the underlying data supporting the Monitor’s findings related to the MSA’s Period 4 outcome requirements are contained in App. A.5 Appendix B (“App. B”) includes other documentary evidence supporting the Monitor’s findings.6
I. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS7 The Mississippi Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan (“Settlement Agreement”),
which was approved by the Court on January 4, 2008, was intended to ensure the safety and wellbeing of children in defendants’ custody and their timely placement in permanent and nurturing homes. Since January 2008, the defendants have been ordered to implement five annual implementation plans, a corrective action plan, a remedial order related to data accuracy, validation and reporting, and an additional remedial order intended to address capacity deficits and improve performance related to the requirements in this case.8
In July 2012, at the time the Court approved the Period 3 IP, the MSA was adopted. The MSA reflects a regionally-based approach to implementation of the requirements imposed by this lawsuit. This approach is designed to reduce, on an interim basis, the number of statewide requirements the defendants must meet while they phase-in, on a region-by-region basis, a family-centered Practice Model that has served as the centerpiece of the defendants’ reform strategy. Like the Settlement Agreement, the MSA requires defendants to report monthly, or to a
5 An index to the exhibits contained in the Appendix follows immediately after the Conclusion. All charts graphically depicting performance related to specific Period 4 requirements are included as App. A, Ex. 5A - App. A, Ex. 30. 6 Like the exhibits in App. A, the exhibits in App. B are identified by a prefix followed by a number (followed by a letter in some instances) (e.g., “App. B, Ex. 1” or “App. B, Ex. 1A”). 7 This section of the report condenses the discussion of the procedural background that is presented in The Court Monitor’s Status Report to the Court Regarding Progress During Period Three [hereinafter January 2013 Report], filed January 25, 2013 [Dkt. No. 580], and The Court Monitor’s Report to the Court Regarding Implementation Period 3 and the June 24, 2013 Order [hereinafter May 2014 Report], filed May 8, 2014 [Dkt. No. 604]. For more detailed information, see January 2013 Report at 4-13 and May 2014 Report at 3-12. 8 Defendants are currently working to implement the Period 5 IP, which ends in July 2015.
3

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 9 of 204
lesser extent, quarterly, on a series of measures related to their performance relative to the requirements imposed in this lawsuit. As described below, the defendants have experienced very significant challenges satisfying both the MSA’s reporting and substantive requirements.
A. Progress under the Settlement Agreement The first implementation plan, referred to as the Period 1 Implementation Plan (“Period 1 IP”), extended from January 4, 2008 through April 30, 2009.9 The Period 1 requirements focused on building the capacity of the Mississippi Department of Human Services (“MDHS”) Division of Family and Children’s Services (“DFCS”) to achieve the Settlement Agreement’s goals and outcomes, and also addressed interim initiatives related to child safety. Because defendants made limited progress meeting Period 1 requirements, they were required to meet many Period 1 requirements during Period 2. Period 2 began on May 1, 2009 and ended on April 30, 2010. Defendants made efforts to satisfy many Period 2 requirements, but in large part these efforts were belated and, at least in some circumstances, they were not minimally adequate. In specific instances, there was no evidence of credible efforts to satisfy Period 2 requirements, including requirements that dated back to Period 1. In light of defendants’ performance, instead of developing a Period 3 IP, the parties finalized an agreement requiring implementation of certain corrective action measures according to a series of deadlines between May 1 and September 1, 2010.10 This agreement, referred to as the “Bridge Plan,” was approved by the Court in an Agreed Order issued on June 10, 2010.11 It required the defendants to demonstrate the ability to satisfy a very narrow subset of unmet Period
9 Period 1 was extended on two occasions pursuant to consent orders issued on January 6, 2009 and March 27, 2009. 10 This four-month period is referred to in the Agreed Order as the “Bridge Period.” 11 Conceptually, the Bridge Plan was intended to serve as a bridge between Period 2 and Period 3.
4

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 10 of 204
1 and Period 2 requirements12 by supplementing their management and planning capabilities
through a contract for technical assistance with the Center for the Support of Families (“CSF”).13
Most, albeit not all, of the Bridge Plan’s requirements were satisfied with substantial technical
assistance from CSF.
During October 2010, based on violations of the Settlement Agreement and the Period 2
Implementation Plan (“Period 2 IP”), plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the Court find
defendants in contempt and appoint a general receiver with full authority to administer
Mississippi’s child welfare system.14 On May 17, 2011, the Court issued an order denying the
motion and directing the parties to work toward a modified agreement.15
B. The Introduction of the MSA and the Practice Model
In the wake of the May 2011 Order, the parties negotiated the terms of the MSA, which
was approved by the Court on July 6, 2012. The MSA supersedes the initial Settlement
12 The Bridge Plan addressed contracting for a fiscal assessment and related strategic plan to maximize federal funding. Other requirements included policy development, data collection and reporting, staffing, training, and planning activities related to mandated improvements in the array and quality of services and placements available to children in defendants’ custody as well as planning for the expansion of the DFCS workforce. In addition, the Bridge Plan required specified corrective action related to child safety, including mandated training for all DFCS caseworkers assigned to conduct maltreatment investigations. 13 Defendants had an existing contractual relationship with CSF dating to January 2009. 14 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Contempt and for the Appointment of a Receiver, filed October 5, 2010. 15 Order, filed May 17, 2011, at 10. The Court found that plaintiffs had made a prima facie showing of contempt, recognizing that the defendants had not complied with most of the Period 1 and Period 2 requirements and also had not complied fully with the Bridge Plan. The Court noted it was “undisputed” that defendants had failed to comply with “nearly all” of the Period 1 requirements, id. at 5-6, and “most” of the Period 2 requirements, id. at 4. Nonetheless, the Court did not issue a finding of contempt because it was “apparent to the court that defendants lacked the capability to comply fully, or even substantially, with all the requirements of the Period Two Plan within the time frame established.” Id. at 7. The Court indicated that the additional requirements and related time frames for meeting these requirements in the Period 2 IP were “highly ambitious” and seemed to be “ultimately unrealistic.” Id. The Court also determined that a contempt finding would not “serve any fruitful purpose.” Id. at 10. The Court clarified that by denying the contempt motion, it was not excusing defendants’ performance or minimizing the gravity of the problems identified in the motion. Id. Indeed, the Court asserted “that the shortcomings identified by plaintiffs and the Court Monitor must be confronted and rectified.” Id. at 9. The Court directed the parties “to work together, in consultation with the Court Monitor, to craft appropriate modifications of their existing agreements.” Id. Among other directives, the Court required the parties to prioritize goals and objectives and establish realistic timelines for their achievement. Id.
5

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 11 of 204
Agreement and incorporates the Period 3 IP.16 As noted above, it reflects a very different
approach to the remedial process, substantially reducing defendants’ obligations to meet many
MSA requirements on a statewide basis through Periods 3 and 4. This new approach aligns the
MSA with the sequential, region-by-region implementation schedule that is a cornerstone of
defendants’ “Practice Model” reform strategy.
The planning process for implementation of the Practice Model began in 2009. During
January 2009, defendants contracted with CSF to work with DFCS managers and staff on the
development of the Practice Model, which is intended to guide improvements in case practice.17
As conceptualized, implementation of the model is promoted through a data-driven continuous
quality improvement (“CQI”) process that is used to monitor each DFCS region’s progress.
The introduction of the Practice Model started in January 2010, over the course of a two-
year period, at staggered intervals, in each of DFCS’s 13 regions.18 On a regional basis, the
Practice Model is phased-in through a multi-stage process: 1) a six-month planning phase;19 2) a
one-year initial implementation stage;20 and 3) a one-year full/ongoing implementation stage.
16 See MSA, Appendix B, for the text of the Period 3 IP. 17 The Practice Model incorporates six groups of activities that are designed to promote safety, permanency and the well-being of children and families. The activities fall within the following categories: 1) safety assurance and risk management; 2) strengths and needs assessments; 3) involving children and families in case planning and decisionmaking; 4) individualizing case planning; 5) mobilizing appropriate services timely; and 6) preserving and maintaining connections. 18 During 2015, the defendants supplemented the management of one of the 13 regions, Region VII-W, creating what may ultimately be considered a 14th DFCS region. If a 14th region is formally established, the parties will need to determine how to address this in the context of the MSA’s regional performance measures. 19 Practice Model implementation started in each Region with the six-month planning phase. During this phase, DFCS staff and stakeholders participated in an orientation program. In addition, barriers to implementation were identified and plans to address the barriers were expected to be formulated, implemented, and revised on an ongoing basis. A CQI review was conducted at the conclusion of the planning phase to establish baseline performance measures, which have served as a basis for measuring regional progress. 20 A 12-month initial implementation phase follows the planning phase. During this phase, supervisors and caseworkers were trained on the Practice Model and participated in an intensive coaching program. Thereafter, a two-month period was used for follow-up CQI reviews and planning for the full implementation stage based on the preliminary results of the review.
6

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 12 of 204

These stages are followed by a data-tracking year. The Practice Model implementation schedule

as it appears in the MSA is set forth below:

Practice Model Rollout Schedule21

Regions
I-South, II-West V-West
IV-North
I-North, III-South, IV-South V-East
III-North, VII-East II-East, VI, VII-West

Planning (6 months)
January – June 2010 July – December 2010 July – December 2010 January – June 2011
July – December 2011 July 2011 – June 2012 (12 months) July – December 2012

Implementation Phase Dates

Initial

Full/Ongoing

Implementation

Implementation

(One Year)

(One Year)

July 2010 –

Approx. Sept. 2011 –

June 2011

August 2012

January –

Approx. March 2012 –

December 2011

February 2013

January 2011 –

Approx. Sept. 2012 –

June 2012 (18 months) August 2013

July 2011 –

Approx. Sept. 2012 –

June 2012

August 2013

January – December 2012 July 2012 – June 2013 January – December 2013

Approx. March 2013 – February 2014 Approx. Sept. 2013 – August 2014 Approx. March 2014 – February 2015

Data Tracking (One Year)
September 2012 – August 2013 March 2013 – February 2014 September 2013 – August 2014 September 2013 – August 2014
March 2014 – February 2015 September 2014 – August 2015 March 2015 – February 2016

The MSA has two sets of requirements related to systemic infrastructure standards, foster care service standards and outcome measures. These requirements are reflected in §§II and III of the MSA. Section II of the MSA includes two types of requirements that defendants must satisfy:22 1) requirements that are subject to statewide performance measures; and, to a lesser degree, 2) requirements that are subject to both statewide performance measures and regional performance measures.23 Section III of the MSA relates exclusively to regional performance requirements. With respect to the regional performance measures in §§II and III, there are two performance thresholds triggered at different points. The first is triggered when a region has fully implemented the Practice Model; the second, which institutes higher performance

21 MSA, Appendix A. 22 In certain instances, defendants are not required to meet the statewide requirements in §II of the MSA until the end of the remedial phase, and thus there are no interim implementation requirements. See, e.g., id. §II.A.2.b. In other instances, performance related to some but not all implementation periods is specified. See, e.g., id. §II.A.2.c. And in some instances, statewide measures as well as separate regional measures related to Practice Model implementation are specified in §II. See, e.g., id. §II.B.5.e.-i. 23 See, e.g., id. §§II.B.4.a.-f. and II.B.7.a.-e.
7

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 13 of 204
standards, is triggered when a region has reached the 12-month mark following full
implementation.24 For purposes of the regional measurement requirements in §§II and III of the
MSA, a region is deemed to have fully implemented the Practice Model at the start of the data-
tracking year.25 Accordingly, at a minimum,26 during the two and two-third years that a region is
undergoing the Practice Model phase-in process, regional performance under the MSA is not
measured.27
The first two DFCS regions introduced to the Practice Model, Regions I-S and II-W,
began implementation planning in January 2010 and commenced the data-tracking year in
September 2012. The other DFCS regions have been added to the implementation process at
intervals of six to twelve months. The last three DFCS regions to implement the Practice Model
began the planning phase in July 2012. After all 13 DFCS regions have fully implemented the
Practice Model,28 the MSA requires that all of its standards, benchmarks and outcome measures
shall be measured and required statewide and shall no longer be measured on a region-by-region
basis.29
24 Id. §I.A. 25 According to the MSA, “[a]djustments may be made to the timing of the planning and/or implementation phases based on a region's progress. The two-month period between the end of the Initial Implementation phase and the beginning of the Full Implementation phase is in place to permit the follow-up CQI review after the first 12 months of implementation and an opportunity to revise the Regional Implementation Plan based on preliminary results of the review going into the next phase of implementation.” Id. Appendix A. 26 In the following three regions, defendants extended the implementation process because a determination was made that additional time was needed for a specific implementation phase: Region III-N (afforded an additional six months for planning); Region IV-N (afforded an additional six months for coaching); and Region VII-E (afforded an additional six months for planning). 27 The MSA expressly recognizes that for those requirements that must be met from the time that a region has fully implemented the Practice Model, regional compliance is not measured by looking back in time at practice that predates full implementation. For requirements that must be met 12 months after full implementation of the Practice Model, compliance is not measured by practice that pre-dates the 12-month period following full implementation. Id. §§II and III. 28 The Practice Model implementation schedule is based on the division of DFCS field operations into 13 administrative regions. 29 Id. §III.
8

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 14 of 204
As noted above, defendants began phasing-in the Practice Model over five years ago. As of the end of Period 4, eight of the 13 regions in the state had fully implemented the Practice Model, and, as of February 2015, all 13 regions in the state had fully implemented the Practice Model. Thus, as of February 2016, 12 months after the final three regions have fully implemented the Practice Model, the regional requirements will cease and DFCS will be accountable once again for meeting all requirements on a statewide basis. This was intended to serve as an important landmark to test the efficacy of defendants’ adopted regional implementation strategy.
C. Progress During Period 3 and Related Remedial Action Defendants struggled to satisfy the MSA’s data reporting requirements during Period 3. Because these requirements were not satisfied, a remedial order was issued on June 24, 2013, before the end of Period 3, requiring the defendants to undertake the following, among other actions: 1) export relevant performance data from their existing data system into an independent database to facilitate report production; 2) establish and implement a data cleansing and validation plan to improve the quality of performance data; 3) develop specifications for required data reports; and 4) complete any indicated analyses to identify required data that are not collected and/or reported and to implement alternative data collection and reporting methods for certain data.30 While data for Period 3, which spanned from July 6, 2012 through July 6, 2013, was ultimately produced after the end of the period, it was noteworthy in the history of this lawsuit for the increased volume of analyzable data regarding defendants’ performance during the period relative to prior performance periods, notwithstanding the documented limitations of the data.
30 Project Schedule for Defendants’ Production of Data Reports Required By Appendix C of the Modified Settlement Agreement [hereinafter June 24, 2013 Order], filed June 24, 2013 [Dkt. No. 589].
9

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 15 of 204
The availability of data in a format that could be readily analyzed enabled a much broader and more nuanced view of defendants’ performance relative to MSA requirements than was historically possible.
As explained in more detail in the Monitor’s May 2014 Report, while they did not do so during Period 3, the defendants eventually produced “validated”31 data related to Period 3 performance for most, but not all, required reports.32 In many instances these data did not address the complete MSA requirement. In some of these instances, the MSA requirement is subject to a qualitative assessment for which relevant data cannot be captured in a management information system. In others, defendants had not developed the capacity to either collect and/or report on the required data. While recognizing that there was substantial progress building data validation and reporting functions in response to the June 24, 2013 Order, the Monitor noted that additional progress was needed to satisfy the MSA’s reporting requirements.
Defendants’ performance during Period 3 evidenced wide regional variations in progress implementing MSA requirements and, generally, by the end of Period 3, the evidence established a substantial gap between reported and required performance levels with respect to both statewide and regionally-based requirements, for those regions to which the latter applied. The
31 Defendants’ validation efforts included implementation of certain processes designed to test the accuracy of the data contained in the data reports and were intended to improve the quality of the data contained in the reports. While the validation processes were not intended to ensure 100 percent data accuracy, they were intended to result in minimally adequate data that could be used to assess performance. However, the Monitor documented various problems with data contained in a number of reports produced by defendants after the data had undergone defendants’ validation processes. As the Monitor has reported, in a number of instances these problems rendered the data unanalyzable. In the Monitor’s view, the shortcomings should have been identified by defendants’ validation activities. See May 2014 Report at 40. It is expected that as defendants use the data and develop more effective accountability mechanisms, the quality of the data will improve. Nevertheless, while there have been some improvements, defendants must increase the efficacy of their data validation activities. 32 Id. at 12-13.
10

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 16 of 204
Monitor found that defendants had not demonstrated essential regional capacities to implement and sustain reform efforts.33
The Monitor also reported that during Period 3, there were continuing, long-standing
capacity deficits, notably in the areas of human resource management, including the absence of reliable data on caseworker and supervisory caseloads.34 The Monitor also determined that while
certain required CQI activities had been undertaken, corrective action was not consistently timely and accountability mechanisms were not consistently effective.35 Moreover, the Monitor
reported on uncorrected performance deficits dating back to Period 1, including the absence of a performance-based contracting system.36
Based on the Monitor’s findings regarding defendants’ performance during Period 3, and
in order to avoid a contempt motion, the parties jointly proposed certain remedial actions to
address the documented capacity deficits documented by the Monitor and to improve performance required by the MSA, which the Court ordered on July 9, 2014.37 Among other
provisions, the Order required defendants to employ a “Director of Sustainable Transformation,”
subject to the approval of the parties with input from the Monitor, responsible for the following
matters: 1) developing and administering a diagnostic process to identify staffing practices to
immediately improve performance; 2) developing a framework for a “Transformation Team,” including necessary positions such as a senior child welfare information officer;38 3) overseeing
implementation of necessary reforms to improve defendants’ compliance with the MSA; and 4)
33 Id. at 4. 34 Id. at 4-5. 35 Id. at 5. 36 Id. 37 See Corrected Order Creating Director For Sustainable Transformation and Transformation Team [hereinafter July 2014 Corrected Order], filed July 9, 2014 [Dkt. No. 607]. 38 In relevant part, the July 2014 Corrected Order states: “The Transformation Team shall include, but is not limited to, a senior child welfare information officer who will oversee and be responsible for generating and maintaining information, data analysis, verification and validation to support both DFCS operations and provide reporting required by the MSA.” Id. §II.C.ii.d. This is a very critical function that remains unaddressed.
11

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 17 of 204
providing monthly progress reports to the parties and the Monitor. Ultimately, however, the parties did not agree upon a candidate and a Director of Sustainable Transformation was not hired.
D. Data Considerations During Period 4, and in some instances in Period 5, the parties agreed upon remedial actions to address the remaining gaps in the data that defendants are required to produce.39 In order to address gaps in data collection, it was necessary for defendants to change, and in some cases to augment, certain existing data collection practices. For example, the data collection instrument used by defendants to implement federally-mandated requirements for periodic administrative reviews of the case records of children in the custody of DFCS through the foster care review (“FCR”) process was expanded and modified to address certain data collection and reporting gaps.40 The instrument, which is referred to as the Periodic Administrative Determination (“PAD”), was adapted on an incremental basis starting in 2012 to collect data used to assess defendants’ performance regarding numerous MSA requirements pending the development of a new automated data management and reporting system. While the changes to data collection that the parties have agreed upon were necessary, they come at a cost. Performance data related to specific requirements collected prior to and after multiple changes to the PAD were made are not precisely comparable. Furthermore, because of the method by which data from the PAD are used to produce monthly data reports, a minimum of
39 See App. B, Ex. 11A, infra note 184 (for tables summarizing the parties’ agreements related to how each identified data reporting gap will be addressed). 40 The FCR represents an administrative case review process that is conducted at six-month intervals for all children who have been in foster care at least six months.
12

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 18 of 204
six months of data must be collected after a modification is made to the PAD before valid data is produced.41
Changes in the PAD effected during Period 4 impacted data regarding eight requirements
reported on in this report. Where there are issues regarding comparability of performance data
related to certain specific requirements over time, those issues are discussed in the relevant
sections of this report. It is noteworthy that defendants made a number of changes to the PAD
during Period 5, which will impact the comparability of data in additional reports that will be produced in the future. The parties should remain cognizant of this issue.42
Notwithstanding the parties’ agreements regarding how to address gaps in defendants’
reporting, numerous limitations in defendants’ data collection and reporting continue to exist.
For example, with respect to various reporting requirements, the parties agreed that valid data collection would necessitate targeted case record reviews during Periods 5 and 6.43 Additionally,
there are certain structural limitations in defendants’ data collection methods. As noted above,
defendants use the FCR process to collect data regarding many performance requirements. The
FCR process is limited to children who have been in custody at least six months and thus any
findings derived from data collected through the FCR process exclude findings for children who
have been in custody for short periods of time.
41 The monthly reports that defendants produce that are based on the PAD include data derived from six rolling months of data collection. Thus, after a modification is made to the PAD, six months of data collection must occur before a monthly report will reflect data based only on the modified PAD. 42 Because of changes to the PAD, there will not be historical baseline data to use as a precise basis of comparison to assess defendants’ progress over time. In the same way that these changes impact the Monitor’s ability to report on defendants’ progress over time in this report, these changes will have the same impact on the Monitor’s future reporting. 43 For example, the parties agreed that performance concerning multiple requirements, including requirements related to medical, dental and mental health screenings and assessments, would be measured through a targeted case record review conducted by the Monitor in collaboration with the defendants during Period 5. See Period 5 IP §II.C.3. The preliminary results of the case record review were distributed to the parties on May 22, 2015 and they are addressed herein as applicable to specific requirements.
13

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 19 of 204
E. Progress During Period 4 Period 4 marked a critical test for defendants’ efforts. As noted above, the MSA was crafted in part to afford defendants the opportunity to implement their preferred regionally-based implementation strategy, grounded in a new Practice Model. The MSA offered defendants temporary relief from numerous statewide requirements, instead emphasizing regional requirements in those areas of the state in which defendants were phasing in their new model. The intent was to allow defendants to target their resources and thereby increase their chances of successfully meeting performance requirements. Thus, Period 4, like Period 3, was an opportunity for defendants to focus and accelerate their reforms in advance of Period 5, during which the final regions would fully implement the Practice Model, and the subsequent end of temporary relief from statewide performance requirements in February 2016. As documented in the Monitor’s May 2014 Report, defendants entered Period 4 already underperforming relative to MSA requirements. By the end of Period 3, defendants met or exceeded 10 of 23 (43 percent) statewide performance requirements for which the Monitor could make a finding based on the data defendants produced, and, among the seven regions that had fully implemented the Practice Model, the most successful region met or exceeded seven of 16 (44 percent) regional requirements. The burden was on defendants during Period 4 to improve relative to Period 3; however, defendants’ performance declined. During Period 4, defendants met or exceeded six of the 25 (24 percent) statewide requirements for which the Monitor could make a finding, failing to satisfy three-quarters of the statewide Period 4 requirements. As a general matter, regional performance was worse. Among the five regions that fully implemented the Practice Model during Period 4, the two highest performing regions met or exceeded eight of 21 (38 percent) regional requirements. Among the
14

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 20 of 204
three regions that had implemented the Practice Model for at least 12 months during Period 4
(i.e., the regions that had implemented defendants’ model for the longest time), the two highest
performing regions met or exceeded five of 21 (24 percent) regional requirements. Thus, as
summarized below, there is little evidence that defendants’ implementation strategy is
positioning defendants to satisfy the MSA’s requirements.
This report presents the Monitor’s detailed assessment of defendants’ performance
relative to 21 regionally-based performance requirements for the eight regions that either fully
implemented the Practice Model during Period 4 or had fully implemented for at least 12 months during Period 4.44 Among the five regions that fully implemented the Practice Model during Period 4, two regions met or exceeded eight of 21 applicable regional requirements,45 one region met or exceeded four of 21 applicable regional requirements,46 and two regions met or exceeded three of 21 applicable regional requirements.47 Among the three regions that fully implemented
the Practice Model for at least 12 months during Period 4, two regions met or exceeded five of 21 applicable regional requirements48 and one region met or exceeded three of 21 applicable regional requirements.49
In the Monitor’s report on Period 3, the Monitor documented wide disparities in regional
performance that required, among other resources, enhanced management systems and
investments in human capital. The most concrete effort intended to address these deficiencies
during Period 4, the hiring of a “Director of Sustainable Transformation,” was not implemented,
44 As described below, there are different regional performance standards for regions that fully implement the Practice Model and for regions that have fully implemented the Practice Model for at least 12 months. See supra at 7-8. 45 Data were unavailable to assess performance in these two regions with respect to two of the 21 requirements. 46 Data were unavailable to assess performance in this region with respect to two of the 21 requirements. 47 Data were unavailable to assess performance in one of these two regions with respect to two of the 21 requirements. 48 Data were unavailable to assess performance in one of these two regions with respect to two of the 21 requirements. 49 Data were unavailable to assess performance in this region with respect to two of the 21 requirements.
15

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 21 of 204
nor was any functional substitute.50 Most of the organizational shortcomings that were evident during Period 3 – inadequate regional management capacity and accountability systems, largely unenforced corrective action processes, an inadequate and at times unreliable automated management information system, and insufficient numbers of caseworkers and supervisors51 – were not addressed effectively during Period 4. Moreover, during Period 4, in response to challenges generated by staffing shortages, the defendants undercut their own reform strategy by diverting dedicated management and coaching staff from responsibility for oversight and implementation of the Practice Model to other functions.
In the limited instances in which defendants did meet Period 4 requirements, success was frequently the fruit of efforts made by defendants’ expert consultants. As the Monitor has documented in prior reports, this is a recurrent theme dating back to the Bridge Period. Defendants continue to rely to a significant extent on the knowledge and efforts of consultants to meet core MSA requirements because they have failed to build sufficient internal capacity. To meet and ultimately sustain the performance requirements of the MSA, defendants eventually will need to internalize elements of the expertise for which they maintain contractual services.
As previously noted, approximately eight months from now, in February 2016, defendants will be required to meet all MSA requirements on a statewide basis rather than on a regional basis. Historically, there has been a correlation between regions with the largest percentage of children in custody and persistently low regional performance relative to MSA performance standards.52 As regional requirements disappear and all requirements are calculated
50 See July 2014 Corrected Order. 51 Although defendants were not able to provide validated data regarding caseworker caseloads during Period 4, there is a substantial body of evidence indicating that there were insufficient numbers of both caseworkers and supervisory staff during Period 4. 52 See, e.g., May 2014 Report at App. A, Ex. 60 for an illustration of relative regional performance during Period 3. As of June 30, 2014, Regions VII-W and III-S accounted for approximately 40 percent of all children in custody.
16

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 22 of 204
on a statewide basis, these lower performing regions with high percentages of children in custody will likely pose a particularly challenging obstacle to defendants’ ability to meet statewide obligations under the MSA.
While defendants’ obligations will apply at the statewide level, this will not change the fact that defendants will have to manage the organizational transformation process at smaller geographical levels (i.e., at a regional or in some cases county level). It was in recognition of this fact that the MSA phased in the regional requirements over time based on defendants’ Practice Model implementation schedule. And it was based on varying regional needs that the parties crafted a remedy to establish a Director of Sustainable Transformation position that would be charged with marshalling the resources to guide statewide implementation on a regional basis.
Notwithstanding defendants’ efforts, and in addition to regional challenges, there are long-standing, system-wide deficits in key agency operations and functional areas that have not been addressed in an effective way. Ongoing shortages in caseworker and supervisory staffing levels continue to result in high caseloads. This phenomenon, in turn, compromises the safety and well being of children and their timely placement in permanent and nurturing homes. Additionally, there are an inadequate number and array of licensed placements for the children in defendants’ custody, contributing to large numbers of children placed in unlicensed or otherwise inappropriate placements, which may not meet even the most basic standards essential to ensure child safety. There also is continuing evidence that many children in defendants’ custody continue to have inadequate access to timely and essential services, including medical, dental, and mental health services.
Compounding these deficiencies is the failure to maintain an automated case management system that is consistently available and which can be relied upon by caseworkers and their
17

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 23 of 204
supervisors. Staff report frequent periods of system inoperability, delaying, or, worse, preventing them from entering important information about children’s cases. This creates inefficiencies and compromises the integrity of the management information that managers need to track child safety, well being and permanency indicators.
Many of the performance challenges documented in this report vary from one region to the next and require solutions tailored to the problem. For example, during the month of June 2014, Regions VII-W and I-S had the most investigations related to maltreatment in care open, 26 and 20 respectively. Whereas 100 percent of investigations were initiated and completed consistent with MSA timeline requirements in Region I-S, only 12 percent were initiated and completed on time in Region VII-W. This is precisely the type of regional variation that the defendants must be equipped to monitor, identify, and address over time.
The evidence indicates that the systems that defendants have established to diagnose and address these regional performance issues, such as the Regional Implementation Teams, have not been effective at producing the intended result. As the report documents, the tracking and accountability processes designed to identify and correct basic safety and case practice issues has not led to demonstrable improvements and, in fact, the evidence suggests some backsliding during Period 4. Too often, in response to one performance problem, defendants reallocated resources from within DFCS rather than adding needed resources, which ultimately only redistributed performance deficits within the agency rather than reducing them. This is emblematic of the crisis-driven and non-strategic approach to MSA implementation that characterized Period 4.
This report presents the performance outcomes that defendants have reached for both statewide and regional MSA requirements. It does not assess the factors contributing to
18

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 24 of 204
defendants’ performance levels. As the example regarding maltreatment investigation initiation and completion rates, described above, illustrates, understanding what drives performance levels even on an individual indicator requires a deep look at regional data that is beyond the scope of this type of report. As the Monitor has recommended in prior reports, it is of the essence that defendants develop systems and processes to analyze the factors driving performance across the state and implement solutions to correct low performance in applicable regions.
Defendants have launched several initiatives during Period 5 in an apparent effort to improve regional and statewide performance. For example, in recent weeks the defendants have required each DFCS region to implement a regional improvement plan and have issued a request for information to foster care service providers related to a renewed effort to improve resource family home operations on a statewide basis. Moreover, defendants have augmented the management in Region VII-W, a low-performing region with a very high concentration of children in custody, by adding a Regional Director. Furthermore, additional staff members have been hired to support the development and implementation of a new automated case management system that is expected to be available in 2020. Finally, with substantial assistance from external consultants, defendants have developed a blueprint for a performance-based contracting system and launched a new leadership training program that they plan to introduce on an incremental basis in each DFCS Region.
Each of these efforts offers some promise of improved performance under the MSA, but even in combination they will not promote the scope and depth of improvement that is necessary for the defendants to satisfy the MSA’s most basic requirements. Some of these initiatives are not new, but rather are continuations of or renewed attempts to implement past efforts. Defendants, for example, have been required, but unable to successfully develop a performance-
19

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 25 of 204 based contracting system since Period 1. While a blueprint is cause for optimism, it also must be considered within the context of historical performance. It is encouraging that defendants have taken steps to augment management capacity in Region VII-W, a region in which defendants have historically struggled to meet MSA requirements. But adding management staff, by itself, will not solve the substantial performance problems that have been evident. The ultimate test of defendants’ efforts will be whether they are able to demonstrate measureable progress where they have not been able to in the past.
The following tables summarize the Monitor’s findings regarding the status of defendants’ performance relative to each Period 4 statewide and regional outcome standard. Presentation of the regional findings follow the statewide findings.53
53 For ease of reference, the table reflecting the statewide requirements is included in the Appendix as App. A, Ex. 3 and the table reflecting the Practice Model requirements is reflected as App. A, Ex. 4.
20

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 26 of 204

Summary Table: Statewide Performance for Period 4 through June 30, 2014 Based on Analyses of Data Received Through March 24, 201554 [Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor Based on DFCS Data]

Cite

MSA Requirement

DFCS Report Name(s)

(Legacy and Current)

MSA II.A.2.a.1. and II.A.2.a.10.a.
II.A.2.a.9.a.

MSA II.A.2. Human Resources Management

MSA requires by the end of Period 4, at least 85% of caseworkers shall carry a caseload that does not exceed MSA requirements. No more than 5% of caseworkers shall carry a caseload exceeding twice the MSA requirements. [No caseworkers shall carry a caseload exceeding three times the MSA requirements.] Hancock, Harrison, Hinds, and Jackson Counties are exempt during Period 4.

Manual Report AR3 AR3K
[Dedicated Caseload]

[Note: Defendants report separately on workload data for caseworkers with dedicated and mixed caseloads. For the purposes of MSA requirements, the workload data must be analyzed together. When analyzed together (including carve‐out counties), 61% of caseworkers are carrying a caseload that does not exceed MSA requirements; 7% of caseworkers carry a caseload that exceeds twice the MSA requirements; 3% of caseworkers carry a caseload that exceeds three times the MSA requirements.]

Period 4 Performance Requirement

Statewide Performance as of June 30, 2014
(unless otherwise specified below)

Performance requirement if
carve‐out counties were excluded from the analysis:
85% ≤5% 0%
85% ≤5% 0%

Note: Carve‐out counties could not be excluded from AR3 analysis based on how data were submitted. Reliable workload data unavailable before 10/14/14.
Including carve‐out counties and excluding certain non‐DFCS
employees employed by a contractor, as of 10/14/14:
 61% of caseworkers carrying a caseload not exceeding MSA requirements
 12% of caseworkers carrying a caseload exceeding twice the MSA requirements
 4% of caseworkers carrying a caseload exceeding three times the MSA requirements
Including carve‐out counties and certain non‐DFCS employees employed by a contractor, as of 10/14/14:
 68% of caseworkers carrying a caseload not exceeding MSA requirements
 10% of caseworkers carrying a caseload exceeding twice the MSA requirements
 3% of caseworkers carrying a caseload exceeding three times the MSA requirements

54 In some instances the data defendants produced do not reflect performance related to the full MSA requirement. Thus the performance levels set forth in this table may not be indicative of performance related to the full requirement.
21

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 27 of 204

Cite

MSA Requirement

MSA II.A.2.a.2. and II.A.2.a.10.a.
II.A.2.a.9.a

MSA requires by the end of Period 4, at least 85% of caseworkers shall carry a caseload that does not exceed MSA requirements. No more than 5% of caseworkers shall carry a caseload exceeding twice the MSA requirements. [No caseworkers shall carry a caseload exceeding three times the MSA requirements.] Hancock, Harrison, Hinds, and Jackson Counties are exempt during Period 4.

[Note: Defendants report separately on workload data for caseworkers with dedicated and mixed caseloads. For the purposes of MSA requirements, the workload data must be analyzed together. When analyzed together (including carve‐out counties), 61% of caseworkers are carrying a caseload that does not exceed MSA requirements; 7% of caseworkers carry a caseload that exceeds twice the MSA requirements; 3% of caseworkers carry a caseload that exceeds three times the MSA requirements.]

DFCS Report Name(s) (Legacy and Current)
Manual Report AR1 AR1K
[Mixed Caseload]

Period 4 Performance Requirement
85%
≤5%
0%

Statewide Performance as of June 30, 2014
(unless otherwise specified below)
Excluding carve‐out counties, as of 10/14/14:  70% of caseworkers carrying a caseload not exceeding MSA requirements  4% of caseworkers carrying a caseload exceeding twice the MSA requirements  3% of caseworkers carrying a caseload exceeding three times the MSA requirements

Performance requirement does
not apply to  carve‐out counties 


Including carve‐out counties, as of 10/14/14: 58% of caseworkers carrying a caseload not exceeding MSA requirements 6% of caseworkers carrying a caseload exceeding twice the MSA requirements 3% of caseworkers carrying a caseload exceeding three times the MSA requirements

MSA II.A.2.a.6. and II.A.2.a.10.b.

MSA requires by the end of Period 4, no more than 10% of supervisors who are responsible for supervising caseworkers shall be responsible for directly supervising more than five caseworkers. Hancock, Harrison, Hinds, and Jackson Counties are exempt during Period 4.

Manual Report AR2

< 10%

Excluding carve‐out counties, as of 10/14/14: 13%
Including carve‐out counties, as of 10/14/14: 19%

MSA II.A.2.c.2. II.A.2.c.3., and II.A.2.c.6.b.

MSA requires that by the end of Period 3 [and thereafter] all new caseworkers and supervisors will complete their pre‐service training consistent with MSA requirements before they assume their respective responsibilities for carrying cases and supervising.

Manual Report
[MDHS Human Resources Data and DFCS Training Data]

100%

Period 4, Caseworkers: 100% Period 4, Supervisors: 100%

22

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 28 of 204

Cite
MSA II.A.2.c.4. and II.A.2.c.7.a.

MSA Requirement

DFCS Report Name(s) (Legacy and Current)

MSA requires that by the end of Period 4 all caseworkers shall receive a minimum of 40 hours of structured ongoing in‐service training each year, and all supervisors shall receive a minimum of 24 hours of ongoing in‐service training each year.

Manual Report
[Caseworker Ongoing Training Report and
Regional Director Ongoing Training
Report]

Period 4 Performance Requirement
100%

Statewide Performance as of June 30, 2014
(unless otherwise specified below)
Period 4, Caseworkers: 94% Period 4, Supervisors: 100%

MSA II.A.7.a. (Final IP4, Appendix 3)
MSA II.B.1.b. and II.B.1.e.6. MSA II.B.1.d.

MSA II.A.7. Recruitment and Retention of Foster Families and Therapeutic Service Providers

MSA requires that all licensed resource families (regardless of whether they are supervised directly by DFCS or by private providers) receive at least the minimum reimbursement rate for a given level of service as established pursuant to the MSA.

MACWIS SWIP42

[Note: Although not a Period 4 performance requirement, defendants were
required to report on this during Period 4. Pursuant to the MSA, a 100% performance
standard is required by the
final implementation
period.]

MSA II.B.1. Child Safety

MSA requires by the end of Period 3 [and thereafter], upon receipt of a report of child maltreatment in a group home, emergency shelter, or private child placing agency, DFCS shall undertake an investigation that is in addition to, and independent of, any child protective investigation to determine the contract provider’s compliance with DFCS licensure standards.

Manual Report Licensure Investigation
Report

100%

MSA requires within 30 days of the completion of any investigation of maltreatment of a child in custody, DFCS shall review the maltreatment investigation in the manner set forth in the MSA.

Manual Report MIC Review Report

100%

Period 4: 98%
Period 4: 100% Period 4: 98%

23

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 29 of 204

Cite

MSA Requirement

MSA II.B.1.e.2.

MSA requires by end of Period 3 [and thereafter], 100% of maltreatment investigations shall be initiated within 24 hours and completed with supervisory approval within 30 days.

DFCS Report Name(s) (Legacy and Current)
MWZ1271G SWZ1271G

Period 4 Performance Requirement
100%

Statewide Performance as of June 30, 2014
(unless otherwise specified below) Period 3: 36%55 Period 4: 56%

MSA II.B.1.e.3.

MSA requires by end of Period 3 [and thereafter], 100% of children who remain in the same out of home placement following an investigation of maltreatment or corporal punishment in that placement shall be visited by a caseworker two times per month for three months after the conclusion of the investigation.

MWLS55SA SLS55AD&S

100%

Period 3: 88% Period 4: 75%

MSA II.B.2. Child Placement

MSA II.B.2.a., II.B.2.p.2., and II.B.2.p.4.‐5.

MSA requires by the end of Period 3 [and thereafter], 100% of children shall be placed or remain in a foster care setting that meets licensure standards consistent with MSA requirements, unless so ordered by the Youth Court over DFCS objection.

MWLS319D (originally MWZ0151)
SLS319D

PAD7 S‐PAD7

0 children 100%

Period 3: 471 children Period 4: 482 children
Placements do not meet licensure standards
Period 3: 90% Period 4: 93%

Placements despite objections
Changes were made to answer responses to a question on the PAD related to Report 7 in December 2013 and April 2014. Data for the period ending June 30, 2013 are based upon responses to the pre‐modified answer options. Data for the period ending June 30, 2014 include responses based on answer options that were available after the modifications. The first monthly report reflecting responses based only on answer options that were available after April 2014 is the October 2014 report, which is after the end of Period 4. Data for the period ending June 30, 2014 are based on questions included in the PAD prior to the December 2013 and April 2014 modifications and are identified in red above.

MSA II.B.2.f.

MSA requires by the end of Period 4, 85% of children in custody shall be

PAD‐9

85%

and II.B.2.q.7.

placed in the least restrictive setting that meets their individual needs,

SPAD9

consistent with MSA requirements.

Period 3: 97% Period 4: 96%

The wording of a question on the PAD related to Report 9 was modified in December 2013. Data for the period ending June 30, 2013 are based upon responses to the pre‐modified question. Data for the period ending June 30, 2014 are based upon responses to the modified question and are identified in red above.

55 Findings related to Period 3 are not presented for all requirements because either the data were not required to be produced, were not produced, or were produced but not reliable.
24

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 30 of 204

Cite
MSA II.B.2.g. and II.B.2.q.11.
MSA II.B.2.h. and II.B.2.q.8.

MSA Requirement

DFCS Report Name(s) (Legacy and Current)

MSA requires that by the end of Period 4 at least 90% of children who entered DFCS custody shall be placed within his/her own county or within 50 miles of the home from which he/she was removed unless one of the exceptions provided in the MSA is documented as applying.

MWLS314 SLS314

MSA requires by the end of Period 4, 90% of siblings who entered custody at or near the same time be placed together consistent with MSA requirement.

MWLS316 SLS316

Period 4 Performance Requirement
90%
90%

Statewide Performance as of June 30, 2014
(unless otherwise specified below)
Period 3 (excludes sibling exception): 94% Period 4 (excludes sibling exception): 95%
Period 3 (includes sibling exception): 98% Period 4 (includes sibling exception): 99%
Period 3: 85% Period 4: 75%

MSA II.B.2.i.

MSA requires by the end of Period 4, 60% of children placed in a new

PAD‐10

60%

and II.B.2.q.9.

placement during the period shall have their currently available medical,

SPAD10

dental, educational, and psychological information provided to their

resource parents or facility staff no later than at the time of any new

placement during the period.

Period 3: 19% Period 4: 20%

In December 2013 a question was added, the wording of one question was amended, and the instructions were changed for one question on the PAD related to Report 10. Data based only on responses to the amended PAD were available beginning with the period ending May 2014. However, defendants did not produce the data based on responses to the amended PAD prior to the period ending October 2014, which was after the end of Period 4. Data for the period ending June 30, 2014 are based on questions included in the PAD prior to the December 2013 modification and addition and are identified in red above.

MSA II.B.2.k. and II.B.2.p.8.

MSA requires by end of Period 3 [and thereafter], no foster children shall remain in an emergency or temporary facility for more than 45 days unless exceptional circumstances and Field Operations Director has granted express written approval.

MWLS50D SLS50D

0 children

Period 3: 24 children Period 4: 17 children

MSA II.B.2.m.

MSA requires that sibling groups in which one or more of the siblings are under the age of 10 shall not be placed in congregate care settings for more than 45 days.

MWLS53HS SLS53H

25

[Note: Defendants were
required to report on this starting in Period 3. Pursuant to the MSA, a 100% performance standard is not required until the
final implementation
period.]

Period 3: 13 sibling groups Period 4: 17 sibling groups

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 31 of 204

Cite
MSA II.B.2.m. and II.B.2.q.2.
MSA II.B.3.a. and II.B.3.j.1.
MSA II.B.3.b. and II.B.3.j.2.
MSA II.B.3.e. and II.B.3.j.4.
MSA II.B.3.e. and II.B.3.j.5.
MSA II.B.3.f. and II.B.3.j.6.

MSA Requirement

DFCS Report Name(s) (Legacy and Current)

MSA requires by end of Period 4, no children under 10 placed in congregate care unless exceptional needs and/or sibling group member and express written approval by Regional Director.

MWLS52HS SLS52H

MSA II.B.3. Physical and Mental Health Care

MSA requires by the end of Period 4, 70% of children entering custody receive a health screening evaluation as recommended by American Academy of Pediatrics from a qualified medical practitioner within 72 hours after placement.

MWLS315 SLS315

MSA requires by the end of Period 4, 70% of children entering custody receive a comprehensive health assessment within 30 calendar days consistent with MSA requirement.

MWLS315 SLS315

MSA requires by the end of Period 4, 75% of children three years old and older entering custody or in care and turning three years old during the Period shall receive a dental examination within 90 days of placement or their third birthday.

PAD‐27m1m3 SPAD27m1

MSA requires that by the end of Period 4, at least 80% of children in custody during the Period shall receive a dental examination every six months consistent with MSA requirements and all medically necessary dental services.
MSA requires that by the end of Period 4 at least 70% of children four years old and older entering custody during the Period or in care and turning four years old during the Period shall receive a mental health assessment by a qualified professional within 30 calendar days of foster care placement or their fourth birthday, respectively.

PAD‐27m2m3 SPAD27m2
PAD‐25 S‐PAD25

Period 4 Performance Requirement
0 children
70%
70% 75%
80%
70%

Statewide Performance as of June 30, 2014
(unless otherwise specified below) Period 3: 11 children Period 4: 50 children
Period 3: 28% Period 4: 27%
Period 3: 34% Period 4: 33%
Period 3: 49%56 Period 4: 55%
Period 3: 54% Period 4: 52%
Period 3: 49% Period 4: 47%

A modification was made to the PAD in November 2013 impacting Report 25 to allow for data collection about children turning four‐years old during the period. Monthly data reports including data on this cohort of children was submitted to the Monitor beginning with the period ending September 30, 2014. Consequently, this chart excludes children who turned four during the period ending June 30, 2014.

56 In the Monitor’s May 2014 Report, defendants’ performance during Period 3 was reported as 47%. That analysis, which was based on the data submitted by defendants, excluded data regarding children who were in care and turned three during the period under review. In order to include this cohort in the analysis presented above, the Monitor combined data from a different data report and reanalyzed Period 3 performance, which is reported above as 49%.
26

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 32 of 204

Cite
MSA II.B.5.a. and II.B.5.f.1. MSA II.B.5.b. and II.B.5.f.2. MSA II.B.5.c. and II.B.5.f.3.
MSA II.B.5.c. and II.B.5.f.3.
MSA II.C.1.a. and II.C.1.c.1. MSA II.C.2.a. and II.C.2.c.1.

MSA Requirement

DFCS Report Name(s) (Legacy and Current)

MSA II.B.5. Worker Contact and Monitoring

MSA requires by the end of Period 4, 80% of children shall receive documented twice‐monthly in‐person visits by the assigned caseworker consistent with MSA requirement.

MWZWC5D SWZC5D

MSA requires by end of Period 4, 60% of children with a goal of reunification shall have their assigned DFCS caseworker meet monthly with the child's parents, during the Period, consistent with MSA requirements, and the visit shall be documented in the case record. MSA requires by the end of Period 4, 60% of therapeutic resource parents have a worker visit the home monthly to share relevant information, evaluate the child's safety, needs, and well being, and monitor service delivery and achievement of service goals.

MWZWCR3 SZWCR3
PAD3 SPAD3

MSA requires by the end of Period 4, 60% of non‐therapeutic resource parents have a worker visit the home monthly to share relevant information, evaluate the child's safety, needs, and well being, and monitor service delivery and achievement of service goals.

MWZPLMC SZPLMC

PAD2 SPAD2

MSA II.C. Outcome Measures

MSA requires by the end of Period 4, at least 75% of children state‐wide in care less than 12 months from the time of latest removal from home shall have had two or fewer placements.

MWZPLM5S SZPLM5

MSA requires that by the end of Period 4, the rate of abuse or maltreatment in care shall not exceed 0.5%.

MWBRD06 SMWBRD06

Period 4 Performance Requirement
80% 60% 60%
60%
60%
75% < 0.5%

Statewide Performance as of June 30, 2014
(unless otherwise specified below)
Period 3: 53%57 Period 4: 67%
Period 3: accurate data not available Period 4: 38%
Period 3: 70% Period 4: 73%
Content and frequency of visit (for placements subject to FCR)
Period 3: 45% Period 4: 49%
Frequency of visit (for all applicable placements)
Period 3: 70% Period 4: 70%
Content and frequency of visit (for placements subject to FCR)
Period 3: 77% Period 4: 79%
Defendants notified the Monitor that they are submitting revised data
responsive to this requirement. As of May 27, 2015, the revised data was not
submitted.

57 In the Monitor’s May 2014 Report, defendants’ performance during Period 3 was reported as 55%. In April 2014, defendants submitted revised data reports and reproduced historical data back to July 2012. The submission was made too late for the Monitor to analyze for the May 2014 report. The performance for Period 3 that is reflected above is based on the data submitted by defendants in April 2014.
27

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 33 of 204
Summary Table: Practice Model Performance through June 30, 2014 Based on Analyses of Data Received Through March 24, 201558 [Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor Based on DFCS Data]
58 In some instances the data defendants produced do not reflect performance related to the full MSA requirement. Thus the performance levels set forth in this table may not be indicative of performance related to the full requirement.
28

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 34 of 204 29

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 35 of 204 30

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 36 of 204 31

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 37 of 204 32

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 38 of 204 33

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 39 of 204 34

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 40 of 204 35

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 41 of 204
II. METHODOLOGY
The Monitor’s assessment of defendants’ progress toward meeting Period 4 IP
requirements included site visits to the MDHS State Office as well as to certain DFCS regional and county offices.59 In addition, during Period 4, both face-to-face and telephone interviews
were conducted with MDHS and DFCS managers, supervisors, caseworkers, trainers and practice coaches.60 Service providers from private agencies that contract with DFCS, child welfare
practice and information technology consultants under contract with the defendants, and other
public and private child welfare system stakeholders also were interviewed. Relevant documents, memoranda and other records maintained by MDHS/DFCS,61 have
been reviewed and analyzed, including the following: minutes of meetings generated by the
Statewide Implementation Team (“SIT”); electronic and paper case records for children in foster
care and their families; serious incident reports (“SIRs”) concerning reports of maltreatment in
care; maltreatment investigation reports and documents associated with the maltreatment in care
review process; the CQI plan as well as reports and tracking documents generated by the CQI
process, including Evaluation and Monitoring Unit (“EMU”) reports, and corrective action tracking records generated by the “HEAT” system;62 staffing and personnel data, including
organizational charts, records related to hiring and attrition, position descriptions and vacancy
59 Site visits to DFCS county offices during Period 4 included Hancock, Harrison, Forrest, and Hinds Counties, some of which were visited on multiple occasions. 60 Structured face-to-face interviews were conducted during Period 4 with over 85 DFCS staff and managers. Some staff and managers were interviewed on multiple occasions for significant time periods. Consistent with past practice, the Monitor has continued to interview MDHS and DFCS managers and staff on an ongoing basis about performance during Period 4 and thereafter. Telephone interviews were conducted with various MDHS/DFCS managers throughout Period 4 as a supplement to in-person interviews. Additionally, telephone interviews were conducted with managers and staff in many DFCS regional and county offices. 61 These records were either obtained directly by the Monitor from MDHS/DFCS staff or submitted more formally by defendants’ counsel. 62 The Help Desk Expert Automated Tool, referred to as the “HEAT” system, provides detailed information for tracking service issues related to MDHS/DFCS information technology operations. It has been adapted by the defendants to track corrective actions identified by the CQI process.
36

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 42 of 204
postings; requests for proposals (“RFPs”) and contracting documents; staff recruitment materials
and associated sign-in sheets reflecting participants at staff recruitment presentations; training
records; data reports generated by the Mississippi Automated Child Welfare Information System
(“MACWIS”) and by the FCR process; policies and practice guides; and progress reports and
other submissions concerning implementation activities associated with federal grant programs.
The Monitor also has evaluated various planning documents and protocols submitted by defendants pursuant to MSA requirements.63
The Monitor analyzed statewide and regional performance data and related records
submitted by defendants during Period 4 and thereafter, covering the period through June 30, 2014.64 The Monitor also consulted with child welfare system and information technology experts during Period 4.65 In January 2014, the Monitor engaged two child welfare experts to
conduct a case record review related to maltreatment in care prevalence, investigation quality,
contributing factors and remedial strategies. The methodology used to conduct the case record
review and the findings from the review are described in a June 2014 report, which is included in
the Appendix and addressed herein, as applicable, in the narrative related to several Period 4 requirements.66
As a general matter, defendants have cooperated fully with the Monitor and assisted her,
in specific circumstances, with information gathering activities.
63 Included among these documents are the Workforce Development Plan required by the Initial Period 4 IP §II.A.1., infra at 45. 64 The quantitative analysis in this report was conducted by Sarah Kaye and Mark Jordan, consultants to the Office of the Court Monitor. Dr. Kaye’s professional experience and credentials are summarized in her curriculum vitae, which is included in the Appendix as App. B, Ex. 23B, infra note 244. Mr. Jordan’s academic background and professional experience are summarized in the September 2013 Report at Ex. 28. Mia Caras, Special Assistant to the Court Monitor, also conducted data analysis and provided extensive support to Dr. Kaye and Mr. Jordan. 65 In situations in which an expert assisted the Monitor with a specific assessment of defendants’ performance during Period 4, the expert is identified in the corresponding text of this report. 66 See App. B, Ex. 23D, infra note 245, for the assessment report; see also infra at 105-107.
37

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 43 of 204
III. FINDINGS As a threshold matter, it is helpful to consider certain contextual information about the
thousands of children in defendants’ custody at any point in time to whom the requirements of the MSA apply. According to data produced by defendants, between June 30, 2013 and June 30, 2014, the population of children in custody grew by approximately 14 percent, from just over 3,900 to nearly 4,500 children in custody, over the course of Period 4. The population grew by another eight percent over the next seven months, and by February 28, 2015, the population of children in custody approached 4,900. Period 4 growth was driven in large part by growth in four of the five regions with the largest number of children in custody. Regions I-N, III-S, and VII-W all experienced growth over 20 percent during Period 4, and the population of children in custody in Region VI grew by nearly 50 percent.
On a statewide basis, there were no significant changes in placement trends between Period 3 and Period 4. In both Period 3 and Period 4, approximately 50 percent of children in custody were placed in non-relative or relative foster homes. Additionally, in both periods, approximately 15 percent of children in custody were placed in their own homes. Also in both periods, 10 percent of children in custody were in unlicensed placements or placements pending licenses. Half of all unlicensed placements or placements with pending licenses were in Region VII-W, which accounts for 26 percent of children in custody statewide.
These data are presented visually in the chart below:
38

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 44 of 204
The Monitor’s findings concerning defendants’ performance relative to the MSA’s Period 4 requirements are set forth below.
Initial Period 4 Implementation Plan (“IP”) §§I.A. and I.B. I. Reform Planning and Implementation
A. Implementation Period 3 will conclude before Defendants have produced the accurate and validated reports required by the Period 3 Implementation Plan. Therefore, the Parties and the Monitor have not been able to utilize such reports as intended for monitoring purposes during Implementation Period 3. Therefore, the Parties, working with the Monitor, shall revisit this Initial Period 4 Implementation Plan by December 1, 2013 and renegotiate its scope to determine what, if any, additional requirements must be added.
B. The Final Period 4 Implementation Plan will be finalized no later than January 8, 2014, and will reflect the additional steps, if any, Defendants must take by the end of Period 4. The time period from December 1, 2013 to January 8, 2014 shall be termed the “Negotiation Period.”
39

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 45 of 204
Status of Progress, Initial Period 4 IP §§I.A. and I.B.: These Period 4 requirements were satisfied. As explained above, for the most part, the defendants did not produce the accurate and validated reports about their performance relative to MSA standards that they had been required to produce during Period 3.67 Consequently, the Court issued a remedial order on June 24, 2013 that required the defendants to produce this body of performance data on a monthly basis according to a staggered schedule beginning in September 2013 and ending in mid-January 2014. Because Period 3 performance data were unavailable to inform negotiation of the Period 4 IP, the parties elected to bifurcate implementation planning for Period 4. The Initial Period 4 IP, filed on July 18, 2013, included the data reporting obligations in the June 24, 2013 Order and contemplated that this information about the defendants’ progress relative to MSA requirements would inform the development, approximately six months later, of a Final Period 4 IP that would supplement, but not supersede, the Initial Period 4 IP.68
During a meeting conducted on November 7, 2013, the parties reached agreement on a schedule to guide the negotiation of the Final Period 4 IP. The schedule contemplated that the Monitor would provide the parties with her analyses of all data reports submitted pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order for which there were no major and apparent accuracy or validation issues. The Monitor submitted the contemplated analyses to the parties starting on December 6, 2013, and this information informed the negotiation process. Negotiations were ongoing during December 2013 and early January 2014. The parties reached agreement on the Final Period 4 IP, which was filed on January 8, 2014.69
67 See also supra at 10. 68 See Final Period 4 IP §I.A. (stating the Final Period 4 IP supplements the Initial Period 4 IP). 69 For a general summary of progress during Period 4, see supra at 14-20.
40

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 46 of 204
Final Period 4 IP §I.B. I. Reform Planning and Implementation
B. Pursuant to Section I.E of the MSA, the Parties, working with the Monitor, shall begin to negotiate the Period Five Implementation Plan by April 7, 2014.
Status of Progress, Final Period 4 IP §I.B.: This requirement was not satisfied. The
negotiation of the Period 5 IP did not commence by the April 7, 2014 deadline. The Period 5 IP
was filed on December 23, 2014, over five months after Period 4 ended. The Period 5 IP has
retroactive applicability and it became effective for a 12-month period beginning July 7, 2014.
Ongoing Period 3 IP Requirement §I.A.1.a.70 A. Human Resources Management
1. Management a. By 30 days following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall establish a Statewide Implementation Team. The Statewide Implementation Team will be responsible for prioritizing, managing, and making decisions relating to implementation of the requirements of the Modified Settlement Agreement, this Plan, and the Practice Model. The Statewide Implementation Team will consist of the MDHS Executive Director, MDHS Deputy Executive Director, DFCS Deputy Administrator, DFCS Director, DFCS Field Operations Director, DFCS CQI Director, and a CSF Officer or designee.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.A.1.a. (Ongoing Requirement): This requirement
was partially satisfied during Period 4. Although the evidence indicates that the SIT met
regularly during Period 4, it did not manage the implementation of the Practice Model and the
MSA on an ongoing basis during Period 4. Moreover, no other management entity was in place
throughout Period 4 to do so.71 The basis for this finding is addressed below.
70 The Initial and Final Period 4 IPs acknowledge that, as applicable, ongoing obligations of the Period 3 IP remain in effect. See Initial and Final Period 4 IPs at 1 and n.1. The parties did not specify in the Initial and Final Period 4 IPs which requirements among the list of Period 3 requirements cited in the Period 4 IP would remain applicable during Period 4. Thus, the Monitor has not reported herein on certain Period 3 requirements that represent timelimited and discrete initiatives. 71 In the May 2014 Report the Monitor stated that the SIT was not a Period 4 requirement. May 2014 Report at 41. This representation was correct at that time because the Initial Period 4 IP, which makes this subsection an ongoing Period 3 requirement, was not finalized until July 18, 2013. See Initial Period 4 IP at 1 and n.1.
41

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 47 of 204
As explained in the Monitor’s May 2014 Report, before the start of Period 3 the defendants established the SIT and generally used it to manage implementation of the MSA and the Practice Model.72 However, during Period 4, the minutes from SIT meetings and interview data indicate that the SIT did not regularly review, consider, or take specific action on performance data related to implementation of the MSA and the Practice Model. Moreover, with very limited exceptions, the SIT did not direct or guide the work of the statewide implementation sub-teams during Period 4, as required.73 The Monitor has been unable to identify any evidence that establishes the SIT or an equivalent entity was involved in the ongoing management of the MSA and the Practice Model. Indeed, while the SIT addressed some matters that implicate the MSA during Period 4, it did not function in the manner contemplated by this requirement.
Moreover, there is evidence that indicates tracking of MSA requirements during Period 4 was not conducted in an ongoing and systematic manner as contemplated by this requirement. Indeed, during the Bridge Period and at least part of Period 3, a consultant from the University of Southern Mississippi (“USM”) coordinated a Settlement Team that tracked activities related to specific MSA requirements and reported regularly to the SIT. DFCS managers report that this Settlement Team, while not required by the MSA or any of its implementation plans, helped to promote progress during the Bridge Period and part of Period 3, but it was not convened during Period 4. There is evidence that indicates several Period 4 requirements involving specific
72 May 2014 Report at 41. 73 See infra at 43-44 for the narrative related to §I.A.1.b. of the Period 3 IP, an ongoing requirement which addresses the SIT’s sub-teams and requires that the sub-teams report to and receive direction from the SIT. A review of meeting minutes indicates that the SIT received updates and reviewed requests from some of the sub-teams on an ad hoc basis during Period 4. In addition, the SIT referred at least one matter to a sub-team. However, this evidence does not establish that the SIT directed, guided or otherwise coordinated the work of all the sub-teams in an ongoing and strategic way throughout Period 4.
42

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 48 of 204
deliverables were not satisfied because of the failure of DFCS management to track, monitor and
follow through on required implementation activities.74
Ongoing Period 3 IP Requirement §I.A.1.b.75 A. Human Resources Management
1. Management b. By 30 days following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall establish the following Statewide Implementation SubTeams: CQI, Training, Resource Development, Policy, Legal and Judicial, Resource Parent Recruitment and Retention, and Caseload/Staffing. These Statewide Implementation Sub-Teams will be responsible for designing and guiding the work plans necessary to implement the requirements of the Modified Settlement Agreement and this Plan in their respective functional areas. The Statewide Implementation Sub-Teams will report to and be directed by the Statewide Implementation Team. The Statewide Implementation Sub-Teams shall meet no less frequently than monthly, with the exception of the CQI Sub-Team and the Resource Home Recruitment and Retention Sub-team which shall meet at least quarterly, and shall issue progress reports to the Statewide Implementation Team no less frequently than every three months and which shall discuss accomplishments, challenges, and anticipated next steps. The Statewide Implementation Sub-Teams’ membership will include the Unit Director responsible for that Sub-Team’s particular function, a Regional Director, and such other staff persons the Statewide Implementation Team has deemed responsible for carrying out the particular Sub-Team’s function. Sub-Teams may also include representatives of other state agencies or stakeholders the Statewide Implementation Team has deemed necessary to carry out the Sub-Team’s function.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.A.1.b. (Ongoing Requirement): This requirement
was partially satisfied during Period 4. As indicated in the Monitor’s May 2014 Report, the
required sub-teams and several additional sub-teams were established on a timely basis and they
generally functioned as contemplated by the Period 3 IP.76 However, the Monitor reported that
74 See, e.g., narrative related to Final Period 4 IP §V.B. infra at 151 (failure to submit report on progress related to action steps required by Final Period 4 IP §V.A. regarding multiple improvement plans); narrative related to Final Period 4 IP §II.B.2. infra at 84-85 (failure to submit monthly reports documenting obligation to ensure timely implementation of corrective actions required by CQI corrective action tracking process). 75 See Initial and Final Period 4 IPs at 1, n.1. 76 May 2014 Report at 42.
43

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 49 of 204
the work products produced by several sub-teams during Period 3 raised substantial concerns
about the defendants’ capacity to implement certain specific MSA requirements.77 Although
there is evidence that many of the sub-teams continued to meet during Period 4, for the most part
the sub-teams were not guided by concrete work plans related to MSA and Practice Model
implementation in their functional areas. Moreover, the sub-teams were not required to submit
periodic progress reports to the SIT, addressing accomplishments, challenges and next steps.78
Ongoing Period 3 IP Requirement §I.A.1.c.79 A. Human Resources Management
1. Management c. By 30 days following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall establish Regional Implementation Teams in Regions IN, I-S, II-W, III-S, IV-N, IV-S, V-E and V-W. The Regional Implementation Teams will be chaired by the respective Regional Director and the membership will consist of appropriate staff persons and may also include representatives of other state agencies or stakeholders the Statewide Implementation Team has deemed necessary to carry out the Team’s function. The Regional Implementation Teams shall meet no less frequently than quarterly and shall issue progress reports to the Statewide Implementation Team no less frequently than quarterly. These reports shall discuss accomplishments, challenges, and anticipated next steps. The Regional Implementation Teams will include SubTeams in the following practice areas: CQI and Resource Parent Recruitment and Retention.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.A.1.c. (Ongoing Requirement): This requirement
was partially satisfied during Period 4. A primary purpose of the Regional Implementation Team
(“RIT”) is to guide implementation of the Practice Model in each of DFCS’s administrative
regions. In May 2014 the Monitor reported on substantial shortcomings in the RITs that were
identified during Period 3 and that had not yet been remedied by the start of May 2014, as Period
77 Id. See also id. at 44 (addressing defendants’ performance related to Period 3 IP §I.A.1.d., which required the sub-teams to finalize the work plan referred to in Period 3 IP §I.A.1.b., and noting that with few exceptions the documents that defendants submitted were insufficient to guide the work of the sub-teams). 78 Defendants report that at least some of the sub-teams submitted meeting minutes periodically to a DFCS staff member who participated on the SIT. The Monitor requested the sub-teams’ meeting minutes, but as of June 10, 2015 the minutes had not been produced. 79 See Initial and Final Period 4 IPs at 1, n.1.
44

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 50 of 204
4 was coming to an end.80 Interviews with DFCS managers and other stakeholders during Period
4 indicate that many regional managers had continued difficulty implementing the regional
implementation team process as intended notwithstanding efforts by DFCS management to
strengthen the RITs. During the first quarter of 2015, defendants initiated efforts to address
regional performance deficits by requiring the development of regional improvement plans for
certain DFCS regions. Defendants report that the plans, which were submitted to DFCS
executive leadership for approval during May 2015, have been approved and will be provided to
the Monitor in the near term.
Initial Period 4 IP §II.A.1. A. Human Resources Management
1. By August 15, 2013, the Monitor shall determine whether to approve Defendants’ April 8, 2013 Workforce Development Plan (the “Plan”), as described in Section I.A.2.b of the Period 3 Implementation Plan. If the Monitor does not approve the Plan, Defendants shall expeditiously revise the Plan and resubmit it to the Monitor, and the Monitor shall expeditiously review the revised Plan and determine whether to approve it. Once approved, Defendants shall implement the Plan in accordance with its terms.
Status of Progress, Initial Period 4 IP §II.A.1.: The defendants did not satisfy this
Period 4 requirement. The Monitor did not approve defendants’ April 8, 2013 submission nor
did she approve a revised version of the Work Force Development Plan that defendants
submitted on November 6, 2013 because neither version satisfied MSA requirements.81 The
Monitor’s findings, including all supporting evidence, are presented, in detail, in the Monitor’s
May 2014 Report.82
Final Period 4 IP §§II.A.1., II.A.2., and II.A.3. A. Human Resources Management
1. By January 15, 2014, Defendants, in consultation with the Monitor, shall undertake a process for correcting the
80 May 2014 Report at 43. 81 See May 2014 Report at Exs. 8F and 8H. Unless otherwise specified, all references in this report to exhibits of the May 2014 Report refer to exhibits contained in Appendix B of the May 2014 Report. 82 See May 2014 Report at 63-67 and at Exs. 8A-8H.
45

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 51 of 204
caseworker mixed caseload data reports submitted to the Monitor for caseloads as of November 1 and November 30, 2013 and any subsequent monthly caseworker mixed caseload data reports with regard to supervisory caseload assignments. 2. By January 24, 2014, Defendants shall produce to the Monitor supplemental information to correct the caseworker mixed caseload data reports submitted to the Monitor for caseloads as of November 1 and November 30, 2013 with regard to supervisory caseload assignments. 3. Defendants shall produce to the Monitor and Plaintiffs caseworker mixed caseload data reports once each week for a period of three months beginning the week of February 1, 2014. Following production of these first three months of data, Defendants, in consultation with Plaintiffs and the Monitor, will determine whether the caseworker mixed caseload data report shall be produced on a weekly, biweekly, or monthly basis.
Status of Progress, Final Period 4 IP §§II.A.1., II.A.2., and II.A.3.: This requirement
was not satisfied. As explained below, as required, the defendants consulted with the Monitor
and undertook a process for correcting the mixed caseload data that they had submitted to the
Monitor; however, defendants were unable to correct the November 1 and 30, 2013 data.
Following a protracted data validation process and subsequent development of a revised report
specification, defendants produced complete, validated data for the first time in mid-October
2014, after the end of Period 4. The data defendants were able to produce in mid-October has
been analyzed by the Monitor and the results of the analyses are presented in this report.83
The defendants have been required to produce accurate and validated monthly reports on
caseworker caseloads during each annual implementation period since 2008, the beginning of
Period 1.84 The ability to report accurately and at regular intervals on caseworker caseloads is a
prerequisite for maintaining an adequate workforce and for balancing the workload among
83 See infra at 66-69. In May 2015, defendants notified plaintiffs and the Monitor that there were problems with the Excel versions of the dedicated caseload data that defendants produced for the months of November and December 2014 and January 2015. The dedicated caseload data was resubmitted on May 20, 2015. 84 Settlement Agreement §§II.A.2.a.7. and II.A.2.a.10.
46

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 52 of 204
caseworkers,85 and is essential to building the capacity for defendants to meet the MSA’s core
service delivery requirements.
The Monitor’s previous reports detail substantial limitations in defendants’ performance
and describe many of the challenges they have confronted during repeated efforts to meet caseload reporting obligations.86 This history underscores a recurrent theme throughout the
remedial stage of this lawsuit regarding the absence of fundamental management tools to drive
improvement. While there has been progress developing caseload data reports, particularly over
the past year, the depth of defendants’ capacity deficits is revealed by the fact that so
fundamental an issue would remain unresolved for a nearly seven-year period between January
2008 and October 2014.
Because defendants failed to produce accurate and validated caseload reports on a
monthly basis during Period 3, both the June 24, 2013 Order and the Initial Period 4 IP required
the defendants to produce the monthly mixed caseload reports that were due during Period 3 by
September 1, 2013, and thereafter, to produce monthly reports on an ongoing basis by October 1, 2013.87
The defendants worked with plaintiffs’ counsel and the Monitor to develop specifications for the mixed caseload report, as required.88 The collaborative process that was used for
developing the report’s specifications was protracted and, as a result, the specifications were not
85 The Monitor has reported on the importance of these data in many of her prior reports. See, e.g., May 2014 Report at 45. 86 See, e.g., The Court Monitor’s Report to the Court Regarding Defendants’ Progress Toward Meeting Period-1 Requirements [hereinafter June 2009 Report], filed June 5, 2009 [Dkt. No. 488], at 25-35; The Court Monitor’s Report to the Court Regarding Defendants’ Progress Toward Meeting Period 2 Requirements [hereinafter September 2010 Report], filed September 8, 2010 [Dkt. No. 503], at 18-25; The Court Monitor’s November 23, 2010 Report to the Court Regarding the June 10, 2010 Agreed Order for Corrective Action [hereinafter November 2010 Report], filed November 23, 2010 [Dkt. No. 528], at 22-23; January 2013 Report at 22-25; and May 2014 Report at 22, 45-55. 87 June 24, 2013 Order §VI.E. Attachment One, and Attachment Two, Report 9; and Initial Period 4 IP §II.C.1. 88 As noted above, pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order, the defendants were required to develop specifications for all outstanding data reports in consultation with the plaintiffs and the Monitor. June 24, 2013 Order §VI.A.3.
47

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 53 of 204
finalized until late August 2013.89 While there was agreement that a point-in-time measurement of all caseworker caseloads would be reflected in the report, the parties and the Monitor did not have sufficient information about the factors impacting variations in caseloads to determine how sensitive point-in-time measurement results were to the moment when the point-in-time report was produced (i.e., whether there was a wide variation over time, which could render any individual point-in-time measurement not representative of general caseload levels). Accordingly, the specifications provided that caseloads would be measured once monthly on a different day each month until certain software was operational,90 and thereafter the measurement would be conducted weekly for a three-month period. In turn, the specifications recognize that this discrete body of caseload data would be used to inform the defendants’ determination, in consultation with plaintiffs and the Monitor, about whether the caseload reports should be produced prospectively on a weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly basis.91
Because the development of the mixed caseload specifications was the result of a protracted process, there was an informal agreement between the parties to afford defendants some flexibility with respect to the September 1, 2013 deadline. During October 2013, defendants reported that none of the historical caseload data that was required by both the June 24, 2013 Order and the July 2013 Initial Period 4 IP had been maintained in MACWIS. Thereafter, at the start of November 2013, defendants reported that programming issues would
89 See App. B, Ex. 1, Final Specifications for Mixed Caseload Data Report (DHS 351488-351501). The specifications for the mixed caseload report were finalized on August 22, 2013. 90 Id. at 1, n.1. Initially, defendants’ caseload data reporting production was constrained by a practice that was limited to once monthly data extracts from MACWIS. The data were transferred to a relational database, which was used as the data source for many of defendants’ monthly reporting requirements. Defendants installed a software program that enabled much more frequent data transfers from MACWIS to the relational database, which allowed for the possibility of the production of caseload reports on more frequent intervals. 91 Id.
48

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 54 of 204
delay submission of the monthly mixed caseload reports.92 Defendants stated that a report for
November 1, 2013 would be submitted by December 1, 2013, following the required two-stage
validation process.93
On December 6, 2013, defendants produced a November 1, 2013 point-in-time report for
mixed caseloads.94 An additional point-in-time report for November 30, 2013 was produced on
December 20, 2013.95 As the Monitor reported in her May 2014 Report, her analysis of the
November 1, 2013 point-in-time data indicated that over 10 percent of the employees reflected in
the data as carrying cases were supervisors instead of caseworkers.96 Because the MSA
expressly prohibits the defendants from assigning primary casework responsibility to
supervisors,97 and because interview data collected by the Monitor throughout Period 3 did not
suggest that supervisory assignments to cases were as prevalent as the November 1, 2013 data
indicated, the Monitor notified the parties of her concerns about the accuracy of the defendants’
submissions.
The Final Period 4 IP, which was filed at the start of January 2014, included three specific
requirements to address these issues. First, it required defendants to correct the November 1 and
92 On November 1, 2013, the defendants reported on a need for multiple programming “fixes” that were discovered during the report validation process. See May 2014 Report at 48-49 and Ex. 5D. The Monitor’s May 2014 Report presents a detailed summary of defendants’ efforts to meet the Period 4 mixed caseload reporting requirements as well as the challenges that they encountered in their attempts to do so. Id. at 47-53. 93 Id. at 48-49 and Ex. 5D. The June 24, 2013 Order required defendants to develop and implement a plan to improve the completeness, accuracy and validation of data reports required by the MSA. June 24, 2013 Order §VI.D.2. The plan, which was submitted by the defendants on November 26, 2013 and clarified on March 17, 2014, requires a two-stage validation process: a face validity check and a “manual validation” process involving comparing data from reports to data from other data sources, including MACWIS. As explained infra at 51, for the caseload reports, defendants initially instituted a 100 percent field validation process, but subsequently modified it in 2014 based on practicality concerns after problems were detected with the completeness and accuracy of the caseload data following serial report productions. 94 See May 2014 Report at 49 and Ex. 5F. 95 Id. at 49 and Ex. 5G. 96 Id. at 49. 97 MSA §II.A.2.a.9.d. (prohibiting, by the end of Period 3, supervisors to be assigned primary responsibility for providing direct casework for any cases absent extenuating circumstances and only for a time-limited duration with management approval); id. §II.A.2.a.7.
49

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 55 of 204
November 30, 2013 point-in-time data as well as any subsequent monthly mixed caseload reports insofar as supervisory caseload assignments.98 Second, it required defendants to produce supplemental information to the Monitor to correct supervisory assignments in the November 2013 mixed caseload data submissions.99 Finally, it required the defendants to produce mixed caseload reports once each week for a three-month period beginning the week of February 1, 2014, and thereafter to consult with plaintiffs and the Monitor and determine whether the reports should be produced on a weekly, bi-weekly or monthly basis.100
In response to these Final Period 4 IP requirements, the defendants engaged in a process, in consultation with the Monitor, to correct the mixed caseload reports on a timely basis. During January 2014, defendants submitted a narrative explaining why the November 2013 data reports incorrectly listed supervisors as well as spreadsheets accounting for the cause of each error.101 They also submitted “corrected” case assignment data for November 1 and 30, 2013.102 As the Monitor has reported, defendants’ explanations for the inaccuracies in the mixed caseload data raised very serious concerns about the reliability of the DFCS data validation process, which, in the Monitor’s view, should have identified the errors in the supervisory assignment data.103
Defendants did not produce mixed caseload reports on a monthly basis starting the week of February 1, 2014 as required by the Final Period 4 IP. On February 3, 2014, defendants reported that they had detected certain errors in the report that they were working to address.104 Thereafter, in response to the Monitor’s inquiry about whether the errors that had been detected
98 Final Period 4 IP §II.A.1. 99 Id. §II.A.2. 100 Id. §II.A.3. The Monitor has reported previously on defendants’ Period 4 performance related to these requirements. May 2014 Report at 50-51. 101 The narrative was submitted on January 24, 2014. Id. at 50-51 and Ex. 5I. 102 Id. at Ex. 5I. 103 Id. at 52. 104 Id. at 52 and Ex. 5M.
50

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 56 of 204
affected the validity, accuracy and/or completeness of the “corrected” November 1 and 30, 2013 mixed caseload reports, defendants advised that identical errors had been found in the “corrected” November 2013 reports and the data could not be corrected.105 On February 25, 2014, defendants reported they had made a series of changes in MACWIS and would institute a 100 percent field validation process on a region-by-region basis in order to improve the accuracy of the mixed caseload reports.106 They indicated that they would begin to run reports that would presumably benefit from these new processes starting the week of March 3, 2014.107
Pursuant to MSA §VII.B., plaintiffs submitted a notice of noncompliance related to the mixed caseload reports on February 27, 2014. In response to the notice, on March 31, 2014, defendants reported that they would be submitting mixed caseload data for March 3, 12 and 20, 2014. Defendants also indicated that as a result of the report validation process, they determined that it would be helpful to revise the report specifications for the mixed caseload report as well as for a related report. Defendants proposed additional discussion between the parties regarding the specifications. Thereafter, on April 2, 2014, the Monitor received the three March 2014 reports that defendants had indicated they would produce.
As the Monitor reported in her May 2014 Report, because of the history associated with the defendants’ efforts to produce accurate mixed caseload data, the Monitor assessed the processes that the defendants implemented to improve the accuracy of the reports that she received on April 2, 2014. During the course of the Monitor’s assessment, she learned from DFCS staff responsible for the validation process that a report programming error resulted in excluding caseload carrying caseworkers from the March 2014 reports that defendants submitted
105 Id. at 52-53 and Exs. 5N and 5O. 106 Id. at 53 and Ex. 5O. 107 Id.
51

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 57 of 204
to the Monitor on April 2, 2014.108 Defendants reported that they had corrected the data beginning with the data report for April 10, 2014, which was submitted to the Monitor on May 29, 2014 along with data reports for April 17 and 24 and May 1, 8, 15 and 22, 2014.
During May 2014, defendants initiated discussions with the Monitor, and later on in the month with plaintiffs’ counsel, about the need to modify the specifications for the caseload reports. Defendants indicated that they were not finding the reports to be as useful as they could be for management purposes and they reported that in certain instances specific caseworkers were being counted on both the mixed and the dedicated caseload reports. In light of these concerns, defendants proposed modifications to the report specifications. Thereafter, on June 11, 2014, the parties reached agreement on the following, among other, matters: 1) defendants would stop issuing the then-current version of the mixed caseloads reports and the reports that had been produced would not be analyzed; 2) the specifications for the data report would be revised and revised reports would be produced at the intervals required by the initial specifications for a three-month period and at the conclusion of the period the parties would decide on the appropriate reporting intervals; and 3) the Monitor would analyze the revised mixed caseload reports starting with the first point-in-time report produced pursuant to the revised specifications.109
The modifications to the specifications were agreed upon by the parties and endorsed by the Monitor on July 3, 2014.110 Shortly thereafter, on July 9, 2014, defendants were ordered to produce valid and accurate caseload reports by October 15, 2014.111 While defendants began to
108 See May 2014 Report at 53 for a more detailed account of this matter. 109 See App. B, Ex. 2, June 11, 2014 e-mail from Grace M. Lopes to Rusty Fortenberry, et al., redacted (summarizing the terms of this agreement). 110 A copy of the final version of the revised specifications was transmitted to the Monitor and plaintiffs’ counsel on January 16, 2015, and it is included in the Appendix to this report as App. B, Ex. 3A. 111 See July 2014 Corrected Order §IV.
52

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 58 of 204
produce caseload reports responsive to the revised specification on October 14, 2014, the data produced has been limited to a single point-in-time for each month between October 2014 and April 2015. Contrary to the requirements of §II.A.3. of the Final Period 4 IP, defendants have failed to produce weekly reports for a three-month period. As noted above,112 these data are necessary in order to inform the parties’ decision-making about the appropriate reporting interval. The data defendants produce regarding caseworkers with dedicated caseloads do not include a county variable, which precludes the possibility of excluding any caseworkers from analyses notwithstanding the fact that certain county exclusions are necessary to measure performance consistent with MSA requirements.
While this report presents the results of the Monitor’s analysis of the mixed caseload data defendants produced for October 14, 2014, which shows defendants had not satisfied MSA caseload requirements at a point-in-time over 90 days after Period 4 concluded,113 this is the first time the Monitor has been able to analyze this vital information since defendants were required to produce such data in 2008.114 To make progress with caseload requirements, defendants must begin to produce accurate, complete, up-to-date data, analyze that data, and respond to findings on a consistent basis over time. Defendants not only have to consider the impact of vacancies over time, but, as the data regarding the growth of the population of children in custody over Period 4 and part of Period 5 illustrate, population level changes can be substantial and rapid, which directly impacts caseloads. Up-to-date caseload data would enable, for example, defendants to assess how the 50 percent growth in the population of children in custody in Region VI during Period 4 impacted caseload levels.
112 Supra at 48. 113 See infra at 66-68. 114 See supra at 46-47 for relevant background information.
53

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 59 of 204
Despite the absence of caseload data that could be analyzed for Period 4, there is a body
of evidence that indicates that very serious staffing deficits in some DFCS regions were evident
during Period 4 and had a significant impact on case practice. For example, various monthly
reports issued during Period 4 by CSF, related to implementation of the Practice Model,
comment on the impact of caseworker and supervisory staffing shortages in some DFCS
regions.115 The Monitor’s interviews with DFCS staff and managers during Period 4 also
confirmed the severity of the problem and provided insight into the consequences of supervisory
and caseworker staffing shortages in regions with high concentrations of children in custody.116
115 See, e.g., App. B, Ex. 3B, Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, August 2013, redacted excerpt, at 6 (noting that in Region I-N both “[t]he Resource Unit and at least one other county are understaffed and are feeling the burden of working over an extended period of time with large workloads and minimal staff.”); App. B, Ex. 3C, Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, September 2013, redacted excerpt, at 17 (noting as concern/barrier that “[s]ome regions continue to report a shortage of staff and/or supervisors.”); App. B, Ex. 3D, Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, November 2013, excerpt, redacted at 17 (noting as concern/barrier that supervisors in Region VI “have expressed a desire for a well-thought out plan on how to address vacancies and help raise the morale of the staff”); id. (noting that in Region V-E there were “several supervisory vacancies (with available pins) for an extended period of time which is resulting in existing supervisors feeling overwhelmed and stressed. Attention needs to be focused on filling these positions promptly.”); App. B, Ex. 3E, Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, December 2013, excerpt, redacted at 17 (noting as concern/barrier “[s]upervisors in several regions continue to voice the concern regarding having the time to adequately supervise staff with so many supervisory vacancies.”); App. B, Ex. 3F, Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, February 2014, excerpt, redacted at 15 (noting as concern/barrier “[w]orkers not being able to assign COS [county of service; i.e., county where child in DFCS custody is placed] workers for their children and parents that are living in other counties because of high caseloads in the receiving county.”); App. B, Ex. 3G, Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, March 2014, excerpt, redacted at 14 (noting as concern/barrier that several regions were reporting staffing concerns); App. B, Ex. 3H, Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, June 2014, excerpt, redacted at 18 (noting that “[i]n Region VII-West and in Region VI (Forrest County) the instability of Supervisors, Workers, and caseloads continues to impact the delivery of services to the children and families.”); App. B, Ex. 3I, Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, July 2014, excerpt, redacted at 14 (noting as concern/barrier the following: “Continued high caseloads and the need for additional staff has impacted several regions, manifesting itself in several ways including the DHS Practice Model coach assuming a caseload, monitoring and assigning new cases, consistency in supervisors for workers and workers for families, and the workers need for emotional support aimed at retention.”); App. B, Ex. 3J, Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, May 2014, excerpts, redacted at 4 and 17 (reporting that in region IV-N there were vacancies in three counties, one supervisor was on special assignment in another region, and the DFCS practice coach was on a 90-day special assignment as an acting supervisor in a county office). 116 For example, despite gains in caseworker staffing that resulted from the short-term management strategy launched in the carve-out counties at the end of the 2012 calendar year, during Period 4, some supervisors in the carve-out counties (i.e., Hinds, Harrison, Hancock and Jackson counties) reported carrying their own caseloads and supervising between eight and 14 caseworkers. They described a work environment that was, at times, chaotic, and often very challenging. See also January 2013 Report at Ex. 37 for a description of the management strategy that defendants initiated in the carve-out counties. The lack of a sufficient number of supervisors has been a longstanding problem in other DFCS regions as well. For example, in Region I-N, management staff reported having
54

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 60 of 204
Instead of filling many of these critical vacancies with permanent staff, DFCS management relied
on the use of special assignments, whereby DFCS practice coaches, trainers, and other staff were
reassigned from their positions to serve as caseworkers and supervisors in other counties in their
own regions or in other regions. Although initially for a 90-day period, many of these
reassignments were made with very little planning or notice and extended for much longer than
90 days.117 This initiative had a substantial impact on the quality of case practice in the regions
and counties from which staff were reassigned.118
Notwithstanding the evidence of significant and continuing caseworker and supervisory
staffing deficits in multiple regions and its impact on case practice,119 the evidence shows that
four supervisors on board in DeSoto County in October 2013, three of whom were assigned to supervise more than five caseworkers, and one acting supervisor assigned to Marshall County with responsibility for managing nine caseworkers. In Region VI, management staff reported during August 2013 having supervisory staffing deficits in every county in the region, including a staffing deficit in Stone County that resulted in one supervisor charged with managing 11 caseworkers. Long-standing supervisory vacancies also were reported in March 2014 by management staff in Region V-E in Covington, Smith and Simpson Counties. At times, supervisory vacancies are filled on a temporary basis by caseworkers and practice coaches whose positions remain vacant during the period of the reassignment. Defendants have reported that in these situations, the “acting” supervisors have received pre-service supervisory training. The Monitor has not had an opportunity to confirm the training status of all “acting” supervisors; however, training records indicate that pre-service supervisory training has been afforded to a cohort of non-supervisory staff and some “acting” supervisors have confirmed during interviews with the Monitor that they received the pre-service supervisory training before their temporary reassignments. 117 See, e.g., infra at 64-66 for the narrative related to the temporary reassignment of the DFCS director assigned to oversee implementation of the Practice Model. There is evidence that defendants have continued to rely on these practices during Period 5. For example, shortly after Period 4 ended, five of the nine trainers assigned to the DFCS training unit were reassigned on a temporary basis to serve in casework and supervisory positions in Forrest County for over a five-month period between August 11, 2014 and January 22, 2015. Some of the trainers remained in Forrest County until January 26, 2015. These reassignments were instituted without adequate notice or planning. The Monitor has not had an opportunity to assess the impact the reassignments may have had on training unit operations. See infra at 70-71 for the related ongoing Period 3 IP requirement concerning Period 3 IP §I.A.3.a.2. 118 See, e.g., App. B, Ex. 3I, supra note 115. See also infra at 64-66 (regarding the practice of reassigning on a temporary basis the practice coaches to supervisory and other positions). 119 Understaffing also affected defendants’ implementation of the diligent recruitment grant during Period 4. See, e.g., App. B, Ex. 3K, ACF Performance Progress Report, excerpt, submitted by DFCS to the Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children, Youth and Families Children’s Bureau on April 30, 2014 for the six-month reporting period ending March 31, 2014, at 6 (commenting on limitations in DFCS data collection activities necessary for grant evaluation purposes and stating: “During this reporting period data for evaluation purposes continues to be a challenge in some of our regions due to a lack of staff and more demands of other duties that are not related to grant.”); id. (commenting on the failure of a region to begin to implement the plan for recruitment of resource homes, stating: “Region I-N was unable to carry out their recruitment plan for the fall due to staffing issues but plans have been revised and approved for the 2014 year.”). This was not an isolated issue. Staffing deficits in other regions have affected implementation of the grant. See, e.g., App. B, Ex. 3L, May 30, 2013 correspondence from Richard A. Berry to Bernard Morgan and Taffy B. Compain with attached excerpt from
55

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 61 of 204
defendants failed to address these staffing shortages in an effective way during Period 4. Analysis of hiring and attrition data submitted to the Monitor by DFCS human resources staff is presented graphically below. The analysis indicates there was a net loss of at least 17 caseworker staff during Period 4.120
renewal application for federal assistance, Program and Budget Narrative, at 2 (stating: “Grant activities were scheduled to roll out in Region III-S as well but were delayed due to staffing concerns, high caseloads, and other opportunities for improved practice within the region.”). 120 During the process of validating training data submitted by the defendants, the Monitor discovered that certain individuals reflected as hires in the data did not ultimately begin working for DFCS. In other instances, individuals reflected as being hired during Period 4 appear to have started employment with DFCS after the end of Period 4. In their comments on the draft version of this report, defendants identified individuals in training data who they reported were hired during January 2014. These individuals did not appear in the hiring data submitted by MDHS/DFCS human resources management staff. This discrepancy underscores the Monitor’s concerns about the accuracy and completeness of the hiring and separation data that have been produced by the defendants.
56

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 62 of 204
The Monitor also analyzed hiring and attrition data for the Area Social Work Supervisors (“ASWS”), the supervisory staff charged with managing caseworkers in all DFCS County offices. According to the data provided by defendants, presented graphically below, there was a net loss of seven ASWSs during Period 4.
Final Period 4 IP §II.A.4.a. A. Human Resources Management
4. In an effort to address the recruitment of area social worker supervisors (“ASWS”), Defendants shall undertake the following efforts during Implementation Period 4: a) Defendants shall undertake recruitment efforts through the Master of Social Work (“MSW”) programs at the following universities: Jackson State University, Mississippi Valley State University, Union University, University of Alabama, Louisiana State University, Tulane University, University of Arkansas-Little Rock, University of Mississippi, and University of Southern Mississippi. i. The recruitment efforts will be overseen by a regionbased recruitment team which will consist of either a
57

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 63 of 204
Regional Director, Regional ASWS, and an ASWS, or a Regional Director, ASWS and a caseworker. ii. Each recruitment team will be required to make one visit in the spring semester of 2014 to the MSW program at their assigned university and visit with students at various levels of MSW attainment. The recruitment team will present opportunities for employment at the Mississippi Division of Family and Children Services (“DFCS”) and also provide the students with an information packet on DFCS employment opportunities and benefits that will be prepared by the DFCS Director of Workforce Development. iii. The recruitment team will also be required to visit and present to at least one class of undergraduate social work (“BSW”) students at their assigned university in the spring semester of 2014 to discuss opportunities for employment at DFCS, the offering of the MSW education as part of the DFCS benefits package, and internship opportunities at DFCS.
ASWSs are the backbone of defendants’ reform effort. Defendants must maintain a
sufficient number of qualified supervisors to support caseworkers and hold them accountable for
satisfying DFCS policy guidelines and MSA practice standards. In May 2014, commenting on
defendants’ performance during Period 3, the Monitor reported on the critical need for the
defendants to more effectively address vacancies in the supervisory workforce.121 In fact, instead
of increasing the supervisory workforce during Period 3, hiring did not outpace attrition and there
was a net loss of 17 supervisors.122 This was a significant loss. According to defendants’
workload data, as of October 14, 2014, there were 179 supervisory staff with caseloads; thus,
using that total as a proxy for the number of supervisors employed at DFCS in Period 3, a net
loss of 17 supervisors represents a decrease approaching ten percent of the supervisory
workforce. For this reason, the Final Period 4 IP incorporated a series of initiatives related to
ASWS recruitment, including activities through the graduate and undergraduate Social Work
121 See, e.g., May 2014 Report at 58. 122 Id. at 57-58.
58

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 64 of 204
programs at nine specified universities. Defendants’ performance relative to the Period 4
requirements concerning these university programs is described below.
Status of Progress, Final Period 4 IP §§II.A.4.a.i., II.A.4.a.ii., and II.A.4.a.iii.: As
explained below, the requirements in §II.A.4.a.i. were satisfied and the requirements in
§§II.A.4.a.ii. and II.A.4.a.iii. were satisfied in part.
The DFCS Director for Workforce Development coordinated this initiative, developing a
PowerPoint presentation and basic informational materials for the regional recruitment teams to
use.123 Each region established a recruitment team as required, and there is evidence that the
teams conducted recruitment activities at each of the targeted universities.124 However, except
for the presentation at the University of Arkansas, which included both Master of Social Work
(“MSW”) and Bachelor of Social Work (“BSW”) students, the documentation defendants
collected and interview data establish that the presentations at each educational institution were
made to either MSW or BSW students but not, as required, to students in both programs.125
Defendants have explained that in these instances the university did not permit the recruitment
123 According to the DFCS Director for Workforce Development, the PowerPoint presentation was provided to the regional teams as a guide and the teams were not required to use it. Interviews with members of several recruitment teams indicate that they used the PowerPoint as a handout during at least some of the university presentations. The PowerPoint is included in the Appendix as App. B, Ex. 4. Students who attended the presentations were also provided with a one-page hand-out describing the available DFCS positions, including salaries, benefits, and application information. A copy of this document is included in the Appendix as App. B, Ex. 5. 124 On June 5, 2014, the defendants submitted attendance sheets for the university presentations to plaintiffs’ counsel and the Monitor. This submission did not include documentation for presentations at two of the targeted universities. However, the Monitor was able to obtain the missing documentation and other supplemental records, which established that recruitment presentations were conducted at 20 unique university sites between February 19 and May 1, 2014. 125 The evidence presented indicates the following: 1) Mississippi Valley State University, BSW students visited on April 7, 2014; 2) Jackson State University, MSW students visited on May 1, 2014; 3) University of Arkansas-Little Rock, MSW and BSW students visited on April 22, 2014; 4) Union University, MSW students visited on April 7, 2014; 5) University of Alabama, MSW students visited on April 14, 2014; 6) University of Southern Mississippi, MSW students visited on April 24, 2014; 7) Louisiana State University, MSW students visited on March 24, 2014; 8) Tulane University, MSW students visited on April 8, 2014; and 9) University of Mississippi, MSW students visited on April 30, 2014.
59

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 65 of 204
team to visit classes, but offered alternative forums which did not guarantee participation by both
undergraduate and graduate students.
Final Period 4 IP §§II.A.4.b.i. and II.A.4.b.ii. A. Human Resources Management
4. In an effort to address the recruitment of area social worker supervisors (“ASWS”), Defendants shall undertake the following efforts during Implementation Period 4: b) Defendants shall undertake recruitment efforts through the undergraduate social work (“BSW”) programs at the following universities: Alcorn State University, Rust College, University of Mississippi-Southaven and Tupelo campuses, Delta State University, Belhaven University, Mississippi College, and Mississippi State UniversityStarkville and Meridian campuses. i. The recruitment efforts will be overseen by a regionbased recruitment team which will consist of either a Regional Director, Regional ASWS, and an ASWS, or a Regional Director, ASWS and a caseworker. ii. The recruitment team will be required to visit and present to at least one class of undergraduate social work students at their assigned universities in the spring semester of 2014 to discuss opportunities for employment at DFCS, the offering of the MSW education as part of the DFCS benefits package, and internship opportunities at DFCS.
Status of Progress, Final Period 4 IP §§II.A.4.b.i. and II.A.4.b.ii.: These requirements
were satisfied. According to interview data and the relevant records maintained by DFCS, during
Period 4 regional recruitment teams made the required presentations to one class of BSW
students at each of the targeted universities.126
Final Period 4 IP §II.A.4.c. A. Human Resources Management
4. In an effort to address the recruitment of area social worker supervisors (“ASWS”), Defendants shall undertake the following efforts during Implementation Period 4: c) The assignments for the region-based recruitment teams discussed in II.A.4.a.-b. above are as follows:
Region 1 North Union University in Jackson, TN (MSW) Rust College (BSW) University of Mississippi-Southaven (BSW)
Region 1 South University of Mississippi-Oxford, MS (MSW)
126 According to the available documentation, the presentations were made at each university on the following dates: 1) Alcorn State University, March 31, 2014; 2) Rust College, March 21, 2014; 3) University of Mississippi/Southaven, February 19, 2014; 4) University of Mississippi/Tupelo, March 25, 2014; 5) Delta State University, March 17, 2014; 6) Belhaven University, March 27, 2014; 7) Mississippi College, March 21, 2014; 8) Mississippi State University-Starkville, April 9, 2014; and 9) Mississippi State University-Meridian, April 11, 2014.
60

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 66 of 204

University of Mississippi-Tupelo (BSW)

Region 2 East MS Valley State University (MSW)

Region 2 West University of Arkansas, Little Rock (MSW)

Delta State University (BSW)

Region 3 North Belhaven University (BSW)

Mississippi College (BSW)

Region 3 South Jackson State University (MSW)

Region 4 North University of Alabama (MSW)

Mississippi State University-Starkville (BSW)

Region 4 South Mississippi State University, Meridian (BSW)

Region 5 East University of Southern Mississippi (MSW)

Alcorn State University (BSW)

Region 5 West Louisiana State University (MSW)

Region 6

University of Southern MS (MSW)

Region 7 East University of Alabama- Mobile (MSW)

Region 7 West Tulane University (MSW)

Status of Progress, Final Period 4 IP §II.A.4.c.: As a general matter, this requirement

was satisfied. Based on interviews and relevant documents provided by defendants, the regional

recruitment teams made the required presentations at each of the targeted universities during Period 4, with some variation.127

Final Period 4 IP §II.A.4.d. A. Human Resources Management
4. In an effort to address the recruitment of area social worker supervisors (“ASWS”), Defendants shall undertake the following efforts during Implementation Period 4: d) By March 1, 2014, Defendants shall request that the Mississippi State Personnel Board revise and approve requirements for the position of ASWS to require two years of experience. Nothing in this provision alters the supervisor qualifications as set forth in MSA Section II.A.2.b.
Status of Progress, Final Period 4 IP §II.A.4.d.: The defendants satisfied this

requirement. On February 26, 2014 the DHS executive director requested the required change in the ASWS position qualifications.128 While it appears that a formal approval letter was not

127 There were some minor deviations. For example, the Region II-E team met with BSW and not MSW students at Mississippi Valley University; the Region II-W team met with both MSW and BSW students at the University of Arkansas; and the Region VII-E team met with BSW and not MSW students at the University of South AlabamaMobile. 128 See App. B, Ex. 6A, February 26, 2014 correspondence from Richard A. Berry to Deanne Mosley (requesting that State Personnel Board [hereinafter SPB] change minimum qualifications for ASWS position to licensed MSW with two years of social work or human services experience or one of the following alternatives: 1) a licensed BSW with a Master’s degree in social work or a related field or enrolled in or accepted into a graduate level social work or related educational program at an accredited educational institution and two years’ experience in social work or human services; or 2) a licensed BSW and five years’ experience in social work or human services).
61

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 67 of 204
issued, the evidence indicates that the change in educational qualifications was approved by the
Mississippi State Personnel Board (“SPB”) during April 2014.129
Final Period 4 IP §II.A.4.e. A. Human Resources Management
4. In an effort to address the recruitment of area social worker supervisors (“ASWS”), Defendants shall undertake the following efforts during Implementation Period 4: e) Defendants shall conduct a training session on the licensure examination at no cost to caseworkers once every other month during Period 4, with the first training commencing February 2014.
Status of Progress, Final Period 4 IP §II.A.4.e.: This requirement was satisfied.
Defendants conducted licensure examination preparation training for DFCS staff during
February, April and June 2014.130 The sessions, which were conducted by the DHS deputy
director responsible for DFCS, were free and participants were reimbursed for travel expenses.
Final Period 4 IP §II.A.4.f. A. Human Resources Management
4. In an effort to address the recruitment of area social worker supervisors (“ASWS”), Defendants shall undertake the following efforts during Implementation Period 4: f) By January 31, 2014, Defendants shall advertise salary increases for ASWS in the Carve-Out Counties (Hancock, Harrison, Hinds, and Jackson counties).
Status of Progress, Final Period 4 IP §II.A.4.f.: The defendants satisfied this
requirement. The evidence indicates that advertisements to fill an unspecified number of ASWS
positions in Hancock, Harrison, Hinds, and Jackson counties were transmitted to the SPB on
129 According to defendants, a formal approval document was not issued by the SPB; however, in response to the Monitor’s inquiries, defendants have submitted e-mail communications which indicate that the request was approved. Moreover, the qualifications for the ASWS position that are posted on the SPB website indicate that the modification in the qualifications for the position related to educational requirements was effective on April 1, 2014. See App. B, Ex. 6B, DHS Area Social Work Supervisor Job Description, http://agency.governmentjobs.com/mississippi/default.cfm?action=specbulletin&ClassSpecID=797424&headerfoote r=0 (last visited June 12, 2015). 130 The three sessions were conducted in different DFCS regions on February 1, April 5 and June 21, 2014.
62

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 68 of 204
January 8, 2014 and appeared on the SPB website starting on January 10, 2014. The
advertisements reflected the salary increases.131
Final Period 4 IP §II.A.4.g. A. Human Resources Management
4. In an effort to address the recruitment of area social worker supervisors (“ASWS”), Defendants shall undertake the following efforts during Implementation Period 4: g) By February 1, 2014, Defendants shall provide to the Monitor and Plaintiffs information about comparable salaries for supervisors at other state child welfare agencies in the Southeast United States and similar Mississippi social service agencies reviewed by Defendants.
Status of Progress, Final Period 4 IP §II.A.4.g.: Defendants satisfied this requirement
on February 3, 2014 by submitting salary information for supervisory positions in child welfare
agencies operated by state governments in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, South
Carolina and Tennessee. Based on the position descriptions that were submitted, these
supervisory positions appear to be comparable to the DFCS ASWS position. Defendants’
submission also included salary information for social worker supervisors employed by
Mississippi state government in medical, psychiatric or institutional settings.132
Ongoing Period 3 IP Requirement §I.A.2.a.133 A. Human Resources Management
2. Workforce a. By August 1, 2012, Defendants shall maintain a practice coach in Regions I-N, I-S, II-E, II-W, III-N, III-S, IV-N, IV-S, V-E, V-W, VI, VII-E, and VII-W to facilitate Practice Model implementation.
131 See App. B, Ex. 7A, DHS-Area Social Work Supv, Hancock County; App. B, Ex. 7B, DHS-Area Social Work Supv, Harrison County (noting position is time-limited); App. B, Ex. 7C, DHS-Area Social Work Supv, Hinds County; and App. B, Ex. 7D, DHS-Area Social Work Supv, Jackson County (noting position is time-limited). The Monitor was unable to confirm why the ASWS positions in Harrison and Jackson Counties were advertised as timelimited positions. However, it is the Monitor’s understanding that the “time-limited” designation means that the position does not have civil service protection. 132 See App. B, Ex. 8, February 3, 2014 e-mails from Gwen Long to Julia Davis and Grace M. Lopes with attached salary chart and related documents. According to defendants’ submission, social work supervisors employed by the State of Mississippi in medical, psychiatric or institutional settings receive salaries that are substantially higher than the DFCS ASWS salaries. 133 See Initial and Final Period 4 IPs at 1, n.1.
63

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 69 of 204
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.A.2.a. (Ongoing Requirement): This requirement
was not satisfied during Period 4. The Monitor’s findings are described more fully below.
Interviews with DFCS managers, supervisors, caseworkers, practice coaches, and CSF
contractors, as well as a review of the monthly status reports on Practice Model implementation
that are prepared by CSF, establish that the defendants did not adequately staff practice coaching
positions in Regions II-E, III-N, IV-N, IV-S, and VI for significant time periods during Period 4.
As a consequence, and especially during the last half of Period 4, this affected the availability of
ongoing coaching in each of these regions and in other regions whose coaches were assigned, on
an episodic basis, to provide limited coaching in some but not all of the regions that were
inadequately staffed.134
134 For example, there was no dedicated DFCS Practice Model coach working in Region II-E from January 2014 through June 2014. During January 2014, the coach assigned to Region II-E was unable to provide coaching services because she was on leave for part of the month and then worked on CQI and Council on Accreditation [hereinafter COA] site visit preparation activities. See App. B, Ex. 9A, Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, January 2014, excerpt, redacted version at 12 (stating that the assigned DHS coach “did not complete any individual coaching during the month of January because of being out on family medical leave and working on preparations for an upcoming CQI and COA visit.”). Thereafter, during February and March 2014, the Region II-E practice coach was on a special assignment in Region VI. See App. B, Ex. 9B, Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, February 2014, excerpt, redacted version at 11 (stating the DHS coach “was on special assignment during the month of February and was unable to complete any coaching.”); App. B, Ex. 9C, Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, March 2014, excerpt, redacted version at 11 (noting DHS coach was on special assignment during March and retired at the end of the month). The Region II-E coach retired in April 2014 and the Region II-E coaching position remained vacant throughout May and June 2014. See App. B, Ex. 9D, Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, April 2014, excerpt, redacted version at 11 (noting that two coaches from Region II-W were providing limited coaching support to staff in Region II-E since the retirement of the full-time practice coach). Between February and June 2014, very limited coaching support was provided to a small number of staff in Region II-E by the practice coaches assigned to Region II-W, who were diverted from their own coaching responsibilities in Region II-W to assist in Region II-E. See, e.g., App. B, Ex. 9E, Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, February 2014, excerpt, redacted version at 3; June 2014, excerpt, redacted version at 4. A practice coach from Region IV-N also provided limited coaching assistance in Region II-E during March 2014. See App. B, Ex. 9F, Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, March 2014, excerpt, redacted version at 4 (noting Region IV-N practice coach was assisting on a limited basis in Regions II-E and I-N). Similarly, during February and March 2014, the practice coach assigned to Region III-N was on special assignment in Region VI and then assumed a different position upon her return. See App. B, Ex. 9G, Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, February 2014, excerpt, redacted version at 9; March 2014, excerpt, redacted version at 9. Thereafter, the Region III-N coaching position remained vacant through June 2014. During this period, limited coaching support was provided to the staff in Region III-N by the practice coaching staff from Region III-S. For example, during April 2014, a Region III-S practice coach provided one day of coaching services to help a caseworker who had resigned close out her cases. See App. B, Ex. 9H, Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, April 2014, excerpt, redacted version at 10. In addition, during May 2014,
64

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 70 of 204
Several factors contributed to the limitations in practice coaching that were evident
during the latter half of Period 4. First, a significant number of practice coaches were reassigned
temporarily to other positions in their own regions or in other regions to address supervisory
staffing shortfalls.135 Second, practice coaches were reassigned temporarily to special projects in
order to address critical workload backlogs engendered by understaffing.136 Third, vacancies in
several practice coach positions were not filled in a timely manner.137 Moreover, during Period
4, even when practice coaches remained in their assigned regions in coaching positions, they
were required, in several noteworthy instances, to perform other duties unrelated to practice
coaching for significant time periods.138
two coaches from Region III-S met with a total of two workers in Region III-N during the month. See App. B, Ex. 9I, Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, May 2014, excerpt, redacted version at 10. Moreover, there was no practice coaching conducted whatsoever in Region IV-S during February, March and part of April 2014 because the coach was on special assignment. See App. B, Ex. 9J, Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, February 2014, excerpt, redacted version at 7; March 2014, excerpt, redacted version at 8; April 2014, excerpt, redacted version at 8. Finally, in Region VI, both of the assigned coaches were on special assignment and there was no coaching whatsoever from March through June 2014. See App. B, Ex. 9K, Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, March 2014, excerpt, redacted version at 11-12; April 2014, excerpt, redacted version at 12; May 2014, excerpt, redacted version at 13; June 2014, excerpt, redacted version at 14. 135 For example, during May and June 2014, a Region IV-N practice coach was on a 90-day special assignment serving as an ASWS in Lowndes County, a county office in Region IV-N that experienced a long-standing shortage of supervisors. See App. B, Ex. 9L, Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, May 2014, excerpt, redacted version at 4; June 2014, excerpt, redacted version at 5. Similarly, during May and June 2014, one of two assigned practice coaches in Region V-W was temporarily assigned to serve as an ASWS due to the critical number of supervisory vacancies in the region. See App. B, Ex. 9M, Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, May 2014, excerpt, redacted version at 5; June 2014, excerpt, redacted version at 6. 136 For example, according to the CSF monthly report for February 2014, four practice coaches “were on special assignment in Forest [sic] County assisting with investigations which impacted the amount of coaching provided in their regions as well as other regions as several of their peers assisted in covering those regions.” See App. B, Ex. 9N, Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, February 2014, excerpt, redacted version at 2. 137 According to the relevant CSF monthly reports, the coaching position in Region II-E was vacant from at least April – July 2014. See App. B, Ex. 9O, Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, April 2014, excerpt, redacted version at 11; July 2014, excerpt, redacted version at 11. The Region III-N position was vacant from April through June 2014, and although filled in July, according to CSF, no coaching was conducted during July. See App. B, Ex. 9P, Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, April 2014, excerpt, redacted version at 10; July 2014, excerpt, redacted version at 9. 138 For example, during October 2013, both coaches who were assigned to Region V-E did not perform any coaching activities. Instead, their work was limited to preparation for a COA site visit. See App. B, Ex. 9Q, Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, October 2013, redacted excerpt at 8. Similarly, there was no practice coaching conducted during the month of January 2014 in Region II-E at least in part because the coach worked to prepare for a COA site visit, and during the month of June 2014 in Region VII-E in large part because the coach worked on preparation for a COA site visit. See App. B, Ex. 9R, Monthly Status Report – Practice Model
65

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 71 of 204
In addition to the failure to maintain minimally adequate staffing levels for practice
coaches throughout Period 4 in all DFCS regions, defendants also failed to maintain the
administrative management structure that had been in place to support the coaches and guide the
implementation of the Practice Model. In fact, in mid-September 2013, the DFCS manager
assigned to oversee statewide implementation of the Practice Model began serving on a
temporary assignment as an acting manager in an understaffed DFCS region.139 This temporary
reassignment persisted until at least March 2015.140 During this nearly18-month period, the
Practice Model director position was vacant, and additionally, for a substantial part of the period,
one of two key Practice Model deputy positions remained vacant.141
Modified Settlement Agreement (“MSA”) §II.A.2.a.10.a. 2. Human Resources Management
a. Workforce 10) By the end of Implementation Period Four: (a) At least 85% of DFCS caseworkers shall carry a caseload that does not exceed Modified Settlement Agreement caseload requirements. No more than 5% of caseworkers shall carry a caseload exceeding twice the Modified Settlement Agreement caseload requirements. Hancock, Harrison, Hinds, and Jackson Counties are exempt from these requirements during Implementation Period Four.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.A.2.a.10.a.: This requirement was not satisfied. As
explained in the Monitor’s May 2014 Report142 and above in the narrative related to Final Period
Implementation, January 2014, excerpt (regarding Region II-E), redacted version at 12; June 2014, excerpt (regarding Region VII-E), redacted version at 12. 139 Because of the shortage of supervisory staff in Region VI, the Practice Model director was assigned on September 16, 2013 to serve on a temporary basis as an ASWS in Forrest County and thereafter as one of two temporarily assigned regional directors in Region VI. After a new regional director was hired in late April 2014, the Practice Model director began serving an additional temporary assignment as a regional supervisor in Region VI. 140 During March 2015, the manager responsible for statewide implementation of the Practice Model resigned from that position, electing to serve as a supervisor in the region in which she had been “temporarily” reassigned. 141 The statewide manager responsible for Practice Model implementation has two deputies. Each deputy is responsible for Practice Model implementation activities and oversight of the practice coaches in certain designated DFCS Regions, which are determined by geographic boundaries (i.e., the northern regions and the southern regions). The deputy responsible for the southern regions resigned from DFCS effective May 31, 2014. Defendants report that as of at least May 1, 2015, this position had not been filled. 142 See May 2014 Report at 46-54.
66

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 72 of 204
4 IP §§II.A.1., II.A.2., and II.A.3.,143 defendants have been required to produce accurate and validated reports on caseworker caseloads since the start of Period 1 in 2008, but repeatedly failed to do so. In October 2014, after the end of Period 4, defendants submitted to the Monitor for the first time validated caseworker caseload data that could be analyzed.
The MSA requires by the end of Period 4, at least 85 percent of caseworkers shall carry a caseload that does not exceed MSA requirements. Additionally, the MSA requires that no more than five percent of caseworkers shall carry a caseload that exceeds twice the MSA requirements and that no caseworkers shall carry a caseload that exceeds three times the MSA requirements.144 Four counties, referred to in the MSA as the carve-out counties, are exempt from this requirement during Period 4: Hancock, Harrison, Hinds, and Jackson.145
The parties agreed to measure caseworker caseloads using “snapshots,” which reflect caseworker caseloads at a point-in-time on an individual day. The earliest date for which defendants produced validated caseworker caseload data was for October 14, 2014, after the end of Period 4. Defendants report separately on caseworkers who carry mixed caseloads and caseworkers who carry dedicated caseloads. The data submitted by defendants regarding caseworkers who carry dedicated caseloads does not include a variable to enable an analysis excluding the four carve-out counties. Consequently, the Monitor’s analysis included all caseworkers who carried a dedicated caseload on October 14, 2014, irrespective of the county to which they were assigned.
143 See supra at 45-55. 144 MSA §II.A.2.a.9.a. requires that no caseworkers shall carry a caseload exceeding three times the MSA requirement by the end of Period 3. This is an ongoing requirement. 145 Hancock, Harrison, Hinds, and Jackson Counties were exempted from these specific MSA requirements because of the parties’ shared recognition that long-standing staffing deficits justified subjecting these counties to different requirements. Hence, they are referred to in the MSA as the “carve-out” counties.
67

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 73 of 204
The data reflect that on October 14, 2014, 60 percent of all DFCS caseworkers, including those assigned to the carve-out counties, carried a dedicated caseload that did not exceed MSA requirements, seven percent carried a dedicated caseload that exceeded twice the MSA requirements, and three percent carried a dedicated caseload that exceeded three times the MSA requirements. Comparable data were not available for Period 3 to determine whether improvements were made.
Among caseworkers with mixed caseloads, excluding those assigned to the carve-out counties, 70 percent carried a mixed caseload that did not exceed MSA requirements and were not supervisors carrying a caseload; four percent carried a mixed caseload that exceeded twice the MSA requirements or were supervisors carrying a caseload; and three percent carried a mixed caseload that exceeded three times the MSA requirements or were supervisors carrying a caseload.146
As previously stated, among caseworkers with dedicated caseloads, based on the data submitted by defendants, it was not possible to exclude carve-out counties from the analysis, as required by the MSA. Additionally, the dedicated caseload data submitted by defendants include certain non-DFCS contract employees who operate the statewide hotline for reporting child abuse and/or neglect. Among all caseworkers with dedicated caseloads, and excluding the contract employees, the data indicate the following: 61 percent of caseworkers with dedicated caseloads did not carry a caseload that exceeded MSA caseload requirements and were not a supervisor carrying a caseload; 12 percent of caseworkers with dedicated caseloads carried caseloads that exceeded twice the MSA requirements or were supervisors carrying a caseload; and four percent
146 See App. A, Ex. 3, supra note 53, and App. A, Ex. 5A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Caseworkers With Mixed Caseloads Meeting MSA Requirements, By Region, One-Day Snapshot 10/14/14. The analysis included in App. A, Ex. 5A also includes for comparative purposes the same calculations with data from the carve-out counties.
68

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 74 of 204
of caseworkers with a dedicated caseload carried a caseload that exceeded three times the MSA requirements or were supervisors carrying a caseload.147 When non-DFCS contract employees
are included in the analysis, the data indicate the following: 68 percent of caseworkers with a
dedicated caseload did not carry a caseload that exceeded MSA requirements and were not a
supervisor carrying a caseload; 10 percent of caseworkers with a dedicated caseload did not carry
a caseload that exceeded twice the MSA requirements or were a supervisor carrying a caseload;
and three percent of caseworkers with a dedicated caseload did not carry a caseload that exceeded
three times the MSA requirements or were a supervisor carrying a caseload.
MSA §II.A.2.a.10.b. 2. Human Resources Management
a. Workforce 10) By the end of Implementation Period Four: (b) No more than 10% of supervisors who are responsible for supervising DFCS caseworkers shall be responsible for directly supervising more than five caseworkers. Hancock, Harrison, Hinds, and Jackson Counties are exempt from this requirement during Implementation Period Four.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.A.2.a.10.b.: This requirement was not satisfied. The MSA
requires that by the end of Period 4 no more than 10 percent of supervisors shall be responsible
for directly supervising more than five caseworkers. The four carve-out counties are exempt
from this requirement during Period 4: Hancock, Harrison, Hinds, and Jackson.
As with the caseload data discussed above, the first date for which defendants provided
validated data regarding supervisory workloads was October 14, 2014. On that date, excluding
carve-out counties, 13 percent of supervisors responsible for directly supervising DFCS caseworkers supervised more than five caseworkers.148
147 See App. A, Ex. 3, supra note 53, and App. A, Ex. 5B, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Caseworkers With Dedicated Caseloads Meeting MSA Requirements, By Region, One-Day Snapshot 10/14/14. 148 See App. A, Ex. 3, supra note 53, and App. A, Ex. 6, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Supervisors Responsible For Supervising DFCS Caseworkers Meeting MSA Requirements, By Region, One-Day
69

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 75 of 204
Ongoing Period 3 IP Requirement §I.A.3.a.2.149 A. Human Resources Management
3. Training a. Pre-Service Training 2) By July 1, 2012, Defendants shall maintain nine (9) full-time trainers.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.A.3.a.2. (Ongoing Requirement): Defendants
continued to satisfy this requirement during Period 4; however, as explained below, this
performance has not been sustained during Period 5.
In May 2014, the Monitor reported that by the end of Period 3, the defendants established
a viable training unit with the capacity to administer the required pre-service training program and with a significantly improved in-service training program.150 This was an important
accomplishment, especially because defendants had been required since Period 1 to establish a
training unit but had failed to do so.
The Monitor also reported that the training unit was staffed with nine full-time training
coordinators by the end of Period 3 and that 13 full-time trainers had been assigned to the unit by
mid-September 2013. Additionally, the Monitor noted that the defendants were attempting to fill
six additional training coordinator vacancies in order to provide specialized training to resource and adoption staff as well as to expand the array of in-service training classes.151
Defendants were able to maintain a complement of nine training coordinators during
Period 4; however, they were unable to fill the existing vacancies. Moreover, as noted above, on
August 11, 2014, shortly after Period 4 ended, the defendants temporarily reassigned, for a five-
month period, five of the nine trainers assigned to the training unit. The employees were
reassigned to serve in a DFCS county office as supervisors and caseworkers. In September 2014,
Snapshot 10/14/14. The analysis included in App. A, Ex. 6 also includes for comparative purposes the same calculations with data from the carve-out counties. 149 See Initial and Final Period 4 IPs at 1, n.1. 150 May 2014 Report at 75-78. 151 Id. at 83.
70

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 76 of 204
shortly after the reassignments were instituted, the DFCS training director resigned. Neither the training director position nor any of the training coordinator position vacancies that were identified in the Monitor’s May 2014 Report have been filled. However, as of June 9, 2015, defendants reported that hiring recommendations were pending for five training coordinators and for the training director position.
Ongoing Period 3 IP Requirement §I.A.3.a.4.152 A. Human Resources Management
3. Training a. Pre-Service Training 4) Defendants shall have implemented an accurate and reliable system to track staff participation in all required training.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.A.3.a.4. (Ongoing Requirement): This requirement was satisfied. Defendants implemented a system during Period 4 to track staff participation in pre-service and in-service training. The system is designed to track all pre-service and in-service training provided to DFCS staff over defined time periods.
Pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order and the Initial Period 4 IP, defendants are required to produce certain data reports regarding pre-service and in-service training. The reports that defendants produced to satisfy these reporting requirements appear to be copies from an electronic data tracking system that has been implemented, as required, pursuant to specifications that have been agreed upon by the parties and endorsed by the Monitor.153 While this reporting method provides complete information regarding the training administered to staff, unlike other reports defendants produce in response to MSA reporting requirements, this reporting method does not provide a direct measure of performance in terms of MSA training requirements. In order to produce an analysis of applicable MSA pre-service and in-service training requirements, the Monitor has cross referenced training data with hiring and attrition data provided by
152 See Initial and Final Period 4 IPs at 1, n.1. 153 Defendants track pre-service and in-service training in detailed spreadsheets.
71

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 77 of 204
MDHS/DFCS human resources management staff. This methodology has revealed data
discrepancies that the Monitor has attempted to resolve with the defendants. For these reasons,
the Monitor recommends that the parties address refinements to the report specifications that
have been agreed upon related to the MSA’s pre-service and in-service training requirements.
Ongoing Requirement MSA §II.A.2.c.6.b. 2. Human Resources Management
c. Training 6) By the end of Implementation Period Three [and thereafter]: (b) All new caseworkers and supervisors will complete their pre-service training consistent with the Modified Settlement Agreement requirements before they assume their respective responsibilities for carrying cases and supervising.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.A.2.c.6.b. (Ongoing Requirement): This requirement
was satisfied. The data produced by defendants indicate that 100 percent of caseworkers who
were newly hired during Period 4 completed the requisite training prior to September 30, 2014
and did not carry cases before completing the training.154 The data produced by defendants also
indicate that 100 percent of supervisors who were newly hired or promoted into their supervisory
positions during Period 4 completed the pre-service training prior to September 30, 2014155 and
before assuming supervisory responsibilities.156 This is consistent with information obtained
through interviews with newly hired caseworkers, supervisors and members of the training unit.
MSA §II.A.2.c.7.a. 2. Human Resources Management
c. Training 7) By the end of Implementation Period Four: (a) All caseworkers shall receive a minimum of 40 hours of structured ongoing in-service training each year,
154 See App. A, Ex. 3, supra note 53, and App. A, Ex. 7A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, PreService Training Status As Of September 30, 2014 Among Newly Hired Caseworkers, By Position Start Date, One Year Period Ending 6/30/14. The Monitor received training data through September 30, 2014, after the end of Period 4, to account for staff who were hired during the latter part of Period 4 and who participated in pre-service training that extended into Period 5. 155 One supervisor included in the analysis completed training in October 2014. 156 See App. A, Ex. 3, supra note 53, and App. A, Ex. 7B, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, PreService Training Status Among ASWSs Newly Hired or Promoted Into Position During Period 4 Through September 30, 2014, By Position Start Date, One-Year Period Ending 6/30/14.
72

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 78 of 204
and all supervisors shall receive a minimum of 24 hours of ongoing in-service training each year.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.A.2.c.7.a.: This requirement was not satisfied for
caseworkers, but was satisfied for supervisors. The data produced by defendants indicate that 94
percent of caseworkers to whom this requirement applied received a minimum of 40 hours of in-
service training for the one-year period ending June 30, 2014.157 The data also indicate that 100
percent of supervisors to whom the requirement applied received a minimum of 24 hours of
ongoing in-service training during the one-year period ending June 30, 2014.158 This appears to
be consistent with information obtained through interviews with caseworkers, supervisors and
members of the training unit.
Defendants’ capacity to deliver in-service training to caseworkers during Period 5 was
compromised by the temporary reassignment, starting in August 2014 and ending in January
2015, of over half of the trainers assigned to the training unit.159 The Monitor will assess what if
any impact the temporary reassignments had on the DFCS in-service training program and report
fully on this matter in her forthcoming report on Period 5.160
MSA §II.A.2.c.7.b. 2. Human Resources Management
c. Training 7) By the end of Implementation Period Four: (b) Supervisory personnel will not be detailed from the field to provide the required pre-service and in-service training.
157 See App. A, Ex. 3, supra note 53, and App. A, Ex. 8A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Ongoing In-Service Training Received By Caseworkers, By Region, Annual Report Ending 6/30/14. The analysis excludes caseworkers who were excused from the full in-service training requirement because they were newly hired or separated during Period 4 and caseworkers who were reported to be on medical leave for an extended period during Period 4. 158 See App. A, Ex. 3, supra note 53, and App. A, Ex. 8B, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Ongoing In-Service Training Received By ASWSs, By Region, Annual Report Ending 6/30/14. 159 See supra at 55, 70-71 for a discussion of this matter. 160 At this juncture, it appears unlikely that the temporary reassignments affected defendants’ capacity to deliver inservice supervisory training, which is provided for the most part by CSF consultants.
73

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 79 of 204
Status of Progress, MSA §II.A.2.c.7.b.: This requirement has been satisfied. There is
no evidence of this practice, which was once widespread.161
Ongoing Period 3 IP Requirement §I.B.2.162 B. Continuous Quality Improvement
2. By 30 days following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants, in conjunction with CSF or another consultant, shall revise and begin implementing a written plan to implement a continuous quality improvement (CQI) system. That written plan shall explicitly specify the resources and staffing necessary to adequately operate the CQI unit in both the state and regional offices.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.B.2. (Ongoing Requirement): This requirement was
satisfied during Period 3. However, significant shortcomings related to implementation of the
CQI plan that were identified in the Monitor’s May 2014 Report must be corrected. As
explained below, these shortcomings were not remedied during Period 4. And while there has
been notable progress during Period 5 in one aspect of defendants’ performance, overall
defendants’ corrective action process is not adequately addressing identified safety and case
practice issues.
In May 2014, the Monitor reported that defendants had finalized the required CQI plan
during July 2012, and made demonstrable progress implementing the program during Period 3.
The Monitor explained that the plan addressed the conceptual and structural framework for
implementation of an appropriate CQI system with ongoing quality assurance and quality
improvement processes.163 The Monitor described the accountability process embedded in the
plan, which contemplates that when deficiencies in case practice are identified through various
161 See, e.g., June 2009 Report at 39-41 for background information related to this matter. 162 See Initial and Final Period 4 IPs at 1, n.1. 163 See May 2014 Report at 93. The Monitor noted specific limitations in the CQI plan related to staffing levels for certain CQI-related functions. Id. at 94-95. On June 5, 2015, during the comment period on the draft version of this report, the defendants submitted a copy of the updated CQI Plan to plaintiffs’ counsel and the Monitor. Defendants’ counsel have reported that a draft of the plan was produced in January 2015 and the plan ultimately was finalized and released on June 2, 2015.
74

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 80 of 204
types of CQI reviews and evaluations, they are documented, reported to the appropriate managers, tracked, followed up and resolved.164 The corrective action process, which implicates
reviews conducted by the CQI program’s Safety Review, Foster Care Review and Evaluation and
Monitoring Units, requires that safety issues are addressed within five calendar days and case
practice issues within 20 business days. This is an essential safeguard designed to mitigate the
risk of harm to children in DFCS custody and promote improvements in case practice.
The Monitor found substantial limitations in the timeliness and efficacy of the corrective
action process implemented by DFCS during Period 3. This very serious deficiency persisted
during Period 4. As explained below, it appears that after Period 4, defendants made substantial
progress improving the timeliness and efficacy of the corrective action process related to safety
and case practice issues identified by the Safety Review Unit and this progress is laudable. Over
the same time period, however, it appears that defendants were unable to respond timely to a
ballooning number of safety issues and case practice issues identified through the Foster Care Review process.165
In the May 2014 Report, the Monitor presented her analysis of open, overdue corrective
actions related to CQI activities conducted by the Safety Review and Foster Care Review units as of November 4, 2013.166 More recently, the Monitor analyzed comparable data submitted by defendants from June 30, 2014 and May 18, 2015.167 The findings are presented in the table
below. The table, which includes both safety issues and case practice issues identified through
164 Id. at 95. 165 The Monitor has also reviewed the timeliness of the corrective action process that is triggered when safety and case practice issues are identified by the CQI program’s Evaluation and Monitoring Unit [hereinafter EMU]. However, because these data include non-class members who cannot be readily identified, the Monitor’s analysis of these data is not presented herein. The data suggest it is likely there are substantial delays in the associated corrective action process related to class members. 166 Id. at 95-96, n.288. 167 The updated data is from the DFCS Continuous Quality Improvement Corrective Actions Open Report as of 06/30/2014 and DFCS Continuous Quality Improvement Corrective Actions Open Report as of 05/18/2015.
75

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 81 of 204

both CQI processes, is broken down by the CQI process that identified the issue for corrective

action.

Number of overdue issues Range of days overdue Median
Number of overdue issues Range of days overdue Median

November 4, 2013 June 30, 2014

Safety Review Unit

56

150

1-126 days

1-238 days

29 days

84.5 days

Foster Care Review

20

71

3-125 days

2-272 days

29 days

76 days

May 18, 2015
10 1-111 days
25 days
247 1-594 days
92 days

Comparing the aggregated totals from the Safety Review and Foster Care Review Units

from a point-in-time in 2013, 2014, and 2015, it is evident that the total number of open, overdue

corrective action issues increased each year from 76 in 2013 to 221 in 2014, to 257 in 2015. At

the same time, the median number of days overdue increased for the point-in-time each year from

29 days in 2013, to 83 days in 2014, to 91 days in 2015. Analyzed separately by category,

however, the data reveal that while the number of overdue corrective action issues identified by

the Safety Review Unit increased nearly threefold between 2013 and 2014 (i.e., over the course

of Period 4), the number of overdue corrective action issues dropped by over 90 percent between

2014 and 2015 (i.e., after the end of Period 4), from 150 to 10. The trend among issues identified

through the Foster Care Review process was different, however. The number of overdue

corrective action issues identified through that process saw a 250 percent increase from 2013 to

2014 and, unlike issues identified through the Safety Review Unit, another approximately 250

percent increase between 2014 and 2015. By May 18, 2015, the number of overdue corrective

action issues identified through the Foster Care Review process had swelled to 247.

In order to assess changes in geographic trends in the number of overdue corrective action

issues, for the 2014 and 2015 data, the Monitor parsed the corrective action data generated as a 76

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 82 of 204

result of the Safety Review and Foster Care Review processes by both safety and case practice issues and by region in order to identify any changes over time. The analysis indicates that as of June 30, 2014 there were 104 safety-related corrective action issues identified statewide that were open and overdue by between one and 272 days. The median days corrective action was overdue for these issues was 85 days. Of these 104 safety issues, 83 percent were from Region VII-W, nine percent were from Region VI, and the remaining nine percent were from Regions III-N, IIIS, and V-E. Approximately 11 months later, as of May 18, 2015, there were 88 safety issues identified statewide that were open and overdue by between one and 594 days. The median days these issues were overdue was 121.5 days. Of the 88 safety issues for which corrective action was overdue, 68 percent were from Region VII-W, 10 percent were from Region VI, 15 percent were from Region III-S, and the remaining six percent were from Regions III-N, VII-E, and VE. The data indicate that while there were fewer overdue safety issues, overdue corrective action issues tended to remain open for longer periods of time. The findings are reflected in the table below:

Safety Review Unit and Foster Care Review

Number of open and overdue issues Range of days overdue Median
Region III-N Region III-S Region V-E Region VI Region VII-E Region VII-W

As of June 30, 2014 As of May 18, 2015

Safety Issues

104

88

1 - 272 days

1 - 594 days

85 days

121.5 days

Number of Safety Issues By Region

2 (2%)

3 (3%)

6 (6%)

13 (15%)

1 (1%)

1 (1%)

9 (9%)

9 (10%)

0

2 (2%)

86 (83%)

60 (68%)

77

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 83 of 204

Insofar as case practice issues identified through the safety review and foster care review processes, the data defendants have submitted indicate that as of June 30, 2014 there were 117 case practice-related corrective action issues identified through the CQI process statewide that were open and overdue by between two and 259 days. The median days overdue for these issues was 76 days. Of these 117 case practice issues, 77 percent were from Region VII-W, nine percent were from Region III-N, seven percent were from Region III-S and seven percent were from Region VI. According to the data defendants have submitted, as of May 18, 2015 there were 169 corrective action issues related to case practice identified statewide that were open and overdue by between one and 581 days. The median days corrective action was overdue was 82 days. Of the 169 overdue case practice-related corrective action issues, 41 percent were from Region VI, 27 percent were from Region VII-W, 16 percent were from Region III-N, 14 percent were from Region III-S, and the remaining three percent were from Regions I-N and II-W. Region VII-W experienced a substantial decrease in the number of overdue case practice issues while Regions VI, III-N, and III-S experienced increases. These findings are reflected in the following table:

Number of open and overdue issues Range of days overdue Median
Region I-N Region II-W Region III-N Region III-S Region VI Region VII-W

Safety Review Unit and Foster Care Review

As of June 30, 2014 As of May 18, 2015

Case Practice Issues

117

169

2 - 259 days

1 - 581 days

76 days

82 days

Number of Safety Issues By Region

0

4 (2%)

0

1 (1%)

11 (9%)

27 (16%)

8 (7%)

23 (14%)

8 (7%)

69 (41%)

90 (77%)

45 (27%)

78

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 84 of 204
The evidence shows that despite improvements in the corrective action process related to
safety and case practice issues identified by the Safety Review Unit, there are still substantial
limitations in the corrective action process related to the FCR unit. In the aggregate, the number
of overdue corrective action issues has grown. And while there has been a notable improvement
in Region VII-W, in other regions the number of overdue corrective action issues grew
substantially since the end of Period 4. This is a troubling issue defendants must address.
Ongoing Period 3 IP Requirement §I.B.3.168 B. Continuous Quality Improvement
3. By 30 days following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall maintain one (1) Program Administrator, Sr. to work in the Evaluation and Monitoring Unit.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §I.B.3. (Ongoing Requirement): Defendants satisfied
this requirement in Period 3 and they have continued to do so. Two program administrators were
assigned to the Evaluation and Monitoring Unit throughout Period 4 and they continue to staff
these positions.169
Initial Period 4 IP §II.B.1.a. B. Continuous Quality Improvement
1. Within 60 business days of completing each CQI Review set forth in the sections below, Defendants shall complete a report regarding that review. Within five business days of completing each report, Defendants shall provide a copy of the report to Plaintiffs and the Monitor. a) By August 1, 2013, Defendants shall complete a third follow-up CQI Review for Regions I-South and II-West.
Status of Progress, Initial Period 4 IP §II.B.1.a.: This requirement was substantially
satisfied. As explained below, there was a delay in completing the Region I-S report, but it was
deminimis.
168 See Initial and Final Period 4 IPs at 1, n.1. 169 One of the two current program administrators began to work in the Unit on March 1, 2012. The other program administrator began to work in the Unit on September 1, 2013, replacing an employee who left the agency in June 2013.
79

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 85 of 204
Although the Region I-S review was conducted between June 10 and 13, 2013, substantially in advance of the August 1, 2013 deadline, the report related to the review was not completed until September 10, 2013, two business days after the 60-day period lapsed. The report was submitted to plaintiffs and the Monitor on September 16, 2013, within five business days.
Like the Region I-S review, the Region II-W review was conducted in advance of the August 1, 2013 deadline, between June 25 and 28, 2013. The Region II-W report was completed on September 23, 2013 and submitted to plaintiffs and the Monitor on September 27, 2013, within required timelines.
b) By August 15, 2013, Defendants shall complete a followup CQI Review for Region III-North.
Status of Progress, Initial Period 4 IP §II.B.1.b.: This requirement was substantially satisfied for the Region III-N review, which was conducted between July 30 and August 2, 2013, in advance of the August 15, 2013 deadline. The report related to the review was completed on a timely basis on October 24, 2013 and submitted to plaintiffs and the Monitor on October 31, 2013.170
c) By September 1, 2013, Defendants shall complete a second follow-up CQI Review for Region IV-North.
Status of Progress, Initial Period 4 IP §II.B.1.c.: This requirement was satisfied for the Region IV-N review. The review was conducted between August 27 and 30, 2013, in advance of the September 1, 2013 deadline. Both the Region IV-N report, which was completed on
170 The delay in the submission was limited to one business day. The Monitor received an unredacted version of the Region III-N report from the defendants on October 25, 2013. Defendants routinely submit CQI annual review reports to the Monitor in unredacted form shortly after they are completed. The reports are redacted to eliminate information about non-class members before they are provided to counsel for the plaintiff class. The five-business day requirement is intended to apply to the redacted version of the report.
80

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 86 of 204
November 15, 2013, and its submission to plaintiffs and the Monitor on November 21, 2013, were timely.
d) By October 1, 2013, Defendants shall complete a second follow-up CQI Review for Region IV-South.
Status of Progress, Initial Period 4 IP §II.B.1.d.: This requirement was satisfied for the Region IV-S review. The review was conducted between September 17 and 20, 2013, in advance of the October 1, 2013 deadline. Both the Region IV-S report, which was completed on December 2, 2013, and its submission to plaintiffs and the Monitor on December 6, 2013, were timely.
e) By November 1, 2013, Defendants shall complete a second follow-up CQI Review for Region III-South.
Status of Progress, Initial Period 4 IP §II.B.1.e.: This requirement was satisfied for the Region III-S review. The review was conducted between October 22 and 25, 2013, in advance of the November 1, 2013 deadline. Both the Region III-S report, which was completed on January 21, 2014, and its submission to plaintiffs and the Monitor on January 24, 2014, were timely.
f) By December 1, 2013, Defendants shall complete a second follow-up CQI Review for Region I-North.
Status of Progress, Initial Period 4 IP §II.B.1.f.: This requirement was satisfied for the Region I-N review. The review was conducted between November 19 and 22, 2013, in advance of the December 1, 2013 deadline. Both the Region I-N report, which was completed on February 20, 2014, and its submission to plaintiffs and the Monitor on February 26, 2014, were timely.
g) By January 1, 2014, Defendants shall complete a follow-up CQI Review for Region VII-West.
Status of Progress, Initial Period 4 IP §II.B.1.g.: This requirement was partially satisfied for Region VII-W. Although the review was conducted between December 17 and 20,
81

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 87 of 204
2013, in advance of the January 1, 2014 deadline, it does not appear the report was completed within the required timeline,171 and its submission to plaintiffs and the Monitor on April 2, 2014, was untimely.
h) By February 1, 2014, Defendants shall complete a follow-up CQI Review for Region VI.
Status of Progress, Initial Period 4 IP §II.B.1.h.: This requirement was partially satisfied for the Region VI review, which was conducted between January 21 and 24, 2014, in advance of the February 1, 2014 deadline. The report related to the review was completed on a timely basis on April 18, 2014; however, it was not submitted to plaintiffs and the Monitor until May 5, 2014, six business days late.172
i) By March 1, 2014, Defendants shall complete a follow-up CQI Review for Region II-East.
Status of Progress, Initial Period 4 IP §II.B.1.i.: This requirement was satisfied for the Region II-E review. The review was conducted between February 4 and 7, 2014 in advance of the March 1, 2014 deadline. Both the Region II-E report, which was completed on May 1, 2014, and its submission to plaintiffs and the Monitor on May 6, 2014, were timely.
j) By April 1, 2014, Defendants shall complete a third follow-up CQI Review for Region V-West.
Status of Progress, Initial Period 4 IP §II.B.1.j.: This requirement was partially satisfied for the Region V-W review, which was conducted between March 18 and 21, 2014, in advance of the April 1, 2014 deadline. The report related to the review was completed on a
171 The cover page of the report is intended to reflect the date that it is completed. Thus, for purposes of the calculations contemplated by this set of requirements, the Monitor has relied on the date on the cover page. In this instance, the cover page indicates the report was completed on March 24, 2014. This is incorrect because the final version of the report was transmitted to the Monitor in unredacted form on March 22, 2014. 172 The Monitor received an unredacted version of the Region VI report from the defendants on April 17, 2014. The cover page of the report indicates that it was completed on April 18, 2014. See supra note 171.
82

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 88 of 204
timely basis on June 9, 2014; however, it was not submitted to plaintiffs and the Monitor until June 23, 2014, six business days late.173
k) By May 1, 2014, Defendants shall complete a second follow-up CQI Review for Region V-East.
Status of Progress, Initial Period 4 IP §II.B.1.k.: This requirement was satisfied for
the Region V-E review. The review was conducted between April 22 and 25, 2014, in advance
of the May 1, 2014 deadline. Both the Region V-E report, which was completed on July 21,
2014, and its submission to plaintiffs and the Monitor on July 24, 2014, were timely.
l) By June 1, 2014, Defendants shall complete a second follow-up CQI Review for Region VII-East.
Status of Progress, Initial Period 4 IP §II.B.1.l.: This requirement was partially
satisfied for Region VII-E. Although the review was conducted between May 13 and 16, 2014, in advance of the June 1, 2014 deadline, the report, which was completed on August 14, 2014174 and submitted on August 22, 2014, was neither completed nor submitted on a timely basis.175
Final Period 4 IP §II.B.1. B. Continuous Quality Improvement
1. Defendants shall maintain a minimum of at least two reviewers in the Safety Review Unit to review maltreatment in care investigations.
Status of Progress, Final Period 4 IP §II.B.1.: This requirement has been satisfied.
Defendants maintained two reviewers in the Safety Review Unit during Period 4. Both reviewers
started working in the Unit during May 2013, and a dedicated supervisor was added in June
2014.
173 The Monitor received an unredacted version of the report on June 13, 2014. It appears there was an error in transmitting the redacted version of the report. An initial effort was made to transmit the report in electronic format to plaintiffs and the Monitor on June 18, 2014. However, the June 18, 2014 transmission did not include the report, which was ultimately submitted on June 23, 2014. Even if the June 18, 2014 date is used for the purpose of calculating performance relative to this timeline requirement, the transmission was untimely. 174 The cover page of the report states that the completed date was August 14, 2013 instead of August 14, 2014. 175 The report was completed in 63 business days and submitted seven business days thereafter.
83

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 89 of 204
Final Period 4 IP §II.B.2. B. Continuous Quality Improvement
2. By March 1, 2014, Defendants shall provide to Plaintiffs and the Monitor a CQI corrective action tracking process. This process will outline how recommendations and corrective actions identified through the CQI Foster Care Review (“FCR”), Evaluation and Monitoring Unit (“EMU”), and Safety Review Unit (“SRU”) review processes are distributed to and addressed by Regional Directors with supervisors and caseworkers through the HEAT system and how those corrective actions are prioritized, tracked, and followed-up on by CQI staff (the “CQI Corrective Action Tracking Process”). Defendants shall provide monthly reporting to the Monitor documenting Defendants’ obligation to ensure timely implementation of corrective actions required by the CQI Corrective Action Tracking Process.
Status of Progress, Final Period 4 IP §II.B.2.: This requirement was satisfied in part
by the defendants’ submission of a summary which describes the tracking process. However, the
defendants did not submit the required monthly reports documenting their obligation to ensure
that corrective actions related to issues identified by the CQI process are undertaken and
completed on a timely basis. These findings are explained in more detail below.
The record in this case indicates that one of the major shortcomings in the CQI processes
that defendants have implemented is the failure to institute timely and effective corrective actions
related to safety, practice and systemic issues identified through various CQI activities on a
consistent basis. In May 2014, the Monitor reported that “corrective action is not consistently
timely and accountability mechanisms are not consistently effective.”176 Significantly, as a
general matter, the Monitor found this limitation was evident “even in instances when serious
safety concerns were identified.”177 In an effort to address this issue, the Final Period 4 IP
included this subsection’s dual requirement: 1) the submission of an outline or summary of the
corrective action tracking process; and 2) the submission of monthly reports documenting
defendants’ obligation to ensure corrective action is timely.
176 See May 2014 Report at 5; id. at 156. 177 Id. at 110.
84

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 90 of 204
On March 5, 2014, defendants submitted a document describing the CQI corrective action
tracking process.178 The defendants’ submission describes adequately the elements of the
tracking process that are addressed by this requirement; however, the defendants did not submit
monthly reports to the Monitor as required by this subsection.179 In late May 2014, in response
to the Monitor’s inquiry about the status of the monthly reports, defendants indicated that they
would consult with the Monitor about the content of the required report. They did not do so. In
response to the Monitor’s more recent inquiries about the status of the reports, the defendants
have expressed a continued willingness to work in consultation with the Monitor to develop the
required report, or supplement an existing DFCS internal report, in response to this
requirement.180
As described above in the narrative related to Period 3 IP §I.B.2., an ongoing Period 3
requirement,181 the timeliness of the corrective action process did not improve during Period 4,
and while there was demonstrable improvement in one aspect of the process during Period 5,
substantial limitations in the process continue to be evident.
Final Period 4 IP §II.B.3.a. B. Continuous Quality Improvement
3. Defendants shall take steps to improve the quality of the data to be collected to meet data reporting requirements of the MSA through the FCR process, through the following means: a) By March 30, 2014, Defendants shall provide training to FCR reviewers on the areas needing attention as identified in Defendants’ Monthly Data Quality Reports,
178 See App. B, Ex. 10, March 5, 2014 e-mail from Gwen Long to Julia Davis and Grace M. Lopes with attached DFCS CQI Corrective Action Tracking Process, redacted. Except for the document related to the CQI tracking process, the documents transmitted with the March 5, 2014 e-mail are not included with this exhibit. 179 Id. at 5 (DHS 362700). 180 It is noteworthy that defendants’ March 5, 2014 summary states that existing reports from the DFCS automated tracking system would be submitted to the Monitor beginning on May 1, 2014. The existing reports provide data on some but not all of the information necessary to document defendants’ obligation to ensure timely implementation of corrective action. For example, the reports do not address oversight activities conducted by the DFCS Field Operations Director and the CQI Director. These activities are necessary safeguards for ensuring corrective action is completed. Indeed, the oversight role is described in the March 5, 2014 submission as “follow up to ensure corrective action is taken and the corrective action loop is closed.” Id. at 4 (DHS 362699). 181 Supra at 74-79.
85

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 91 of 204
produced pursuant to the Project Schedule for Defendants’ Production of Data Reports Required by Appendix C of the Modified Settlement Agreement, dated June 24, 2013 (Dkt. No. 589) (the “June Order”) and will revise the FCR PAD Reference Guide to address issues that were identified by the Monitor and Plaintiffs during the report specification development process. Defendants shall consult with the Monitor regarding those revisions to the FCR PAD Reference Guide.
Status of Progress, Final Period 4 IP §II.B.3.a.: As explained in more detail below,
these requirements were satisfied.
This subsection of the Final Period 4 IP was intended to address data quality by requiring
two initiatives related to data collection, validation and reporting that are derived at least in part
from requirements established by the June 24, 2013 Order: 1) specialized training for FCR reviewers on certain issues identified in monthly data quality reports;182 and 2) revisions to the
written guidance provided to FCR reviewers to address the agreements reached by the parties as
a result of the report specification and gap analysis process. As explained below, the required
training was conducted and the guidance provided to the FCR reviewers was revised in a manner
consistent with the parties’ agreements.
The gap analysis addressed by the June 24, 2013 Order required the defendants to
develop specifications for each data report reflected in Appendix C to the MSA and to complete
any indicated analyses in order to identify required data that were not being collected and/or
reported. In instances in which a gap was identified, defendants were required to implement
182 Among other initiatives crafted to improve data quality, the June 24, 2013 Order required the defendants to develop a plan to address findings from initial data validation activities. See June 24, 2013 Order §VI.D.3. The defendants submitted a plan on September 3, 2013, which described various findings from initial data scrubbing and validation activities as well as then-current and prospective data validation initiatives, including the submission of trend reports describing findings from the monthly validation processes and identifying related training needs. Defendants began to issue the trend reports starting in late September 2013. The trend reports are the Monthly Data Quality Reports referred to in this subsection.
86

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 92 of 204
alternative data collection and reporting methods.183 As report specifications were developed and
gaps identified, the parties engaged in a collaborative process with the Monitor which led to
serial agreements during Period 4 and thereafter on alternative data collection and reporting
methods intended to expand and improve the quality of DFCS’s data collection and reporting processes.184
Among other alternatives, the parties agreed to modify discrete aspects of the data collected and reported through the FCR process.185 As described elsewhere in this report,186 the
FCR process constitutes an administrative case review process that is conducted at six-month
intervals for all children who have been in foster care at least six months. Foster care reviewers,
who are assigned to the FCR section of the DFCS CQI Unit, conduct these structured reviews
using an automated instrument that was developed during 2012 in response to specific MSA requirements.187 The defendants refer to the automated instrument as the periodic administrative
determination (“PAD”).
Foster care reviewers began to collect data that was intended to be responsive to MSA
reporting obligations with an expanded version of the PAD in February 2012. Within less than
six months, starting in July 2012, DFCS introduced an automated version of the PAD. This
183 See June 24, 2013 Order §VI.B.; see also supra at 12-14 and May 2014 Report at 11-12 for additional background information related to the gap analysis. 184 The parties’ agreements are summarized in three tables that were prepared by the Monitor and distributed to the parties on February 2, 2015. The tables reflect the gap status for every data report related to over 70 substantive requirements included in the June 24, 2013 Order as well as in the Initial and Final Period 4 IPs. A copy of each table is included in the Appendix as an attachment to App. B, Ex. 11A, February 2, 2015 e-mail from Grace M. Lopes to Kenya Rachal and Sara Glasser with attached tables. The summaries in the tables were supplemented by the parties in e-mail correspondence transmitted by the defendants on February 24, 2015 and by plaintiffs on March 9, 2015. See App. B, Ex. 11B, February 24, 2015 e-mail from Kenya Rachal to Grace M. Lopes, Sara Glasser and Mark Jordan; App. B, Ex. 11C, March 9, 2015 e-mail from Sara Glasser to Grace M. Lopes and Kenya Rachal. 185 In some instances, in order to capture data relevant to a specific MSA requirement, the parties agreed to changes in MACWIS. In other instances the parties agreed to rely on the results of case record reviews conducted during future implementation periods. 186 See supra at 12-14. 187 See MSA §II.A.5.c.3.; see also id. Appendix C at 3-5.
87

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 93 of 204
innovation ultimately led to the defendants’ submission of PAD reports to the Monitor and
plaintiffs’ counsel beginning in April 2013, before the start of Period 4.
As part of the gap analysis contemplated by the June 24, 2013 Order, the parties and the
Monitor considered the scope and quality of the data relevant to MSA requirements that were
collected through the FCR process. As a result, the parties agreed to modify various PAD
questions and/or to revise the related guidance provided to the FCR reviewers in order to capture
certain data elements related to specific MSA requirements.188 This series of modifications to the
PAD and to the related reviewer guidance, combined with DFCS’s findings from the process
associated with validating the then-existing PAD reports, constituted the required subject matter
for the reviewer training that defendants were required to complete by March 30, 2014.
The training was conducted by a CSF consultant for 19 participants via video-conference
on February 13, 2014. A review of the training materials and interviews with several participants
indicates that the training addressed the agreed modifications to the PAD and PAD guidance,
trends and findings derived from data quality reports, data entry issues and discrepancies
applicable to FCR reviewers, and reported performance outcomes based on selected PAD reports
issued between June 1 and November 30, 2013.189 In addition to conducting the required
188 In some instances, although a PAD question was not added or modified, the PAD guidance was revised because it did not conform to the related MSA requirement. See May 2014 Report at 109 (noting limitations in the PAD instruction guide used by the reviewers). 189 The training materials reflect a thoughtful and detailed approach to the subject matter. Because the training materials are extensive, an excerpt from the PowerPoint presentation that was used is included in the Appendix for illustrative purposes only. The excerpt includes a copy of the slides used to present the overview of the training session and a change to one specific PAD question. See App. B, Ex. 12A, Periodic Administrative Review Work Shop, Center for Support of Families (includes agenda, overview and sample reflecting presentation related to one modified PAD question). The training materials include a presentation on data entry and discrepancies that addresses issues identified through the data validation process related to how reviewers answered specific PAD questions. Various checklists related to data collection are included among the training materials such as a checklist of the PAD questions that require documentation (see App. B, Ex. 12B), a checklist of incorrect sequential answer responses (see App. B, Ex. 12C), and a checklist of answer responses that may require corrective action (see App. B, Ex. 12D). During the training, FCR reviewers were also provided with a checklist of answer responses that met MSA requirements. See App. B, Ex. 12E. This checklist, titled PAD Reports with Accompanying Questions, provides the reviewers with a roadmap of “correct” responses. Given that the goal is for the reviewers to answer the
88

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 94 of 204
training, the defendants revised the PAD guidance on multiple occasions to address the parties’
agreements.
b) By April 30, 2014, Defendants shall provide guidance to the FCR supervisors on monitoring the reviews conducted by their reviewers.
Status of Progress, Final Period 4 IP §II.B.3.b.: This requirement was satisfied. On
April 1, 2014, a CSF consultant and the DFCS FCR supervisor participated in a telephone
conference with both FCR supervisors to review the terms of both a monthly quality assurance
process and a process for follow up on the results of the DFCS data validation unit’s findings
relative to the monthly PAD reports.190
c) By April 30, 2014, Defendants shall revise the PAD instrument to include specific questions if appropriate to the PAD instrument and FCR process in order to reduce the total number of MSA requirements that will require a case record review for reporting.
Status of Progress, Final Period 4 IP §II.B.3.c.: This requirement was satisfied.
Defendants began to use the revised PAD on May 1, 2014.
Initial Period 4 IP §II.C.1. C. Information Use and Management
1. Pursuant to the Project Schedule for Defendants’ Production of Data Reports Required by Appendix C of the Modified Settlement Agreement, dated June 24, 2013 (Dkt. No. 589), Defendants shall produce to the Monitor and Plaintiffs complete, accurate and validated data reports on a monthly basis and at such other intervals as required by the Modified Settlement Agreement. a) The first production of each report shall contain all reports that were due during Implementation Period 3 (starting with the month of July 2012) through the most recent month. The parties recognize that it may not be possible to produce the FCR Reports starting with the report from the month of July 2012; however, Defendants will produce all available FCR Reports.
questions based on the facts presented regardless of whether the answers constitute the correct responses, it may be appropriate for defendants to monitor how the checklists are being used. 190 See App. B, Ex. 13, Notes from FCR-PAD QA Discussion, with attached template for required documentation (outlining both QA processes). DFCS supervisors report that fewer reviews than anticipated have been conducted and that the ability to follow up on the data validation unit’s findings is limited because the underlying data related to the findings have not been made available to the management of the FCR unit.
89

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 95 of 204
b) With the exception of the FCR Reports, each monthly report shall contain data about the most recent month, separate from information about any prior months, except as otherwise required by the Modified Settlement Agreement. Reports may also contain information aggregated in other ways.
c) Data reports shall be produced in a live excel file or comparable format for ease of use by the Monitor and Plaintiffs.
Status of Progress, Initial Period 4 IP §II.C.1.: This requirement was satisfied in
substantial part during Period 4. The June 24, 2013 Order was issued in response to defendants’
failure to respond to the 53 reporting requirements they were required to satisfy pursuant to the
Period 3 IP. Defendants planned to respond to these reporting requirements by issuing 63 data
reports. Of these 63 reports, defendants produced a number of reports that were subsequently
withdrawn and not produced thereafter pursuant to a series of agreements that were reached by
the parties.191 In total, as detailed in the Appendix, the Monitor was able to analyze data
contained in 49 of the 63 reports for this report.192 With certain exceptions, reports were
provided timely and in the required reporting formats. However, as addressed in the narrative
related to MSA §II.A.2.a.10.a., above, accurate reports pertaining to caseload requirements were
not produced during Period 4.193
Initial Period 4 IP §II.C.2. C. Information Use and Management
2. Defendants shall produce to the Monitor and Plaintiffs accurate and validated reports as set forth in Appendix 1. a) With the exception of Report Nos. 5 and 6 as identified in Appendix 1, the first production of each report shall
191 See, e.g., PAD Report 8, which pertained to children with special needs matched to placements that could meet their therapeutic and medical needs. 192 See, App. A, Ex. 2A, supra note 4, for a table summarizing the status of each of the 63 reports. Of the 14 reports that the Monitor was not able to analyze as it pertains to defendants’ Period 4 performance, defendants either did not produce or stopped production of six reports pursuant to the parties’ agreement and with the understanding that reports would be supplanted by case record reviews; four reports were determined to be insufficiently responsive to the relevant requirement and were therefore subject to changes in the PAD whose data will not be available until after Period 4; two reports were subject to modified report specifications and Period 4 data pursuant to the modified specifications were not produced for analysis in time for this report; one report included data containing data entry errors rendering the data unanalyzable; and one report was superseded by a subsequent version of the report that was more responsive to the applicable requirement. 193 See supra at 66-69.
90

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 96 of 204
contain all reports that were due during Implementation Period 4 (starting with the month of July 2013) through the most recent month. b) With the exception of Report Nos. 3, 4, 7 and 8 as identified in Appendix 1, each monthly report shall contain data about the most recent month with available data, separate from information about any prior months. Reports may also contain information aggregated in other ways. c) Data reports shall be produced in a live excel file or comparable format for ease of use by the Monitor and Plaintiffs.
Status of Progress, Initial Period 4 IP §II.C.2.: This requirement was satisfied in part
during Period 4. The Initial Period 4 IP created eight new reporting requirements. Defendants
planned to respond to these eight reporting requirements by issuing eight data reports. In total,
the defendants produced five data reports and the Monitor was able to analyze data contained in
four of those reports.194 Three of the eight data reports that defendants were required to produce
either were not produced by the required date or defendants did not provide notification that the
required data production would be delayed.
Initial Period 4 IP §II.C.3. C. Information Use and Management
3. During the Negotiation Period, the parties, in consultation with the Monitor, shall develop a process and detailed timeline for production of those reports listed in Appendix 2, including the method by which each report shall be produced (i.e., MACWIS, FCR, manual or other). The parties recognize that it may be necessary to make modifications to Appendix 2 during the Negotiation Period.
Status of Progress, Initial Period 4 IP §II.C.3.: This requirement was satisfied.
Appendix 2 to the Initial Period 4 IP lists 11 substantive MSA requirements that defendants did
not report on as of July 18, 2013, which was the filing date of the Initial Period 4 IP. As required
194 See App. A, Ex. 2B, supra note 4, for a table summarizing the status of each of the eight reports. Of the four reports the Monitor was not able to analyze, defendants did not produce one report, which the parties agreed would be assessed through a case record review; one report contained data entry errors rendering the data unanalyzable; one report was expected to be produced by May 31, 2015 but it had not been received by the Monitor as of June 11, 2015; and, one report was determined by the parties to be satisfied by a different report submitted pursuant to the June 24, 2013 Order.
91

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 97 of 204
by this subsection, during the “Negotiation Period”195 that led to finalization of the Final Period 4
IP, the parties agreed on methodologies and related timelines for reporting on these MSA
requirements or timelines for resolving when reporting would occur.196
Final Period 4 IP §II.C.1. C. Information Management and Use
1. By March 1, 2014, Defendants shall provide to Plaintiffs and the Monitor a timeline for the development and implementation of its replacement SACWIS system.
Status of Progress, Final Period 4 IP §II.C.1.: This requirement was satisfied.197 On
March 3, 2014, defendants submitted a project planning document that included a detailed series
of tasks and milestones with corresponding timelines associated with the development of the
replacement system.198 The planning document provides limited information regarding the
implementation schedule.199 This is understandable in light of the fact that the planning
document was prepared even before a draft request for proposals had been developed soliciting
bids from vendors to replace MACWIS. During Period 5, in response to the Monitor’s request,
the defendants submitted a more detailed and updated development and implementation
schedule. According to the updated schedule, testing of the new system will begin in mid-May
195 The Initial Period 4 IP defines the “Negotiation Period” as the time period from December 1, 2013 to January 8, 2014.” See Initial Period 4 IP §I.B. 196 See Final Period 4 IP at Appendix 3. In several instances, the parties agreed to a case record review process to collect data relative to a specific requirement. However, the parties deferred resolution of the timelines for these case record reviews until March 30, 2014. The parties ultimately agreed on the timelines for the case record reviews and these timelines are reflected in App. B, Ex. 11A, supra note 184. See also Initial Period 4 IP §II.C.4. (recognizing that certain specific information required by the MSA could not be captured by data reports when the Initial Period 4 IP was filed and acknowledging the parties’ agreement that this information would be collected through case record reviews conducted in consultation with the Monitor). 197 The March 1, 2014 deadline fell on a Saturday and defendants’ submission was made on the first business day thereafter. 198 See App. B, Ex. 14, March 3, 2014 e-mail from Gwen Long to Julia Davis and Grace M. Lopes with attached SACWIS Project Planning Schedule. The other documents that were transmitted with the March 3, 2014 e-mail are not included in the Appendix. The defendants’ submission was a multi-page Gantt chart – a format typically used for project management purposes. 199 It refers to a 673-day implementation project management plan commencing in August 2015 as well as a 262-day task starting in March 2018 which is described as “warranty/maintenance/operations.” See App. B, Ex. 14, supra note 198, at 3 (DHS 362533).
92

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 98 of 204
2019 and end in mid-January 2020. Following the testing period, the system is expected to be operational on January 21, 2020.200
In light of the historical representations defendants have made regarding the MACWIS
replacement schedule, it is difficult to assess whether the current schedule reflects an accurate
timeline. In January 2013, for example, the defendants reported that the new system would be introduced in late 2015 or 2016.201 According to the schedule defendants submitted on March 3, 2014, an RFP for a replacement system was scheduled to be issued in October 2014.202
However, according to the schedule defendants submitted in April 2015, the RFP for a replacement system will be issued in June 2016.203 Against this backdrop of ever-changing
project deadlines, it is difficult to assess the likelihood of defendants meeting the latest version of
the schedule that has been submitted.
Since the start of 2008 when the Settlement Agreement was approved by this Court, the
development of a more functional management information system has been a priority. Among other provisions,204 the Settlement Agreement required that by the end of Period 1, DFCS staff would have access to basic computer services,205 and that a capacity assessment of MACWIS relative to the requirements imposed by the Settlement Agreement would be completed.206 These
200 In response to the Monitor’s request, defendants submitted an updated 136-page schedule to the Monitor on April 17, 2015 and a condensed version of the updated schedule on April 6, 2015. The condensed version is included in the Appendix as App. B, Ex. 15, April 6, 2015 e-mail from Diane Mobley to Grace M. Lopes with attached New SACWIS Project Timeline Starting with Phase II and New SACWIS Project Timeline Starting with Phase III. 201 See January 2013 Report at 31. 202 See App. B, Ex. 14, supra note 198, at 2 of Gantt chart. 203 See App. B, Ex. 15, supra note 200, at 1 of Gantt chart. 204 Period 1 requirements also included the obligation to collect, analyze and disseminate to DFCS county and regional staff MACWIS data related to compliance with all of the Settlement Agreement’s foster care services standards. Settlement Agreement §II.A.5.c. 205 Id. §II.A.5.b. According to the Settlement Agreement, access to MACWIS, word processing and electronic mail constitute access to basic computer services. Id. 206 Period 1 IP §I.e.
93

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 99 of 204
requirements were not satisfied,207 and although incorporated into the Period 2 IP,208 they were
not satisfied by the end of Period 2.209 Pursuant to the corrective action process mandated by the
Bridge Plan, it was not until July 2010 that defendants issued the Request for Proposals for the
MACWIS capacity assessment that should have been conducted during Period 1.210 The actual
assessment report was not finalized until late June 2012.211 Approximately four months
thereafter, defendants notified the Administration for Children and Families (“ACF”) in the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) of their intent to develop a new automated
case management system to replace MACWIS.212 However, it was not until February 28, 2014
that the defendants finalized a contractual arrangement with a vendor to help them develop the
actual RFP that will eventually lead to a contract with a different vendor for replacement of the
system.213 DFCS staff are working currently with their contractor on developing requirements
207 June 2009 Report at 20 (finding that assessment of MACWIS conducted during Period 1 did not address reliability of MACWIS data, efficacy of management reports generated, nor consider whether MACWIS was capable of meeting the functionality requirements established by the Settlement Agreement); id. at 51-55 (finding that for the most part MACWIS does not report accurately and as required on Settlement Agreement standards). 208 Period 2 IP §I.5. (requiring, among other things, that defendants provide access to basic computer services and issue an RFP and contract for an assessment of MACWIS). 209 September 2010 Report at 59-64. Pursuant to the Period 2 IP, at least some of these Period 1 carry-over requirements were due before the conclusion of Period 2. See, e.g., Period 2 IP §I.5.c. (requiring that an RFP be issued by September 1, 2009 for a comprehensive analysis of MACWIS). 210 June 10, 2010 Agreed Order at ¶6. See November 2010 Report at 17-18 for a summary of defendants’ progress. The RFP was issued on July 27, 2010. See id. at Ex. 3, Mississippi Department of Information Technology Services, RFP No. 3583. The contract for the assessment was finalized on March 18, 2011. For a copy of the contract, see The Court Monitor’s Report to the Court Regarding Findings From the Second Case Record Review and Other Matters Relevant to Defendants’ Progress Toward Satisfying the Requirements of the Settlement Agreement, filed June 29, 2012 [hereinafter June 2012 Report], at Ex. 30, Project No. 37921, Professional Services Agreement Between Walter R. McDonald & Associates, Inc. and Mississippi Department of Information Technology Services as Contracting Agent for the Mississippi Department of Human Services. 211 For a copy of the report, see January 2013 Report at Ex. 17, Walter R. McDonald & Associates, Inc., Mississippi MACWIS Alternatives Analysis, Final Project Report, April 20, 2012; see also id. at 30 and n.141. 212 For a copy of the notification letter see id. at Ex. 18A, October 29, 2012 correspondence from Richard Berry to Joe Bock. 213 As the initial step, defendants contracted for services from MAXIMUS Human Services Inc., a Quality Assurance/Independent Verification and Validation [hereinafter QA/IVV] vendor. MAXIMUS consultants have been engaged to work with MDHS/DFCS staff during the planning, system design, development and implementation stages for the new system. See App. B, Ex. 16A, Project Number 40123, Professional Services Agreement Between Maximus Human Services, Inc. and Mississippi Department of Information Technology Services as Contracting Agent for the Mississippi Department of Human Services.
94

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 100 of 204
for the new system that will inform the RFP that is anticipated in June 2016 for the development
and implementation of the replacement system.
Defendants’ currently-projected MACWIS replacement date in 2020 is noteworthy in
light of the relevant history. There are long-standing and well-documented system limitations214
which have compromised the reliability of MACWIS case records and undercut defendants’
ability to use system performance data to change case practice to comport to the MSA’s most
fundamental requirements.215 These limitations in the ability to collect and report on
performance data hobble defendants’ reform efforts. The time it has taken thus far to replace
MACWIS is costly, requiring workaround information systems and ultimately inhibiting the pace
of reform. The limitations in MACWIS have also been an impediment to defendants’ efforts to
achieve accreditation from the Council on Accreditation (“COA”) as required by the MSA.216
While defendants attribute the delay in implementation of a new system to the planning process
required by the federal agency that is expected to fund a significant part of the cost of the
replacement system, as well as to the protracted procurement processes established by the
214 See, e.g., June 2009 Report at 26-35, 47-48, 51-55 and 67-69; September 2010 Report at 7, 21-23, 57-58, 59-66, 75 and 91; June 2012 Report at 42-45; January 2013 Report at 31-32; and May 2014 Report at 105-106. 215 See January 2013 Report at 31-33; May 2014 Report at 105-106. 216 The MSA requires the defendants to achieve COA accreditation. See MSA §IV. COA is an independent, nonprofit, accrediting organization that accredits human services entities, including public sector child and family services agencies. The accreditation process is a multi-year process, which involves training and assessments, including site visits to DFCS county offices and remedial site visits to county offices in DFCS Regions that have failed to satisfy COA standards. Pursuant to COA standards, DFCS must achieve accreditation by July 2015. As explained more fully below in the narrative related to the MSA accreditation requirement, infra at 185-186, COA has notified the defendants that because of various deficiencies, including shortcomings related to MACWIS, defendants will be unable to achieve accreditation by the July 2015 deadline. See App. B, Ex. 33, infra note 439. See also, e.g., App. B, Ex. 16B, Council on Accreditation, Remedial Site Visit – Commission Report, Division of Family and Children’s Services Region: 1-North, Corinth, MS., excerpt, at 1 (describing results of a remedial site visit in Region I-North conducted during December, 2014, and stating: “[i]n spite of “efforts to upgrade lines and increase communication between Regional and Central office staff, glitches and slow computer speeds continue. New servers will be added after the first of the year, more than double, which may help address the issues. More efforts need to be spent investigating why hardware upgrade has not been more successful until the new SACWIS system is in place.”); id. at 2-3 (multiple entries that appear to be from a March 13, 2014 site visit, stating: “[d]ue to glitches in the MACWIS system, staff reported data loss and the slowness of the system.”).
95

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 101 of 204
Mississippi Department of Information Technology Services (“ITS”), there have been significant
periods of delay that do not appear to be attributable to the federal funders.
Although there has been progress in addressing limitations in the hardware and network
infrastructure that supports MACWIS, as well as progress in addressing shortcomings in data
reporting in response to the requirements imposed by the June 24, 2013 Order, significant issues
remain, highlighting the need for defendants to implement the replacement system on a more
accelerated timeline.
For example, the ability to access and/or use MACWIS on a consistent basis has been a significant problem for caseworkers and their supervisors statewide.217 In order to correct this
problem, the June 24, 2013 Order required the defendants to develop and implement, on an
expedited basis, a written plan to improve, on an expedited basis, the hardware and network infrastructure that support MACWIS.218 The plan submitted by the defendants required a twotrack approach:219 1) specific software and hardware upgrades to the network infrastructure
supporting MACWIS, an initiative that is referred to as the Citrix Project; and 2) specific
upgrades in communications switches, cables, routers and other equipment in all DFCS county
offices. According to the timeline established by the plan, the Citrix Project was required to be
completed by the end of December 2013 and the county office improvements were required to be
completed by June 30, 2014.
217 These limitations, which are described in the Monitor’s January 2013 Report, among others, include the following: 1) delays of up to several hours logging into MACWIS; 2) difficulty remaining logged on to MACWIS; 3) loss of data entered into MACWIS; 4) very slow response times: and 5) system freezes and shut downs. 218 See June 24, 2013 Order §VI.D.1. 219 The defendants submitted the plan, which was subject to the Monitor’s approval, on July 1, 2013. Because the Monitor determined that the July 1, 2013 submission did not satisfy the requirements of the June 24, 2013 Order, defendants submitted a revised plan on August 23, 2013 which addressed key concerns identified by the Monitor and her expert consultants. The Monitor approved the revised plan on September 25, 2013. A copy of the approved plan is included in the Appendix as App. B, Ex. 17, Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children’s Services, Mississippi Automated Child Welfare Information System Connectivity and Response Time Improvement Plan.
96

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 102 of 204
Defendants report that the required upgrades were completed in all DFCS county offices
before the June 30, 2014 deadline. However, delays in procuring necessary services from
qualified vendors combined with the failure to resolve on a timely basis a technical issue related
to the compatibility of the upgraded Citrix software with MACWIS, appear to have contributed
to continuing limitations in user access during Periods 4 and 5. Reports from DFCS managers
and staff regarding access limitations indicate that DFCS staff experience continued limitations
in access to the system. Because key records were not maintained by the defendants, it is not
possible to determine whether these limitations are less severe and/or less pervasive than they
have been in the past.220
220 In January 2013, the Monitor reported DFCS records showed that between February 1 and November 30, 2012, DFCS staff experienced a minimum of 385.8 hours of unplanned, limited access to MACWIS due to recurrent problems with the existing information technology infrastructure. See January 2013 Report at 32. The Monitor obtained this data from a document maintained by DFCS that is referred to as the “MACWIS Down Time Tracking” report. This form is used to track the length of time MACWIS is unavailable to users and it includes the following fields: 1) date and time downtime began; 2) date and time downtime ended; 3) whether downtime was the result of a planned event, and if so, the approximate planned downtime in hours; 4) the approximate unplanned downtime in hours; 5) the approximate unplanned limited access in hours; 6) the reason for the downtime; 7) a description of the incident (i.e., the result); and, 8) the contact person or responsible party. For the convenience of the Court and the parties, a copy of the downtime report that was included in the Appendix to the Monitor’s January 2013 Report as Ex. 19 is also included in the Appendix to this report as App. B, Ex. 18, MACWIS Down Time Tracking 2012. During March 2015, in the wake of repeated reports about recurrent access issues from DFCS managers and staff, the Monitor requested that defendants produce an updated copy of the MACWIS Down Time Report. In response, on March 30, 2015, defendants transmitted the 2014 and 2015 MACWIS Down Time Reports. See App. B, Ex. 19, March 30, 2015 e-mail from Diane Mobley to Grace M. Lopes with attached reports, MACWIS Down Time Tracking 2014 and MACWIS Down Time Tracking 2015. In contrast to the MACWIS downtime reports previously submitted to the Monitor, the reports submitted on March 30, 2015 do not include any information about the duration of the downtime. All of the relevant fields are blank. Compare App. B, Ex. 19 with App. B, Ex. 18. Although the Monitor requested complete copies of the 2014 and 2015 reports in mid-April 2015, these documents were not produced prior to the submission of the draft version of this report to the parties for review and comment. See App. B, Ex. 20, April 14, 2015 e-mail from Mark Allen to Grace Lopes and April 14, 2015 e-mail from Grace M. Lopes to Mark Allen, without attachments (follow up on April 13, 2015 telephone conference with the MDHS Chief Information Officer, Mark Allen, confirming the Monitor’s request for complete copies of the downtime reports and inquiring whether the omitted information regarding the duration of downtime could be produced). Aside from an acknowledgement of the Monitor’s request and an assurance it would be addressed the following week, the defendants did not respond to the Monitor’s April 14, 2015 e-mail until June 10, 2015 in response to the draft version of this report, which included the Monitor’s renewed request for these records. On June 10, 2015, defendants advised that they had stopped recording the duration of downtime but started to do so again in April 2015. No explanation for the failure to maintain these records was provided; however, defendants did provide downtime reports reflecting some amount of downtime during seven days in April and 15 days in May 2015. On its face, the reported downtime appears inaccurate because for each day the duration of planned downtime, unplanned downtime and limited access is recorded as identical. In light of the long-standing nature and significant operational
97

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 103 of 204
Moreover, although defendants were required to complete the Citrix Project by December
30, 2013, user testing did not begin until early December 2014. Thereafter, the testing process
was reportedly truncated in order to “upgrade” all users on a statewide basis by early February
2015.221 Notwithstanding the implementation of the upgrade in early February 2015, DFCS
caseworkers and their supervisors have continued to experience limitations in their ability to
access MACWIS. Moreover, since the upgrade was implemented, DFCS staff and managers
report that they frequently cannot print documents from MACWIS – a limitation that the
defendants have attributed to the upgrade and one that has critical implications for case
practice.222 Defendants report that they have been working with several vendors to address these
problems.
Beyond these issues, there are the deeper and inherent limitations in MACWIS’s
reporting capacity. Defendants’ ability to generate performance reports responsive to MSA
requirements has been a pervasive issue since Period 1. Various remedial efforts have been
developed and ordered by the Court to address these limitations. Ultimately, however, these
remedies are no substitute for the implementation of a new system that is based on current
information management standards with robust and customizable report production capabilities.
Final Period 4 IP §II.C.2. C. Information Management and Use
2. Defendants shall produce to the Monitor and Plaintiffs accurate and validated reports listed in Appendix 2 of the Initial Plan as set forth in Appendix 3. a) The first production of each report shall contain all reports that were due during Implementation Period 4
impact on the agency this issue has had, it is inexplicable that defendants failed to track downtime closely during 2014 and the first quarter of 2015 in an effort to diagnose system problems and develop permanent solutions. 221 The Monitor raised her concerns about the delays in the Citrix Project with defendants on multiple occasions during Periods 4 and 5. In early December 2014, in response to an inquiry from the Monitor, defendants reported that they anticipated the statewide transition to the upgraded environment would be completed by February 6, 2015. MDHS and DFCS managers have reported that because the testing process was inadequate, implementation issues that should have been resolved prior to the statewide conversion were unaddressed. 222 Caseworkers and their supervisors print information that is stored in MACWIS on a routine basis, including forms that foster parents must sign and reports that must be submitted to the Youth Courts.
98

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 104 of 204
(starting with the month of July 2013) through the most recent month.223 b) Each monthly report shall contain data about the most recent month with available data, separate from information about any prior months. Reports may also contain information aggregated in other ways. c) Data reports shall be produced in a live excel file or comparable format for ease of use by the Monitor and Plaintiffs. d) Data reports listed in Appendix 3 shall be created and validated following the process outlined for Appendix C Reports in the June Order.
Status of Progress, Final Period 4 IP §II.C.2.: This requirement was satisfied in part
during Period 4. The Final Period 4 IP established 11 additional reporting requirements.
Defendants planned to respond to these 11 reporting requirements by issuing 12 data reports. In
total, the defendants produced four data reports; however due to limitations in the reported data,
the Monitor was not able to analyze data contained in two of those four reports.224
MSA §II.A.5.d.1. 5. Information Management and Use
d) By the end of Implementation Period Four: 1) Defendants’ foster care review instrument shall be revised to include reviews of all children placed in therapeutic settings – whether home-based or congregate. The foster care review of therapeutic placements shall include an assessment, reflected in the revised instrument, of whether: (1) the therapeutic placement is meeting the individual child’s needs; (2) any additional services are necessary to ensure that the placement meets the individual child’s needs; and (3) the placement is appropriate as a therapeutic placement. If the foster care review identifies any concerns as to the capacity of the placement to provide therapeutic care, such concerns shall be documented and provided to the Regional Director who oversees
223 This subsection of the Final Period 4 IP notes: “The parties recognize that certain information required by the MSA cannot currently be captured by existing MACWIS data or FCR PAD reports. The parties agree that this information will be collected through periodic case record reviews conducted in consultation with the Monitor and may not be available retrospectively or on a monthly basis.” Id. at 5, n.2. 224 See App. A, Ex. 2C, supra note 4, for a table summarizing the status of each of the 12 reports. Both of the reports defendants produced that the Monitor was not able to analyze contained data with limitations rendering the data unanalyzable. Among the eight reports that defendants did not produce, seven reports were not produced because the parties agreed the applicable requirements would be assessed through case record reviews. For the last report, SWIP45, defendants did not produce a report because available data was not sufficiently responsive to the applicable requirement. Defendants indicated that they would explore alternative data collection methods and follow up with the Monitor and the plaintiffs. The Monitor looks forward to resolving this outstanding issue with the parties.
99

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 105 of 204
the county of responsibility for that child. Defendants will develop and begin implementing a protocol for informing private agencies of concerns regarding the capacity of the private agency’s placement to provide therapeutic care. Defendants shall ensure that no child remains in a therapeutic placement where a foster care reviewer has identified concerns, unless a remediation plan is being implemented to address those concerns. No new child shall be placed in a therapeutic placement where a foster care reviewer has identified concerns until a remediation plan has been fully implemented and all necessary remediation has occurred.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.A.5.d.1.: This requirement was not satisfied. The
foster care review instrument was not modified in response to this requirement during Period 4.
The review instrument does not focus on the required assessment of each child relative to their
therapeutic placement in the manner contemplated by this requirement. Nevertheless, it is
noteworthy that the current version of the instrument, which represents revisions made as of
August 18, 2014, includes questions which generally address the following matters related to all
placements types: 1) whether the placement is conducive to the safety of the child;225 2) whether
the placement is the least restrictive with regard to the needs of the child;226 3) placement type,
including therapeutic foster and group homes;227 4) whether the current placement provider is
meeting the needs of the child;228 and 5) whether the current placement is the most appropriate
with regard to the needs of the child.229 If concerns related to these questions are identified by
the FCR reviewer, notification to the applicable Regional Director is required. In combination,
the questions in the instrument explore some but not all key aspects of the requirement.
225 See FCR Periodic Administrative Determination Reference Guide, updated 8-18-14, at Q24. 226 Id. at Q30. 227 Id. at Q121. 228 Id. at Q47. Reviewers are instructed that this question applies to “universal needs of the child.” The following examples are provided in the reference guide for illustrative purposes: “food, shelter, clothing, finances, transportation, emotional support, mentoring, visits with biological or extended family members, meeting the safety needs of the child, meeting the child’s medical/dental/mental health care needs (transportation to visits, monitoring medicines, etc), education needs, etc.” 229 Id. at Q50.
100

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 106 of 204
Significantly, however, even in combination, these questions do not constitute the qualitative assessment of the capacity of the placement to provide therapeutic care that is contemplated by this requirement.
In addition to the failure to revise the instrument, the required protocol for notification to private agencies was not developed. Further, there is no evidence indicating that the remediation plans contemplated by this requirement were implemented during Period 4.
MSA §II.A.7.a. 7. Recruitment and Retention of Foster Families and Therapeutic
Service Providers a. Defendants shall ensure that all licensed resource families
(regardless of whether they are supervised directly by DFCS or by private providers) receive at least the minimum reimbursement rate for a given level of service as established pursuant to the Modified Settlement Agreement.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.A.7.a.: This requirement has been satisfied in part. Defendants were required to report on their performance relative to this MSA requirement during Period 4; however, defendants were not required to meet a specific performance standard during Period 4. Defendants produced two data reports in response to this requirement. One of the data reports reflects reimbursement rates for resource families licensed by MDHS. The second data report reflects reimbursement rates for families licensed by entities other than MDHS. The data indicate that 98 percent of resource families licensed by MDHS received at least the minimum reimbursement rate established pursuant to the MSA.230 The Monitor was not able to analyze the data pertaining to reimbursement rates for families licensed by entities other than MDHS because of limitations in the data. Rather than reporting on reimbursements to individual
230 See App. A, Ex. 3, supra note 53, and App. A, Ex. 9, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Licensed Resource Families Receiving The Minimum Reimbursement Rate Established Pursuant To The MSA, By Region, One-Month Period Ending 6/30/14.
101

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 107 of 204
resource families as required, the data report reflects reimbursement rates by “facility,” which
appear to constitute the umbrella licensing agencies and not the individual resource families.231
MSA §II.B.1.d. 1. Child Safety
d. Within 30 days of the completion of any investigation of maltreatment of a child in custody, as required in Section II.B.1, DFCS shall review the maltreatment investigation. This review shall include: (1) identification of any case practice deficiencies; (2) identification of any remedial actions necessary to ensure the safety of the child who is the subject of the investigation as well as any other child in the home or placement as well as the timeframe in which such remedial action must take place; and (3) identification of any corrective action that is necessary to address deficiencies in case practice demonstrated by the investigation as well as the timeframe in which such remedial action must take place. DFCS will monitor the initiation and completion of the remedial actions regarding individual child safety and case practice. DFCS shall notify the Area Social Work Supervisor (ASWS), Regional Director, and Director of Field Operations when such remedial actions have not been initiated within five days of identification or timely completed.
Ongoing Period 3 IP Requirement §II.C.4.232 C. Child Safety
4. The maltreatment investigation review process shall be fully implemented.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.1.d. and Period 3 IP §II.C.4. (Ongoing Requirement):
These requirements were satisfied in part. The maltreatment in care (“MIC”) review process was
not fully implemented as required during Period 4. The relevant background and the basis for
this finding are set out below. This is a Period 3 requirement that was not satisfied.233
At least in part, MIC reviews were required by the Period 3 IP to address deficiencies in
the quality of maltreatment investigations. An important safeguard designed to ensure that
children in DFCS custody remain safe, the reviews also have the potential to promote
improvements in case practice. MIC reviews are conducted by two staff members assigned to the
231 Among the data submitted by defendants, only six facility names appear: Apelah; Catholic Charities; MCHS; SCSCY; UMCH; and Youth Villages. 232 See Initial and Final Period 4 IPs at 1, n.1. 233 May 2014 Report at 154.
102

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 108 of 204
DFCS safety review unit (“SRU”).234 The SRU was established during Period 3 specifically to review investigations related to reports of maltreatment involving children in DFCS custody according to required processes and procedures.235
During Period 3, the defendants were required to develop processes and staff training related to MIC reviews for the following defined purposes: 1) to identify deficiencies in case practice; 2) to identify remedial actions necessary to ensure the safety of all children in the home or placement; 3) to monitor the timeliness of remedial action related to child safety and case practice; and 4) to provide notification to supervisory and management staff when remedial action has not been completed on a timely basis, or when it has not been initiated within five calendar days in situations in which individual child safety is implicated, or within 20 business days in situations in which deficiencies in case practice are identified.236
In May 2014, the Monitor reported on defendants’ performance relative to this Period 3 requirement, finding that the required MIC review process was not fully implemented for two key reasons. First, the Monitor found that defendants had failed to review all investigations involving children in custody as required because a MACWIS report DFCS developed to identify all investigations subject to review failed to capture all maltreatment investigations related to children in custody.237 Second, the Monitor found that the defendants failed to institute timely corrective action on a consistent basis and failed to implement the corrective action process as
234 The SRU is part of the Division of Evaluation and Monitoring. As noted above, the EMU is an administrative entity within the DFCS Office of Continuous Quality Improvement. 235 See Period 3 IP §II.C.3.a.-e. For a copy of the required MIC review processes and procedures, see May 2014 Report at Ex. 51A, DFCS CQI Maltreatment in Care Review Process. 236 Period 3 IP §II.C.3.a.-e. 237 May 2014 Report at 154-155. To their credit, defendants disclosed this problem, which they did not discover until over seven months after the MIC review process was implemented. Id. at 155.
103

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 109 of 204
intended.238 These findings, which also addressed activities that occurred during Period 4, are
explained in more detail below.
On March 31, 2014, in response to a February 27, 2014 notice of noncompliance submitted by plaintiffs’ counsel,239 defendants reported that 125 investigations involving 170
children that were completed between July 1, 2013 and February 23, 2014, were inadvertently omitted from the MIC review process.240 At that time, defendants indicated that they had
instituted a corrective action plan and that documentation for the omitted reviews of the 125 investigations would be provided to plaintiffs and the Monitor by April 30, 2014.241 Thereafter,
on April 30, 2014, defendants submitted documentation indicating that MIC reviews were
conducted for a total of 122 investigations of maltreatment in care that were completed between
July 1, 2013 and February 23, 2014, but that had not been subject to the MIC review process.
Defendants did not provide an explanation for the variance between the number of investigations
reported as unreviewed on March 31, 2014 and the number reported as unreviewed on April 30,
2014. However, in their comments on the draft version of this report defendants explained that three cases were misidentified initially due to a reporting-related issue that has been corrected.242
238 Id. at 156. 239 The notice was issued pursuant to MSA §VII.B. 240 On March 31, 2014, defendants reported that a total of 125 investigations that should have been reviewed were not reviewed. At that time, defendants stated that by April 30, 2014 they would produce manual reports with monthly breakdowns reflecting reviews for each of the 125 investigations. See App. B, Ex. 21, March 31, 2014 correspondence from Dewitt L. (“Rusty”) Fortenberry, Jr. to Marcia Lowry. Thereafter, on April 30, 2014, defendants submitted spreadsheets documenting that MIC reviews were conducted for 122 investigations completed between July 1, 2013 and February 25, 2014 that had not been subject to MIC reviews. A copy of the summary spreadsheet is included in the Appendix as App. B, Ex. 22, April 30, 2014 e-mail from Gwen Long to Julia Davis and Grace M. Lopes with attached Summary for MIC Review Report. Additional spreadsheets detailing the MIC review process for each of the 122 investigations were transmitted with the summary but they are not included in the Appendix to this report. 241 See App. B, Ex. 21, supra note 240. 242 It is, however, noteworthy that defendants’ April 30, 2014 submission indicates that of the 122 MIC reviews that were completed for the investigations that had not been reviewed timely, remedial or corrective action was indicated for 106 investigations. See App. B, Ex. 22, supra note 240.
104

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 110 of 204
Further, as noted above, in May 2014 the Monitor reported that defendants had failed to
institute timely corrective action on a consistent basis and failed to implement the corrective
action process as intended by the MIC review process.243
In early June 2014, shortly after the Monitor’s May 2014 Report was filed, a report
documenting the major findings from an assessment of maltreatment in care prevalence,
investigation quality, and remedial strategies was issued by two child welfare experts engaged by
the Monitor, Dr. Diane DePanfilis and Dr. Sarah Kaye.244 The report, which was provided to the
parties, addressed key aspects of the MIC review process.245 Based on a sample of what the
report describes as “20 recent MIC reviews” and follow up responses in the regions, Dr.
DePanfilis and Dr. Kaye found that 31 percent of the reviews in the sample were completed on a
timely basis.246 Moreover, they determined that although each MIC review report is required to
be reviewed and approved by a supervisor, and, in turn, the supervisor is required to initiate the
corrective action notification and tracking process, only 37 percent of the reviews in the sample
were approved by a supervisor.247
Dr. DePanfilis and Dr. Kaye reported on additional limitations in the corrective action
process associated with MIC reviews, finding that 56 percent of identified safety issues in the
sample were addressed within five days and 50 percent of practice issues were addressed within
243 See May 2014 Report at 156. 244 Dr. DePanfilis is a national expert in child maltreatment prevention and child welfare practice. Her academic credentials and experience are reflected in her curriculum vitae which is included in the Appendix to this report as App. B, Ex. 23A. Dr. Kaye has extensive experience evaluating child welfare practices and operations. Her academic credentials and experience are reflected in her curriculum vitae, which is included in the Appendix to this report as App. B, Ex. 23B. 245 The Monitor transmitted a copy of the report to the parties on June 3, 2014. See App. B, Ex. 23C, June 3, 2014 e-mail from Grace M. Lopes to Kenya Rachal and Julia Davis with attached report, which is included in the Appendix as App. B, Ex. 23D, Sarah Kaye, Ph.D. and Diane DePanfilis, Ph.D., MSW, Maltreatment in Out-ofHome Care in Mississippi, June 2014, at 41-43. 246 Id. at 41-42. The reviews are required to be completed within a 30-day period. According to the report, the average review took 37.3 days to complete. Id. at 42 247 Id. at 42. According to the report, the average time between approval and notifying the region of the need for corrective action was 38 days. Id.
105

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 111 of 204
the required 20 days.248 Finally, deficiencies in the quality of the MIC reviews are described in
the report, including the failure of the MIC reviewers to identify significant deficiencies in a
number of the maltreatment investigations that were included in the sample.249
The data produced by defendants indicate there was substantial improvement in
timeliness of the MIC review process by the end of Period 4. For the one-month period ending
June 30, 2014, defendants reported that 98 percent of the required reviews of investigations of
maltreatment of children in custody were completed within 30 days.250 The data also indicate
that there was a precipitous improvement in defendants’ performance starting with the one-month
period ending January 31, 2014, which defendants sustained through the one-month period
ending June 30, 2014, the end of the period reported on in this report.251
As reflected in the tables included in the narrative related to Period 3 IP §I.B.2., an
ongoing requirement,252 the evidence indicates there were continuing and very substantial
deficiencies in the timeliness of the corrective actions identified through MIC reviews by the end
of Period 4.253 In May 2014, the Monitor presented an analysis of overdue corrective actions
identified through the MIC review process as of a January 10, 2014 tracking report submitted by
248 Id. 249 Id. at 42-43. For example, the report indicates that for the 20 cases in the sample, Dr. DePanfilis and Dr. Kaye identified material deficiencies in the investigations that were not identified by the MIC reviewers, including “four cases in which required interviews were not completed, two cases in which preparation and review activities were not completed as part of the investigation, three cases in which the Resource Specialist did not accompany the investigator to assess for policy violations, and one case in which required timeframes were not achieved.” Id. at 42. Dr. DePanfilis and Dr. Kaye also found that some of the investigations evidenced “serious [investigative] practice issues” that were not identified by the MIC reviewers, including the following: 1) insufficient information in six of the 20 investigations in the sample to make a determination about substantiation but a determination had been made; 2) failure to focus the investigation on all allegations of maltreatment in three case with multiple allegations; and 3) failure to make a determination consistent with DFCS policy in two of the investigations that were reviewed. Id. at 42-43. 250 See App A, Ex. 3, supra note 53, and App. A, Ex. 10, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, DFCS Review of Maltreatment In Care Investigations, One-Month Periods Ending 7/31/13 Through 6/30/14. 251 See App. A, Ex. 10. 252 See supra at 74-79 for the tables and related narrative. 253 The MIC reviews are conducted by the Safety Review Unit [hereinafter SRU] referred to in the narrative related to Period 3 IP §I.B.2.
106

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 112 of 204
the defendants.254 The Monitor’s analysis showed that as of that date there were 67 corrective
action issues identified though the MIC review process that were overdue for between one and
193 days and the median number of days overdue was 48 days.255 In contrast, based on updated
tracking data submitted by defendants,256 as of June 30, 2014, the end of Period 4, there were 150
overdue issues identified by the MIC review process that were overdue for between one and 238
days and the median number of days corrective action was overdue was 84.5 days.257 It is
important to note, however, unlike the timeliness of the corrective action process associated with
other types of CQI reviews, defendants have made significant progress addressing delays in the
timeliness of the corrective actions identified by MIC reviews during Period 5. As of May 18,
2015, tracking data maintained by DFCS indicate that there were 10 overdue issues associated
with the MIC review process, which were overdue for between one and 111 days with a median
of 25 days.258
Ongoing Requirement MSA §II.B.1.e.2. 1. Child Safety
e. By the end of Implementation Period Three [and thereafter]: 2) All investigations into reports of maltreatment, including corporal punishment, of children in DFCS custody must be initiated within 24 hours and completed within 30 calendar days, including supervisory approval. Defendants shall assure that such investigations and decisions are based on a full and systematic evaluation of the factors that may place a child in custody at risk.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.1.e.2. (Ongoing Requirement): This requirement was
not satisfied by the end of Period 4. The data produced by defendants indicate that for the one-
254 See May 2014 Report at 156, n.500. 255 Id. 256 As noted supra at 76-78, this data is reflected in the DFCS Continuous Quality Improvement Corrective Actions Open Report as of 06/30/2014. The defendants are not required to produce this report as part of the monthly data reporting process; however, they have done so on several occasions in response to specific requests from the Monitor. 257 See supra at 76-78 for a discussion of the June 30, 2014 data. 258 As noted supra at 76-78, these data are reflected in the DFCS Continuous Quality Improvement Corrective Actions Open Report as of 05/18/2015.
107

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 113 of 204
month period ending June 30, 2014, 56 percent of maltreatment investigations were initiated within 24 hours and completed with supervisory approval within 30 days.259 This is an improvement over defendants’ Period 3 performance of 36 percent,260 but still far short of the
MSA’s initiation and completion timeline requirements, which serve as essential safeguards
designed to mitigate the risk of harm to children in custody.
In addition to substantial shortcomings in the timeliness of investigations conducted
during Period 4, there is other evidence of continuing and serious deficits in the quality of the
maltreatment in care investigations that have been conducted by DFCS investigators and approved by their supervisors and Regional Directors.261 For example, as part of their
assessment, Dr. DePanfilis and Dr. Kaye addressed factors related to the quality of investigations conducted for a three-month period during Period 4.262 The assessment was based on a sample of
35 investigations, which represented 33 percent of the investigations completed between November 2013 and January 2014.263 Among other deficiencies, Dr. DePanfilis and Dr. Kaye
found that for 20 percent of the investigations in the sample there was insufficient information
for the investigator to make a determination about whether or not maltreatment occurred; however, despite this limitation the determinations were made.264 They also found that nine
percent of the unsubstantiated allegations in the sample “should or could have been substantiated
259 See App. A, Ex. 3, supra note 53, and App. A, Ex. 11, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Maltreatment Investigations Initiated Within 24 Hours And Completed With Supervisory Approval Within 30 Days, By Region, By Month Investigation Initiated, One-Month Periods Ending 6/30/13 and 6/30/14. 260 Id. 261 All maltreatment investigations involving children in custody are required by DFCS policy to be approved by the investigator’s supervisors and the Regional Director. The Monitor has reported previously about significant deficiencies in the quality of maltreatment in care investigations. See, e.g., September 2010 Report at 77-79; January 2013 Report at 46-47; and May 2014 Report at 154. 262 See App. B, Ex. 23D, supra note 245, at 12 -25. Dr. DePanfilis and Kaye found that 66 percent of the investigations in the sample they reviewed were initiated and completed within MSA-required timeframes. Id. at 14. 263 Defendants submitted 105 maltreatment in care investigation reports completed between November 2013 and January 2014 to the Monitor. Id. at 12. 264 Id. at 21.
108

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 114 of 204
for abuse or neglect but were not.”265 Moreover, they found deficiencies in the safety/risk
assessments conducted by investigators, including the failure to identify risks to children in 11
percent of the investigations in the sample.266 These assessments play a critical role in ensuring
children are protected from harm.
The Final Period 4 IP includes a series of remedial strategies designed to remedy these
shortcomings,267 and they are addressed in detail below.268 For example, in July 2014, as Period
4 ended, defendants began to operate a centralized investigative unit devoted exclusively to the
investigation of all maltreatment in care reports statewide. Defendants report that this unit has
made significant progress toward meeting the MSA’s timelines. On December 23, 2014,
pursuant to the Period 5 IP,269 defendants reported that 70.15 percent of maltreatment
investigations were initiated within 24 hours and completed with supervisory approval within 30
days.270 As noted below, although it appears there has been improvement with respect to some
investigations during Period 5, the Monitor continues to have concerns about the overall quality
of maltreatment in care investigations. The Monitor expects to conduct a systematic evaluation
and report on defendants’ more recent progress in a forthcoming report.271
Ongoing Requirement MSA §II.B.1.e.3. 1. Child Safety
e. By the end of Implementation Period Three [and thereafter]: 3) Any foster child who remains in the same out-of-home placement following an investigation into a report that he or she was maltreated or subject to corporal punishment in that placement shall be visited by a DFCS caseworker twice a month for three months after the conclusion of the investigation to assure the child’s continued safety and well-being.
265 Id. at 22. 266 Id. at 25. 267 See Final Period 4 IP §III.A. 268 See infra at 114-119 for the discussion of these requirements. 269 See Period 5 IP §III.A.1. 270 See App. B, Ex. 24, December 23, 2014 e-mail from Gwen Long to Marcia Lowry and Grace M. Lopes with attached memorandum dated December 1, 2014, Maltreatment in Care Investigation Timeliness, at 3. 271 See also infra at 116.
109

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 115 of 204
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.1.e.3. (Ongoing Requirement): This requirement,
which is fundamental to ensuring the safety of certain children in custody, was not satisfied by
the end of Period 4. The data produced by defendants indicate that as of June 30, 2014, 75
percent of children remaining in the same placement following an investigation subject to this
requirement were visited by a DFCS caseworker two times per month for three months after the
conclusion of the investigation.272 Defendants’ performance during Period 4 represents a
decrease relative to their performance during Period 3, when statewide performance relative to
this requirement was 88 percent.273
Ongoing Requirement MSA §II.B.1.e.4. 1. Child Safety
e. By the end of Implementation Period Three [and thereafter]: 4) When a maltreatment investigation involves a resource home, DFCS shall file a copy of the approved final investigative report, and any recommendations and/or corrective actions DFCS has deemed necessary, in the case record of the foster child, in the file of the foster or adoptive parents with a copy of the letter of notification to the foster or adoptive parents, and in the DFCS State Office. DFCS shall also provide those records to the Youth Court Judge with jurisdiction over the child and to the Monitor.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.1.e.4. (Ongoing Requirement): The Monitor makes no
finding related to this requirement. The parties agreed that defendants’ performance related to
this requirement would be measured through a case record review conducted during Period 6.274
Ongoing Requirement MSA §II.B.1.e.5. 1. Child Safety
e. By the end of Implementation Period Three [and thereafter]: 5) When a maltreatment investigation involves an agency group home, emergency shelter, private child placing agency resource home, or other facility licensed by DFCS, a copy of the final investigative report shall be
272 See App. A, Ex. 3, supra note 53, and App. A, Ex. 12, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children In Custody Remaining In The Same Placement Following Maltreatment Investigation Who Met Face-ToFace With Worker Twice In A One-Month Period (Or At Least Once If 15 Days Or Less) For Three Months Following Completed Maltreatment Investigation, By Region, One-Month Periods Ending 6/30/13 and 6/30/14. 273 Id. 274 See Final Period 4 IP at Appendix 3, Report 3 and App. B, Ex. 11A, supra note 184.
110

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 116 of 204
filed in the child’s case record, in the DFCS State Office licensing file, and sent to the licensed provider facility. DFCS shall provide the report to the Youth Court Judge with jurisdiction over the child and to the Monitor.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.1.e.5. (Ongoing Requirement): The Monitor makes no
finding related to this requirement. The parties agreed that defendants’ performance related to
this requirement would be measured through a case record review conducted during Period 6.275
Ongoing Requirement MSA §II.B.1.e.6. 1. Child Safety
e. By the end of Implementation Period Three [and thereafter]: 6) For investigations of agency group homes, emergency shelters, and private child placing agency resource homes, DFCS shall undertake a separate investigation of the contract provider’s compliance with DFCS licensure standards.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.1.e.6. (Ongoing Requirement): This requirement was
satisfied. Defendants reported on this requirement for the first time during Period 4. The data
produced indicate that as of June 30, 2014, defendants’ performance with respect to this
requirement was 100 percent.276 Interview with DFCS managers and staff responsible for
conducting these investigations indicate that processes were implemented during Period 4 to
ensure that required licensure investigations were conducted. The Monitor expects to audit these
investigations at an appropriate time in the future to ensure conformity with these requirements.
Initial Period 4 IP §III.A.1. A. Child Safety
1. By July 31, 2013, Defendants will provide to the Monitor all investigative reports described in Sections II.B.1.e.4 and 5 of the Modified Settlement Agreement for the time period from January 1, 2012 through January 31, 2013 that have not been previously provided.
275 See Final Period 4 IP at Appendix 3, Report 4 and App. B, Ex. 11A, supra note 184. 276 See App. A, Ex. 3, supra note 53, and App. A, Ex. 13, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Licensure Investigations Of Agency Group Homes, Emergency Shelters, And Private Child Placing Agency Resource Homes, One Month Periods Ending 8/31/13 Through 6/30/14.
111

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 117 of 204
Status of Progress, Initial Period 4 IP §III.A.1.: This requirement was satisfied. The
defendants submitted these investigations, which were not initially produced as required, to the
Monitor and counsel for the plaintiffs on June 4, 2013.277
Initial Period 4 IP §III.A.2. A. Child Safety
2. By July 31, 2013, Defendants shall provide to Plaintiffs and the Monitor a protocol for accurately identifying and producing to the Monitor all investigative reports described in Sections II.B.1.e.4 and 5 of the Modified Settlement Agreement. Once approved by the Monitor, Defendants shall implement the protocol in accordance with its terms.
Status of Progress, Initial Period 4 IP §III.A.2.: This requirement was satisfied. The
defendants submitted a draft protocol to the Monitor on July 19, 2013. Following a collaborative
process involving counsel for plaintiffs and defendants, the defendants revised the protocol. The
revised protocol was submitted on November 13, 2013 and approved by the Monitor on
November 18, 2013.278
Initial Period 4 IP §III.A.3. A. Child Safety
3. By September 1, 2013, the Monitor shall determine whether to approve the recommendations set forth in Defendants’ July 8, 2013 FM Fatality Assessment, as described in Section II.C.1 of the Period 3 Implementation Plan (the “Recommendations”). If the Monitor does not approve the Recommendations, Defendants shall expeditiously revise the Recommendations and resubmit the Recommendations to the Monitor, and the Monitor shall expeditiously review the revised Recommendations and determine whether to approve them. Once approved, Defendants shall implement the Recommendations in accordance with their terms.
Status of Progress, Initial Period 4 IP §III.A.3.: This requirement was satisfied in part.
The relevant background and the basis for the Monitor’s findings are explained below.
277 For background information related to this requirement, see May 2014 Report at 146-147. 278 See App. B, Ex. 25A, November 13, 2013 correspondence from Kenya Key Rachal to Grace M. Lopes, with attached Protocol for Accurately Identifying and Producing Maltreatment Investigative Reports to the Court Monitor [DHS 361726-361729]; App. B. Ex. 25B, November 18, 2013 e-mail from Grace M. Lopes to Kenya Key Rachal and Julia Davis, without attachment (approving revised version of protocol).
112

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 118 of 204
As the Monitor has reported, in order to improve case practice, the defendants must develop the capacity to assess practices in situations in which a child is seriously injured or dies while in DFCS custody. For this reason, the defendants were required during Period 3 to conduct an assessment related to the death of F.M., a two-year old child who died approximately six months after entering the defendants’ custody, while placed in a relative foster home that was licensed by DFCS.279 Because the Monitor determined that defendants’ initial assessments of case practice related to this fatality had substantial shortcomings, the Period 4 IP included this subsection’s requirements.
In May 2014, the Monitor reported that on August 30, 2013 she requested additional information related to the July 8, 2013 fatality assessment report.280 Thereafter, on September 26, 2013, the Monitor notified the parties that she approved the recommendations set forth in the modified assessment report subject to certain supplementation that was necessary to address several significant omissions.281 A superseding assessment report issued on November 5, 2013, was approved by the Monitor on November 18, 2013.282
Defendants have implemented a number of the recommendations included in the assessment report. For example, the defendants have revised and delivered recommended training to caseworkers and their supervisors and bolstered requirements related to home studies. Nevertheless, interviews with resource workers and their supervisors during Period 4 and thereafter indicate that not all recommendations have been implemented, including required staffings, which are not conducted consistently on a weekly basis statewide due at least in part to
279 See Period 3 IP §II.C.1. 280 See May 2014 Report at 149-151. 281 For example, as the Monitor noted in the May 2014 Report, the recommendations failed to address the fact that seven children were in the relative placement in violation of DFCS policy and the MSA. Id. at 151, n.481. 282 See id. at Ex. 50A for a copy of the revised child fatality review report and at Ex. 50D for the documentation of the Monitor’s approval.
113

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 119 of 204
staffing shortages. Moreover, the very recent death of a child in DFCS custody who was in a
relative resource home licensed by the defendants underscores the need for a much more
comprehensive review of the licensure and placement process.283 The Monitor has advised the
parties of her preliminary and very serious concerns about the death of this child and expects to
report in more detail on this matter in a forthcoming report.284
Final Period 4 IP §III.A.1. A. Child Safety
1. By February 15, 2014, Defendants shall provide to Plaintiffs and the Monitor a letter identifying the barriers to Defendants’ timely initiation and completion of maltreatment in care investigations as required by MSA Section II.B.1.e.2 (the “MIC Timeliness Letter”). The MIC Timeliness Letter will include specific action steps and a timeline prior to the end of Period 4 for immediately addressing the failure to timely initiate and complete investigations. Once the action steps and timeline are approved by the Monitor, Defendants shall implement the specific action steps and timelines contained therein.
Status of Progress, Final Period 4 IP §III.A.1.: This requirement was satisfied in part
by the end of Period 4.
The MSA requires the defendants to initiate within 24 hours and complete within 30 days
investigations of all reports of maltreatment of children in DFCS custody.285 By the end of
Period 3, the Monitor reported that as of June 30, 2013, statewide performance related to this
requirement was 36 percent.286 Accordingly, the Period 4 IP included the remedial requirements
reflected in this subsection.
283 As noted above, defendants appear to recognize the need to improve these processes and have initiated a request for information from vendors regarding products or solutions that could help improve resource family operations. See supra at 19 for a brief discussion of this initiative. 284 The Monitor, in consultation with her child welfare expert, is reviewing this case. While defendants have responded to the Monitor’s requests for certain information and records, they have not yet produced all of the information and records that the Monitor requested on May 5, 2015. 285 MSA §II.B.1.e.2. 286 See May 2014 Report at 144-145
114

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 120 of 204
On February 18, 2014,287 in response to this subsection, defendants submitted a
memorandum and action plan, identifying eight barriers to timely initiation and completion of maltreatment in care investigations.288 Thereafter, on February 24, 2014, the Monitor notified
the parties that subject to a series of specified revisions, the Monitor would approve the action plan.289 On July 11, 2014, the defendants submitted a revised action plan that addressed most but not all of the issues identified by the Monitor.290 Defendants have not provided any explanation
for their failure to address all of the issues that the Monitor identified on February 24, 2014.
Thus, contrary to the requirements of this subsection, the action steps and timelines have not
been approved by the Monitor.
The Period 5 IP required the defendants to report by December 23, 2014 on the status of their implementation of the action steps reflected in the July 11, 2014 submission.291 Defendants
did so and in addition to addressing the status of progress toward satisfying each action step,
defendants reported that as of July 5, 2014, all investigations of maltreatment in care were being
handled by a centralized special investigation unit. Moreover, defendants reported that as of an
unspecified date in October 2014, defendants had initiated and completed approximately 70 percent of all maltreatment in care investigations on a timely basis.292
287 Because the February 15, 2014 deadline fell on a Saturday, the submission would have been due on Monday, February 17, 2014. However, because February 17, 2014 was a holiday, the submission was timely. 288 See App. B, Ex. 26A, February 18, 2014 correspondence from Kenya Key Rachal to Julia Davis (transmitting, inter alia, the memorandum and action plan); App. B, Ex. 26B, February 10, 2014 memorandum to Olivia Y Court Monitor Grace Lopes and Julia Davis of Children’s Rights Inc., with attached Maltreatment in Care Timeliness Action Plan (the action plan is referred to by this title in the memorandum). 289 See App. B, Ex. 26C, February 24, 2014 e-mail from Grace M. Lopes to Kenya Rachal without attachments. The Monitor identified necessary revisions related to the actions steps associated with each of the eight barriers identified by the defendants. 290 See App. B, Ex. 26D, July 11, 2014 e-mail from Gwen Long to Julia Davis and Grace M. Lopes, with attached revised version of the action plan. 291 See Period 5 IP §III.A.1. 292 See App. B, Ex. 24, supra note 270.
115

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 121 of 204
Defendants’ December 2014 submission provides significant detail on defendants’
implementation activities. The Monitor has not had an opportunity to verify all of the
representations reflected in defendants’ submission and will report more fully on defendants’
progress, as required, in her Period 5 report. As noted above, while it appears there have been certain improvements and that the timeliness of the investigative process has improved,293 the Monitor has continuing and serious concerns about the overall quality of the investigations.294
For this reason, the Monitor expects to conduct a follow up assessment of the investigative
process during the current calendar year.
Final Period 4 IP §III.A.2. A. Child Safety
2. Within 30 calendar days of receiving the Monitor’s written findings from the maltreatment in care investigation expert assessment, Defendants shall provide to Plaintiffs and the Monitor a letter identifying strategies for reducing the rate of maltreatment in care (the “MIC Reduction Letter”), having considered the information provided in the expert assessment in determining the strategies. Defendants shall begin implementing the strategies within 30 calendar days of completion of the MIC Reduction Letter.
Status of Progress, Final Period 4 IP §III.A.2.: This requirement was satisfied in part
in that the defendants submitted a letter identifying several strategies to reduce maltreatment in
care and they began implementing at least some of the strategies identified in the letter within 30
days, as required. As explained below, there are shortcomings in defendants’ submission,
including the fact that the letter does not reflect a review of the information and findings
293 See supra at 109. 294 At least preliminarily, there appears to be a substantial variance in the quality of the investigations conducted by the investigators assigned to the centralized investigative unit. The Monitor recently expressed significant concerns to the parties about the grossly substandard quality of an investigation, which was conducted by an investigator assigned to the centralized unit and approved by her supervisors.
116

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 122 of 204
presented by Dr. DePanfilis and Dr. Kaye nor does it reflect consideration of the key remedial recommendations advanced in their report.295
In their June 2014 assessment report, Dr. DePanfilis and Dr. Kaye identified the key
factors that may be contributing to the rate of maltreatment in care in Mississippi, which as they
noted, was reported by the federal government as the highest in the nation as of the last report
submitted to Congress by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for the 2012 fiscal year.296 These factors constitute the following: 1) ineffective foster parent licensing, training and
support; 2) insufficient caseworker contacts for ongoing safety/risk assessment; and 3) absent or
ineffective corrective actions following findings of substantiated maltreatment or policy violations.297 Dr. DePanfilis and Dr. Kaye presented recommendations to address each factor, as
well as recommendations intended to bolster the remedial strategies that DFCS had implemented or was in the process of implementing at the time of their assessment.298
The defendants submitted the required MIC Reduction Letter to plaintiffs and the Monitor
on July 9, 2014. However, the letter does not reflect consideration of key information presented
in the June 2014 assessment report. In fact, the letter expressly states that the defendants
received the assessment report and only considered the information in one section of the report in
295 See, App. B, Ex. 27A, July 9, 2014 e-mail from Gwen Long to Julia Davis and Grace M. Lopes. The July 9, 2014 e-mail transmitted the MIC Reduction Letter, which is dated July 2, 2014. The other attachments to the July 9, 2014 e-mail are not included in the Appendix to this report. See App. B, Ex. 27B, July 2, 2014 memorandum to Olivia Y. Court Monitor Grace Lopes and Julia Davis of Children’s Rights Inc. regarding Reduction of Maltreatment in Care. 296 See App. B, Ex. 23D, supra note 245, at 29 (reporting that the rate of maltreatment in out-of-home care in Mississippi for FY 2012 was 1.65 percent compared to the national average of .4 percent and citing http://cwoutcomes.acf.hhs.gov/data/overview). Due to issues related to data quality, the rate of maltreatment in care was not reported for the 2013 federal fiscal year in the CFSR [Child and Family Services Review] Round 3 Statewide Data Indicator Workbook published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families Children’s Bureau. See https://training.cfsrportal.org/resources/3044 (last visited June 12, 2015). Defendants reported that after reviewing their 2013 data submission, they transmitted corrected and superseding data regarding the rate of maltreatment to the federal government. 297 See App. B, Ex. 23D, supra note 245, at 29. 298 See, e.g., id. at 4 for a summary of some of these recommendations.
117

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 123 of 204
developing the strategies that they submitted in the MIC reduction letter.299 And while the letter
addresses some of the recommendations reflected in the report, it provides no explanation for
why certain key information and associated recommendations were not addressed.300
Defendants’ submission does not evidence substantive consideration of the report’s findings and
recommendations. It is limited to a handful of initiatives that were already underway when the
assessment report was issued.301 While some of these initiatives have appeared promising, with
limited exceptions,302 there have been very serious delays in implementation.303 Defendants
provided an update on their implementation activities in December 2014 pursuant to Period 5 IP
299 The July 2, 2014 memorandum from defendants states the following: “The recommended Remedial Strategies, beginning on page 35, section 4, of the MIC Assessment were considered in determining the included strategies.” Id. at 1. It appears defendants may have misread this section of the report submitted by Dr. DePanfilis and Dr. Kaye. Section 4 of the report presents their evaluation of the remedial strategies DFCS had already implemented or had planned to implement to reduce maltreatment in care – not all of the remedial strategies recommended by Dr. DePanfilis and Dr. Kaye. While Section 4 of the report includes some recommendations for bolstering the DFCS strategies that were underway or planned, Section 4 does not include all of the information and recommendations presented in the assessment report. Indeed, the introduction to Section 4 states: “Mississippi DFCS has implemented, or plans to implement, a number of strategies to reduce maltreatment and improve the quality of investigations of maltreatment in care across the state. This section of the report assesses each strategy . . . .” See App. B, Ex. 23D, supra note 245, at 35. 300 For example, defendants’ submission fails to address the recommendations presented by Dr. DePanfilis and Dr. Kaye to correct shortcomings in the MIC review process. See id. at 43 for the recommendations and the related discussion at 41-43. The letter also fails to recognize other deficiencies identified in the June 2014 assessment report. See, e.g., id. at 33-35 (describing limitations in the DFCS corrective action process following substantiated findings of maltreatment in care). 301 According to DFCS staff and managers, Multidisciplinary Assessment and Planning [hereinafter MAP] teams and mobile crisis response teams, which are identified as strategies in the defendants’ submission, were already existing resources operated by a different public agency. Moreover, DFCS staff and managers report that at least at times access to both MAP teams and mobile crisis response teams has been limited yet defendants’ submission does not address strategies related to this shortcoming. 302 Defendants cite the special investigations unit [hereinafter SIU] as a strategy to reduce the rate of maltreatment in care. The defendants launched the SIU prior to the release of the June 2014 assessment report. The unit began to investigate all reports of maltreatment in care in early July 2014. See the narrative related to Final Period 4 IP §III.A.3., infra at 119, regarding the February 2014 hiring deadline for the SIU director. 303 Despite various efforts, defendants have not contracted for an external entity to provide resource parent training on a statewide basis nor have they implemented the new curriculum for resource parents, which is identified in defendants’ submission as a strategy to reduce the rate of maltreatment in care. Moreover, as of May 15, 2015, no home studies had been conducted by an external entity. The home studies were an additional strategy described in defendants’ submission. However, defendants report that contracts have been executed and two private organizations are expected to start conducting an “extremely limited” number of home studies in the near term.
118

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 124 of 204
requirements.304 The Monitor will report on Period 5 implementation activities in a future
report.305
Final Period 4 IP §III.A.3. A. Child Safety
3. By February 1, 2014, Defendants shall hire a supervisor to lead the Special Investigations Unit. This supervisor will report directly to the MDHS-DFCS Deputy Administrator.
Status of Progress, Final Period 4 IP §III.A.3.: This requirement was satisfied. The
defendants hired the unit supervisor and her appointment was effective January 6, 2014.
Final Period 4 IP §III.A.4. A. Child Safety
4. By the end of Period 4, Defendants shall hire 13 investigators to staff the Special Investigations Unit.
Status of Progress, Final Period 4 IP §III.A.4.: This requirement was not satisfied on a
timely basis. As of the end of Period 4, 10 investigators had been hired for the Special
Investigation Unit (“SIU”) and an additional investigator was working in the unit in an acting
capacity.306 Defendants were able to increase staffing levels in the SIU. By late October 2014
there were 14 investigators assigned to the unit and efforts were underway to hire two
supervisors, who were subsequently hired and report to the SIU director.
MSA §II.B.2.m. 2. Child Placement
m. No child under 10 years of age shall be placed in a congregate care setting (including group homes and shelters) unless the child has exceptional needs that cannot be met in a relative or foster family home or the child is a member of a sibling group, and the Regional Director has granted express written approval for the congregate-care placement. Such
304 See Period 5 IP §III.A.2. 305 The update is included in the Appendix to this report as App. B, Ex. 27C, December 23, 2014 e-mail from Gwen Long to Marcia Lowry and Grace M. Lopes with attached December 15, 2014 memorandum to Olivia Y. Court Monitor and Parties regarding Maltreatment in Care Reduction. The other attachments to the December 23, 2014 email are not included in the Appendix to this report. Defendants, relying on a MACWIS report, SBRD06, indicate that there has been “an overall downward trend in the percentage of children in custody in the course of a 12-month period with a substantiated allegation of maltreatment in care.” Id. at DHS 364411. As noted infra at 148-149, defendants have notified the Monitor that they will be resubmitting the SBRD06 data. Accordingly, the Monitor cannot assess the accuracy of these representations. 306 At that time, the investigator positions for Regions VI, VII-W and VII-E were vacant; however, a staff member was assigned to the Region VII-E position in an acting capacity.
119

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 125 of 204
approval shall be based on the Regional Director’s written determination that the child’s needs cannot be met in a less restrictive setting and can be met in that specific facility, including a description of the services available in the facility to address the individual child’s needs. Sibling groups in which one or more of the siblings are under the age of 10 shall not be placed in congregate care settings for more than 45 days.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.2.m.: This requirement was satisfied in part; however
the part of this requirement pertaining to housing children under 10 years of age or older in
congregate care settings consistent with MSA requirements was not satisfied. Defendants were
required to report during Period 4 on the part of this requirement limiting the amount of time
sibling groups with at least one sibling under age 10 are placed in a congregate care setting;
however, defendants were not required to meet a specific performance standard regarding this
part of the requirement during Period 4.
The data produced by defendants indicate that as of June 30, 2014, 50 children under age
10 were housed in a congregate care setting without an applicable exception and approval by a
regional director.307 This represents an approximately five-fold increase in the number of
children under the age of 10 housed in a congregate care setting relative to one-year earlier.308 A
substantial portion of the increase was attributable to increases in Regions I-N, I-S, and VII-W.309
The data defendants produced also indicate that as of June 30, 2014 there were 17 sibling
groups with at least one sibling under the age of 10 housed in a congregate care setting for more
than 45 days.310 This performance represents an increase in sibling groups with at least one
307 See App. A, Ex. 3, supra note 53, and App. A, Ex. 14A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Under Age 10 Housed In A Congregate Care Setting With And Without Exception And Regional Director Approval, By Region, One-Month Periods Ending 6/30/13 and 6/30/14. 308 Id. 309 See App. A, Ex. 14A, supra note 307. In Region VII-W, of the 19 children in a congregate care setting without an exception and approval, 17 were placed in the Harrison County Shelter. 310 See App. A, Ex. 3, supra note 53, and App. A, Ex. 14B, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Number Of Sibling Groups With At Least One Sibling Under Age 10 Placed In Congregate Care Housing For More Than 45 Days, One-Month Periods Ending 6/30/13 and 6/30/14.
120

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 126 of 204
sibling under 10 housed in congregate care relative to defendants’ performance one-year earlier.
As of June 30, 2013, there were 13 sibling groups with at least one child under the age of 10
housed in a congregate care setting for more than 45 days.311
Ongoing Requirement MSA §II.B.2.p.1. 2. Child Placement
p. By the end of Implementation Period Three [and thereafter]: 1) All foster care settings, including relative placements, shall be screened prior to the initial placement of foster children in accordance with this Modified Settlement Agreement.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.2.p.1. (Ongoing Requirement): The Monitor makes no
finding related to this requirement. This was a performance requirement beginning in Period 3;
however, defendants were not required to report on their performance relative to this requirement
until Period 4. Defendants made efforts to develop data reports responsive to this MSA
requirement; however, because of limitations in available data to report on defendants’
performance relative to this requirement, the parties agreed that defendants would not produce
data during Period 4.312 Defendants report that they are exploring options to report on their
performance consistent with this subsection.313
Ongoing Requirement MSA §II.B.2.p.2. 2. Child Placement
p. By the end of Implementation Period Three [and thereafter]: 2) No foster child shall be placed or remain in a foster care setting that does not meet DFCS licensure standards consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements, unless so ordered by the Youth Court over DFCS objection.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.2.p.2. (Ongoing Requirement): This requirement was
not satisfied. Defendants produced data from MACWIS and the FCR process addressing
performance related to this requirement. The MACWIS data indicate that for the one-month
311 Id. 312 For example, using existing data, defendants would not be able to report on performance regarding foster care settings licensed by entities other than DFCS, including therapeutic resource homes. 313 The Monitor looks forward to resolving outstanding reporting issues regarding this requirement with the parties.
121

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 127 of 204
period ending June 30, 2014, 482 children were placed in a foster care setting that did not meet
DFCS licensure standards.314 This monthly total is within approximately two percent of the total
from the same month one-year prior, when 471 children were placed in foster care settings that
did not meet DFCS licensure standards.315 Data derived from the FCR process indicate that for
the six-month period ending June 30, 2014, 93 percent of children who were reviewed through
the FCR process were in foster care settings that either met the DFCS licensure standards or were
ordered by the Youth Court into their placement over DFCS objection.316 Certain changes were
made to the PAD during Period 4, which impacted DFCS data collection related to this
requirement.317 Thus data derived from the FCR process for the six-month period ending June
30, 2014 are not precisely comparable to the data for the six-month period ending June 30, 2013.
Ongoing Requirement MSA §II.B.2.p.8. 2. Child Placement
p. By the end of Implementation Period Three [and thereafter]: 8) No foster child shall remain in an emergency or temporary facility for more than 45 calendar days, unless, in exceptional circumstances, the Field Operations
314 See App. A, Ex. 3, supra note 53, and App. A, Ex. 15A, chart prepared by Office of the Court Monitor, Children Placed in Unlicensed Foster Care Settings That Do Not Meet DFCS Licensure Standards And Children Placed In Expedited Pending Relative Resource Homes For More Than 90 Days, One-Month Periods Ending 6/30/13 and 6/30/14. 315 Id. 316 See App. A, Ex. 3, supra note 53, and App. A, Ex. 15B, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Placed Or Remaining In A Foster Care Setting Meeting DFCS Licensure Standards Consistent With MSA Requirements, Unless Ordered By The Youth Court Over DFCS Objections, Six-Month Periods Ending 6/30/13 and 6/30/14. 317 Changes to the PAD, which could include, as described below, addition or deletion of answer response options, but could also include addition or deletion of questions and/or revisions to the guidance provided to FCR reviewers who complete the PAD, were recurrent issues impacting data pertaining to defendants’ performance with MSA requirements. With respect to this particular report, in December 2013 and April 2014, defendants made changes to answer response options to the following question on the PAD, which pertains to children placed in a setting that does not meet DFCS licensure standards: “If [the answer is] yes to the placement is court ordered, is the objection of DFCS noted in the court order?” In December 2013, defendants disabled answer options related to that question that enabled a reviewer to select an answer response other than “Yes,” “No,” or “N/A.” These responses are necessary to make a determination about defendants’ performance. Concurrently, defendants added two answer options, “& Yes – Court Report” and “! – Yes – Case Record,” which enabled reviewers to answer the question based on a review of documentation other than the court order. In April 2014, the answer option “& - Yes – Court Report” was removed as an answer option. These additions and deletions of answer options on the PAD could have had a material impact on reviewers’ responses to applicable questions contained in the PAD, which would, in turn, impact the performance data reported by defendants. Throughout this report, the Monitor has noted where changes to the PAD had implications for the comparability of data from Period 3 and Period 4.
122

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 128 of 204
Director has granted express written approval for the extension that documents the need for the extension.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.2.p.8. (Ongoing Requirement): This requirement was
not satisfied. The data produced by defendants indicate that for the one-month period ending
June 30, 2014, there were 17 children in an emergency shelter or temporary facility for over 45 days without the approval of the Field Operations Director.318 For the one-month period ending
June 30, 2013, there were 24 children in these placements without the required approval.
MSA §II.B.2.q.1. 2. Child Placement
q) By the end of Implementation Period Four: 1) DFCS shall ensure that each county office has access to resource workers within its region having the ability to ascertain the placement resources available and their suitability for each particular child needing placement.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.2.q.1.: This requirement was not satisfied. Although
caseload data was unavailable through Period 4, interviews with staff and supervisors in several
DFCS regions with high concentrations of children in custody indicate that there have been an
insufficient number of resource workers and even in regions with sufficient staffing, the availability of a sufficient number and array of appropriate placements has been limited.319 The
shortage of an adequate number of resource workers statewide has had a significant impact on
placement and licensure activities as well as on implementation of the diligent recruitment grant.320
318 See App. A, Ex. 3, supra note 53, and App. A, Ex. 16, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children In Emergency Shelter Or Temporary Facility For Over 45 Days With And Without Approval, By Region, One-Month Periods Ending 6/30/13 and 6/30/14. 319 This is an issue that is identified on multiple occasions in various records, including the CSF monthly reports. See, e.g., Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, December 2013 at 17 and Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, January 2014 at 17. 320 See infra at 154-156 for the narrative related to Initial Period 4 IP §III.B.3. related to implementation of the diligent recruitment grant.
123

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 129 of 204
MSA §II.B.2.q.2. 2. Child Placement
q) By the end of Implementation Period Four: 2) No child under 10 years of age shall be placed in a congregate care setting (including group homes and shelters) unless the child has exceptional needs that cannot be met in a relative or foster family home or the child is a member of a sibling group, and the Regional Director has granted express written approval for the congregate-care placement.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.2.q.2.: This requirement was not satisfied. The data
produced by defendants indicate that during the one-month period ending June 30, 2014, there
were 50 children under age 10 housed in a congregate care setting without an exception and
approval from a regional director, 39 more children in such settings without an exception and
approval as during the one-month period ending June 30, 2013.321
MSA §II.B.2.q.3. 2. Child Placement
q) By the end of Implementation Period Four: 3) No child shall be placed in more than one emergency or temporary facility within one episode of foster care, unless an immediate placement move is necessary to protect the safety of the child or of others as certified in writing by the Regional Director.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.2.q.3.: The Monitor makes no finding related to this
requirement. The Monitor is awaiting data regarding defendants’ performance relative to this
requirement based on a revised report specification agreed upon by the parties.322 Data produced
historically by the defendants regarding their performance did not accurately track performance
in terms of the MSA requirement.323
MSA §II.B.2.q.4. 2. Child Placement
q) By the end of Implementation Period Four: 4) No more than 10% of foster children shall be moved from his/her existing placement to another foster placement unless DFCS specifically documents in the
321 See App. A, Ex. 3, supra note 53, and App. A, Ex. 14A, supra note 307. 322 See App. B, Ex. 11A, supra note 184, Status of Gaps in Data Reports Required by June 24, 2013 Order at Attachment 2, Report No. 31. 323 See May 2014 Report at 160.
124

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 130 of 204
child’s case record justifications for that move and the move is approved by a DFCS supervisor.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.2.q.4.: The Monitor makes no finding related to this
requirement. Because of limitations in available data in MACWIS, the parties agreed that this performance requirement will be assessed by means of a case record review.324
MSA §II.B.2.q.5. 2. Child Placement
q) By the end of Implementation Period Four: 5) No more than 20% of resource homes shall provide care to a number of children in excess of the Modified Settlement Agreement resource home population limitations.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.2.q.5.: The Monitor makes no finding with respect to
defendants’ performance relative to this requirement. Defendants produced data in response to this requirement;325 however, the Monitor’s review of the data identified significant limitations,
compromising the ability of the data to measure performance relative to this requirement. After
discussing the limitations with defendants, defendants reported in February 2015 that they were
working to improve the quality of these data and that they would notify the Monitor when they
believe the data are sufficiently accurate, noting that it is possible they would be able to produce
data that could be analyzed before the end of Period 5. As of June 12, 2015, defendants had not
notified the Monitor that the data are accurate enough to analyze.
MSA §II.B.2.q.6. 2. Child Placement
q) By the end of Implementation Period Four: 6) At least 85% of children with special needs shall be matched with placement resources that can meet their therapeutic and medical needs.
324 See App. B, Ex. 11A, supra note 184, Status of Gaps in Data Reports Required by July 18, 2013 Initial Period 4 IP at Appendix 1, Report No. 6. 325 Id. Status of Gaps in Data Reports Required by July 18, 2013 Initial Period 4 IP at Appendix 1, Report No. 5. These data were produced in the SWIP 415 report.
125

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 131 of 204
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.2.q.6.: The Monitor makes no finding related to this
requirement. The parties have agreed that performance will be measured in a prospective case
record review.326
MSA §II.B.2.q.7. 2. Child Placement
q) By the end of Implementation Period Four: 7) At least 85% of children in DFCS custody shall be placed in the least restrictive setting that meets their individual needs consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.2.q.7.: This requirement was not satisfied. As the
Monitor reported in May 2014, the data that defendants used to track this requirement are
obtained from the FCR process which did not address the full requirement.327 Based upon
identified gaps in the data, the parties and the Court Monitor agreed upon revisions to the FCR
process, which were implemented in October 2014, after the end of Period 4.
Data derived from the FCR process that was subject to these limitations indicate that for
the six-month period ending June 30, 2014, 96 percent of children were placed in the least
restrictive setting that met their individual needs, a one percent difference in defendants’
performance relative to the six-month period ending June 30, 2013.328
MSA §II.B.2.q.8. 2. Child Placement
q) By the end of Implementation Period Four: 8) At least 90% of siblings who entered DFCS custody at or near the same time shall be placed together consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
326 See App. B, Ex. 11A, supra note 184, Status of Gaps in Data Reports Required by June 24, 2013 Order at Attachment 2, Report No. 47. Defendants produced data related to this requirement in PAD Report 8, which was discontinued after July 31, 2014. 327 See May 2014 Report at 162. 328 See App. A, Ex. 3, supra note 53, and App. A, Ex. 17, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Placed In Least Restrictive Setting That Meets Their Individual Needs, By Region, Six-Month Periods Ending 6/30/13 and 6/30/14.
126

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 132 of 204
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.2.q.8.: This requirement was not satisfied. The data
produced by defendants indicate that for the 12-month period ending June 30, 2014, 75 percent
of sibling groups who entered custody at or around the same time were placed together, a
performance level that was 10 percentage points lower than defendants’ performance for the 12month period ending June 30, 2013.329
MSA §II.B.2.q.9. 2. Child Placement
q) By the end of Implementation Period Four: 9) At least 60% of children in DFCS custody placed in a new placement during the Period shall have their currently available medical, dental, educational, and psychological information provided to their resource parents or facility staff no later than at the time of any new placement during the Period.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.2.q.9.: This requirement was not satisfied. Data
regarding this performance requirement are collected through the FCR process. As the Monitor
documented in her May 2014 Report, defendants’ data collection regarding the requisite
information transfer does not reflect what information was transferred at the time of a new placement, but rather information that was transferred within 15 days of placement.330 Thus, the parties agreed this requirement would be subject to a case record review during Period 5.331
Notwithstanding its limitations, the data produced by defendants indicate that the
performance requirement was not satisfied. The data indicate that for the six-month period
ending June 30, 2014, 20 percent of children in DFCS custody placed in a new placement during
the period had their currently available medical, dental, educational, and psychological
information provided to resource parents or facility staff no later than at the time of the new
329 See App. A, Ex. 3, supra note 53, and App. A, Ex. 18, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Sibling Groups Who Entered Custody At Or Around The Same Time Placed Together, By Region, 12-Month Periods Ending 6/30/13 and 6/30/14. 330 See May 2014 Report at 163-164. 331 See App. B, Ex. 11A, supra note 184, Status of Gaps in Data Reports Required by June 24, 2013 Order at Attachment 2, Report No. 53.
127

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 133 of 204
placement.332 This is comparable to defendants’ performance level for the six-month period
ending June 30, 2013, 19 percent.333
The findings from the Period 5 case record review, which covered all children who
entered custody between July 1, 2013 and December 31, 2014 and remained in custody for at
least 90 days, will be presented in a forthcoming report. These findings indicate that this MSA
requirement was not satisfied.
MSA §II.B.2.q.10. 2. Child Placement
q) By the end of Implementation Period Four: 10) At least 60% of children in DFCS custody with a documented indication that they were to be subject to an actual placement disruption during the Period shall receive a meeting to address placement stability consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.2.q.10.: The Monitor makes no finding related to this
requirement. Due to limitations in the data produced by defendants, the parties and the Monitor
agreed that defendants would make changes to the data collection process regarding this
requirement.334 Defendants implemented the changes after the end of Period 4 and,
consequently, the Monitor could not analyze data pertaining to this requirement.
MSA §II.B.2.q.11. 2. Child Placement
q) By the end of Implementation Period Four: 11) At least 90% of children who entered DFCS custody shall be placed within his/her own county or within 50 miles of the home from which he/she was removed unless one of the exceptions provided in the Modified Settlement Agreement is documented as applying.
332 See App. A, Ex. 3, supra note 53, and App. A, Ex. 19, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children For Whom Their Resource Parents Or Facility Staff Were Provided The Foster Care Information Form Within 15 Days of Placement, By Region, Six-Month Periods Ending 6/30/13 and 6/30/14. 333 See App. A, Ex. 19, supra note 332. 334 See App. B, Ex. 11A, supra note 184, Status of Gaps in Data Reports Required by June 24, 2013 Order at Attachment 2, Report No. 52.
128

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 134 of 204
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.2.q.11.: This requirement was satisfied. The data
produced by defendants indicate that for the one-month period ending June 30, 2014, 99 percent
of children who entered DFCS custody were placed within their own county or within 50 miles
of the home from which they were removed.335 This performance level is nearly identical to
defendants’ performance for the one-year period ending June 30, 2013, which was 98 percent.336
MSA §§II.B.2.s.1. and II.B.2.t.1. 2. Child Placement
s) Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 80% of the foster children in that region who enter custody or experience a placement change shall be placed in accordance with each of the child placement requirements of Section II.B.2.
t) Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 90% of the foster children in that region who enter custody or experience a placement change shall be placed in accordance with each of the child placement requirements of Section II.B.2.
Status of Progress, MSA §§II.B.2.s.1. and II.B.2.t.1.: The Monitor makes no finding
related to this requirement. Defendants have produced data responsive to some, but not all, of
the child placement requirements of MSA §II.B.2. The Monitor expects to finalize with the
parties a plan related to ongoing collection and reporting of these data.
Ongoing Period 3 IP Requirement §II.F.1.337 F. Physical, Dental, and Mental Health
1. By 30 days following the Court's approval of the Modified Settlement Agreement, Defendants shall maintain a staff person in the Resource Development Unit whose job responsibility it will be to develop and coordinate a broader
335 See App. A, Ex. 3, supra note 53, and App. A, Ex. 20, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Percentage Of Children Who Entered DFCS Custody Who Were Placed Within Own County Or Within 50 Miles Of The Home From Which Removed Consistent With MSA Requirements, By Region, One-Month Periods Ending 6/30/13 and 6/30/14. As the Monitor did in the May 2014 Report, the reported percentage includes placing siblings together as a qualifying exception. App. A, Ex. 20 also includes a calculation of defendants’ performance excluding placing siblings together as a qualifying exception. Using either calculation methodology, defendants’ performance exceeded the MSA performance requirement. 336 See App. A., Ex. 20, supra note 335. 337 See Initial and Final Period 4 IPs at 1, n.1.
129

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 135 of 204
and more geographically diverse array of physical, dental, and mental health services available to foster children.
Status of Progress, Period 3 IP §II.F.1. (Ongoing Requirement): This requirement was not satisfied. The initial program director assigned to this position started working at DFCS on February 1, 2012. She resigned on September 9, 2013 and was not replaced until August 1, 2014, after Period 4 concluded. The initial program director’s replacement resigned from DFCS on March 31, 2015, and as of June 1, 2015 the position remained vacant. Defendants reported that they would begin interviewing applicants for the position in early June 2015.
MSA §II.B.3.j.1. 3. Physical and Mental Health Care
j) By the end of Implementation Period Four: 1) At least 70% of children entering custody during the Period shall receive a health screening evaluation from a qualified medical practitioner within 72 hours after placement that is in accordance with the health screening recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.3.j.1.: This requirement was not satisfied. The data produced by defendants report on only the timeliness of initial health screening evaluations and not on whether the screenings were conducted by a qualified medical practitioner nor whether they were conducted in accordance with the recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Nonetheless, the data produced by defendants indicate that for the 12-month period ending June 30, 2014, 27 percent of children entering custody received an initial health screening within 72 hours after placement, one percentage point lower than defendants’ performance for the 12-month period ending June 30, 2013.338
338 See App. A, Ex. 3, supra note 53, and App. A, Ex. 21, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Entering Custody Who Received An Initial Health Screening Within 72 Hours After Placement, 12-Month Periods Ending 6/30/13 and 6/30/14.
130

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 136 of 204
Because of the limitations in the data produced by defendants, the parties agreed that this requirement would be subject to a case record review during Period 5.339 The findings from the
Period 5 case record review, which covered all children in custody for at least 90 days, who
entered custody between July 1, 2013 and December 31, 2014, will be presented in a forthcoming
report. These findings indicate that this MSA requirement was not satisfied.
MSA §II.B.3.j.2. 3. Physical and Mental Health Care
j) By the end of Implementation Period Four: 2) At least 70% of children entering custody during the Period shall receive a comprehensive health assessment consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements within 30 calendar days of entering care.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.3.j.2.: This requirement was not satisfied. The data
produced by defendants report only on the timeliness of comprehensive health assessments and
not on whether the assessment was consistent with the recommendations of the American
Academy of Pediatrics, as required by the MSA. The data produced by defendants indicate that
for the period ending June 30, 2014, 33 percent of children in custody more than 30 days
received a comprehensive health assessment within 30 days of placement, one percentage point lower than defendants’ performance for the 12-month period ending June 30, 2013.340
Because of the limitations in the data produced by defendants, the parties agreed that this requirement would be subject to a case record review during Period 5.341 The findings from the
Period 5 case record review, which covered all children in custody for at least 90 days, who
339 See App. B, Ex. 11A, supra note 184, Status of Gaps in Data Reports Required by June 24, 2013 Order at Attachment 2, Report No. 22. 340 See App. A, Ex. 3, supra note 53, and App. A, Ex. 22, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children In Custody 30+ Days Who Received A Comprehensive Health Assessment Within 30 Days Of Placement, 12-Month Periods Ending 6/30/13 and 6/30/14. 341 See App. B, Ex. 11A, supra note 184, Status of Gaps in Data Reports Required by June 24, 2013 Order at Attachment 2, Report No. 22.
131

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 137 of 204
entered custody between July 1, 2013 and December 31, 2014, will be presented in a forthcoming
report. These findings indicate that this MSA requirement was not satisfied.
MSA §II.B.3.j.3. 3. Physical and Mental Health Care
j) By the end of Implementation Period Four: 3) At least 85% of children in custody during the Period shall receive periodic medical examinations and all medically necessary follow-up services and treatment consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.3.j.3.: The Monitor makes no finding with respect to
defendants’ performance relative to this requirement as of the end of Period 4. The parties
agreed that defendants’ performance relative to this requirement would be measured during a case record review conducted during Period 5.342 Analysis of the data collected during the case
record review indicates that this requirement was not satisfied for all children who entered DFCS
custody between July 1, 2013 and December 31, 2014 and who remained in custody for at least a
90-day period. The Monitor will report in detail on these findings in a forthcoming report.
MSA §II.B.3.j.4. 3. Physical and Mental Health Care
j) By the end of Implementation Period Four: 4) At least 75% of children three years old and older entering custody during the Period or in care and turning three years old during the Period shall receive a dental examination within 90 calendar days of foster care placement or their third birthday, respectively.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.3.j.4.: This requirement was not satisfied. Defendants
collected data pertaining to this requirement through the FCR process. The data produced by
defendants indicate that for the six-month period ending June 30, 2014, 55 percent of children
three years old and older who entered custody during the period and children in custody who
turned three years old during the period, and who were reviewed through the FCR process,
342 See App. B, Ex. 11A, supra note 184, Status of Gaps in data Reports Required by June 24, 2013 Order at Attachment 2, Report 44.
132

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 138 of 204
received a dental examination within 90 calendar days of their placement or their third birthday, as applicable.343 This represents a six percent increase over defendants’ performance for the sixmonth period ending one year earlier, on June 30, 2013.344 The findings from the Period 5 case
record review, which covered all children who entered custody between July 1, 2013 and
December 31, 2014 and remained in custody for at least 90 days, will be presented in a
forthcoming report. These findings indicate that this MSA requirement was not satisfied.
MSA §II.B.3.j.5. 3. Physical and Mental Health Care
j) By the end of Implementation Period Four: 5) At least 80% of children in custody during the Period shall receive a dental examination every six months consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements and all medically necessary dental services.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.3.j.5.: This requirement was not satisfied. Defendants
collected data regarding this performance requirement through the FCR process and that data
report only on the timeliness of the applicable dental examinations and not whether the
assessment was consistent with MSA requirements and whether the children received all
medically necessary dental services.
The data produced by defendants indicate that for the six-month period ending June 30,
2014, 52 percent of children ages three and older at the start of the period under review were
343 See App. A, Ex. 3, supra note 53, and App. A, Ex. 23, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Three Years Old And Older Who Received A Dental Examination Within 90 Calendar Days of Placement And Children Who Turned Three While In Custody And Received A Dental Examination Within 90 Calendar Days Of Their Third Birthday, By Region, Six Month Periods Ending 6/30/13 and 6/30/14. 344 See App. A, Ex. 23, supra note 343. In the May 2014 Report, the Monitor reported separately on performance for children older than three years old and children who turned three years old, based on the data produced by defendants. See May 2014 Report at 171-172. Thus, in that report, defendants’ performance relative to the precise MSA requirement was not presented. In this report, the Monitor has combined defendants’ data submissions to report on the precise MSA requirement and represented defendants’ Period 3 performance.
133

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 139 of 204
provided a dental exam every six months, two percentage points lower than the defendants’ performance for the six-month period ending one year earlier, on June 30, 2013.345
Because of the limitations in the data produced by defendants, the parties agreed that this
requirement would be subject to a case record review during Period 5. The findings from the
Period 5 case record review, which covered all children who entered custody between July 1,
2013 and December 31, 2014 and remained in custody for at least 90 days, will be presented in a
forthcoming report. These findings indicate that this MSA requirement was not satisfied.
MSA §II.B.3.j.6. 3. Physical and Mental Health Care
j) By the end of Implementation Period Four: 6) At least 70% of children four years old and older entering custody during the Period or in care and turning four years old during the Period shall receive a mental health assessment by a qualified professional within 30 calendar days of foster care placement or their fourth birthday, respectively.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.3.j.6.: This requirement was not satisfied. Defendants
collected data regarding the timeliness element of this performance requirement through the FCR
process. In the May 2014 Report, the Monitor documented that during Period 3, defendants
produced data reports that were limited to the cohort of children entering custody who were four years old or older.346 Defendants modified the PAD in November 2013 to allow for the
collection of data related to all children in custody for at least six months who were four when
they entered custody or who turned four while in custody; however, the first data report
defendants produced that included the cohort of children in custody and turning four during the
period under review was for the period ending September 30, 2014, after the end of Period 4.
345 See App. A, Ex. 3, supra note 53, and App. A, Ex. 24, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Ages Three And Older At The Start Of The Period Under Review Who Were Provided A Dental Exam Every Six Months, By Region, Six-Month Periods Ending 6/30/13 and 6/30/14. 346 See May 2014 Report at 173.
134

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 140 of 204
Consequently, the analysis presented below is limited to children entering custody who were four
years old or older.
The data produced by defendants indicate that for the six-month period ending June 30,
2014, 47 percent of children four years old or older entering custody during the period received a
mental health assessment within 30 days of placement, which reflects a two percentage point decrease relative to the six-month period ending June 30, 2013.347
Because the data produced by defendants do not address the full MSA requirement
related to the qualifications of the provider who performs the assessment, the parties agreed that this requirement would be subject to a case record review during Period 5.348 The findings from
the Period 5 case record review, which covered all children who entered custody between July 1,
2013 and December 31, 2014 and remained in custody for at least 90 days, will be presented in a
forthcoming report. These findings indicate that this MSA requirement was not satisfied.
MSA §II.B.3.j.7. 3. Physical and Mental Health Care
j) By the end of Implementation Period Four: 7) At least 80% of children who received a mental health assessment during the period shall receive all recommended mental health services pursuant to their assessment.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.3.j.7.: The Monitor makes no finding with respect to
defendants’ performance relative to this requirement by the end of Period 4. The parties agreed
that defendants’ performance relative to this requirement would be measured during a case record review conducted during Period 5.349 Analysis of the data collected during the review indicates
that this requirement was not satisfied for all children who entered DFCS custody between July
347 See App. A, Ex. 3, supra note 53, and App. A, Ex. 25, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Percentage Of Children Four Years Old Or Older Entering Custody During The Period Who Received A Mental Health Assessment Within 30 Days Of Placement, By Region, Six-Month Periods Ending 6/30/13 and 6/30/14. 348 See App. B, Ex. 11A, supra note 184, Status of Gaps in Data Reports Required by June 24, 2013 Order at Attachment 2, Report No. 39. 349 See App. B, Ex. 11A, supra note 184, Status of Gaps in Data Reports Required by June 24, 2013 Order at Attachment 2, Report 43.
135

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 141 of 204
1, 2013 and December 31, 2014 and remained in custody for at least 90 days. The Monitor will
report in detail on these findings in a forthcoming report.
MSA §II.B.3.j.8. 3. Physical and Mental Health Care
j) By the end of Implementation Period Four: 8) At least 60% of children in custody ages birth through three during the Period, and older children if factors indicate it is warranted, shall receive a developmental assessment by a qualified professional within 30 calendar days of foster care placement and all needed developmental services.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.3.j.8.: The Monitor makes no finding with respect to
defendants’ performance relative to this requirement by the end of Period 4. The parties agreed
that defendants’ performance relative to this requirement would be measured during a case record
review conducted during Period 5.350 Analysis of the data collected during the review indicates
that this requirement was not satisfied for all children who entered DFCS custody between July
1, 2013 and December 31, 2014 and remained in custody for at least a 90-day period. The
Monitor will report in detail on these findings in a separate report.
MSA §§II.B.3.l.1. and II.B.3.m.1. 3. Physical and Mental Health Care
l) Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 80% of foster children in that region who enter custody shall receive physical and mental health care in accordance with each of the Modified Settlement Agreement Requirements.
m) Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 90% of foster children in that region who enter custody shall receive physical and mental health care in accordance with each of the Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
Status of Progress, MSA §§II.B.3.l.1. and II.B.3.m.1.: The Monitor makes no finding
with respect to this requirement. Neither the June 24, 2013 Order nor the Initial or Final Period 4
350 See App. B, Ex. 11A, supra note 184, Status of Gaps in Data Reports Required by June 24, 2013 Order at Attachment 2, Report 38.
136

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 142 of 204
IPs set forth a reporting schedule related to these requirements. The Monitor plans to work with
the parties to resolve how performance related to these requirements will be measured.
MSA §II.B.4.c.1. 4. Therapeutic Services
c) By the end of Implementation Period Four: 1) At least 80% of children in custody during the Period requiring therapeutic and/or rehabilitative foster care services because of a diagnosis of significant medical, developmental, emotional, or behavioral problems shall be provided with a treatment plan and services in accordance with their plan.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.4.c.1.: The Monitor makes no finding with respect to
defendants’ performance relative to this requirement by the end of Period 4. The parties agreed
that defendants’ performance relative to this requirement would be measured during a case record
review conducted during Period 5.351 Analysis of the data collected during the review indicates
that this requirement was not satisfied for all children who entered DFCS custody between July
1, 2013 and December 31, 2014 and who remained in custody for a 90-day period. The Monitor
will report in detail on these findings, which are not specific to Period 4, in a separate report.
MSA §§II.B.4.e.1. and II.B.4.f.1. 4. Therapeutic Services
e) Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 80% of the foster children in that region who are in custody and require therapeutic and/or rehabilitative foster care services because of a diagnosis of significant medical, developmental, emotional, or behavioral problems shall be provided with a treatment plan and services during that period in accordance with their plan.
f) Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 90% of the foster children in that region who are in custody and require therapeutic and/or rehabilitative foster care services because of a diagnosis of significant medical, developmental, emotional, or behavioral problems shall be provided
351 Id. Status of Gaps in Data Reports Required by June 24, 2013 Order at Attachment 2, Report 37.
137

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 143 of 204
with a treatment plan and services during that period in accordance with their plan.
Status of Progress, MSA §§II.B.4.e.1. and II.B.4.f.1.: The Monitor makes no finding with respect to this requirement. The parties agreed performance would be measured through a case record review.352 The statewide sample of case records used for the Period 5 case record review was designed to ensure proportional regional distribution of the sample relative to the regional distribution of children in custody. Nevertheless, the size of the sample was determined with a goal of making findings on a statewide level, not at a regional level. It would not have been practical to have drawn a sample large enough to provide meaningful findings both at a regional level and for the various Practice Model implementation dates associated with these MSA requirements.
MSA §II.B.5.f.1. 5. Worker Contact and Monitoring
f) By the end of Implementation Period Four: 1) At least 80% of children in custody shall receive documented twice-monthly in-person visits by the assigned DFCS caseworker during the Period, consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.5.f.1.: This requirement was not satisfied. The MSA includes both statewide and regional requirements relative to required in-person visits by the assigned DFCS caseworker. The regional requirements are addressed below in the narrative related to MSA §§II.B.5.h.1. and II.B.5.i.1.353 Twice-monthly in-person visits by the assigned DFCS caseworker are critical to ensuring the safety of the children in defendants’ custody.
The data produced by defendants indicate that for the one-month period ending June 30, 2014, 67 percent of children statewide received a twice monthly in-person visit by their assigned
352 Id. Status of Gaps in Data Reports Required by June 24, 2013 Order at Attachment 2, Report 37. 353 See infra at 141-142.
138

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 144 of 204
caseworker.354 This is a 14 percentage point increase in defendants’ performance relative to
statewide performance for the one-month period ending June 30, 2013.355
MSA §II.B.5.f.2. 5. Worker Contact and Monitoring
f) By the end of Implementation Period Four: 2) At least 60% of children with a goal of reunification shall have their assigned DFCS caseworker meet monthly with the child’s parents, during the Period, consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements, as documented in the child’s case record.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.5.f.2.: This requirement was not satisfied. The MSA
includes both statewide and regional performance requirements with respect to caseworker visits
for children with a goal of reunification. The regional requirements are addressed below in the
narrative related to MSA §§II.B.5.h.2. and II.B.5.i.2.356
The data produced by defendants indicate that for the one-month period ending June 30,
2014, 38 percent of children with a goal of reunification had their assigned caseworker meet
monthly with the parent(s) with whom the children were to be reunified.357 Due to limitations in
the data defendants produced regarding their performance related to this requirement, the
Monitor was not able to report on defendants’ performance during Period 3.358
MSA §II.B.5.f.3. 5. Worker Contact and Monitoring
f) By the end of Implementation Period Four: 3) At least 60% of resource parents (therapeutic and non-therapeutic) with at least one foster child residing in their home during the Period shall have a DFCS worker visit the home monthly, consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements, as documented in the children’s case records.
354 See App. A, Ex. 3, supra note 53, and App. A, Ex. 26, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Twice Monthly In-Person Visits With Child By Assigned Caseworkers, By Region, One-Month Periods Ending 6/30/13 and 6/30/14. 355 See App. A, Ex. 26, supra note 354. 356 See infra at 143. 357 See App. A, Ex. 3, supra note 53, and App. A, Ex. 27, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children With A Goal Of Reunification Whose Assigned Caseworker Met Monthly With The Parent(s) With Whom The Child Was To Be Reunified, By Region, One-Month Period Ending 6/30/14. 358 See May 2014 Report at 186.
139

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 145 of 204
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.5.f.3.: This requirement was not satisfied. Defendants produced data from MACWIS regarding the frequency of worker visits and from the FCR process addressing both the frequency and content of worker visits regarding this requirement. Additionally, defendants report separately on non-therapeutic placement settings and therapeutic placement settings. Due to limitations in the MACWIS data collected by defendants regarding the frequency of worker visits to children placed in therapeutic settings, the Monitor was not able to analyze data related to that aspect of the requirement.359
The MACWIS data defendants produced regarding non-therapeutic placements indicate that for the one-month period ending June 30, 2014, 49 percent of non-therapeutic resource parents with at least one foster child residing in their home had a worker visit the home monthly, a four percentage point increase over performance for the one-month period ending June 30, 2013.360 Data derived from the FCR process use both a different timeframe as the basis of analysis (i.e., six months of data rather than one month of data) and use children as the unit of analysis (i.e., not resource parents, the unit of analysis relevant to this requirement). The data derived from the FCR process indicate that the content of home visits for children placed in nontherapeutic settings met MSA requirements for 70 percent of children for the six-month period
359 Defendants report this data in report MACWIS SZPLMBD. Many therapeutic placements utilized by DFCS are licensed by entities other than DFCS. Analysis of the data revealed that frequently for therapeutic placements licensed by entities other than MDHS, workers recorded in MACWIS the licensing entity of a child’s placement settings, rather than the individual, licensed setting itself. Because of this, it was not possible to disaggregate the data by placement setting in order to analyze the data consistent with the requirement. 360 See App. A, Ex. 3, supra note 53, and App. A, Ex. 28A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, NonTherapeutic Placement Setting Contacts, By Region, One-Month Periods Ending 6/30/13 and 6/30/14.
140

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 146 of 204
ending June 30, 2014.361 Defendants’ performance for the six-month period ending June 30,
2013 was also 70 percent.362
The data defendants produced regarding therapeutic placements indicate that the content
of home visits for children placed in therapeutic settings met MSA requirements for 73 percent of
children for the six-month period ending June 30, 2014, three percentage points higher than
performance for the six-month period ending June 30, 2013.363
MSA §§II.B.5.h.1. and II.B.5.i.1. 5. Worker Contact and Monitoring
h) Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 70% of children in custody in that region shall have received documented twice-monthly in-person visits by the assigned DFCS caseworker during the preceding 12-month period, consistent with Modified Plan requirements.
i) Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 90% of foster children in custody in that region shall receive documented twice-monthly inperson visits by the assigned DFCS caseworker, consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
Status of Progress, MSA §§II.B.5.h.1. and II.B.5.i.1.: During Period 4, five regions
fully implemented the Practice Model and three regions fully implemented the Practice Model
for at least 12 months and thus were responsible for satisfying the associated performance
standards. Defendants produced data from MACWIS addressing performance regarding the
frequency of worker contacts as prescribed by this requirement.
361 See App. A, Ex. 3, supra note 53, and App. A, Ex. 28B, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Content And Frequency Of Non-Therapeutic Placement Setting Contacts, By Region, Six-Month Periods Ending 6/30/13 and 6/30/14. 362 See App. A, Ex. 28B, supra note 361. 363 See App. A, Ex. 3, supra note 53, and App. A, Ex. 29, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Content and Frequency Of Therapeutic Placement Setting Contacts, By Region, Six-Month Periods Ending 6/30/13 and 6/30/14.
141

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 147 of 204

Among the five regions that fully implemented during Period 4, one region satisfied the worker contact frequency performance requirement. None of the three regions that fully implemented the Practice Model for at least 12 months satisfied the performance requirement at the 12-month-post full implementation mark.364 The Monitor’s findings are summarized in the

table below, which also includes for informational purposes updated performance data as of the

end of Period 4 for the three regions that were 12-months-post full implementation.

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/12 12 Months Following: 8/31/13 End of Period 4: 6/30/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 2/28/13 12 Months Following: 2/28/14 End of Period 4: 6/30/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 8/31/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 2/28/14 12 Months Following: 2/28/15

Start Date for Performance

I‐S

II‐W

V‐W

III‐S

I‐N

IV‐N

IV‐S

V‐E

Performance Requirement

Measurement

Fi ndi ngs for Practi ce Model Ful l Impl ementa tion Da te

70%

44% (N=330) 72% (N=162)

(8/31/12)

(8/31/12)

66% (N=109) (2/28/13)

44% (N=485)* 68% (N=282)* 65% (N=175) 75% (N=128) (8/31/13) (8/31/13) (8/31/13) (8/31/13)

66% (N=162) (2/28/14)

Fi ndi ngs for 12 Months Fol l owing Impl ementa tion Da te

90%

85% (N=294) 79% (N=155)

(8/31/13)

(8/31/13)

84% (N=310) 92% (N=145)

(6/30/14)

(6/30/14)

64% (N=107) (2/28/14)
68% (N=114) (6/30/14)

MSA §§II.B.5.h.2. and II.B.5.i.2. 5. Worker Contact and Monitoring
h) Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 2) At least 80% of children in that region with a goal of reunification shall have had their assigned DFCS caseworker meet monthly with the child’s biological parent(s) with whom that child is to be reunified consistent with Modified Plan requirements, as documented in the child’s case record.
i) Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 2) At least 90% of foster children in that region with a goal of reunification shall have their assigned DFCS caseworker meet monthly with the child’s parent(s) with whom the child is to be reunified, consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements, as documented in the child’s case record.

364 As indicated in the table, one region – Region II-W – subsequently satisfied the performance requirement at the end of Period 4.
142

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 148 of 204

Status of Progress, MSA §§II.B.5.h.2. and II.B.5.i.2.: As noted above, during Period 4, five regions fully implemented the Practice Model and three regions fully implemented the

Practice Model for at least 12 months and thus were responsible for satisfying the associated

performance standards. Defendants produced data from MACWIS addressing performance

regarding the frequency of worker contacts as prescribed by this requirement. Defendants modified MACWIS in October 2013 and MACWIS data regarding this
requirement prior to the modifications were not analyzable. Consequently, the Monitor was able to analyze defendants’ performance in one of the five regions that fully implemented the Practice

Model during Period 4 and one of the three regions that fully implemented the Practice Model for

at least 12 months during Period 4. As reflected in the table below, neither region satisfied the

applicable performance requirement.

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/12 12 Months Following: 8/31/13 End of Period 4: 6/30/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 2/28/13 12 Months Following: 2/28/14 End of Period 4: 6/30/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 8/31/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 2/28/14 12 Months Following: 2/28/15

Start Date for Performance

I‐S

II‐W

V‐W

III‐S

I‐N

IV‐N

IV‐S

V‐E

Performance Requirement

Measurement

Fi ndings for Pra cti ce Model Ful l Implementa ti on Da te
Fi ndings for 12 Months Fol l owi ng Implementa ti on Da te

80% 90%

Da ta unrel i abl e; Da ta unrel i a bl e;

MACWIS modi fied MACWIS modi fied

i n October 2013 i n October 2013

a nd therefore a nd therefore

da ta a nal yza ble da ta a nal yza bl e

a s of October a s of October

2013

2013

Da ta unrel i abl e; Da ta unrel i a bl e;

MACWIS modi fied MACWIS modi fied

i n October 2013 i n October 2013

a nd therefore a nd therefore

da ta a nal yza ble da ta a nal yza bl e

a s of October a s of October

2013

2013

Da ta unreli a bl e; MACWIS modi fi ed i n October 2013 a nd therefore da ta ana l yza bl e a s of
October 2013
41% (N=61) (2/28/14)
30% (N=67) (6/30/14)

D a ta

Da ta unreli a bl e;

Da ta

Da ta

unreli a ble;

MACWI S

unreli a ble; unrel ia bl e;

MACWI S

modified in

MACWI S

MACWI S

modi fi ed i n October 2013 modi fied i n modi fi ed i n

October 2013 a nd therefore October 2013 October 2013

a nd therefore da ta a na l yzabl e a nd therefore a nd therefore

da ta a nal yza bl e a s of October

d a ta

da ta a na l yzabl e

a s of October

2013

a na l yzabl e a s as of October

2013

of October 2013

2013

42% (N=107) (2/28/14)

79% (N=189) (6/30/14)

60% (N=67) (6/30/14)

MSA §§II.B.5.h.3. and II.B.5.i.3. 5. Worker Contact and Monitoring
h) Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 3) At least 80% of foster parents in that region with at least one foster child residing in their home during the preceding 12-month period shall have had a DFCS worker visit the home monthly, consistent with

143

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 149 of 204
Modified Plan requirements, as documented in the children’s case records. i) Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 3) At least 90% of resource parents in that region with at least one foster child residing in their home shall have a DFCS worker visit the home monthly, consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements, as documented in the children’s case records.
Status of Progress, MSA §§II.B.5.h.3. and II.B.5.i.3.: As noted above, during Period 4, five regions fully implemented the Practice Model and three regions fully implemented the Practice Model for at least 12 months and thus were responsible for satisfying the associated performance standards. Defendants produced data from MACWIS and the FCR process addressing performance related to this requirement.
None of the five regions that fully implemented during Period 4 satisfied the performance requirement. Likewise, none of the three regions that fully implemented the Practice Model for at least 12 months satisfied the performance requirement at the 12-month-post full implementation mark. The Monitor’s findings are summarized in the table below, which also includes for informational purposes updated performance data as of the end of Period 4 for the three regions that were 12-months-post full implementation:
144

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 150 of 204

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/12 12 Months Following: 8/31/13 End of Period 4: 6/30/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 2/28/13 12 Months Following: 2/28/14 End of Period 4: 6/30/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 8/31/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 2/28/14 12 Months Following: 2/28/15

Start Date for Performance

I‐S

II‐W

V‐W

III‐S

I‐N

IV‐N

IV‐S

V‐E

Performance Requirement

Measurement

Fi ndi ngs for Pra cti ce Model Ful l Impl ementa ti on Da te

80%

MACWIS Report: 73% (N=151) (8/31/12)

MACWIS Report: 83% (N=64) (8/31/12)

MACWIS Report: 75% (N=48) (2/28/13)

PAD Report: Data PAD Report: Data PAD Report: Data unreliable; PAD

unreliable; PAD unreliable; PAD corrected October 2012 and therefore

corrected October corrected October data analyzable as of April 2013

2012 and therefore 2012 and therefore

data analyzable as data analyzable as

of April 2013

of April 2013

MACWIS Report: 32% (N=124)
PAD Report: 60% (N=167)
(8/31/13)

MACWIS Report: MACWIS Report: 43% (N=131) 68% (N=75)

PAD Report: 71% (N=100)
(8/31/13)

PAD Report: 94% (N=99) (8/31/13)

MACWIS Report: 67% (N=52)
PAD Report: 73% (N=108)
(8/31/13)

MACWIS Report: 63% (N=65)
PAD Report: 90% (N=109)
(2/28/14)

Fi ndi ngs for 12 Months Foll owi ng Impl ementa ti on Da te

90%

MACWIS Report: 80% (N=133) PAD Report: 97% (N=178) (8/31/13)

MACWIS Report: 87% (N=60) PAD Report: 77% (N=77) (8/31/13)

MACWIS Report: 43% (N=44) PAD Report: 100% (N=60) (2/28/14)

MACWIS Report: 87% (N=132) PAD Report: 99% (N=216) (6/30/14)

MACWIS Report: 82% (N=60) PAD Report: 72% (N=61) (6/30/14)

MACWIS Report: 49% (N=49) PAD Report: 95% (N=63) (6/30/14)

MSA §II.B.6.b.1. 6. Permanency
b) By the end of Implementation Period Four: 1) Defendants shall hold training sessions for DFCS's Training Unit Staff on the Permanency Values Training and Permanency Skills Training Curricula.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.6.b.1.: The Monitor makes no finding about whether
this requirement was satisfied. Defendants report that this requirement was satisfied; however,
the Monitor has not had an opportunity to confirm these representations.
MSA §II.B.6.b.2. 6. Permanency
b) By the end of Implementation Period Four: 2) Defendants shall conduct permanency roundtables in three additional regions.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.6.b.2.: As explained below, this requirement was
satisfied.

145

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 151 of 204
As the Monitor has reported, defendants introduced the permanency roundtable process in
2010, with substantial support from Casey Family Programs.365 Permanency roundtables are an
intervention designed to promote permanency for targeted children in DFCS custody.366 The
roundtables function as structured case consultations, involving multiple participants, including
the assigned caseworker, her/his supervisor, a scribe, a facilitator, and a master practitioner. By
the end of Period 3, 10 of DFCS’s 13 regions had participated in the roundtable process.367
During Period 4, defendants completed permanency roundtables in the remaining three DFCS
regions that had not participated in the roundtable process.368
MSA §II.B.7.b. 7. Adoption
b. By the end of Implementation Period Four: Defendants shall maintain a process for advising all potential adoptive families, including any resource family caring for a child who has become legally available for adoption, of the availability of adoption subsidies. This notification shall be documented in the child’s record, and the family’s access to such subsidies shall be facilitated.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.B.7.b.: This requirement was satisfied in part by the end of
Period 4. As the Monitor reported in May 2014, the training curriculum for foster and adoptive
families was revised during February 2012 and is designed to provide information about the
adoption subsidy program.369 Additionally, DFCS policy requires the assigned adoption
specialist to inform resource families of the possibility of adoption assistance if it appears the
365 For additional information about the permanency roundtable process see http://www.casey.org/Resources/Initiatives/PermanencyRoundtables/default.htm (last visited June 12, 2015). 366 MACWIS reports identifying all children in custody for three years or more are generated and validated by regional staff in order to identify the cohort of children whose cases will be subject to review. 367 See May 2014 Report at 129-130. 368 Permanency roundtables were conducted pursuant to the following schedule: Region III-S, August 12-15, 2013; Region III-N, October 16-18; and Region VII-W, February 20-21, 2014. Additionally, a second series of roundtables were conducted in Regions II-W and II-E during Period 4. 369 See May 2014 Report at Ex. 44A, MDHS Division of Family & Children’s Services, Mississippi PATH (Parents as Tender Healers), A Curriculum for Foster, Adoptive and Kinship Care Parents (Resource Families), redacted excerpt at 2, 125, 132-141.
146

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 152 of 204
child is eligible.370 However, until recently, DFCS policy did not require staff to document this
notification in the case record. The Monitor reported on this limitation in the May 2014
Report.371 Thereafter, the parties added a provision to the Period 5 IP requiring the defendants to
revise DFCS policy to require staff to document this notification in the child’s case record.372
The final version of the revised policy was issued on April 29, 2015.
MSA §§II.B.7.d. and II.B.7.e. 7. Adoption
d. Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix “A” that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: At least 90% of children in custody in that region with the primary permanency goal of adoption during the Period shall have an assigned adoption specialist and an adoption plan that identifies the child-specific activities that Defendants will undertake to achieve adoption, and shall receive regular adoption status meetings consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements during the Period.
e. Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: At least 95% of children in custody in that region with the primary permanency goal of adoption during the Period shall have an assigned adoption specialist and an adoption plan that identifies the child-specific activities that Defendants will undertake to achieve adoption, and shall receive regular adoption status meetings consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements during the Period.
Status of Progress, MSA §§II.B.7.d. and II.B.7.e.: The Monitor makes no finding
related to this requirement. The defendants have been unable to report on their performance
relative to this requirement. During the gap analysis process, the parties agreed that the foster
care review instrument will capture data related to part of the requirement. The defendants
indicated that they expected to submit the applicable PAD report to the plaintiffs and Monitor by
370 Id . at Ex. 44B, Mississippi, DFCS Policy, Section D, Foster Care, Revised 7-22-13, §VII.C.5.b., at 106-108. 371 See May 2014 Report at 140. 372 Period 5 IP §III.B.3.
147

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 153 of 204
May 31, 2015, but as of June 12, 2015 the reports had not been submitted.373 The parties also
agreed that the balance of data relevant to the requirement that is not captured by the PAD will be
collected in a prospective case record review.374
MSA §II.C.1.c.1. 1. Number of Placements
c. By the end of Implementation Period Four: 1) In the last year, at least 75% of children state-wide in care less than 12 months from the time of latest removal from home shall have had two or fewer placements.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.C.1.c.1.: This requirement was satisfied. The data
produced by defendants indicate that for the 12-month period ending June 30, 2014, 79 percent
of children in custody fewer than 12 months from their latest removal from home had two or
fewer placements.375 Defendants’ performance was two percentage points higher than
performance for the 12-month period ending June 30, 2013.376
MSA §II.C.2.c.1. 2. Abuse/Neglect/Maltreatment in Care (This measure shall apply
to reports of abuse, neglect, or maltreatment of children while in DFCS custody.) c. By the end of Implementation Period Four:
1) The rate of abuse or maltreatment in care in the last year shall not exceed 0.50%.
Status of Progress, MSA §II.C.2.c.1.: The Monitor makes no finding with respect to
defendants’ performance relative to this requirement at the end of Period 4. On May 6, 2015,
defendants informed the Monitor that they planned to submit revised Period 4 data for this
requirement. Thereafter, on May 27, 2015, defendants informed the Monitor that they were still
working to resolve certain technical issues regarding the production of the revised reports and,
373 The data report is referred to as PAD Report 29. See App. B, Ex. 11A, supra note 184, Status of Gaps in Data Required by July 1, 2013 Initial Period 4 IP at Appendix 1, Report 4. 374 Id. 375 See App. A, Ex. 3, supra note 53, and App. A, Ex. 30, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Number Of Children In Custody Fewer Than 12 Months From Latest Removal From Home, By Number Of Placements, 12-Month Periods Ending 6/30/13 and 6/30/14. 376 Id.
148

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 154 of 204
after these issues are resolved and the data are validated, defendants will produce the revised
reports. The Monitor will analyze the data after the revised reports are submitted.
Final Period 4 IP §IV.A. A. Defendants shall receive practice model implementation
reports from Defendants’ consultant Center for Support of Families (“CSF”) at least quarterly and produce to Plaintiffs and the Monitor copies of any such practice model implementation reports whenever they are received, but in no event less than quarterly, within 30 calendar days of receipt. Prior to producing the practice model implementation reports to Plaintiffs, Defendants will redact any information that pertains to non-class members.
Status of Progress, Final Period 4 IP §IV.A.: This requirement was satisfied.
Defendants produced the reports as required. Moreover, CSF has submitted non-redacted
versions of the reports to the Monitor on a regular basis.
Final Period 4 IP §V.A. A. By March 15, 2014, Defendants shall provide to Plaintiffs and
the Monitor a letter identifying the barriers to, and action steps and timelines for improvement in, the following areas of Defendants’ performance: 1. Timely Case Planning 2. Parent and Sibling Contacts While in Custody 3. Regions VII West and III South
Status of Progress, Final Period 4 IP §V.A.: This requirement was satisfied in part in
that defendants submitted documents identifying barriers, action steps and time lines in each of
the targeted areas, as required. However, as explained below, while the regional improvement
plans represent thoughtful and detailed approaches to addressing a handful of serious systemic
challenges, the timely case planning submission fails to meet even minimal standards.
On March 17, 2014, defendants submitted a cover letter from the DHS Deputy Administrator charged with oversight of DFCS that included the following documents:377
377 See App. B, Ex. 28A, March 17, 2014 correspondence from Kim Shackelford to Grace Lopes, without attachments.
149

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 155 of 204
1) Timely Case Planning Barriers and Strategies;378 2) Parent and Sibling Contacts while in Custody Barriers and Strategies;379 3) Region VII-W Improvement Plan;380 and 4) Region III-S Improvement Plan.381 There is substantial variation in the quality of these submissions.
For example, the Region VII-W Improvement Plan indicates that it was based on a focus
group’s review of performance data and their assessment of staff skill levels. The plan targets
seven areas, identifying the applicable MSA requirement and the barriers that have impeded performance in each area.382 The plan advances four strategies tailored to strengthen overall
capacity as well to promote improvement in the targeted areas. The rationale for each strategy is clearly presented along with a series of corresponding action steps.383 A responsible individual is identified and concrete deadlines are specified for each action step.384 In contrast, the Timely
Case Planning Barriers and Strategies document indicates that discussions in various meetings identified 10 barriers to timely case planning statewide.385 The barriers, which are formulated in
terms of very broad systemic issues, are each described as if they should be afforded identical weight and as if they have identical applicability in each of DFCS’s regions.386 Unlike the
Region VII-W improvement plan, no concrete strategies are presented. Instead a series of
activities are listed under the heading “Strategy” and there are no action steps associated with
378 See App. B, Ex. 28B, Timely Case Planning Barriers and Strategies, March 17, 2014. 379 See App. B, Ex. 28C, Parent and Sibling Contacts While in Custody Barriers and Strategies, March 17, 2014. 380 See App. B, Ex. 28D, Region VII-West Improvement Plan Period IV– March 2014. 381 See App. B, Ex. 28E, Region III-South Improvement Plan Period IV – March 2014. 382 See App. B, Ex. 28D, supra note 380, at DHS 362738-372741. 383 The action steps are detailed. For example, Strategy # 1 includes 19 action steps that appear appropriately sequenced. Id. at DHS 362742-362743. 384 Id. at DHS 362742-362748. 385 See App. B, Ex. 28B, supra note 378, at DHS 362749. 386 Among the 10 barriers listed are the following: high caseloads/unbalanced caseloads; MACWIS connectivity issues; lack of needed resources for clients to obtain services/lack of awareness of existing resources; varying MACWIS proficiency; time management/competing priorities; inconsistent supervision; and data entry errors. Id. at DHS 362749.
150

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 156 of 204
these activities.387 Moreover, instead of identifying a responsible individual to carry out the
activities listed in the plan, entire administrative units comprised of supervisory and line employees, and in some instances members of several administrative units, are listed.388
Furthermore, in some instances, the timeline for a particular activity spans over a six-month period.389
The purpose of this subsection was to require defendants to refocus efforts on a number
of the most intractable and important problems facing the agency. Timely case planning and
parent and sibling contacts are bedrock requirements. Additionally, Regions VII-W and III-S are
not only among the most populous in the state, but also the regions that historically have
evidenced some of the lowest performance levels in the state. The performance data defendants
have produced do not indicate that the plans required by this subsection had the intended effects
on outcomes.
Final Period 4 IP §V.B. B. By the end of Period 4, Defendants shall report to the Monitor
and Plaintiffs progress made on the action steps identified in the letter described in Section V.A.
Status of Progress, Final Period 4 IP §V.B.: This requirement was not satisfied.
Although defendants confirmed that a report regarding progress would be submitted by the end of Period 4, it has not been submitted.390
387 The activities listed under the heading “Strategies” include “MACWIS refresher training” and the following: “Ensure that ASWSs are staffing cases per policy with workers and documenting the staffing. Failure to hold regular staff meetings will result in disciplinary action. Require ASWSs to note current timeliness of FSPs in staffing notes; RDs will review.” Id. at DHS 362750. 388 For example, under the heading “Who Responsible,” the following, among other groups, are listed: 1) professional development unit; 2) MACWIS unit; 3) Resource Development Unit, Regional Directors, Field Operations Director; 4) MACWIS sub-team and MACWIS unit; 5) Regional Directors, Field Operations Director and ASWSs; and 6) Special Projects Unit, Regional Directors and Field Operations Director. Id. 389 For example, May 1, 2014 – February 1, 2015 and April 1, 2014 – November 1, 2014. Id. 390 See App. B, Ex. 28A, supra note 377 (stating: “Per the Plan, by the end of Year 4, we will report to you and the Plaintiffs regarding our progress on these initiatives.”).
151

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 157 of 204
MSA §III.A.1.a. 1. Continuous Quality Improvement
a. No later than the date set forth in Appendix "A" by which a region shall have fully implemented the Practice Model, the CQI system shall measure compliance in that region with the foster care service standard requirements of this Modified Settlement Agreement and shall ensure remediation of any identified deficiencies.
Status of Progress, MSA §III.A.1.a.: This requirement has been satisfied in part. As
the Monitor reported in May 2014,391 there is a substantial body of evidence that establishes the
CQI system has been measuring compliance with the foster care service standards of the MSA
for regions that have fully implemented the Practice Model.392 However, as evidenced by the
data charts and tables included in Appendix A of this report, there are very substantial gaps in
performance relative to many regional MSA requirements in the five DFCS regions that had fully
implemented the Practice Model during Period 4 and the additional three regions that reached the
12-months-post full implementation mark during Period 4. In addition to the failure to
implement the RITs as intended to promote implementation of the Practice Model,393 there is
substantial evidence addressed in significant detail in this report that indicate the defendants have
not fully implemented the corrective action processes that are designed to ensure remediation of
the deficiencies identified through various CQI activities.394
Initial Period 4 IP §III.B.1. B. Recruitment and Retention of Resource Families and
Therapeutic Service Providers 1. Defendants will continue to make all reasonable efforts, in
conjunction with other state agencies, to ensure the timely resubmission of the Treatment Foster Care per diem rate of $131.00 to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and to seek approval by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for the Treatment Foster Care per diem rate of $131.00.
391 See May 2014 Report at 197. 392 See, e.g., narrative related to Initial Period 4 IP §II.B.1.a. (third follow-up CQI Review for Regions I-S and IIW), supra at 79-80; id. §II.B.1.j. (third follow-up CQI review for Region V-W), supra at 82-83; id. §II.B.1.k. (second follow-up CQI review for Region V-E), supra at 83. 393 See supra at 44-45. 394 See supra at 74-79.
152

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 158 of 204
Status of Progress, Initial Period 4 IP §III.B.1.: This requirement was satisfied. The
Mississippi Division of Medicaid submitted a proposed Medicaid State Plan Amendment to the
Department of Health and Human Services Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”)
on January 30, 2014. The amendment sought to add treatment foster care to the array of
rehabilitative services benefits for children in foster care under age 21 with certain diagnoses
who are placed in therapeutic foster or group homes. On October 14, 2014, following a review
process, CMS disapproved the amendment because it was limited to this specific cohort of
children and, among other reasons, empirical evidence to support the limitation was not
submitted.395
Initial Period 4 IP §III.B.2. B. Recruitment and Retention of Resource Families and
Therapeutic Service Providers 2. By August 2, 2013, Defendants agree to provide Plaintiffs and
the Monitor with a draft notice to all therapeutic group homes informing them about the intensive outpatient services rate of approximately $122.00 per day available from the Division of Medicaid. This notice must be accessible to the lay reader, and must contain information about (i) the intensive outpatient services rate and how it is different from the current “fee for service” payment structure; (ii) how a provider can obtain information about the eligibility and/or certification requirements; and (iii) contact information for a hotline and/or another point of contact regarding (i) and (ii). The notice must be finalized and provided to all therapeutic group homes by no later than August 16, 2013.
Status of Progress, Initial Period 4 IP §III.B.2.: This requirement was satisfied. A
draft of the memorandum was transmitted to plaintiffs’ counsel and the Monitor on August 8,
2013. Thereafter, in response to plaintiffs’ comments, defendants revised the memorandum and
transmitted it in revised form to therapeutic group home providers by August 16, 2013.396
395 See App. B, Ex. 29, October 14, 2014 correspondence from Marilyn Tavenner to David J. Dzielak, Ph.D. (denying proposed State Plan Amendment). 396 See App. B, Ex. 30, August 8, 2013 e-mail from Ashley C. Tullos to Miriam Ingber, Julia Davis and Grace M. Lopes with attached memorandum to MDHS Therapeutic Group Homes.
153

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 159 of 204
Initial Period 4 IP §III.B.3. B. Recruitment and Retention of Resource Families and
Therapeutic Service Providers 3. By September 30, 2013, Defendants shall meet the Year 3
requirements as set forth in its implementation plan for the Diligent Recruitment of Families for Children as shown in Appendix “D” to the Modified Settlement Agreement. The implementation plan for the Diligent Recruitment of Families for Children shall become an enforceable part of this Initial Period 4 Implementation Plan.
Status of Progress, Initial Period 4 IP §III.B.3.: The U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services Administration on Children Youth and Families (“ACF”) made a determination
to continue funding of the diligent recruitment grant following the conclusion of grant Year 3,
presumably finding that defendants had made sufficient progress on implementation activities to
justify continued grant expenditures. The grant is currently in its fifth and final year and will
expire on September 30, 2015. The grant has been instrumental in promoting the DFCS
community education program and has illuminated staffing deficits and other limitations in the
resource family licensure program. At least for now, however, it does not appear that the grant
has had a demonstrable impact on recruitment of new resource families – an important objective
that must be addressed in order for defendants to satisfy many key MSA requirements.
Background information about the grant and a summary of progress during Year 3 of the grant
are presented below.
During the last quarter of 2010, defendants were awarded $2 million dollars over five years through a federal grant397 intended to subsidize MDHS/DFCS initiatives to recruit families for children in foster care who wait the longest for permanency.398 The implementation plan for
397 See November 2010 Report at 41 for additional background information related to the grant. 398 This includes the following cohorts: children from large sibling groups, children who have been sexually abused, teenagers, pregnant girls who plan to keep their babies, and children with physical, medical, emotional, intellectual and/or severe behavioral challenges.
154

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 160 of 204
the second through the fifth year of the grant is included in Appendix D to the MSA.399 The implementation schedule for many of the initiatives required by the grant is intended to follow a regional approach introduced on the heels of the Practice Model phase-in schedule. The schedule is structured to address activities related to the following topical areas: recruitment activities; resource licensure; the customer service model; contracting with licensed child placing agencies; family/child matching; collaboration/public-private partnerships; the DFCS website; and evaluation activities.
Interviews with DFCS managers and staff responsible for grant implementation activities and a review of related progress reports, grant renewal applications and other documents submitted by the defendants to federal officials indicate that at the outset of the grant the defendants hired staff to manage and coordinate grant activities; retained consultants to provide technical assistance; developed an evaluation plan; and established a grant implementation team. Additionally, regional recruitment teams and various regional recruitment plans were developed and approved initially by a federal official with oversight responsibility for the grant and later by a designated DFCS manager. By the end of Year Two, recruitment materials were developed, the resource parent training manual was revised, and related staff training was developed and delivered in several regions that were engaged in the early phases of implementation activities. Moreover, a protocol was developed to track all inquiries from prospective resource families. Thereafter, by the end of the third year of the grant, six regions were engaged in grant implementation activities, which centered predominantly on community education and data
399 See App. B, Ex. 31, Appendix “D” Modified Mississippi Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan, Mississippi Diligent Recruitment of Families for Children, Implementation Plan - Phase II, Version A (included in the Appendix to this report for the convenience of the Court and the parties). Two action steps were added to the implementation plan in consultation with federal funders. The new action steps clarify required broadcast activities and add a recruitment initiative for targeting Spanish-speaking families during Year-Five of the grant.
155

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 161 of 204
collection. Implementation in at least one other region was delayed due to staffing shortages.400
During Year Four of the grant, defendants report that all regions had begun implementation
activities. While community education activities under the grant are reported to be far more
robust than they have been in the past, defendants report continuing challenges implementing
targeted recruitment activities throughout the state.
The defendants contemplated that resource workers, the regional staff who are assigned to
respond to inquiries from prospective resource parents and who are charged with performing all
casework activities associated with licensing resource homes, would collect the data that would
be used throughout the grant evaluation process. However, defendants reported significant
challenges implementing data collection activities at least in part due to staffing shortages in some regional resource units.401 Moreover, defendants reported that there are substantial delays
in the resource home licensure process and that only a small percentage of applicants are getting
licensed. For this reason, defendants requested technical assistance from the National Resource Center (“NRC”) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.402 Defendants report
that they are currently working with NRC staff on this issue.
MSA §III.B.1.d.1. 1. Comprehensive Family Assessments
d. Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has undergone the Initial Practice Model Implementation Period: 1) All caseworkers assigned to active cases, and their supervisors, will have undergone training on the family team meeting protocols.
400 See App. B, Ex. 3K, supra note 119, at 6. 401 See, e.g., id.; see also App. B, Ex. 32, ACF Performance Progress Report, excerpt, submitted by DFCS to the Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children, Youth and Families Children’s Bureau on October 31, 2014 for the six-month reporting period ending September 30, 2014, at 7 (commenting on challenges during the reporting period, and stating in relevant part: “During this reporting period data for evaluation purposes continues to be a challenge in IV-South regions [sic] due to a lack of staff and more demands of other duties that are not related to grant.”). 402 Id. Defendants have been receiving technical assistance from the NRC since November 2014.
156

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 162 of 204
Status of Progress, MSA §III.B.1.d.1.: This requirement was satisfied in that all
caseworkers and supervisors were required to participate in extensive initial training prior to
implementation of the Practice Model.403 The training addressed the family team meeting
(“FTM”) practice guide and related protocols during each of six training modules. Coaching labs
related to the FTM process were also delivered in each region early in the Practice Model
implementation process. The initial pre-implementation training on the Practice Model was
ultimately incorporated into the DFCS pre-service training curriculum.
MSA §§III.B.1.e.1. and III.B.1.f.1. 1. Comprehensive Family Assessments
e. Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 80% of foster children in that region who enter custody shall have a thorough screening and assessment, consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements, within 30 calendar days of entering custody.
f. Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 90% of foster children in that region who enter custody shall have a comprehensive family assessment, consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements, within 30 calendar days of entering custody.
Status of Progress, MSA §§III.B.1.e.1. and III.B.1.f.1.: As noted above, during Period
4, five regions fully implemented the Practice Model and three regions fully implemented the
Practice Model for at least 12 months and thus were responsible for satisfying the associated
performance standards. Among the five regions that fully implemented during Period 4, one
region satisfied the performance requirement. None of the three regions that fully implemented
403 Defendants have not maintained centralized records related to all staff statewide who participated in the initial Practice Model training. Because it would have been impractical for the Monitor to audit each region’s Practice Model training records to ensure that all caseworkers and their supervisors were present for each training module that addressed the FTM practice guide and protocols, in making this finding, the Monitor is relying on her understanding of the Practice Model training based on a review of various training materials, the FTM practice guide, and interview data.
157

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 163 of 204

the Practice Model for at least 12 months satisfied the performance requirement. The Monitor’s

findings are summarized in the table below, which also includes for informational purposes

updated performance data as of the end of Period 4 for the three regions that were 12-months-

post full implementation:

Practice Model Full

Practice Model Full

Implementation: 8/31/12 Implementation: 2/28/13

12 Months Following: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 2/28/14

End of Period 4: 6/30/14

End of Period 4: 6/30/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 8/31/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 2/28/14 12 Months Following: 2/28/15

Start Date for Performance

I‐S

II‐W

V‐W

III‐S

I‐N

IV‐N

IV‐S

V‐E

Performance Requirement

Measurement

Findings for Practice Model Full Implementation Date
Findings for 12 Months Following Implementation Date

80%

Data unreliable; Data unreliable; Data unreliable; PAD corrected 13% (N=53) 34% (N=29) 82% (N=28) 73% (N=15)

PAD corrected PAD corrected October 2012 and therefore data October 2012 and October 2012 and analyzable as of April 2013

(8/31/13)

(8/31/13)

(8/31/13) (8/31/13)

therefore data therefore data

analyzable as of analyzable as of

April 2013

April 2013

90%

74% (N=78) 62% (N=13)

58% (N=19)

(8/31/13)

(8/31/13)

(2/28/14)

44% (N=34) (2/28/14)

80% (N=90) (6/30/14)

41% (N=22) (6/30/14)

48% (N=23) (6/30/14)

MSA §§III.B.1.e.2. and III.B.1.f.2. 1. Comprehensive Family Assessments
e. Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 2) In at least 80% of placement cases in that region in which the whereabouts of one or both parents is unknown, DFCS shall immediately institute a diligent search for the parent(s), which shall be documented in the child’s case record.
f. Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 2) In at least 90% of placement cases in that region in which the whereabouts of one or both parents is unknown, DFCS shall immediately institute a diligent search for the parent(s), which shall be documented in the child’s case record.
Status of Progress, MSA §§III.B.1.e.2. and III.B.1.f.2.: The Monitor makes no finding
related to this requirement for Period 4. Because of limitations in defendants’ data collection
related to this requirement, the Monitor was not able to analyze data regarding defendants’
performance. Defendants produced data from the FCR process addressing performance related to
this requirement. Certain changes were made to the PAD in fall 2013, which impacted the data
158

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 164 of 204
that defendants collected related to this requirement.404 Defendants produced data incorporating
the changes made to the PAD for the first time in May 2015 and the data covered the six-month
period ending March 31, 2015.
MSA §§III.B.2.c.1. and III.B.2.d.1. 2. Individualized Case Planning
c. Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 80% of foster children in that region who enter custody shall have a family team meeting and service plans shall be developed for both the child and the parents, consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements, within 30 calendar days of entry into foster care.
d. Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 90% of foster children in that region who enter custody shall have a family team meeting and service plans shall be developed for both the child and the parents, consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements, within 30 calendar days of entry into foster care.
Status of Progress, MSA §§III.B.2.c.1. and III.B.2.d.1.: The Monitor makes no finding
related to defendants’ performance. The parties have agreed that defendants’ performance will
be measured through a case record review conducted after Period 5.405
MSA §§III.B.2.c.2. and III.B.2.d.2. 2. Individualized Case Planning
c. Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 2) At least 80% of foster children in that region who enter custody shall have family team meetings at least quarterly, and their service plans shall be updated quarterly, as well as within 30 calendar days of any placement or other significant change, consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
d. Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 2) At least 90% of foster children in that region who enter custody shall have family team meetings at least
404 See supra note 317 for a discussion addressing how changes to the PAD impact defendants’ data collection. 405 See App. B, Ex. 11A, supra note 184, at Status of Gaps in Data Reports Required by June 24, 2013 Order at Attachment 2, Report No. 33.
159

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 165 of 204
quarterly, and their service plans shall be updated quarterly, as well as within 30 calendar days of a placement change, consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
Status of Progress, MSA §§III.B.2.c.2. and III.B.2.d.2.: As noted above, during Period 4, five regions fully implemented the Practice Model and three regions fully implemented the Practice Model for at least 12 months and thus were responsible for satisfying the associated performance standards. Defendants produced data from the FCR process addressing performance related to this requirement. Certain changes were made to the PAD in December 2013, which impacted the data collected by defendants related to this requirement.406 Thus data derived from the FCR process for six-month periods ending before December 2013 are not precisely comparable to data derived from the FCR process after that date.407
Among the five regions that fully implemented during Period 4, none satisfied the performance requirement. Additionally, none of the three regions that fully implemented the Practice Model for at least 12 months satisfied the performance requirement at the 12-month-post full implementation mark. The Monitor’s findings are summarized in the table below, which also includes for informational purposes updated performance data as of the end of Period 4 for the three regions that were 12 months-post-full implementation:408
406 See supra note 317 for a discussion addressing how changes to the PAD impact defendants’ data collection. 407 The first monthly data submission produced by defendants including only data based on the changes made to the PAD in December 2013 was the data submission for the six-month period ending on May 31, 2014. 408 Values in red in the table indicate that the underlying data were based on a mixture of questions from prior to and subsequent to the December 2013 PAD changes.
160

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 166 of 204

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/12 12 Months Following: 8/31/13 End of Period 4: 6/30/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 2/28/13 12 Months Following: 2/28/14 End of Period 4: 6/30/14

Start Date for Performance

I‐S

II‐W

V‐W

Performance Requirement

Measurement

Fi ndi ngs for Pra cti ce Model Ful l Impl ementa ti on Da te

80%

11% (N=204) 21% (N=145)

(8/31/12)

(8/31/12)

2% (N=111) (2/28/13)

Fi ndi ngs for 12 Months Fol l owi ng Impl ementa ti on Da te

90%

33% (N=251) 19% (N=120)

(8/31/13)

(8/31/13)

26% (N=96) (2/28/14)

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 8/31/14

III‐S

I‐N

IV‐N

IV‐S

Practice Model Full Implementation: 2/28/14 12 Months Following: 2/28/15
V‐E

5% (N=319) 6% (N=146) 13% (N=145) 10% (N=131) (8/31/13) (8/31/13) (8/31/13) (8/31/13)

22% (N=143) (2/28/14)

47% (N=292) (6/30/14)

17% (N=83) (6/30/14)

23% (N=95) (6/30/14)

MSA §§III.B.3.a.6.a. and III.B.3.a.7.a. 3. Child and Youth Permanency
a. Permanency Plan 6) Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: (a) At least 90% of foster children in that region who enter custody shall have a permanency plan within 30 calendar days of their entry into care consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
7) Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: (a) At least 95% of foster children in that region who enter custody shall have a permanency plan within 30 calendar days of their entry into care consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
Status of Progress, MSA §§III.B.3.a.6.a. and III.B.3.a.7.a.: As noted above, during

Period 4, five regions fully implemented the Practice Model and three regions fully implemented

the Practice Model for at least 12 months and thus were responsible for satisfying the associated

performance standards. Defendants produced data from MACWIS and the FCR process

addressing performance related to this requirement. Certain changes were made to the PAD in

December 2013 and April 2014, which impacted the data defendants collected related to this requirement.409 Thus data derived from the FCR process for six-month periods ending before

409 See supra note 317 for a discussion addressing how changes to the PAD impact defendants’ data collection.
161

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 167 of 204

December 2013 are not precisely comparable to data derived from the FCR process after that date.410
None of the five regions that fully implemented during Period 4 satisfied the performance requirement. Additionally, none of the three regions that fully implemented the Practice Model for at least 12 months satisfied the performance requirement at the 12-month-post full implementation mark. The Monitor’s findings are summarized in the table below, which also includes for informational purposes updated performance data as of the end of Period 4 for the three regions that were 12-months-post full implementation:411

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/12 12 Months Following: 8/31/13 End of Period 4: 6/30/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 2/28/13 12 Months Following: 2/28/14 End of Period 4: 6/30/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 8/31/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 2/28/14 12 Months Following: 2/28/15

Start Date for Performance

I‐S

II‐W

Performance Requirement Measurement

Fi ndi ngs for Pra cti ce Model Ful l Impl ementa ti on Da te

90%

MACWIS Report: MACWIS Report: 53% (N=216)* 63% (N=57)*

PAD Report: 36% (N=56) (8/31/12)

PAD Report: 41% (N=17) (8/31/12)

V‐W
MACWIS Report: 57% (N=65)
PAD Report: 36% (N=25) (2/28/13)

III‐S

I‐N

IV‐N

IV‐S

MACWIS Report: 28% (N=246)*

MACWIS Report: 30% (N=186)*

MACWIS Report: 38% (N=106)

MACWIS Report: 17% (N=52)

PAD Report: 14% (N=51) (8/31/13)

PAD Report: 21% (N=28) (8/31/13)

PAD Report: 58% (N=26) (8/31/13)

PAD Report: 44% (N=25) (8/31/13)

V‐E
MACWIS Report: 26% (N=81)
PAD Report: 26% (N=38) (2/28/14)

Fi ndi ngs for 12

95%

MACWIS Report: MACWIS Report:

Months Fol l owi ng

77% (N=181)* 75% (N=55)*

Impl ementa ti on Da te

PAD Report:

PAD Report:

68% (N=71)

82% (N=17)

(8/31/13)

(8/31/13)

MACWIS Report: 51% (N=51) PAD Report: 39% (N=23) (2/28/14)

MACWIS Report: MACWIS Report:

70% (N=187)

78% (N=64)

PAD Report:

PAD Report:

75% (N=89)

42% (N=19)

(6/30/14)

(6/30/14)

MACWIS Report: 41% (N=63) PAD Report: 33% (N=27) (6/30/14)

MSA §§III.B.3.a.6.b. and III.B.3.a.7.b. 3. Child and Youth Permanency
a. Permanency Plan 6) Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: (b) At least 90% of foster children in custody in that region shall have a permanency plan that is consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
410 The first monthly data submission produced by defendants including only data based on the changes made to the PAD in December 2013 and April 2014 was the data submission for the six-month period ending on October 31, 2014, after the end of Period 4. 411 Values in red in the table indicate that the underlying data were based on a mixture of questions from prior to and subsequent to the December 2013 and April 2014 PAD changes.
162

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 168 of 204

7) Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: (b) At least 95% of foster children in custody in that region shall have a permanency plan that is consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
Status of Progress, MSA §§III.B.3.a.6.b. and III.B.3.a.7.b.: As noted above, during
Period 4, five regions fully implemented the Practice Model and three regions fully implemented
the Practice Model for at least 12 months and thus were responsible for satisfying the associated

performance standards. Defendants produced data from the FCR process addressing performance related to this requirement.
Among the five regions that fully implemented during Period 4, three regions satisfied the performance requirement. Two of the three regions that fully implemented the Practice Model for at least 12 months satisfied the performance requirement at the 12-month-post full implementation mark. The Monitor’s findings are summarized in the table below, which also includes for informational purposes updated performance data as of the end of Period 4 for the three regions that were 12-months-post full implementation:412

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/12 12 Months Following: 8/31/13 End of Period 4: 6/30/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 2/28/13 12 Months Following: 2/28/14 End of Period 4: 6/30/14

Start Date for Performance

I‐S

II‐W

V‐W

Performance Requirement

Measurement

Findi ngs for Pra cti ce Model Ful l Impl ementation Date Findi ngs for 12 Months Foll owing Impl ementation Date

90% 95%

100% (N=10) (8/31/12)
100% (N=8) (8/31/13)

100% (N=18) (8/31/12)
100% (N=14) (8/31/13)

100% (N=19) (2/28/13)
80% (N=15) (2/28/14)

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 8/31/14

III‐S

I‐N

IV‐N

IV‐S

95% (N=42) 100% (N=27) 93% (N=14) 75% (N=4) (8/31/13) (8/31/13) (8/31/13) (8/31/13)

Practice Model Full Implementation: 2/28/14 12 Months Following: 2/28/15
V‐E
88% (N=8) (2/28/14)

100% (N=5) (6/30/14)

100% (N=8) (6/30/14)

75% (N=16) (6/30/14)

412 The Monitor excluded one child in her analysis of data pertaining to Region II-W for the six-month period ending June 30, 2014. The data produced by defendants for this child reflected conflicting values that the Monitor could not resolve.
163

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 169 of 204
MSA §§III.B.3.b.2.a. and III.B.3.b.3.a. 3. Child and Youth Permanency
b. Concurrent Planning 2) Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: (a) At least 90% of children in custody in that region with the goal of reunification shall have case record documentation reflecting active concurrent permanency planning consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements. 3) Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: (a) At least 95% of children in custody in that region with the goal of reunification shall have case record documentation reflecting active concurrent permanency planning consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
Status of Progress, MSA §§III.B.3.b.2.a. and III.B.3.b.3.a.: As noted above, during Period 4, five regions fully implemented the Practice Model and three regions fully implemented the Practice Model for at least 12 months and thus were responsible for satisfying the associated performance standards. Defendants produced data from the FCR process addressing performance related to this requirement.
None of the five regions that fully implemented during Period 4 satisfied the performance requirement. Similarly, none of the three regions that fully implemented the Practice Model for at least 12 months satisfied the performance requirement at the 12-month-post full implementation mark. The Monitor’s findings are summarized in the table below, which also includes for informational purposes updated performance data as of the end of Period 4 for the three regions that were 12-months-post full implementation:
164

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 170 of 204

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/12 12 Months Following: 8/31/13 End of Period 4: 6/30/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 2/28/13 12 Months Following: 2/28/14 End of Period 4: 6/30/14

Start Date for Performance

I‐S

II‐W

V‐W

Performance Requirement

Measurement

Fi ndi ngs for Pra cti ce Model Ful l Impl ementa ti on Da te

90%

26% (N=38) (8/31/12)

86% (N=7) (8/31/12)

43% (N=14) (2/28/13)

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 8/31/14

III‐S

I‐N

IV‐N

IV‐S

35% (N=37) 73% (N=26) 50% (N=18) 81% (N=16) (8/31/13) (8/31/13) (8/31/13) (8/31/13)

Practice Model Full Implementation: 2/28/14 12 Months Following: 2/28/15
V‐E
42% (N=26) (2/28/14)

Fi ndi ngs for 12 Months Fol l owi ng Impl ementa ti on Da te

95%

79% (N=48) (8/31/13)
55% (N=66) (6/30/14)

91% (N=11) (8/31/13)
74% (N=19) (6/30/14)

21% (N=14) (2/28/14)
47% (N=19) (6/30/14)

MSA §§III.B.3.c.4.a. and III.B.3.c.5.a. 3. Child and Youth Permanency
c. Permanency Plan Updating and Review 4) Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: (a) At least 90% of foster children in that region who have been in custody for at least six months shall have a timely court or administrative case review consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
5) Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: (a) At least 95% of foster children in that region who have been in custody for at least six months shall have a timely court or administrative case review consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
Status of Progress, MSA §§III.B.3.c.4.a. and III.B.3.c.5.a.: As noted above, during
Period 4, five regions fully implemented the Practice Model and three regions fully implemented
the Practice Model for at least 12 months and thus were responsible for satisfying the associated
performance standards. Defendants produced data from the FCR process addressing
performance related to this requirement.413

413 The data that defendants produce reflect only whether children subject to the FCR process had their most recent court or administrative review conducted timely.
165

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 171 of 204

Among the five regions that fully implemented during Period 4, four regions satisfied the

performance requirement. Two of the three regions that fully implemented the Practice Model for at least 12 months satisfied the performance requirement at the 12-month-post full

implementation mark. The Monitor’s findings are summarized in the table below, which also

includes for informational purposes updated performance data as of the end of Period 4 for the three regions that were 12-months-post full implementation:

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/12 12 Months Following: 8/31/13 End of Period 4: 6/30/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 2/28/13 12 Months Following: 2/28/14 End of Period 4: 6/30/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 8/31/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 2/28/14 12 Months Following: 2/28/15

Start Date for Performance

I‐S

II‐W

V‐W

III‐S

I‐N

IV‐N

IV‐S

V‐E

Performance Requirement

Measurement

Findings for Practi ce Model Ful l Implementa ti on Da te

90%

91% (N=466) 95% (N=187)

(8/31/12)

(8/31/12)

97% (N=162) (2/28/13)

86% (N=502) 99% (N=339) 97% (N=231) 100% (N=203) (8/31/13) (8/31/13) (8/31/13) (8/31/13)

94% (N=245) (2/28/14)

Findings for 12 Months Fol lowing Implementa ti on Da te

95%

95% (N=440) 98% (N=197)

(8/31/13)

(8/31/13)

98% (N=414) 100% (N=186)

(6/30/14)

(6/30/14)

92% (N=143) (2/28/14)
89% (N=137) (6/30/14)

MSA §§III.B.3.c.4.b. and III.B.3.c.5.b. 3. Child and Youth Permanency
c. Permanency Plan Updating and Review 4) Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: (b) At least 90% of foster children in that region who have been in custody for at least 12 months shall have a timely annual court review consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
5) Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: (b) At least 95% of foster children in that region who have been in custody in that region for at least 12 months shall have a timely annual court review consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement.
Status of Progress, MSA §§III.B.3.c.4.b. and III.B.3.c.5.b.: As noted above, during
Period 4, five regions fully implemented the Practice Model and three regions fully implemented
the Practice Model for at least 12 months and thus were responsible for satisfying the associated
166

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 172 of 204

performance standards. Defendants produced data from the FCR process addressing

performance related to this requirement.

None of the five regions that fully implemented during Period 4 satisfied the performance requirement. Similarly, none of the three regions that fully implemented the Practice Model for

at least 12 months satisfied the performance requirement at the 12-month-post full implementation mark.414 The Monitor’s findings are summarized in the table below, which also

includes for informational purposes updated performance data as of the end of Period 4 for the

three regions that were 12-months-post full implementation:

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/12 12 Months Following: 8/31/13 End of Period 4: 6/30/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 2/28/13 12 Months Following: 2/28/14 End of Period 4: 6/30/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 8/31/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 2/28/14 12 Months Following: 2/28/15

Start Date for Performance

I‐S

II‐W

V‐W

III‐S

I‐N

IV‐N

IV‐S

V‐E

Performance Requirement

Measurement

Fi ndi ngs for Practi ce Model Full Impl ementati on Da te

90%

86% (N=297) 97% (N=156)

(8/31/12)

(8/31/12)

94% (N=123) (2/28/13)

39% (N=401) 87% (N=244) 81% (N=182) 83% (N=157) (8/31/13) (8/31/13) (8/31/13) (8/31/13)

89% (N=174) (2/28/14)

Fi ndi ngs for 12 Months Foll owing Impl ementati on Da te

95%

89% (N=291) 93% (N=162)

(8/31/13)

(8/31/13)

94% (N=265) 99% (N=144)

(6/30/14)

(6/30/14)

80% (N=109) (2/28/14)
85% (N=102) (6/30/14)

MSA §§III.B.3.d.4.a. and III.B.3.d.5.a. 3. Child and Youth Permanency
d. Reunification Services 4) Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: (a) At least 80% of foster children in that region with a permanency goal of reunification shall have service plans for their parents that identify those services DFCS deems necessary to address the behaviors or conditions resulting in the child’s placement in foster care, and case record documentation that DFCS made those identified services available directly or through referral.
5) Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model:

414 As indicated in the table, one region – Region II-W – satisfied the performance requirement at the end of Period 4.
167

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 173 of 204

(a) At least 90% of foster children in that region with a permanency goal of reunification shall have service plans for their parents that identify those services DFCS deems necessary to address the behaviors or conditions resulting in the child’s placement in foster care and case record documentation that DFCS made those identified services available directly or through referral.
Status of Progress, MSA §§III.B.3.d.4.a. and III.B.3.d.5.a.: As noted above, during
Period 4, five regions fully implemented the Practice Model and three regions fully implemented
the Practice Model for at least 12 months and thus were responsible for satisfying the associated
performance standards. Defendants produced data from the FCR process addressing
performance related to this requirement.
Among the five regions that fully implemented during Period 4, one region satisfied the
performance requirement. Two of the three regions that fully implemented the Practice Model
for at least 12 months satisfied the performance requirement at the 12-month-post full
implementation mark.415 The Monitor’s findings are summarized in the table below, which also
includes for informational purposes updated performance data as of the end of Period 4 for the
three regions that were 12-months-post full implementation:

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/12 12 Months Following: 8/31/13 End of Period 4: 6/30/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 2/28/13 12 Months Following: 2/28/14 End of Period 4: 6/30/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 8/31/14

Start Date for Performance

I‐S

II‐W

V‐W

III‐S

I‐N

IV‐N

IV‐S

Performance Requirement

Measurement

Fi ndings for Pra ctice Model Ful l Implementa tion Date

80%

Data not available

Data not available

Data not available

49% (N=115) 70% (N=69) 97% (N=39) 66% (N=73) (8/31/13) (8/31/13) (8/31/13) (8/31/13)

Practice Model Full Implementation: 2/28/14 12 Months Following: 2/28/15
V‐E
66% (N=62) (2/28/14)

Fi ndings for 12 Months Fol l owi ng Implementa tion Date

90%

91% (N=78) (8/31/13)

82% (N=33) (8/31/13)

100% (N=31) (2/28/14)

96% (N=111) (6/30/14)

75% (N=20) (6/30/14)

89% (N=36) (6/30/14)

415 As indicated in the table, performance in one of these two regions – Region V-W – dropped just below the 90 percent performance requirement at the end of Period 4.
168

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 174 of 204
MSA §§III.B.3.e.2.a. and III.B.3.e.3.a. 3. Child and Youth Permanency
e. Termination of Parental Rights 2) Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: (a) At least 80% of foster children in that region who reach the point at which they have spent 17 of the previous 22 months in foster care shall have a petition to TPR filed on their behalf or an available exception under the federal ASFA documented by the end of their seventeenth month in care.
3) Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: (a) At least 90% of foster children in that region who reach the point at which they have spent 17 of the previous 22 months in foster care shall have a petition to TPR filed on their behalf or an available exception under the federal ASFA documented by the last day of their seventeenth month in care.
Status of Progress, MSA §§III.B.3.e.2.a. and III.B.3.e.3.a.: As noted above, during
Period 4, five regions fully implemented the Practice Model and three regions fully implemented
the Practice Model for at least 12 months and thus were responsible for satisfying the associated
performance standards. Defendants produced data from MACWIS regarding performance
related to this requirement.
All five regions that fully implemented during Period 4 satisfied the performance
requirement. Two of the three regions that fully implemented the Practice Model for at least 12
months satisfied the performance requirement at the 12-month-post full implementation mark.416
The Monitor’s findings are summarized in the table below, which also includes for informational
purposes updated performance data as of the end of Period 4 for the three regions that were 12-
months-post full implementation:
416 As indicated in the table, performance in one of these two regions – Region V-W – dropped below the 90 percent performance requirement at the end of Period 4.
169

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 175 of 204

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/12 12 Months Following: 8/31/13 End of Period 4: 6/30/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 2/28/13 12 Months Following: 2/28/14 End of Period 4: 6/30/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 8/31/14

Start Date for Performance

I‐S

II‐W

V‐W

III‐S

I‐N

IV‐N

IV‐S

Performance Requirement

Measurement

Fi ndings for Pra cti ce Model Full Impl ementation Da te

80%

93% (N=103) (8/31/12)

85% (N=78) (8/31/12)

78% (N=49) (2/28/13)

87% (N=253) 94% (N=93) 88% (N=81) 98% (N=66) (8/31/13) (8/31/13) (8/31/13) (8/31/13)

Practice Model Full Implementation: 2/28/14 12 Months Following: 2/28/15
V‐E
92% (N=66) (2/28/14)

Fi ndings for 12 Months Foll owi ng Impl ementation Da te

90%

95% (N=112) (8/31/13)

89% (N=76) (8/31/13)

93% (N=119) (6/30/14)

83% (N=71) (6/30/14)

90% (N=42) (2/28/14)
88% (N=41) (6/30/14)

MSA §§III.B.3.e.2.b. and III.B.3.e.3.b. 3. Child and Youth Permanency
e. Termination of Parental Rights 2) Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: (b) At least 80% of foster children in that region who have spent more than 17 of the previous 22 months in foster care without a TPR petition filed on their behalf or an available ASFA exception documented shall have such a petition filed or an available exception documented.
3) Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: (b) At least 90% of foster children in that region who have spent more than 17 of the previous 22 months in foster care without a TPR petition filed on their behalf or an available ASFA exception documented shall have such a petition filed or an available exception documented.
Status of Progress, MSA §§III.B.3.e.2.b. and III.B.3.e.3.b.: As noted above, during
Period 4, five regions fully implemented the Practice Model and three regions fully implemented
the Practice Model for at least 12 months and thus were responsible for satisfying the associated
performance standards. Defendants produced data from MACWIS regarding performance
related to this requirement.
Among the five regions that fully implemented during Period 4, one region satisfied the
performance requirement. Similarly, one of the three regions that fully implemented the Practice
Model for at least 12 months satisfied the performance requirement at the 12-month-post full
170

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 176 of 204

implementation mark.417 The Monitor’s findings are summarized in the table below, which also includes for informational purposes updated performance data as of the end of Period 4 for the three regions that were 12-months-post full implementation:

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/12 12 Months Following: 8/31/13 End of Period 4: 6/30/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 2/28/13 12 Months Following: 2/28/14 End of Period 4: 6/30/14

Start Date for Performance

I‐S

II‐W

V‐W

Performance Requirement

Measurement

Fi ndi ngs for Pra cti ce Model Full Impl ementa ti on Da te

80%

100% (N=7) (8/31/12)

100% (N=12) (8/31/12)

18% (N=11) (2/28/13)

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 8/31/14

III‐S

I‐N

IV‐N

IV‐S

76% (N=34) (8/31/13)

33% (N=6) 60% (N=10) 100% (N=1) (8/31/13) (8/31/13) (8/31/13)

Practice Model Full Implementation: 2/28/14 12 Months Following: 2/28/15
V‐E
20% (N=5) (2/28/14)

Fi ndi ngs for 12 Months Fol l owi ng Impl ementa ti on Da te

90%

50% (N=6) (8/31/13)

100% (N=8) (8/31/13)

50% (N=4) (2/28/14)

63% (N=8) (6/30/14)

33% (N=12) (6/30/14)

20% (N=5) (6/30/14)

MSA §§III.B.4.b.1. and III.B.4.c.1. 4. Case Recordings
b. Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 90% of child welfare case records in that region will be current and complete.
c. Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 95% of child welfare case records in that region will be current and complete.
Status of Progress, MSA §§III.B.4.b.1. and III.B.4.c.1.: The Monitor makes no finding
related to this requirement as of the end of the required implementation periods for the regions
that had fully implemented or were 12-months-post full implementation as of the end of Period 4.
The parties agreed this requirement would be addressed during a case record review conducted
during Period 5.418 The case record review conducted during Period 5 focused on health records,
a subset of child welfare case records, and addressed statewide performance and not regional

417 As indicated in the table, performance in this region – Region II-W – dropped below the 90 percent performance requirement at the end of Period 4. 418 See App. B, Ex. 11A, supra note 184, Status of Gaps in Data Reports Required by January 8, 2014 Final Period 4 IP at Appendix 3, Report No. 6.
171

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 177 of 204
performance related to this requirement. As explained above,419 the statewide sample of case
records used for the Period 5 case record review was designed to ensure proportional regional
distribution of the sample relative to the regional distribution of children in custody.
Nevertheless, the size of the sample was determined with a goal of making findings on a
statewide level, not at a regional level. It would not have been practical to have drawn a sample
large enough to provide meaningful findings both at a regional level and for the various Practice
Model implementation dates associated with these MSA requirements.
MSA §III.B.5.a. 5. Developing and Maintaining Connections
a. For all children entering foster care, a visitation plan for the child and his/her family shall be developed as part of the service plan. This visitation plan shall be developed and regularly updated in collaboration with parents, resource parents, and the child. If parental visitation is appropriate based on the above factors, this visitation plan shall include a minimum of two visits per month with the parents (unless a court order in the child’s case limits such visits). For all children, regardless of permanency goal, this visitation plan shall include at least one visit per month with any siblings not in the same placement (unless a court order in the child’s case limits such visits).
Status of Progress, MSA §III.B.5.a.: The Monitor makes no finding related to this
requirement. Defendants were required to report on their performance relative to this MSA
requirement during Period 4; however defendants are not required to satisfy the performance
levels indicated in this performance requirement until all regions have fully implemented the
Practice Model. Defendants produced data from MACWIS addressing performance related to
this requirement. Because of limitations in the MACWIS data, the Monitor was unable to
analyze data regarding defendants’ performance pertaining to this requirement during Period 4.
419 See supra at 138.
172

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 178 of 204
The parties agreed to measure progress related to certain aspects of this performance requirement
through a case record review during Period 6.420
MSA §§III.B.5.d.1. and III.B.5.e.1. 5. Developing and Maintaining Connections
d. Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 80% of foster children in that region shall be provided with contacts with their parents and with any siblings not in the same placement consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements, unless it is documented that a parent or sibling failed to make himself or herself available.
e. Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 90% of foster children in that region shall be provided with contacts with their parents and with any siblings not in the same placement consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements, unless it is documented that a parent or sibling failed to make himself or herself available.
Status of Progress, MSA §§III.B.5.d.1. and III.B.5.e.1.: As noted above, during Period
4, five regions fully implemented the Practice Model and three regions fully implemented the
Practice Model for at least 12 months and thus were responsible for satisfying the associated
performance standards. Defendants produced data from the FCR process addressing
performance related to this requirement. Certain changes were made to the PAD in December
2013 and April 2014, which impacted the data defendants collected related to this requirement.421
Thus, data derived from the FCR process for six-month periods ending before December 2013
are not precisely comparable to data derived from the FCR process after that date.422
None of the five regions that fully implemented during Period 4 satisfied the performance
requirement. Likewise, none of the three regions that fully implemented the Practice Model for
420 See App. B, Ex. 11A, supra note 184, Status of Gaps in Data Reports Required by January 8, 2014 Final Period 4 IP at Appendix 3, Report No. 7. 421 See supra note 317 for a discussion addressing how changes to the PAD impact defendants’ data collection. 422 The first monthly data submission produced by defendants included only data based on the changes made to the PAD in December 2013. The April 2014 data submission included performance data for the six-month period ending on October 31, 2014, after Period 4.
173

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 179 of 204

at least 12 months satisfied the performance requirement at the 12-month-post full implementation mark. The Monitor’s findings are summarized in the table below, which also includes for informational purposes updated performance data as of the end of Period 4 for the three regions that were 12-months-post full implementation:423

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/12 12 Months Following: 8/31/13 End of Period 4: 6/30/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 2/28/13 12 Months Following: 2/28/14 End of Period 4: 6/30/14

Start Date for Performance

I‐S

II‐W

V‐W

Performance Requirement

Measurement

MSA III.B.5. Developing and Maintaining Connections

Fi ndi ngs for Pra ctice

80%

Data

Data

Data unavailable before

Model Full Implementa tion Da te

unavailable unavailable October 2012; data analyzable

before October before October

as of April 2013

2012; data

2012; data

analyzable as of analyzable as

April 2013 of April 2013

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 8/31/14

III‐S

I‐N

IV‐N

IV‐S

2% (N=43) (8/31/13)

26% (N=27) 40% (N=25) 13% (N=23) (8/31/13) (8/31/13) (8/31/13)

Practice Model Full Implementation: 2/28/14 12 Months Following: 2/28/15
V‐E
16% (N=38) (2/28/14)

Fi ndi ngs for 12 Months Fol lowing Implementa tion Da te

90%

39% (N=67) (8/31/13)

0% (N=16) (8/31/13)

27% (N=22) (2/28/14)

40% (N=89) (6/30/14)

29% (N=17) (6/30/14)

31% (N=26) (6/30/14)

MSA §III.B.6.c. 6. Educational Services
c. DFCS shall make all 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.
Status of Progress, MSA §III.B.6.c.: The Monitor makes no findings related to
this requirement as of the end of Period 4. This performance measure is not triggered until all
regions have fully implemented the Practice Model. Defendants were required, however, to
report on their performance during Period 4.424 Because of the limitations in the data produced
by defendants, the parties agreed that this requirement would be subject to a case record review

423 Values in red in the table indicate that the underlying data were based on a mixture of questions from prior to and
subsequent to the December 2013 and April 2014 PAD changes. 424 Final Period 4 IP, Appendix 3 at Report No. 8.
174

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 180 of 204
during Period 5.425 The findings from the Period 5 case record review, which covered all
children in custody for at least 90 days, who entered custody between July 1, 2013 and December
31, 2014, will be presented in a forthcoming report. These findings indicate that this MSA
requirement was not satisfied.
MSA §§III.B.6.d.1. and III.B.6.e.1. 6. Educational Services
d. Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 80% of school-age foster children in that region who enter custody shall have their educational records reviewed and their educational needs documented by their DFCS caseworker within 30 calendar days of their entry into foster care.
e. Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 90% of school-age foster children in that region who enter custody shall have their educational records reviewed and their educational needs documented by their DFCS caseworker within 30 calendar days of their entry into foster care.
Status of Progress, MSA §§III.B.6.d.1. and III.B.6.e.1.: As noted above, during Period
4, five regions fully implemented the Practice Model and three regions fully implemented the
Practice Model for at least 12 months and thus were responsible for satisfying the associated
performance standards. Defendants produced data from the FCR process addressing
performance related to this requirement.
Among the five regions that fully implemented during Period 4, two regions satisfied the
performance requirement. One of the three regions that fully implemented the Practice Model for
at least 12 months satisfied the performance requirement at the 12-month-post full
implementation mark.426 The Monitor’s findings are summarized in the table below, which also
425 See App. B, Ex. 11A, supra note 184, Status of Gaps in Data Reports Required by January 28, 2014 Final Period 4 IP at Appendix 3, Report No. 8. 426 As indicated in the table, performance in this region – Region I-S – dropped below the required performance level at the end of Period 4.
175

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 181 of 204

includes for informational purposes updated performance data as of the end of Period 4 for the three regions that were 12-months-post full implementation:

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/12 12 Months Following: 8/31/13 End of Period 4: 6/30/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 2/28/13 12 Months Following: 2/28/14 End of Period 4: 6/30/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 8/31/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 2/28/14 12 Months Following: 2/28/15

Start Date for Performance Measurement

Performance Requirement

Findi ngs for Pra cti ce Model Ful l Impl ementation Date

80%

I‐S
54% (N=63) (8/31/12)

II‐W
57% (N=21) (8/31/12)

V‐W
69% (N=29) (2/28/13)

III‐S

I‐N

IV‐N

IV‐S

20% (N=56) 28% (N=29) 89% (N=28) 80% (N=25) (8/31/13) (8/31/13) (8/31/13) (8/31/13)

V‐E
45% (N=38) (2/28/14)

Findi ngs for 12 Months Foll owi ng Impl ementation Date

90%

90% (N=79) (8/31/13)

61% (N=18) (8/31/13)

48% (N=21) (2/28/14)

70% (N=90) (6/30/14)

41% (N=22) (6/30/14)

46% (N=26) (6/30/14)

MSA §§III.B.6.d.2. and III.B.6.e.2. 6. Educational Services
d. Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 2) At least 80% of school-age foster children in that region who enter custody or are subject to a change in schools due to a placement move shall be registered for and attending an accredited school within three business days of the initial placement or placement change, including while placed in shelters or other temporary placements, unless delayed by the Youth Court.
e. Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 2) At least 90% of school-age foster children in that region who enter custody or are subject to a change in schools due to a placement move shall be registered for and attending an accredited school within three business days of the initial placement or placement change, including while placed in shelters or other temporary placements, unless delayed by the Youth Court.
Status of Progress, MSA §§III.B.6.d.2. and III.B.6.e.2.: As noted above, during Period
4, five regions fully implemented the Practice Model and three regions fully implemented the
Practice Model for at least 12 months and thus were responsible for satisfying the associated
performance standards. Defendants produced data from the FCR process addressing
performance related to this requirement.

176

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 182 of 204

Among the five regions that fully implemented during Period 4, three regions satisfied the

performance requirement. One of the three regions that fully implemented the Practice Model for at least 12 months satisfied the performance requirement at the 12-month-post full implementation mark.427 The Monitor’s findings are summarized in the table below, which also includes for informational purposes updated performance data as of the end of Period 4 for the three regions that were 12-months-post full implementation:

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/12 12 Months Following: 8/31/13 End of Period 4: 6/30/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 2/28/13 12 Months Following: 2/28/14 End of Period 4: 6/30/14

Start Date for Performance

I‐S

II‐W

V‐W

Performance Requirement

Measurement

Findings for Pra cti ce Model Full Implementa tion Da te

80%

78% (N=55) (8/31/12)

44% (N=45) (8/31/12)

94% (N=17) (2/28/13)

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 8/31/14

III‐S

I‐N

IV‐N

IV‐S

64% (N=58) 79% (N=42) 89% (N=44) 83% (N=24) (8/31/13) (8/31/13) (8/31/13) (8/31/13)

Practice Model Full Implementation: 2/28/14 12 Months Following: 2/28/15
V‐E
80% (N=30) (2/28/14)

Findings for 12 Months Fol lowi ng Implementa tion Da te

90%

79% (N=52) (8/31/13)
85% (N=89) (6/30/14)

26% (N=27) (8/31/13)
43% (N=23) (6/30/14)

96% (N=24) (2/28/14)
90% (N=31) (6/30/14)

MSA §III.B.7.d. 7. Transition to Independent Living
d. DFCS shall assist youth in obtaining or compiling the following documents and such efforts shall be documented in the child’s case record: 1. an identification card; 2. a social security or social insurance number; 3. a resume, when work experience can be described; 4. a driver’s license, when the ability to drive is a goal; 5. an original copy of the youth’s birth certificate; 6. religious documents and information; 7. documentation of immigration, citizenship, or naturalization, when applicable; 8. documentation of tribal eligibility or membership; 9. death certificates when parents are deceased; 10. a life book or a compilation of personal history and photographs, as appropriate; 11. a list of known relatives, with relationships, addresses, telephone numbers, and permissions for contacting involved parties; 12. previous placement information; and

427 As indicated in the table, this region – Region V-W – sustained performance at the required performance level at the end of Period 4.
177

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 183 of 204
13. educational records, such as a high school diploma or general equivalency diploma, and a list of schools attended, when age-appropriate.
Status of Progress, MSA §III.B.7.d.: The Monitor makes no findings related to this
requirement. The parties have agreed that defendants’ performance relative to this subsection
will be measured in a case record review conducted during Period 6.428
MSA §§III.B.7.e.1. and III.B.7.f.1. 7. Transition to Independent Living
e. Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 90% of foster children in that region who are 1420 years old shall be provided with Independent Living services as set forth in their service plan.
f. Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 95% of foster children in that region who are 1420 years old shall be provided with Independent Living services as set forth in their service plan during the Period.
Status of Progress, MSA §§III.B.7.e.1. and III.B.7.f.1.: As noted above, during Period
4, five regions fully implemented the Practice Model and three regions fully implemented the
Practice Model for at least 12 months and thus were responsible for satisfying the associated
performance standards. Defendants produced data from MACWIS and the FCR process
addressing performance related to this requirement. Certain changes were made to the PAD in
December 2013, which impacted the data defendants collected related to this requirement.429
Thus data derived from the FCR process for six-month periods ending before December 2013 are
not precisely comparable to data derived from the FCR process after that date.430
428 See App. B, Ex. 11A, supra note 184, Status of Gaps in Data Reports Required by January 28, 2014 Final Period 4 IP at Appendix 3, Report No. 9. 429 See supra note 317 for a discussion addressing how changes to the PAD impact defendants’ data collection. 430 The first monthly data submission produced by defendants including only data based on the changes made to the PAD in December 2013 was the data submission for the six-month period ending on May 31, 2014.
178

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 184 of 204

None of the five regions that fully implemented during Period 4 satisfied the performance requirement. Furthermore, none of the three regions that fully implemented the Practice Model for at least 12 months satisfied the performance requirement at the 12-month-post full implementation mark. The Monitor’s findings are summarized in the table below, which also includes for informational purposes updated performance data as of the end of Period 4 for the three regions that were 12-months-post full implementation:431

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/12 12 Months Following: 8/31/13 End of Period 4: 6/30/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 2/28/13 12 Months Following: 2/28/14 End of Period 4: 6/30/14

Start Date for Performance

I‐S

II‐W

V‐W

Performance Requirement

Measurement

MSA III.B.7. Transition to Independent Living

Fi ndings for Pra cti ce Model Ful l Impl ementa tion Da te

90%

MACWIS Report: MACWIS Report:

66% (N=106)

68% (N=95)

PAD Report: 76% (N=49) (8/31/12)

PAD Report: 84% (N=55) (8/31/12)

MACWIS Report: 64% (N=87)
PAD Report: 83% (N=40) (2/28/13)

Fi ndings for 12 Months Fol l owi ng

95%

MACWIS Report: MACWIS Report:

63% (N=108)

75% (N=92)

Impl ementa tion Da te

PAD Report:

PAD Report:

83% (N=42)

87% (N=52)

(8/31/13)

(8/31/13)

MACWIS Report: 47% (N=55) PAD Report: 84% (N=32) (2/28/14)

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 8/31/14

III‐S

I‐N

IV‐N

IV‐S

MACWIS Report: 29% (N=272)

MACWIS Report: 40% (N=129)

MACWIS Report: 74% (N=76)

MACWIS Report: 36% (N=50)

PAD Report: 53% (N=96) (8/31/13)

PAD Report: 52% (N=52) (8/31/13)

PAD Report: 75% (N=36) (8/31/13)

PAD Report: 78% (N=23) (8/31/13)

Practice Model Full Implementation: 2/28/14 12 Months Following: 2/28/15
V‐E
MACWIS Report: 45% (N=103) PAD Report: 60% (N=40) (2/28/14)

MACWIS Report: 89% (N=101) PAD Report: 81% (N=47) (6/30/14)

MACWIS Report: 70% (N=93) PAD Report: 80% (N=35) (6/30/14)

MACWIS Report: 48% (N=62) PAD Report: 85% (N=34) (6/30/14)

MSA §§III.B.7.e.2. and III.B.7.f.2. 7. Transition to Independent Living
e. Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 2) At least 80% of foster children in that region who are transitioning to independence shall have available an adequate living arrangement, a source of income, health care, independent living stipends, and education and training vouchers. DFCS shall also assist such children in obtaining, prior to transitioning to independent living, the necessary documents and information identified in the COA standard PA-FC 13.06 for emancipating youth. Those efforts shall be documented in the child’s case record.

431 Values in red in the table indicate that the underlying data were based on a mixture of questions from prior to and subsequent to the December 2013 PAD changes.
179

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 185 of 204
f. Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 2) At least 90% of foster children in that region who are transitioning to independence shall have available an adequate living arrangement, a source of income, health care, independent living stipends, and education and training vouchers. DFCS shall assist such children in obtaining, prior to transitioning to independent living, the necessary documents and information identified in the COA standard PA-FC 13.06 for emancipating youth. Those efforts shall be documented in the child’s case record.
Status of Progress, MSA §§III.B.7.e.2. and III.B.7.f.2.: As noted above, during Period
4, five regions fully implemented the Practice Model and three regions fully implemented the
Practice Model for at least 12 months and thus were responsible for satisfying the associated
performance standards. Defendants produced data from the FCR process addressing
performance related to this requirement. Certain changes were made to the PAD in December
2013, which impacted the data defendants collected related to this requirement.432 Thus data
derived from the FCR process for the six-month periods ending before December 2013 are not
precisely comparable to data derived from the FCR process after that date.433
Among the five regions that fully implemented during Period 4, two regions satisfied the
performance requirement. One of the three regions that fully implemented the Practice Model for
at least 12 months satisfied the performance requirement at the 12-month-post full
implementation mark.434 The Monitor’s findings are summarized in the table below, which also
includes for informational purposes updated performance data as of the end of Period 4 for the
three regions that were 12-months-post full implementation:435
432 See supra note 317 for a discussion addressing how changes to the PAD impact defendants’ data collection. 433 The first monthly data submission produced by defendants including only data based on the changes made to the PAD in December 2013 was the data submission for the six-month period ending on May 31, 2014. 434 As indicated in the table, this region – Region V-W – did not satisfy the performance requirement four months later, at the end of Period 4. 435 Values in red in the table indicate that the underlying data were based on a mixture of questions from prior to and subsequent to the December 2013 PAD changes.
180

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 186 of 204

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/12 12 Months Following: 8/31/13 End of Period 4: 6/30/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 2/28/13 12 Months Following: 2/28/14 End of Period 4: 6/30/14

Start Date for Performance

I‐S

II‐W

V‐W

Performance Requirement

Measurement

Fi ndi ngs for Practi ce Model Full Impl ementati on Da te

80%

67% (N=9) (8/31/12)

50% (N=4) (8/31/12)

91% (N=11) (2/28/13)

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 8/31/14

III‐S

I‐N

IV‐N

IV‐S

60% (N=35) (8/31/13)

50% (N=4) (8/31/13)

100% (N=1) 100% (N=1) (8/31/13) (8/31/13)

Practice Model Full Implementation: 2/28/14 12 Months Following: 2/28/15
V‐E
33% (N=6) (2/28/14)

Fi ndi ngs for 12 Months Foll owing Impl ementati on Da te

90%

44% (N=9) (8/31/13)
80% (N=15) (6/30/14)

25% (N=4) (8/31/13)
0% (N=9) (6/30/14)

100% (N=2) (2/28/14)
67% (N=3) (6/30/14)

MSA §III.B.8.c. 8. Case Closing and Aftercare
c. Before the end of any trial home visit period, there shall be a final family team meeting, which shall include the child’s caseworker, the caseworker’s supervisor, the child, and the parent or relative assuming custody, to determine the appropriateness of a final discharge. If final discharge is determined to be appropriate, DFCS shall make the appropriate application to the court to be relieved of custody.
Status of Progress, MSA §III.B.8.c.: The Monitor makes no finding regarding
performance related to this requirement as of the end of Period 4. This requirement is not
triggered until all DFCS regions have fully implemented the Practice Model. The parties have
agreed the defendants’ performance relative to this requirement will be measured through a case
record review conducted during Period 6.436
MSA §§III.B.8.d.1. and III.B.8.e.1. 8. Case Closing and Aftercare
d. Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 70% of foster children in that region who are reunified and who were in custody longer than 90 days shall receive a 90-day trial home visit period or have case record documentation reflecting the Youth Court’s objection to such a trial home visit. During that trial home visit period, the child’s caseworker or a Family Preservation caseworker shall meet with the child in the home at least two times per month, and DFCS shall provide or facilitate access to all services identified in the child’s after-care plan, consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
436 See App. B, Ex. 11A, supra note 184, Status of Gaps in Data Reports Required by January 8, 2014 Final Period 4 IP at Appendix 3, Report No. 11.
181

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 187 of 204
e. Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 90% of foster children in that region who are reunified and who were in custody longer than 90 days shall receive a 90-day trial home visit period or have case record documentation reflecting the Youth Court’s objection to such a trial home visit. During that trial home visit period, the child’s caseworker shall meet with the child in the home at least two times per month, and DFCS shall provide or facilitate access to all services identified in the child’s after-care plan, consistent with Modified Settlement Agreement requirements.
Status of Progress, MSA §§III.B.8.d.1. and III.B.8.e.1.: As noted above, during Period 4, five regions fully implemented the Practice Model and three regions fully implemented the Practice Model for at least 12 months and thus were responsible for satisfying the associated performance standards. Defendants produced data from MACWIS addressing performance related to this requirement.
Defendants produced valid data regarding this requirement dating back only to September 2013, three months after the start of Period 4. Consequently, the Monitor was able to analyze defendants’ performance in one of the five regions that fully implemented the Practice Model during Period 4 and one of the three regions that fully implemented the Practice Model for at least 12 months during Period 4. As reflected in the table, below, neither region satisfied the applicable performance requirement.
182

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 188 of 204

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/12 12 Months Following: 8/31/13 End of Period 4: 6/30/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 2/28/13 12 Months Following: 2/28/14 End of Period 4: 6/30/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 8/31/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 2/28/14 12 Months Following: 2/28/15

Start Date for Performance

I‐S

II‐W

V‐W

III‐S

I‐N

IV‐N

IV‐S

V‐E

Performance Requirement

Measurement

Fi ndi ngs for Pra cti ce Model Ful l Impl ementa ti on Da te

70%

In September 2014 In September 2014 In September 2014 defendants

In September

defendants

defendants submitted corrected data, dating back 2014 defendants

submitted

submitted

only to September 2013

submitted

corrected data, corrected data,

corrected data,

dating back only to dating back only to

dating back only

September 2013 September 2013

to September

2013

In September 2014 defendants
submitted corrected data, dating back only to September
2013

In September 2014 defendants
submitted corrected data, dating back only to September
2013

In September 2014 defendants
submitted corrected data, dating back only to September
2013

50% (N=2) (2/28/14)

Fi ndi ngs for 12 Months Fol l owi ng Impl ementa ti on Da te

90%

In September In September

2014 defendants 2014 defendants

submitted

submitted

corrected data, corrected data,

dating back only dating back only

to September to September

2013

2013

0% (N=1) (2/28/14)
0% (N=3) (6/30/14)

80% (N=15) (6/30/14)

75% (N=4) (6/30/14)

MSA §§III.C.1.a.1. and III.C.1.b.1. 1. Reunification
a. Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 60% of foster children in that region who are discharged from custody and reunified with their parents or caretakers shall be reunified within 12 months of the latest removal from home.
b. Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 70% of foster children in that region who are discharged from custody and reunified with their parents or caretakers shall be reunified within 12 months of the latest removal from home.
Status of Progress, MSA §§III.C.1.a.1. and III.C.1.b.1.: As noted above, during
Period 4, five regions fully implemented the Practice Model and three regions fully implemented
the Practice Model for at least 12 months and thus were responsible for satisfying the associated
performance standards. Defendants produced data from MACWIS addressing performance
related to this requirement.
Among the five regions that fully implemented during Period 4, three regions satisfied the
performance requirement. None of the three regions that fully implemented the Practice Model
for at least 12 months satisfied the performance requirement at the 12-month-post full
183

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 189 of 204

implementation mark.437 The Monitor’s findings are summarized in the table below, which also includes for informational purposes updated performance data as of the end of Period 4 for the three regions that were 12-months-post full implementation:

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/12 12 Months Following: 8/31/13 End of Period 4: 6/30/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 2/28/13 12 Months Following: 2/28/14 End of Period 4: 6/30/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 8/31/14

Start Date for Performance

I‐S

II‐W

V‐W

III‐S

I‐N

IV‐N

IV‐S

Performance Requirement

Measurement

Fi ndi ngs for Pra cti ce Model Ful l Implementa tion Da te

60%

56% (N=151) (8/31/12)

43% (N=40) (8/31/12)

59% (N=29) (2/28/13)

73% (N=126) 69% (N=112) 50% (N=60) 62% (N=55) (8/31/13) (8/31/13) (8/31/13) (8/31/13)

Practice Model Full Implementation: 2/28/14 12 Months Following: 2/28/15
V‐E
47% (N=83) (2/28/14)

Fi ndi ngs for 12 Months Foll owing Implementa tion Da te

70%

55% (N=122) 44% (N=36)

(8/31/13)

(8/31/13)

42% (N=36) (2/28/14)

73% (N=123) (6/30/14)

51% (N=49) (6/30/14)

37% (N=35) (6/30/14)

MSA §§III.C.2.a.1. and III.C.2.b.1. 2. Time of Adoption Finalization
a. Beginning by the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 25% of foster children in that region who are discharged upon finalization of an adoption shall have had the adoption finalized within 24 months of the latest removal from home.
b. Beginning by 12 months following the date set forth in Appendix "A" that a DFCS region has fully implemented the Practice Model: 1) At least 30% of foster children in that region who are discharged upon finalization of an adoption shall have had the adoption finalized within 24 months of the latest removal from home.
Status of Progress, MSA §§III.C.2.a.1. and III.C.2.b.1.: As noted above, during
Period 4, five regions fully implemented the Practice Model and three regions fully implemented
the Practice Model for at least 12 months and thus were responsible for satisfying the associated
performance standards. Defendants produced data from MACWIS addressing performance
related to this requirement.

437 As indicated in the table, one region – Region I-S – subsequently satisfied the performance requirement at the end of Period 4.
184

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 190 of 204

None of the five regions that fully implemented during Period 4 satisfied the performance requirement. One of the three regions that fully implemented the Practice Model for at least 12 months satisfied the performance requirement at the 12-month-post full implementation mark.438 The Monitor’s findings are summarized in the table below, which also includes for informational purposes updated performance data as of the end of Period 4 for the three regions that were 12months-post full implementation:

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/12 12 Months Following: 8/31/13 End of Period 4: 6/30/14

Practice Model Full Implementation: 2/28/13 12 Months Following: 2/28/14 End of Period 4: 6/30/14

Start Date for Performance

I‐S

II‐W

V‐W

Performance Requirement

Measurement

Fi ndings for Pra cti ce Model Ful l Implementa ti on Da te

25%

42% (N=52) (8/31/12)

15% (N=13) (8/31/12)

50% (N=22) (2/28/13)

Fi ndings for 12 Months Fol lowi ng Implementa ti on Da te

30%

29% (N=62) (8/31/13)

9% (N=22) (8/31/13)

45% (N=11) (2/28/14)

Practice Model Full Implementation: 8/31/13 12 Months Following: 8/31/14

III‐S

I‐N

IV‐N

IV‐S

0% (N=13) (8/31/13)

17% (N=36) 0% (N=22) (8/31/13) (8/31/13)

8% (N=13) (8/31/13)

Practice Model Full Implementation: 2/28/14 12 Months Following: 2/28/15
V‐E
13% (N=15) (2/28/14)

28% (N=54) (6/30/14)

0% (N=15) (6/30/14)

45% (N=11) (6/30/14)

MSA §IV. COA ACCREDITATION DFCS’s foster care services shall be accredited by COA pursuant to COA’s relevant management and service standards.
Status of Progress, MSA §IV.: The Monitor makes no finding related to this MSA
requirement at this time, pending a final decision on accreditation by the COA Accreditation
Commission, which is expected within the next several months. Nevertheless, at this juncture, it
appears likely DFCS will not be accredited by COA. On March 26, 2015, defendants were
informed by COA’s Chief Executive Officer that COA recognized, respected and applauded the
work that DFCS regional staff have devoted to the accreditation process, but that DFCS would be
unable to achieve accreditation by the July 2015 deadline that has been established by COA

438 As indicated in the table, this region – Region V-W – sustained its performance at the end of Period 4.
185

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 191 of 204
because of the failure to meet certain COA standards, including standards related to MACWIS and “pervasive, ongoing issues with assessment and service planning.”439
IV. CONCLUSION In May 2014, the Monitor reported that defendants’ Period 3 performance levels
“underscore the need for defendants to act with far greater urgency to marshal the resources and build the necessary capacity to meet the requirements of the MSA.”440 The evidence from defendants’ performance during Period 4 supports the identical conclusion. To date, defendants have demonstrated an inability to meet most of the requirements of the MSA.
While there was evidence of certain capacity building during Period 3, including progress hiring caseworkers, revisions to policies and procedures, and the establishment of a viable preservice and in-service training program, Period 4 was marked more by backsliding in areas in which defendants previously made progress and reactive responses to urgent issues, rather than strategic organizational advancement. For example, unlike Period 3, during Period 4, defendants experienced a net loss of caseworker and supervisory staff. Furthermore, in response to staffing shortages, defendants reallocated resources that were created to fuel their reform effort by temporarily reassigning, for substantial time periods, key management and coaching staff who were central to the implementation of the Practice Model, a cornerstone of the DFCS regional reform initiative.
There is little evidence at this point that the regional strategy that defendants have adopted is positioning them to satisfy the MSA’s standards. The temporary relief from statewide requirements afforded by the MSA is almost at an end. Because of an unresolved dispute
439 App. B, Ex. 33, March 26, 2015 correspondence from Richard Klarberg to Richard Berry and related March 26, 2015 e-mail from Richard Klarberg to Richard Berry. 440 See May 2014 Report at 220.
186

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 192 of 204
between the parties, an effort intended to address the acute need to better manage the reform effort, the establishment of a Director of Sustainable Transformation position and related initiatives, was never implemented. Corrective action and accountability systems with a documented history of shortcomings remain deficient. Actions that defendants are implementing presently to improve performance, including the recent development of regional improvement plans, are limited and not likely to address the breadth and depth of defendants’ long-standing performance deficits in a minimally adequate way.
Behind each performance indicator presented in this report are the lives of children, and their safety, well being and placement in permanent and nurturing homes depends on defendants’ ability to build a system that protects and safeguards them. To be sure, there are innumerable dedicated staff at every level of DFCS who work every day in the interests of the children in defendants’ care. But these staff, in sufficient numbers, must have the tools necessary to do their jobs, essential supports, and the oversight needed to ensure consistent, quality service delivery.
Since 2008, the parties and the Court have attempted a wide array of remedial strategies. The original Settlement Agreement proved too ambitious for defendants to implement, and after two and a half years without meaningful progress, the parties agreed to a much narrower, shorterterm set of interim requirements embodied in the Bridge Plan, which the Court approved. Thereafter, the Court ordered the parties to craft a new approach, which would ultimately result in the MSA. The MSA represented a more manageable strategy for system-wide reform with a new business model, allowing defendants to focus on parts of the state over long periods of time, with substantial assistance from external consultants. When long-overdue performance data became available indicating that defendants’ performance under the MSA was falling short, the
187

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 193 of 204
parties agreed on a remedial initiative intended to modify the DFCS management structure. Although ordered by the Court, this remedy was never implemented.
The parties and the Court must now consider this history to develop a remedial strategy that promises far more success than defendants have achieved since 2008. It is imperative to address the ongoing limitations in defendants’ performance on an urgent basis. The Monitor stands ready to immediately assist the Court and the parties with this necessary undertaking.
Respectfully submitted,
_________/ s / _______________________ Grace M. Lopes (MBN 45693 pro hac vice) Court Monitor 1220 19th Street, N.W. Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 232-8311 gmlopes@oymonitor.org
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on June 15, 2015, the Court Monitor’s Report to the Court Regarding Implementation Period 4, was transmitted electronically to the following counsel of record in this matter: Dewitt L. (“Rusty”) Fortenberry Jr. Kenya Key Rachal Ashley Tullos Young Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC 428 I-55 North Meadowbrook Office Park Jackson, Mississippi 39211
188

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 194 of 204
Harold E. Pizzetta, III Assistant Attorney General General Civil Division Carroll Gartin Justice Building 430 High Street Jackson, MS 39201 W. Wayne Drinkwater, Jr. Michael J. Bentley BRADLEY ARANT ROSE & WHITE LLP 188 East Capital Street, Suite 450 Jackson, Mississippi 39201 Marcia Robinson Lowry Sara Robinson Glasser A Better Childhood, Inc. 1095 Hardscrabble Road Chappaqua, NY 10514 Christian D. Carbone Dan Friedman LOEB & LOEB LLP 345 Park Ave. New York, New York 10154
_________/ s / _______________
Grace M. Lopes
189

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 195 of 204

Index to Exhibits

Appendix A

App. A, Ex. 1A June 24, 2013 Order, Attachment Two

App. A, Ex. 1B Initial Period 4 Implementation Plan, Appendix 1

App. A, Ex. 1C Final Period 4 Implementation Plan, Appendix 3

App. A, Ex. 2A Status of Data Reports Required By June 24, 2013 Order and Initial Period 4 Implementation Plan, Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor Based on DFCS Data

App. A, Ex. 2B Status of Data Reports Required By July 18, 2013 Initial Period 4 IP, Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor Based on DFCS Data

App. A, Ex. 2C Status of Data Reports Required By January 8, 2014 Final Period 4 IP, Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor Based on DFCS Data

App. A, Ex. 3

Summary Table: Statewide Performance for Period 4 through June 30, 2014 Based on Analyses of Data Received Through March 24, 2015, Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor Based on DFCS Data

App. A, Ex. 4

Summary Table: Practice Model Performance through June 30, 2014 Based on Analyses of Data Received Through March 24, 2015, Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor Based on DFCS Data

App. A, Ex. 5A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Caseworkers With Mixed Caseloads Meeting MSA Requirements, By Region, One-Day Snapshot 10/14/14

App. A, Ex. 5B Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Caseworkers With Dedicated Caseloads Meeting MSA Requirements, By Region, One-Day Snapshot 10/14/14

App. A, Ex. 6

Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Supervisors Responsible For Supervising DFCS Caseworkers Meeting MSA Requirements, By Region, One-Day Snapshot 10/14/14

App. A, Ex. 7A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Pre-Service Training Status As Of September 30, 2014 Among Newly Hired Caseworkers, By Position Start Date, One Year Period Ending 6/30/14

App. A, Ex 7B

Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Pre-Service Training Status Among ASWSs Newly Hired or Promoted Into Position During Period 4 Through September 30, 2014, By Position Start Date, One-Year Period Ending 6/30/14

Index-1

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 196 of 204

App. A, Ex. 8A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Ongoing In-Service Training Received By Caseworkers, By Region, Annual Report Ending 6/30/14

App. A, Ex. 8B Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Ongoing In-Service Training Received By ASWSs, By Region, Annual Report Ending 6/30/14

App. A, Ex. 9

Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Licensed Resource Families Receiving The Minimum Reimbursement Rate Established Pursuant To The MSA, By Region, One-Month Period Ending 6/30/14

App. A, Ex. 10 Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, DFCS Review of Maltreatment In Care Investigations, One-Month Periods Ending 7/31/13 Through 6/30/14

App. A, Ex. 11

Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Maltreatment Investigations Initiated Within 24 Hours And Completed With Supervisory Approval Within 30 Days, By Region, By Month Investigation Initiated, One-Month Periods Ending 6/30/13 and 6/30/14

App. A, Ex. 12

Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children In Custody Remaining In The Same Placement Following Maltreatment Investigation Who Met Face-To-Face With Worker Twice In A One-Month Period (Or At Least Once If 15 Days Or Less) For Three Months Following Completed Maltreatment Investigation, By Region, One-Month Periods Ending 6/30/13 and 6/30/14

App. A, Ex. 13

Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Licensure Investigations Of Agency Group Homes, Emergency Shelters, And Private Child Placing Agency Resource Homes, One Month Periods Ending 8/31/13 Through 6/30/14

App. A, Ex. 14A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Under Age 10 Housed In A Congregate Care Setting With And Without Exception And Regional Director Approval, By Region, One-Month Periods Ending 6/30/13 and 6/30/14

App. A, Ex. 14B Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Number Of Sibling Groups With At Least One Sibling Under Age 10 Placed In Congregate Care Housing For More Than 45 Days, One-Month Periods Ending 6/30/13 and 6/30/14

App. A, Ex. 15A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Placed In Unlicensed Foster Care Settings That Do Not Meet DFCS Licensure Standards And Children Placed In Expedited Pending Relative Resource Homes For More Than 90 Days, One-Month Periods Ending 6/30/13 and 6/30/14

Index-2

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 197 of 204

App. A, Ex. 15B Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Placed Or Remaining In A Foster Care Setting Meeting DFCS Licensure Standards Consistent With MSA Requirements, Unless Ordered By The Youth Court Over DFCS Objections, Six-Month Periods Ending 6/30/13 and 6/30/14

App. A, Ex. 16 Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children In Emergency Shelter Or Temporary Facility For Over 45 Days With And Without Approval, By Region, One-Month Periods Ending 6/30/13 and 6/30/14

App. A, Ex. 17 Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Placed In Least Restrictive Setting That Meets Their Individual Needs, By Region, Six-Month Periods Ending 6/30/13 and 6/30/14

App. A, Ex. 18 Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Sibling Groups Who Entered Custody At Or Around The Same Time Placed Together, By Region, 12-Month Periods Ending 6/30/13 and 6/30/14

App. A, Ex. 19

Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children For Whom Their Resource Parents Or Facility Staff Were Provided The Foster Care Information Form Within 15 Days of Placement, By Region, Six-Month Periods Ending 6/30/13 and 6/30/14

App. A, Ex 20

Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Percentage Of Children Who Entered DFCS Custody Who Were Placed Within Own County Or Within 50 Miles Of The Home From Which Removed Consistent With MSA Requirements, By Region, One-Month Periods Ending 6/30/13 and 6/30/14

App. A, Ex. 21 Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Entering Custody Who Received An Initial Health Screening Within 72 Hours After Placement, 12-Month Periods Ending 6/30/13 and 6/30/14

App. A, Ex. 22 Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children In Custody 30+ Days Who Received A Comprehensive Health Assessment Within 30 Days Of Placement, 12-Month Periods Ending 6/30/13 and 6/30/14

App. A, Ex. 23

Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Three Years Old And Older Who Received A Dental Examination Within 90 Calendar Days Of Placement And Children Who Turned Three While In Custody And Received A Dental Examination Within 90 Calendar Days Of Their Third Birthday, By Region, Six Month Periods Ending 6/30/13 and 6/30/14

App. A, Ex. 24

Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Ages Three And Older At The Start Of The Period Under Review Who Were Provided A Dental Exam Every Six Months, By Region, Six-Month Periods Ending 6/30/13 and 6/30/14

Index-3

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 198 of 204

App. A, Ex. 25

Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Percentage Of Children Four Years Old Or Older Entering Custody During The Period Who Received A Mental Health Assessment Within 30 Days Of Placement, By Region, Six-Month Periods Ending 6/30/13 and 6/30/14

App. A, Ex. 26 Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Twice Monthly InPerson Visits With Child By Assigned Caseworkers, By Region, OneMonth Periods Ending 6/30/13 and 6/30/14

App. A, Ex. 27

Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children With A Goal Of Reunification Whose Assigned Caseworker Met Monthly With The Parent(s) With Whom The Child Was To Be Reunified, By Region, OneMonth Period Ending 6/30/14

App. A, Ex. 28A Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Non-Therapeutic Placement Setting Contacts, By Region, One-Month Periods Ending 6/30/13 and 6/30/14

App. A, Ex. 28B Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Content And Frequency Of Non-Therapeutic Placement Setting Contacts, By Region, Six-Month Periods Ending 6/30/13 and 6/30/14

App. A, Ex. 29 Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Content and Frequency Of Therapeutic Placement Setting Contacts, By Region, Six-Month Periods Ending 6/30/13 and 6/30/14

App. A, Ex. 30 Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Number Of Children In Custody Fewer Than 12 Months From Latest Removal From Home, By Number Of Placements, 12-Month Periods Ending 6/30/13 and 6/30/14

Appendix B
App. B, Ex. 1 Final Specification for Mixed Caseload Data Report
App. B, Ex. 2 June 11, 2014 e-mail from Grace M. Lopes to Rusty Fortenberry, et al., redacted
App. B, Ex. 3A Final Specification for Direct Service Workload Report
App. B, Ex. 3B Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, August 2013, redacted excerpt
App. B, Ex. 3C Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, September 2013, redacted excerpt
App. B, Ex. 3D Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, November 2013, excerpt, redacted
Index-4

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 199 of 204

App. B, Ex. 3E Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, December 2013, excerpt, redacted

App. B, Ex. 3F Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, February 2014, excerpt, redacted

App. B, Ex. 3G Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, March 2014, excerpt, redacted

App. B, Ex. 3H Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, June 2014, excerpt, redacted

App. B, Ex. 3I Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, July 2014, excerpt, redacted

App. B, Ex. 3J Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, May 2014, excerpts, redacted

App. B, Ex. 3K ACF Performance Progress Report, excerpt, submitted by DFCS to the Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau on April 30, 2014

App. B, Ex. 3L May 30, 2013 correspondence from Richard A. Berry to Bernard Morgan and Taffy B. Compain with attached excerpt from renewal application for federal assistance

App. B, Ex. 4

Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Family & Children’s Services, PowerPoint presentation for regional recruitment teams

App. B, Ex. 5

Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Family & Children’s Services, Position Announcements

App. B, Ex. 6A February 26, 2014 correspondence from Richard A. Berry to Deanne Mosley

App. B, Ex. 6B DHS Area Social Work Supervisor, Job Description

App. B, Ex. 7A DHS-Area Social Work Supv, Position Announcement, Hancock County

App. B, Ex. 7B DHS-Area Social Work Supv, Position Announcement, Harrison County

App. B, Ex. 7C DHS-Area Social Work Supv, Position Announcement, Hinds County

App. B, Ex. 7D DHS-Area Social Work Supv, Position Announcement, Jackson County

Index-5

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 200 of 204
App. B, Ex. 8 February 3, 2014 e-mails from Gwen Long to Julia Davis and Grace M. Lopes with attached salary chart and related documents
App. B, Ex. 9A Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, January 2014, excerpt, redacted
App. B, Ex. 9B Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, February 2014, excerpt, redacted
App. B, Ex. 9C Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, March 2014, excerpt, redacted
App. B, Ex. 9D Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, April 2014, excerpt, redacted
App. B, Ex. 9E Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, February and June 2014, excerpts, redacted
App. B, Ex. 9F Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, March 2014, excerpt, redacted
App. B, Ex. 9G Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, February and March 2014, excerpts, redacted
App. B, Ex. 9H Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, April 2014, excerpt, redacted
App. B, Ex. 9I Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, May 2014, excerpt, redacted
App. B, Ex. 9J Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, February, March, and April 2014, excerpts, redacted
App. B, Ex. 9K Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, March, April, May, and June 2014, excerpts, redacted
App. B, Ex. 9L Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, May and June 2014, excerpts, redacted
App. B, Ex. 9M Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, May and June 2014, excerpts, redacted
App. B, Ex. 9N Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, February 2014, excerpt, redacted
App. B, Ex. 9O Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, April and July 2014, excerpts, redacted
Index-6

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 201 of 204

App. B, Ex. 9P Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, April and July 2014, excerpts, redacted

App. B, Ex. 9Q Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, October 2013, redacted excerpt

App. B, Ex. 9R Monthly Status Report – Practice Model Implementation, January and June 2014, excerpts, redacted

App. B, Ex. 10

March 5, 2014 e-mail from Gwen Long to Julia Davis and Grace M. Lopes with attached DFCS CQI Corrective Action Tracking Process, redacted

App. B, Ex. 11A February 2, 2015 e-mail from Grace M. Lopes to Kenya Rachal and Sara Glasser with attached tables

App. B, Ex. 11B February 24, 2015 e-mail from Kenya Rachal to Grace M. Lopes, Sara Glasser and Mark Jordan

App. B, Ex. 11C March 9, 2015 e-mail from Sara Glasser to Grace M. Lopes and Kenya Rachal

App. B, Ex. 12A Periodic Administrative Review Work Shop, Center for Support of Families, training materials

App. B, Ex. 12B Cheat Sheet 1: PAD Questions that Require Documentation of Answer Response

App. B, Ex. 12C Cheat Sheet 2: Incorrect Answer Responses

App. B, Ex. 12D Cheat Sheet 4: PAD Questions that Require Corrective Action of Answer Response

App. B, Ex. 12E Cheat Sheet 3: PAD Reports with Accompanying Questions

App. B, Ex. 13 Notes from FCR-PAD QA Discussion with Template for Documentation

App. B, Ex. 14 March 3, 2014 e-mail from Gwen Long to Julia Davis and Grace M. Lopes with attached SACWIS Project Planning Schedule

App. B, Ex. 15

April 6, 2015 e-mail from Diane Mobley to Grace M. Lopes with attached New SACWIS Project Timeline Starting with Phase II and New SACWIS Project Timeline Starting with Phase III

App. B, Ex. 16A Project Number 40123, Professional Services Agreement Between Maximus Human Services, Inc. and Mississippi Department of Information Technology Services as Contracting Agent for the Mississippi Department of Human Services

Index-7

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 202 of 204

App. B, Ex. 16B Council on Accreditation, Remedial Site Visit – Commission Report, Division of Family and Children’s Services Region: 1-North, Corinth, MS, excerpt

App. B, Ex. 17

Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children’s Services, Mississippi Automated Child Welfare Information System Connectivity and Response Time Improvement Plan

App. B, Ex. 18 MACWIS Down Time Tracking 2012

App. B, Ex. 19

March 30, 2015 e-mail from Diane Mobley to Grace M. Lopes with attached MACWIS Down Time Tracking 2014 and MACWIS Down Time Tracking 2015

App. B, Ex. 20 April 14, 2015 e-mail from Mark Allen to Grace M. Lopes and April 14, 2015 e-mail from Grace M. Lopes to Mark Allen, without attachments

App. B, Ex. 21 March 31, 2014 correspondence from Dewitt L. (“Rusty”) Fortenberry, Jr. to Marcia Lowry

App. B, Ex. 22 April 30, 2014 e-mail from Gwen Long to Julia Davis and Grace M. Lopes with attached Summary for MIC Review Report

App. B, Ex. 23A Diane DePanfilis, Ph.D., M.S.W., Curriculum Vitae

App. B, Ex. 23B Sarah Kaye, Ph.D., Curriculum Vitae

App. B, Ex. 23C June 3, 2014 e-mail from Grace M. Lopes to Kenya Rachal and Julia Davis

App. B, Ex. 23D Sarah Kaye, Ph.D. and Diane DePanfilis, Ph.D., MSW, Maltreatment in Out-of-Home Care in Mississippi, June 2014

App. B, Ex. 24

December 23, 2014 e-mail from Gwen Long to Marcia Lowry and Grace M. Lopes with attached December 1, 2014 memorandum, Maltreatment in Care Investigation Timeliness

App. B, Ex. 25A November 13, 2013 correspondence from Kenya Key Rachal to Grace M. Lopes with attached Protocol for Accurately Identifying and Producing Maltreatment Investigative Reports to the Court Monitor

App. B, Ex. 25B November 18, 2013 e-mail from Grace M. Lopes to Kenya Key Rachal and Julia Davis, without attachment

App. B, Ex. 26A February 18, 2014 correspondence from Kenya Key Rachal to Julia Davis, without attachments

Index-8

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 203 of 204

App. B, Ex. 26B February 10, 2014 memorandum to Olivia Y Court Monitor Grace Lopes and Julia Davis of Children’s Rights Inc. with attached Maltreatment in Care Investigation Timeliness Table

App. B, Ex. 26C February 24, 2014 e-mail from Grace M. Lopes to Kenya Rachal without attachments

App. B, Ex. 26D July 11, 2014 e-mail from Gwen Long to Julia Davis and Grace M. Lopes with attached Timely Initiation and Completion of Maltreatment in Care Investigations (MSA Section II.B.1.e.2)

App. B, Ex. 27A July 9, 2014 e-mail from Gwen Long to Julia Davis and Grace M. Lopes, without attachments

App. B, Ex. 27B July 2, 2014 memorandum to Olivia Y. Court Monitor Grace Lopes and Julia Davis of Children’s Rights Inc., Reduction of Maltreatment in Care

App. B, Ex. 27C December 23, 2014 e-mail from Gwen Long to Marcia Lowry and Grace M. Lopes with attached December 15, 2014 memorandum to Olivia Y. Court Monitor and Parties regarding Maltreatment in Care Reduction

App. B, Ex. 28A March 17, 2014 correspondence from Kim Shackelford to Grace M. Lopes, without attachments

App. B, Ex. 28B Timely Case Planning Barriers and Strategies, March 17, 2014

App. B, Ex. 28C Parents and Sibling Contacts While in Custody Barriers and Strategies, March 17, 2014

App. B, Ex. 28D Region VII-West Improvement Plan Period IV - March 2014

App. B, Ex. 28E Region III-South Improvement Plan Period IV - March 2014

App. B, Ex. 29 October 14, 2014 correspondence from Marilyn Tavenner to David J. Dzielak, Ph.D.

App. B, Ex. 30 August 8, 2013 e-mail from Ashley C. Tullos to Julia Davis, Miriam Ingber, and Grace M. Lopes with attached memorandum to MDHS Therapeutic Group Homes

App. B, Ex. 31

Appendix “D” Modified Mississippi Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan, Mississippi Diligent Recruitment of Families for Children, Implementation Plan - Phase II, Version A

App. B, Ex. 32

ACF Performance Progress Report, excerpt, submitted by DFCS to the Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau on October 31, 2014 for the sixmonth reporting period ending September 30, 2014

Index-9

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 655 Filed 06/15/15 Page 204 of 204 App. B, Ex. 33 March 26, 2015 correspondence from Richard Klarberg to Richard Berry
and related March 26, 2015 e-mail from Richard Klarberg to Richard Berry
Index-10

 
 Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 664 Filed 07/23/15 Page 1 of 6

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION

JAMES D. JOHNSON, as next friend to Olivia Y., et al.

PLAINTIFFS

vs.

CIVIL ACTION NO: 3:04-CV-251-TSL-FKB

PHIL BRYANT, as Governor of the State of Mississippi, et al.

DEFENDANTS

AGREED ORDER CONTINUING THE HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS' RENEWED MOTION FOR CONTEMPT
The parties have filed a joint motion to continue the evidentiary hearing scheduled to commence on August 10, 2015 on the Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Contempt and for Appointment of a Receiver (“Motion for Contempt”) [Dkt. 622]. The Court finds that the joint motion is well taken and should be granted.
THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that the parties’ joint motion is GRANTED; and it is further
ORDERED, that the August 10, 2015 hearing shall be continued as described herein; and it is further
ORDERED, as follows: The Division of Family and Children’s Services 1. On or before July 24, 2015, the Defendants will retain Public Catalyst to conduct an organizational analysis of the current Mississippi Department of Human Services ("MDHS") Division of Family and Children’s Services ("DFCS") with regard to its provision of child welfare and foster care services. Unless for good cause shown, the organizational analysis and a

1

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 664 Filed 07/23/15 Page 2 of 6
Final Organizational Analysis Report will be completed within four months from the date that
Public Catalyst is retained.
2. The organizational analysis will include the following:
a. recommending an optimal DFCS structure, including whether DFCS should be a free-standing agency, its new organizational structure, and to what extent privatization should be utilized;
b. reviewing and considering the findings and recommendations made in the Court Monitor’s Reports on Implementation Periods 3 and 4;
c. evaluating the areas in which MDHS and/or DFCS have not complied with the Modified Mississippi Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan ("MSA") [Dkt. 571] and recommending steps necessary to achieve substantial compliance;
d. reviewing the current positions and salary structure in DFCS, and recommending additional positions, if any, necessary for its effective functioning, and salary levels necessary to hire and retain qualified personnel for all DFCS positions, including salary levels for the senior level management team for the Executive Director;
e. recommending the management and accountability structure within DFCS;
f. evaluating and analyzing the current caseload measurements in the MSA and determining the most appropriate caseload measurements for workers with dedicated and mixed caseloads;
g. designing a plan for a needs assessment for services for children in care, their families of origin, and for foster and adoptive families, as well as a process to implement the needs assessment, including timetables;
h. reviewing at the statewide and regional levels DFCS's data-collection and analysis capacities, as well as its capacity to use data for performance management, and recommending both short and long-term solutions for strengthening each capacity as needed to support substantial compliance with the MSA;
i. consulting with the Governor regarding the qualifications, level of compensation, and the timing for hiring an Executive Director of DFCS;
j. recommending qualified candidates to serve as the Executive Director of DFCS; and
2

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 664 Filed 07/23/15 Page 3 of 6
k. working with a representative designated by the Defendants in ongoing discussions concerning the development of the recommendations contemplated herein.
Public Catalyst will have access to all information that is necessary to conduct the tasks described above.
3. As soon as practical, the Governor's Office will hire an Executive Director of DFCS from among those candidates deemed qualified by Public Catalyst. The DFCS Executive Director position will be a cabinet-level position that reports directly to the Governor. The DFCS Executive Director will be responsible for the management of DFCS and compliance with the MSA. The applicable state salary limits will be waived to facilitate the hiring of the DFCS Executive Director. The salary of the DFCS Executive Director will be determined by the Governor after consultation with Public Catalyst.
4. The DFCS Executive Director will be authorized to hire the members of a senior level management team which will report directly to him or her. The applicable state salary limits for the senior level management team will be waived to facilitate the hiring of the team members. The salaries for the team members will be determined by the Governor and DFCS Executive Director.
5. The DFCS Executive Director and senior level management team will have direct authority and oversight of all DFCS employees in their respective areas of responsibility.
6. Within three weeks of the date the Final Organizational Analysis Report is issued, the parties will negotiate a Court-enforceable Remedial Order based on the recommendations of Public Catalyst. If the parties agree to a Remedial Order, the Defendants will take all necessary steps to comply with its terms, including the timeframes set forth therein. If the parties are unable to agree to a Remedial Order or Public Catalyst withdraws from
3

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 664 Filed 07/23/15 Page 4 of 6
conducting the organizational analysis described in paragraph 2, above, the Plaintiffs may immediately seek a remedial hearing with the Court on their Motion for Contempt.
7. To the extent necessary, the Governor will call a special session of the legislature to consider changes in the law and additional appropriations to support the reorganization of DFCS1 and to support the provisions of the Remedial Order and the recommendations of Public Catalyst.
DFCS Advisory Group 8. For not less than three years following the filing date of the Remedial Order referenced in paragraph 3, above, the DFCS Executive Director will consult with an Advisory Group of three experts to be nominated through a collaborative process by the Plaintiffs and the Court Monitor and acceptable to the Executive Director whose approval will not be unreasonably withheld. The Advisory Group will provide technical assistance and consultation to the Executive Director regarding DFCS operations necessary to achieve substantial compliance with the MSA. Resolution of the Motion for Contempt 9. Based on the Monitor’s Periods 3 and 4 Reports, the Defendants do not contest a finding of non-compliance with the MSA and the Period 3 and Period 4 Implementation Plans (“IPs”). 10. If the Defendants do not comply with the terms of this Order, or the Remedial Order referenced in paragraph 3, above, the Plaintiffs may immediately seek a hearing on the remedial portion of their pending Motion for Contempt. Defendants' noncompliance with the MSA and the Period 3 and Period 4 IPs will be a sufficient basis for the Plaintiffs to submit
1 This is not intended to limit the Governor from also proposing necessary legislation during a general session of the legislature, nor does it mean that future issues related to DFCS will be restricted to presentation during special sessions of the legislature.
4

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 664 Filed 07/23/15 Page 5 of 6
evidence and argument to the Court concerning any available remedy at the remedial hearing,
including the creation of a receivership. The Defendants reserve their right to present evidence
and argument in defense against or in favor of any remedy, except that Defendants may not
argue that the finding of non-compliance, rather than contempt, legally precludes the imposition
of a receivership.
SO ORDERED this 23rd day of July, 2015.
/s/Tom S. Lee_________________________ SENIOR JUDGE, TOM S. LEE
AGREED:
FOR PLAINTIFFS
/s/ Marcia Robinson Lowry Marcia Robinson Lowry (pro hac vice MBN 43991) Sara R. Robinson-Glasser (pro hac vice MBN 47547) A BETTER CHILDHOOD, INC. 1095 Hardscrabble Road Chappaqua, New York 10510 914-238-4108
W. Wayne Drinkwater, Jr. (MBN 6193) BRADLEY ARANT ROSE & WHITE LLP 188 East Capitol Street, Suite 450 Jackson, MS 39201 601-948-8000
FOR DEFENDANTS
/s/ Dewitt L. (“Rusty”) Fortenberry, Jr. Dewitt L. (“Rusty”) Fortenberry, Jr. (MSB #5435) Kenya Key Rachal (MSB # 99227) Ashley C. Tullos (MSB # 101839) BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC 4268 I-55 North Meadowbrook Office Park P.O. Box 14167 Jackson, Mississippi 39211 601-351-2400
5

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 664 Filed 07/23/15 Page 6 of 6 Harold Pizzetta, III, Esq. Assistant Attorney General General Civil Division Carroll Gartin Justice Building 430 High Street Jackson, MS 39201 601-359-3816
6

 
 Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 573 Filed 07/12/12 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION

OLIVIA Y., et al.

PLAINTIFFS

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:04CV251LN

PHIL BRYANT, as Governor of the State of Mississippi, et al.

DEFENDANTS

AGREEMENT REGARDING THE ENHANCEMENT OF FEDERAL FUNDING

The Mississippi Department of Human Services and its Division of Family and Children's Services ("DFCS") will work to achieve enhanced federal funding in accordance with recommendations by Hornby Zeller Associates ("HZA") and the Center for the Support of Families ("CSF").1
DFCS shall implement the following recommendations by the end of Period 3:
1. Career Preparation and Development Training Program. Title IV-E funding shall be sought for eligible expenditures of the "career preparation and development training program" through the Masters of Social Work and Bachelors of Social Work cohort partnerships with the University of Mississippi, University of Southern Mississippi and Jackson State University. DFCS shall:
a. Update the Child and Family Service Plan ("CFSP") to describe the Masters of Social Work and Bachelors of Social Work partnerships with the universities. The method of funding shall be included in the CFSP update.
b. Utilize the Reimbursement Calculator created by HZA to facilitate retroactive claims for reimbursement of expenditures eligible for federal Title IV-E funding.
i. Utilize the Reimbursement Calculator created by HZA to analyze and maximize allowable IV-E reimbursement of MSW or BSW coursework reimbursed by DFCS to its current and prospective staff.
ii. Utilize the Reimbursement Calculator created by HZA to facilitate quarterly

1Pursuant to Section II.6 of the Modified Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan, the Parties agreed to negotiate those recommendations of HZA and CSF that will be implemented by Defendants and to file that agreement with the Court by July 14, 2012.
1

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 573 Filed 07/12/12 Page 2 of 4
filing for federal reimbursement on a retroactive basis for the Title IV-E eligible expenditures.
2. Pre-service Training Program for New Caseworkers and Supervisors. Title IV-E funding shall be sought for eligible expenses of the "pre-service training program for new caseworkers and supervisors" through the sub-grant with the Child Welfare Training Academy at the University of Mississippi. DFCS shall:
a. Update the CFSP to describe the state's training program and costs which are to be funded with Title IV-E monies.
b. Update the CFSP to specify that: new caseworkers will not carry a caseload until all pre-service training has been completed; the work experience component of the training is an integral component of the plan; staff will receive more intensive supervision during the on-the-job training period; and the trainees' performance is closely monitored and assessed.
c. Assign new caseworkers to the training cost pool for the first eight weeks so that the appropriate portion of the costs will be eligible for Title IV-E reimbursement.
3. Supervisory Learning Labs and Administrative Technical Assistance. All eligible expenses of the Supervisory Learning Labs and Administrative Technical Assistance established by sub-grant with the University of Southern Mississippi shall be allocated to the administrative cost pool, which will be eligible for Title IV-E reimbursement.
4. In-House Training. Title IV-E funding shall be sought for eligible in-house training costs. DFCS shall:
a. Develop and implement a process for ensuring that the PINS of full-time trainers are assigned to the proper cost pools.
b. Develop and implement a process for ensuring that all expenditures associated with training (including meeting rooms, staff travel, and related expenses) are charged to Title IV-E training when the subject of the training is relevant.
c. Ensure that all costs for trainers (excluding office space) are allocated to the training pool, which will be eligible for Title IV-E reimbursement.
5. Supportive Services Expenditures. Title IV-E funding shall be sought for eligible supportive services expenditures. DFCS shall :
a. Where allowable, use the Support Services Calculator created by HZA to discontinue the use of TANF and SSBG funding for support services for Title IV-E (or Title XIX) eligible children, and begin charging those services as a Title IV-E (or Title
2

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 573 Filed 07/12/12 Page 3 of 4
XIX) maintenance or cost.
b. Institute a process for the quarterly filing of retroactive Title IV-E eligible expenditure claims.
6. Random Moment Sampling Process. Restructure the random moment sampling (RMS) process to require workers and supervisors to define activity codes separately from case types. This shall be implemented by collaboration between HZA, MDHS, and Interactive Voice Associates, MDHS' implementation partner for its new RMS system. DFCS shall:
a. Define a set of activities, case- and non-case specific, to be used for the new RMS.
b. Using DFCS' current definitions and case practices, as well as those of agencies of other states, develop a set of activities and their definitions.
c. Identify case types.
d. Prepare a matrix that maps activities to case types.
e. Amend the cost allocation plan to reference the new RMS system in sufficient detail to obtain federal approval.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 12th of July, 2012.
/s/Tom S. Lee DISTRICT JUDGE
AGREED:
FOR PLAINTIFFS:
/s/ Miriam Ingber Marcia Robinson Lowry (MBN 43991 pro hac vice) Miriam Ingber (MBN 46823 pro hac vice) Jessica Polansky (MBN 45356 pro hac vice) Sarah Russo (MBN 46802 pro hac vice) CHILDREN'S RIGHTS 330 Seventh Avenue, 4th Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 683-2210 Wayne Drinkwater (MBN 6193)
3

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 573 Filed 07/12/12 Page 4 of 4
BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP 188 East Capitol Street, Suite 400 Jackson, MS 39201 (601) 948-8000
John Lang (pro hac vice MBN 43987) Attorney at Law 60 East 42nd Street Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Tel. 212.300.0646
Christina D. Carbone (pro hac vice MBN 43986) John Piskora (pro hac vice MBN 44474) LOEB & LOEB LLP 345 Park Ave. New York, NY 10154
FOR DEFENDANTS:
/s/ Dewitt L. “Rusty” Fortenberry, Jr. Dewitt L. ("Rusty") Fortenberry Jr., Esq. (MBN 5435) Kenya Key Rachal, Esq. (MBN 99227) Ashley Tullos Young, Esq. (MBN 101839) BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL, & BERKOWITZ, PC 428 I-55 North Meadowbrook Office Park Jackson, MS 39211 (601) 351-2400
Harold E. Pizzetta, III, Esq. (MBN 99867) Assistant Attorney General General Civil Division Carroll Gartin Justice Building 430 High Street Jackson, MS 39201
4

 
 Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 1 of 58

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION

OLIVIA Y., et al.

PLAINTIFFS

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:04CV251LN

PHIL BRYANT, as Governor of the State of Mississippi, et al.

DEFENDANTS

______________________________________________________________________________

THE COURT MONITOR’S STATUS REPORT TO THE COURT REGARDING PROGRESS DURING PERIOD THREE
______________________________________________________________________________

Table of Contents, Report Narrative, Index to Exhibits, and Appendix: Exhibits 1 - 40

January 25, 2013

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 2 of 58 TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................1
II. BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................4 A. Progress During Period 1, Period 2 and The Bridge Period ..........................5 B. Contempt Proceedings ...................................................................................8 C. The Modified Settlement Agreement and Period 3 Implementation Plan.....9
III. PROGRESS DURING PERIOD 3 .....................................................................13
IV. CONCLUSION..................................................................................................45

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 3 of 58

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION

OLIVIA Y., et al.

PLAINTIFFS

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:04CV251LN

PHIL BRYANT, as Governor of the State of Mississippi, et al.

DEFENDANTS

______________________________________________________________________________

THE COURT MONITOR’S STATUS REPORT TO THE COURT REGARDING PROGRESS DURING PERIOD THREE
______________________________________________________________________________

This status report is submitted to the Court pursuant to §VI.B. of the Modified Mississippi Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan (“MSA”) approved by the Court on July 6, 2012. A draft version of this report was provided to the parties for review and comment on January 10, 2013. All written comments were submitted to the Court Monitor (“Monitor”) by January 18, 2013. The Monitor has considered the parties’ comments, and to the extent appropriate, addressed them in this revised report.

I. INTRODUCTION In early January 2008, the Court approved the Mississippi Settlement Agreement and
Reform Plan (“Settlement Agreement”). At that time, the Court and parties envisioned a fiveyear reform process: four, year-long implementation periods and one additional year during which defendants would maintain performance at required Settlement Agreement levels. The additional year would have started in January 2013. As documented in the Monitor’s prior

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 4 of 58
reports, defendants did not achieve progress in this case as the parties initially envisioned and the Court ordered at the outset of 2008.
The first two years of this case were characterized principally by defendants achieving minimal progress with court-ordered requirements. In response, in 2010 the parties agreed to a short-term corrective action plan, which substantially narrowed defendants’ obligations, focused on basic capacity building, and required defendants to engage outside expertise to assist them in advancing their reform efforts. Although defendants made progress during this period and satisfied most of the corrective action requirements, relative to the breadth of their obligations under the Settlement Agreement, their progress was not substantial. In October 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion requesting the Court find defendants in contempt and appoint a receiver. In May 2011, the Court found that defendants did not meet most of the court-ordered requirements, but declined to make a finding of contempt and to appoint a receiver. Instead, the Court directed the parties to modify the Settlement Agreement. Thus, after a period of negotiation, the parties agreed to the MSA, which the Court approved in July 2012.
The requirements of the MSA, approved over four years after the Settlement Agreement, indicate that despite years of reform efforts, defendants continued to grapple with fundamental organizational deficits that, unless corrected, would prevent them from meeting their courtordered obligations. Persistent staffing shortages, a woefully inadequate information management system, and, at various points, the absence of a complete and permanent executive leadership team, all of which hamstrung defendants in 2008, continued to undermine defendants’ efforts in 2012. Hence, the MSA included numerous remedial actions that were required but never implemented by the defendants in the 2008 Settlement Agreement.
2

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 5 of 58
At the same time, however, the MSA incorporated a change in defendants’ reform strategy. Since 2010, defendants’ efforts have been marked by the implementation of entirely new business practices, referred to as the “practice model,” which defendants are phasing in across the state, over time, on a regional basis. The MSA defers to defendants’ chosen reform strategy by holding in abeyance many performance requirements statewide in order for the defendants to implement the practice model at the regional level, and it provides for the more immediate implementation of a series of requirements intended to ensure child safety. In addition, it holds in abeyance the measurement of performance at the regional level until defendants have fully implemented the practice model in a given region. This strategy will enable defendants to roll out their reforms in more manageable pieces, which could allow them to learn from their mistakes in given regions; build a base of expertise in early-implementing regions that could be used in later-implementing regions; and identify and correct issues on a regional basis prior to being held accountable for performance outcomes.
The MSA has been in effect for approximately six months. The first two regions to fully implement the practice model became accountable for their performance pursuant to the MSA in September 2012 and are currently in a data-tracking year. Thus, at this point, it is premature to fully assess their performance.
Insofar as statewide requirements, pursuant to the MSA, defendants have continued, and in some instances made further progress, increasing caseworker staffing levels; updating the Mississippi Department of Human Services (“MDHS”) Division of Family and Children’s Services’ (“DFCS”) policy and procedure manual; implementing a viable pre-service training program for newly-hired caseworkers and supervisors that is based on an updated curriculum; building a promising continuous quality improvement (“CQI”) program and conducting data
3

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 6 of 58
collection and evaluation activities on an on-going basis; meeting certain prerequisites to obtaining accreditation from the Council on Accreditation (“COA”);1 and delivering other training programs required by the Period 3 Implementation Plan (“Period 3 IP”) to key staff members. These are significant initiatives that will pay dividends in the short and long run.
Nevertheless, after five years marked by repeated delays and unsuccessful efforts to meet court-ordered requirements, defendants now must act deliberately to hasten their progress under the MSA. This report focuses on a narrow, but crucial, series of requirements in the MSA, several of which the Monitor has reported on in the past. In particular, the report describes defendants’ progress hiring sufficient numbers of caseworkers and supervisors, replacing their management information system, and producing accurate, validated data reports. It also addresses the status of implementation of the practice model.
Although only six months have lapsed since the MSA was approved, already it is apparent that defendants are not accelerating sufficiently the pace of their efforts with respect to several key areas. As explained below, in light of the considerable risk of harm to children in defendants’ custody, there is an urgent need to do so.
II. BACKGROUND The Settlement Agreement was approved by the Court on January 4, 2008. It was
intended to ensure the safety and well-being of children in defendants’ custody and their timely placement in permanent and nurturing homes. The Settlement Agreement mandated an incremental remedial process that measured progress in terms of annual benchmarks and interim milestones. The benchmarks were established in the Settlement Agreement and the interim milestones were embodied in a series of annual implementation plans that were developed
1 COA is an independent, non-profit, accrediting organization that accredits human services entities, including public sector child and family services agencies.
4

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 7 of 58
collaboratively by the parties. The interim milestones constituted the steps and corresponding timelines that were to be accomplished each year to achieve the benchmarks and ultimately satisfy the Settlement Agreement’s requirements. Each implementation plan was incorporated into the Settlement Agreement.2 This structure allowed the parties and the Court to measure progress over time according to clearly defined standards, affording the flexibility to develop annual requirements based on current information about defendants’ performance.
Since January 2008, the defendants were ordered to implement three annual implementation plans and a corrective action plan. Defendants’ performance related to these requirements is summarized below.
A. Progress During Period 1, Period 2 and The Bridge Period The first implementation plan, referred to as the Period 1 Implementation Plan (“Period 1 IP”), extended from January 4, 2008 through April 30, 2009.3 As explained in the Monitor’s June 2009 Report, the Period 1 requirements focused on building the capacity of MDHS/DFCS to achieve the Settlement Agreement’s goals and outcomes, and also addressed interim initiatives related to child safety.4 As a threshold matter, because DFCS did not have the management capacity to implement the reforms mandated by the Settlement Agreement, defendants were required to appoint a qualified director for DFCS who could recruit a management team capable of assisting with the reform process.5 As the management team was established, Period 1 requirements contemplated that key elements of the agency’s infrastructure would be built through specified
2 Settlement Agreement §I.B. 3 Period 1 was extended on two occasions pursuant to consent orders issued on January 6, 2009 and March 27, 2009. See The Court Monitor’s Report to the Court Regarding Defendants’ Progress Toward Meeting Period-1 Requirements, filed June 5, 2009 [hereinafter June 2009 Report], at 9 for a discussion of the relevant background. 4 June 2009 Report at 76-83. 5 Settlement Agreement §II.A.1. and Period 1 IP §I.1.
5

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 8 of 58
initiatives and/or a planning process based on a series of assessments. In addition to
strengthening management functions, capacity building required during Period 1 included:
1) finalizing DFCS policies and procedures to ensure consistency with the Settlement
Agreement; 2) implementing a method for measuring and tracking caseworker and supervisory
workloads; and 3) establishing an employee Training Unit.6 Period 1 requirements also
mandated a reform planning process based on assessments of DFCS’s administrative and
management operations, including an assessment of the Mississippi Automated Child Welfare
Information System (“MACWIS”),7 and of the service delivery system for children and families.8
These were considered building blocks defendants needed to put in place before they could
achieve sustainable progress toward improving outcomes.
The defendants made limited progress meeting Period 1 requirements,9 and as a result
they were required to meet many Period 1 requirements during Period 2.10 Period 2 began on
May 1, 2009 and ended on April 30, 2010. As described in the Monitor’s September 2010
Report, defendants made efforts to satisfy many Period 2 requirements, but in large part these
6 Other capacity building required during Period 1 included implementation of a separate CQI system, Settlement Agreement §II.A.3., and implementation of a performance-based contracting system, Period 1 IP §I.3. 7 Assessments of the workforce, training curricula, contracting practices, the CQI system, and fiscal and financial management also were required. 8 The assessments of foster care services included reunification, independent living, foster care support, and medical, dental and mental health services, as well as case processing and practices related to termination of parental rights [hereinafter TPR], parent/child and sibling visitation, reports of child maltreatment, and the DFCS placement array. Generally, the goal for these assessments was to identify any critical shortcomings in the administrative, management and service delivery systems and to use these data to inform planning for remedial strategies that were required to be introduced during either Period 1 or Period 2. 9 Defendants restructured the DFCS executive management team to align it more closely with the principles of family-centered practice and reorganized the management structure of the agency from seven regions into 13 regions in order to strengthen accountability and more readily introduce reform initiatives. Because of a substantial budget increase, DFCS caseworker and supervisory staffing levels increased and many required management positions were filled. Defendants also made progress toward meeting many, albeit not all, accreditation requirements imposed by the Settlement Agreement pursuant to COA standards. Like the Settlement Agreement, the MSA requires defendants to obtain COA accreditation. See Settlement Agreement §IV; MSA §IV. 10 June 2009 Report at 4. These unmet requirements included finalizing DFCS policies and procedures, establishing pre-service and in-service training programs for caseworkers and their supervisors, and remediating shortcomings in MACWIS in order to produce accurate, complete and reliable data related to the Settlement Agreement’s requirements.
6

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 9 of 58
efforts were belated and, at least in some circumstances, they were not minimally adequate.11
Moreover, in certain instances, there was no evidence of credible efforts to satisfy Period 2
requirements,12 including requirements that defendants had been ordered to satisfy during Period
1.13 Several months following the end of Period 2, the Monitor reported that defendants had not
acquired the basic tools to manage and promote the reform effort effectively, and thereby could
not provide a reasonable assurance the Settlement Agreement’s requirements would be
satisfied.14
In light of the limitations in defendants’ performance, instead of developing a Period 3 IP,
the parties finalized an agreement on specific corrective action measures that defendants were
required to implement according to a series of deadlines between May 1 and September 1,
2010.15 This agreement, referred to as the “Bridge Plan,” was approved by the Court in an
Agreed Order issued on June 10, 2010.16 The Agreed Order expressly recognized that its terms
did not preclude plaintiffs from proceeding with an enforcement action for any violation of
Period 2 requirements following the conclusion of the Bridge Period.17
The Bridge Plan emphasized fundamental building blocks that defendants had been
required to implement since Period 1. It required the defendants to demonstrate the ability to
11 See The Court Monitor’s Report to the Court Regarding Defendants’ Progress Toward Meeting Period 2 Requirements, filed September 8, 2010 [hereinafter September 2010 Report], at 6. 12 For example, there was no evidence of credible efforts to develop and implement a written plan to provide services for foster parents in every county (Period 2 IP §II.14.c.), create a resource family workgroup to develop and implement resource family practices and protocols (Period 2 IP §II.14.e.), and regionalize recruitment and retention efforts (Period 2 IP §II.14.f.). 13 These requirements included hiring and training adoption specialists (Period 1 IP §II.3.f.; Period 2 IP §II.5.e.4.) and contracting with external adoption specialists (Period 1 IP §II.3.f.; Period 2 IP §II.5.e.3.). 14 September 2010 Report at 7. 15 This four-month period is referred to in the Agreed Order as the “Bridge Period.” Pursuant to §VII.B. of the Settlement Agreement, on April 9, 2010, plaintiffs provided defendants with written notice of noncompliance. As contemplated by the Settlement Agreement, the parties finalized the agreement for corrective action which, as noted above, was approved by the Court on June 10, 2010. See Settlement Agreement §VII.B. for the full text of the corrective action provisions, which were not modified by the MSA. See MSA §VII.B. 16 Conceptually, the Bridge Plan was intended to serve as a bridge between Period 2 and Period 3. 17 Agreed Order, June 10, 2010 at ¶11.
7

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 10 of 58
satisfy a very narrow sub-set of unmet Period 1 and Period 2 requirements18 by supplementing
their management and planning capabilities through a contract for technical assistance with the
Center for the Support of Families (“CSF”).19 In a November 2010 report, the Monitor found
that defendants satisfied most, albeit not all, of the Bridge Plan’s requirements,20 noting that
defendants’ performance was bolstered by the technical assistance that had been provided by
CSF. In the instances in which defendants fell short, there was demonstrable progress;21
however, limitations in the planning process and/or deficits in administrative and management
systems undercut defendants’ performance.22
B. Contempt Proceedings
On October 5, 2010, based on violations of the Settlement Agreement and the Period 2
Implementation Plan (“Period 2 IP”), plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the Court find
defendants in contempt and appoint a general receiver with full authority to administer
Mississippi’s child welfare system.23 On May 17, 2011, following briefing and a hearing,24 the
Court issued an order denying the motion and directing the parties to work toward a modified
agreement.25 The Court found that plaintiffs had made a prima facie showing of contempt,
18 The Bridge Plan addressed contracting for a fiscal assessment and related strategic plan to maximize federal funding. Other requirements included policy development, data collection and reporting, staffing, training, and planning activities related to mandated improvements in the array and quality of services and placements available to children in defendants’ custody as well as planning for the expansion of the DFCS workforce. In addition, the Bridge Plan required specified corrective action related to child safety, including mandated training for all DFCS caseworkers assigned to conduct maltreatment investigations. 19 Defendants had an existing contractual relationship with CSF dating to January 2009, when CSF was hired to work with DFCS on the development of a family-centered practice model that was intended to serve as the conceptual framework for required improvements in case practice. See infra at 10 for more detailed background information. At the time the Agreed Order was finalized, a team of CSF consultants was working with defendants on initial practice model implementation activities. See The Court Monitor’s November 23, 2010 Report to the Court Regarding the June 10, 2010 Agreed Order for Corrective Action, filed November 23, 2010 [hereinafter November 2010 Report], at 12-13. 20 Id. at 4-5. 21 Id. at 3, 63. 22 Id. at 5-6. 23 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Contempt and for the Appointment of a Receiver, filed October 5, 2010. 24 The hearing was conducted on May 13, 2011. 25 Order, filed May 17, 2011, at 10.
8

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 11 of 58
recognizing that the defendants had not complied with most of the Period 1 and Period 2
requirements and also had not complied fully with the Bridge Plan.26 Nonetheless, the Court did
not issue a finding of contempt because it was “apparent to the court that defendants lacked the
capability to comply fully, or even substantially, with all the requirements of the Period Two
Plan within the time frame established,”27 and because the Court determined that a contempt
finding would not “serve any fruitful purpose.”28 The Court clarified that by denying the
contempt motion, it was not excusing defendants’ performance or minimizing the gravity of the
problems identified in the motion.29 Indeed, the Court asserted “that the shortcomings identified
by plaintiffs and the Court Monitor must be confronted and rectified.”30 Accordingly, the Court
directed the parties “to work together, in consultation with the Court Monitor, to craft appropriate
modifications of their existing agreements.”31 Among other directives, the Court required the
parties to prioritize goals and objectives and establish realistic timelines for their achievement.32
C. The Modified Settlement Agreement and Period 3 Implementation Plan
In the wake of the May 17, 2011 order, the parties negotiated the terms of the MSA,
which was approved by the Court on July 6, 2012. The MSA supersedes the initial Settlement
Agreement and incorporates the Period 3 IP.33 While the MSA includes a relatively small
number of changes to the Settlement Agreement’s substantive requirements,34 it reflects a very
26 The Court noted it was “undisputed” that defendants had failed to comply with “nearly all” of the Period 1 requirements, id. at 5-6, and “most” of the Period 2 requirements, id. at 4. 27 Id. at 7. The Court indicated that the additional requirements and related time frames for meeting these requirements in the Period 2 IP were “highly ambitious” and seemed to be “ultimately unrealistic.” Id. 28 Id. at 10. 29 Id. 30 Id. at 9. 31 Id. 32 Id. 33 See MSA, App. B for the text of the Period 3 IP. 34 Compare, e.g., Settlement Agreement §II.B.4.e. (requiring all investigations into reports of maltreatment to be completed within 20 days) with MSA §II.B.1.e.2. (requiring all investigations into reports of maltreatment to be completed within 30 days); Settlement Agreement §II.B.3.e.1. (requiring submission of a termination of parental rights [hereinafter TPR] packet for children who have spent 15 of the previous 22 months in foster care) with MSA
9

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 12 of 58
different approach to how the remedial process will be structured as well as how progress will be measured over time. Significantly, the MSA substantially reduces defendants’ obligations to meet many benchmark requirements on a statewide basis for the next several annual implementation periods. This new approach aligns the MSA with the sequential, region-byregion implementation schedule that is a cornerstone of defendants’ “practice model” reform strategy.
A brief description of the practice model and its implementation schedule helps to explain the MSA’s structure. As noted above,35 in January 2009, defendants contracted with CSF to work with DFCS managers and staff on the development of a family-centered practice model intended to serve as the conceptual framework for required improvements in case practice. The practice model represents a fundamental change in defendants’ business policies and practices, incorporating six categories of activities that are designed to promote safety, permanency and the well-being of children and families.36 As conceptualized, implementation of the model is promoted through a data-driven CQI process that is used to monitor each DFCS region’s progress.
Defendants elected to introduce the practice model starting in January 2010, over the course of a two-year period, at staggered intervals in each of DFCS’s 13 regions. On a regional basis, the practice model is phased-in through a multi-stage process: 1) a six-month planning phase;37 2) a one-year initial implementation stage;38 and 3) a one-year full/ongoing
§III.B.3.e.1. (requiring submission of a TPR packet for children who have spent 17 of the previous 22 months in foster care). 35 See supra note 19. 36 The activities fall within the following categories: 1) safety assurance and risk management; 2) strengths and needs assessments; 3) involving children and families in case planning and decision-making; 4) individualizing case planning; 5) mobilizing appropriate services timely; and 6) preserving and maintaining connections. 37 Practice model implementation starts with the six-month planning phase. Among other activities that are expected to occur during this phase, DFCS staff and stakeholders participate in an orientation program. In addition, barriers to implementation are identified and plans to address the barriers are formulated. A CQI review is
10

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 13 of 58

implementation stage. These stages are followed by a data-tracking year. The practice model

implementation schedule as it appears in the MSA is set forth below: 39

Practice Model Rollout Schedule

Regions
I-South, II-West V-West
IV-North
I-North, III-South, IV-South V-East
III-North, VII-East II-East, VI, VII-West

Planning (6 months)
January – June 2010 July – December 2010 July – December 2010 January – June 2011
July – December 2011 July 2011 – June 2012 (12 months) July – December 2012

Implementation Phase Dates

Initial

Full/Ongoing

Implementation

Implementation

(One Year)

(One Year)*

July 2010 –

Approx. Sept. 2011 –

June 2011

August 2012

January –

Approx. March 2012 –

December 2011

February 2013

January 2011 –

Approx. Sept. 2012 –

June 2012 (18 months) August 2013

July 2011 –

Approx. Sept. 2012 –

June 2012

August 2013

January – December 2012 July 2012 – June 2013 January – December 2013

Approx. March 2013 – February 2014 Approx. Sept. 2013 – August 2014 Approx. March 2014 – February 2015

Data Tracking (One Year)
September 2012 – August 2013 March 2013 – February 2014 September 2013 – August 2014 September 2013 – August 2014
March 2014 – February 2015 September 2014 – August 2015 March 2015 – February 2016

Unlike the initial Settlement Agreement, the MSA has two sets of requirements related to systemic infrastructure standards, foster care service standards and outcome measures. These requirements are reflected in §§II and III of the MSA.
Section II of the MSA includes two types of requirements that defendants must satisfy:40 1) requirements that are subject to statewide performance measures; and, to a lesser degree

conducted at the conclusion of the planning phase to establish baseline performance measures, which serve as the basis for measuring progress. 38 A 12-month initial implementation phase follows on the heels of the planning phase. Among other activities expected to occur in each region during this phase, supervisors and caseworkers are trained on the practice model and participate in an intensive coaching program. Following the initial implementation stage, a two-month period is used for a follow-up CQI review and planning for the full implementation stage based on the preliminary results of the review. 39 MSA, App. A. 40 In certain instances, defendants are not required to meet the statewide requirements in §II of the MSA until the end of the remedial phase, and thus there are no interim implementation requirements. See, e.g., MSA §II.A.2.b. In other instances, performance related to some but not all implementation periods is specified. See, e.g., id. at §II.A.2.c. And in some instances, statewide measures as well as separate regional measures related to practice model implementation are specified in §II. See, e.g., id. at §II.B.5.e.-i.
11

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 14 of 58
2) requirements that are subject to both statewide performance measures and regional
performance measures.41 Section III of the MSA is exclusively related to regional performance
requirements. Additionally, there are two sets of requirements in §§II and III that are related to
regional performance measures. The first are triggered when a region has fully implemented the
practice model; the second, higher performance standards, are triggered when a region has
reached the 12-month mark following full implementation.42 For purposes of the regional
measurement requirements in §§II and III of the MSA, a region is deemed to have fully
implemented the practice model at the start of the data tracking year.43 Accordingly, at a
minimum,44 during the two and two-third years that a region is undergoing the practice model
phase-in process, regional performance under the MSA is not measured.45
The first two DFCS regions introduced to the practice model, I-South and II-West, began
implementation planning in January 2010 and commenced the data-tracking year in September
2012. They will enter the final regional measurement phase starting in August 2013. The other
DFCS regions have been added to the implementation process at intervals of six to twelve
months. The last three DFCS regions to implement the practice model, II-East, VI, and VII-
West, began the planning phase in July 2012. Assuming there are no adjustments to the
41 See, e.g., MSA §§II.B.4.a.-f. and II.B.7.a.-e. 42 MSA §I.A. 43 According to the MSA, “[a]djustments may be made to the timing of the planning and/or implementation phases based on a region's progress. The two-month period between the end of the Initial Implementation phase and the beginning of the Full Implementation phase is in place to permit the follow-up CQI review after the first 12 months of implementation and an opportunity to revise the Regional Implementation Plan based on preliminary results of the review going into the next phase of implementation.” MSA, App. A. 44 In the following three regions, defendants extended the implementation process because a determination was made that additional time was needed for a specific implementation phase: III-North (afforded an additional six months for planning); IV-North (afforded an additional six months for coaching); and VII-East (afforded an additional six months for planning). 45 The MSA expressly recognizes that for those requirements that must be met from the time that a region has fully implemented the practice model, regional compliance is not measured by looking back in time at practice that predates full implementation. For requirements that must be met 12 months after full implementation of the practice model, compliance is not measured by practice that pre-dates the 12-month period following full implementation. MSA §§II and III.
12

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 15 of 58
implementation schedule,46 these regions will not be subject to the MSA’s regional performance measures until March 2015. After all 13 DFCS regions have fully implemented the practice model, the MSA requires that all of its standards, benchmarks and outcome measures shall be measured and required statewide and shall no longer be measured on a region-by-region basis.47
By the time the implementation process is complete in a specific region, a minimum of two and two-third years will have elapsed following initial implementation activities in the region. Given this schedule and opportunity to learn and correct problems, plaintiffs and the Court should expect to see demonstrable progress, if not compliance with the MSA regional performance standards.
III. PROGRESS DURING PERIOD 3 Period 3 began over six months ago, in July 2012. Defendants continue to implement the
practice model in all 13 DFCS regions. The first two regions to implement the practice model will not be subject to final regional measurement standards under the MSA until the start of Period 4. In the meantime, defendants continue to work on long-standing priorities in this case. This section addresses those key initiatives defendants are pursuing during Period 3.
Since the end of the Bridge Period, and more recently during the first six months of Period 3, defendants have made demonstrable progress addressing several key requirements that were not satisfied during Period 1 and/or Period 2 and have become Period 3 requirements. For example, defendants have updated the DFCS policy and procedure manual,48 a pivotal initiative
46 As noted supra note 43, the practice model rollout schedule recognizes that adjustments may be made based on a region’s progress. MSA, App. A. 47 MSA §III. 48 Period 3 IP §II.A. (requiring revisions to DFCS policy and practice guides and specifying requirements related to the content of certain policies).
13

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 16 of 58
that dates back to Period 1.49 Defendants also have established a viable pre-service training
program for newly hired caseworkers and supervisors that is based on an updated curriculum.50
The new curriculum reflects policy updates and is intended to incorporate MSA requirements.51
Defendants also have delivered other training programs required by the Period 3 IP. For
example, DFCS CQI staff have received training on the components of the practice model and on
measurement and evaluation methods.52 In addition, many DFCS managers have received
required training on the use of data in management.53
Implementation of a promising CQI program, an initiative that defendants were required
to implement by the end of Period 1,54 is also underway. Required data collection and evaluation
activities have been timely. In addition, substantive planning has been ongoing for
implementation of a mandated maltreatment investigative review process, which must be fully
implemented by the end of Period 3.55 Nonetheless, the development of the CQI program has
been impeded at times by staffing deficits and it is not yet staffed at the levels that must be
maintained by the end of Period 3.56 Moreover, defendants have established a resource
49 Period 1 IP §II; Period 2 IP §II.1. 50 Period 1 IP §I.2.c.; Period 2 IP §I.2.d. 51 MSA §II.A.2.c.; see also Period 3 IP §I.A.3. (requiring revisions to the pre-service training curriculum, a staffing level of nine full-time trainers, and implementation of the following: 1) competency-based testing; and 2) a reliable and accurate system to track staff participation in training). In early October 2011, defendants contracted with the University of Mississippi to revise the pre-service training curriculum. The updated curriculum was completed by the end of the 2011 calendar year and it has been used since early 2012 for training newly-hired caseworkers and supervisors. 52 Period 3 IP §I.A.3.c.1. 53 Id. at §I.A.3.c.2. 54 Settlement Agreement §II.A.3.a. (requiring defendants to implement a separate continuous quality improvement system by the end of Period 1). 55 Period 3 IP §II.C.3.-4. 56 MSA §II.A.3. (requiring defendants to implement and maintain a separate CQI system that can identify areas of needed improvement and require improvement plans); see also Period 3 IP §I.B. (requiring the development of a CQI plan, staffing for the CQI unit, evaluation instruments and periodic baseline and follow up CQI reviews in the practice model implementation regions). The CQI Program has several components, including an Evaluation and Monitoring Unit [hereinafter EMU] and a Foster Care Review Unit [hereinafter FCR Unit]. Defendants have made efforts, but have experienced long-standing difficulties filling all required vacancies in each of these units. According to defendants, the MDHS Human Resources Department and State Personnel Board [hereinafter SPB] are
14

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 17 of 58
development unit within DFCS to assist in building the capacity to provide necessary services to
children and families. Like the CQI program, the full staffing complement that is required by the end of Period 3 for the resource development unit is not yet in place.57 In addition, defendants
have continued to implement required initiatives designed to promote more timely placement of
children in legally permanent and nurturing homes; however, they report that a capacity to follow-up on these initial efforts must be developed.58 Finally, there is evidence of ongoing
efforts to design a performance-based contracting system, another Period 3 initiative that was required initially during Period 1.59
For the most part, just as in the Bridge Period, which required the involvement of an external entity,60 defendants have been able to make progress in these areas by relying on outside
consultants to augment DFCS’s internal capacity. For example, consistent with the MSA, the
revisions to the training curriculum and delivery of the requisite pre-service training are
attributable in very large measure to a consulting contract with educators at the University of
Mississippi School of Social Work who have worked closely with the DFCS director of professional development.61 Similarly, as contemplated by the MSA, defendants have relied on
considering a position upgrade or reclassification. Defendants anticipate that these measures may help to eliminate the barriers to staff recruitment. 57 Period 3 IP §II.B.3.c.-d. Defendants have made progress but have not hired the full, required complement of six workers to build the resource service array. Id. at §II.B.3.d. Additional progress will be essential in order for defendants to meet requisite staffing levels by the end of Period 3. 58 Period 3 IP §II.B.1. (requiring continued implementation of permanency roundtables, an intervention to promote permanency that defendants have undertaken with substantial technical support from Casey Family Programs). For general information regarding permanency roundtables, see http://www.casey.org/Resources/Initiatives/PermanencyRoundtables/. 59 MSA §II.A.2.d. (requiring implementation of a performance-based contracting system to evaluate compliance by contract agencies with the MSA and to ensure remediation if deficiencies are identified); see also Period 3 IP §I.A.4. (requiring development of a plan for a performance-based contracting system with monitoring and enforcement functions, including action steps and timelines). The Period 1 IP required defendants to develop and begin implementing this system by the end of Period 1. Period 1 IP §I.2.d. 60 See supra at 8 for additional background information. 61 MSA §II.A.2.c.6.a.
15

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 18 of 58
their contract with CSF for the design of the CQI program, the delivery of related training initiatives, and for consultative services related to implementation of the program.62
This progress is welcome and consistent with the express intent of MSA provisions that contemplate engagement of outside expertise.63 That defendants made progress with the
assistance of outside experts does not diminish the importance of their achievements; however,
the contrast between the progress that defendants have made with the assistance of consultants
and the relative lack of progress on initiatives in which consultants were not engaged raises
concerns that defendants, at this juncture in the remedial process, still lack essential internal
capacity necessary to meet the requirements of this lawsuit. Certain aspects of defendants’
performance during Period 3 illustrate the contrast between internal capacity and externally led or
supported undertakings.
In order to coordinate and administer the reform effort, as contemplated by Period 3
requirements, defendants established a Statewide Implementation Team (“SIT”), comprised of MDHS and DFCS executive staff and a CSF representative.64 The SIT is required to perform the
following functions: 1) manage the implementation of the MSA, the Period 3 IP and the practice model;65 and, 2) oversee sub-teams that have responsibility for designing and guiding work plans for implementation of MSA and Period 3 requirements.66 While some of the sub-teams appear to
62 Period 3 IP §I.B.2. (requiring defendants, in consultation with CSF, or another consultant, to revise and begin implementing a CQI plan). As noted supra note 58, defendants have also relied on Casey Family Programs, a private foundation, to provide technical assistance related to the permanency roundtables. Further, as contemplated by the Period 3 IP, this funder is also providing technical support that will be used to develop the performance-based contracting plan. Id. at §I.A.4. 63 See, e.g., supra notes 61 and 62. 64 The SIT was established before Period 3 commenced. 65 Period 3 IP §I.A.1.a. (requiring defendants to establish a Statewide Implementation Team responsible for prioritizing, managing, and making decisions related to implementation). 66 Period 3 IP §I.A.1.b. SIT sub-teams in the following areas are required: CQI, training, resource development, policy, legal and judicial, resource parent recruitment and retention, and caseload/staffing. In addition to the SIT and the statewide sub-teams, Regional Implementation Teams [hereinafter RITs], are required by Period 3 IP §I.A.1.c. in eight DFCS regions (I-N, I-S, II-W, III-S, IV-N, IV-S, V-E and V-W). The RITs have the following functions:
16

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 19 of 58
be functioning as intended, the work products produced by other sub-teams have raised very
substantial concerns about defendants’ capacity to meet minimal thresholds for certain Period 3
requirements, including some requirements that date back to Period 1.
For example, historically, understaffing of caseworkers and supervisors has had a
significant impact on the defendants’ ability to serve class members.67 In turn, high caseloads
and low salaries have contributed to attrition and formidable recruitment challenges, particularly
in certain DFCS county offices with some of the highest numbers of children in custody.68 At
least in part for this reason,69 §I.A.2.b. of the Period 3 IP requires defendants to finalize and
begin implementing a workforce development plan by April 2013.70 As contemplated by the
MSA, defendants assigned responsibility for completing the workforce development plan to the
SIT sub-team dedicated specifically to caseload/staffing.
1) monitoring progress on the region’s implementation plans (which the RITs presumably would have been involved in developing during the practice model planning phase); and 2) conducting ongoing reviews of data reports and CQI assessments and acting on the results. The RITs are required to submit periodic progress reports to the SIT. RITs are comprised of DFCS staff, managers, representatives from other agencies and stakeholders. The RITs are an important component of the practice model implementation process that are not yet functioning as intended in all DFCS regions. See, e.g., Monthly Status Report-Practice Model Implementation, Center for the Support of Families, October 2012, at 7. Each RIT is required to maintain a CQI sub-team and is also charged with establishing other sub-teams, as needed. 67 The Monitor has addressed this issue in several prior reports. See, e.g., June 2009 Report at n. 20, p. 26. 68 Id. at 26-27. 69 Period 3 IP §I.A.1.b. One of the SIT sub-teams required by the MSA is specifically devoted to caseloads and staffing. 70 This was a Period 1 requirement which defendants should have begun to implement at the start of 2009. Period 1 IP §I.2.a. Period 1 was initially scheduled to end in early January 2009. Following two extensions approved by the Court, see supra note 3, Period 1 concluded on April 30, 2009. The relevant subsection in the Period 3 IP states:
Within nine (9) months of the start of Implementation Period 3, Defendants shall have finalized and begun implementing a Workforce Development Plan. This Workforce Development Plan shall address the recruitment and retention of DFCS professional and support staff as well as bring its current staff into substantial compliance with the worker and supervisor qualification requirements of the Modified Settlement Agreement. The Workforce Development Plan shall identify the specific steps, strategies, financial resources, and short- and long-term staffing goals with related timeframes that are necessary to meet the staffing requirements of the Modified Settlement Agreement. The Workforce Development Plan shall be approved by the Monitor as meeting the requirements of this Period 3 Implementation Plan and shall include a section focused specifically on recruitment and retention in Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson Counties (“Coast”), as well as strategies to support staff on the Coast, and shall also include a separate section focused specifically on recruitment, retention, and support strategies in Hinds County. Period 3 IP §I.A.2.b.
17

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 20 of 58

The Period 3 IP required defendants to complete the sections of the workforce development plan that relate to Hancock, Harrison, Hinds and Jackson Counties by September 1, 2012.71 These counties are described in the MSA as the “carve out” counties. The carve out designation is based on the parties’ shared recognition that long-standing staffing deficits in these four counties justified exempting them, at least for the duration of Period 3, from the MSA’s caseload and workload standards.72 The carve out counties were treated separately in the Period 3 IP because of the defendants’ long-standing failure to maintain adequate staffing levels in these specific counties, the very serious problems engendered by chronic understaffing, and the large number of children in custody in each of these counties relative to other counties in the state.
As depicted in the following chart, DFCS records show that as of November 30, 2012, nearly 40 percent73 of the total number of children in custody were in these four counties, which represent five percent of all counties in the state in which there were children in DFCS custody:
Number of Children in Custody, By County One‐Month Period Ending November 30, 2012
[Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor Based on DFCS Data, MACWIS MWZ0510]

78 Non‐Carve Out Counties 2192 Children 61%

Hinds County 398 Children
11%
Jackson County 255 Children
7%
Hancock County 214 Children 6%
Harrison County 528 Children 15%

71 Period 3 IP §I.A.2.c.3. 72 MSA §II.A.2.a.9.a.-b. The Period 3 IP includes specific recruitment and retention activities that are applicable exclusively to the carve out counties. Period 3 IP §I.A.2.c. 73 This percentage may not be accurate due to the challenges the defendants have experienced correctly accounting for open cases in MACWIS. See infra at 23-24 for additional background information related to this issue.
18

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 21 of 58
The MSA’s carve out requirements underscore the urgent need for defendants to address staffing
deficits in these four targeted counties through informed planning and on an expedited time-
frame.
On September 4, 2012, defendants submitted the section of the workforce development
plan that the sub-team designed for the carve out counties.74 Defendants’ submission failed to
address in a minimally adequate way the recruitment of staff in any of the four targeted counties,
raising – in combination with several other deliverables produced during the first quarter of
Period 375 – very substantial concerns about defendants’ capacity to satisfy other pivotal Period 3
requirements. Accordingly, within a little over one week after receiving the workforce
development submission, the Monitor met with MDHS executive staff and defendants’ counsel
to discuss her concerns.76 Following this meeting, defendants secured supplementary technical
74 Ex. 1, Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children Services (MDHS/DFCS), Workforce Development Plan, Phase I, Harrison, Hancock, Jackson & Hinds Counties. This document was a formal submission by defendants through the office of defendants’ counsel. In a November 7, 2012 quarterly report submitted to the SIT by the caseload/staffing sub-team, the sub-team refers to the defendants’ September 4, 2012 submission as a “draft of the Workforce Development Plan.” Ex. 2, Caseload/Staffing Subteam Quarterly Report, November 7, 2012, at 2. However, because the document submitted to the Monitor and plaintiffs’ counsel on September 4, 2012 was considered by the parties and the Monitor to be a final submission pursuant to the MSA, it is included in the appendix to this report. 75 For example, a submission prepared by the DFCS Legal and Judicial Sub-Team in response to the requirements imposed by Period 3 IP §I.A.2.c.4., provides for the defendants to develop and begin implementing written strategies for promoting implementation of the Olivia Y. standards in the Youth Courts by July 1, 2012. This subsection of the Period 3 IP also requires defendants to implement the strategies in three specified DFCS regions (VII-W, VII-E and III-S) by the end of Period 3. In early July 2012, the defendants submitted the written strategies developed by the Legal and Judicial Sub-Team in response to these Period 3 requirements. Ex. 3, Strategies for Promoting Implementation of the Olivia Y. Standards in the Mississippi Youth Courts, Legal and Judicial Sub-Team Report on Requirements for the Modified Settlement Agreement (MSA) and Period III Implementation Plan (IP). The document that the defendants submitted does not identify the specific Olivia Y. standards that have not been implemented nor describe the implementation issues. For the most part, it frames the strategies in terms of strategies the Youth Courts agree to implement instead of strategies the defendants will implement. Like the September 4, 2012 workforce development submission, the Youth Court strategies document fails at a basic level to address the MSA’s requirements and is indicative of very serious capacity deficits. 76 The Monitor raised concerns about the adequacy of three key Period 3 deliverables during a meeting with defendants’ representatives on September 12, 2012: 1) the workforce development plan for the carve out counties, submitted on September 4, 2012 pursuant to Period 3 IP §I.A.2.c.3.; 2) the written strategies for promoting implementation of the Olivia Y. standards in the Mississippi Youth Courts, submitted pursuant to Period 3 IP §I.A.2.c.4.; and 3) the assessment of the F.M. fatality, submitted pursuant to Period 3 IP §II.C.1. On September 28, 2012, in response to defendants’ request, the Monitor provided written comments on the F.M. fatality assessment and the Youth Court strategies to both parties. The Monitor’s written comments on the workforce development plan
19

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 22 of 58
assistance from CSF with activities related to the implementation of specific MSA requirements,
including consultation related to the development of a revised workforce development plan and
other Period 3 deliverables.77
Developing internal capacity within an organization such as DFCS requires sustained
attention from agency leadership. For this reason, the MSA requires defendants to maintain a
deputy administrator with sole responsibility for oversight of DFCS.78 Additionally, the deputy
is required to meet certain qualification standards.79 Yet, for the duration of Period 3 a
permanent deputy administrator has not been in place.
In September 2008, Lori L. Woodruff was hired and began working as the deputy
administrator of DFCS.80 Three and one-half years later, in March 2012, she notified MDHS
officials of her intent to retire effective June 30, 2012. After an unsuccessful effort during the
spring through mid-summer of 2012 to identify an appropriate candidate, defendants readvertised
the position during the late summer and again during the early fall after obtaining authorization
for a salary increase.81 During the last six months of 2012, the deputy administrator position
remained vacant. The MDHS deputy director has assumed many of the deputy administrator’s
were provided to the parties on October 1, 2012. Defendants report that they are working to revise the Youth Court strategies and F.M. fatality submissions in consultation with consultants from CSF. As discussed infra note 77, while a draft version of this report was being prepared, defendants submitted a draft of the complete workforce development plan to the Monitor for comment. 77 On January 1, 2013, the defendants provided the Monitor with a 47-page document titled, Workforce Development Plan, December 2012. Defendants subsequently clarified that the document is a draft version of the complete workforce development plan, and that it includes a section related to the carve out counties. This document was developed in consultation with CSF. The Monitor plans to review it and provide comments to the defendants in the near term. At least preliminarily, the new submission appears to significantly improve upon the defendants’ September 4, 2012 submission. 78 MSA §II.A.1. The Settlement Agreement referred to the position as the “director of DFCS” whereas the MSA refers to the position as the MDHS deputy administrator with sole responsibility for oversight of DFCS. Compare MSA§II.A.1. with Settlement Agreement §II.A.1.a. In practice, they are the identical position. 79 MSA §II.A.1. 80 See June 2009 Report at 22-23 for additional background data related to this matter. 81 Defendants advertised the position vacancy during April and May 2012. By early July, they had interviewed 12 candidates. In mid-August, defendants readvertised the position, using substantially similar recruitment methods to those they employed in the spring. Thereafter, in mid-September, defendants readvertised the position with a higher salary. Between late October and early December, defendants report that they interviewed four candidates. They formally announced their selection to the Monitor and plaintiffs’ counsel on December 20, 2012.
20

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 23 of 58
responsibilities. Among other accomplishments, the deputy director has made demonstrable progress streamlining and accelerating the caseworker hiring process, and has provided critical oversight of DFCS operations; however, the deputy has other job responsibilities beyond DFCS, and does not satisfy all of the MSA’s qualification standards. Given these circumstances, and in light of the enormity of the challenges facing DFCS, it is unreasonable to expect the deputy director, acting in an interim capacity, to make sufficient sustained progress in the case.
As of January 2013, defendants have not filled this critical position, which has remained vacant for over six months. On December 20, 2012, following plaintiffs’ December 4, 2012 notice of noncompliance with MSA §II.A.1., issued pursuant to MSA §VII.B., defendants informed plaintiffs’ counsel that they had reached an agreement with Kimberly K. Shackleford, Ph.D., LCSW, to serve as the deputy administrator effective April 1, 2013. Thus, assuming there are no additional delays, over one year will have elapsed between the date Ms. Woodruff provided MDHS officials with notice of her intent to retire and the date Dr. Shackleford will assume her position.82
Beyond concerns about defendants’ internal capacity to achieve required reforms, the Monitor also has concerns about defendants’ Period 3 efforts to satisfy what have been longstanding substantive requirements. As described above,83 historically, insufficient staffing levels – of both caseworkers and area social work supervisors (“ASWS”) – have contributed to defendants’ inability to meet many of the Settlement Agreement’s requirements. Like the Settlement Agreement, the MSA incorporates certain staffing-related requirements intended to
82 Dr. Shackleford is a well-regarded child welfare expert. As the deputy administrator in charge of DFCS, Dr. Shackleford would be responsible for managing a governmental agency with over 1,200 employees and an annual budget of nearly $200 million dollars. Because the Monitor cannot assess, based on Dr. Shackleford’s curriculum vitae alone, whether she meets all of the specific qualification criteria for the deputy administrator position required by MSA §II.A.1., the Monitor has requested that defendants describe Dr. Shackleford’s qualifications to hold the position relative to MSA requirements. It is the Monitor’s understanding that this information is forthcoming. 83 See supra at 17.
21

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 24 of 58
limit caseworker caseloads as well as ASWS workloads and in turn improve the quality of service delivery to children in DFCS custody.84
The Settlement Agreement established specific workload requirements for caseworkers and ASWS and required certain performance levels phased-in over time.85 In mid-2009, the
Monitor reported that because of limitations in the accuracy and completeness of the workload
data that defendants collected and maintained in MACWIS, she could not assess whether defendants met caseload requirements during Period 1.86 The Monitor explained that defendants’
inability to track and report accurately on personnel and workload data were capacity deficits that
defendants would need to address in order to manage the DFCS workforce and ultimately comply with the Settlement Agreement’s standards.87 Thereafter, over one year later, the Monitor
reported that during Period 2 the defendants did not correct the documented limitations in workload data collection and reporting that existed during Period 1.88 For this reason, defendants were required to submit validated workload data during the Bridge Period.89 Nonetheless, in a
November 2010 report addressing defendants’ performance during the Bridge Period, the
Monitor found that defendants still had not validated the DFCS workload data captured in MACWIS.90
The MSA modified the caseload requirements established by the Settlement Agreement
to reflect more accurately required work efforts for each specific caseworker service activity
84 See, e.g., MSA §II.A.2.a. (establishing caseload and workload standards for caseworkers and their supervisors and imposing benchmark requirements during Period 3 and during subsequent implementation periods); see also Period 3 IP §I.A.2.c.6. (requiring the assignment of a specified minimum number of caseworkers to certain counties by the end of Period 3). 85 Settlement Agreement §II.A.2.a. 86 June 2009 Report at 29. 87 Id. at 27-28, 32-35. 88 September 2010 Report at 19. 89 June 10, 2010 Agreed Order at ¶7.a. and at Ex. A, pp. 1-2. 90 November 2010 Report at 22.
22

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 25 of 58
collected in MACWIS.91 Additionally, in light of defendants’ repeated failure to produce accurate caseload reports, the MSA required that within 90 days following the start of Period 3, defendants implement a methodology to produce accurate, validated caseload reports, and that within 120 days following the filing of the MSA, defendants provide the plaintiffs and the Monitor with county-by-county caseload data on a monthly basis.92
As noted above, in order to support the implementation of the MSA staffing requirements, during 2012 defendants created a SIT sub-team for caseload and staffing. Among other matters, the sub-team’s mission includes “[i]mplementation of a methodology for producing accurate and valid caseload data reports.”93 During November 2012, the sub-team reported that it had “determined that the [MACWIS] caseload reports did not accurately reflect true staffing needs in the carve-out counties and that workload validation of some sort was necessary.”94 The sub-team’s November 7, 2012 report describes the results of a caseload validation process that was undertaken in the carve out counties in order to provide an accurate understanding of current workload numbers.95 The report states that DFCS “staff was [sic] able to identify numerous cases in which children are no longer in agency custody and the agency has been absolved of responsibility of monitoring the family through the court system. Issues in MACWIS, i.e. financial, eligibility, pending ISPs, were found to be a frequent reason that cases remain open when they should have been closed.”96 This is a well-documented and very long-
91 MSA §II.A.2. At the same time, the MSA created a new service unit metric referred to as “caseload units.” Caseload units are calculated by expressing an individual service type as a percentage of a full caseload, defined as 6,960 minutes. Thus, a full caseload is equivalent to 100 percent of a full caseload, or 100 caseload units of caserelated work. 92 MSA §II.A.2.a.8. 93 Ex. 2, supra note 74, at 1. 94 Id. at 2. 95 Id. 96 Id.
23

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 26 of 58
standing problem that defendants have been unable to correct.97 The sub-team report omits any reference to another long-standing phenomenon reported to the Monitor by several members of the sub-team: that the caseload validation process also identified open cases that are not tracked and thus not included in caseload/workload numbers because they are not identified in MACWIS as being open.98
On December 3, 2012, defendants notified the plaintiffs and the Monitor that the validated caseload reports could not be produced as required due to “many unanticipated difficulties in implementation of the Family Service Plan (FSP), which is replacing the Individualized Service Plan (ISP).” 99 Defendants explained that “[b]ecause caseload report data is extracted from the ISP, a transition must be made in order to pull the data from the FSP.”100 Additionally, defendants noted that “redesign work must be done in order to produce accurate point in time caseload measurements.”101 Defendants expect that the reports will be produced by March 5, 2013.102 Regardless of the reasons for the delay, it is unclear why any issues related to the production of these long-overdue reports were not resolved sooner, in time to meet wellestablished deadlines.
The MSA establishes new staffing requirements that defendants must satisfy. For example, by the end of Period 3, at least 75 percent of DFCS caseworkers in the non-carve out
97 Ex. 4, Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) Sub Team Quarterly Report (July 2012 – October 2012), at 4 (recognizing that for many years defendants have been unable to satisfy requirements related to ending the custody date recorded in MACWIS within a 60-day period following termination of custody, and commenting that defendants’ failure rate continued to climb to 19 percent as documented in a May 2012 filing with federal authorities). 98 Sub-team members and other DFCS staff report that these cases are not identified in MACWIS as being open for many of the same reasons that they are not closed, e.g., delayed eligibility determinations. 99 Ex. 5, December 3, 2012 correspondence from Kenya Key Rachal to Miriam Ingber, without attachment. 100 Id. 101 Id. 102 Id.
24

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 27 of 58
counties are required to carry a caseload that does not exceed MSA caseload requirements.103 As indicated above, defendants still cannot produce validated caseload reports and thus remain unable to report accurately on caseworker caseloads. Nevertheless, in the absence of more accurate data, defendants continue to rely on the demonstrably flawed caseload calculations captured in MACWIS to make significant resource allocation decisions.104 For this reason, an analysis of defendants’ workload data is presented below. The data presented below was compiled by a DFCS consultant. While it is imperfect, it is better than MACWIS data insofar as it cross references caseworker assignment data from MACWIS against secondary data sources. While this is a labor-intensive process and not a viable solution in the long run, it does provide more usable data than is available from MACWIS and it is valuable.
According to these data, as of October 31, 2012, 50 percent of caseworkers in non-carve out counties carried a caseload that did not exceed the MSA caseload requirements.105 There was substantial variation among the percentage of caseworkers exceeding MSA requirements from county to county. In some counties, none of the assigned caseworkers met MSA caseload requirements; in other counties, all of the assigned caseworkers met MSA requirements.106 The MSA also requires that by the end of Period 3, no more than ten percent of caseworkers in noncarve out counties carry a caseload exceeding twice the MSA caseload requirements.107 The data defendants currently rely upon, albeit flawed, indicate that seven percent of caseworkers in non-
103 MSA §II.A.2.a.9.a. 104 Defendants have been relying on a consultant to produce workload reports. The consultant’s reports are based on the MACWIS caseload calculations and other sources of information, including MDHS workforce assignment records. 105 Ex. 6, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Number of Caseworkers With Caseloads in Non-Carve Out Counties Exceeding and Not Exceeding MSA Caseload Requirements, By County, As of October 31, 2012. 106 Id. 107 MSA §II.A.2.a.9.a.
25

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 28 of 58
carve out counties carry a caseload exceeding twice MSA caseload requirements.108 Additionally, the MSA requires that by the end of Period 3, no caseworkers in non-carve out counties shall carry a caseload exceeding three times the MSA caseload requirements.109 As of mid-December 2012, a report addressing performance related to this requirement was not produced by the defendants.110
The Period 3 staffing requirements for the carve out counties require that by the end of Period 3, defendants must assign a minimum of 16 full time caseworkers to Hancock County, 42 to Harrison County, 50 to Hinds County, and 34 to Jackson County.111 According to data submitted to the Monitor by defendants, as of October 31, 2012, 10 of the 16 required full time caseworkers were assigned to Hancock County, 39 of the 42 required caseworkers were assigned to Harrison County, 32 of the required 50 caseworkers were assigned to Hinds County, and 31 of the required 34 caseworkers were assigned to Jackson County.112 While the size of the workforce can be expected to fluctuate, defendants have reported substantial subsequent attrition in at least one of the carve out counties.113
During approximately the first five months of Period 3, defendants succeeded in increasing the size of the DFCS caseworker workforce in both the non-carve out and carve out counties. Between the start of Period 3 on July 6, 2012 and December 10, 2012, defendants
108 Ex. 7, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Number of Caseworkers With Caseloads in Non-Carve Out Counties Exceeding and Not Exceeding Twice MSA Caseload Requirements, By County, As of October 31, 2012. 109 MSA §II.A.2.a.9.a. 110 In June 2009, the Court Monitor found that defendants were not reporting on the percentage of caseworkers exceeding twice and three times the MSA caseload requirements. See June 2009 Report at 34. 111 Period 3 IP §I.A.2.c.6. 112 Ex. 8, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Filled Caseworker Positions in Carve Out Counties, by County, As of October 31, 2012. 113 During early December 2012, defendants reported that there were 3.5 case-carrying caseworkers in Hancock County – a significant reduction in a short period of time.
26

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 29 of 58
increased the number of caseworkers statewide by 50 staff members.114 Among the four carve out counties alone, there was a net increase during this period of 24 caseworkers.115 Moreover,
in late January 2013, defendants reported that there is likely to be a substantial increase in new
hires in one of the carve out counties and that they now have the authority to implement a new and encouraging recruitment incentive in three of the carve out counties.116
The longer-term trends in hiring and attrition of caseworker staff at DFCS indicate that
defendants have had sustained success increasing the size of the caseworker workforce. In
particular, defendants have increased substantially the number of Family Protection Specialists,
one of the five positions that comprise the caseworker workforce and the position that constitutes the largest percentage of the caseworker workforce.117 Between January 1 and December 10, 2012, defendants increased the ranks of Family Protection Specialists by 72 staff members.118
That gain was in addition to the net gain of 69 Family Protection Specialists during the prior two calendar years.119 Among the other four positions that comprise the caseworker workforce,
between January 1 and December 10, 2012, DFCS increased the size of the workforce for only one position category, Family Protection Worker I, which saw an increase of 31 staff.120 There
114 Ex. 9A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Caseworker Hires and Separations During Period 3, by County, July 6 - December 10, 2012. 115 Id. 116 Defendants report that as the result of a short-term management strategy introduced during the latter part of the 2012 calendar year, they are currently finalizing the hiring process for 28 new Hinds County employees. Presumably, many of these prospective employees would occupy caseworker or supervisory positions. See infra at 43 for additional information about this management strategy. Additionally, as the result of a December 2012 request that was made by the MDHS executive director, on January 17, 2013, the SPB authorized a 20 percent salary increase for caseworkers, their supervisors and regional directors in Hancock, Harrison and Jackson counties, effective January 1, 2013. This constitutes an important recruitment incentive. See Ex. 9B, January 17, 2013 correspondence from Deanne Mosley to Richard A. Berry. 117 Ex. 10, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Hires (Including Hires “In Process”) and Separations Among DFCS Caseworker Staff, January 1, 2010 - December 10, 2012 (with Period 3 Breakouts). 118 Id. 119 Id. 120 Id.
27

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 30 of 58
were relatively small net losses of staff among the other three categories of caseworker positions
between January 1 and December 10, 2012.
Attrition among DFCS caseworkers since 2010 has been driven largely by resignations.
Resignations, the single largest source of attrition among caseworkers, eclipsed all other
categories of attrition combined, accounting for 62 percent of all caseworker staff who separated from the agency.121
In addition to caseworker staffing requirements, the MSA also includes Period 3
requirements related to ASWS staffing levels. The MSA specifies that by the end of Period 3, in
the non-carve out counties, no more than ten percent of supervisors responsible for supervising caseworkers shall be responsible for directly supervising more than five caseworkers.122 According to the non-validated data that is relied upon by defendants,123 as of October 31, 2012,
18 ASWS, or 14.3 percent of ASWS supervising caseworkers in non-carve out counties, supervised more than five caseworkers.124 Among those 18 ASWS, ten supervised six
caseworkers each, three supervised seven caseworkers each, two supervised eight caseworkers each, and three supervised nine caseworkers each.125
Unlike the trend among the caseworker workforce, there has been a net decline in ASWS staffing levels in both 2011 and 2012.126 During calendar year 2011, DFCS lost a net total of
four ASWS staff and from January 1 to December 10, 2012, the total number of ASWS working
121 Ex. 11, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Reason for Separations Among Caseworkers, by Position, January 1, 2010 - December 10, 2012. 122 MSA §II.A.2.a.9.b. 123 See, e.g., supra at 25. 124 Ex. 12, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Area Social Work Supervisors (ASWS) Working in Non-Carve Out Counties, By Number of Caseworkers Supervised, As of October 31, 2012. Supervisors in carve out counties are not subject to the same ratio requirement during Period 3; however, for comparative purposes, see Ex. 13, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Area Social Work Supervisors (ASWS) Working in Carve Out Counties, By Number of Caseworkers Supervised, As of October 31, 2012. 125 Ex. 14, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Area Social Work Supervisors (ASWS) Supervising More Than Five Caseworkers in Non-Carve Out Counties, By Region, As of October 31, 2012. 126 Ex. 15, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Hires and Separations Among Area Social Work Supervisory Staff, January 1, 2010 - December 10, 2012.
28

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 31 of 58
for DFCS decreased by ten.127 In Period 3 specifically, there was a net decline of six ASWS
staff.128 Like the caseworker workforce, between January 1 and December 10, 2012 the single
largest source of ASWS attrition was resignations, which accounted for 56 percent of ASWS
attrition.129 Defendants will have substantial difficulty satisfying MSA requirements if
supervisory staffing deficits are not addressed in an effective way.
In addition to capacity-building initiatives and staffing, the development of a more
functional management information system has been a priority in this case from the start.
Defendants’ history of remediating the substantial shortcomings in MACWIS has been marked,
at times, by periods of inaction and unreasonable delay.130
The Settlement Agreement required that by the end of Period 1, DFCS staff would have
access to basic computer services;131 that MACWIS data related to compliance with all required
foster care service standards would be collected, analyzed and disseminated on a monthly
basis;132 and that a capacity assessment of MACWIS relative to the requirements imposed by the
Settlement Agreement would be complete.133 The expectation was that a qualified MACWIS
director would be at the helm to coordinate these initiatives.134 These requirements were not
satisfied,135 and although they were incorporated into the Period 2 IP136 – which substantially
127 Id. 128 Id. 129 See Ex. 16, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Reason for Separations Among Area Social Work Supervisors, January 1, 2010 - December 10, 2012. 130 This circumstance is not attributable to the leadership in the MACWIS unit itself. The remediation effort is plainly under-resourced and has not been treated as a priority by the defendants. 131 Settlement Agreement §II.A.5.b. According to the Settlement Agreement, access to MACWIS, word processing and electronic mail constitute access to basic computer services. Id. 132 Id. §II.A.5.c. Dissemination to DFCS county and regional staff was mandated. Id. 133 Period 1 IP §I.e. 134 The Settlement Agreement required assembly of a management team capable of assisting with the DFCS reform process. Id. §I.1. Early on, the defendants correctly viewed the MACWIS director as a key member of the team. June 2009 Report at 23-25. 135 June 2009 Report at 20 (finding that assessment of MACWIS conducted during Period 1 did not address reliability of MACWIS data, efficacy of management reports generated, nor consider whether MACWIS was capable of meeting the functionality requirements established by the Settlement Agreement); id. at 51-55 (finding
29

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 32 of 58
reduced the number of data reports that the defendants were required to produce137 – with the
exception of filling the MACWIS director position (which had become a Period 2
requirement),138 defendants were not able to satisfy these requirements by the end of Period 2.139
In fact, pursuant to the corrective action process mandated by the Bridge Plan, it was not
until July 2010, that defendants issued the RFP for the MACWIS capacity assessment.140 The
actual assessment report was not finalized until late June 2012.141 Since that time, progress on
contracting for a replacement system has advanced, but the pace has been slow at best.142 Indeed,
although over seven months has lapsed since the assessment was completed, defendants have not
that for the most part MACWIS does not report accurately and as required on Settlement Agreement standards); see also id. at 25 (finding that the MACWIS director had not been hired by June 1, 2009). 136 Period 2 IP §I.5. (requiring defendants to provide access to basic computer services, verify a limited set of data in MACWIS, and issue an RFP and contract for an assessment of MACWIS); see also id. §I.1.a. (requiring defendants to hire a qualified MAWIS director by November 1, 2009). 137 Id. §I.5.b. (requiring defendants to verify MACWIS data concerning five Settlement Agreement requirements twice during Period 2). 138 Id. §I.1.a. 139 September 2010 Report at 59-64. Pursuant to the Period 2 IP, at least some of these carry-over requirements from Period 1 were due before the conclusion of Period 2. See, e.g., Period 2 IP §I.5.c. (requiring that an RFP be issued by September 1, 2009 for a comprehensive analysis of MACWIS). 140 June 10, 2010 Agreed Order at ¶6. See November 2010 Report at 17-18 for a summary of defendants’ progress. The RFP was issued on July 27, 2010. See id. at Ex. 3, Mississippi Department of Information Technology Services, RFP No. 3583. The contract was finalized on March 18, 2011. For a copy of the contract, see The Court Monitor’s Report to the Court Regarding Findings From the Second Case Record Review and Other Matters Relevant to Defendants’ Progress Toward Satisfying the Requirements of the Settlement Agreement, filed June 29, 2012 [hereinafter June 2012 Report], at Ex. 30, Project No. 37921, Professional Services Agreement Between Walter R. McDonald & Associates, Inc. and Mississippi Department of Information Technology Services as Contracting Agent for the Mississippi Department of Human Services. 141 Defendants transmitted a draft version of the final report to the Monitor on June 8, 2012. The Monitor expressed concerns to defendants about some aspects of the draft report during a meeting that occurred on June 12, 2012 with representatives from MDHS, DFCS and WRMA. Some, but not all of these concerns, were addressed in the final report. The Monitor will report on these issues, which implicate MSA requirements, if they cannot be resolved through discussions with the parties. The final report, which is dated June 6, 2012, is titled Final Project Report, April 20, 2012. It was transmitted to the Monitor on July 12, 2012. See Ex. 17, Walter R. McDonald & Associates, Inc., Mississippi MACWIS Alternatives Analysis, Final Project Report, April 20, 2012. Defendants report that the assessment report was finalized during June 2012. 142 Approximately three months after the assessment report was issued, on October 29, 2012, defendants notified the Administration for Children and Families [hereinafter ACF] in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [hereinafter HHS], of their intent to develop a new automated case management system to replace MACWIS. Ex. 18A, October 29, 2012 correspondence to Joe Bock from Richard Berry. At that time, defendants also requested enhanced federal funding for planning activities associated with the replacement of MACWIS. Id. Thereafter, on November 30, 2012, ACF informed defendants that additional federal funding would be authorized upon the submission and approval of revised budget documents. Ex. 18B, November 30, 2012 correspondence to Richard Berry from Joseph Bock. The defendants submitted revised budget documents to ACF on December 20, 2012.
30

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 33 of 58
yet issued an RFP for a contract for services from a vendor who defendants plan to engage to help them write the actual RFP that will lead to the contract for replacement of the system.143 Because the information management system that will replace MACWIS will be, in part, federally funded, DFCS staff have had to coordinate with and seek approval from their federal partners at various points. This required coordination accounts for some of the delay during Period 3. Nevertheless, defendants report that their federal partners have been responsive and given the project priority. According to defendants’ estimated timetable, the replacement of MACWIS will involve a protracted process that will not lead to the introduction of a replacement system until sometime in late 2015 or 2016.
In the interim, over five years after the Court adopted the Settlement Agreement, defendants continue to operate with substantial limitations in their information technology systems. Indeed, despite significant efforts starting during the latter half of 2009 under the auspices of the then-newly hired MACWIS director,144 defendants have been unable to address the limitations in the MDHS information technology infrastructure in an effective way. The limitations compromise the reliability of MACWIS case records and in turn undercut the defendants’ ability to use data about system performance to make the types of changes in case practices that are required by the MSA.
DFCS caseworkers, supervisors and managers continue to report very serious problems that often compromise their ability to access and/or use MACWIS, including: 1) lengthy delays of up to several hours in logging into MACWIS; 2) difficulty remaining logged on to MACWIS;
143 As a first step, defendants plan to contract for services from a Quality Assurance/Independent Verification and Validation [hereinafter QA/IVV] vendor. Defendants contemplate that the vendor would work with MDHS/DFCS staff during the planning, system design, development and implementation stages for the new system. According to the tentative schedule proposed by the Mississippi Department of Information Technology Services [hereinafter ITS], a contract to procure QA/IVV services would not be finalized until June 30, 2013. 144 These efforts, which began after the MACWIS director was hired, included a survey of DFCS county office employees regarding staff access to computers. See September 2010 Report at 60-64 for background data related to this matter.
31

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 34 of 58
3) loss of data entered into MACWIS; 4) very slow response times; and 5) system freezes and shut downs.145 These problems are long-standing and well-documented.146 For example, according to DFCS records, between February 1 and November 30, 2012, DFCS staff experienced a minimum of 385.8 hours of unplanned, limited access to MACWIS due to recurrent problems with the basic information technology infrastructure.147
Because of these persistent problems, during the early part of 2012, defendants contracted for an assessment of the DFCS information technology infrastructure. The assessment report, issued during May 2012, identified a series of shortcomings and presented short- and long-term recommendations for improving system performance.148 Defendants began to address these recommendations shortly after the report was issued. Furthermore, during December 2012, defendants submitted a proposal to the federal government for partial funding of their remediation efforts, and defendants report that they have been notified informally that the proposal has been approved. Nevertheless, as of late January 2013, seven months after the assessment report was issued, an RFP to contract for critical server and software remediation had not been finalized. As an adjunct to addressing the recommendations in the assessment,
145 The Monitor reported on virtually identical problems in her September 2010 Report. September 2010 Report at 61-62. 146 See, e.g., id. at 61-63. 147 Ex. 19, MACWIS Down Time Tracking 2012 (submitted to the Court Monitor by DFCS MACWIS Unit on December 5, 2012). Prior to September 2012, the tracking report was based on telephone reports from DFCS field staff to staff assigned to work at the MACWIS Help Desk. Starting in September 2012, the MDHS Management Information System [hereinafter MIS] Unit began providing DFCS with weekly down time reports, which noted server issues that impact users in the field. Because the MIS reports are now included in the tracking report, the tracking report reflects increases since February 2012 in system unavailability. Defendants believe that this phenomenon is attributable to better tracking and documentation of down time. 148 Ex. 20, Citrix XenApp Infrastructure Assessment, May 18th, 2012, Citrix Systems, Inc. The report describes short-term next steps as activities that should be completed within one month and long-term next steps as activities that should be completed within one to 12 months. Id. at 2.
32

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 35 of 58
defendants are also implementing other strategies to improve the access DFCS staff have to MACWIS, including virus remediation and updating communication lines and hardware.149
In addition to the network and system availability problems described above, there are also ongoing deficits with the data reports that MACWIS produces. Accurate, timely, and relevant reports on agency performance are essential to managing complex institutional reform efforts successfully. Executives and managers require information on agency functions and performance to help inform their decisions and assess the success of their efforts. For this reason, these data are required by the MSA and essential to measuring defendants’ progress under the MSA. Despite its many limitations described above, MACWIS does capture and report on a wide array of DFCS functions; however, as the record in this case documents, historically MACWIS data have been unreliable, difficult to access, not directly correlated to Settlement Agreement requirements, and not easily manipulable for analytical and managerial purposes.150 Thus, the Period 3 IP requires defendants to produce a discrete set of “accurate and validated reports…that reflect county-by-county performance” related to specific MSA requirements according to a prescribed timeline.151
Pursuant to the Period 3 IP, in August 2012, defendants produced and submitted to the Monitor and the plaintiffs their first set of required reports.152 While the production of certain required performance reports in Period 3 represents progress that defendants can build upon, defendants’ submissions also highlight the severe limitations inherent in their extant information management systems and processes.
149 Ex. 21, Division of Family and Children’s Services, MACWIS Unit, MACWIS Response Time Improvement Initiatives, December 12, 2012. In response to the Monitor’s request, defendants provided this summary to the Monitor on December 12, 2012. The summary includes a chronology and explanation of all ongoing initiatives to improve MACWIS response time. 150 See, e.g., June 2009 Report at 27-35, 51-55, 67-69; September 2010 Report at 20-23, 47, 57-66, 75, 91, 99-100, 102; November 2010 Report at 18-19, 21-22, 43-47; June 2012 Report at 6, 42-45. 151 Period 3 IP §I.D.1.a.-c. 152 See MSA, App. C for a list of reports required to be submitted pursuant to Period 3 IP §I.D.1.a.-c.
33

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 36 of 58
As previously noted, Period 3 reporting requirements represent a substantial diminution in defendants’ reporting requirements compared with the reporting requirements that were established for Period 1.153 Notwithstanding Period 3’s pared-back reporting requirements, and despite the substantial time that has elapsed since Period 1 initially required defendants to produce accurate data reports, ongoing problems and limitations persist with defendants’ reports. These deficiencies are described below.154
First, there are certain reports required in Period 3 that defendants are not yet able to produce. For example, defendants remain unable to produce accurate and validated reports on caseworker workloads.155 It is noteworthy that defendants have been required to produce these same reports since Period 1 and the Monitor has documented in more than one report filed with the Court, the importance of these reports and the defendants’ repeated failure to produce them.156 Accurate workload reports are fundamental to hiring the proper number of and balancing the workload among caseworkers. The absence of such reports contributes to excessive caseworker caseloads, which compromises the safety and well-being of children who are in the custody of DFCS.
In addition to required reports that defendants are not able to produce, in a number of instances MACWIS cannot capture discrete data elements regarding defendants’ performance upon which defendants are required to report in Period 3. Thus, defendants have produced a number of data reports during Period 3 in response to Period 3 requirements that do not reflect performance relative to the MSA’s actual requirements. As one example, for children with the
153 See supra at 29-30. 154 Some of these key deficiencies were not evident until the latter part of the 2012 calendar year. Starting in early October 2012, the Monitor initiated a careful examination of the data reports that defendants produced in response to Period 3 requirements. As a result of this examination, various deficiencies in the reports were revealed and acknowledged by the defendants. 155 Supra at 24-25; Ex. 5, supra note 99. 156 See, e.g., June 2009 Report at 29, 32-35; September 2010 Report at 19-22; November 2010 Report at 22.
34

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 37 of 58
goal of reunification, the assigned DFCS caseworker is required to meet with the child’s
parent(s) with whom the child is to be reunified at least once each month to assess service
delivery and achievement.157 Although defendants are required to report on this requirement in
Period 3,158 defendants have informed the Monitor that they have not been able to report
accurately on this performance requirement because MACWIS does not enable DFCS staff to
identify and track with enough specificity those cases in which a child is to be reunified with
only one parent. As another example, children entering foster care are required to receive from a
qualified medical practitioner both a health screening within 72 hours of placement159 and a
comprehensive health assessment within 30 calendar days of placement.160 Defendants are
required to report on each requirement during Period 3.161 The report defendants have produced
lists what defendants present as percentages of children who received the required screenings and
evaluations within the requisite time periods; however, the report does not fully report on
performance requirements because MACWIS does not capture the data related to the MSA’s
medical practitioner requirements.162 These types of MACWIS limitations have led defendants
to develop “work arounds” to collect essential data using processes other than DFCS’s primary
157 MSA §§II.B.5.b., II.B.5.e.2. 158 Period 3 IP §I.D.1.a.-c.; MSA, App. C at 1, MACWIS MWZWCR3. 159 MSA §II.B.3.i.1. 160 Id. §II.B.3.i.2. 161 Period 3 IP §I.D.1.a.-c.; MSA, App. C at 3, MACWIS MWLS315; see also Ex. 22 for a sample page from this MACWIS report. 162 Defendants have confirmed that this is the case. Prospectively, in order to report on this requirement, defendants intend to use an alternative data collection method, which is referred to in the MSA as “FCR” – an acronym for “foster care review,” the administrative review that is required to be conducted at six-month intervals for all cases with children in foster care. Foster care reviewers, who are assigned to the foster care review section of the DFCS CQI Unit, conduct these structured reviews using an instrument developed during 2012 that, according to defendants, was revised and automated in October 2012 in response to the MSA’s data reporting requirements. See MSA, App. C at 3-5. The automated instrument is referred to as the periodic administrative determination [hereinafter PAD]. Essentially, because of limitations in MACWIS, defendants expanded the data collected during the foster care review process in order to capture specified data elements relevant to their performance under the MSA. Defendants began to collect data in MACWIS with the automated PAD on October 15, 2012. Defendants report that they are in the process of revising the instruction guide for reviewers that is used in tandem with the revised PAD. Defendants expect that they will be able to produce the MSA-required FCR data reports to the Monitor and plaintiffs’ counsel by January 31, 2013, as contemplated by the MSA.
35

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 38 of 58
information management system.163 There are other examples of data reports that defendants
have produced during Period 3 that do not report on performance relative to MSA requirements
because MACWIS does not capture data required for a correct calculation.164
In other instances, MACWIS captures the data elements necessary to use as a basis to
report on aspects of agency performance defendants are required to report on, but the MACWIS
report is designed in a manner that is not consistent with MSA requirements. Consequently, the
resulting MACWIS report cannot be used to assess defendants’ performance relative to the
governing MSA standard. To illustrate, two MSA requirements on which defendants must report
in Period 3 mandate, among other things, that in certain circumstances a caseworker must meet
with a child at least twice per month for three months.165 Although MACWIS captures data
regarding the number of caseworker visits each month, the reports defendants have produced
163 As noted supra note 152, Appendix C lists the specific data reports that defendants are required to produce during Period 3. The reports are identified as MACWIS reports, manual reports or FCR (i.e., foster care review) reports. The manual reports and FCR reports constitute reports that are intended by the parties to “work around” the limitations in MACWIS. It is noteworthy that the report related to the health screening and comprehensive health assessment, MWLS315, is listed in Appendix C as a MACWIS report. MSA, App. C at 3. 164 See, e.g., Ex. 23, sample page from MACWIS MWLS50DS, required by Period 3 IP §I.D.1.a.-c.; MSA, App. C at 1. The underlying requirement – MSA §II.B.2.p.8. – states that no foster child shall remain in an emergency or temporary facility for more than 45 calendar days unless the Field Operations Director has granted express written approval. However, MACWIS does not capture data on approvals by the Field Operations Director. See also Ex. 24, sample page from MACWIS MWZRESPS, required by Period 3 IP §I.D.1.a.-c.; App. C at 2. This report is deemed by defendants as essential to the implementation of the Practice Model and it is intended to report on the number of foster homes in the licensure process. However, defendants have informed the Monitor that the numbers reported in the report comingle the number of foster homes that are actively in the licensure process with the number of homes that have not applied for licensure, and may not ever apply, but for which an inquiry has been made about the licensure process. See also Ex. 25, sample page from MACWIS MWLS319S, required by Period 3 IP §I.D.1.a.c.; MSA, App. C at 3 (note that DFCS changed this report number from MWZ0151). The underlying requirement – MSA §II.B.2.p.2. – states that no child shall be placed in a foster care setting that has not been licensed unless s/he is ordered into the placement by the Youth Court over DFCS objections. MACWIS does not capture data on placements ordered by the Youth Court over DFCS objections, and thus the report cannot include that data. Defendants report that they intend to address this problem using the PAD. See supra note 162. See also Ex. 26, sample page from MACWIS MWLS318S, required by Period 3 IP §I.D.1.a.-c.; MSA, App. C at 3. The underlying requirements – MSA §§III.B.5.b. and III.B.5.d.1. – state that at least 80 percent of foster children in regions that have fully implemented the Practice Model shall be provided with contacts with their parents and any siblings not in the same placement consistent with MSA standards, which require the contact within 24 hours of placement (unless there are documented reasons why the contact should not occur). However, defendants have informed the Monitor that MACWIS does not capture data regarding whether children were provided with these contacts within 24 hours of placement. 165 See MSA §§III.B.8.b., III.B.8.d.1.; II.B.1.e.3. For the related reporting requirements, see Period 3 IP §I.D.1.a.c.; MSA, App. C at 1, MACWIS MWLS54A and MACWIS MWLS55SA.
36

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 39 of 58
during Period 3 are limited to data regarding caseworker visits only during one-month periods.166
Thus, it is not possible to use the data reports to determine defendants’ performance with respect
to the required three-month performance period. There are other reports that defendants were
required to produce, which were provided to the Monitor and plaintiffs’ counsel during Period 3,
that have similar deficiencies.167
Additionally, some of the data reports defendants have produced in response to Period 3
requirements have included calculation errors which raise continuing concerns about the DFCS
data validation process. For example, the Period 3 IP requires defendants to report on an MSA
requirement regarding the placement of siblings who entered DFCS custody at or near the same
time who are placed together consistent with MSA requirements.168 The MACWIS report produced
by defendants pursuant to this MSA requirement contained errors in the calculation of certain
statewide summary data.169 Although the calculation errors did not impact the accuracy of the
166 See Ex. 27, sample page from MACWIS MWLS54AS and Ex. 28, sample page from MACWIS MWLS55AS. 167 See, e.g., Ex. 29, sample page from MACWIS MWZ1271S, required by Period 3 IP §I.D.1.a.-c.; MSA, App. C at 1. The underlying requirement – MSA §II.B.1.e.2. – states that all investigations into reports of maltreatment shall be completed within 30 calendar days. Defendants’ report on this requirement examines only the most recent 30 days and uses as a basis of calculation only cases that were closed during the month included in the report. Although this is a meaningful way to look at the data, it represents far too limited a window into defendants’ performance. Defendants should also report on performance among all investigations opened during specific time periods. See also Ex. 30, sample page from MACWIS MWZPLMS2, required by Period 3 IP §I.D.1.a.-c.; MSA, App. C at 2. The underlying requirements – MSA §§II.B.5.c. and II.B.5.e.3. – provide that at least 40 percent of resource parents (therapeutic and non-therapeutic) with at least one foster child shall have a DFCS worker visit the home at least once monthly. The reports defendants have produced on therapeutic foster homes indicates that MSA requirements were met when there were two visits in one month by a DFCS worker, not one visit. Defendants are aware of this problem and state that they are working to amend the report. It should be noted that the Settlement Agreement previously required twice monthly visits in this circumstance. See Settlement Agreement §II.B.10.h. See also Ex. 31, sample page from MACWIS MWZWC5S2, required by Period 3 IP §I.D.1.a.-c.; MSA, App. C at 2. The underlying requirements – MSA §§II.B.5.a. and II.B.5.e.1. – state that at least 60 percent of children in custody shall receive twice monthly in-person visits by the assigned DFCS caseworker consistent with the MSA requirements, which include meeting with the child alone, where age appropriate. Although MACWIS captures data regarding participants in meetings during home visits, the MACWIS report on this performance measure does not distinguish between meetings that were conducted alone with a child and meetings that included other participants and therefore the report does not report accurately on whether the in-person meetings met the MSA requirement. 168 See Period 3 IP §I.D.1.a.-c.; MSA, App. C at 3, MACWIS MWLS316; MSA §§II.B.2.h. and II.B.2.p.13. 169 See Ex. 32, sample page from MACWIS MWLS316S that reflects the calculation errors. The calculations of both the percentage of children in sibling groups who were not initially placed together, but were placed together within 30 days and the percentage of children “who entered as runaway” were incorrect.
37

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 40 of 58
county-level data, they do raise questions about the reliability of the data validation process that defendants have employed. 170
Finally, in a limited number of cases, the data reports defendants produced during Period
3 contained data that corresponded to MSA requirements, but the data was presented in a manner
that made it unduly difficult to determine defendants’ performance relative to MSA
requirements. For example, the MSA requires that by the end of Period 3, 85 percent of children
shall be placed within their own county or within 50 miles from the home from which they were removed, unless certain exceptions apply.171 Although defendants’ report on this requirement
contained information to determine performance levels, it requires the reader to calculate the number rather than simply presenting it in a straightforward manner.172
The data reports defendants have generated during Period 3 represent a step in the
evolution of their reporting capacity. Overall, however, defendants’ progress has been plodding,
hobbled by a grossly inadequate information system and insufficient resources devoted to
capacity building. In their current form, MACWIS reports are limited in scope and difficult to
use as a management tool. The reports cannot be used readily to track DFCS progress over time,
which presents a challenge for managers who should use the reports to assess and adjust resource
allocation decisions. Furthermore, MACWIS is not adaptable enough to answer specific
managerial questions that may arise in a timely manner.
170 As described in the Monitor’s November 2010 Report, during the Bridge Period a three-person team with two external consultants was used to validate the data reports that were produced pursuant to Bridge Plan requirements. November 2010 Report at 20-21. It appeared that the validation method was designed primarily to test the internal integrity of the data reports by ensuring the reports extracted data from the relevant case records and the correct data fields. The methodology that was used was limited to ensuring that MACWIS reports accurately reflected the data contained in the system. It did not assess whether the data entered into the system accurately reflected the facts of the case. 171 MSA §§II.B.2.g. and II.B.2.p.16. 172 See Ex. 33, sample page from MACWIS MWLS314S. It is difficult to determine from the report the number or percentage of children who were placed either within their county or within 50 miles from their home, as required by the MSA. Defendants have reported that they are aware of this issue and intend to correct it.
38

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 41 of 58
Since mid-December 2010, defendants have used MACWIS reports to generate periodic
“dashboard reports,” which are charts that present defendants’ monthly MACWIS report data in a
visual summary format and which are made widely available to DFCS staff for review.173
Defendants have reported to the Monitor that in November 2012, they increased the frequency
with which they update the dashboard reports from quarterly to monthly, a practice that will
provide managers with more timely data. Nevertheless, because defendants’ dashboard reports
are based upon MACWIS reports, they are subject to the same shortcomings and limitations as
the MACWIS reports upon which they are based.174
173 See, e.g., Ex. 34A, DFCS data dashboard report, 90 Day Trial Home Visit (9/01/2012-9/30/2012); Ex. 34B, DFCS data dashboard report, Adoption Finalization (10/01/2011-9/30/2012); Ex. 34C, DFCS data dashboard report, All Children Investigation Completed (9/01/2012-9/30/2012); Ex. 34D, DFCS data dashboard report, All Child ANE Investigations Initiated (9/01/2012-9/30/2012); Ex. 34E, DFCS data dashboard report, Children in Emergency Shelter > 45 Days (9/01/2012-9/30/2012); Ex. 34F, DFCS data dashboard report, Children in More Than 1 Emergency Placement (9/01/2012-9/30/2012); Ex. 34G, DFCS data dashboard report, Children Under Age 10 in Emergency Placement (9/01/2012-9/30/2012); Ex. 34H, DFCS data dashboard report, Custody Children Investigation Completed Timely (9/01/2012-9/30/2012); Ex. 34I, DFCS data dashboard report, Custody Children Investigation Initiated (9/01/2012-9/30/2012); Ex. 34J, DFCS data dashboard report, Family Based vs Non-Family Based Placement (9/01/2012-9/30/2012); Ex. 34K, DFCS data dashboard report, Independent Living Services (9/01/2012-9/30/2012); Ex. 34L, DFCS data dashboard report, Maltreatment Rate Custody Children (10/1/119/30/12); Ex. 34M, DFCS data dashboard report, Children Re-entering Foster Care w/1 year of Reunification (10/1/11-9/30/12); Ex. 34N, DFCS data dashboard report, Children W/Perm_Plan Developed w/30 days of Entry into Foster Care; Ex. 34O, DFCS data dashboard report, MWLS314S-Proximity of Initial Placement (10/1/119/30/12); Ex. 34P, DFCS data dashboard report, MWLS314S-Proximity of Initial Placement (10/1/12-9/30/12) (2) [sic] (it appears the correct time period should be listed as 10/1/11-9/30/12); Ex. 34Q, DFCS data dashboard report, MWLS314S-Proximity of Initial Placement (10/1/11-9/30/12) (3); Ex. 34R, DFCS data dashboard report, MWLS314S-Proximity of Initial Placement (10/1/12-9/30/12) (4) [sic] (it appears the correct time period should be listed as 10/1/11-9/30/12); Ex. 34S, DFCS data dashboard report, Children receiving a comprehensive health assessment (10/1/11-9/30/12); Ex. 34T, DFCS data dashboard report, Children contacts with parents and siblings (9/1/12-9/30/12); Ex. 34U, DFCS data dashboard report, Children in Unlicensed Placements (9/1/2012-9/30/2012); Ex. 34V, DFCS data dashboard report, MWZ017S1_Children in Custody 17-22 Months (9/1/12-9/30/12); Ex. 34W, DFCS data dashboard report, Non-Therapeutic Home Contacts (9/01/2012-9/30/2012); Ex. 34X, DFCS data dashboard report, Placement Stability (9/01/2012-9/30/2012); Ex. 34Y, DFCS data dashboard report, Prevention Cases (as of 10/15/2012); Ex. 34Z, DFCS data dashboard report, Protection Cases (as of 10/15/2012); Ex. 34AA, DFCS data dashboard report, Reunification (10/01/2011-9/30/2012); Ex. 34BB, DFCS data dashboard report, Sibling Groups in Congregate Care (9/01/2012-9/30/2012); Ex. 34CC, DFCS data dashboard report, Therapeutic Home Contacts (9/01/2012-9/30/2012); Ex. 34DD, DFCS data dashboard report, Timely County Conference (10/01/2011-9/30/2012); Ex. 34EE, DFCS data dashboard report, Timely Permanency Hearing (10/01/20119/30/2012); Ex. 34FF, DFCS data dashboard report, Exceptions TPR Filing for Children (as of 10/5/12); Ex. 34GG, DFCS data dashboard report, Visitation With Children (9/01/2012-9/30/2012); Ex. 34HH, DFCS data dashboard report, Visitation With Parents (9/01/2012-9/30/2012); Ex. 34II, DFCS data dashboard report, Visits W/Children Remaining in Placement Following Investigation. 174 Those problems and limitation are described supra at 34-38.
39

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 42 of 58
While it is encouraging that defendants have developed management information reports
and have increased the frequency with which they are producing those reports, they must
continue to enhance this capacity. As described in detail above, ultimately this will require
replacing MACWIS; however, even with their current data reports, defendants could produce
more robust dashboard reports for DFCS managers and executives.175 Using data reports that
they already produce, defendants could generate monthly dashboard reports that, among other
things, make clearer evolving performance trends over multiple months among regions,176 rather
than only comparing regions in individual months;177 break out practice model regions from non-
175 The DFCS Division of Evaluation and Monitoring produces annual CQI reports on a regional basis that provide a wide variety of comparative data over time. Many of these reports are required by the MSA. Period 3 IP §I.B. However, because these reports are produced annually, they serve a different management purpose from the more frequent dashboard reports. 176 This is ultimately required by the MSA. See MSA §II.A.5.a. Defendants report that they have taken steps to enhance DFCS reporting capacity and expect to be able to produce future trending reports related to DFCS performance at some point in the future. 177 See, e.g., Ex. 35A, Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children in Custody With Substantiated Findings of Maltreatment, by Region, During 12-Month Periods Ending 6/30/12, 7/31/12, 8/31/12, and 9/30/12; Ex. 35B, Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Monthly In-Person Visits With Child by Assigned Caseworkers, by Region, One-Month Periods Ending 6/30/12, 7/31/12, 8/31/12, and 9/30/12; Ex. 35C, Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Proximity of Initial Placement for All Children Entering Custody, 12Month Periods Ending 6/30/12, 7/31/12, 8/31/12, and 9/30/12; Ex. 35D, Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Entering Custody Who Received an Initial Health Screening Within 72 Hours of Entering Custody, 12-Month Periods Ending 6/30/12, 7/31/12, 8/31/12, and 9/30/12; Ex. 35E, Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children in Custody 30+ Days Who Received a Comprehensive Health Assessment Within 30 Days of Entering Custody, 12-Month Periods Ending 6/30/12, 7/31/12, 8/31/12, and 9/30/12; Ex. 35F, Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Placement of Sibling Groups Who Entered Custody At Or Around the Same Time, By Region, 12-Month Periods Ending 8/31/12 and 9/30/12; Ex. 35G, Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Number of Children in Licensed and Unlicensed Placements, Including Approved Relative Placements Pending Full Licensure, One-Month Periods Ending 6/30/12, 7/31/12, 8/31/12, and 9/30/12; Ex. 35H, Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Investigations Open One or More Days During Period Initiated Within 24 Hours of Intake, By Region, One-Month Periods Ending 6/30/12, 7/31/12, 8/31/12, and 9/30/12; Ex. 35I, Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Status of Maltreatment Investigations Open One or More Days During Period, By Region, One-Month Periods Ending 6/30/12, 7/31/12, 8/31/12, and 9/30/12; Ex. 35J, Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Remaining in the Same Placement Following Maltreatment Investigation Who Met Face-to-Face With Worker Twice in a One-Month Period or At Least Once if 15 Days or Less Following Completed Maltreatment Investigation, By Region, One-Month Periods Ending 6/30/12, 7/31/12, 8/31/12, and 9/30/12; Ex. 35K, Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children in Emergency Shelter or Temporary Facility for Over 45 Days With and Without the Division Director Approval, By Region, One-Month Periods Ending 6/30/12, 7/31/12, 8/31/12, and 9/30/12; Ex. 35L, Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Under Age 10 Housed in a Congregate Care Setting With and Without Regional Director Approval, By Region, One-Month Periods Ending 6/30/12, 7/31/12, 8/31/12, and 9/30/12; Ex. 35M, Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Number of Sibling Groups With At Least One Sibling Under Age 10 Housed in a Congregate Care Setting For More Than 45 Days, By Region, During Months Ending 6/30/12, 7/31/12, 8/31/12, and 9/30/12;
40

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 43 of 58
practice model regions to make assessment of practice model implementation efforts easier;178
and accelerate revisions to reports so that they track actual MSA requirements and make explicit
that there are limitations in the underlying data used as a basis for the charts that they produce.179
Despite the ongoing challenges described above that the defendants face, they are
continuing to advance their reform efforts through the practice model. Since January 2010,
defendants have introduced the practice model at staggered intervals in each of DFCS’s 13
regions.180 As required by the MSA, defendants have continued to contract with CSF for
technical assistance and oversight of the implementation process on a statewide basis.181 CSF
has provided DFCS managers and staff with substantial ongoing support related to practice
Ex. 35N, Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children With Two or More Emergency or Temporary Facility Placements At Any Time Within One Episode of Foster Care With and Without Regional Director Approval, By Region, During Months Ending 6/30/12, 7/31/12, 8/31/12, and 9/30/12; Ex. 35O, Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Non-Therapeutic Placement Setting Contacts, By Region, One-Month Periods Ending 6/30/12, 7/31/12, 8/31/12, and 9/30/12; Ex. 35P, Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Therapeutic Placement Setting Contacts, By Region, One-Month Periods Ending 6/30/12, 7/31/12, 8/31/12, and 9/30/12; Ex. 35Q, Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children in Care Fewer Than 12 Months From the Time of Latest Removal From Home, By Region and Number of Placements, For the Dates 6/30/12, 7/31/12, 8/31/12, and 9/30/12. 178 See, e.g., Ex. 36A, Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, During Trial Home Visit Period, Number of Children Who Met With Their Caseworker or Family Preservation Caseworker in the Home Twice in a OneMonth Period or At Least Once Monthly if 15 Days or Less, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, By Region, One-Month Periods Ending 6/30/12, 7/31/12, 8/31/12, and 9/30/12; Ex. 36B, Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children in Custody for Six Months or More With an Administrative Review Every Six Months, By Region and By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, 12-Month Periods Ending 6/30/12, 7/31/12, 8/31/12, and 9/30/12; Ex. 36C, Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children in Custody for 12 Months or More With a Timely Permanency Hearing, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, By Region, 12Month Periods Ending 6/30/12, 7/31/12, 8/31/12, and 9/30/12; Ex. 36D, Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Ages 14-20 Receiving Independent Living Services As Set Forth In Service Plan, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, By Region, 12-Month Periods Ending 6/30/12, 7/31/12, 8/31/12, and 9/30/12; Ex. 36E, Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Leaving State Custody and Reason, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, By Region, and Percentage of Children Reunified With Parent or Caretaker In Under 12 Months From Latest Removal, 12-Month Periods Ending 6/30/12, 7/31/12, 8/31/12, and 9/30/12; Ex. 36F, Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children With a Permanency Plan By Their 30th Day of Custody, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, By Region, 12-Month Periods Ending 6/30/12, 7/31/12, 8/31/12, and 9/30/12; Ex. 36G, Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Length of Time Between Court Custody and Finalization of Adoption, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, By Region, 12-Month Periods Ending 6/30/12, 7/31/12, 8/31/12, and 9/30/12. 179 See, e.g., Ex. 35B-Ex. 35L, supra note 177; Ex. 35N-Ex. 35P, supra note 177; Ex.36A-36B, supra note 178; and Ex. 36F, supra note 178. 180 See supra at 11 for a copy of the practice model rollout schedule. 181 MSA §I.C.
41

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 44 of 58
model implementation, including training, intensive coaching,182 and other necessary on- and off-
site consultative services. Additionally, CSF has assisted in facilitating various CQI activities, which are required by the MSA.183 The range of services provided by CSF is intended to build DFCS’s internal capacity as well as promote improvements in case practices.184
Overall, the practice model has been introduced in each of DFCS’s 13 regions according
to the implementation schedule established by the MSA. The training curriculum for DFCS staff
has been modified to reflect practice model principles, and defendants report that policies are
being reviewed on an ongoing basis in light of practice model doctrines. Moreover, DFCS
caseworkers, their supervisors and management staff have received core training in the principles
of the practice model. While there have been significant delays hiring practice coaches in several regions,185 and difficulty retaining coaching staff in some regions,186 DFCS staff report that
substantial benefits are derived from the intensive coaching afforded to staff by both CSF and
DFCS coaches during the practice model implementation process. Defendants, with support
from CSF, are working currently to strengthen the DFCS coaching program.
While introduction of the practice model in DFCS’s 13 regions has been timely relative to the MSA’s “rollout” schedule,187 as the Monitor has reported previously, the regions have not
had basic elements of the necessary infrastructure in place to support implementation of the
practice model. Indeed, implementation efforts have been undercut in some regions, particularly,
182 Intensive coaching has been provided through the CSF contract for DFCS supervisory staff. For the most part, caseworkers are coached by DFCS coaches who have received extensive training and coaching from CSF consultants. 183 Period 3 IP §I.B. 184 There is some evidence that DFCS is developing the organizational capacity to manage discrete aspects of the practice model implementation process. For example, DFCS recently added several mid-level management positions in order to centralize responsibility for supervising the DFCS practice coaches who are assigned to each region to work with field staff. 185 It appears that Regions I-N, III-S and IV-N experienced the most significant delays in hiring. 186 In several regions, practice coaches have resigned, but for the most part they continue to work at DFCS in other capacities. 187 See supra at 11 for a copy of the schedule.
42

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 45 of 58
as noted above, in the regions that include the carve out counties, by persistent, and at times very
serious, staffing deficits.188 Moreover, implementation of the model has been impeded statewide
by the inability of MACWIS to readily capture and report on case-related information in a
manner consistent with practice model specifications.189 Nevertheless, the implementation
schedule was designed to be long enough to allow for defendants to address exactly these types
of obstacles and defendants must do so in order to successfully meet MSA deadlines.
In recognition of this and other systemic challenges that have impeded implementation of
the practice model,190 at the end of the 2012 calendar year, in collaboration with CSF, defendants
launched a promising short-term management strategy to address understaffing and other
systemic problems in the carve out counties.191 Currently, this initiative is in its early stages.
The Monitor will report on defendants’ progress, as appropriate; however, ultimately, the
efficacy of this effort will be determined by whether the MSA’s Period 3 outcome standards are
satisfied.
The 13 DFCS regions are now in various stages of the practice model implementation
process. Pursuant to the MSA, two regions, I-S and II-W, are deemed to have fully implemented
188 See, e.g., supra at 17-18; see also June 2012 Report at 14 and n. 44. 189 In addition to the data reporting issues described in this and previous monitoring reports, see, e.g., supra at 3438, MACWIS has not captured data in a manner that facilitates implementation of the practice model. For example, as explained in the Monitor’s June 2012 Report, a key component of the practice model is the comprehensive family assessment [hereinafter CFA], which is an evaluation of the strengths and needs of all family members. Id. at 17. As the practice model was being introduced, and thereafter, CSF and DFCS staff provided intensive training and individualized coaching to DFCS caseworkers and supervisors on the new assessment process. However, implementation of the CFA has been complicated and protracted by the fact that that the CFA tool was not automated until July 2, 2012 – two and one-half years after the practice model implementation process began. Up until that date, as each region implemented the practice model, caseworkers were required to complete both a manual version of the CFA instrument and an automated version of the Strengths and Risk Assessment [hereinafter SARA], which is the assessment tool in MACWIS that should have been obsolete in the regions once they began to implement the practice model. Similarly, a core element of the practice model is the family service plan [hereinafter FSP]. The FSP, which is based on an individualized, ongoing, collaborative assessment process, was not incorporated into MACWIS until December 3, 2012. 190 There are a number of barriers that defendants will need to address, including the fact that regional management structure and related resources do not adequately reflect the widely disparate demands among the regions. 191 Ex. 37, Strategy for Addressing Carve Out Counties. See supra note 116 for information related to one of the initial and encouraging results of this management strategy.
43

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 46 of 58
the practice model.192 Beginning in September 2012, these regions were required to meet specified MSA requirements on a prospective basis during a data tracking year that concludes in August 2013. Thus, at this juncture, it would be inappropriate to draw any conclusions about whether and to what extent the practice model has resulted in the mandated improvements in case practice in those two specific regions. It is too soon to draw any conclusions about the success of the regional implementation strategy. At this point the Monitor has analyzed only four months of the limited data that is available from Period 3.193 Progress in these circumstances is rarely linear and any conclusions based on four months of data would be premature. Nevertheless, it is imperative for defendants to monitor their progress in these regions and make corrections as necessary. Available data indicate that there is still substantial progress to be made before the conclusion of the data tracking year.194 IV. CONCLUSION
While defendants have made demonstrable efforts over the past five years to implement the requirements of the Settlement Agreement and the MSA, their efforts have been compromised by their failure to satisfy certain substantive requirements in this lawsuit with a greater sense of urgency. Over this period, there has been progress on some key initiatives that were either mandated or contemplated by Period 1 requirements. For example, DFCS has hired committed and talented managers and field staff and increased caseworker staffing levels in many, but not all, regions. Agency policies and procedures have been revised, at times extensively, to align with the Settlement Agreement’s requirements. Moreover, although not yet staffed at the levels required by the end of Period 3, continuous quality improvement and resource development programs have been established. Finally, a revised curriculum has been
192 See supra at 11. 193 See, e.g., Exs. 36A-36G, supra note 178. 194 See, e.g., Exs. 36A, 36C-36G, supra note 178.
44

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 47 of 58
developed for the pre-service training program that is offered for DFCS caseworkers and their supervisors, and enhanced training is being delivered to staff on a more timely basis. Defendants also are making progress toward meeting COA standards. Unfortunately, progress in each of these areas has been much slower than contemplated by the Settlement Agreement and more recently the MSA, and these initiatives represent a very small number of the obligations that the defendants have been required to satisfy.
July 2012, the advent of Period 3, marked a new start for defendants under a new reform model. Yet progress still appears to move slowly. Defendants now have completed a necessary assessment of their information system and are collaborating with their federal partners on funding the new system. Nevertheless, defendants stand before the Court in the sixth year of the remedial process unable to satisfy many of the Settlement Agreement’s core data reporting requirements about their own performance, and without having issued a request for proposals for a replacement system.
There is an urgent need for defendants to produce timely, accurate and validated reports about performance related to MSA requirements and for replacing MACWIS, within a reasonable time period, with a system that meets the MSA’s requirements. Among other purposes, accurate performance reports should serve the parties and the Monitor as an early warning system to identify ongoing performance problems and potential risks to the safety and well-being of children in defendants’ custody. These reports are long overdue and defendants must now address this problem.
Defendants’ unnecessarily protracted efforts to replace the deputy administrator, who they knew was leaving since March 2012, is also emblematic of the unduly slow pace at which defendants are pursuing important initiatives. Assuming there are no additional delays, over one
45

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 48 of 58
year will have elapsed between the date the prior deputy administrator provided MDHS officials
with notice of her intent to retire and the date a new deputy will fill that executive vacancy.
The lack of urgency with which defendants are proceeding is unacceptable in light of the
impact the deficits in their performance have had and continue to have on the safety and well-
being of the nearly 3,800 children in DFCS custody.195 As the MSA itself recognizes, there have
been, at times, tragic outcomes for the children defendants are charged to protect, and there is a
need to address any shortcomings that have contributed to these outcomes on an urgent basis.196
The statewide rate of maltreatment of children in defendants’ custody far exceeds national
standards, and in many DFCS regions the rate has been more than double the Period 3 statewide
performance requirements.197 Moreover, because of ongoing and very serious deficiencies in the
quality of maltreatment investigations,198 which defendants have been unable to address in an
195 DFCS Significant Weekly Activities Report, December 14, 2012. As of December 7, 2012, defendants reported “preliminary data” indicating that there were 3,798 children in custody. According to MACWIS data, as of September 30, 2012, almost half of the children in defendants’ custody were in foster homes and an additional 10 percent in unlicensed relative homes. For a breakdown of placements for children in DFCS custody as of September 30, 2012, see Ex. 38, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children in Foster Care by Placement Type, Statewide, One-Month Period Ending 9/30/12. For a regional breakdown of placement types, see Ex. 39, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children in Foster Care by Placement Type, By Region, One-Month Periods Ending 6/30/12, 7/31/12, 8/31/12, and 9/30/12. 196 Section II.C.1. of the Period 3 IP required the defendants to conduct an assessment of the F.M. fatality and provide a written assessment report to the Monitor and plaintiffs’ counsel by 30 days following the Court’s approval of the MSA. F.M. was a child in defendants’ custody who died in a DFCS placement under very troubling circumstances. The assessment was required to address any failings by defendants in the delivery of foster care services, case practice and licensing practice as well as recommendations for ways to improve child safety and address any identified deficiencies. On August 6, 2012, defendants submitted, through counsel, a document titled “Summary of Child Fatality Assessment to Improve Child Safety.” Defendants’ submission failed to include any assessment of foster care services, case practice or licensing practices in light of DFCS policies nor in light of any other applicable practice standards such as the standards imposed by the MSA. Simply put, defendants’ submission was grossly inadequate, evidencing both a lack of capacity and a lack of appreciation for the importance of the assessment and the need to perform it adequately. 197 The MSA imposes a statewide performance requirement related to the rate of maltreatment in care. MSA §II.C.2. Nonetheless, it is useful to review variations in regional performance. See Ex. 35A, supra note 177 (chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor based on MACWIS data depicting the region-by-region rate of maltreatment in care for four 12-month periods ending September 30, 2012); see also Ex. 40, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Total Number of Children in Custody With Findings of Maltreatment During 12-Month Period Ending 9/30/12. 198 The Monitor will report in detail about this very serious problem, and the remedial efforts that are underway pursuant to MSA §II.B.1., in her final report on defendants’ performance during Period 3. The Period 3 IP includes a series of requirements related to this matter, which defendants are required to complete and/or implement by the
46

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 49 of 58
effective way, there is a possibility that this rate could be even higher than the rate reported by defendants.199
After five years, the pace of reform in this lawsuit must accelerate. The MSA was born of a prior agreement whose terms defendants were, by and large, not able to meet. Although the MSA is still in its infancy, important deadlines are already fast approaching and the pipeline of regions completing their data tracking year will open in September 2013. In light of the record, the opportunities defendants have been afforded, and the ongoing risk to children in defendants’ custody, it is imperative that defendants demonstrate that they can meet their obligations under the MSA by the end of Period 3.
The Monitor will be available to address the matters set forth in this report during the February 21, 2013 status hearing.
_________/ s / _______________________ Grace M. Lopes (MBN 45693 pro hac vice) Court Monitor 1350 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 232-8311 gmlopes@oymonitor.org
end of Period 3. See Period 3 IP §II.C. (requiring, inter alia, implementation of a plan to ensure defendants utilize standardized decision-making criteria for prioritizing, screening, and assessing all reports of maltreatment as well as the development of training and processes concerning a systematic review of maltreatment investigations related to the children in defendants’ custody). 199 Defendants have made efforts, but they have been unable to make demonstrable improvements in the quality of maltreatment investigations. For example, during the Bridge Period, defendants were required to conduct specialized training to address this issue. Agreed Order at ¶7.b. For the most part, this initiative has not had a fundamental impact on the quality of investigations as documented in the investigative reports that are issued with respect to allegations of abuse and/or neglect of children in defendants’ custody.
47

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 50 of 58
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on January 25, 2013, the Court Monitor’s Status Report to the Court Regarding Progress During Period Three, was transmitted electronically to the following counsel of record in this matter:
Dewitt L. (“Rusty”) Fortenberry Jr. Kenya Key Rachal Ashley Tullos Young Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC 428 I-55 North Meadowbrook Office Park Jackson, Mississippi 39211
Harold E. Pizzetta, III Assistant Attorney General General Civil Division Carroll Gartin Justice Building 430 High Street Jackson, MS 39201
W. Wayne Drinkwater, Jr. BRADLEY ARANT ROSE & WHITE LLP 188 East Capital Street, Suite 450 Jackson, Mississippi 39201
Marcia Robinson Lowry Miriam Ingber Sarah Russo CHILDREN’S RIGHTS 330 Seventh Avenue New York, New York 10001
John Lang John Piskora LOEB & LOEB LLP 345 Park Ave. New York, New York 10154
_________/ s / _______________
Grace M. Lopes
48

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 51 of 58

Ex. 1 Ex. 2 Ex. 3
Ex. 4 Ex. 5 Ex. 6
Ex. 7
Ex. 8 Ex. 9A Ex. 9B Ex. 10 Ex. 11

Index to Exhibits
Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children Services (MDHS/DFCS), Workforce Development Plan, Phase I, Harrison, Hancock, Jackson, & Hinds Counties
Caseload/Staffing Subteam Quarterly Report, November 7, 2012
Strategies for Promoting Implementation of the Olivia Y. Standards in the Mississippi Youth Courts, Legal and Judicial Sub-Team Report on Requirements for the Modified Settlement Agreement (MSA) and Period III Implementation Plan (IP)
Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) Sub Team Quarterly Report (July 2012 – October 2012)
December 3, 2012 correspondence from Kenya Key Rachal to Miriam Ingber without attachment
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Number of Caseworkers With Caseloads in Non-Carve Out Counties Exceeding and Not Exceeding MSA Caseload Requirements, By County, As of October 31, 2012
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Number of Caseworkers With Caseloads in Non-Carve Out Counties Exceeding and Not Exceeding Twice MSA Caseload Requirements, By County, As of October 31, 2012
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Filled Caseworker Positions in Carve Out Counties, by County, As of October 31, 2012
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Caseworker Hires and Separations During Period 3, by County, July 6 - December 10, 2012
January 17, 2013 correspondence from Deanne Mosley to Richard A. Berry
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Hires (Including Hires “In Process”) and Separations Among DFCS Caseworker Staff, January 1, 2010 - December 10, 2012 (with Period 3 Breakouts)
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Reason for Separations Among Caseworkers, by Position, January 1, 2010 - December 10, 2012

Index-1

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 52 of 58

Ex. 12
Ex. 13
Ex. 14
Ex. 15
Ex. 16
Ex. 17 Ex. 18A Ex. 18B Ex. 19 Ex. 20 Ex. 21 Ex. 22 Ex. 23 Ex. 24 Ex. 25 Ex. 26 Ex. 27

Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Area Social Work Supervisors (ASWS) Working in Non-Carve Out Counties, By Number of Caseworkers Supervised, As of October 31, 2012
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Area Social Work Supervisors (ASWS) Working in Carve Out Counties, By Number of Caseworkers Supervised, As of October 31, 2012
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Area Social Work Supervisors (ASWS) Supervising More Than Five Caseworkers in NonCarve Out Counties, By Region, As of October 31, 2012
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Hires and Separations Among Area Social Work Supervisory Staff, January 1, 2010 - December 10, 2012
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Reason for Separations Among Area Social Work Supervisors, January 1, 2010 - December 10, 2012
Walter R. McDonald & Associates, Inc., Mississippi MACWIS Alternatives Analysis, Final Project Report, April 20, 2012
October 29, 2012 correspondence to Joe Bock from Richard Berry
November 30, 2012 correspondence to Richard Berry from Joseph Bock
MACWIS Down Time Tracking 2012
Citrix XenApp Infrastructure Assessment, May 18th, 2012, Citrix Systems, Inc.
Division of Family and Children’s Services, MACWIS Unit, MACWIS Response Time Improvement Initiatives, December 12, 2012
Sample page from MACWIS MWLS315S
Sample page from MACWIS MWLS50DS
Sample page from MACWIS MWZRESPS
Sample page from MACWIS MWLS319S
Sample page from MACWIS MWLS318S
Sample page from MACWIS MWLS54AS

Index-2

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 53 of 58

Ex. 28 Ex. 29 Ex. 30 Ex. 31 Ex. 32 Ex. 33 Ex. 34A Ex. 34B Ex. 34C Ex. 34D Ex. 34E Ex. 34F Ex. 34G Ex. 34H Ex. 34I Ex. 34J Ex. 34K

Sample page from MACWIS MWLS55AS
Sample page from MACWIS MWZ1271S
Sample page from MACWIS MWZPLMS2
Sample page from MACWIS MWZWC5S2
Sample page from MACWIS MWLS316S
Sample page from MACWIS MWLS314S
DFCS data dashboard report, 90 Day Trial Home Visit (9/01/20129/30/2012)
DFCS data dashboard report, Adoption Finalization (10/01/20119/30/2012)
DFCS data dashboard report, All Children Investigation Completed (9/01/2012-9/30/2012)
DFCS data dashboard report, All Child ANE Investigations Initiated (9/01/2012-9/30/2012)
DFCS data dashboard report, Children in Emergency Shelter > 45 Days (9/01/2012-9/30/2012)
DFCS data dashboard report, Children in More Than 1 Emergency Placement (9/01/2012-9/30/2012)
DFCS data dashboard report, Children Under Age 10 in Emergency Placement (9/01/2012-9/30/2012)
DFCS data dashboard report, Custody Children Investigation Completed Timely (9/01/2012-9/30/2012)
DFCS data dashboard report, Custody Children Investigation Initiated (9/01/2012-9/30/2012)
DFCS data dashboard report, Family Based vs Non-Family Based Placement (9/01/2012-9/30/2012)
DFCS data dashboard report, Independent Living Services (9/01/20129/30/2012)

Index-3

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 54 of 58

Ex. 34L Ex. 34M Ex. 34N Ex. 34O Ex. 34P Ex. 34Q Ex. 34R Ex. 34S Ex. 34T Ex. 34U Ex. 34V Ex. 34W Ex. 34X Ex. 34Y Ex. 34Z Ex. 34AA Ex. 34BB

DFCS data dashboard report, Maltreatment Rate Custody Children (10/1/11-9/30/12)
DFCS data dashboard report, Children Re-entering Foster Care w/1 year of Reunification (10/1/11-9/30/12)
DFCS data dashboard report, Children W/Perm_Plan Developed w/30 days of Entry into Foster Care
DFCS data dashboard report, MWLS314S-Proximity of Initial Placement (10/1/11-9/30/12)
DFCS data dashboard report, MWLS314S-Proximity of Initial Placement (10/1/12-9/30/12) (2) [sic]
DFCS data dashboard report, MWLS314S-Proximity of Initial Placement (10/1/11-9/30/12) (3)
DFCS data dashboard report, MWLS314S-Proximity of Initial Placement (10/1/12-9/30/12) (4) [sic]
DFCS data dashboard report, Children receiving a comprehensive health assessment (10/1/11-9/30/12)
DFCS data dashboard report, Children contacts with parents and siblings (9/1/12-9/30/12)
DFCS data dashboard report, Children in Unlicensed Placements (9/1/2012-9/30/2012)
DFCS data dashboard report, MWZ017S1_Children in Custody 17-22 Months (9/1/12-9/30/12)
DFCS data dashboard report, Non-Therapeutic Home Contacts (9/01/2012-9/30/2012)
DFCS data dashboard report, Placement Stability (9/01/2012-9/30/2012)
DFCS data dashboard report, Prevention Cases (as of 10/15/2012)
DFCS data dashboard report, Protection Cases (as of 10/15/2012)
DFCS data dashboard report, Reunification (10/01/2011-9/30/2012)
DFCS data dashboard report, Sibling Groups in Congregate Care (9/01/2012-9/30/2012)

Index-4

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 55 of 58

Ex. 34CC Ex. 34DD Ex. 34EE Ex. 34FF Ex. 34GG Ex. 34HH Ex. 34II Ex. 35A Ex. 35B Ex. 35C Ex. 35D
Ex. 35E

DFCS data dashboard report, Therapeutic Home Contacts (9/01/20129/30/2012)
DFCS data dashboard report, Timely County Conference (10/01/20119/30/2012)
DFCS data dashboard report, Timely Permanency Hearing (10/01/20119/30/2012)
DFCS data dashboard report, Exceptions TPR Filing for Children (as of 10/5/12)
DFCS data dashboard report, Visitation With Children (9/01/20129/30/2012)
DFCS data dashboard report, Visitation With Parents (9/01/20129/30/2012)
DFCS data dashboard report, Visits W/Children Remaining in Placement Following Investigation
Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children in Custody With Substantiated Findings of Maltreatment, by Region, During 12Month Periods Ending 6/30/12, 7/31/12, 8/31/12, and 9/30/12
Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Monthly In-Person Visits With Child by Assigned Caseworkers, by Region, One-Month Periods Ending 6/30/12, 7/31/12, 8/31/12, and 9/30/12
Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Proximity of Initial Placement for All Children Entering Custody, 12-Month Periods Ending 6/30/12, 7/31/12, 8/31/12, and 9/30/12
Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Entering Custody Who Received an Initial Health Screening Within 72 Hours of Entering Custody, 12-Month Periods Ending 6/30/12, 7/31/12, 8/31/12, and 9/30/12
Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children in Custody 30+ Days Who Received a Comprehensive Health Assessment Within 30 Days of Entering Custody, 12-Month Periods Ending 6/30/12, 7/31/12, 8/31/12, and 9/30/12

Index-5

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 56 of 58

Ex. 35F Ex. 35G Ex. 35H Ex. 35I Ex. 35J
Ex. 35K Ex. 35L Ex. 35M Ex. 35N

Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Placement of Sibling Groups Who Entered Custody At Or Around the Same Time, By Region, 12-Month Periods Ending 8/31/12 and 9/30/12
Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Number of Children in Licensed and Unlicensed Placements, Including Approved Relative Placements Pending Full Licensure, One-Month Periods Ending 6/30/12, 7/31/12, 8/31/12, and 9/30/12
Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Investigations Open One or More Days During Period Initiated Within 24 Hours of Intake, By Region, One-Month Periods Ending 6/30/12, 7/31/12, 8/31/12, and 9/30/12
Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Status of Maltreatment Investigations Open One or More Days During Period, By Region, OneMonth Periods Ending 6/30/12, 7/31/12, 8/31/12, and 9/30/12
Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Remaining in the Same Placement Following Maltreatment Investigation Who Met Face-to-Face With Worker Twice in a One-Month Period or At Least Once if 15 Days or Less Following Completed Maltreatment Investigation, By Region, One-Month Periods Ending 6/30/12, 7/31/12, 8/31/12, and 9/30/12
Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children in Emergency Shelter or Temporary Facility for Over 45 Days With and Without the Division Director Approval, By Region, One-Month Periods Ending 6/30/12, 7/31/12, 8/31/12, and 9/30/12
Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Under Age 10 Housed in a Congregate Care Setting With and Without Regional Director Approval, By Region, One-Month Periods Ending 6/30/12, 7/31/12, 8/31/12, and 9/30/12
Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Number of Sibling Groups With At Least One Sibling Under Age 10 Housed in a Congregate Care Setting For More Than 45 Days, By Region, During Months Ending 6/30/12, 7/31/12, 8/31/12, and 9/30/12
Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children With Two or More Emergency or Temporary Facility Placements At Any Time Within One Episode of Foster Care With and Without Regional Director Approval, By Region, During Months Ending 6/30/12, 7/31/12, 8/31/12, and 9/30/12

Index-6

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 57 of 58

Ex. 35O Ex. 35P Ex. 35Q Ex. 36A
Ex. 36B Ex. 36C Ex. 36D Ex. 36E Ex. 36F

Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Non-Therapeutic Placement Setting Contacts, By Region, One-Month Periods Ending 6/30/12, 7/31/12, 8/31/12, and 9/30/12
Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Therapeutic Placement Setting Contacts, By Region, One-Month Periods Ending 6/30/12, 7/31/12, 8/31/12, and 9/30/12
Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children in Care Fewer Than 12 Months From the Time of Latest Removal From Home, By Region and Number of Placements, For the Dates 6/30/12, 7/31/12, 8/31/12, and 9/30/12
Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, During Trial Home Visit Period, Number of Children Who Met With Their Caseworker or Family Preservation Caseworker in the Home Twice in a One-Month Period or At Least Once Monthly if 15 Days or Less, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, By Region, One-Month Periods Ending 6/30/12, 7/31/12, 8/31/12, and 9/30/12
Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children in Custody for Six Months or More With an Administrative Review Every Six Months, By Region and By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, 12Month Periods Ending 6/30/12, 7/31/12, 8/31/12, and 9/30/12
Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children in Custody for 12 Months or More With a Timely Permanency Hearing, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, By Region, 12-Month Periods Ending 6/30/12, 7/31/12, 8/31/12, and 9/30/12
Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Ages 14-20 Receiving Independent Living Services As Set Forth In Service Plan, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, By Region, 12-Month Periods Ending 6/30/12, 7/31/12, 8/31/12, and 9/30/12
Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Leaving State Custody and Reason, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, By Region, and Percentage of Children Reunified With Parent or Caretaker In Under 12 Months From Latest Removal, 12-Month Periods Ending 6/30/12, 7/31/12, 8/31/12, and 9/30/12
Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children With a Permanency Plan By Their 30th Day of Custody, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, By Region, 12-Month Periods Ending 6/30/12, 7/31/12, 8/31/12, and 9/30/12

Index-7

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 580 Filed 01/25/13 Page 58 of 58

Ex. 36G
Ex. 37 Ex. 38 Ex. 39 Ex. 40

Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Length of Time Between Court Custody and Finalization of Adoption, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, By Region, 12-Month Periods Ending 6/30/12, 7/31/12, 8/31/12, and 9/30/12
Strategy for Addressing Carve Out Counties
Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children in Foster Care By Placement Type, Statewide, One-Month Period Ending 9/30/12
Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children in Foster Care By Placement Type, By Region, One-Month Periods Ending 6/30/12, 7/31/12, 8/31/12, and 9/30/12
Chart Prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Total Number of Children in Custody With Findings of Maltreatment During 12-Month Period Ending 9/30/12

Index-8

 
 Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 591 Filed 09/05/13 Page 1 of 49

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION

OLIVIA Y., et al.

PLAINTIFFS

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:04CV251LN

PHIL BRYANT, as Governor of the State of Mississippi, et al.

DEFENDANTS

______________________________________________________________________________

THE COURT MONITOR’S UPDATE TO THE COURT REGARDING PROGRESS DURING PERIOD 3 AS REFLECTED IN CERTAIN DATA REPORTS PRODUCED BY THE DEFENDANTS
______________________________________________________________________________

Table of Contents, Report Narrative, Index to Exhibits, and Appendix: Exhibits 1A - 28

September 5, 2013

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 591 Filed 09/05/13 Page 2 of 49
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................2
II. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS .......................................7
III. FINDINGS ..........................................................................................................12
A. Statewide Performance Requirements.........................................................14
1. Safety Requirements..................................................................................15 a. Children in Custody with Substantiated Findings of Maltreatment..16 b. Children Remaining in the Same Placement Following a Completed Maltreatment Investigation.............................................17 c. Investigations Into Reports of Maltreatment Initiated Within 24 Hours of Intake ................................................................................17 d. Maltreatment Investigations Completed Within 30 Days.................18
2. Worker Contact and Monitoring ............................................................18 a. Twice Monthly In-Person Visits By Assigned Caseworker ............19 b. Contacts in Non-Therapeutic Placement Setting .............................20 c. Contacts in Therapeutic Placement Setting......................................21
3. Child Placement .....................................................................................22 a. Licensed and Unlicensed Placements ..............................................23 b. Proximity of Initial Placement .........................................................24 c. Two or Fewer Placements Within First 12 Months of Latest Removal From Home.......................................................................25 d. Placement of Sibling Groups ...........................................................25 e. Sibling Groups With at Least One Sibling Under Age Ten in Congregate Care ..............................................................................27 f. Children Under Ten in a Congregate Care Setting..........................28 g. Children in Emergency or Temporary Facilities for More Than 45 Days ...........................................................................................28 h. Children With More Than One Emergency or Temporary Facility Within One Episode of Foster Care ..................................29
4. Services (Initial Health Screenings and Comprehensive Health Assessments) ...........................................................................................30 a. Initial Health Screening Within 72 Hours of Placement ...................30 b. Comprehensive Health Assessments Within 30 Days of Entering Custody .............................................................................................31

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 591 Filed 09/05/13 Page 3 of 49
B. Regional Performance Requirements ..........................................................32 1. Worker Contact and Monitoring ............................................................33 2. Services ..................................................................................................34 3. Permanency ............................................................................................34 a. Permanency Plan By 30th Day in Custody .........................................35 b. Reunification Within 12 Months .......................................................35 c. Timely Administrative Reviews ........................................................36 d. Timely Annual Court Reviews ..........................................................36 4. Adoption .................................................................................................37
C. Additional Considerations ...........................................................................37 IV. CONCLUSION..................................................................................................39 Index to Exhibits .................................................................................................... Index-1 APPENDIX Exhibits 1A – 28
ii

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 591 Filed 09/05/13 Page 4 of 49

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION

OLIVIA Y., et al.

PLAINTIFFS

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:04CV251LN

PHIL BRYANT, as Governor of the State of Mississippi, et al.

DEFENDANTS

______________________________________________________________________________

THE COURT MONITOR’S UPDATE TO THE COURT REGARDING PROGRESS DURING PERIOD 3 AS REFLECTED IN CERTAIN DATA REPORTS PRODUCED BY THE DEFENDANTS
______________________________________________________________________________

This report updates the Court on progress during Period 3 as reflected in certain data reports submitted by defendants in response to the requirements of the Modified Settlement Agreement (“MSA”).1 It was provided to the parties in draft form on August 6, 2013 for review and comment. All comments were received by August 23, 2013. The Court Monitor (“Monitor”) has considered the parties’ comments and revised the report as appropriate.
Period 3 ended on July 5, 2013. As contemplated by the MSA, by this point, defendants should have met numerous performance requirements and documented that performance in regular performance reports. As the parties and the Court are aware, defendants did not meet MSA reporting requirements for Period 3 and, consequently, in June 2013 the Court issued an order requiring certain remedial actions. In the meantime, however, the absence of complete and reliable performance reports has impeded the efforts of both parties and the Monitor to assess the
1 The MSA was approved by the Court on July 6, 2012.

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 591 Filed 09/05/13 Page 5 of 49
defendants’ performance in delivering critical services to children in the custody of the
Mississippi Department of Human Services (“MDHS”) Division of Family and Children’s
Services (“DFCS”). Moreover, it has delayed finalization of the complete Period 4
Implementation Plan.
As defendants work to meet the reporting requirements of the Court’s June 2013 Order,
this report is intended to provide the parties and the Court with information on certain critical
services to children in custody related to: child safety; worker contact and monitoring; child
placement; medical care; permanency; and adoption. The report also offers a preliminary
assessment of defendants’ regional reform strategy.
This report does not cover all of the Period 3 requirements. The Monitor will be
issuing a comprehensive report related to Period 3 performance after all of the data reports required by the June 2013 Order are produced.2
I. BACKGROUND
The Period 3 Implementation Plan (“Period 3 IP”), which covered a one-year period beginning on July 6, 2012,3 required the defendants to produce, according to a prescribed
timeline, a discrete set of “accurate and validated reports . . . that reflect county-by-county
2 The Monitor expects to report on the Period 3 requirements that are unrelated to the performance data required by the June 2013 Order before the end of the current calendar year. 3 The January 4, 2008 Settlement Agreement established an incremental remedial process that measured progress in terms of annual benchmarks and interim milestones. The benchmarks were established in the Settlement Agreement and the interim milestones have been mandated in a series of annual implementation plans that were developed collaboratively by the parties. The interim milestones constitute the steps and corresponding timelines that are required to be accomplished each year to achieve the benchmarks and ultimately satisfy Settlement Agreement requirements. Each implementation plan has been incorporated into the Settlement Agreement. This structure has allowed the parties and the Court to measure progress over time according to clearly defined standards, affording the flexibility to develop annual requirements based on current information about defendants’ performance. Since January 2008, the defendants have been required to implement four annual implementation plans and a corrective action plan. Because Period 3 concluded before defendants produced the data reports required by the Period 3 IP, the scope of the Period 4 Implementation Plan [hereinafter Initial Period 4 IP] is subject to renegotiation between December 1, 2013 and January 8, 2014, after defendants have produced most of the reports that were required during Period 3. See Initial Period 4 IP §I., filed July 18, 2013 [Dkt. No. 590-1].
2

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 591 Filed 09/05/13 Page 6 of 49
performance” related to specific MSA requirements.4 The reports, delineated in Appendix C of
the MSA (“Appendix C reports”), include reports derived from case record data in the
Mississippi Automated Child Welfare Information System (“MACWIS”) and reports derived
from data collected during the periodic and structured reviews of children’s case records that are
conducted as part of the foster care review process (“FCR reports”).5
As detailed in the Monitor’s January 2013 Report,6 defendants’ performance related to
the Period 3 data reporting requirements evidenced significant and continuing limitations in the
information management systems and processes utilized by DFCS.7 For example, during Period
3, defendants did not produce certain validated and accurate reports that have been required but
not produced since Period 1.8 In other instances, although defendants produced reports in
response to the Period 3 IP, the reports did not reflect performance relative to the MSA’s actual
requirements.9 Additionally, in some instances MACWIS captured the data the defendants were
4 Period 3 IP §I.D.1.a.-c. The specific reports are itemized in the MSA in Appendix C. 5 FCR reports represent an alternative data collection method that relies upon the “foster care review,” the administrative review that is conducted at six-month intervals for all cases with children in foster care. Foster care reviewers, who are assigned to the foster care review section of the DFCS Continuous Quality Improvement [hereinafter CQI] Unit, conduct these structured reviews using an instrument that was developed during 2012 in response to the MSA’s data reporting requirements. See MSA, App. C at 3-5. The defendants refer to the automated instrument as the periodic administrative determination [hereinafter PAD]. Essentially, because of limitations in MACWIS, defendants expanded the data collected during the foster care review process in order to capture specified data elements relevant to performance under the MSA. Foster care reviewers began to collect data with the automated PAD in February 2012. Thereafter, the PAD was automated and defendants began to collect data in MACWIS using a revised version of the PAD on October 15, 2012. There were limitations with the instruction guide used by the reviewers to interpret the questions on the PAD and defendants report that it has undergone several revisions. Defendants began producing the MSA-required FCR data reports to the Monitor and plaintiffs’ counsel during April 2013. Additional sets of FCR reports were submitted during June, July and August 2013. Defendants report that the FCR data collection and reporting process is undergoing refinement. Like some of the MACWIS reports produced during Period 3, because of the Monitor’s concerns about the quality of the FCR data, the FCR data is not analyzed in this report. 6 The Court Monitor’s Status Report to the Court Regarding Progress During Period Three [hereinafter January 2013 Report], filed January 25, 2013 [Dkt. No. 580], at 33-38. 7 Id. at 33. 8 Id. at 34 (noting that defendants were unable to produce accurate and validated reports on caseworker workloads). 9 Id. at 34-35 (describing several examples, including, the following: for children with the goal of reunification, the assigned DFCS caseworker is required to meet with the child’s parent(s) with whom the child is to be reunified at least once each month to assess service delivery and achievement. MSA §§II.B.5.b., II.B.5.e.2. Although defendants were required to report on this requirement during Period 3, see Period 3 IP §I.D.1.a.-c., MSA, App. C at 1, MACWIS MWZWCR3, defendants informed the Monitor that they were unable to report on this requirement
3

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 591 Filed 09/05/13 Page 7 of 49
required to report on,10 but the report that defendants produced during Period 3 did not report on the MSA requirement because it was not designed to do so.11
In response to these issues, on June 24, 2013, the Court approved a remedial order that requires the defendants to address deficiencies in data collection and reporting.12 Among other
mandates, the June 2013 Order requires defendants to establish and maintain an independent
database that is capable of uploading and storing data that conform to all of the data reporting
specifications in Appendix C; establish and implement a data cleansing and validation plan to
ensure that all data maintained in the independent database are complete and accurate; develop
and finalize report specifications in consultation with plaintiffs’ counsel and the Monitor; and
complete any indicated gap analyses in order to identify the required data that are not currently
collected and/or reported and implement alternative data collection and reporting methods for
certain types of required data elements. Moreover, the June 2013 Order requires the defendants
to produce complete, accurate and validated Appendix C data reports according to prescribed
timelines and at staggered intervals beginning on September 1, 2013 and ending on January 15, 2014.13
The evidence demonstrates that defendants are working to implement the terms of the
June 2013 Order. They have contracted for required information technology, programming,
project management, data cleansing and data validation services; started to construct an
accurately because MACWIS did not enable DFCS staff to identify and track with sufficient specificity those cases in which a child is to be reunified with only one parent.). 10 Some MSA requirements are subject to qualitative assessment which cannot be reflected in a MACWIS report. 11 January 2013 Report at 36-37 (listing a series of examples, including data reports limited to caseworker visits with children on a single month basis despite requirements for caseworker visits with children at least twice each month for three months). In addition, as explained in the Monitor’s January 2013 Report, during Period 3 the defendants produced some Appendix C reports with obvious calculation errors, raising concerns about the reliability of the MDHS/DFCS data validation process. Id. at 37-38. 12 Project Schedule for Defendants’ Production of Data Reports Required by Appendix C of the Modified Settlement Agreement, filed June 24, 2013 [Dkt. No. 589]. 13 The data reporting requirements reflected in the June 2013 Order are also incorporated into the Initial Period 4 IP. Initial Period 4 IP §II.C.
4

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 591 Filed 09/05/13 Page 8 of 49
independent relational database; developed draft specifications for 29 of the 57 data reports required by Appendix C;14 and produced drafts of several remedial plans required by the Order. The Monitor expects to report on defendants’ performance with respect to requirements of the Period 3 IP and the requirements of the June 2013 Order, including the progress reflected in the validated data reports produced pursuant to the Order, in a forthcoming report.
As defendants work to correct, pursuant to the June 2013 Order, the long-standing and well-documented deficiencies with their data reports, this report is intended to provide the parties and the Court with interim information regarding defendants’ self-reported performance during Period 3. During Period 3, in response to Appendix C requirements, the defendants transmitted performance reports to the Monitor and counsel for the plaintiffs on a monthly or quarterly basis.15 Over that period, defendants submitted tens of thousands of pages of performance data. Both the volume and the presentation of that data made it difficult to assess defendants’ selfreported performance over time. This report presents defendants’ performance data regarding numerous critical performance requirements over a substantial portion of Period 3 in a manner designed to illuminate geographic and temporal performance levels and trends.
To the extent possible, the Monitor has analyzed the performance reports defendants submitted against the requirements of the MSA. However, in a number of instances, and for various reasons including data accuracy and completeness, the Monitor has concluded that she cannot analyze certain performance reports that the defendants submitted for the purposes of
14 Ex. 1A, table produced by the Office of the Court Monitor reflecting all reports required by Appendix C and noting the reasons why certain reports were not included in the analysis presented in this report. As noted in the June 24, 2013 Order, four reports listed in Appendix C are not included herein because one report was included by mistake in Appendix C, two reports listed in Appendix C are duplicative of other reports listed in Appendix C, and two reports listed in Appendix C have been combined into one report for data reporting purposes. See June 24, 2013 Order, Attachment Two at note one. 15 Defendants have continued to transmit these performance reports during Period 4. As contemplated by the June 24, 2013 Order, many of the reports are being revised and each report will be subject to a new data cleansing and validation process. See June 24, 2013 Order §§II., VI.D.2.; Initial Period 4 IP §II.C.
5

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 591 Filed 09/05/13 Page 9 of 49
assessing performance against MSA requirements.16 Thus, in those instances, the Monitor has
not included any analysis of defendants’ performance in this report.
The Monitor’s concerns about the accuracy and completeness of the data reports defendants produced, and the extent to which the reports track the MSA requirements, limit the findings the Monitor may make at this juncture about defendants’ performance with respect to Period 3 requirements. Nonetheless, a considerable portion of the data that defendants reported during Period 3 are useful. Even given the known problems in defendants’ reported performance data, the reports were produced consistently over time and for all 13 regions.17 Thus, if there are biases in the data, as long as defendants collected and reported data in the same manner over the period that was analyzed, those biases should be reflected consistently in the data over time. While exact performance levels are not discernible, both performance trends within regions and relative performance between regions should be apparent. Furthermore, as defendants refine their data cleansing and validation processes consistent with the June 2013 Order, the data from Period 3 should provide a baseline against which the performance data that will be produced pursuant to the June 2013 Order may be used to measure historical data inadequacies.
The analysis of defendants’ reported performance provokes numerous secondary questions regarding the causes of and explanations for changes in performance levels over time and/or differences in regional performance.18 Answering those innumerable questions was beyond the scope of this interim report. However, defendants will need to answer those questions in order to develop management strategies that are tailored to specific performance requirements.
16 See Ex. 1A, supra note 14. 17 Possible exceptions may include the data reports defendants have produced related to development of the permanency plans within 30 days of custody. See infra at 35. 18 See, e.g., infra note 140 for a list of some of the questions raised by the performance data.
6

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 591 Filed 09/05/13 Page 10 of 49
II. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The MSA includes both statewide and regional performance measures which defendants
were required to satisfy during Period 3. It aligns the remedial approach required by this lawsuit
with the sequential, region-by-region implementation schedule that is at the heart of defendants’
practice model reform strategy. As the Monitor has reported, defendants began introducing the
practice model in January 2010, over the course of a two-year period, at staggered intervals in each of DFCS’s 13 regions.19 The practice model represents a core change in defendants’
business policies and practices. It is designed to be promoted through a data-driven CQI process
that is used to monitor progress in each DFCS region. Six categories of activities crafted to
promote safety, permanency and the well-being of children and families are incorporated into the
practice model.
On a regional basis, the practice model is phased-in through a multi-stage process: 1) a six-month planning phase;20 2) a one-year initial implementation stage;21 and 3) a one-year
full/ongoing implementation stage. These stages are followed by a data-tracking year. The point
at which a region is deemed to have fully implemented the practice model coincides with the start of the data tracking year for regional measurement requirements.22 Thus, the first set of MSA
regional performance standards are triggered when a region has fully implemented the practice
model; a second set of higher performance standards are triggered when a region has reached the
19 January 2013 Report at 3, 10-13. 20 Practice model implementation is initiated through the six-month planning phase. Among other activities, DFCS staff and stakeholders participate in an orientation program, barriers to implementation are identified and plans to address the barriers are formulated. At the conclusion of the planning phase, a CQI review is conducted to establish baseline performance measures, which are intended to serve as the basis for measuring progress. 21 A 12-month initial implementation phase follows the planning phase. During this phase, supervisors and caseworkers are trained on the practice model and participate in an intensive coaching program. 22 According to the MSA, “[a]djustments may be made to the timing of the planning and/or implementation phases based on a region's progress. The two-month period between the end of the Initial Implementation phase and the beginning of the Full Implementation phase is in place to permit the follow-up CQI review after the first 12 months of implementation and an opportunity to revise the Regional Implementation Plan based on preliminary results of the review going into the next phase of implementation.” MSA, App. A.
7

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 591 Filed 09/05/13 Page 11 of 49

12-month mark following full implementation.23 Accordingly, at a minimum,24 during the two

and two-third years that a region is undergoing the practice model phase-in process, regional performance under the MSA is not measured.25

The practice model implementation schedule as it appears in the MSA is set forth below:26

Practice Model Rollout Schedule

Regions
I-South, II-West V-West
IV-North
I-North, III-South, IV-South V-East
III-North, VII-East II-East, VI, VII-West

Planning (6 months)
January – June 2010 July – December 2010 July – December 2010 January – June 2011
July – December 2011 July 2011 – June 2012 (12 months) July – December 2012

Implementation Phase Dates

Initial

Full/Ongoing

Implementation

Implementation

(One Year)

(One Year)*

July 2010 –

Approx. Sept. 2011 –

June 2011

August 2012

January –

Approx. March 2012 –

December 2011

February 2013

January 2011 –

Approx. Sept. 2012 –

June 2012 (18 months) August 2013

July 2011 –

Approx. Sept. 2012 –

June 2012

August 2013

January – December 2012 July 2012 – June 2013 January – December 2013

Approx. March 2013 – February 2014 Approx. Sept. 2013 – August 2014 Approx. March 2014 – February 2015

Data Tracking (One Year)
September 2012 – August 2013 March 2013 – February 2014 September 2013 – August 2014 September 2013 – August 2014
March 2014 – February 2015 September 2014 – August 2015 March 2015 – February 2016

The first two DFCS regions to introduce the practice model, Regions I-S and II-W, began
implementation planning in January 2010 and commenced the data-tracking year in September
2012, when they became subject to the MSA’s regional performance requirements.27 The other
DFCS regions have been added to the implementation process at intervals of six to twelve
23 MSA §I.C. 24 As reflected in the MSA, in the following three regions, defendants extended the implementation process because a determination was made that additional time was needed for a specific implementation phase: III-N (afforded an additional six months for planning); IV-N (afforded an additional six months for coaching); and VII-E (afforded an additional six months for planning). MSA, App. A. 25 The MSA expressly recognizes that for those requirements that must be met from the time that a region has fully implemented the practice model, regional compliance is not measured by looking back in time at practice that predates full implementation. For requirements that must be met 12 months after full implementation of the practice model, compliance is not measured by practice that pre-dates the 12-month period following full implementation. MSA §§II and III. 26 MSA, App. A. 27 MSA §III.
8

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 591 Filed 09/05/13 Page 12 of 49
months. The last three DFCS regions to implement the practice model, Regions II-E, VI, and
VII-W, began the planning phase in July 2012. Assuming there are no adjustments to the
implementation schedule,28 these regions will not be subject to the MSA’s regional performance
measures until March 2015. After all 13 DFCS regions have fully implemented the practice
model, the MSA requires that all of its standards, benchmarks and outcome measures shall be
measured and required statewide and shall no longer be measured on a region-by-region basis.29
Defendants report that as of April 30, 2013, there were 3,777 children in foster care
statewide.30 Of that number, children were in the following placements:
 30 percent were in foster homes;  18 percent were in their own homes;  15 percent were in relative foster homes;  ten percent were in unlicensed relative homes or relative homes pending licensure;  eight percent were in therapeutic foster homes;  eight percent were in residential facilities;  seven percent were in group homes;  two percent were in shelters;  one percent were on runaway status; and  one percent were in adoptive homes. 31
Each of DFCS’s 13 administrative regions vary substantially with respect to the number
of children in custody and the characteristics of the regions themselves. For example, Region
VII-W, situated on the Gulf Coast, includes the state’s second largest city, Gulfport, which has a
population of over 70,000, and Biloxi, which, with a population of approximately 45,000,
represents the state’s fifth largest city. Region VII-W had 837 children in custody as of April 30,
2013. In contrast, Region II-E, in the north-central portion of the state, includes no cities with
28 As noted supra note 22, the practice model rollout schedule recognizes that adjustments may be made based on a region’s progress. MSA, App. A. 29 MSA §§II., III. 30 Ex. 1B, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children in Foster Care By Placement Type, Statewide, One-Month Period Ending 4/30/2013; see also Ex. 1C, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children in Foster Care by Placement Type, By Region. According to defendants, the foster/adopt foster homes reflected in Ex. 1B are resource homes that are licensed to serve as foster and adoptive placements. The adoptive homes reflected in the exhibit are adoptive placements in which children who remain in foster care have been placed pending finalization of their adoptions. 31 See Ex. 1B, supra note 30.
9

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 591 Filed 09/05/13 Page 13 of 49
more than 25,000 residents and had only 77 children in custody, nine percent as many as Region VII-W. Similarly, Region VII-W is the most densely populated of all 13 regions, with an estimated 228 residents per square mile. By comparison, the region with the lowest population density, Region V-W in the southwest portion of the state bordering the Mississippi River, had only 32 people per square mile, 14 percent as dense as Region VII-W. Regional differences are likely to have substantial differential impacts in performance across the state, which will require defendants to adopt strategies to address region-specific performance challenges.32
As described in detail below, there was substantial variation in performance among DFCS’s 13 regions. To some extent, this is to be expected; the MSA contemplates defendants will phase in their reform model on a region-by-region basis and there is an expectation that performance will improve in regions concurrent with practice model implementation. In fact, the analysis reflected in this report suggests that the first three regions to implement the practice model fully are the same three regions that are performing best relative to statewide performance requirement levels. Indeed, as a general matter, these regions are also demonstrating progress toward satisfying a number of the regional performance requirements. Although far from conclusive, the data from the early implementing regions is cause for optimism about the merits of defendants’ reform strategy.
Nevertheless, as of April 2013, there were certain regions whose performance consistently ranked among the lowest of all regions. In particular, the data show that Regions IIIS and VII-W appear to be struggling in their efforts to meet MSA requirements. Perhaps not surprisingly, these two regions have the largest populations of children in care and include the
32 Ex. 2, chart prepared by Office of the Court Monitor, Total Children in Custody as of April 30, 2013, by Region and Placement Type. Relying on U.S. Census Bureau data, the chart also lists cities with populations over 25,000 in each DFCS region. See U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Annual Estimates of the Resident Population: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2012.
10

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 591 Filed 09/05/13 Page 14 of 49
two largest cities in the state, Jackson and Gulfport.33 While this may help explain some of
defendants’ challenges in these two regions, it does not diminish the need to attend to
performance deficits urgently, especially those having the greatest impact on child safety.
The MSA recognizes the long-standing problems in these regions, defining four “carveout” counties with chronic, historic staffing deficits.34 Two of the carve-out counties, Harrison
and Hancock, are within Region VII-W, the former of the two being four times as populous as
the latter. One carve-out county, Hinds, the most populous county in the state, is in Region IIIS.35 As described in the January 2013 Report, defendants devoted resources to analyzing various operational challenges in the carve-out counties and to implementing remedial strategies.36
These strategies have given rise to substantial increases in caseworker staffing levels during
2013; however they have not been effective in remedying supervisory staffing deficits and other performance issues in at least two of the four carve-out counties.37 Indeed, the data reports
produced by defendants during Period 3 raise substantial concerns about performance in the three
carve-out counties that are located in Regions VII-W and III-S.
Region III-S concluded the full implementation phase of practice model implementation
at the end of August 2013. This region will likely represent the most challenging region in which
the practice model will have been implemented fully to date and it is imperative that defendants
track progress, identify implementation problems, and institute corrective actions on an urgent
basis. Region VII-W, however, is not scheduled to implement the practice model fully until the
33 Id. As noted above, Region VII-W also includes the state’s fifth largest city, Biloxi. 34 Period 3 IP §§I.A.2.b., c. 35 The other carve-out county is Jackson County, which is located in Region VII-E. 36 See, e.g., January 2013 Report at 23, 26, 43. Among other initiatives, at the end of the 2012 calendar year, the defendants launched a short-term management strategy in the carve-out counties. See id. at Ex. 37 for defendants’ description of the management strategy, which has been modified but until recently was in effect in three of the four carve-out counties (i.e., Harrison, Hancock and Hinds). The fourth carve-out county, Jackson, which is in Region VII-E, is no longer included in the short-term strategy. 37 This is a significant concern which the Monitor underscored in the January 2013 Report, see January 2013 Report at 28-29, and which will be addressed by the Monitor in a forthcoming report.
11

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 591 Filed 09/05/13 Page 15 of 49
end of February 2015. Defendants cannot wait until that time to correct the most serious deficits in Region VII-W related to child safety, including ensuring – on an expedited basis – that there are appropriate and timely caseworker visits with all children in custody.
It appears that defendants very recently instituted additional remedial interventions in an attempt to address continuing performance deficits specifically in Regions III-S and VII-W. The Monitor will track and report on defendants’ efforts in a forthcoming report.
III. FINDINGS As noted above, the MSA requires the defendants to implement certain performance
requirements on a statewide basis (“statewide performance requirements”) and also requires defendants to implement other performance requirements on a region-by-region basis (“regional performance requirements”) at staggered intervals over time. This report presents an analysis of defendants’ reported performance with respect to a subset of these requirements for the period June 1, 2012 through April 30, 2013.
The report addresses 17 statewide performance requirements, which collectively implicate the following foster care service standard categories in the MSA: 1) child safety; 2) worker contact and monitoring; 3) child placement; and 4) services. Although for statewide performance requirements defendants are not required to meet specific performance levels in any particular regions, performance on a regional basis, over time, was analyzed. The goal of this exercise was threefold: 1) to identify any regional differences in performance that could help explain aggregate statewide performance levels; 2) to identify any changes in performance over time, which could be indicators of the efficacy of defendants’ reform efforts; and 3) to assess whether any regions tended to perform better or worse across performance requirements relative to the other regions in the state (i.e., rather than relative to the statewide performance
12

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 591 Filed 09/05/13 Page 16 of 49
requirements), which might help indicate regions in need of resources or other management interventions, or conversely, regions having general success.
In August 2012, DFCS Regions I-S and II-W – the first two regions in which the practice model was introduced – were required to implement fully the model. This report assesses whether there is evidence as of April 2013 that implementation of the practice model in these two regions is associated with higher levels of performance with respect to statewide performance requirements that were due as of July 6, 2013 than in regions that have not fully implemented the practice model.
In addition to the statewide performance requirements, the defendants’ reported performance as of April 2013 with seven regional performance requirements was analyzed. These data reports collectively implicated the following foster care service categories in the MSA that the first two implementing regions were required to satisfy beginning in September 2012: 1) worker contact and monitoring; 2) services; 3) permanency; and 4) adoption.
In total, this report presents defendants’ assessment of their performance regarding 24 of the 57 performance requirements that they were required to report on during Period 3.38 Thus, in addition to the limitations in the data that was reported, much about defendants’ performance with MSA requirements during Period 3 is not known. As defendants’ reporting deficits are remedied pursuant to the June 2013 Order, the Monitor will update the Court and the parties on defendants’ progress.
The Monitor’s findings are set forth below.
38 See Ex. 1A, supra note 14 (noting the reasons why certain performance data reports were not included in the analysis presented in this report.).
13

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 591 Filed 09/05/13 Page 17 of 49
A. Statewide Performance Requirements For the performance period ending April 30, 2013, defendants reported meeting or
exceeding eight of the 17 statewide performance requirements that were analyzed for this report.
For two additional performance requirements that require defendants to maintain 100 percent
compliance with the standard, defendants did not meet the performance standard, but did perform
well. When the 17 statewide requirements are analyzed by MSA service-standard category, the
data reports defendants produced reflect the following performance as of April 30, 2013:
 Defendants met none of four statewide performance requirements related to child safety;  Defendants met three of three statewide performance requirements related to worker contacts and
monitoring;  Defendants met five of seven statewide performance requirements related to placements;39 and  Defendants did not meet the two statewide performance requirements related to services.
Pursuant to the MSA, defendants were required to meet all of these requirements by July 6, 2013.
There was substantial variation in performance among DFCS’s 13 regions. In order to
assess how regions performed relative to one another with respect to the statewide performance
requirements, average monthly performance levels for the period June 1, 2012 to April 30, 2013 for 13 of the 17 statewide requirements were calculated.40 For each requirement, the 13 regions
were ranked ordinally and a percentile rank for each region was calculated (i.e., where each
region performed relative to other regions, with 100 percent representing highest relative
performance and zero percent representing lowest relative performance). Finally, for each
measure a determination was made regarding which regions’ performance fell within the top
quintile and the bottom quintile.
39 The Monitor analyzed defendants’ performance with respect to an eighth performance standard based on data submitted as required by Appendix C; however, as explained below, defendants are not required to meet that standard during Period 3. 40 The Monitor was not able to include in the analysis four performance requirements related to placements because, unlike the other statewide performance requirements, there was no population-controlled standard that could be applied to each region. In other words, because there was no statewide rate, it was not possible to assess how individual regions performed against that rate.
14

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 591 Filed 09/05/13 Page 18 of 49
The analysis indicates that the first two regions to implement the practice model, Regions I-S and II-W, were among the top performing DFCS regions. Region II-W performed in the top quintile of regions with respect to nine statewide requirements, more than any other region.41 Region I-S performed in the top quintile with respect to seven statewide requirements, matched only by one other region, Region V-W, the third region to implement fully the practice model.42 Additionally, Region I-S did not perform in the bottom quintile on any of the performance requirements. Region II-W was in the bottom quintile in two instances, and Region V-W in one instance. Thus, the three regions implementing the practice model earliest are, on average, performing better across a wide range of statewide performance requirements than laterimplementing regions.
Two regions in particular stood out for having performed in the bottom quintile of regions with respect to 11 and ten, respectively, of the 13 statewide requirements that the Monitor analyzed. Those two regions – III-S and VII-W – represent the two regions with the highest populations of children in custody in the state. As of April 30, 2013, Region III-S accounted for 14 percent of the population of children in custody and Region VII-W accounted for 22 percent of the population of children in custody. Looked at another way, over one third of children in custody, 36 percent, were in the two lowest performing regions. By contrast, approximately half as many children, 16 percent, were in the three top performing regions.43
1. Safety Requirements Analysis of defendants’ reported performance with four safety requirements found that as of April 30, 2013 the defendants met none of the requirements they were required to achieve by
41 Ex. 3, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Relative Regional Performance With Respect to 13 Statewide Performance Requirements, Average Monthly Performance, June 1, 2012 – April 30, 2013. 42 Id. 43 Id.
15

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 591 Filed 09/05/13 Page 19 of 49
July 6, 2013. The four safety requirements subject to analysis are intended to measure the following: 1) the rate of substantiated findings of maltreatment among children in custody; 2) whether children who remained in the same placement following a maltreatment investigation met with a DFCS caseworker with the required frequency over a three-month period; 3) the percentage of maltreatment investigations initiated within 24 hours of intake; and, 4) the percentage of maltreatment investigations completed within 30 days of intake.
a. Children in Custody with Substantiated Findings of Maltreatment The MSA requires that by July 6, 2013, the end of Period 3, the rate of abuse or maltreatment in care shall not exceed one percent.44 For the 12-month period ending April 30, 2013, the rate of maltreatment in care was 1.22 percent, a rate 22 percent higher than the upper limit established by the MSA.45 Six of the 13 regions performed better than the statewide requirement, including the region with the highest number of children in custody, Region VIIW.46 Several regions, including Regions II-E, V-E, V-W, and VII-E, experienced sharp drops in maltreatment rates over the period analyzed. Interestingly, the region that performed best across all statewide performance requirements, Region II-W, performed worst on this requirement and reported the highest rate of children in custody with substantiated findings of maltreatment, three percent. This was one of two statewide measures in the analysis on which this region performed in the bottom quintile.
44 MSA §II.C.2.b. 45 Ex. 4A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children in Custody With Substantiated Findings of Maltreatment, by Region; see also Ex. 4B, corresponding table with underlying data. 46 Region VII-W experienced a substantial increase in the number of children in custody between September 2012 and April 2013. This increase in the number of children in custody appears to have contributed to the drop in the maltreatment rate in that region.
16

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 591 Filed 09/05/13 Page 20 of 49
b. Children Remaining in the Same Placement Following a Completed Maltreatment Investigation
The MSA requires that by July 6, 2013, the end of Period 3, 100 percent of children
remaining in the same placement following a completed maltreatment investigation receive visits by a caseworker two times per month for three months.47 In the month of April 2013, this
requirement was applicable to 81 children in custody. The data reports produced by defendants
during Period 3 contain data on only one month of performance at a time, not three months as
required by the MSA. Thus, the performance levels reported by the defendants are likely to overstate performance relative to the MSA requirement.48 Nonetheless, defendants’ reported
performance over one-month periods fell short of the statewide performance standard. In April
2013, 59 percent of children who remained in the same placement following a maltreatment
investigation met face-to-face with a caseworker consistent with MSA requirements over a onemonth period.49 Two regions, Regions II-W and V-W, reported meeting the performance requirement in the month of April 2013.50
c. Investigations Into Reports of Maltreatment Initiated Within 24 Hours of Intake
The MSA requires that by July 6, 2013, the end of Period 3, all investigations into reports
of maltreatment regarding children in DFCS custody must be initiated within 24 hours of
47 MSA §II.B.1.e.3. 48 If one-month performance levels were below the required level, performance over a three-month period would necessarily be equal to or lower than performance over a one-month period. 49 Ex. 5A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Remaining in the Same Placement Following Maltreatment Investigation Who Met Face-to-Face With Worker Twice in a One-Month Period or At Least Once if 15 Days or Less Following Completed Maltreatment Investigation, By Region; see also Ex. 5B, corresponding table with underlying data. Numerous charts included as exhibits to this report include secondary Y-axes (i.e., vertical axes) reflecting percentages. On a number of these charts, the range of the values is from zero percent to some number over 100 percent. In fact, for the performance requirements included in this report, it would not be possible for defendants to achieve performance levels higher than 100 percent. The values on the axes exceed 100 percent strictly for design purposes, to create visual space at the top of certain charts. 50 Id. One other region, VII-E, reported no children in custody in April 2013 to whom this requirement applied.
17

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 591 Filed 09/05/13 Page 21 of 49
intake.51 Defendants reported that during April 2013, 66 investigations were open one or more days, and that 76 percent of those investigations were initiated within 24 hours.52 Five regions met the statewide performance requirement in that month.53 Examining a longer period, from June 2012 to April 2013, five regions achieved an average monthly performance exceeding 90 percent.54 Among these five regions, one region, IV-S, met the statewide requirement in every month.
d. Maltreatment Investigations Completed Within 30 Days The MSA requires that by July 6, 2013, the end of Period 3, all maltreatment investigations must be completed with supervisory approval within 30 days.55 Defendants report using investigations closed during the month as a basis for calculation, irrespective of when the investigations opened. Defendants reported that during the month of April 2013, 66 investigations were open one or more days and among investigations closed during that month, 56 percent were closed within 30 days.56
2. Worker Contact and Monitoring Analysis of defendants’ reported performance during Period 3 with three statewide requirements related to worker contacts and monitoring found that defendants met or exceeded all three statewide requirements as of April 30, 2013. However, the three data reports focus specifically on the frequency and method of contacts, not the content of the contacts and
51 MSA §II.B.1.e.2. 52 Ex. 6A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Investigations Open One or More Days During Period Initiated Within 24 Hours of Intake, By Region; see also Ex. 6B, corresponding table with underlying data. 53 See Ex. 6B, supra note 52. The five regions were I-S, II-E, IV-S, IV-N, and V-W. 54 Id. The five regions were I-S, II-E, II-W, IV-S, and V-W. 55 MSA §II.B.1.e.2. 56 Ex. 7A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Status of Maltreatment Investigations Open One or More Days During Period, By Region; see also Ex. 7B, corresponding table with underlying data.
18

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 591 Filed 09/05/13 Page 22 of 49
therefore cannot be used to make a finding regarding defendants’ performance with the full MSA requirement.57
The three worker contact and monitoring requirements the Monitor analyzed are intended to measure the following: 1) the rate at which children in custody receive twice-monthly inperson visits conducted by their assigned caseworkers consistent with certain additional MSA requirements; and 2) the rate at which resource parents in therapeutic and non-therapeutic foster homes who have one or more foster child residing in their homes receive monthly home visits from a foster care worker58 consistent with certain MSA requirements.
a. Twice Monthly In-Person Visits By Assigned Caseworker The MSA requires that by July 6, 2013, the end of Period 3, the assigned DFCS caseworkers meet with 60 percent of children in custody in person and, where age appropriate, alone, at least twice monthly to conduct specified assessments.59 At least one of the monthly visits is required to take place in the child’s placement.60 According to the data reports defendants submitted, during April 2013 they had achieved a statewide performance level of 67 percent, exceeding during that month the statewide performance requirement that they were required to achieve by July 6, 2013.61 Defendants exceeded the statewide requirement in 12 of the 13 regions, six of which performed at levels at or above 90 percent.62 The two highest performing regions were Regions I-S and II-W, the first two regions to implement the practice
57 A different methodology must be used to assess these types of qualitative requirements, which cannot be captured by data reports. 58 Instead of “assigned DFCS caseworker” or “caseworker,” the MSA specifically uses the term “DFCS foster care worker” in this section of the MSA. See MSA §II.B.5.c. 59 MSA §§II.B.5.e.1., II.B.5.a. During the visits, caseworkers are required to assess the child’s safety and wellbeing, service delivery, achievement of permanency and other service goals. Id. 60 Id. 61 Ex. 8A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Twice Monthly In-Person Visits With Child by Assigned Caseworkers, by Region; see also Ex. 8B, corresponding table with underlying data. 62 See Ex. 8B, supra note 61.
19

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 591 Filed 09/05/13 Page 23 of 49
model.63 The sole region that did not surpass the statewide requirement was Region VII-W, which achieved a performance level of only 20 percent.64 It is noteworthy, however, that Region
VII-W had nearly twice as many children in custody as the second largest region, and,
additionally, experienced a nearly 25 percent increase in children to whom the requirement
applied over the six-month period beginning October 1, 2012 and ending April 30, 2013. This increase corresponded with a sharp and rapid decline in performance in the region.65
b. Contacts in Non-Therapeutic Placement Setting
The MSA requires that by July 6, 2013, the end of Period 3, 40 percent of non-therapeutic
resource parents with at least one foster child residing in their home have a DFCS worker visit the home monthly consistent with certain MSA requirements.66 Defendants reported that during
April 2013 this requirement applied to 2,238 non-therapeutic settings statewide and that during
that month they achieved a 57 percent statewide performance level with respect to this requirement.67 The data defendants produced indicated that 11 of the 13 regions exceeded the
statewide performance requirement, but, unlike the aforementioned requirement regarding
caseworker visits with children, only one region, Region II-W, performed above the 90 percent level.68 Consistent with its performance related to caseworker visits with children, Region VIIW achieved the lowest level of success, at 19 percent.69 Region III-S, the other region that did
63 See Ex. 8A, supra note 61. 64 See Ex. 8B, supra note 61. 65 See Ex. 8A, supra note 61. 66 MSA §§II.B.5.c., II.B.5.e.3. The purpose of the visit is to share all relevant and legally disclosable information concerning the foster child; evaluate the foster child’s safety, needs and well being; and monitor service delivery and achievement of service goals. 67 Ex. 9A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Non-Therapeutic Placement Setting Contacts, By Region; see also Ex. 9B, corresponding table with underlying data. 68 See Ex. 9A, supra note 67. Region II-W is one of the first two regions to implement the practice model. The other region, Region I-S, achieved the second highest performance level, 88 percent. 69 Id.
20

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 591 Filed 09/05/13 Page 24 of 49
not exceed the statewide standard in April 2013, achieved a 37 percent performance level, just below the 40 percent statewide requirement.70
c. Contacts in Therapeutic Placement Setting The MSA requires that by July 6, 2013, the end of Period 3, 40 percent of therapeutic resource parents with at least one foster child residing in their home have a DFCS worker visit the home monthly consistent with certain MSA requirements.71 Defendants reported that during April 2013 this requirement applied to 213 therapeutic settings statewide, a number substantially lower than the number of non-therapeutic settings;72 however, despite the relatively lower number of homes to which this requirement applied, defendants achieved a lower level of performance with respect to this requirement as of April 30, 2013, attaining exactly the 40 percent statewide performance required by the end of Period 3.73 Data produced by defendants indicate that a disproportionate number of therapeutic placements are located within a single region, Region III-S.74 Nearly 40 percent of all therapeutic placements statewide were in Region III-S in April 2013, a region that accounted for only 14 percent of the children in custody as of the end of that month. By contrast, Region VII-W, which accounted for 22 percent of the number of children in custody at the time, had only eight percent of all therapeutic placements. The high volume of casework related to therapeutic placements in Region III-S may have contributed to the region’s low performance levels, 25 percent as of April 30, 2013, and in turn reduced statewide performance levels.
70 Id. 71 MSA §§II.B.5.c., II.B.5.e.3. See supra note 66 regarding the purpose of the visits. 72 Ex. 10A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Therapeutic Placement Setting Contacts, By Region; see also Ex. 10B, corresponding table with underlying data. 73 See Ex. 10A, supra note 72. 74 See Ex. 10B, supra note 72.
21

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 591 Filed 09/05/13 Page 25 of 49
3. Child Placement Defendants’ reported performance with eight statewide requirements related to child placement was also analyzed, one of which was not a Period 3 requirement, but which was analyzed nonetheless for reasons detailed below. According to data reported by defendants during Period 3, as of April 30, 2013, defendants met five of the requirements. With respect to two additional requirements, by the end of Period 3 the MSA requires 100 percent performance in one instance and, in the second, zero performance deviations from the MSA requirement. Although defendants did not meet these two requirements, the data defendants produced indicates that as of April 30, 2013 they performed well. Similarly, with respect to the eighth performance requirement which was not applicable to Period 3, defendants did not meet the standard requiring zero deviations from the MSA requirement, but they did perform well. The data produced by defendants related to the eight placement requirements the Monitor analyzed are intended to measure the following: 1) the percentage of children in licensed and unlicensed placements; 2) the percentage of children placed within a defined proximity to their homes; 3) the percentage of children with two or fewer placements within the first 12 months of their most recent removal from their homes; 4) the percentage of sibling groups removed from their homes who are placed together consistent with MSA requirements; 5) the number of sibling groups in which one or more sibling is under the age of ten that are placed in a congregate care setting for more than 45 days; 6) the number of children under the age of ten placed in congregate care settings unless certain conditions apply; 7) the number of foster children in emergency or temporary facilities for more than 45 days unless certain conditions apply; and 8) the number of children placed in more than one emergency or temporary facility within one episode of foster care unless certain conditions apply.
22

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 591 Filed 09/05/13 Page 26 of 49
The first four of the eight statewide requirements that were analyzed establish mandates based on population-controlled rates. The latter four statewide requirements set performance limits expressed as fixed cardinal thresholds (i.e., not rates).
a. Licensed and Unlicensed Placements The MSA requires that by July 6, 2013, the end of Period 3, unless otherwise ordered by the Youth Court over DFCS objections, 100 percent of children shall be placed in a foster care setting that meets licensure standards consistent with MSA requirements.75 According to data reported by defendants during Period 3, among children in custody in April 2013, 92 percent of children were in licensed placements, eight percent short of the standard that must be met by July 6, 2013.76 However, defendants’ data report does not capture placements ordered by the Youth Court over DFCS objections, which could contribute to defendants underreporting performance levels. Twelve of the 13 regions in the state reported that in excess of 90 percent of children in their regions were placed in licensed facilities during April 2013, including the region with the second largest population of children in custody, Region III-S.77 In fact, seven of those 12 regions reported performance levels of 97 percent or higher. The lowest performing region was Region VII-W, which reported 76 percent of children in the region were in licensed placements, a percentage that increased over the 11 months analyzed even as the population of children in custody increased substantially.
75 MSA §§II.B.2.a., II.B.2.p.2., II.B.2.p.4.-5. 76 Ex. 11A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Number of Children in Licensed and Unlicensed Placements, Including Approved Relative Placements Pending Full Licensure; see also Ex. 11B, corresponding table with underlying data. 77 See Ex. 11A, supra note 76.
23

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 591 Filed 09/05/13 Page 27 of 49
b. Proximity of Initial Placement The MSA requires that by July 6, 2013, the end of Period 3, 85 percent of children shall be placed within their own county or within 50 miles of their home, unless certain exceptions apply.78 According to data submitted by defendants during Period 3, for the 12-month period ending on April 30, 2013, 91 percent of children were initially placed consistent with this requirement.79 As of April 30, 2013, nine regions reported meeting or exceeding the statewide performance requirement.80 The four regions that did not meet or exceed the required statewide performance level represent four of the five regions on the western border of the state, bordering the Mississippi River – Regions II-E, II-W, III-N, and V-W81 – three of which include area within the Mississippi Delta. Two of those four regions still achieved performance levels exceeding 80 percent for the 12-month period ending April 2013.82 The one region with area along the banks of the Mississippi River that exceeded the statewide performance level was Region III-S, the region that includes Jackson, the state’s most populous city. The region that performed best on average over the period between June 2012 and April 2013 was the geographically smallest region, Region VII-W. As noted above, this region includes Mississippi’s second largest city, Gulfport, and fifth largest city, Biloxi. Collectively, these data suggest that regional performance levels related to this requirement may be directly correlated to population density levels of the regions. Although Region VII-W is geographically small, it is highly populated, which offers more placement options within the county or within 50 miles of a child’s home. The same is true of Region III-S, which includes Jackson. Conversely,
78 MSA §§II.B.2.p.16., II.B.2.g. 79 Ex. 12A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Proximity of Initial Placement for All Children Entering Custody; see also Ex. 12B, corresponding table with underlying data. 80 See Ex. 12A, supra note 79. 81 Id. 82 Id.
24

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 591 Filed 09/05/13 Page 28 of 49
in lower density areas there may be fewer placement options, requiring children to be placed out of the county and farther from home.
c. Two or Fewer Placements Within First 12 Months of Latest Removal From Home
The MSA requires that by July 6, 2013, the end of Period 3, 60 percent of children in care less than 12 months from the latest removal from home shall have two or fewer placements.83 According to data reported by defendants during Period 3, on April 30, 2013 this requirement applied to 2,366 children, 67 percent of whom had two or fewer placements, a level exceeding the statewide requirement defendants must meet by the end of Period 3.84 Every region reported exceeding the statewide standard.
d. Placement of Sibling Groups The MSA requires that by July 6, 2013, the end of Period 3, 80 percent of siblings who entered custody at or near the same time must be placed together consistent with specific MSA requirements.85 Defendants’ data reporting practice with respect to this performance requirement changed beginning in March 2013. Whereas prior to that month, defendants reported on 12month performance periods, starting in March 2013, defendants began reporting on one-month periods.86 Because the data from the two reporting methods is not comparable, the Monitor limited her analysis to comparable, available data from Period 3, which included the 12-month period ending August 31, 2012 through the 12-month period ending February 28, 2013.87
83 MSA §II.C.1.b.1. 84 Ex. 13A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children in Care Fewer Than 12 Months From the Time of Latest Removal From Home, By Region and Number of Placements; see also Ex. 13B, corresponding table with underlying data. 85 MSA §§ II.B.2.p.13., II.B.2.h. 86 Defendants were unaware of this change in reporting until the Monitor brought this matter to their attention on July 17, 2013. 87 Unlike other reports, the Monitor did not receive data for this requirement for June and July 2012.
25

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 591 Filed 09/05/13 Page 29 of 49
The data defendants produced indicate that for the period ending February 28, 2013, this MSA requirement applied to 1,490 children who were members of sibling groups and that defendants met the requirement for 92 percent of those children, exceeding for the period ending February 28, 2013 the statewide performance requirement of 80 percent by the end of Period 3.88 Defendants reported that they exceeded the statewide requirement in all 13 regions for that period.89
Unlike the prior four statewide placement requirements, which established performance levels based on population-controlled rates, the next four statewide placement requirements established fixed, statewide cardinal limits on certain types of placements. Thus, for these four requirements it was not possible to assess how a given region performed with respect to a statewide standard. Instead, the Monitor assessed to what extent different regions contributed to the statewide limits or performance deviations.
Five of the state’s 13 regions accounted for much of the statewide performance trends across these four requirements: Regions VII-W, III-S, VI, III-N, and I-N. Not surprisingly, the first two of these regions had by far the largest numbers of children in custody as of April 30, 2013, with 837 and 514 children in custody respectively.90 The latter three regions accounted for between 271 and 346 children in custody and were among the seven regions with the highest populations of children in custody. Two other regions in that cohort of seven regions with the highest population, Regions I-S and VII-E, contributed relatively less to the statewide performance levels.
88 Ex. 14A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Placement of Sibling Groups Who Entered Custody At or Around the Same Time, By Region; see also Ex. 14B, corresponding table with underlying data. 89 See Ex. 14A, supra note 88. 90 See Ex. 3, supra note 41.
26

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 591 Filed 09/05/13 Page 30 of 49
e. Sibling Groups With at Least One Sibling Under Age Ten in Congregate Care In addition to requiring certain percentages of siblings in sibling groups to be placed together,91 the MSA establishes certain prohibitions on the housing of children under the age of ten in congregate care settings. First, as a final performance standard in the lawsuit, the MSA requires that sibling groups in which one or more of the siblings are under the age of ten shall not be placed in congregate care settings for more than 45 days.92 Although the aforementioned limited prohibition is not a Period 3 requirement, defendants produce a monthly performance report regarding this performance standard as required by Appendix C. Recognizing that the defendants are not required to meet this standard during Period 3, the Monitor analyzed the data defendants submitted, because it provides context for a Period 3 performance requirement, described below. In the month ending April 30, 2013, defendants reported 13 sibling groups with at least one sibling under age ten in congregate care for more than 45 days.93 In that month, two regions had one sibling group, three regions had two sibling groups, and one region had five sibling groups in congregate care settings for more than 45 days.94 The region with five sibling groups placed in violation of this MSA requirement was Region VII-W, the region with the most children in custody.95 Five regions did not house any sibling groups in violation of this MSA requirement in any of the 11 months that were reviewed.96
91 See supra 25 for a discussion of this requirement. 92 MSA §II.B.2.m. 93 Ex. 15A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Number of Sibling Groups With At Least One Sibling Under Age 10 Housed in a Congregate Care Setting For More Than 45 Days, By Region; see also Ex. 15B, corresponding table with underlying data. 94 See Ex. 15A, supra note 93. 95 Id. 96 Id.
27

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 591 Filed 09/05/13 Page 31 of 49
f. Children Under Ten in a Congregate Care Setting The MSA requires that by July 6, 2013, the end of Period 3, no more than 40 children under the age of ten should be placed in congregate care unless certain circumstances apply and the written approval of a Regional Director is obtained.97 Defendants reported that for the month ending April 30, 2013, there were a total of 87 children under the age of ten housed in congregate care settings, nine of whom were housed in those settings without Regional Director approval.98 Those nine children were housed in three of the state’s 13 regions, and one region, Region I-N, accounted for six of the nine children.99 Among all children under the age of ten housed in congregate care settings as of April 30, 2013, 70 percent were attributable to the three regions with the largest populations of children in custody, Regions VII-W, III-S, and VI.100
g. Children in Emergency or Temporary Facilities for More Than 45 Days The MSA requires that by July 6, 2013, the end of Period 3, no foster children shall remain in an emergency or temporary facility for more than 45 days unless certain circumstances apply and the Field Operations Director has granted written approval for the extension that documents the need for the extension.101 The data reports defendants submitted during Period 3 do not report whether the Field Operations Director provided written approval, but rather indicate whether the Division Director provided written approval. According to defendants’ data, in the month of April 2013, there were a total of 34 children in emergency shelters or temporary facilities for over 45 days and only one of those 34
97 MSA §II.B.2.p.6. 98 Ex. 16A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Under Age 10 Housed in a Congregate Care Setting With and Without Regional Director Approval, By Region; see also Ex. 16B, corresponding table with underlying data. Defendants’ performance report does not report on whether the applicable children have exceptional needs as contemplated by the MSA. 99 See Ex. 16A, supra note 98. 100 See Ex. 16B, supra note 98. 101 MSA §§II.B.2.k., II.B.2.p.8.
28

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 591 Filed 09/05/13 Page 32 of 49
children received approval from the Division Director.102 One region, Region VII-W, accounted for 20 of those 34 children in April 2013, approximately 60 percent of the monthly total.103 Over the longer, 11-month period that was reviewed, four regions in particular regularly housed children in violation of this requirement: Regions VII-W, III-S, III-N, and VI. As noted above, three of those regions, Regions VII-W, III-S, and VI were, respectively, the regions with the first, second, and third highest populations of children in custody as of April 30, 2013.
h. Children With More Than One Emergency or Temporary Facility Within One Episode of Foster Care
In addition to creating limits on the duration of placements in emergency or temporary facilities, the MSA creates limits on the number of those placements during one episode of foster care. The MSA requires that by July 6, 2013, the end of Period 3, no more than 180 children may be placed in more than one emergency or temporary facility within one episode of foster care unless an immediate placement move is necessary to protect the safety of the child or others as certified in writing by the Regional Director.104 According to the data produced by defendants during Period 3, during the month of April 2013, there were 289 children in custody with two or more emergency or temporary facility placements within one episode of foster care, of whom 234 had the requisite written approval and 55 did not have the requisite written approval.105
As of April 2013, five regions accounted for approximately 80 percent of the total number of children placed in more than one emergency or temporary facility and approximately
102 Ex. 17A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children in Emergency Shelter or Temporary Facility for Over 45 Days With and Without the Division Director Approval, By Region; see also Ex. 17B, corresponding table with underlying data. 103 See Ex. 17A, supra note 102. 104 MSA §II.B.2.p.7. 105 Ex. 18A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children with Two or More Emergency or Temporary Facility Placements At Any Time Within One Episode of Foster Care With and Without Regional Director Approval, By Region; see also Ex. 18B, corresponding table with underlying data.
29

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 591 Filed 09/05/13 Page 33 of 49
three quarters of those placements had the approval of a Regional Director: Regions III-S, VI, VII-W, VII-E, and III-N.106
4. Services (Initial Health Screenings and Comprehensive Health Assessments) Defendants reported performance with two statewide requirements related to the health services required by the MSA. According to the data reports defendants produced during Period 3, for the 12-month period ending on April 30, 2013, the defendants did not meet or exceed the performance standards they were required to satisfy by July 6, 2013, the end of Period 3. The two requirements that were reviewed measure whether children received an initial health screening within 72 hours of entering custody and whether children received a comprehensive health assessment within 30 days of entering custody. Performance related to each requirement is described below.
a. Initial Health Screening Within 72 Hours of Placement The MSA requires that by July 6, 2013, the end of Period 3, 50 percent of children entering custody must receive a health screening evaluation from a qualified practitioner that meets specified standards within 72 hours of placement.107 The data reports defendants produced during Period 3 do not indicate whether initial health screenings were conducted by qualified medical practitioners or whether the screenings were conducted in a manner consistent with the recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatricians, as required by the MSA. Nevertheless, the data indicate that for the 12-month period ending on April 30, 2013, 22 percent of children who entered custody received initial health screenings within 72 hours.108 By the end of April 2013, two regions, Regions I-S and II-W, the first two regions to implement fully the
106 See Ex. 18B, supra note 105. 107 MSA §II.B.3.i.1. 108 Ex. 19A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Entering Custody Who Received an Initial Health Screening Within 72 Hours of Entering Custody; see also Ex. 19B, corresponding table with underlying data.
30

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 591 Filed 09/05/13 Page 34 of 49
practice model, exceeded the statewide performance requirement.109 Both regions demonstrated rapid and sustained progress over the 11-month period that was analyzed.110 On the opposite end of the performance spectrum, four regions, Regions III-N, III-S, VII-E, and VII-W, delivered initial health screenings within 72 hours to ten percent or fewer of the children entering custody during the 12-month period ending on April 30, 2013.111 The two regions with the lowest performance were also the regions with the largest populations of children in custody, Regions III-S and VII-W.
b. Comprehensive Health Assessments Within 30 Days of Entering Custody The MSA requires that by July 6, 2013, the end of Period 3, 50 percent of children entering custody who remain in custody more than 30 days receive a comprehensive health assessment within 30 calendar days of entering custody consistent with certain MSA requirements.112 The data reports that defendants produced during Period 3 do not capture whether the health assessments met all of the MSA requirements. Nonetheless, defendants’ reported performance with this requirement closely tracked their performance with the requirement to provide initial health screenings within 72 hours. According to these data, 24 percent of children to whom this requirement applied during the 12-month period ending April 30, 2013 received a comprehensive health assessment within 30 days of entering custody.113 As was the case with respect to the initial health screenings, two regions surpassed the statewide performance requirement, Regions I-S and II-W, the first two regions to implement fully the
109 See Ex. 19A, supra note 108. 110 Id. 111 Id. 112 MSA §§II.B.3.i.2., II.B.3.b. 113 Ex. 20A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children in Custody 30+ Days Who Received a Comprehensive Health Assessment Within 30 Days of Entering Custody; see also Ex. 20B, corresponding table with underlying data.
31

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 591 Filed 09/05/13 Page 35 of 49
practice model.114 Two regions achieved lower than ten percent with respect to this performance requirement, Regions VII-W and III-S. Region VII-W achieved only a one percent performance rate over the 12-month period ending in April 2013.115
B. Regional Performance Requirements For the performance period ending April 30, 2013, seven regional MSA performance requirements for which defendants submitted data reports during Period 3 were analyzed.116 For purposes of the MSA’s regional requirements the presentation below focuses on Regions I-S and II-W because these regions fully implemented the practice model and entered the data tracking year in September 2012 when they became responsible for meeting the first set of regional performance requirements.117 The only other region to fully implement the practice model during the performance period ending April 30, 2013 was Region V-W, which fully implemented the practice model in February 2013 and entered the data tracking year in March 2013. Performance trends for Region V-W could not be assessed because only two months of performance data were available. As the analysis of statewide performance requirements indicated, Regions I-S and II-W performed best on average among all regions with respect to the statewide requirements. While not conclusive, these results are encouraging and suggest that implementation of the practice model is having a generalized positive impact on service delivery in those regions of the state in which it is implemented. The data tracking year for Regions I-S and II-W ended in August 2013. The performance period that was analyzed in this report includes the first eight months, or two
114 See Ex. 20A, supra note 113. 115 Id. 116 For informational purposes only, the analysis extends beyond the two regions that will be implicated by the MSA’s performance requirements during the current calendar year. The analysis addresses performance in all 13 regions and also includes statewide performance. See Exs. 21A-27B. 117 See supra note 25 (addressing the MSA’s temporal compliance measurement requirements).
32

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 591 Filed 09/05/13 Page 36 of 49
thirds, of the data tracking year. This eight-month period is sufficient to assess the trends in defendants’ performance.
Nevertheless, because of the method and format that defendants used to report performance, it was not possible to isolate their performance exclusively to the period beginning at the start of a data tracking year as required by the MSA.118 This prevented the Monitor from making findings about defendants’ reported performance following full implementation and during the data tracking year. The Monitor anticipates that this deficiency will be corrected by the reports addressing Period 3 regional performance that must be produced pursuant to the requirements of the June 2013 Order.
The Monitor’s findings are addressed more specifically below. 1. Worker Contact and Monitoring
The MSA requires that beginning by September 2012, 70 percent of children in Regions I-S and II-W, the first two regions to implement the practice model, who are in custody longer than 90 days and reunified, receive a 90-day trial home visit or have documentation in their case records reflecting the Youth Court’s objection. During the trial home visit period, the child’s caseworker is required to meet with the child in the home at least two times per month without a parent or caretaker present, and defendants are required to provide or facilitate access to all services identified in the child’s aftercare plan.119
During Period 3, defendants produced data reports for children on trial home visits which reflected the number of caseworker visits conducted in one-month periods. While these reports do not address the full MSA requirement, because they provide important information about
118 For six of the seven data reports, defendants reported performance for rolling 12-month periods. These 12month periods included data from months prior to the start of the data tracking year and it was not feasible to manipulate the data to exclude those months. For the seventh report, defendants reported performance during individual months; however, the MSA required defendants to report for each relevant child performance over a 90day period. 119 MSA §§III.B.8.d.1., III.B.8.b.
33

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 591 Filed 09/05/13 Page 37 of 49
limited aspects of defendants’ performance they are addressed in this report. According to the reports that defendants produced, as of April 30, 2013, 79 percent of children on trial home visits in Region I-S and 88 percent of children on trial home visits in Region II-W, who were in custody for longer than 90 days and reunified, met with their caseworkers at least twice during a one-month period.120 This is encouraging. Nevertheless, because this requirement is based on three-months of performance data, defendants’ ability to meet the requirement will be contingent upon the ability of caseworkers to conduct these visits at the required frequency intervals month after month.
2. Services The MSA requires that beginning by September 2012, 90 percent of children who are ages 14-20 in Regions I-S and II-W must be provided with the independent living services specified in their service plans.121 According to the data reports defendants produced during Period 3, for the 12-month period ending April 30, 2013, 70 percent of the targeted cohort in Region I-S and 82 percent of the targeted cohort in Region II-W were provided with the independent living services set forth in their service plans.122
3. Permanency The Monitor analyzed performance as of April 30, 3013 in Regions I-S and II-W related to four regional permanency standards. Each region’s performance is described below.
120 Ex. 21A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, During Trial Home Visit Period, Number of Children Who Met With Their Caseworker or Family Preservation Caseworker in the Home Twice in a One-Month Period or At Least Once Monthly if 15 Days or Less, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, By Region; see also Ex. 21B, corresponding table with underlying data. 121 MSA §III.B.7.e.1. 122 Ex. 22A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Ages 14-20 Receiving Independent Living Services As Set Forth in Service Plan, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, By Region; see also Ex. 22B, corresponding table with underlying data.
34

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 591 Filed 09/05/13 Page 38 of 49
a. Permanency Plan By 30th Day in Custody According to the data reports defendants produced during Period 3, for the 12-month period ending April 30, 2013,123 there was a clear and on its face troubling trend over the 11month period examined. In each of the 13 regions there was a period of improved performance followed by sharp and steady declines around the end of 2012. This drop, however, may reflect a change in defendants’ business practices and not necessarily a true change in performance (i.e., the data may not be comparable over time). In any event, assuming the data does reflect changes in practice, and the more recent data reflects defendants’ current practices, it may indicate that substantial progress will be necessary in order for defendants to satisfy this performance requirement.
b. Reunification Within 12 Months The MSA requires that beginning by September 2012, 60 percent of foster children in Regions I-S and II-W who are discharged from custody and reunified with their parents or caretakers must be reunified within 12 months of the latest removal from the home.124 According to the data submitted by defendants during Period 3, for the 12-month period ending April 30, 2013, Region I-S had exceeded this standard by two percentage points.125 In contrast, the data show that Region II-W reached a high of 54 percent on this performance standard by November 30, 2012; however, since that time performance levels have decreased substantially and as of April 30, 2013, Region II-W had a performance rate of 32 percent.126 Interestingly, the region
123 Ex. 23A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children with a Permanency Plan by their 30th Day of Custody, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, By Region; see also Ex. 23B, corresponding table with underlying data. 124 MSA §III.C.1.a.1. 125 Ex. 24A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Leaving State Custody and Reason, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, By Region, and Percentage of Children Reunified With Parent or Caretaker In Under 12 Months from Latest Removal; see also Ex. 24B, corresponding table with underlying data. 126 See Ex. 24A, supra note 125.
35

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 591 Filed 09/05/13 Page 39 of 49
that reported the highest success rate was Region VII-W, a region that has struggled with many other performance requirements.127
c. Timely Administrative Reviews
Additionally, the MSA requires that beginning by September 2012, 90 percent of the
foster children in Regions I-S and II-W who have been in custody for at least six months must have a timely administrative review consistent with MSA requirements.128 The MSA requires
defendants to provide written notice of the review to ensure the participation of specified
participants. It also requires review of the permanency plan during the administrative review process.129 The data submitted by defendants during Period 3 does not address the full MSA
requirement; it is limited to the timeliness requirement. Nonetheless, it is helpful in providing
insight into a key aspect of performance in each region. According to these data, for the 12-
month period ending April 30, 2013, both regions exceeded the timeliness requirement established by this performance standard.130 It is noteworthy that 12 of the DFCS regions
satisfied this requirement, and the region that did not, III-S, failed to meet the requirement by two percentage points.131
d. Timely Annual Court Reviews
The MSA also requires that beginning by September 2012, 90 percent of the foster
children in Regions I-S and II-W who have been in custody for at least 12 months must have a timely annual court review consistent with MSA requirements.132 The MSA requires defendants
to take reasonable steps to ensure that the court review is conducted within the 12-month period
127 Statewide performance satisfied this performance standard for the 12-month period ending April 30, 2013. Id. 128 MSA §§III.B.3.c.4.a. 129 Id. §III.B.3.c.1. 130 Ex. 25A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children in Custody for Six Months or More With an Administrative Review Every Six Months, By Region and By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date; see also Ex. 25B, corresponding table with underlying data. 131 Statewide performance exceeded this performance standard as of April 30, 2013. Id. 132 MSA §III.B.3.c.4.b.
36

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 591 Filed 09/05/13 Page 40 of 49
of initial placement and annually thereafter.133 The data reports defendants produced during
Period 3 address the timeliness of the court review. According to these data, for the 12-month
period ending April 30, 2013, Region I-S was performing at 77 percent and Region II-W at 85 percent.134
4. Adoption
The Monitor analyzed one regional performance standard related to adoption, which
requires that beginning by September 2012, at least 25 percent of foster children in both Regions
I-S and II-W who are discharged from DFCS custody upon finalization of adoption must have had their adoptions finalized within 24 months of the latest removal from home.135 According to
the data submitted by the defendants during Period 3, for the 12-month period ending April 30, 2013, Region I-S had exceeded the performance standard and Region II-W was at ten percent.136 As with the performance standard related to reunification,137 Region VII-W out-performed every other region on average over the period analyzed.138
C. Additional Considerations
This report underscores the essential role that quality data and analysis must serve in
promoting defendants’ statewide reform effort. In addition to in-depth qualitative, case-level data, agency executives must have access to aggregate assessments of progress over time.139 As
the data presented in this report illustrate, defendants’ performance varied widely across the state,
133 Id. §III.B.3.c.2. 134 Ex. 26A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children in Custody for 12 Months or More With a Timely Permanency Hearing, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, By Region; see also Ex. 26B, corresponding table with underlying data. 135 MSA §III.C.2.a.1. 136 Ex. 27A, chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Length of Time Between Court Custody and Finalization of Adoption, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, By Region; see also Ex. 27B, corresponding table with underlying data. 137 See supra 35-36 for the narrative related to the reunification standard. 138 Statewide performance as of April 30, 2013 was just under the performance standard requirement at 23 percent. 139 This capacity is required by the MSA. MSA §II.A.5.a.
37

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 591 Filed 09/05/13 Page 41 of 49
by MSA service category, and over time. If defendants are not able to detect geographicallybased trends in relative real time, and thereafter answer questions that emerge regarding the causes of performance levels, their ability to intervene effectively will be severely diminished.
The June 2013 Order directly addresses the need for complete, accurate, timely, and accessible data in this case. As discussed above, during the process of analyzing the performance data defendants submitted through Period 3, questions arose about various, ostensibly meaningful data points or trends.140 Each of the questions bears on some aspect of the MSA and yet, there are no clear, convincing answers to these questions at this point. The June 2013 Order requires defendants to implement processes to scrub their automated data, an essential first step in detecting and preventing the inclusion of certain errors in performance reports.
As important as routine data scrubbing, defendants are required to maintain data in an independent database. The value of this database cannot be overstated. Historically, one of the primary problems defendants have encountered regarding their data has been one of accessibility. Data in the existing MACWIS system is not easily extracted or manipulated. Defendants’ new database bypasses this problem and should enable defendants to create custom data queries to address ad hoc questions about performance trends quickly. As defendants develop the information technology infrastructure to perform these sorts of queries, it will be important for
140 For example, why did the population of children in custody increase so precipitously in Region VII-W between October 2012 and April 2013 and not in other regions? Why was there an apparent aberrant decrease in the number of reported, open investigations of maltreatment in January 2013? Why was there a consistent dip in performance with respect to the requirement related to children having a permanency plan by their 30th day in custody in every region starting around the end of 2012? Why did the reporting methodology for one report change beginning in March 2013? Why did it appear on some reports that there were more children in custody in some regions on April 30, 2013 than on other reports?
38

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 591 Filed 09/05/13 Page 42 of 49
them also to dedicate sufficient human resources to capitalize on the value of the data and in turn influence the speed and efficacy of the current reform effort.
IV. CONCLUSION Period 3 ended in July 2013. During Period 3, the defendants produced tens of thousands
of pages of data reports related to their performance. Although the reports were produced in response to MSA requirements, many had significant limitations. Additionally, some required reports were produced late and others were not produced at all. A remedial Order issued in June 2013 requires defendants to correct the deficiencies in Period 3 data reporting. Pursuant to the Order, complete, accurate and validated data reports that reflect all Period 3 data reporting requirements are scheduled to be produced between September 2013 and January 2014. The evidence indicates that defendants are working diligently to implement the June 2013 Order.
This report provides information about some aspects of defendants’ progress toward meeting Period 3 requirements based on a number of the data reports that defendants produced during Period 3. While there are well-documented and long-recognized limitations in these reports, they provide information about defendants’ own assessment of their performance.
Based on the data analyzed in this report, it appears that defendants have formidable challenges that they will need to overcome, at least in some DFCS regions, in order to satisfy MSA requirements. For example, the data indicate that in certain regions, in particular the two regions serving the largest number of children in custody, defendants are struggling to meet many MSA requirements. At the same time, however, the data also indicate that those regions in which defendants have implemented the practice model earliest are performing better across a range of requirements than later-implementing regions. This is cause for optimism about the potential efficacy of defendants’ reform strategy.
39

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 591 Filed 09/05/13 Page 43 of 49
Perhaps above all else, this report illustrates a theme that has been repeated throughout
the Monitor’s reports: complete, accurate, and timely performance data will be critical to
defendants’ efforts to advance their progress in this case. The June 2013 Order requires
defendants to begin to address some of their current capacity deficits in specific ways. The
Monitor will be assessing defendants’ ability to meet those requirements and anticipates that she
will be in a position to report to the Court on all Period 3 performance data subsequent to the
production of the performance reports required by the June 2013 Order.
Respectfully submitted,
_________/ s / _______________________ Grace M. Lopes (MBN 45693 pro hac vice) Court Monitor Mark Jordan* 1220 19th Street, N.W. Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 232-8311 gmlopes@oymonitor.org
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on September 5, 2013, the Court Monitor’s Update to the Court Regarding Progress During Period 3 as Reflected in Certain Data Reports Produced By the Defendants, was transmitted electronically to the following counsel of record in this matter:
Dewitt L. (“Rusty”) Fortenberry Jr. Kenya Key Rachal Ashley Tullos Young Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC 428 I-55 North Meadowbrook Office Park Jackson, Mississippi 39211
* The quantitative analysis in this report was conducted by Mark Jordan, a consultant to the Office of the Court Monitor. Mr. Jordan’s academic background and professional experience are summarized in Ex. 28. Mia Caras, Special Assistant to the Court Monitor, provided extensive support to the data analysis.
40

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 591 Filed 09/05/13 Page 44 of 49
Harold E. Pizzetta, III Assistant Attorney General General Civil Division Carroll Gartin Justice Building 430 High Street Jackson, MS 39201 W. Wayne Drinkwater, Jr. BRADLEY ARANT ROSE & WHITE LLP 188 East Capital Street, Suite 450 Jackson, Mississippi 39201 Marcia Robinson Lowry Miriam Ingber Julia Davis CHILDREN’S RIGHTS 330 Seventh Avenue New York, New York 10001 John Lang John Piskora LOEB & LOEB LLP 345 Park Ave. New York, New York 10154
_________/ s / _______________ Grace M. Lopes
41

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 591 Filed 09/05/13 Page 45 of 49

Appendix Ex. 1A Ex. 1B Ex. 1C Ex. 2 Ex. 3 Ex. 4A Ex. 4B Ex. 5A
Ex. 5B
Ex. 6A Ex. 6B

Index to Exhibits
Table produced by the Office of the Court Monitor reflecting all reports required by Appendix C and noting the reasons why certain reports were not included in the analysis presented in this report
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children in Foster Care By Placement Type, Statewide, One-Month Period Ending 4/30/2013
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children in Foster Care By Placement Type, By Region
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Total Children in Custody as of April 30, 2013, by Region and Placement Type
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Relative Regional Performance With Respect to 13 Statewide Performance Requirements, Average Monthly Performance, June 1, 2012 – April 30, 2013
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children in Custody With Substantiated Findings of Maltreatment, by Region
Corresponding table with underlying data for chart related to Children in Custody With Substantiated Findings of Maltreatment, by Region
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Remaining in the Same Placement Following Maltreatment Investigation Who Met Face-to-Face With Worker Twice in a One-Month Period or At Least Once if 15 Days or Less Following Completed Maltreatment Investigation, By Region
Corresponding table with underlying data for chart related to Children Remaining in the Same Placement Following Maltreatment Investigation Who Met Face-to-Face With Worker Twice in a One-Month Period or At Least Once if 15 Days or Less Following Completed Maltreatment Investigation, By Region
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Investigations Open One or More Days During Period Initiated Within 24 Hours of Intake, By Region
Corresponding table with underlying data for chart related to Investigations Open One or More Days During Period Initiated Within 24 Hours of Intake, By Region

Index-1

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 591 Filed 09/05/13 Page 46 of 49

Ex. 7A Ex. 7B
Ex. 8A Ex. 8B
Ex. 9A Ex. 9B Ex. 10A Ex. 10B Ex. 11A
Ex. 11B
Ex. 12A Ex. 12B Ex. 13A

Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Status of Maltreatment Investigations Open One or More Days During Period, By Region
Corresponding table with underlying data for chart related to Status of Maltreatment Investigations Open One or More Days During Period, By Region
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Twice Monthly InPerson Visits With Child by Assigned Caseworkers, by Region
Corresponding table with underlying data for chart related to Twice Monthly In-Person Visits With Child by Assigned Caseworkers, by Region
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Non-Therapeutic Placement Setting Contacts, By Region
Corresponding table with underlying data for chart related to NonTherapeutic Placement Setting Contacts, By Region
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Therapeutic Placement Setting Contacts, By Region
Corresponding table with underlying data for chart related to Therapeutic Placement Setting Contacts, By Region
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Number of Children in Licensed and Unlicensed Placements, Including Approved Relative Placements Pending Full Licensure
Corresponding table with underlying data for chart related to Number of Children in Licensed and Unlicensed Placements, Including Approved Relative Placements Pending Full Licensure
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Proximity of Initial Placement for All Children Entering Custody
Corresponding table with underlying data for chart related to Proximity of Initial Placement for All Children Entering Custody
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children in Care Fewer Than 12 Months From the Time of Latest Removal From Home, By Region and Number of Placements

Index-2

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 591 Filed 09/05/13 Page 47 of 49

Ex. 13B Ex. 14A Ex. 14B Ex. 15A Ex. 15B Ex. 16A Ex. 16B Ex. 17A Ex. 17B Ex. 18A
Ex. 18B

Corresponding table with underlying data for chart related to Children in Care Fewer Than 12 Months From the Time of Latest Removal From Home, By Region and Number of Placements
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Placement of Sibling Groups Who Entered Custody At or Around the Same Time, By Region
Corresponding table with underlying data for chart related to Placement of Sibling Groups Who Entered Custody At or Around the Same Time, By Region
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Number of Sibling Groups With At Least One Sibling Under Age 10 Housed in a Congregate Care Setting For More Than 45 Days, By Region
Corresponding table with underlying data for chart related to Number of Sibling Groups With At Least One Sibling Under Age 10 Housed in a Congregate Care Setting For More Than 45 Days, By Region
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Under Age 10 Housed in a Congregate Care Setting With and Without Regional Director Approval, By Region
Corresponding table with underlying data for chart related to Children Under Age 10 Housed in a Congregate Care Setting With and Without Regional Director Approval, By Region
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children in Emergency Shelter or Temporary Facility for Over 45 Days With and Without the Division Director Approval, By Region
Corresponding table with underlying data for chart related to Children in Emergency Shelter or Temporary Facility for Over 45 Days With and Without the Division Director Approval, By Region
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children with Two or More Emergency or Temporary Facility Placements At Any Time Within One Episode of Foster Care With and Without Regional Director Approval, By Region
Corresponding table with underlying data for chart related to Children with Two or More Emergency or Temporary Facility Placements At Any Time Within One Episode of Foster Care With and Without Regional Director Approval, By Region

Index-3

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 591 Filed 09/05/13 Page 48 of 49

Ex. 19A Ex. 19B Ex. 20A Ex. 20B Ex. 21A
Ex. 21B
Ex. 22A Ex. 22B Ex. 23A Ex. 23B Ex. 24A

Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Entering Custody Who Received an Initial Health Screening Within 72 Hours of Entering Custody
Corresponding table with underlying data for chart related to Children Entering Custody Who Received an Initial Health Screening Within 72 Hours of Entering Custody
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children in Custody 30+ Days Who Received a Comprehensive Health Assessment Within 30 Days of Entering Custody
Corresponding table with underlying data for chart related to Children in Custody 30+ Days Who Received a Comprehensive Health Assessment Within 30 Days of Entering Custody
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, During Trial Home Visit Period, Number of Children Who Met With Their Caseworker or Family Preservation Caseworker in the Home Twice in a One-Month Period or At Least Once Monthly if 15 Days or Less, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, By Region
Corresponding table with underlying data for chart related to During Trial Home Visit Period, Number of Children Who Met With Their Caseworker or Family Preservation Caseworker in the Home Twice in a One-Month Period or At Least Once Monthly if 15 Days or Less, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, By Region
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Ages 14-20 Receiving Independent Living Services As Set Forth in Service Plan, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, By Region
Corresponding table with underlying data for chart related to Children Ages 14-20 Receiving Independent Living Services As Set Forth in Services Plan, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, By Region
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children with a Permanency Plan by their 30th Day of Custody, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, By Region
Corresponding table with underlying data for chart related to Children with a Permanency Plan by their 30th Day of Custody, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, By Region
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children Leaving State Custody and Reason, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, By
Index-4

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 591 Filed 09/05/13 Page 49 of 49

Ex. 24B
Ex. 25A Ex. 25B Ex. 26A Ex. 26B Ex. 27A Ex. 27B Ex. 28

Region, and Percentage of Children Reunified With Parent or Caretaker In Under 12 Months from Latest Removal
Corresponding table with underlying data for chart related to Children Leaving State Custody and Reason, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, By Region, and Percentage of Children Reunified With Parent or Caretaker In Under 12 Months from Latest Removal
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children in Custody for Six Months or More With an Administrative Review Every Six Months, By Region and By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date
Corresponding table with underlying data for chart related to Children in Custody for Six Months or More With an Administrative Review Every Six Months, By Region and By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Children in Custody for 12 Months or More With a Timely Permanency Hearing, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, By Region
Corresponding table with underlying data for chart related to Children in Custody for 12 Months or More With a Timely Permanency Hearing, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, By Region
Chart prepared by the Office of the Court Monitor, Length of Time Between Court Custody and Finalization of Adoption, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, By Region
Corresponding table with underlying data for chart related to Length of Time Between Court Custody and Finalization of Adoption, By Practice Model Fully Implemented Date, By Region
Resume of Mark Jordan

Index-5

 
 Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 592 Filed 09/13/13 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION
OLIVIA Y., et al.

PLAINTIFFS

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:04CV251LN

PHIL BRYANT, as Governor of the State of Mississippi, et al.

DEFENDANTS

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO THE COURT MONITOR’S UPDATE TO THE COURT REGARDING PROGRESS DURING PERIOD 3 AS REFLECTED IN CERTAIN DATA
REPORTS PRODUCED BY THE DEFENDANTS
Plaintiffs respectfully submit this brief Response to the Court Monitor’s Update to the Court Regarding Progress During Period 3 as Reflected in Certain Data Reports Produced by the Defendants, dated September 5, 2013 (Dkt. No. 591) (the “Update Report”). The Update Report was submitted to the Court in accordance with Section VI.B of the Modified Mississippi Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan (Dkt. No. 571) (the “MSA”), approved by the Court on July 6, 2012. The response below seeks to clarify the impact of Defendants’ inability to produce reliable data during Implementation Period 3 (“Period 3”), and to offer some additional context as the Court considers the Monitor’s findings.
It has been nearly a decade since Plaintiffs brought this class action, civil rights lawsuit in order to protect children from longstanding problems with the Mississippi child welfare system. Almost six years ago, in January 2008, the parties entered into the Mississippi Settlement

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 592 Filed 09/13/13 Page 2 of 5
Agreement and Reform Plan (Dkt. No. 459). In 2012, the parties negotiated the MSA, which modified the terms of the original settlement agreement. The MSA takes into account Defendants’ planned region-by-region implementation of a new Practice Model and recognized Defendants’ failure to comply with the terms of the original agreement. Under the MSA, the parties jointly draft annual implementation plans, which outline the steps Defendants must undertake during each 12-month period in order to progress towards overall compliance with the MSA. (MSA § I.D). Period 3, which began on July 6, 2012, concluded on July 5, 2013.
By the conclusion of Period 3, Defendants should have provided one year of data based on 57 reports contained in MSA Appendix C. (See MSA App. B, Period 3 Implementation Plan (Dkt. No. 571 at 62) (“IP3”) § I.D.1; see also MSA App. C, Proposed Data Reports Schedule (Dkt. No. 571 at 69)). As the Update Report notes, Defendants were unable to comply with this important obligation, and will not produce a complete set of Period 3 performance data until January 2014. (Update Report at 4-5).1 Thus, the Update Report before the Court provides only “interim information regarding defendants’ self-reported performance.” (Id. at 5). None of these data have undergone the rigorous validation process required by the Monitor and set forth in the Data Reports Schedule.
Moreover, the Update Report analyzes only a subset of the reports that Defendants were required to produce documenting their progress during Period 3. (Update Report App. (Dkt. No. 591-1) at Ex. 1A). Indeed, the Monitor was able to include only 25 of the 57 required data reports in her analysis. (Id.). As a result, the Update Report does not include any analysis
1 As a result of Defendants’ failure to comply with these obligations, the Court issued an order setting forth a process and schedule for the production of accurate and validated data reports. (Project Schedule for Defs.’ Produc. of Data Reports Required by App. C of the Modified Settlement Agreement (Dkt. No. 589) (the “Data Reports Schedule”) at Attach. 1). These accurate and validated data reports will be produced on a rolling basis, beginning on September 1, 2013, with the final set of reports due by January 15, 2014. (Id.).
2

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 592 Filed 09/13/13 Page 3 of 5
related to certain critical child welfare practices, including: case worker caseloads; training and supervision; placement stability for children in foster care; and family engagement in case planning. (Id.). The Update Report also fails to track children’s access to physical and behavioral health services, dental care, and support for developmental and educational needs. (Id.). A total of 21 reports that could not be analyzed rely on Defendants’ foster care review process. (Id.). As the Monitor noted, the quality of the data from the foster care review process was so concerning that it could not be analyzed at all. (Update Report at 3 n.5). In light of both the Update Report’s limited scope and the potential unreliability of the data analyzed therein, Plaintiffs urge the Court to review these preliminary results with caution.
Defendants’ inability to produce the validated data required during Period 3 also delayed the parties’ negotiations and planning for Implementation Period 4 (“Period 4”), which began on July 6, 2013. The MSA requires the parties to jointly develop each implementation plan 90 days prior to the start of the implementation period. (MSA § I.E). Without reliable data documenting Defendants’ compliance with the MSA, the parties were forced to limit the scope of their negotiations for Period 4 to those few topics that did not require validated data reports. As a result, the parties agreed out of necessity to bifurcate the planning process, coming to agreement on an Initial Implementation Period 4 Plan that requires the parties to reopen negotiations in December 2013, when most (though not all) of Defendants’ Period 3 data will be available. (Initial Period 4 Implementation Plan (Dkt. No. 590-1) § I.A). Thus, the parties will not complete Period 4 planning until January 2014, at which point more than five months of Period 4 will have elapsed. (Id. § I.B). Defendants’ delay in producing this critical data has thereby compromised the effectiveness of the parties’ collaborative planning process and slowed the pace of reform.
3

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 592 Filed 09/13/13 Page 4 of 5
In the months ahead, Plaintiffs look forward to reviewing the Monitor’s forthcoming report documenting Defendants’ Period 3 compliance, and to revisiting the goals for Period 4 reform with Defendants once progress during Period 3 can be reliably measured.
Respectfully submitted this 13th day of September, 2013.
/s/ Miriam Ingber Marcia Robinson Lowry (MBN 43991 pro hac vice) Miriam Ingber (MBN 46823 pro hac vice) CHILDREN’S RIGHTS 330 7th Avenue, 4th floor New York, New York 10001 Telephone: (212) 683-2210 W. Wayne Drinkwater, Jr. (MBN 6193) BRADLEY ARANT ROSE & WHITE LLP 188 East Capitol Street, Suite 450 Jackson, Mississippi 39201 Telephone: (601) 948-8000 John Lang (MBN 43987 pro hac vice) Christina Carbone (MBN 43986 pro hac vice) John Piskora (MBN 44474 pro hac vice) LOEB & LOEB LLP 345 Park Ave. New York, New York 10154 Telephone: (212) 407-4000 PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL
4

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 592 Filed 09/13/13 Page 5 of 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Miriam Ingber, do hereby certify that on September 13, 2013, I electronically filed a true and correct copy of the foregoing document with the Clerk of court using the ECF system which sent notification of such to the following:
Dewitt L. (“Rusty”) Fortenberry Jr., Esq. Kenya Key Rachal, Esq. Ashley C. Tullos, Esq. BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC 428 I-555 North Meadowbrook Office Park Jackson, Mississippi 39211 Telephone: (601) 351-2400 Harold E. Pizzetta, III, Esq. Assistant Attorney General General Civil Division Carroll Gartin Justice Building 430 High Street Jackson, Mississippi 39201 SO CERTIFIED this 13th day of September, 2013.
/s/ Miriam Ingber Miriam Ingber
5

 
 Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 593 Filed 09/16/13 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION
OLIVIA Y., et al.

PLAINTIFFS

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:04CV251LN

PHIL BRYANT, as Governor of the State of Mississippi, et al.

DEFENDANTS

PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED RESPONSE TO THE COURT MONITOR’S UPDATE TO THE COURT REGARDING PROGRESS DURING PERIOD 3 AS REFLECTED IN
CERTAIN DATA REPORTS PRODUCED BY THE DEFENDANTS
Plaintiffs respectfully submit this brief Amended Response to the Court Monitor’s Update to the Court Regarding Progress During Period 3 as Reflected in Certain Data Reports Produced by the Defendants, dated September 5, 2013 (Dkt. No. 591) (the “Update Report”). The Update Report was submitted to the Court in accordance with Section VI.B of the Modified Mississippi Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan (Dkt. No. 571) (the “MSA”), approved by the Court on July 6, 2012. The response below seeks to clarify the impact of Defendants’ inability to produce reliable data during Implementation Period 3 (“Period 3”), and to offer some additional context as the Court considers the Monitor’s findings.
It has been nearly a decade since Plaintiffs brought this class action, civil rights lawsuit in order to protect children from longstanding problems with the Mississippi child welfare system. Almost six years ago, in January 2008, the parties entered into the Mississippi Settlement

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 593 Filed 09/16/13 Page 2 of 5
Agreement and Reform Plan (Dkt. No. 459). In 2012, the parties negotiated the MSA, which modified the terms of the original settlement agreement. The MSA takes into account Defendants’ planned region-by-region implementation of a new Practice Model and recognized Defendants’ failure to comply with the terms of the original agreement. Under the MSA, the parties jointly draft annual implementation plans, which outline the steps Defendants must undertake during each 12-month period in order to progress towards overall compliance with the MSA. (MSA § I.D). Period 3, which began on July 6, 2012, concluded on July 5, 2013.
By the conclusion of Period 3, Defendants should have provided one year of data based on 57 reports contained in MSA Appendix C. (See MSA App. B, Period 3 Implementation Plan (Dkt. No. 571 at 62) (“IP3”) § I.D.1; see also MSA App. C, Proposed Data Reports Schedule (Dkt. No. 571 at 69)). As the Update Report notes, Defendants were unable to comply with this important obligation, and will not produce a complete set of Period 3 performance data until January 2014. (Update Report at 4-5).1 Thus, the Update Report before the Court provides only “interim information regarding defendants’ self-reported performance.” (Id. at 5). None of these data have undergone the rigorous validation process required by the Monitor and set forth in the Data Reports Schedule.
Moreover, the Update Report analyzes only a subset of the reports that Defendants were required to produce documenting their progress during Period 3. (Update Report App. (Dkt. No. 591-1) at Ex. 1A). Indeed, the Monitor was able to include only 25 of the 57 required data reports in her analysis. (Id.). As a result, the Update Report does not include any analysis
1 As a result of Defendants’ failure to comply with these obligations, the Court issued an order setting forth a process and schedule for the production of accurate and validated data reports. (Project Schedule for Defs.’ Produc. of Data Reports Required by App. C of the Modified Settlement Agreement (Dkt. No. 589) (the “Data Reports Schedule”) at Attach. 1). These accurate and validated data reports will be produced on a rolling basis, beginning on September 1, 2013, with the final set of reports due by January 15, 2014. (Id.).
2

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 593 Filed 09/16/13 Page 3 of 5
related to certain critical child welfare practices, including: case worker caseloads; training and supervision; and family engagement in case planning. (Id.). The Update Report also fails to fully track children’s access to physical and behavioral health services, dental care, and support for developmental and educational needs. (Id.). A total of 21 reports that could not be analyzed rely on Defendants’ foster care review process. (Id.). As the Monitor noted, the quality of the data from the foster care review process was so concerning that it could not be analyzed at all. (Update Report at 3 n.5). In light of both the Update Report’s limited scope and the potential unreliability of the data analyzed therein, Plaintiffs urge the Court to review these preliminary results with caution.
Defendants’ inability to produce the validated data required during Period 3 also delayed the parties’ negotiations and planning for Implementation Period 4 (“Period 4”), which began on July 6, 2013. The MSA requires the parties to jointly develop each implementation plan 90 days prior to the start of the implementation period. (MSA § I.E). Without reliable data documenting Defendants’ compliance with the MSA, the parties were forced to limit the scope of their negotiations for Period 4 to those few topics that did not require validated data reports. As a result, the parties agreed out of necessity to bifurcate the planning process, coming to agreement on an Initial Implementation Period 4 Plan that requires the parties to reopen negotiations in December 2013, when most (though not all) of Defendants’ Period 3 data will be available. (Initial Period 4 Implementation Plan (Dkt. No. 590-1) § I.A). Thus, the parties will not complete Period 4 planning until January 2014, at which point more than five months of Period 4 will have elapsed. (Id. § I.B). Defendants’ delay in producing this critical data has thereby compromised the effectiveness of the parties’ collaborative planning process and slowed the pace of reform.
3

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 593 Filed 09/16/13 Page 4 of 5
In the months ahead, Plaintiffs look forward to reviewing the Monitor’s forthcoming report documenting Defendants’ Period 3 compliance, and to revisiting the goals for Period 4 reform with Defendants once progress during Period 3 can be reliably measured.
Respectfully submitted this 16th day of September, 2013.
/s/ Miriam Ingber Marcia Robinson Lowry (MBN 43991 pro hac vice) Miriam Ingber (MBN 46823 pro hac vice) CHILDREN’S RIGHTS 330 7th Avenue, 4th floor New York, New York 10001 Telephone: (212) 683-2210 W. Wayne Drinkwater, Jr. (MBN 6193) BRADLEY ARANT ROSE & WHITE LLP 188 East Capitol Street, Suite 450 Jackson, Mississippi 39201 Telephone: (601) 948-8000 John Lang (MBN 43987 pro hac vice) Christina Carbone (MBN 43986 pro hac vice) John Piskora (MBN 44474 pro hac vice) LOEB & LOEB LLP 345 Park Ave. New York, New York 10154 Telephone: (212) 407-4000 PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL
4

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 593 Filed 09/16/13 Page 5 of 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Miriam Ingber, do hereby certify that on September 16, 2013, I electronically filed a true and correct copy of the foregoing document with the Clerk of court using the ECF system which sent notification of such to the following:
Dewitt L. (“Rusty”) Fortenberry Jr., Esq. Kenya Key Rachal, Esq. Ashley C. Tullos, Esq. BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC 428 I-555 North Meadowbrook Office Park Jackson, Mississippi 39211 Telephone: (601) 351-2400 Harold E. Pizzetta, III, Esq. Assistant Attorney General General Civil Division Carroll Gartin Justice Building 430 High Street Jackson, Mississippi 39201 SO CERTIFIED this 16th day of September, 2013.
/s/ Miriam Ingber Miriam Ingber
5

 
 Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 691 Filed 05/06/16 Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION

OLIVIA Y., ET AL.
VS.
HALEY BARBOUR, AS GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, ET AL.

PLAINTIFFS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:04CV251LN DEFENDANTS

ORDER This cause is before the court on the motion of plaintiffs, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, for an award of their class counsels’ attorneys’ fees and expenses in the amount of $345,471.06 for the monitoring and enforcement of the Modified Mississippi Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan from December 1, 2014 through November 30, 2015. The requested attorneys’ fee is calculated as follows:

Attorney

Requested Hourly Rate

Marcia Lowry

$475.00 legal work

A Better Childhood $237.50 travel

Sara Glasser

$350.00 legal work

A Better Childhood $175.00 travel

Stephen Dixon

$300.00 legal work $150.00 travel

Wayne Drinkwater Bradley Arant

$420.00 2014 legal work $438.75 2015 legal work

Michael Bentley Bradley Arant

$198.75 2014 legal work $217.50 2015 legal work

Paralegal

$130

A Better Childhood

Paralegal Bradley Arant

$153.75

TOTALS

Hours Total Fee Worked 316.78 $163,967.63
56.83 249.52 $ 92,144.50
27.50 58.75 $ 25,125.00 50.00
.06 $ 36,309.83 82.70 33.30 $ 7,242.75
81.30 $ 10,569.00
3.50 $ 538.13
960.24 $335,896.84

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 691 Filed 05/06/16 Page 2 of 11
Plaintiffs also seek reimbursement for $9,574.22 in expenses for costs attendant to counsels’ travel to and from Mississippi from their offices.
Defendants have responded in opposition to the motion. In their response, defendants do not take issue with the number of hours for which compensation is sought or plaintiffs’ claimed expenses. They oppose the motion solely on the basis that the hourly rates sought by plaintiffs are excessive and do not represent a reasonable hourly billing rate within the relevant market.
A party seeking an award of attorneys’ fees should submit evidence of the hourly rates claimed and the reasonableness of those rates. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 103 S. Ct. 1933, 76 L. Ed. 2d 40 (1983). The reasonable hourly rate is “‘calculated according to the prevailing market rates in the relevant community’”. McClain v. Lufkin Indus., Inc., 649 F.3d 374, 381 (5th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The “relevant market for purposes of determining the prevailing rate to be paid in a fee award is the community in which the district court sits, Tollett v. City of Kemah, 285 F.3d 357, 368 (5th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), though in “certain limited circumstances, out-ofdistrict counsel may be entitled to the rates charged in their
2

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 691 Filed 05/06/16 Page 3 of 11

home districts,” Luv N' Care, Ltd v. Groupo Rimar, No. CV 14-2491, 2015 WL 9463189, at *8 (W.D. La. Dec. 28, 2015) (citing McClain, 649 F.3d 374).1
“A district court may not simply rely on its own experience in the relevant legal market to set a reasonable hourly billing rate.” Worldcom, Inc. v. Automated Commc’ns, Inc., 75 F. Supp. 2d 526, 531 (S.D. Miss. 1999). “[T]he burden is on the applicant to produce satisfactory evidence ... that the requested rates are in line with those prevailing in the community for similar services

1

In McClain v. Lufkin Industies Inc., 649 F.3d 374 (5th

Cir. 2011), the Fifth Circuit held that where “abundant and

uncontradicted evidence prove[s] the necessity of turning to

out-of-district counsel, the co-counsel's ‘home rates' should be

considered as a starting point for calculating the lodestar

amount.” Id. at 382. Here, Ms. Lowry asserts that there is such

abundant and uncontradicted evidence, in the form of a declaration

from Jackson, Mississippi attorney Luke Dove, who states that

local counsel would have difficulty bringing a suit against the

State of Mississippi, given the “conflicts with government

relations, public finance, and other areas of practice that could

be adversely affected by suits against the State.” She notes,

too, that in other child welfare reform litigation, she has been

awarded her home rate. See Brian A. v. Hattaway, No. 02-5666 at

*5 (6th Cir. 2003) (affirming award of attorneys’ fees at

out-of-state rates in similar statewide child welfare class action

case where affidavits from local attorneys stated there “was no

local attorney or coalition of local attorneys who had the

resources, expertise, or willingness to bring the ... suit”). Ms.

Lowry further asserts that were she seeking out-of-district

national rates, then she would be entitled to an hourly rate of at

least $520. She indicates, though, that since the $475 hourly

rate she is seeking is a reasonable hourly rate for a case of this

nature in the Mississippi community for an attorney with her

experience and qualifications, then she is not seeking the

out-of-district rates to which she believes she would otherwise be

entitled.

3

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 691 Filed 05/06/16 Page 4 of 11
by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation.” McClain, 649 F.3d at 381 (quotation marks and citation omitted). “Satisfactory evidence” refers to more than “a mere conclusory statement that [a] fee [is] reasonable.” Heck v. Buhler, 3:07-CV-00021-BAJ, 2014 WL 2003270, at *2 (M.D. La. May 15, 2014) (citations omitted). “Rather, [t]o inform and assist the court in [determining the reasonable rate]” the fee applicant should produce an affidavit of the attorney performing the work, information of rates actually billed and paid in similar lawsuits, as well as “affidavits of other attorneys practicing [in the community in question].” Id. See also Luv N' Care, 2015 WL 9463189, at *8 (stating that “[g]enerally, the reasonable hourly rate for a particular community is established through affidavits of other attorneys practicing there.”).
To satisfy their burden to establish the reasonableness of the requested hourly rates, each of plaintiffs’ lawyers has submitted a declaration attesting to his or her qualifications, experience, reputation and belief that his or her claimed hourly rate, and those of their co-counsel, are reasonable. In addition, plaintiffs have submitted a declaration from local attorney Luke Dove, who states that the hourly rates claimed in the declarations of attorneys Lowry, Drinkwater and Glasser are reasonable and within the range of hourly rates currently prevailing in Mississippi for litigation of this sort during the period in which
4

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 691 Filed 05/06/16 Page 5 of 11
the legal services were performed, and are customarily charged to and collected from clients for legal services requiring comparable skill, judgment, professional reputation and experience.
Defendants state in response to the motion that the hourly rates currently sought by plaintiffs’ counsel are “drastically higher” than those agreed to in prior years, and defendants contend that the requested rates are above the prevailing market rates in the Southern District of Mississippi. The hourly rates that were paid to plaintiffs’ attorneys and paralegals for work performed from December 1, 2013 through November 30, 2014 were as follows: Lowry - $318.00; Robinson-Glasser - $240.00; Drinkwater $267.75; Bentley - $198.00; and paralegals - $113.00. Defendants submit that these hourly rates to which the parties previously agreed continue to be reasonable and customary in the Southern District of Mississippi and should be used in calculating plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fee award.
By way of reply, plaintiffs note that during the eight years of monitoring in this lawsuit, the parties have always reached agreement on the amount of fees and expenses to which plaintiffs are entitled. They were able to do this, explain plaintiffs, only because during all this time, plaintiffs’ attorneys have agreed to accept drastically lower hourly rates than those to which they would otherwise be entitled, solely in the interest of coming to a settlement on fees. Plaintiffs submit that merely because they
5

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 691 Filed 05/06/16 Page 6 of 11

have been willing in the past to compromise on their fees in this fashion and accept artificially low hourly rates in no way precludes them from now seeking an award based on hourly rates that are within the local rates for attorneys of their extensive knowledge base, experience and expertise. On this point, plaintiffs are obviously correct. Therefore, in evaluating plaintiffs’ attorneys’ hourly rates, the court will give no consideration to the fact that they previously agreed by way of compromise to accept lower hourly rates than those they now request.
Plaintiffs further maintain that the hourly rates sought for each of their attorneys is reasonable, as demonstrated by the evidence of record, as well as the case law cited both by them and by defendants. In the court’s opinion, that is certainly true as to rates sought for attorneys Bentley, Glasser and Dixon. Bentley, a 2007 law school graduate, is a litigation partner in the firm. Plaintiffs seek an hourly rate of $217.50 for the work performed by Mr. Bentley.2 This rate is clearly reasonable. See Brown v. Miss. Dept. of Health, No. 3:11-cv-0146-CWR-FKB [Dkt. No. 66], at *6 (S.D. Miss. March 5, 2013) (finding “$200 - $350 an hour" an appropriate rate for partner in litigation matters);

2

Plaintiffs requested that Bentley’s work in 2014 be

compensated at $198.50 an hour. However, the time records do not

reflect his having performed any services for plaintiffs in 2014.

6

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 691 Filed 05/06/16 Page 7 of 11
Alexander v. City of Jackson, Miss., No. 3:04CV614 HTW-LRA, 2011 WL 1059293, at *14 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 21, 2011), aff'd, 456 F. App'x 397 (5th Cir. 2011) (finding $250/hour for partners reasonable). Likewise, the $300 hourly rate sought for Dixon, with 29 years’ experience, and the $350 hourly rate requested for Glasser, with over 30 years’ experience, are reasonable, particularly in view of their extensive experience and expertise in child welfare matters. See Anderson v. City of McComb, No. 5:13-cv-00263-TSL-MTP [Dkt. No. 185], at *8 (S.D. Miss. Apr. 4, 2016) (awarding $375 per hour for attorney with 30 years’ litigation experience); Brown, supra, at *6 ($250 to $350 appropriate rate for partners); Lighthouse Rescue Mission v. City of Hattiesburg, Miss., No. 2:12-CV-184, 2014 WL 1653108 , at *4 (S.D. Miss. Apr. 23, 2014) ($325 per hour reasonable for attorney with 23 years of experience and specialization in the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act); In re Wayne Farms LLC, No. 2:07-md-1872, [Dkt. No. 143] (S.D. Miss. Dec. 23, 2009) (awarding $350 an hour for partners, stating that “[t]his Court has also previously found $350.00 per hour to be reasonable for partners in this locality and other district courts of this circuit have done likewise.”).
Plaintiffs seek compensation at the hourly rate of $475 for the services performed by their lead counsel, Marcia Lowry. Ms. Lowry’s declaration reflects that during her 47 years of practicing law, she has been actively involved in litigating child
7

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 691 Filed 05/06/16 Page 8 of 11
welfare reform cases. She has directed major litigation efforts in numerous jurisdictions throughout this country designed to promote major reform of child welfare systems, and she has written and spoken extensively on child welfare reform and child welfare litigation. Ms. Lowry asserts that the $475 hourly rate requested for her services is reasonable and consistent with the prevailing rates for attorneys of comparable skill, reputation, and experience in Mississippi.
Plaintiffs request that the services of Wayne Drinkwater of the Bradley Arant firm be compensated at the hourly rates of $420.00 and $438.75 for legal work performed in 2014 and 2015, respectively. Mr. Drinkwater graduated from law school in 1974. Since 1977, after clerkships with the district court and United States Supreme Court, he has been actively engaged in a trial and litigation practice. In his declaration, Mr. Drinkwater states that the rates requested for his services in this case have been discounted to 75% of the lowest rate his firm charges corporate and commercial clients for his services;3 and he states that his requested fees, as well as those of his co-counsel, are reasonable for the legal services performed by lawyers in Mississippi in matters of equivalent significance requiring skill and judgment.

3

Mr. Bentley’s rates, which the court has already found

to be reasonable, have been similarly discounted.

8

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 691 Filed 05/06/16 Page 9 of 11
Further, as observed supra, Jackson attorney Luke Dove’s declaration states that the rates requested by Mr. Drinkwater and Ms. Lowry are reasonable and within the range of hourly rates currently prevailing in Mississippi for litigation of this sort for attorneys with comparable skill, judgment, professional reputation and experience to that of Ms. Lowry and Mr. Drinkwater. The court is familiar with Mr. Drinkwater’s experience and with his reputation as one of the preeminent litigation lawyers in Mississippi. Further, over the course of this litigation, the court has become familiar with Ms. Lowry and her skill and expertise in the specific area of child welfare reform. The court’s opinion, having considered the evidence presented and pertinent case law, is that $425 represents a reasonable hourly rate for Ms. Lowry’s services in this case and that Mr. Drinkwater should be compensated at the rate of $400 per hour. See U.S. ex rel Rigsby v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., No. 1:06CV433–HSO–RHW, 2014 WL 691500, at *14 (S.D. Miss. Feb. 21, 2014) (where one attorney affidavit stated that “customary and reasonable rates currently charged by litigation partners in Mississippi firms and/or regional firms with offices in Mississippi are in the $400–$500 range,” and another stated that the “billing rate for commercial litigation ranges from $250/hour to $450/hour, depending on a variety of circumstances that include the client's ability to pay,” and yet other competing evidence was presented
9

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 691 Filed 05/06/16 Page 10 of 11
that $358 was the average for senior partners in complex commercial litigation cases in Mississippi, court awarded out-ofstate attorney $400 per hour rather than the $600 he had requested); Rader v. Bruister, No. 3:13cv1001-DPJ-FKB [Dkt. No. 518] (S.D. Miss. Sept. 29, 2015) (citing exhibit showing that average partner rate for large regional law firms with a presence in Mississippi is $392 per hour, making $400 per hour above average).
Turning, finally, to the paralegals, plaintiffs seek compensation at the rates of $130.00 and $153.75, for the work performed by paralegals at A Better Childhood and Bradley Arant, respectively. In the court’s opinion, a reasonable hourly rate for the services of paralegals in Mississippi is $110. See Alexander v. City of Jackson, Miss., No. 3:04CV614, 2011 WL 1059253, at *14 (S.D. Miss. March 21, 2011) (finding reasonable rates were "$250 for partners, $200 for associates, and $100 for paralegals").
Based on the foregoing, it is ordered that plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and expenses is granted in part and denied in part, as the court finds that plaintiffs are entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and expenses in the amount of $323,248.35, as calculated below:
10

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 691 Filed 05/06/16 Page 11 of 11

Attorney

Hourly Rate

Hours Worked

Marcia Lowry

$425.00 legal work 316.78

$212.50 travel

56.83

Sara Glasser

$350.00 legal work 249.52

$175.00 travel

27.50

Stephen Dixon

$300.00 legal work 58.75

$150.00 travel

50.00

Wayne Drinkwater $400.00 legal work 82.76

Michael Bentley $217.50 legal work 33.30

Paralegals

$110.00

85.00

Expenses

Totals

960.24

SO ORDERED this 6th day of May, 2016.

Total Fee
$146,707.88
$ 92,144.50
$ 25,125.00
$ 33,104.00 $ 7,242.75 $ 9,350.00 $ 9,574.22 $323,248.35

/s/ Tom S. Lee UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11

 
 Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 712 Filed 12/19/16 Page 1 of 34

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION

OLIVIA Y., et al.

PLAINTIFFS

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:04CV251LN

PHIL BRYANT, as Governor of the State of Mississippi, et al.

DEFENDANTS

2nd MODIFIED MISSISSIPPI SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND REFORM PLAN

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 712 Filed 12/19/16 Page 2 of 34
Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 1
SYSTEMIC INFRASTRUCTURE STANDARDS ........................................................................................... 2 1. Agency Leadership ...................................................................................................................2
1.1 Worker and Supervisor Qualifications .................................................................................................. 2 1.2 Training ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Caseloads ...................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.4 Continuous Quality Improvement ......................................................................................................... 4 1.5 Management Information Systems........................................................................................................ 4 1.6 Data Collection and Reporting ............................................................................................................... 4 1.7 Performance Based Contracting............................................................................................................. 5 1.8 Foster Care Maintenance Payments ...................................................................................................... 5
FOSTER CARE SERVICE STANDARDS.......................................................................................................... 6 2. Child Safety and Maltreatment in Care ....................................................................................6 3. Family-Based Placements.........................................................................................................8 4. Placement Standards.................................................................................................................9 5. Visitation ................................................................................................................................13
5.1 Worker Contact and Monitoring ...........................................................................................................13 5.2 Developing and Maintaining Connections .........................................................................................14 6. Child and Youth Permanency.................................................................................................16 6.1 Comprehensive Family Service Plans .................................................................................................16 6.2 Concurrent Permanency Planning ........................................................................................................17 6.3 Permanency Case Goals ..........................................................................................................................17 6.4 Permanency Reviews................................................................................................................................21 6.5 Permanency Performance Indicators ...................................................................................................21 7. Transition to Independent Living ...........................................................................................22 8. Child Well-Being....................................................................................................................24 8.1 Physical and Mental Health Care..........................................................................................................24 8.2 Educational Services.................................................................................................................................25
i|2ND MISSISSIPPI MSA

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 712 Filed 12/19/16 Page 3 of 34 MONITORING ..................................................................................................................................26 9. Monitoring ..............................................................................................................................26 10. Movement of Commitments to Maintenance Status ..............................................................28 ENFORCEMENT AND EXIT ..............................................................................................................................28 11. Enforcement and Exit .............................................................................................................28 ATTORNEY FEES ....................................................................................................................................................29 12. Attorney Fees..........................................................................................................................29
ii | 2 N D M I S S I S S I P P I M S A

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 712 Filed 12/19/16 Page 4 of 34
INTRODUCTION
This 2nd Modified Mississippi Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan (the "2nd MSA") shall supersede the Mississippi Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan entered as a Court Order on January 4, 2008 (the "initial Settlement Agreement") [Dkt. No. 459] as well as the Modified Mississippi Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan entered as a Court Order on July 6, 2012, [Dkt. No. 571]. This 2nd MSA shall resolve all remaining claims in the above-captioned case, Olivia Y. v. Bryant. et al. Paragraph 1 of the Stipulated Settlement Agreement approved by the Court on June 15, 2007 [Dkt. No. 425] is hereby incorporated into this 2nd MSA.
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Northern Division, shall have continuing jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this 2nd MSA.
The intent of this 2nd MSA, which becomes effective on January 1, 2018, is to set forth and maintain the child welfare infrastructure, standards, and outcomes that Defendants must meet within specified timeframes statewide.
Defendants do not speak for the Mississippi Legislature, which has the power under Mississippi law to determine the appropriations for the state's child welfare programs. However, at least annually after Court approval of this 2nd MSA, 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 2nd MSA. 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. Nothing in this paragraph in any way limits Defendants' obligations under this 2nd MSA.
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 take necessary steps to maximize available federal funding opportunities to serve children in the State’s custody.
Nothing in this 2nd MSA shall be construed as infringing on the authority of the state courts of Mississippi to exercise their jurisdiction over individual class members. Defendants will not be held accountable for the state courts' exercise of such jurisdiction in any individual case, as long as Defendants requested that the state court exercise its jurisdiction consistent with the requirements of the 2nd MSA in that individual case.
1|2ND MISSISSIPPI MSA

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 712 Filed 12/19/16 Page 5 of 34

SYSTEMIC INFRASTRUCTURE STANDARDS

1. Agency Leadership

The Mississippi Department of Child Protection Services ("MDCPS") shall maintain a Commissioner of Child Protection Services having responsibility for the oversight and management of the MDCPS. That person shall be qualified by at least a bachelor's degree from an accredited institution of higher learning and ten (10) years' experience in management, public administration, finance, or accounting or a master's or doctoral degree from an accredited institution of higher learning and five (5) years’ experience in management, public administration, finance, law, or accounting. Should the related Mississippi statute that establishes qualifications for the Commissioner change, the revised statute will govern.

1.1 Worker and Supervisor Qualifications

1.1.a. MDCPS shall hire caseworkers who have, at minimum, a bachelor's degree in social work or a related human services degree. The Monitor shall review and determine which degrees qualify as related human services degrees.

1.1.b. MDCPS shall hire or promote to the position of caseworker supervisor only persons who have, at minimum, the following qualifications:

1.1.b.1.

A master’s degree in social work or a related human services degree and two years of experience working with children and families, preferably in foster care; or

1.1.b.2.

A bachelor's degree in social work or a related human services degree with three years of experience working with children and families, preferably in foster care.

1.2 Training

1.2.a. MDCPS shall maintain a Training Unit headed by a qualified director of training. The Training Unit shall have sufficient staffing, funding, and other resources to assure that comprehensive child welfare training is provided to enable all caseworkers, supervisors, and other child welfare agency employees to comply with the relevant mandates of this 2nd MSA, MDCPS policy, and reasonable professional standards.

1.2.b. MDCPS caseworkers shall receive a minimum of 270 hours of pre-service training, which includes instructional training and supervised field training, and may include E-Learning. Any E-Learning training is subject to the approval of the Monitor. Pre-service training provided during an MDCPS internship or previous employment with MDCPS may be counted towards the pre-service training requirement if that training is substantially similar to the training provided to new hires.

1.2.c. MDCPS caseworker trainees, as part of pre-service training, 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 assignment:

2|2ND MISSISSIPPI MSA

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 712 Filed 12/19/16 Page 6 of 34

1.2.c.1.

Upon successful completion of a competency test, reviewed and approved by the Monitor and administered subsequent to the trainee’s fourth week of work, up to five (5) cases may be assigned with supervisor approval.

1.2.c.2.

Final caseloads may be assigned after successful completion of pre-service training, all competency-based tests and a satisfactory review by the training team.

1.2.c.3.

All competency tests, modifications to competency tests, and the standards for passing competency tests, must be reviewed and approved by the Monitor.

1.2.d. Starting in calendar year 2018, MDCPS caseworkers shall receive a minimum of 20 hours of in-service training, and all supervisors shall receive a minimum of 12 hours of in-service training. Beginning in 2019, MDCPS caseworkers shall receive a minimum of 40 hours of in-service training each year, and all supervisors shall receive a minimum of 24 hours of inservice training each year.

1.2.e. MDCPS caseworker supervisors, within 90 days of hire or promotion, shall receive a minimum of 40 hours of training, directed specifically at the supervision of child welfare caseworkers.

1.3 Caseloads

1.3.a. 90% of MDCPS caseworkers will have caseloads which do not exceed the caseload standards set forth below. Individual MDCPS caseworkers with generic caseloads shall not carry a mixed caseload that exceeds 100% capacity as calculated by the following weights per case type:

Type of Case
Child Protection
(Investigations Level 2 and 3)
Ongoing Foster Care
(Placement Responsibility & Service)
Ongoing Foster Care
(Placement County of Responsibility)
Ongoing Foster Care
(Placement County of Service)
In-Home Cases
(Protection Responsibility & Service, Prevention Responsibility & Service and Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC)-Incoming)
In-Home Cases
(Protection or Prevention County of Responsibility)
In-Home Cases
(Protection or Prevention County of Service)
Adoption
(Adoption County of Service)

Standards 14 Investigations
14 Children
17 Families

Weight Per Case – 100% Capacity 0.0714
0.0714
0.0357
0.0357
0.0588

15 Children

0.0294 0.0294 0.0667

3|2ND MISSISSIPPI MSA

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 712 Filed 12/19/16 Page 7 of 34

Type of Case
New Application Licensing
(Resource Inquiry, Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) Application, and Foster Home Study)
Renewal Licensing
(Foster Home Supervision and Foster Home Renewal)

Standards 15 Homes 36 Homes

Weight Per Case – 100% Capacity 0.0667
0.0278

1.3.b. 85% of MDCPS supervisors shall be responsible for no more than five (5) caseworkers.

1.4 Continuous Quality Improvement
1.4.a. By December 1st of each year, MDCPS shall develop an annual Continuous Quality Improvement Plan, which shall be subject to the approval of the Monitor after consultation with the parties.
1.4.b. Upon approval, MDCPS will implement the CQI Plan and will do so with sufficient staff and resources to assess compliance with those provisions of the 2nd MSA that were identified for review in the Plan. The reviews will assess case practice, analyze outcomes, and produce analysis that will be shared with managers and stakeholders to achieve performance improvement.

1.5 Management Information Systems
1.5.a. MDCPS shall maintain comprehensive information systems that permit: (l) timely access by authorized MDCPS staff to information, including current and historical case documents, to support child safety and continuity of care across placement settings and services; (2) capturing, tracking, and reporting of applicable financial information, quantitative 2nd MSA compliance, longitudinal performance, and child welfare information, including federally required elements; and (3) prompts for workers and supervisors regarding required actions in a child’s case and whether they have taken place.
1.5.b. MDCPS shall have a Comprehensive Child Welfare Information System (CCWIS) appropriate to its size and complexity that shall meet federal requirements by June 30, 2021. Defendants shall take reasonable steps to ensure data quality and verification of the accuracy of data in CCWIS. The CCWIS system shall have the necessary controls to decrease the risk of duplication of data and to reduce the risk of incorrect or invalid data. The system shall provide a visible trail to authorized administrators of all information entered, added, deleted, or modified, and shall have necessary security to protect data integrity. This system shall be audited at least annually to ensure the accuracy and validity of data in the system.
1.6 Data Collection and Reporting
1.6.a. MDCPS shall provide to all county agency staff with child welfare responsibilities access to computer services, word processing, and electronic mail and access to the current management information systems and to CCWIS, once implemented.

4|2ND MISSISSIPPI MSA

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 712 Filed 12/19/16 Page 8 of 34
1.6.b. Data related to compliance with the 2nd MSA's Foster Care Service Standards will be collected, analyzed, and made available, at least quarterly, to MDCPS regional and county staff.
1.6.c. MDCPS county staff shall have access to an electronic statewide database of available placement resources.
1.7 Performance Based Contracting
1.7.a. Defendants shall establish, maintain and assess the effectiveness of a performance-based contracting system to evaluate annually contract agency compliance with the terms of the 2nd MSA. Defendants shall take all reasonable steps to ensure contract agency remediation of any identified deficiencies within three (3) months. A contract agency’s unwillingness to participate in remediation efforts will be grounds for contract termination.
1.7.b. Prior to MDCPS contracting for case management services for children in custody, MDCPS shall submit for review and approval to the Monitor a detailed plan to ensure accountability and provide supervision and oversight of such agencies. The plan must ensure compliance with all related provisions of this 2nd MSA.
1.8 Foster Care Maintenance Payments
1.8.a. Defendants shall ensure that all licensed foster families (regardless of whether they are supervised directly by MDCPS or by private providers, and whether they are kinship or unrelated foster families) receive at least the minimum reimbursement rate for a given level of service as established pursuant to the 2nd MSA.
1.8.b. Commencing on the effective date of this 2nd MSA, Defendants shall pay to all licensed foster families at least the basic monthly foster care maintenance payments. Every two years thereafter, Defendants shall provide increases in the foster care maintenance payments, based upon the previous year's rate of inflation.
1.8.c. Within a year of court approval of this 2nd MSA, Defendants shall deliver to the Monitor a written report setting forth (l) findings regarding the adequacy of a proposed schedule of foster care maintenance payments made to foster care providers serving children, including children with specialized needs, and facilities providing congregate care in relation to the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 675(4)(A) and the actual cost in the state of Mississippi to provide such care; and (2) the methodology utilized to determine the actual costs in the state of Mississippi to provide such care. Following review of the Defendants’ report, the Monitor shall establish the rates that Defendants shall then implement.
5|2ND MISSISSIPPI MSA

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 712 Filed 12/19/16 Page 9 of 34
FOSTER CARE SERVICE STANDARDS
2. Child Safety and Maltreatment in Care
2.1 MDCPS shall ensure that it maintains a statewide system to appropriately receive, screen and investigate reports of child maltreatment. MDCPS shall ensure its system is adequately staffed and that investigations of all reports are commenced as required by state law and conducted and completed pursuant to policy and regulation. Any extensions of the timeframes set forth in MDCPS policy for the completion of investigations are subject to the review and approval of the Monitor. The Monitor shall periodically review the statewide system for appropriately receiving, screening and investigating reports of child maltreatment.
2.2 MDCPS shall continue to maintain a special investigations unit whose responsibility is to investigate reports of maltreatment of children in custody. The initiation of that investigation shall not extend beyond 24 hours.
2.3 MDCPS will develop and implement policies and procedures, subject to the review and approval of the Monitor, for the Agency to review all maltreatment in care reports that were screened-out and assess the appropriateness within 24 hours of all screen-out determinations. If the decision to screen-out the report is determined to be inappropriate, MDCPS shall ensure the report is referred for investigation immediately.
2.4 Upon receipt of a substantiated report of child maltreatment in a contract agency group home or emergency shelter, MDCPS shall, within 30 calendar days, initiate a licensure investigation, that is in addition to and independent of the child protection investigation. The licensure investigation shall include an on-site inspection by MDCPS of the emergency shelter or group home to determine the contract provider's compliance with MDCPS licensure standards. If the provider is found to be in violation of licensure standards, the provider shall have 10 calendar days to submit a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) with timeframes to rectify the violation and comply with the approved CAP timeframes. If the provider does not comply with the licensure standards based on the approved CAP and timeframes, MDCPS shall revoke the license.
2.5 Upon receipt of a report of child maltreatment in a private child placing agency foster home, MDCPS staff will notify the child placing agency, who shall, within 30 calendar days, initiate a licensure investigation that is in addition to and independent of, any child protection investigation. The licensure investigation shall include an on-site inspection by the child placing agency’s staff of the foster home to determine the provider’s compliance with licensure standards. If the provider is found to be in violation of licensure standards, the provider shall have 10 calendar days to submit a CAP with timeframes to rectify the violation and comply with the approved CAP timeframes. If the provider does not comply with the licensure standards based on the approved CAP and timeframes, MDCPS shall recommend that the license be revoked.
2.6 All allegations of maltreatment of a child in custody shall be investigated by a worker who has received training on intake and investigations processes, policies, and investigation techniques and has no ongoing connection to the foster care case.
6|2ND MISSISSIPPI MSA

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 712 Filed 12/19/16 Page 10 of 34

2.7 Within 30 days of the completion of any investigation of maltreatment of a child in custody, as required in Section 2.1, MDCPS shall review the maltreatment investigation. This review shall:
2.7.a. Identify any case practice deficiencies in the investigation and any remedial actions necessary to ensure the safety of the child who is the subject of the investigation, as well as any other children in the home or placement.
2.7.b. Identify a timeframe in which any recommended remedial action must take place.

2.7.c. Monitor the initiation and completion of the remedial actions regarding individual child safety and case practice.
2.7.d. MDCPS shall notify the Area Social Work Supervisor (ASWS), Regional Director (RD), and Director of Field Operations when such remedial actions have not been initiated within five (5) calendar days of identification or timely completed.

2.8 MDCPS shall assure that standardized decision-making criteria are used for prioritizing, screening, and assessing all reports of maltreatment of children in MDCPS custody.

2.8.a. All investigations into reports of maltreatment of children in MDCPS custody must be completed within 30 calendar days, including supervisory approval. MDCPS shall assure that such investigations and decisions are based on a full and systematic evaluation of the factors that may place a child in custody at risk.

2.8.a.1.

By July 1, 2018, at least 90% of maltreatment-in-care investigations will be initiated and completed within 30 days.

2.8.b. Any foster child who remains in the same out-of-home placement following an investigation into a report that he or she was maltreated in that placement shall be visited in the placement by an MDCPS caseworker according to the following schedule:

2.8.b.1. Once per week for the first month and twice per month for three (3) months if the investigation is found to be substantiated; or

2.8.b.2. Twice per month in accordance with MDCPS policy if the investigation is found to be unsubstantiated.

2.8.c. When a maltreatment investigation involves a foster or adoptive home, MDCPS shall file a copy of the approved final investigative report, and any recommendations and/or corrective actions MDCPS has deemed necessary, in the case record of the foster child, in the file of the foster or adoptive parents with a copy of the letter of notification to the foster or adoptive parents, and with the Bureau Director for Licensure. MDCPS shall also provide those records to the Youth Court Judge with jurisdiction over the child and, upon request, to the Monitor.
2.8.d. When a maltreatment investigation involves an agency group home, emergency shelter, private child placing agency foster home, or other facility licensed by

7|2ND MISSISSIPPI MSA

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 712 Filed 12/19/16 Page 11 of 34
MDCPS, a copy of the final investigative report shall be filed in the child’s case record, with the Director of Congregate Care Licensure, and sent to the licensed provider facility. MDCPS shall provide the report to the Youth Court Judge with jurisdiction over the child and, upon request, to the Monitor.
2.9 The rate of child abuse and neglect among children in foster care shall not exceed 0.33% per year, effective for the period beginning January 1, 2018. The parties adopt the following definition for this metric:
2.9.a. Of all children in foster care during the period, what percent were victims of substantiated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff member. A child is counted as having been maltreated in foster care if the perpetrator of the maltreatment was identified as a foster parent or a residential facility staff member. The numerator shall consist of all children whose maltreatment is substantiated during the period. The denominator shall consist of all children placed in foster care during the period. The observation period is 12 months.
3. Family-Based Placements
3.1 All foster homes and facilities with children placed who are in the custody of MDCPS shall be timely licensed and subject to the licensure process approved by Public Catalyst on December 31, 2016.
3.2 For Unlicensed Placements that Cannot Meet Licensure Standards
3.2.a. No child shall remain in a foster home or facility determined to be unable to meet MDCPS licensing standards, absent an order by a state court with jurisdiction over child custody directing the placement of the child into a specific unlicensed placement. Defendants shall not be held accountable for a state court’s order as long as MDCPS documents that it presented information to the court that the foster home has not met licensing standards, the reasons why the foster home has not and cannot meet licensing standards, and that a licensed foster home or facility is available, or one time only, an appropriate expedited relative placement.
3.2.b. Safety Issues: If it is determined that an unlicensed foster home or facility is unable to meet MDCPS licensing standards due to a safety issue, Defendants shall take all reasonable efforts to immediately ensure the child’s safety and to remove the child, including, if required by the court, seeking an emergency court order. Defendants shall not be held accountable for the state court’s order as long as MDCPS documents that it presented information to the court that the unlicensed foster home or facility has not met licensing standards and that a licensed foster home or facility or an expedited relative placement is available. If the child is not in imminent danger, MDCPS shall implement a safety plan and within five (5) calendar days, either cure the licensing deficiency if feasible, or move the child to a licensed foster home or facility, or to an appropriate expedited relative placement, one time only.
3.2.c. Non-safety Issues: If MDCPS determines an unlicensed foster home to be unable to meet MDCPS licensing standards due to a non-safety issue, Defendants shall, within
8|2ND MISSISSIPPI MSA

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 712 Filed 12/19/16 Page 12 of 34
30 calendar days of that determination, either cure the licensing deficiency if feasible, or move the child to a licensed foster home or facility, or to an appropriate expedited relative placement, one time only.
3.3 Foster Home Development
3.3.a. MDCPS, in conjunction with the Monitor, shall establish annual statewide and county performance requirements and time periods for new foster home licensure. The Monitor will report to the parties MDCPS progress on achieving the performance requirements. The Defendants shall meet the performance requirements, including time periods.
3.3.b. MDCPS shall begin to implement the annual plan to recruit and retain additional licensed foster home placements and shall maintain the additional number of total placements, as necessary during the applicability of the 2nd MSA.
4. Placement Standards
4.1 No foster home shall provide care for more than five (5) children (including foster, biological, and adoptive children) at any given time, in accordance with the following:
4.1.a. Foster homes may provide care for more than three foster children, up to a total of five, only with the documented approval of MDCPS Office of Licensure determining that the foster children can be safely maintained in the foster home.
4.1.b. No more than two children in the foster home may be under the age of two or have therapeutic needs, including the biological and/or adoptive children.
4.1.c. Notwithstanding the above, a sibling group may be placed together in the same foster home in excess of these limits, but only if they are the only children in the home, and only upon written approval by the MDCPS Licensure Director determining that the foster children can be safely maintained in the home.
4.2 Children with special needs shall be matched with placement resources that can meet their therapeutic and medical needs. MDCPS shall ensure that each county office has access to resource workers within its region who have the ability to ascertain the placement resources available and their suitability for each particular child needing placement.
4.3 Each foster child shall be placed in the least restrictive setting that meets his/her individual needs as determined by a review of all intake, screening, assessment, and prior placement information regarding the child available at the time of placement. In order of consideration, this means: placement with relatives; foster home care within reasonable proximity to the child’s home community; resource home care outside of the child’s home community; group home care; or institutional care.
4.4 Each child who enters placement (from regions other than II-East, II-West, and V-West) shall be placed within his/her own county or within 50 miles of the home from which he/she was removed. This provision shall not apply if:
9|2ND MISSISSIPPI MSA

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 712 Filed 12/19/16 Page 13 of 34

4.4.a.

The child’s needs are so exceptional that they cannot be met by a family or facility within his/her own county or within 50 miles of the home from which he/she was removed;

4.4.b. The child is placed through the ICPC consistent with its terms;

4.4.c. The child is appropriately placed with relatives;

4.4.d. The child, age 14 years or older, is pursuing educational or vocational opportunities;

4.4.e. The child is ordered to be placed in a child-specific foster care setting by a court [subject to the court order exception in Section 3.2.a]; or

4.4.f. The child is placed in an adoptive home.

4.5 Each child who enters placement from Regions II-East, II-West, and V-West shall be placed within his/her own county or within 75 miles of the home from which he/she was removed. This provision shall not apply if:

4.5.a.

The child’s needs are so exceptional that they cannot be met by a family or facility within his/her own county or within 50 miles of the home from which he/she was removed;

4.5.b. The child is placed through the ICPC consistent with its terms;

4.5.c. The child is appropriately placed with relatives;

4.5.d. The child, age 14 years or older, is pursuing educational or vocational opportunities;

4.5.e. The child is ordered to be placed in a child-specific foster care setting by a court [subject to the court order exception in Section 3.2.a]; or

4.5.f. The child is placed in an adoptive home.

This provision shall be evaluated by the Monitor in December 2018 to determine whether the 75 mile exception is still necessary.

4.6 Siblings who enter placement at or near the same time shall be placed together unless: (l) doing so would be harmful to one or more of the siblings; (2) one of the siblings has exceptional needs that can be met only in a specialized program or facility; or (3) 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 initial placement, the caseworker shall make immediate efforts to locate or recruit a foster family in whose home the siblings can be reunited. These efforts will be documented and maintained in the case file.

10 | 2 N D M I S S I S S I P P I M S A

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 712 Filed 12/19/16 Page 14 of 34

4.7 Defendants shall take all reasonable steps to avoid the disruption of an appropriate placement and ensure placement stability for children. If there is a documented indication that a placement may disrupt, the caseworker shall immediately take steps to determine the following:

4.7.a. The cause of the potential disruption;

4.7.b. Whether the placement is appropriate for the child;

4.7.c. Whether additional services are necessary to support the placement;

4.7.d. Whether the child needs another placement; and

4.7.e. If another placement is necessary, what that placement should be.

These efforts shall be documented in the child’s case record.

4.8 No child shall remain overnight in an MDCPS office or other nonresidential facility that provides intake functions.

4.9 No child under 10 years of age shall be placed in a congregate care setting (including group homes and shelters) unless:

4.9.a. The child has exceptional needs that cannot be met in a licensed foster home; or

4.9.b.

In order to keep a sibling group together for a temporary period, not to exceed 15 days and the RD has granted documented approval for the congregate care placement; or

4.9.c. To enable a mother and baby to be placed together and there is not an available foster home for both of them.

4.10 No foster child shall be moved from his/her existing placement to another placement unless MDCPS specifically documents in the child’s case record justifications for that move and the move is approved by an MDCPS supervisor.

4.11 No child shall be placed in more than one emergency or temporary facility within one episode of foster care, unless an immediate placement move is necessary to protect the safety of the child or of others with documented approval from the RD.

4.12 90% of children shall remain in his/her existing placement and not be moved to another placement unless MDCPS specifically documents in the child’s case record justifications for that move and the move is approved by a MDCPS supervisor.

4.12.a. By July 1, 2018, 70% of children will remain in his/her existing placement according to this section.

11 | 2 N D M I S S I S S I P P I M S A

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 712 Filed 12/19/16 Page 15 of 34
4.12.b. By July 1, 2019, 80% of children will remain in his/her existing placement according to this section.
4.12.c. By July 1, 2020, 90% of children will remain in his/her existing placement according to this section.
4.13 95% of foster homes shall provide care to a number of children that is not in excess of five (5) children (including foster, biological, and adoptive children) at any given time. Foster homes may provide care for more than three foster children, up to a total of five, only with the documented approval of MDCPS Office of Licensure determining that the foster children can be safely maintained in the home. No more than two children in the foster home may be under the age of two or have therapeutic needs, including the biological and/or adoptive children. Notwithstanding the above, a sibling group may be placed together in the same foster home in excess of these limits, but only if they are the only children in the home, and only upon written approval by the MDCPS Licensure Director determining that the foster children can be safely maintained in the home.
4.13.a. By July 1, 2018, 70% of foster homes will provide care to a number of children not in excess of the 2nd MSA foster home population limitations.
4.13.b. By July 1, 2019, 80% of foster homes will provide care to a number of children not in excess of the 2nd MSA foster home population limitations.
4.13.c. By July 1, 2020, 95% of foster homes will provide care to a number of children not in excess of the 2nd MSA foster home population limitations.
4.14 At least 95% of children with special needs shall be matched with placement resources that can meet their therapeutic and medical needs.
4.14.a. By July 1, 2018, 60% of children with special needs shall be matched with placement resources that meet their therapeutic and medical needs.
4.14.b. By July 1, 2019, 75% of children with special needs shall be matched with placement resources that meet their therapeutic and medical needs.
4.14.c. By July 1, 2020, 95% of children with special needs shall be matched with placement resources that meet their therapeutic and medical needs.
4.15 At least 95% of children in MDCPS custody shall be placed in the least restrictive setting that meets their individual needs consistent with 2nd MSA requirements.
4.16 At least 90% of siblings who entered MDCPS custody at or near the same time shall be placed together consistent with 2nd MSA requirements.
4.16.a. By July 1, 2018, 60% of siblings entering MDCPS custody at or near the same time shall be placed together.
4.16.b. By July 1, 2019, 75% of siblings entering MDCPS custody at or near the same time shall be placed together.
12 | 2 N D M I S S I S S I P P I M S A

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 712 Filed 12/19/16 Page 16 of 34

4.16.c. By July 1, 2020, 90% of siblings entering MDCPS custody at or near the same time shall be placed together.

4.17 At least 90% of children in MDCPS custody with a documented indication that they were subject to a potential or actual placement disruption shall have documented in the child’s case record the reasonable steps taken to address placement stability consistent with 2nd MSA requirements:

4.17.a.

By July 1, 2018, 60% of children in MDCPS custody with a documented indication that they were subject to a potential or actual placement disruption shall have documented in the child’s case record the reasonable steps taken to address placement stability.

4.17.b.

By July 1, 2019, 75% of children in MDCPS custody with a documented indication that they were subject to a potential or actual placement disruption shall have documented in the child’s case record the reasonable steps taken to address placement stability.

4.17.c.

By July 1, 2020, 90% of children in MDCPS custody with a documented indication that they were subject to a potential or actual placement disruption shall have documented in the child’s case record the reasonable steps taken to address placement stability.

4.18 90% of children who enter MDCPS custody shall be placed within his/her own county or within 50 miles of the home from which he/she was removed unless the child entered custody in Regions II-East, II-West, or V-West or one of the exceptions provided in this 2nd MSA is documented as applying.

4.19 90% of children who enter MDCPS custody in Regions II-East, II-West, and V-West shall
be placed within his/her own county or within 75 miles of the home from which he/she was removed unless one of the exceptions provided in this 2nd MSA is documented as applying.

5. Visitation

5.1 Worker Contact and Monitoring

5.1.a. MDCPS shall meet with the child in person at least twice monthly to assess the child's safety and well-being, service delivery, and achievement of permanency and other service goals. At least one visit per month shall take place in the child's placement.

5.1.a.1.

By July 1, 2018 at least 75% of foster children shall have an MDCPS caseworker meet with the child at least two times per month; at least one visit per month shall take place in the child’s placement.

5.1.a.2.

By January 1, 2019 at least 90% of foster children shall have an MDCPS caseworker meet with the child at least two times per month; at least one visit per month shall take place in the child’s placement.

13 | 2 N D M I S S I S S I P P I M S A

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 712 Filed 12/19/16 Page 17 of 34

5.1.b. During any 90-day trial home visit period, an MDCPS caseworker shall meet with the child in the home at least two times per month.

5.1.b.1.

By July 1, 2018 at least 75% of foster children receiving a 90-day trial home visit period shall have an MDCPS caseworker meet with the child in the home at least two times per month.

5.1.b.2.

By January 1, 2019 at least 90% of foster children receiving a 90-day trial home visit period shall have an MDCPS caseworker meet with the child in the home at least two times per month.

5.1.c. MDCPS shall meet, at least monthly, with the child’s parent(s) with whom the child is to be reunified, if the child has a permanency goal of reunification, to discuss progress on the family service plan and the child’s well-being, unless the child’s parent(s) reside out-of-state or are incarcerated.

5.1.c.1.

By July 1, 2018, for at least 75% of foster children with a goal of reunification, MDCPS shall meet with the child’s parents at least monthly unless the child’s parent(s) reside out-of-state or are incarcerated.

5.1.c.2.

By January 1, 2019, for at least 90% of foster children with a goal of reunification, MDCPS shall meet with the child’s parents at least monthly unless the child’s parent(s) reside out-of-state or are incarcerated.

5.1.d. MDCPS shall visit, at least monthly, with foster parents who have one or more foster children residing in their home to assess the child’s safety and well-being in the placement and ensure appropriate services are provided.

5.1.d.1.

By July 1, 2018, at least 75% of foster parents with at least one foster child in the home shall have MDCPS visit the home monthly.

5.1.d.2.

By January 1, 2019, at least 90% of foster parents with at least one foster child in the home shall have MDCPS visit the home monthly.

5.2 Developing and Maintaining Connections

5.2.a. MDCPS shall arrange contact for the child with his/her parents and with any siblings not in the same placement within 72 hours of foster care placement unless there are documented reasons why contact should not occur. If a visit cannot be arranged within 72 hours, a telephone call to parents, siblings, or extended family members shall be provided to the child.

5.2.b. For children entering foster care, a visitation plan for the child and his/her family shall be developed as part of the Family Service Plan. The visitation plan shall be developed and regularly updated in collaboration with parents, foster parents, and the child.

14 | 2 N D M I S S I S S I P P I M S A

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 712 Filed 12/19/16 Page 18 of 34

5.2.b.1.

If parental visitation is appropriate, this visitation plan shall include a minimum of two visits per month with the parents, unless the court order in the child’s case limits such visits or unless it is documented that a parent failed to make himself or herself available.

5.2.b.2.

5.2.b.1.a.

By January 1, 2019, 90% of children shall be provided with contacts with their parents consistent with 2nd
MSA requirements.

The child’s visitation plan, regardless of permanency goal, shall include at least monthly visits with any siblings not in the same placement:

5.2.b.3.

5.2.b.2.a.

By January 1, 2019, 80% of children shall be provided with contacts with any siblings in custody not in the same placement consistent with 2nd MSA requirements.

As long as they are separated, all reasonable efforts shall be made to facilitate twice monthly in-person visits for children six (6) years of age and younger with their siblings in placement. All other children in placements separated from their siblings in placement, shall have at least monthly visits among separated siblings. Siblings shall have interim contact by alternative means such as email, texts, telephone calls, Facetime, and/or Skype.

5.2.b.4.

Exceptions to the sibling visitation requirement are:

5.2.b.4.a.

The child or sibling is placed out of state pursuant to ICPC;

5.2.b.4.b.

The visit may be harmful to one or more of the siblings as determined by the court or documented in the record why the visit would be harmful to one or more of the children;

5.2.b.4.c.

One of the siblings is above the age of 14 and refuses such visits and the reason for such refusal is documented in the case record.

5.2.c. MDCPS and its contracting agencies shall implement a policy that prohibits cancellation of visits as a form of discipline against children.

15 | 2 N D M I S S I S S I P P I M S A

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 712 Filed 12/19/16 Page 19 of 34

6. Child and Youth Permanency

6.1 Comprehensive Family Service Plans

6.1.a. Within 45 days of taking a child into custody, MDCPS shall complete a comprehensive Family Service Plan which shall be developed in consultation with (1) the child and the MDCPS caseworker; (2) the child's parents and the MDCPS caseworker; and (3) the foster care provider and the MDCPS caseworker. The Family Service Plan shall address the strengths, needs and services required for both the child and their parent(s); shall be reviewed and approved by the supervisor and shall be maintained in the child’s case file.

6.1.a.1.

By July 1, 2018 at least 75% of Family Service Plans shall be submitted by the caseworker consistent with 2nd MSA requirements, within 30 calendar days of a child’s entry into custody. The supervisor shall review the Plan for approval within 15 calendar days. The Family Service Plan shall be considered complete upon documented supervisory review and approval.

6.1.a.2.

By January 1, 2019 at least 90% of Family Service Plans shall be submitted by the caseworker consistent with 2nd MSA requirements, within 30 calendar days of the child’s entry into custody. The supervisor shall review the Plan for approval the within 15 calendar days. The Family Service Plan shall be considered complete upon documented supervisory review and approval.

6.1.b. In instances in which it is impossible to meet with one or both parents, the service planning process will proceed as described above, notwithstanding the parent's absence.

6.1.c. In those cases in which the whereabouts of one or both parents is unknown, MDCPS shall, within 30 days, institute a diligent search for the parent(s), which shall be documented in the child's case record.

6.1.c.1.

By July 1, 2018 in at least 75% of placement cases in which the whereabouts of one or both parents is unknown MDCPS shall, within 30 days, institute a diligent search for the parent(s), which shall be documented in the child's case record.

6.1.c.2.

By January 1, 2019 in at least 90% of placement cases in which the whereabouts of one or both parents is unknown MDCPS shall, within 30 days, institute a diligent search for the parent(s), which shall be documented in the child's case record.

6.1.d. Within 45 calendar days of the child's initial placement, MDCPS shall complete a permanency plan that specifies the child’s permanency goal, a timeframe for achieving permanency, and activities that support permanency.

16 | 2 N D M I S S I S S I P P I M S A

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 712 Filed 12/19/16 Page 20 of 34

6.1.d.1.

By July 1, 2018 for at least 75% of foster children who enter custody, permanency plans shall be submitted within 30 calendar days of the child’s entry into custody by the caseworker consistent with 2nd MSA requirements. The supervisor shall review the plan for approval within 15 calendar days. The permanency plan shall be considered complete upon documented supervisory review and approval.

6.1.d.2.

By January 1, 2019 for at least 90% of foster children who enter custody, permanency plans shall be submitted within 30 calendar days of the child’s entry into custody by the caseworker consistent with 2nd MSA requirements. The supervisor shall review the plan for approval within 15 calendar days. The permanency plan shall be considered complete upon documented supervisory review and approval.

6.2 Concurrent Permanency Planning

6.2.a. For children with the goal of reunification, MDCPS shall begin, within the first six months of the child's entry into care, to engage in concurrent permanency planning.

6.2.a.1.

At least 95% of children in custody with the goal of reunification
shall have case record documentation reflecting active concurrent permanency planning consistent with 2nd MSA requirements.

6.3 Permanency Case Goals

6.3.a Reunification

6.3.a.1. When the child's permanency goal is reunification, MDCPS shall identify in the Family Service Plan and make available, directly or through referral, those services MDCPS deems necessary to address the behaviors or conditions resulting in the child's placement in foster care and to help the parents develop strategies to facilitate permanency for the child. Caseworkers will monitor the provision of services through visits and updating of service plans.

6.3.a.1.a.

By July 1, 2018 at least 75% of foster children with a permanency goal of reunification shall have service plans for their parents that identify those services MDCPS deems necessary to address the behaviors or conditions resulting in the child’s placement in foster care and case record documentation that MDCPS made those identified services available directly or through referral.

6.3.a.1.b.

By January 1, 2019 at least 90% of foster children with a permanency goal of reunification shall have service plans for their parents that identify those services MDCPS deems necessary to address the behaviors or conditions resulting in

17 | 2 N D M I S S I S S I P P I M S A

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 712 Filed 12/19/16 Page 21 of 34

the child’s placement in foster care and case record documentation that MDCPS made those identified services available directly or through referral.
6.3.a.2. For a child with a permanency goal of reunification, the child's MDCPS caseworker shall meet with the child's parent(s) with whom the child is to be reunified at least monthly to assess service delivery and achievement of service goals, to keep the family informed and involved in decisions about the child, and to remain current about the family's circumstances.

6.3.a.3. For children with a permanency goal of reunification, the case record shall document opportunities provided to parents in support of reunification.

6.3.a.4. When a recommendation to reunify a child with his/her family has been made, MDCPS shall develop an after-care plan with the family that identifies the services necessary to ensure that the conditions leading to the child's placement in foster care have been addressed, and that the child's safety and stability will be assured. MDCPS shall take reasonable steps to provide or facilitate access to services necessary to support the child during the trial home visit.

6.3.a.5. For each child who has a permanency goal of reunification and who is in fact returned home for purpose of reunification, MDCPS shall provide, subject to the approval of the Youth Court, such child with a 90-day trial home visit, unless the child had been in custody for less than 90 days. During any trial home visit period, a MDCPS caseworker shall meet with the child in the home at least two times per month.

6.3.a.5.a.

By July 1, 2018 at least 75% of foster children who are reunified and who were in custody longer than 90 days shall receive a 90-day trial home visit period or have case record documentation reflecting the Youth Court's objection to such a trial home visit. During the trial home visit period, MDCPS shall provide or facilitate access to the services identified in the child's after-care plan, consistent with the 2nd MSA requirements.

6.3.a.5.b.

By January 1, 2019 at least 90% of foster children who are reunified and who were in custody longer than 90 days shall receive a 90-day trial home visit period or have case record documentation reflecting the Youth Court's objection to such a trial home visit. During the trial home visit period, MDCPS shall provide or facilitate access to the services identified in

18 | 2 N D M I S S I S S I P P I M S A

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 712 Filed 12/19/16 Page 22 of 34
the child's after-care plan, consistent with the 2nd MSA requirements.
6.3.a.6. Before the end of any trial home visit period, MDCPS shall convene a meeting with the child’s parents and the child to determine the appropriateness of a final discharge. If final discharge is determined to be appropriate, MDCPS shall make the appropriate application to the Youth Court to be relieved of custody.
6.3.b. Adoption
6.3.b.1. Children in custody with the primary permanency goal of adoption shall have an assigned adoption specialist and an adoption plan that identifies the child specific activities that MDCPS will undertake to achieve adoption and the timeframes in which the activities will be undertaken.
6.3.b.1.a. By July 1, 2018 at least 70% of children in custody with the primary permanency goal of adoption shall have an assigned adoption specialist and an adoption plan that identifies the childspecific activities that MDCPS will undertake to achieve adoption.
6.3.b.1.b. By January 1, 2019 at least 90% of children in custody with the primary permanency goal of adoption shall have an assigned adoption specialist and an adoption plan that identifies the childspecific activities that MDCPS will undertake to achieve adoption.
6.3.b.2. A termination of parental rights (TPR) referral shall be made on behalf of a child before the child has spent more than 17 of the last 22 months in foster care unless an available exception pursuant to the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act ("ASFA") has been documented by MDCPS in the child’s case record. Subsequent to the initial ASFA exception, MDCPS may continue the exception for only one additional six-month period unless continued invocation of the exception is reviewed, approved and documented semi-annually by the RD assigned to the county of responsibility for the child.
6.3.b.2.a. By July 1, 2018 a termination of parental rights referral shall be made on behalf of at least 70% of children who have spent 17 of the previous 22 months in foster care by the last day of a child's seventeenth month in care, unless an available exception
19 | 2 N D M I S S I S S I P P I M S A

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 712 Filed 12/19/16 Page 23 of 34

pursuant to ASFA has been documented by MDCPS in the child's case record.

6.3.b.2.b. By January 1, 2019 a termination of parental rights referral shall be made on behalf of at least 80% of children who have spent 17 of the previous 22 months in foster care by the last day of a child's seventeenth month in care, unless an available exception pursuant to ASFA has been documented by MDCPS in the child's case record.

6.3.b.2.c. By January 1, 2020, a termination of parental rights referral shall be made on behalf of at least 90% of children who have spent 17 of the previous 22 months in foster care by the last day of a child’s seventeenth month in care, unless an available exception pursuant to ASFA has been documented by MDCPS in the child’s case record.

6.3.b.3. MDCPS shall provide to the Monitor a report of all TPR referrals made during the monitoring period, the date those TPR referrals were made, and the date the TPR petition was filed with the court.

6.3.c. Post-Adoption Services

Defendants shall establish and maintain a system of post-adoptive services to stabilize and maintain adoptive placements. Adoptive families eligible for adoption subsidies shall have access to these services, which may include services such as counseling, mental health treatment and crisis intervention, family preservation and stabilization services, and peer support.

6.3.d. Durable Legal Custody and Guardianship

6.3.d.1.

The permanency goals of durable legal custody and guardianship may be assigned when there are documented efforts in the child’s case record to move the child to adoption and documentation of a reasonable basis why it is in the child’s best interests not to be considered for adoption.

6.3.d.2.

When the permanency goals of durable legal custody and guardianship are assigned to a child under the age of 14 years old or living with a non-relative, MDCPS shall provide to the Monitor at the end of each monitoring period, information from the child’s case record documenting efforts to move the child to adoption and documentation of a reasonable basis why it is in the child’s best interests not to be considered for adoption.
20 | 2 N D M I S S I S S I P P I M S A

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 712 Filed 12/19/16 Page 24 of 34

6.3.e. Another Permanent Planned Living Arrangement (APPLA)

If MDCPS concludes, after considering reunification, adoption, durable legal custody, and permanent placement with a relative, that these permanency plans are inappropriate or unavailable for a child, MDCPS may assign a permanency goal of APPLA for the child. In such circumstances, (1) the child must be at least 16 years old and (2) MDCPS must document a compelling reason why this permanency goal is in the best interest of the child.

6.4 Permanency Reviews

6.4.a.

A child's permanency plan shall be reviewed in a court or administrative case review at least every six months. Foster care reviews shall satisfy this administrative case review requirement. MDCPS will take all reasonable steps, including written notice, to ensure the participation of the child, parents, caregivers, and relevant professionals in court or administrative reviews.

6.4.a.1.

By July 1, 2018 at least 80% of foster children who have been in
custody for at least six months shall have a timely court or administrative case review consistent with 2nd MSA requirements.

6.4.a.2.

By January 1, 2019 at least 90% of foster children who have been in
custody for at least six months shall have a timely court or administrative case review consistent with 2nd MSA requirements.

6.4.b. MDCPS will take all reasonable steps to ensure that a court review, which may be called a review, dispositional, or permanency hearing, is held for each child in foster care custody within 12 months of initial placement, and annually thereafter.

6.4.b.1.

By July 1, 2018 for at least 80 % of foster children who have been in custody for at least 12 months MDCPS shall make reasonable efforts to have a timely annual court review scheduled consistent with 2nd MSA requirements.

6.4.b.2.

By January 1, 2019 for at least 90% of foster children who have been in custody for at least 12 months MDCPS shall make reasonable efforts to have a timely annual court review scheduled consistent with 2nd MSA requirements.

6.4.c. MDCPS shall review documented exceptions pursuant to ASFA for children who have spent more than 17 of the previous 22 months in foster care during the child's foster care review.

6.5 Permanency Performance Indicators

6.5.a. By July 1, 2018, the Monitor will establish the performance standards for the following indicators, informed by the certified baseline performance established during the Stipulated Third Remedial Order ("STRO"):

21 | 2 N D M I S S I S S I P P I M S A

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 712 Filed 12/19/16 Page 25 of 34

6.5.a.1.

Of all children in foster care on the first day of a 12-month period, which shall commence on October 1st of any given year, the percent of children discharged from foster care to permanency within 12 months. The numerator is the number of children in the denominator who discharged from foster care to permanency within 12 months;

6.5.a.2.

Of all children in foster care on the first day of a 12-month period, which shall commence on October 1st of any given year, the percent of children discharged from foster care to permanency within 13-23 months. The numerator is the number of children in the denominator who discharged from foster care to permanency within 13 -23 months;

6.5.a.3.

Of all children in foster care on the first day of a 12-month period, which shall commence on October 1st of any given year, the percent of children discharged from foster care to permanency in 24 months and more. The numerator is the number of children in the denominator who discharged from foster care to permanency in 24 months and more.

6.5.b. For all of the foregoing indicators, permanency is defined as: discharges from foster care to reunification with the child’s parents or primary caregivers; durable legal custody; guardianship; or adoption. The parties expect the Monitor to establish performance standards that represent a substantial improvement above the certified baseline performance established during the STRO. The standards shall take effect October 1, 2018.
6.5.c. By March 15, 2018, the Monitor will establish the performance standards for the following indicator, informed by the certified baseline performance established during the STRO.
6.5.d. For all children in the custody of MDCPS who were adopted in FFY2017, the Monitor shall validate the average and median lengths of time to adoption finalization for each child from the date on which the child’s adoption goal was established. The parties expect the Monitor to establish performance standards that represent a substantial improvement above the certified baseline performance established during the STRO. The standards shall take effect October 1, 2018.

7. Transition to Independent Living
7.1 MDCPS shall provide each youth transitioning to independence with at least six (6) months' advance notice of the cessation of any health, financial, or other benefits that will occur at the time of transition.

22 | 2 N D M I S S I S S I P P I M S A

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 712 Filed 12/19/16 Page 26 of 34

7.2 Each foster youth age 14 years and older, regardless of his/her permanency plan, shall be provided with an opportunity to participate in the creation of an appropriate Independent Living service plan for a successful transition to adulthood.

7.3 Each foster youth age 14 years and older shall have access to the range of supportive services necessary to support their preparation for and successful transition to adulthood, including Independent Living services eligible for federal reimbursement under the Chaffee program which in part promote employment or remove barriers to employment and MDCPS shall maintain sufficient resources to deliver Independent Living services to all youth described herein.

7.4 MDCPS shall implement a policy and a process by which youth emancipating from the foster care system at age 18 or beyond are enrolled for Medicaid coverage so that their coverage continues without interruption at the time of emancipation.

7.5 MDCPS shall implement a policy and a process by which youth emancipating from the foster care system at age 18 or beyond receive a start-up stipend of at least $1,000.00 at the time of emancipation, or as soon as practicable thereafter.

7.6 MDCPS shall implement a policy and a process by which youth emancipating from the foster care system at age 18 or beyond have access to a housing resource specialist responsible for assisting the youth obtain an adequate living arrangement.

7.7 MDCPS shall continue to implement policies and processes which ensure that youth emancipating from the foster care system at age 18 or beyond receive services and support under the State Educational Training and Vocational (ETV) Program for which they are eligible.

7.8 MDCPS shall assist youth in obtaining or compiling the following documents and such efforts shall be documented in the child's case record:

7.8.a.
7.8.b. 7.8.c. 7.8.d.
7.8.e. 7.8.f. 7.8.g. 7.8.h. 7.8.i. 7.8.j.
7.8.k.

Educational records, such as a high school diploma or general equivalency diploma, and a list of schools attended, when age-appropriate. A social security or social insurance number; A resume, when work experience can be described; A driver's license, when the ability to drive is a goal; if not a driver’s license, then a state-issued, photo identification; An original or certified copy of the youth's birth certificate; Previous placement information; Documentation of immigration, citizenship, or naturalization, when applicable; Documentation of tribal eligibility or membership; Death certificates when parents are deceased; A life book or a compilation of personal history and photographs, as appropriate; and A list of known relatives, with relationships, addresses, telephone numbers, and permissions for contacting involved parties.

23 | 2 N D M I S S I S S I P P I M S A

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 712 Filed 12/19/16 Page 27 of 34

8. Child Well-Being

8.1 Physical and Mental Health Care

8.1.a. Children entering foster care shall receive an initial medical screening within 72 hours of entering foster care.

8.1.a.1.

By July 1, 2018, 70% of children shall have an initial medical screening within 7 days of the child's entry into foster care.

8.1.a.2.

By July 1, 2019, 80% of children shall have an initial medical screening within 7 days of the child's entry into foster care.

8.1.a.3.

By July 1, 2020, 90% of children shall have an initial medical screening within 72 hours of the child's entry into foster care.

8.1.b. Children entering foster care shall receive an EPSDT or other comprehensive medical exam within 30 days of entering foster care. If a child has received an EPSDT or other comprehensive medical exam within 72 hours of entering foster care, it will count for both the screening and comprehensive medical examination.

8.1.b.1.

By July 1, 2018, 70% of children shall have an initial EPDST or other comprehensive medical examination within 60 days of the child's entry into foster care.

8.1.b.2.

By July 1, 2019, 80% of children shall have an initial EPDST or other comprehensive medical examination within 60 days of the child's entry into foster care.

8.1.b.3.

By July 1, 2020, 90% of children shall have an initial EPDST or other comprehensive medical examination within 30 days of the child's entry into foster care.

8.1.c. Following an initial EPSDT or other comprehensive medical examination, children shall receive periodic and on-going medical examinations according to the periodicity schedule set forth by the EPSDT program.

8.1.c.1.

By July 1, 2018, the Monitors in collaboration with MDCPS will establish the performance baseline for periodic and ongoing medical examinations;

8.1.c.2.

By July 31, 2018, the Monitor will establish performance standards for MDCPS to meet by July 1, 2019.

8.1.c.3.

By July 1, 2020, 90% of children shall be provided with periodic and on-going medical examinations.

24 | 2 N D M I S S I S S I P P I M S A

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 712 Filed 12/19/16 Page 28 of 34

8.1.d. Practitioner recommended follow-up treatment will be provided to children throughout the time they are in foster care.

8.1.d.1.

By October 31, 2017, the performance baseline for practitioner recommended follow-up treatment will be established by Public Catalyst as required in the STRO.

8.1.d.2.

By July 1, 2018, MDCPS shall meet the initial performance standard established by Public Catalyst in the STRO.

8.1.d.3.

By July 1, 2019, 90% of children shall be provided with practitioner recommended follow up treatment.

8.1.e. Children in foster care shall receive a dental examination within 90 calendar days of foster care placement unless the child has had an examination within six months of placement, and every six months thereafter if they are age four or older. Foster children who reach the age of four while in foster care shall receive a dental examination within 90 calendar days of his/her fourth birthday, and every six months thereafter. Every foster child shall receive all medically necessary dental services.

8.1.e.1.

By July 1, 2018, 60% of children shall have a dental examination within 90 days of the child's entry into foster care.

8.1.e.2.

By July 1, 2019, 80% of children shall have a dental examination within 90 days of the child's entry into foster care.

8.1.e.3.

By July 1, 2020, 90% of children shall have a dental examination within 90 days of the child's entry into foster care.

8.1.f.

Within 15 days of placement, MDCPS shall provide the foster parents or facility staff with the completed foster child information form or other electronic record containing available medical, dental, educational and psychological information about the child.

8.1.f.1.

By July 1, 2018, 75% of children shall have information provided to foster parents or facility staff within 15 days of placement.

8.1.f.2.

By July 1, 2019, 90% of children shall have information provided to foster parents or facility staff within 15 days of placement.

8.1.g. By July 1, 2018, 85% of children shall have their Medicaid information provided to foster parents or facility staff at the time of placement.

8.2 Educational Services

8.2.a. MDCPS shall review the educational record of each child who enters custody for the purpose of identifying the child's general and, if applicable, special educational needs and

25 | 2 N D M I S S I S S I P P I M S A

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 712 Filed 12/19/16 Page 29 of 34

shall document the child's educational needs within 30 calendar days of his/her entry into foster care.

8.2.b. MDCPS shall take reasonable steps to ensure that school-age foster children are registered for and attending accredited schools within seven (7) calendar days of initial placement or any placement change, including while placed in shelters or other temporary placements.

8.2.c. MDCPS shall make all 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.

8.2.c.1.

At least 90% of school-age foster children who enter custody shall have their educational records reviewed and their educational needs documented by MDCPS within 30 calendar days of their entry into foster care.

MONITORING
9.0 Monitoring
9.1 The Parties agree that Public Catalyst shall be the Monitor of Defendants' compliance with the provisions of this 2nd MSA.
9.2 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 shall not be governed by any formal or legal procurement requirements. 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 the Monitor may deem appropriate, in consultation with the parties. The Monitor, and any experts or consultants hired by the Monitor, may initiate and receive ex parte communications with the parties.
9.3 The Monitor’s duties shall include to independently verify data reports and statistics provided pursuant to this 2nd MSA. The Monitor shall periodically conduct case record and qualitative reviews to monitor and evaluate the Defendants’ performance with respect to the commitments in this 2nd MSA. The Monitor shall also review all plans and documents to be developed and produced by Defendants pursuant to this 2nd MSA and report on Defendants' compliance in implementing the terms of the 2nd MSA. The Monitor shall take into account the timeliness, appropriateness, and quality of the Defendants’ performance with respect to the terms of this 2nd MSA.
9.4 The Monitor shall convene the parties no less frequently than quarterly in order for the Defendants to provide a detailed verbal report on the status of Defendants’ implementation of the commitments contained in this 2nd MSA. At least one week in advance of these meetings, Defendants will supply the Monitor and Plaintiffs with available data and information with respect to the commitments contained in this 2nd MSA.
26 | 2 N D M I S S I S S I P P I M S A

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 712 Filed 12/19/16 Page 30 of 34
9.5 The Monitor shall provide a written report to the Court and the parties no less frequently than annually. The Monitor’s reports shall set forth whether the Defendants have met the commitments, performance standards and outcomes contained in this 2nd MSA. In addition, the Monitor’s reports shall set forth the steps taken by Defendants, the reasonableness of these efforts, and the adequacy of support for the implementation of these steps; the quality of the work done by Defendants 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. In addition, upon request of either party, the Monitor may issue a report to the Court more frequently than annually evaluating Defendants’ performance with respect to any commitment in this 2nd MSA.
9.6 The Monitor will have full access to Defendants' data and data analysis. Defendants shall provide the Monitor with access to all data reports produced in the regular course of business respecting topics covered by this 2nd MSA. Notwithstanding the existence of Defendants' data, data analysis, and reports, however, the Monitor shall have the authority to prepare new reports on all topics covered by this 2nd MSA and to the extent the Monitor deems necessary.
9.7 Defendants agree to provide the Monitor with free and, upon request, private access to all individuals within MDCPS and persons within the Executive Branch of Mississippi state government, as the Monitor chooses; to assist the Monitor in gaining access to other stakeholders in the child welfare system (including but not limited to the staff of contract agencies); and to provide the Monitor with free access to all documents, data, and premises it deems relevant to their work (including but not limited to documents and data from contract agencies and courts). The Monitor agrees to respect the confidentiality of all information related to individually identifiable clients, subject to applicable law or the Confidentiality Order filed August 5, 2004. Defendants shall take no adverse action against individuals or agencies because they shared information with the Monitor pursuant to this 2nd MSA.
9.8 The reports of the Monitor shall be public documents filed with the Court, except that any individually identifying information and any other confidential information protected from disclosure by law shall be redacted or otherwise removed from any public report. Any such information received by the Monitor, unless already public, shall not be made public without Defendants' prior written permission. The Monitor shall provide copies of each of its reports to all named Defendants as well as to the heads of the Mississippi House Public Health and Human Services Committee and Appropriations Committee and Senate Committees on Appropriations and Public Health and Welfare.
9.9 The parties shall have access, through the Monitor, to all information made available to the Monitor, and to all other information related to ensuring compliance with and enforcing this 2nd MSA, subject to the existing confidentiality order in effect in this case. The Monitor may protect the identity of confidential sources of any such information.
9.10 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.
27 | 2 N D M I S S I S S I P P I M S A

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 712 Filed 12/19/16 Page 31 of 34

9.11 If at any point the Monitor can no longer serve, the parties shall agree on another Monitor, if necessary, with input and recommendations from the outgoing Monitor.
10. Movement of Commitments to Maintenance Status
10.1 When MDCPS performance, as validated by the Monitor, has attained the highest designated performance standard or standards for one 12-month reporting period, as to any eligible section of this 2nd MSA, the parties agree to conduct good faith discussions at the next scheduled quarterly meeting following the publication of the Monitor’s annual report regarding whether that section of this 2nd MSA and can be designated as “To Be Maintained.” In the event the parties are unable to reach a unanimous decision whether the section shall be designated as “To Be Maintained,” the Monitor shall have the authority to make the designation but only after consultation with the parties and validation by the Monitor that MDCPS performance in that section has attained the highest designated performance standard or standards for 24 months. The sections eligible for designation as “To Be Maintained” exclude: §1.3 Caseloads, §2 Child Safety and Maltreatment in Care, §3 Family-Based Placements, §4 Placement Standards, §6 Child and Youth Permanency and Adoption.
10.2 Upon designation as “To Be Maintained”, the section will not be actively monitored. At the Monitor’s discretion, the Monitor may request, and MDCPS will supply information and data relating to any section in the "To Be Maintained" classification, including information sufficient to verify the data. If the information and data demonstrate a significant departure from the section, the Monitor shall move the section back into the main active monitoring section of this 2nd MSA.

ENFORCEMENT AND EXIT

11 Enforcement and Exit

11.1 From January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2019, Plaintiffs’ rights under paragraph 8 of the STRO will remain in effect for violations of those still applicable provisions of the STRO and for violations of this 2nd MSA, except that during this period, before exercising their rights under this paragraph, Plaintiffs shall:

11.1.a. Notify Defendants in writing of their intent and basis for doing so;

11.1.b.

Unless Plaintiffs deem the situation an emergency, and provide support for that assertion, Plaintiffs and Defendants shall first meet with the Monitor during a period not to exceed 30 calendar days and attempt to resolve the open issues. If necessary, and at Plaintiffs’ request, the dispute may be resolved with the entry of a specific, additional remedial order to address the issue[s] raised by Plaintiffs.

11.1.c. Plaintiffs agree not to seek relief for isolated or minor violations or for violations related solely to an individual child.

11.1.d. In the absence of agreement by the end of the 30 day period, or the extension of that period for an additional period of no more than 30 days upon the mutual
28 | 2 N D M I S S I S S I P P I M S A

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 712 Filed 12/19/16 Page 32 of 34

agreement of the parties, Plaintiffs will seek a remedial order from the court pursuant to paragraph 1 of the STRO.

11.2 Beginning January 1, 2020, the following enforcement standards shall apply. If Plaintiffs believe that Defendants are not in substantial compliance with any provisions of this 2nd MSA, Plaintiffs shall notify the Defendants in writing of the asserted non-compliance and the basis for that assertion. The parties shall meet with the Monitor as soon as practicable, but no later than 30 calendar days thereafter. If the parties are unable to reach a resolution with regard to the asserted non-compliance within that 30 day period, or in an additional 30 day period if both parties agree to the extension, Plaintiffs shall have the right to file a motion for contempt with regard to the asserted non-compliance.

11.2.a.

Defendants may seek a court-ordered modification of any provision of this 2nd MSA pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure if significant changes in factual conditions, beyond Defendants' control and not contemplated by the Parties at the time this 2nd MSA was entered into, make the provision unworkable, make compliance substantially more onerous, or make enforcement detrimental to the public interest, and the changed circumstance occurred despite Defendants' reasonable effort to comply with this 2nd MSA.

11.2.b. This 2nd MSA represents the full agreement of the parties and it is the intention of the parties that it be enforced in full.

11.3 Defendants may seek an order dismissing court jurisdiction of this matter and any remedial orders that remain open at the time the application is made, upon Defendants’ showing that they have achieved and maintained substantial compliance of all of the provisions of this 2nd MSA based upon 12 continuous months of data that has been verified by the Monitor, prior to the application.

ATTORNEYS’ FEES
12 Attorney Fees
12.1 All parties reserve all claims and defenses with respect to all claims for an award of attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses for Plaintiffs which claims shall be separately asserted and determined according to a schedule to be fixed by the Court.

#####

29 | 2 N D M I S S I S S I P P I M S A

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 712 Filed 12/19/16 Page 33 of 34
AGREED TO AND APPROVED FOR ENTRY BY: FOR PLAINTIFFS:
/s/ Marcia Robinson Lowry Marcia Robinson Lowry (pro hac vice MBN 43991) Sara Robinson-Glasser (pro hac vice MBN 47547) A BETTER CHILDHOOD, INC. 1095 Hardscrabble Road Chappaqua, NY 10514 Phone: 646.808.7344 Email: mlowry@abetterchildhood.org
srglasser@abetterchildhood.org
Wayne Drinkwater (MBN 6193) Michael J. Bentley (MBN 102631) BRADLEY, ARRANT, BOULT & CUMMINGS, LLP One Jackson Place, Suite 400 Jackson, MS 39201 Phone: 601.948.8000 Email: wdrinkwater@bradley.com
mbentley@bradley.com
John Lang (pro hac vice MBN 43987) Attorney at Law 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, NY 10165 Tel: 212.300.0646 Email: john.lang@attorneylang.com
Christian D. Carbone (pro hac vice MBN 43986) LOEB & LOEB, LLP 345 Park Ave. New York, NY 10154 Tel: 212.407.4000 Email: ccarbone@loeb.com
30 | 2 N D M I S S I S S I P P I M S A

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 712 Filed 12/19/16 Page 34 of 34
FOR DEFENDANTS: /s/ Governor Phil B ryant State of Mississippi /s/ Attorney General Jim Hood State of Mississippi FOR DEFENDANTS: /s/ Kenya Key Rachal Kenya Key Rachal (MBN 99227) James N. ("Jake") Adams (MBN 101538) BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC Post Office Box 14167 100 Vision Drive, Suite 400 Jackson, MS 39211 Phone: 601-351-2400 Email: krachal@bakerdonelson.com Harold E. Pizzetta, III (MBN 99867) Assistant Attorney General General Civil Division Carroll Gartin Justice Building, 430 High Street Jackson, MS 39201
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, this the 19th day of December, 2016.
/s/Tom S. Lee DISTRICT JUDGE
31

 
 Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 713 Filed 12/19/16 Page 1 of 11

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION

JAMES D. JOHNSON, as next friend to OLIVIA Y., et al.

PLAINTIFFS

vs.

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:04-CV-251-TSL-FKB

PHIL BRYANT, as Governor of the State of Mississippi, et al.

DEFENDANTS

______________________________________________________________________________

STIPULATED THIRD REMEDIAL ORDER ______________________________________________________________________________

As contemplated by Paragraph 6 of the July 23, 2015 Agreed Order Continuing the Hearing on Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for Contempt (the “Agreed Order”) [Dkt. No. 664 at 3-4], the Court has been advised that the parties have negotiated this Stipulated Third Remedial Order (“STRO”) based on the recommendations of Public Catalyst and the provisions of the December 22, 2015 Interim Remedial Order (“IRO”) [Dkt. No. 671], and the May 19, 2016 Stipulated Second Remedial Order (“SSRO”) [Dkt. No. 694].

Whereas, Defendants do not contest a finding of non-compliance as of the date of this agreement with the Modified Mississippi Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan (“MSA”) [Dkt. No. 571] currently in effect; and

Whereas, the parties stipulate that Defendants do not currently have the capacity to comply with the MSA; and

Whereas, it is the intent of the parties that the Mississippi Department of Child Protection Services (“MDCPS”) engage in a period of capacity building, with the assistance of Public Catalyst. Having reviewed this STRO as well as the Agreed Order, IRO and the SSRO the Court orders as follows:

1. Defendants do not contest a finding of noncompliance with the MSA through the date of the signing of this Agreement and for Period 5. Defendants' noncompliance with the MSA, Period 3 and 4 Implementation Plans, as well as the Period 5 Implementation Plan, will be a sufficient basis for the Plaintiffs to submit evidence and argument to the Court concerning any available remedy at the remedial hearing, in the event a remedial hearing is held, including the creation of a

1

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 713 Filed 12/19/16 Page 2 of 11
receivership. The Defendants reserve the right to present evidence and argument in defense against or in favor of any remedy, except that Defendants may not argue that the finding of noncompliance, rather than contempt, legally precludes the imposition of a receivership.
2. Agreed Order, IRO and SSRO Provisions Pending The provisions of the Agreed Order, IRO and SSRO are incorporated in this STRO as if stated in full herein. To the extent that those provisions have not yet been fully implemented, Defendants are ordered to implement the provisions of those three Orders during the duration of this STRO, including but not limited to:
a. Complete the creation and implementation of a fully functional child welfare agency, MDCPS, which is independent of, although housed within, the Mississippi Department of Human Services, not later than July 1, 2018;
b. MDCPS shall continue to maintain and staff a second Deputy Director for Field Operations position, or equivalent title/position, within MDCPS to ensure adequate management, supervision and support of the MDCPS Regional Directors;
c. Not later than December 31, 2016, MDCPS shall fully implement the provisions of the priority hiring plan set forth in the Recruitment, Hiring and Retention (“RHR”) Plan submitted to Public Catalyst on May 25, 2016, and not later than July 1, 2017, fully implement all remaining provisions of the RHR;
d. Not later than December 31, 2016, MDCPS shall complete the requirements of producing a better resourced MDCPS Field Operations team in the State Office whose sole task is to provide the regions more robust and continuous support, guidance and accountability in the areas of foster care, adoption and child protective services; not later than February 15, 2017, Public Catalyst will certify whether Defendants have completed these requirements;
e. Not later than December 31, 2016, MDCPS shall complete the allocation of Personnel Identification Numbers (PINS) for adequate administrative staff for each region to each Regional Director, to support the administrative work in that region, including staff specifically assigned to develop human resources, obtain sufficient facilities, equipment, data, flexible funds and services; not later than February 15, 2017, Public Catalyst will certify that Defendants have completed this allocation.
f. Not later than February 15, 2017, Public Catalyst will certify whether State Office staff who are responsible for foster care and adoption program functions have been moved to MDCPS Field Operations.
2

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 713 Filed 12/19/16 Page 3 of 11
g. All newly hired caseworkers will be equipped with smart phones and/or tablets prior to receiving a caseload.
h. Not later than October 15, 2016, Defendants shall provide the first annual schedule for procurement of and implementation of the Comprehensive Child Welfare Information System (CCWIS) system, to replace MACWIS.
i. By December 31, 2017, the Defendants shall determine whether to pilot a targeted, countybased privatization of child welfare services.
j. MDCPS shall, not later than January 31, 2017, submit a recommendation for amendment of the applicable court rules to make MDCPS a party to proceedings involving children in MDCPS’ custody that concern the issues of child custody, termination of parental rights and adoption.
3. Worker and Supervisor Qualifications a. MDCPS shall hire caseworkers who have, at minimum, a bachelor's degree in social work or a related human services degree. Public Catalyst shall review and determine which degrees qualify as related human services degrees.
b. MDCPS shall hire or promote to the position of caseworker supervisor only persons who have, at minimum, the following qualifications: 1) A master’s degree in social work or related human services degree and two years of experience working with children and families, preferably in foster care. 2) A bachelor's degree in social work or related human services degree with three years of experience working with children and families, preferably in foster care.
4. Training a. MDCPS shall maintain a Training Unit headed by a qualified director of training. The Training Unit shall have sufficient staffing, funding, and other resources to assure that comprehensive child welfare training is provided to enable all caseworkers, supervisors, and other child welfare agency employees to comply with the relevant mandates of this STRO, MDCPS policy, and reasonable professional standards.
b. MDCPS caseworkers shall receive a minimum of 270 hours of pre-service training, which includes instructional training and supervised field training, and may include E-Learning. Any E-learning training is subject to the approval of Public Catalyst. Pre-service training provided during an MDCPS internship or previous employment with MDCPS may be counted towards the pre-service training requirement if that training is substantially similar to the training provided to new hires.
3

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 713 Filed 12/19/16 Page 4 of 11
c. MDCPS caseworker trainees, as part of pre-service training, 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 assignment:
1) Upon successful completion of a competency test, reviewed and approved by Public Catalyst and administered subsequent to the trainee’s fourth week of work, up to 5 cases may be assigned with supervisor approval;
2) Final caseloads may be assigned after successful completion of pre-service training, all competency-based tests and a satisfactory review by the training team;
3) All competency tests, modifications to competency tests, and the standards for passing competency tests, must be reviewed and approved by Public Catalyst.
d. MDCPS caseworker supervisors, within 90 days of hire or promotion, shall receive a minimum of 40 hours of training, directed specifically at the supervision of child welfare caseworkers.
5. Caseloads and Case Services a. Defendants shall submit a plan, including supporting data and information, by December 15, 2016, and have it approved by Public Catalyst, to:
1) measure caseloads according to the new weighted caseload standards set forth in Exhibit “A” of this STRO, using the results of the September 2016 caseload audit;
2) streamline in-home (prevention/protection) and out-of-home (placement) case service types; and
3) streamline the County of Responsibility/County of Service case types
b. Public Catalyst will establish performance targets for MDCPS caseload compliance by March 1, 2017, and report on compliance to the parties every three (3) months.
c. Defendants will comply with the caseload compliance performance targets established by Public Catalyst.
d. Defendants shall achieve full caseload compliance with the new weighted caseload standards by December 31, 2017.
4

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 713 Filed 12/19/16 Page 5 of 11
6. Placements a. Unlicensed Placements 1) Backlog of Unlicensed Homes Of those 496 unlicensed homes in the backlog identified by Public Catalyst on August 15, 2016, the Defendants shall review and determine on a priority basis, within the time frames stated below, whether these homes meet MDCPS licensing standards. a) Defendants shall prioritize the review of the 496 unlicensed homes in the backlog by first reviewing all those unlicensed homes in the backlog with children placed under six (6) years of age and who are in the custody of MDCPS (Priority One), followed by all those unlicensed homes in the backlog with children who, as of November 1, 2016 and/or February 1, 2017, have not been visited by MDCPS for 60 days or more (Priority Two).
b) The prioritized review, described in Paragraph 6.a.1)a) above, shall result in no fewer than 164 of the 496 unlicensed homes but all of the children in Priority One in the backlog being reviewed by December 31, 2016, and with all children in Priority Two, no fewer than 332 of the 496 unlicensed homes in the backlog being reviewed by March 31, 2017.
c) By June 30, 2017, all of the 496 unlicensed homes in the backlog, identified by Public Catalyst on August 15, 2016, shall either be licensed, closed or remain open and unlicensed with an order of the court as defined in Paragraph 6.a.3)a).
d) Public Catalyst, in collaboration with MDCPS, will conduct a quality review of a sample of the files reviewed in the backlog of 496 unlicensed homes by March 31, 2017.
2) New Placements into Unlicensed Homes or Facilities: August 16, 2016 to June 30, 2017.
a) Public Catalyst shall, by December 31, 2016, approve the licensure process used by MDCPS for new placements into unlicensed homes and facilities, including the emergency placement checklist safety standards, the home study and related licensure forms and documents, time frames for completing the licensure process, and percentages for licensure of unlicensed placements made during the period.
b) Public Catalyst, in collaboration with MDCPS, will conduct periodic quality reviews of the expedited relative placement licensure process during the pendency of this STRO.
5

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 713 Filed 12/19/16 Page 6 of 11
c) Beginning with placements made on July 1, 2017, and thereafter, all homes and facilities with children placed who are in the custody of MDCPS shall be timely licensed and subject to the licensure process approved by Public Catalyst on December 31, 2016.
3) For Unlicensed Placements that Cannot Meet Licensure Standards
No child shall remain in a home or facility determined to be unable to meet MDCPS licensing standards, absent an order by a state court with jurisdiction over child custody directing the placement of the child into a specific unlicensed placement. Defendants shall not be held accountable for a state court’s order as long as MDCPS documents that it presented information to the court that the home has not met licensing standards, the reasons why the home has not and cannot meet licensing standards, and that a licensed home or facility or, one time only, an appropriate expedited relative placement is available.
a) Safety Issues: If it is determined that an unlicensed home or facility is unable to meet MDCPS licensing standards due to a safety issue, Defendants shall take all reasonable efforts to immediately ensure the child’s safety and to remove the child, including, if required by the court, seeking an emergency court order. Defendants shall not be held accountable for the state court’s order as long as MDCPS documents that it presented information to the court that the home or facility has not met licensing standards and that a licensed home or facility or an expedited relative placement is available. If the child is not in imminent danger, MDCPS shall implement a safety plan and within five (5) calendar days, either cure the licensing deficiency if feasible, or move the child to a licensed home or facility or, one time only, an appropriate expedited relative placement.
b) Non-safety Issues: If MDCPS determines a home to be unable to meet MDCPS licensing standards due to a non-safety issue, Defendants shall, within 30 calendar days of that determination, either cure the licensing deficiency if feasible, or move the child to a licensed home or facility or, one time only, an appropriate expedited relative placement.
c) Public Catalyst will certify to the parties every three months, commencing on April 1, 2017, MDCPS’s performance on the Placements requirements of Paragraph 6.
b. Family Based Placements 1) Number of Available Licensed Placements Based on the results of a data driven needs assessment that shall be completed by MDCPS in January 2017, Public Catalyst, in conjunction with MDCPS, shall establish
6

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 713 Filed 12/19/16 Page 7 of 11
statewide and county performance requirements and time periods by February 1, 2017 for new home licensure in calendar year 2017. Public Catalyst will report to the parties MDCPS’ progress on achieving the performance requirements. The Defendants shall meet the performance requirements, including time periods.
2) Additional Licensed Placements Not later than February 1, 2017, MDCPS shall begin to implement the plan to recruit and retain additional licensed placements and shall maintain the additional number of total placements, as necessary during the applicability of this STRO.
7. Child Safety and Critical Indicators a. Maltreatment in Care 1) Public Catalyst will certify the baseline for maltreatment in care of children who are in the custody of MDCPS.
2) The rate of maltreatment in care shall be calculated as follows: Of all children in foster care during the period, what percent were victims of substantiated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff member. A child is counted as having been maltreated in foster care if the perpetrator of the maltreatment was identified as a foster parent or a residential facility staff member. The numerator shall consist of all children whose maltreatment is substantiated during the period. The denominator shall consist of all children placed in foster care during the period. The observation period is six (6) months. The initial reporting period for this indicator will be April 1, 2016-September 30, 2016.
b. Provision of Health Care to Children 1) Public Catalyst will complete a sample case record review by October 31, 2017, to assess the extent to which follow-up medical care is identified as needed and provided to children who are in the custody of MDCPS.
c. Permanency 1) Public Catalyst will collaborate with MDCPS to certify the baseline for the following child permanency indicators:
a) Of all children in foster care on the first day of a 12-month period, which shall commence on October 1st of any given year, the percent of children discharged from foster care to permanency within 12 months. The numerator is the number of children in the denominator who discharged from foster care to permanency within 12 months. The initial reporting period for this indicator will be October 1, 2016September 30, 2017;
7

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 713 Filed 12/19/16 Page 8 of 11
b) Of all children in foster care on the first day of a 12-month period, which shall commence on October 1st of any given year, the percent of children discharged from foster care to permanency within 13-23 months. The numerator is the number of children in the denominator who discharged from foster care to permanency within 13-23 months. The initial reporting period for this indicator will be October 1, 2016September 30, 2017;
c) Of all children in foster care on the first day of a 12-month period, which shall commence on October 1st of any given year, the percent of children discharged from foster care to permanency in 24 months and more. The numerator is the number of children in the denominator who discharged from foster care to permanency in 24 months and more. The initial reporting period for this indicator will be October 1, 2016-September 30, 2017.
2) For all of the foregoing indicators, permanency is defined as: discharges from foster care to reunification with the child’s parents or primary caregivers; durable legal custody; guardianship; or adoption. MDCPS will report, separately, discharges by permanency type and by time to permanency.
3) For all children in the care of MDCPS who were adopted in 2016, Public Catalyst will collaborate with MDCPS to certify the data used to calculate the average and median lengths of time to adoption finalization for each child from the date on which that child’s adoption goal was established, and from the date on which the child’s parents’ rights were terminated.
d. Child Visitation 1) Public Catalyst will certify the baseline percent of MDCPS worker-child visits which will be calculated by dividing the total number of actual worker-child visits required in a six-month period by the total number of required worker-child visits during that period. The calculation will include all children who were in care for at least one full month during the period.
2) Public Catalyst will certify the baseline data on the distribution of required worker-child visits during a six-month period selected by Public Catalyst during the pendency of this STRO, to include the percent of children who received two required visits, one visit or zero visits on a monthly basis and for the period. For children who received no worker visits during any full month in the period, MDCPS shall provide, and Pubic Catalyst shall authenticate, data on the distribution of the last worker visit for those children.
8

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 713 Filed 12/19/16 Page 9 of 11
e. MDCPS will submit proposed policy changes by January 15, 2017, for Public Catalyst's review and approval, to strengthen and clarify the role of the Special Investigations Unit with respect to screening and investigating maltreatment in care.
f. MDCPS will submit a plan by January 3, 2017, for Public Catalyst's review and approval, to enhance the ongoing quality assessment of, and accuracy of, hotline screening dispositions. Defendants will implement the approved plan.
g. Public Catalyst will assess the quality of hotline screening by June 30, 2017.
h. Once Public Catalyst certifies baseline data from MDCPS for each critical indicator in 7(a) (b) (c) and (d) above, Public Catalyst will continue to certify MDCPS data for each indicator on a semi-annual basis during the period of this STRO in a format to be determined by Public Catalyst and MDCPS. Each of these data indicators will be subject to data quality review.
i. Monitoring under the existing MSA during the period in which the STRO is in effect will be temporarily superseded by the provision of verified data on critical indicators as described in Paragraph 7 of this STRO.
j. Plaintiffs retain the right to seek immediate relief from the Court if any of the data reported on the critical indicators during this period requires the need for additional remedial action by the Court, given the issues raised in the pending contempt motion.
8. Public Catalyst shall, in conjunction with MDCPS, report on a quarterly basis on the Defendants’ compliance as to the specific provisions of this Order during the time this STRO remains in effect.
9. This STRO shall remain in effect until December 31, 2017, after which the 2nd Modified Settlement Agreement (MSA) shall go into effect.
10. The remedy phase of the Motion for Contempt shall be continued until the 2nd MSA goes into effect, and may be invoked by Plaintiffs at any point during the period of the STRO, both for violations of the MSA [Dkt. No. 571] previously in effect and for violations of the provisions of this STRO.
SO ORDERED this 19th day of December, 2016.
/s/Tom S. Lee____________________________ SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE, TOM S. LEE
9

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 713 Filed 12/19/16 Page 10 of 11
AGREED TO AND APPROVED FOR ENTRY BY: FOR PLAINTIFFS:
/s/ Marcia Robinson Lowry___________________ Marcia Robinson Lowry (pro hac vice MBN 43991) Sara Robinson‐Glasser (pro hac vice MBN 47547) A BETTER CHILDHOOD, INC. 1095 Hardscrabble Road Chappaqua, NY 10514 Phone: 646.808.7344 Email: mlowry@abetterchildhood.org
srglasser@abetterchildhood.org Wayne Drinkwater (MBN 6193) Michael J. Bentley (MBN 102631) BRADLEY, ARRANT, BOULT & CUMMINGS, LLP One Jackson Place, Suite 400 Jackson, MS 39201 Phone: 601.948.8000 Email: wdrinkwater@bradley.com
mbentley@bradley.com
FOR DEFENDANTS:
/s/ Kenya Key Rachal ___________________ Kenya Key Rachal (MBN 99227) James N. ("Jake") Adams (MBN 101538) BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC Post Office Box 14167 100 Vision Drive, Suite 400 Jackson, MS 39211 Phone: 601‐351‐2400 Email: krachal@bakerdonelson.com Harold E. Pizzetta, III (MBN 99867) Assistant Attorney General General Civil Division Carroll Gartin Justice Building, 430 High Street Jackson, MS 39201
10

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 713 Filed 12/19/16 Page 11 of 11

EXHIBIT A

Individual DFCS caseworkers with generic caseloads shall not carry a mixed caseload that exceeds 100 percent capacity as calculated by the following weights per case type:

Type of Case
Child Protection
(Investigations Level 2 and 3)
Ongoing Foster Care
(Placement Responsibility &Service)
Ongoing Foster Care
(Placement County of Responsibility)
Ongoing Foster Care
(Placement County of Service)
In-Home Cases
(Protection Responsibility & Service, Prevention Responsibility & Service, and Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children - Incoming)
In-Home Cases
(Protection or Prevention County of Responsibility)
In-Home Cases
(Protection or Prevention County of Service)
Adoption
(Adoption County of Service)
New Application Licensing
(Resource Inquiry, Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children Application, and Foster Home Study)
Renewal Licensing
(Foster Home Supervision and Foster Home Renewal)

Standards
14 Investigations

Weight Per Case – 100% Capacity
0.0714

14 Children

0.0714

0.0357

0.0357

17 Families

0.0588

15 Children 15 Homes
36 Homes

0.0294 0.0294 0.0667 0.0667
0.0278

11

 
 Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 724 Filed 07/21/17 Page 1 of 19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION

OLIVIA Y., ET AL.

PLAINTIFFS

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:04CV251TSL-RHW

HALEY BARBOUR, AS GOVERNOR

OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This cause is before the court on the motion of plaintiffs, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, for an award of their class counsels’ attorneys’ fees and expenses in the amount of $413,287.00 for the monitoring and enforcement of the Modified Mississippi Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan from December 1, 2015 through December 30, 2016. The total of attorneys’ fees requested is $389,452.79, representing 1,200.62 hours of attorney time and 71.23 hours of paralegal time, calculated as follows:

Attorney

Requested Hourly Rate

Marcia Lowry

$425.00 legal work

A Better Childhood $212.50 travel

Sara Glasser

$350.00 legal work

A Better Childhood $175.00 travel

Sarah Jaffe

$220.00 legal work

A Better Childhood

Wayne Drinkwater Bradley Arant

$400.00 2014 legal work

Michael Bentley Bradley Arant

$217.50 2015 legal work

Paralegal

$110.00

A Better Childhood

Hours Total Fee Worked 381.48 $185,769.60 111.25 380.24 $155,811.01 129.87
64.98 $ 14,294.88
62.40 $ 24,960.00
4.00 $ 870.00
70.43 $ 7,747.30

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 724 Filed 07/21/17 Page 2 of 19

Paralegal Bradley Arant

$110.00

.80 $ 88.00

Plaintiffs also seek reimbursement for $23,746.96 in expenses. Defendants acknowledge that plaintiffs are entitled to an
award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 for their work in this case. They deny, however, that the fees requested by plaintiffs in their fee petition are reasonable. In this regard, defendants do not contest the claimed expenses and they do not take issue with the hourly rates of plaintiffs’ counsel.1 However, they do contend that “a great many” of the hours for which compensation is sought were not reasonably expended and demonstrate “a severe lack of billing judgment.”2 More particularly, they assert that a review of the time records submitted by plaintiffs in support of their motion reflects an inordinate number of vague entries and entries for duplicative/redundant work; hundreds of block-billed entries; billing for non-legal secretarial/clerical work performed by

1

The hourly rates for plaintiffs’ attorneys, or most of

them, were set by the court’s ruling on defendants’ objection to

plaintiffs’ 2016 fee petition, in which their only challenge was

to plaintiffs’ attorneys’ hourly rates.

2

On plaintiffs’ last motion for fees and expenses,

defendants made no objection to plaintiffs’ billing practices or

the number of hours claimed but did object to the hourly rates

claimed by plaintiffs’ attorneys. The court issued its order May

6, 2016 approving some and reducing some of plaintiffs’ attorneys’

claimed hourly rates.

2

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 724 Filed 07/21/17 Page 3 of 19

paralegals and attorneys; entries for “marketing” time that is not compensable; and time spent on fee-related matters that is not compensable. In addition, defendants claim more generally that the total amount of fees claimed is clearly excessive in view of the nature of the work performed during the billing period and submit that if awarded, would result in a windfall to plaintiffs’ attorneys.
Methodology for Determining Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees To determine a reasonable attorneys’ fee, the court first calculates a “lodestar” figure by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended by an appropriate hourly rate in the community for such work. La. Power & Light Co. v. Kellstrom, 50 F.3d 319, 324 (5th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted). The lodestar is presumed to be a reasonable fee. Combs v. City of Huntington, Texas, 829 F.3d 388, 394 (5th Cir. 2016). However, the court may increase or decrease it based on the circumstances of the case, taking into account the twelve factors set forth in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717–19 (5th Cir. 1974), abrogated on other grounds by Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87 (1989). Migis v. Pearle Vision, Inc., 135 F.3d 1041, 1047 (5th Cir. 1998).3

3

Those factors are: (1) the time and labor required by

the litigation; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the issues; (3)

the skill required to perform the legal services properly; (4) the

preclusion of other employment by the attorney; (5) the customary

fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) the time

limitations imposed by the client or circumstances; (8) the amount

3

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 724 Filed 07/21/17 Page 4 of 19

The party seeking attorneys' fees bears the burden of establishing the reasonableness of the fees by submitting adequate documentation and time records of the hours reasonably expended and proving the exercise of “billing judgment.” Saizan v. Delta Concrete Prod. Co., 448 F.3d 795, 799 (5th Cir. 2006). This typically requires documentation of the hours charged and of the hours written off as unproductive, excessive or redundant. Id. If a plaintiff fails to offer evidence of billing judgment, a court may reduce the award by a percentage that is an appropriate substitute for billing judgment. Id. With these general principles in mind, the court considers the motion and defendants’ objections.
2016 Fee Motion Plaintiffs seek $44,011.51 for approximately 142.18 hours dedicated to the 2016 attorney fee motion.4 Defendants submit that this is excessive for what should have been a routine motion. Plaintiffs respond that the motion was hardly routine, and that

involved and results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorney; (10) the undesirability of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12) the award in similar cases. Johnson, 488 F.2d at 717–19.

4

Plaintiffs contend that time spent and fees charged

relating to the motion for 2015 fees is approximately 120 hours,

totaling $36,000. However, based on its review of defendants’

Exhibit A, the court concludes that defendants’ computation is

accurate.

4

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 724 Filed 07/21/17 Page 5 of 19

the reason so much time was spent on the attorneys’ fee motion was defendants’ refusal to pay plaintiffs’ attorneys’ claimed hourly rates.
A prevailing party “is entitled to attorney's fees for the effort entailed in litigating a fee claim and securing compensation.” Cruz v. Hauck, 762 F.2d 1230, 1233 (5th Cir. 1985). On the other hand, “requests for attorney's fees should not spawn ancillary major litigation.” Dinet v. Hydril Co., No. CIV. A.05-3778, 2006 WL 3904991, at *7 (E.D. La. Nov. 22, 2006). In the court’s opinion, particularly as defendants’ objection to the 2016 fee petition was solely to the hourly rates charged by plaintiffs’ attorneys,5 the amount of time claimed for the work on the fees issue is clearly excessive and reflects a lack of billing judgment. The court finds that a sixty percent reduction in the hours for this work is warranted.6

5

The court found defendants’ objection to the hourly

rates was well-taken to a limited extent: It reduced the hourly

rates claimed by Marcia Lowry from $475 to $425 (instead of the

$318 requested by defendants) and by Wayne Drinkwater from $420 to

$400 (rather than the $267.75 suggested by defendants) but

rejected defendants’ objection to the other attorneys’ requested

hourly rates.

6

The following reflects the time spent by each attorney

on these matters, as determined by reference to defendants’

Exhibit A, and the corresponding reduction in attorneys’ fees:

Ms. Lowry

23.76 hours

$6,821.25

Ms. Glasser

42.66 hours

$8,958.60

Mr. Drinkwater

11.80 hours

$2,832.00

Ms. Jaffe

58.69 hours

$7,747.00

Mr. Bentley

3.10 hours

404.55

5

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 724 Filed 07/21/17 Page 6 of 19
Vague Fees An attorneys’ fee applicant’s documentation supporting his request for fees “must be of sufficient detail and probative value to enable the court to ‘determine with a high degree of certainty’ that the billing is reasonable.” Yelton v. PHI Inc., No. CIV. A. 09-04182, 2012 WL 3441826, at *8 (E.D. La. Aug. 14, 2012) (quoting Miss. State Chapter Operation Push v. Mabus, 788 F. Supp. 1406, 1416 (N.D. Miss. 1992)). The court may reduce or eliminate hours if the documentation of those hours is “vague or incomplete.” Id. at *7 (attorneys “do not have the right to bill for inadequately documented time”) (citing Lalla v. City of New Orleans, 161 F. Supp. 2d 686, 706 (E.D. La. Apr. 4, 2001)); see also Walker v. City of Mesquite, Texas, 313 F.3d 246, 252 (5th Cir. 2002) (“[T]he district court has broad discretion to exclude or reduce the entries that are vague.”); Wegner v. Standard Ins. Co., 129 F.3d 814, 822 (5th Cir. 1997) (“Litigants clearly ‘take their chances’ that the district court will reject or reduce fee awards if they submit vague or incomplete applications.”) (citation omitted). Defendants have identified entries for 27.34 hours, representing fees totaling $10,125.90, which they contend are impermissibly vague, including numerous items such as phone calls, emails and text messages which do not identify the subject of call or indicate how it related to the legal work being performed. For example, the vast majority of the challenged entries, while
6

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 724 Filed 07/21/17 Page 7 of 19
identifying the parties involved in the communications, provide no other pertinent detail but rather are simply for “email” or “review email”; “send/receive text message or email” re “update” or “status”; “telephone call” or “telephone call re status” or “re update”; “telephone call with source in MS”. See Haylock v. Ebanks, No. CIV. A. 13-432, 2013 WL 5410463, at *5 (E.D. La. Sept. 25, 2013) (entries that refer to emails being reviewed, but do not reference the recipient, sender or subject of the email impermissibly vague); Yelton, 2012 WL 3441826, at *8 (descriptions such as “legal issues,” “conference re: all aspects,” and “call re: status” are vague descriptions) (citing In re Donovan, 877 F.2d 982, 995 (D.C. Cir. 1989), and Lalla, 161 F. Supp. 2d at 706).
Plaintiffs point out in response that out of the 76 entries identified by defendants as vague, thirteen involve communications with “KR”, “RF” – attorneys for defendants – and David Chandler, Executive Director of the Mississippi Department of Child Protective Services, which defendants cannot legitimately challenge. They submit that as to the remainder of the allegedly vague entries, the court should reject defendants’ objections because defendants have made no objection to similar entries in plaintiffs’ previous fee requests; defendants “knew perfectly well what was going on in all these calls and conferences”; and it would have taken more time to include additional detail and
7

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 724 Filed 07/21/17 Page 8 of 19

defendants have elsewhere complained that plaintiffs spent too much time on the case, including on matters relating to fees. None of these is a valid reason for this court to award fees for time that is not adequately documented. Accordingly, for the challenged entries that do not involve communication with defense counsel, the court finds that a fifty percent reduction of the claimed time and corresponding fees is in order.7
Duplicative/Redundant Work Defendants submit that plaintiffs’ billing time records contain numerous entries involving multiple attorneys performing the same task, doubling the number of hours charged, including telephone calls between and among plaintiffs’ attorneys and drafting and reviewing the same documents at multiple stages during the documents’ development. In this vein, defendants have identified 180.46 hours of what they contend is duplicative or redundant work.8 By far, the majority of defendants’ objections relate to communications, primarily by phone, between plaintiffs’

7

The following reflects the time spent by each attorney

on these matters, as determined by reference to defendants’

Exhibit B, and the corresponding reduction in attorneys’ fees:

Ms. Lowry

9.83 hours

$2,506.65

Ms. Glasser

3.81 hours

$ 666.75

Mr. Drinkwater

4.85 hours

$ 970.00

Ms. Jaffe

.25 hours

$ 27.50

Paralegal

3.35 hours

$ 184.25

8

The court has already ordered a 60 percent reduction in

9.8 of these hours as time spent on attorneys’ fee matters and a

50 percent reduction in 3.67 hours as insufficiently documented.

8

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 724 Filed 07/21/17 Page 9 of 19

counsel. For example, of the 184 entries to which defendants object, nearly 140 are for telephone calls between plaintiffs’ counsel (some also including the former and current monitor), and twelve are for in-person meetings between plaintiffs’ counsel. Defendants also object to a number of entries reflecting attendance by multiple attorneys at telephone conferences or meetings with defense counsel. In addition, defendants challenge several instances of multiple entries by Ms. Lowry on a single day for what appears to be the same or similar work. The challenged entries total 5.25 hours.9
The Fifth Circuit has held that “[i]f more than one attorney is involved, the possibility of duplication of effort along with the proper utilization of time should be scrutinized. The time of two or three lawyers in a courtroom or conference when one would do, may obviously be discounted.” Walker v. U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 99 F.3d 761, 768 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing Johnson, 488 F.2d at 717). See also Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434, 103 S. Ct. 1933, 76 L. Ed. 2d 40 (1983) (stating that courts

9

Specifically, they object to what they contend are

duplicate entries on 12/04: telephone call to Wayne Drinkwater

and Rusty Fortenberry each re new director .50 and “telephone call

to Wayne re new director .33"; on 12/14: “rev. proposed interim

order .67" “rev proposed orders, changes .67"; 12/18 “send/receive

text message or email to coc re resolution re order .25” and

“send/receive text message or email to coc re resolution .33";

12/21: “rev. outline, prep for court 1.25"; “rev. outline, prep

for court .50"; “Meeting w/WD, SG prep for court .75";

“preparation for court appearance re proposed interim order .67".

9

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 724 Filed 07/21/17 Page 10 of 19
should exclude hours that are “are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary”). Courts have thus “discounted fee awards for excessive emails and telephone calls between attorneys and for overlapping time billed by multiple attorneys.” Gros v. New Orleans City, No. CIV. A. 12-2322, 2014 WL 2506464, at *11 (E.D. La. June 3, 2014) (citations omitted).
For their part, plaintiffs maintain that the case was appropriately staffed. Further, while they acknowledge that there were extensive conversations via phone, email and in-person between and among plaintiffs’ counsel and that more than one plaintiffs’ counsel participated in meetings and conference calls with defense counsel and others, i.e, the court monitor and consulting group, they insist this was neither unreasonable nor excessive in view of the nature of the services required of them by the case. Their challenge, they say, was to reform an entire public agency. To meet this challenge, they necessarily had to confer among themselves to weigh the pros and cons of defendants’ proposals and to develop counter-proposals. They submit, moreover, that in view of the magnitude of the challenge they faced, it was certainly reasonable for them to have more than one attorney participate in communications with the monitor and consultant and in negotiations with defendants.
In the court’s opinion, the case was not overstaffed; defendants do not actually appear to contend otherwise. The court
10

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 724 Filed 07/21/17 Page 11 of 19
finds that it was reasonable to have more than one of plaintiffs’ attorneys involved in meetings and communications with defense counsel, as well as with the court monitors and consultant. The court will allow these charges.
Obviously, plaintiffs’ multiple attorneys communicated with each other via extensive and duplicate telephone calls and meetings. The court acknowledges that some collaborative communication between plaintiffs’ attorneys was necessary; indeed, in the court’s opinion, this particular case required a great deal of this kind of communication. See Liger v. New Orleans Hornets NBA Ltd. P'ship, No. 05-01969, 2010 WL 3952006, at *14 (E.D. La. Aug. 3, 2010), report and recommendation adopted, No. CIV.A. 05-1969, 2010 WL 3951506 (E.D. La. Oct. 6, 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (“‘[S]ound- boarding’ among counsel is valuable to effective litigation.”). The question is whether these communications were excessive. The court’s sense, upon a thorough review of the challenged entries, is that the communications between Ms. Lowry and Ms. Glasser were somewhat more extensive than was necessary for the effective and efficient representation of plaintiffs. Therefore, the court finds that a reduction of thirty-five percent of the time spent on telephone
11

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 724 Filed 07/21/17 Page 12 of 19
calls between them is warranted.10 The remaining communications between and among plaintiffs’ counsel do not appear excessive.
While it is not obvious that the entries challenged by defendants relating to duplicate work performed by Ms. Lowry on certain dates, it does appear these could represent duplicate entries for the same work. As plaintiffs have not responded specifically to defendants’ objection in this regard, the court will exclude half of this time, or 2.75 hours, for a reduction of $1,126.75 of Ms. Lowry’s fee.
Block Billing Defendants assert that plaintiffs have engaged in “block billing,” and that block time entries – which according to defendants total 469.71 hours, representing $99,166.73 in attorneys’ fees – should be stricken or reduced. Defendants’ objection in this regard is not well-taken. The entries identified by defendants in their Exhibit D do not reflect “block billing.” It is true that each of the challenged entries includes more than one activity, e.g., “TCs M. Lowry and email r. Fortenberry .30,” “Wayne, Rusty, telephone calls to each re new director .50,” “review eml from GL re proposed period 5 final
10 This includes 62 telephone calls for a total of 29.16 hours each, making the total deduction for Ms. Lowry $4,592.70 and for Ms. Glasser $3,572.10. These figures include only calls that have not been excluded or a larger percentage reduction made on some other basis.
12

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 724 Filed 07/21/17 Page 13 of 19
report; send email to ML re response and suggestions .17.” This is not block billing. “‘Block- billing’ is a time-keeping method by which each lawyer ... enters the total daily time spent working on a case, rather than itemizing the time expended on specific tasks.” U.S., ex rel., Cook-Reska v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., 641 F. App'x 396, 399 (5th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[C]ourts disfavor the practice of block billing because it impairs the required reasonableness evaluation [... because] the court cannot accurately determine the number of hours spent on any particular task....”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).11 Furthermore, plaintiffs’ method of grouping a limited number of tasks in a single entry has not hampered the court’s ability to assess the reasonableness of the time spent on the tasks reflected. In this regard, it is noted that of 142 of the 227 entries to which defendants object, the time spent for the services performed is an hour or less. For another forty-one of these entries, the time spent is less than two hours. Only two of the 227 entries is for more than seven hours, and each of those was for drafting, editing and/or revising a remedial order. Moreover, nearly all of the entries involve no
11 Notably, the Fifth Circuit does not necessarily prohibit an award of fees, despite the use of block-billing. See Hollowell v. Orleans Reg'l Hosp. LLC, 217 F.3d 379, 392–93 (5th Cir. 2000) (quotation omitted) (award not foreclosed where district court “carefully considered” the time records and found them “specific enough to determine that the hours claimed were reasonable for the work performed....”).
13

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 724 Filed 07/21/17 Page 14 of 19
more than two tasks, and none involves more than a few. And, having reviewed all the challenged entries, it is not apparent that any involves work that is not compensable or is excessive for the work performed. Accordingly, defendants’ objection based on “block billing” is not well-taken.
Clerical/Secretarial Work by Paralegal Defendants have identified 68.83 hours of what they contend is clerical/secretarial work billed by paralegals. “Paralegal work can only be recovered as attorneys’ fees if the work is legal rather than clerical.” Vela v. City of Houston, 276 F.3d 659, 681 (5th Cir. 2001). The court has reviewed the entries to which defendants object and finds that of the 68.83 hours referenced by defendants, 52.59 is for non-legal work: 50.34 on fee-related matters and 2.25 relating to press releases. In the court’s opinion, recording attorney time and expenses would be in the nature of clerical work and not recoverable as attorneys’ fees. See Martin v. Mabus, 734 F. Supp. 1216, 1228 (S.D. Miss. 1990) (excluding time spent recording time and filling out expense vouchers as work of a secretarial or clerical nature). And time spent maintaining lists for press releases is also of a clerical nature. Accordingly, these 52.59 hours will be excluded from the fee award. Clerical/Secretarial/Paralegal Work by Attorneys
14

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 724 Filed 07/21/17 Page 15 of 19
Defendants object to 74.36 hours of time claimed by attorneys Lowry and Jaffe as “clerical/secretarial/paralegal work.” This objection is patently without merit. The services reflected by the various entries cited by defendants consist exclusively of drafting, editing, correcting and/or revising various documents, including memos, proposed orders, briefs, attorney declarations, and even the Modified Settlement Agreements. There is no basis for defendants’ contention that this is secretarial or clerical work, or that it is work that could have been done as efficiently or effectively by a paralegal.
Marketing Plaintiffs’ attorneys have billed 14 hours – totaling approximately $4,755.66 – for media coverage or “marketing,” i.e., for drafting and releasing press releases, fielding press inquiries and otherwise communicating with the press regarding the litigation. Defendants object that plaintiffs are not entitled to reimbursement for time spent dealing with the media. The Fifth Circuit has yet to decide whether prevailing parties may recover attorneys' fees for time spent holding press conferences or dealing with the media. Watkins v. Fordice, 7 F.3d 453, 458 (5th Cir. 1993). It noted in Watkins that whereas the district court had ruled that time spent on press conferences was not compensable as it was not spent “on the litigation,” it acknowledged that the Ninth Circuit had allowed recovery “when a prevailing party shows
15

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 724 Filed 07/21/17 Page 16 of 19

that the press conferences ‘contributed, directly and substantially, to the attainment of [the party's] litigation goals.’” Id. (quoting Davis v. San Francisco, 976 F.2d 1536, 1545 (9th Cir. 1992), vacated in part on other grounds, 984 F.2d 345 (9th Cir. 1993)). The court chose not to consider the merits of either position but found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding press-conference hours because the fee applicants did not present or offer to present “any evidence regarding the efficacy of the press conferences.” Id. See also Hopwood v. State of Texas, 236 F.3d 256, 280 (5th Cir. 2000) (stating, “We are chary about granting requests for media fees.”); Barrow v. Greenville Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 3:00-CV-0913-D, 2005 WL 6789456, at *13 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 20, 2005), aff'd, No. 06-10123, 2007 WL 3085028 (5th Cir. Oct. 23, 2007) (denying award of fees for time devoted to press conferences without evidence of their efficacy). In the case at bar, while plaintiffs argue that the preparation of press releases was directly related to the representation of the plaintiff class, they have offered no evidence to this effect. Therefore, the court will deduct from plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees the time spent on these matters.12

12

The deductions are calculated as follows:

Ms. Lowry

4 hours $1,700.00

Mr. Drinkwater 2.6 hours $1,040.00

Ms. Glasser

4.81 hours $1,698.50

Mr. Bentley

.4 hours

$ 87.00.

The court has already deducted 2.25 hours of the time on media

matters as clerical time billed by a paralegal that may not be

16

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 724 Filed 07/21/17 Page 17 of 19
Fees on Fees Not Related to 2015 Fee Petition Defendants object to 53.42 hours – for a total of $10,755.53 – spent on billing and reviewing bills. The court has already eliminated all but 13.23 of these hours as clerical work performed by a paralegal. In the court’s opinion, this time spent on recording time and reviewing billing entries may fairly be regarded as overhead, which is not compensable. Accordingly, the court will reduce the award for Ms. Lowry’s work by $280.50, and by $4,399.50 for Ms. Glasser’s work on these matters. Billing Judgment Defendants note that plaintiffs’ burden includes proving that they exercised billing judgment. “Ideally, billing judgment is reflected in the fee application, showing not only hours claimed, but also hours written off.” Alberti v. Klevehagen, 896 F.2d 927, 930 (5th Cir. 1990). See also Walker, 313 F.3d at 251 (party seeking fees must prove the exercise of billing judgment). Defendants submit that the inclusion in plaintiffs’ invoices of so many entries for duplicative work, clerical work and other work that is not properly compensable demonstrates a clear lack of billing judgment. The court has already addressed these specific objections. Defendants further cite as evidence of plaintiffs’ alleged lack of billing judgment their failure to make any deduction for
recovered. 17

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 724 Filed 07/21/17 Page 18 of 19
time spent traveling. They contend that the $46,367.37 plaintiffs’ attorneys have billed for time spent traveling “is disproportionate to the amount of legal work performed ... and ... is excessive,” especially as defendants are also paying for the cost of plaintiffs’ travel expenses. However, not only do plaintiffs seek compensation for travel time at fifty percent of the hourly rate claimed for legal work, but there is nothing to suggest that any of plaintiffs’ attorneys spent more time in travel than was necessary to perform the legal work the case required. The inclusion of properly compensable time does not reflect a lack of billing judgment.
Windfall Neither party has requested an increase or decrease in the lodestar based on the Johnson factors. However, in their motion, defendants do argue that an award of the fees as presented in plaintiffs’ fee application would result in a windfall, essentially because nothing of substance occurred during the billing period: No trial took place and the only motion that was argued was the 2016 attorneys’ fee motion. The remainder of the litigation, say defendants, was nothing more than “negotiation of a modified settlement agreement”; so, to award the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees as requested would be the equivalent of a “jackpot” award. Defendants suggest, therefore, that the court should reduce plaintiffs’ fee award on this basis. The court, however, is unpersuaded by defendants’ attempt to minimize the
18

Case 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB Document 724 Filed 07/21/17 Page 19 of 19

significance of the work performed by plaintiffs’ counsel during

the billing period and the time and labor required to accomplish

the results they have obtained.13

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, it is ordered that plaintiffs’ motion

for attorneys’ fees and expenses is granted in part and denied in

part. The court finds that plaintiffs are entitled to recover

attorneys’ fees and expenses of $354,287.72, as follows:

Attorney: Marcia Lowry Sarah Glasser Sarah Jaffe Wayne Drinkwater Michael Bentley Paralegal ABC Paralegal TOTAL ATTORNEYS’ FEE:

Fee:

$ 168,741.75

$ 136,515.56

$ 6,520.00

$ 20,118.00

$

378.45

$ 1,179.00

$

88.00

$ 330,540.76

TOTAL EXPENSES:

$ 23,746.96

SO ORDERED this 21st day of July, 2017.

/s/ Tom S. Lee UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13 In their rebuttal, plaintiffs describe what their services have accomplished during this billing period:
There is a new Monitor, an entirely new standalone agency has been created; a new Executive Director has been hired; a new management team has been put in place; hundreds of new caseworkers have come on-board; a new computerized information system is underway; new, lower caseload standards are being used; revised licensing standards are being applied to make foster children safer; and a new MSA has been negotiated.
19

 
 U.S. District Court Southern District of Mississippi (Northern (Jackson)) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB

Johnson, et al v. Barbour, et al Assigned to: District Judge Tom S. Lee Referred to: Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball Demand: $0 Related Case: 3:10-cv-00153-HTW-MTP Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Date Filed: 03/30/2004 Date Terminated: 01/04/2008 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff
James D. Johnson as next friend to Olivia Y

represented by John A. Piskora - PHV LOEB & LOEB, LLP 345 Park Avenue New York, NY 10154 212/407-4000 Fax: 212/407-4990 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julia L. Davis - PHV CHILDREN'S RIGHTS, INC. 330 Seventh Avenue, 4th Floor New York, NY 10001 212/683-2210 Fax: 212/683-4015 Email: jdavis@childrensrights.org TERMINATED: 09/16/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathryn A. Wood - PHV CHILDREN'S RIGHTS, INC. 330 Seventh Avenue, 4th Floor New York, NY 10001 212/683-2210 Fax: 212/683-4015 Email: kwood@childrensrights.org TERMINATED: 09/16/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Margaret Ross - PHV CHILDREN'S RIGHTS, INC. 330 Seventh Avenue, 4th Floor New York, NY 10001 212/683-2210 Fax: 212/683-4015 TERMINATED: 04/25/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tara S. Crean - PHV CHILDREN'S RIGHTS, INC. 330 Seventh Avenue, 4th Floor New York, NY 10001 212/683-2210 Fax: 212/683-4015 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
W. Wayne Drinkwater , Jr. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS, LLP - Jackson P.O. Box 1789 188 E. Capitol Street, Suite 400 (39201) Jackson, MS 39215-1789 601/948-8000 Fax: 601/948-3000 Email: wdrinkwater@babc.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christian D. Carbone(PHV) LOEB & LOEB, LLP 345 Park Avenue New York, NY 10154
Corene Kendrick(PHV) CHILDREN'S RIGHTS, INC. 404 Park Avenue South, 11th Floor New York, NY 10016 TERMINATED: 09/27/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eric S. Manne(PHV) LOEB & LOEB, LLP

345 Park Avenue New York, NY 10154 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eric E. Thompson - PHV CHILDREN'S RIGHTS, INC. 330 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10001 Email: ethompson@childrensrights.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erik S. Pitchal - PHV CHILDREN'S RIGHTS, INC. 330 Seventh Avenue, 4th Floor New York, NY 10001 212/683-2210 Fax: 212/683-4015 TERMINATED: 04/25/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Polansky - PHV CHILDREN'S RIGHTS, INC. 330 Seventh Avenue, 4th Floor New York, NY 10001 212/683-2210 Fax: 212/683-4015 Email: jpolansky@childrensrights.org TERMINATED: 07/19/2012 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John F. Lang(PHV) LOEB & LOEB, LLP 345 Park Avenue New York, NY 10154
Marcia Robinson Lowry - PHV A BETTER CHILDHOOD, INC. Chappaqua 1095 Hardscrabble Road Chappaqua, NY 10514 646/808-7344 Fax: 914/238-0365 Email: mlowry@abetterchildhood.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Melody McAnally BUTLER SNOW LLP-Memphis Crescent Center 6075 Poplar Avenue, Suite 500 P. O. Box 171443 (38187-1443) Memphis, TN 38119 901-680-7200 Fax: 901-680-7201 Email: melody.mcanally@butlersnow.com
Michael J. Bentley BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS, LLP - Jackson P.O. Box 1789 188 E. Capitol Street, Suite 400 (39201) Jackson, MS 39215-1789 601/592-9935 Fax: 601/948-3000 Email: mbentley@bradley.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Miriam F. Ingber - PHV CHILDREN'S RIGHTS, INC. 330 Seventh Avenue, 4th Floor New York, NY 10001 212/683-2210 Fax: 212/683-4015 Email: mingber@childrensrights.org TERMINATED: 05/07/2014 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Robinson-Glasser - PHV A BETTER CHILDHOOD, INC. Chappaqua 1095 Hardscrabble Road Chappaqua, NY 10514 541/660-3763 Fax: 914/238-0365 Email: srglasser@abetterchildhood.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah Teresa Russo - PHV CHILDREN'S RIGHTS, INC. 330 Seventh Avenue, 4th Floor

Plaintiff

New York, NY 10001 212/683-2210 Fax: 212/683-4015 Email: srusso@childrensrights.org TERMINATED: 05/07/2014 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shirim Nothenberg - PHV CHILDREN'S RIGHTS, INC. 330 Seventh Avenue, 4th Floor New York, NY 10001 212/683-2210 x319 Fax: 212/683-4015 Email: snothenberg@childrensrights.org (Inactive) PRO HAC VICE
Stephen A. Dixon - PHV A BETTER CHILDHOOD, INC. - Baton Rouge 1330 Highland Park Drive Baton Rouge, LA 70808 225/588-5407 Email: sdixonchildadvocate@hotmail.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen H. Leech , Jr. STEPHEN H. LEECH, JR., ATTORNEY P. O. Box 3623 Jackson, MS 39207 601/607-4172 Fax: 601-607-4174 Email: stephenhleech@aol.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan Lambiase(PHV) CHILDREN'S RIGHTS, INC. 404 Park Avenue South, 11th Floor New York, NY 10016 TERMINATED: 09/22/2011

Carla Lewis as next friend to Jamison J. TERMINATED: 01/25/2007

represented by John A. Piskora - PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Margaret Ross - PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tara S. Crean - PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
W. Wayne Drinkwater , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christian D. Carbone(PHV) (See above for address)
Corene Kendrick(PHV) (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/27/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eric S. Manne(PHV) (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eric E. Thompson - PHV (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erik S. Pitchal - PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John F. Lang(PHV) (See above for address)
Julia L. Davis - PHV

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/16/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcia Robinson Lowry - PHV (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melody McAnally (See above for address)
Michael J. Bentley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Miriam F. Ingber - PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Robinson-Glasser - PHV (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah Teresa Russo - PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2014 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shirim Nothenberg - PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE
Stephen A. Dixon - PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen H. Leech , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan Lambiase(PHV) (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/22/2011

Plaintiff

Sylvia Forster as next friend to Desiree, Renee, Tyson, and Monique P.

represented by John A. Piskora - PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julia L. Davis - PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/16/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathryn A. Wood - PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/16/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Margaret Ross - PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tara S. Crean - PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Wayne Drinkwater , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christian D. Carbone(PHV) (See above for address)

Corene Kendrick(PHV) (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/27/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eric S. Manne(PHV) (See above for address)

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eric E. Thompson - PHV (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erik S. Pitchal - PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Polansky - PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/19/2012 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John F. Lang(PHV) (See above for address)
Marcia Robinson Lowry - PHV (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melody McAnally (See above for address)
Michael J. Bentley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Miriam F. Ingber - PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2014 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Robinson-Glasser - PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shirim Nothenberg - PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/11/2012 PRO HAC VICE

Stephen A. Dixon - PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen H. Leech , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan Lambiase(PHV) (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/22/2011

Plaintiff

Sharon Scott

represented by John A. Piskora - PHV

Cody B., by and through his next

(See above for address)

friend Sharon Scott

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julia L. Davis - PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/16/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathryn A. Wood - PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/16/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Margaret Ross - PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tara S. Crean - PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Wayne Drinkwater , Jr.

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eric E. Thompson - PHV (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erik S. Pitchal - PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Polansky - PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/19/2012 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcia Robinson Lowry - PHV (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melody McAnally (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J. Bentley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Miriam F. Ingber - PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2014 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Robinson-Glasser - PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah Teresa Russo - PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2014 PRO HAC VICE

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shirim Nothenberg - PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/11/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephen A. Dixon - PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Zelatra W Mary, Tom, Matthew, and Dana W., by and through their next friend, Zelatra W.,

represented by John A. Piskora - PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julia L. Davis - PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/16/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathryn A. Wood - PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/16/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Margaret Ross - PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Tara S. Crean - PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Wayne Drinkwater , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eric E. Thompson - PHV (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erik S. Pitchal - PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/25/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Polansky - PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/19/2012 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcia Robinson Lowry - PHV (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melody McAnally (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J. Bentley (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Miriam F. Ingber - PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2014 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Robinson-Glasser - PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah Teresa Russo - PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2014 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chris Powell as next friend on behalf of Named Plaintiff Jamison J.

Shirim Nothenberg - PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/11/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen A. Dixon - PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Julia L. Davis - PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/16/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathryn A. Wood - PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/16/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melody McAnally (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eric E. Thompson - PHV (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica Polansky - PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/19/2012 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcia Robinson Lowry - PHV (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael J. Bentley (See above for address)

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Miriam F. Ingber - PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2014 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Robinson-Glasser - PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah Teresa Russo - PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/07/2014 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shirim Nothenberg - PHV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/11/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen A. Dixon - PHV (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
W. Wayne Drinkwater , Jr. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP - Jackson P.O. Box 1789 Jackson, MS 39215-1789 601/948-8000 Fax: 601/948-3000 Email: wdrinkwater@babc.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Haley Barbour TERMINATED: 12/01/2016

represented by Betty A. Mallett BETTY A. MALLETT, PLLC P. O. Box 3422

5420 Executive Place (39206) Jackson, MS 39207-3422 601/572-3955 Fax: 601/608-7899 Email: bmallett@mallettlaw.com TERMINATED: 02/07/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dewitt L. Fortenberry , Jr. BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC Jackson One Eastover Center 100 Vision Drive, Suite 400 P. O. Box 14167 (39236-4167) Jackson, MS 39211 601/351-2400 Fax: 601/351-2424 Email: rfortenberry@bakerdonelson.com TERMINATED: 12/01/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Harold Edward Pizzetta-State Gov , III OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL P.O. Box 220 550 High Street (39201) Jackson, MS 39205-0220 601/359-3680 Email: hpizz@ago.state.ms.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Kebert Elder BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC Jackson One Eastover Center 100 Vision Drive, Suite 400 P. O. Box 14167 (39236-4167) Jackson, MS 39211 601/351-2400 Email: aelder@bakerdonelson.com TERMINATED: 02/07/2006

Ashley C. Tullos BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC Jackson One Eastover Center 100 Vision Drive, Suite 400 P. O. Box 14167 (39236-4167) Jackson, MS 39211 601/351-2400 Fax: 601/974-8949 Email: atullos@bakerdonelson.com TERMINATED: 12/01/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gretchen L. Zmitrovich BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC Jackson One Eastover Center 100 Vision Drive, Suite 400 P. O. Box 14167 (39236-4167) Jackson, MS 39211 601-351-2400 Fax: 601-351-2424 TERMINATED: 12/01/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James N. Adams , Jr. BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC Jackson One Eastover Center 100 Vision Drive, Suite 400 P. O. Box 14167 (39236-4167) Jackson, MS 39211 601/351-8906 Fax: 601/974-8906 Email: jadams@bakerdonelson.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John T. Rouse MCGLINCHEY STAFFORD, PLLC Jackson P. O. Drawer 22949 200 S. Lamar Street, Suite 1100 (39201) City Centre South

Jackson, MS 39225-2949 769/524-2300 Fax: 769/524-2390 Email: jrouse@mcglinchey.com TERMINATED: 04/27/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenya Key Rachal BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC Jackson One Eastover Center 100 Vision Drive, Suite 400 P. O. Box 14167 (39236-4167) Jackson, MS 39211 601/351-2400 Fax: 601/974-8940 Email: krachal@bakerdonelson.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel E. Scott LAW OFFICES OF SAMUEL E. SCOTT, PLLC 6311 Ridgewood Road, Suite W245 Jackson, MS 39211 601/977-1498 Fax: 601/977-8272 Email: sscott@msfb.com TERMINATED: 02/07/2006

Defendant
Donald Taylor as Executive Director of the Department of Human Services TERMINATED: 12/01/2016

represented by Betty A. Mallett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/07/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dewitt L. Fortenberry , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/01/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY

Harold Edward Pizzetta-State Gov , III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Amy Kebert Elder (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/07/2006

Ashley C. Tullos (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/01/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gretchen L. Zmitrovich (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/01/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James N. Adams , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John T. Rouse (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/27/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kenya Key Rachal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel E. Scott (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/07/2006

Defendant
Billy Mangold as Director of the Division of Family and Children's Services TERMINATED: 01/25/2006

represented by Betty A. Mallett (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/07/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dewitt L. Fortenberry , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/01/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY

Harold Edward Pizzetta-State Gov , III (See above for address)

Defendant Ricky Felder TERMINATED: 12/01/2016
Defendant Governor Phil Bryant

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Amy Kebert Elder (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/07/2006
John T. Rouse (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/27/2006 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samuel E. Scott (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/07/2006
represented by Dewitt L. Fortenberry , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/01/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ashley C. Tullos (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/01/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gretchen L. Zmitrovich (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/01/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James N. Adams , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kenya Key Rachal (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Kenya Key Rachal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant

David Chandler

represented by Kenya Key Rachal

as Cinnussuiber, MS Department

(See above for address)

of Child Protectin Services

LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Tracy Malone

represented by Kenya Key Rachal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Interested Party
Mississippi Youth Justice Project

represented by Sheila A. Bedi SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER Jackson 111 East Capitol Street, Suite 280 Jackson, MS 39201 601/948-8882 Fax: 601/948-8885 Email: sheila.a.bedi@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Interested Party
Catholic Charities, Inc. Linda Raff, Executive Director

represented by Catholic Charities, Inc. c/o Linda Raff, Executive Director 200 North Congress Street, Suite 100 Jackson, MS 39201 PRO SE

Interested Party
Coalition for Children's Welfare Sister Donna Gunn

represented by Coalition for Children's Welfare Address Unknown PRO SE

Interested Party Jerelyn Jones

represented by Jerelyn Jones 912 Eastview Street Jackson, MS 39203 PRO SE

Interested Party

Mississippi Children's Home Services

represented by Mississippi Children's Home Services c/o John M. Damon 1900 N. West Street P. O. Box 1078 Jackson, MS 39215 (601) 352-7784 PRO SE

Interested Party Teresa A. Wells

represented by Teresa A. Wells P.O. Box 14 Mt. Pleasant, MS 38649 PRO SE

Interested Party
H. Gordon Myrick, Inc. H. Gordon Myrick, Jr., Contractor

represented by H. Gordon Myrick, Inc. c/o H. Gordon Myrick, Jr. P. O. Box 1479 Gulfport, MS 39502 (228) 864-9911 PRO SE

Interested Party
Sacred Heart Ministry for Children, Inc.

represented by Paul Mathis PAUL MATHIS, LLP P. O. Box 936 Greenville, MS 38702-0936 662/332-6660 Email: paulmathis@bellsouth.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Interested Party Elizabeth Shanks Frizsell

represented by Elizabeth Shanks Frizsell 5846 Clubview Dr. Jackson, MS 39211 PRO SE

Interested Party Richard Ferguson

represented by Richard Ferguson P.O. Box 1767 Phildelphia, MS 39350 PRO SE

Interested Party Jean Smith
Interested Party Annie Anderson
Interested Party Ezell Lanier
Interested Party Professionals Advocating for Children Together
Interested Party Catholic Diocese of Jackson
Interested Party George Whitten, Jr.
Interested Party

represented by Jean Smith 332 Niemeyer Lane Lumberton, MS 39455 PRO SE
represented by Annie Anderson 3609 Tom Flag Rd. Como, MS 38619 PRO SE
represented by Ezell Lanier 5215 Drvid Lane Meridian, ms 39301 PRO SE
represented by Professionals Advocating for Children Together PACT P. O. Box 1446 Gulfport, MS 39502 PRO SE
represented by Catholic Diocese of Jackson 237 Amite Street P. O. Box 2248 Jackson, MS 39225-2248 (601) 969-1880 PRO SE
represented by George Whitten, Jr. Attorney at Law 310 High Street Greenwood, MS 38930-3652 662/299-0800 PRO SE

National Association of Social Workers Mississippi Chapter

represented by National Association of Social Workers P. O. Box 5599 Pearl, MS 39288-5599 PRO SE

Interested Party Whitney M. Johnson

represented by Whitney M. Johnson 416 N. Clark St. Milledgeville, GA 31061 PRO SE

Interested Party Reginald D. Johnson

Interested Party Delta State University

represented by Delta State University Department of Social Work Box 3172 Cleveland, MS 38733 PRO SE

Interested Party Steven Wheeler

represented by Steven Wheeler P. O. Box 392 Escatawpa, MS 39552 PRO SE

Interested Party
Grace M. Lopes Court Monitor

represented by Grace M. Lopes Court Monitor 1350 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 202/232-8311 Fax: 202/232-8052 Email: gmlopes@oymonitor.org PRO SE

Grace M. Lopes - PHV GRACE M. LOPES, ATTORNEY 1220 19th Street, NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036 202/232-8311 Fax: 202/232-2052

Interested Party C. Randy Cotton Director of Programs and Clinical Serivces
Interested Party Teri Norton
V. Mediator Ruben V. Anderson

Email: gmlopes@oymonitor.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by C. Randy Cotton The Baptist Children's Village P. O. Box 27 Clinton, MS 39060 601/952-2422 Email: rcotton@baptistchildrensvillage.com PRO SE
represented by Reuben V. Anderson PHELPS DUNBAR, LLP - Jackson P. O. Box 16114 4270 I-55 North (39211) Jackson, MS 39236-6114 601/352-2300 Fax: 601/360-9777 Email: reuben.anderson@phelps.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 03/30/2004 03/30/2004 03/30/2004

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT Filing Fee $ 150.00 Receipt # 66363 ; Notice of Assignment mailed. (thr) (Entered: 03/31/2004)
Magistrate Judge Assignment Alfred G. Nicols (thr) (Entered: 03/31/2004)
Case assigned to Pending Track - designation of appropriate track will be made after Case Management Conference and a final track assignment. (thr) (Entered: 03/31/2004)

03/30/2004 03/30/2004 03/31/2004 04/01/2004 04/02/2004 04/02/2004 04/02/2004 04/02/2004 04/02/2004 04/06/2004 04/06/2004

3 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff James D. Johnson, plaintiff Carla Lewis, plaintiff Sylvia Forster in support of [2-1] motion for Class Certification by plaintiffss (thr) (Entered: 03/31/2004)
SUMMONS(ES) issued for defendant Haley Barbour, defendant Donald Taylor, defendant Billy Mangold (thr) (Entered: 03/31/2004)
2 MOTION by plaintiff James D. Johnson, plaintiff Carla Lewis, plaintiff Sylvia Forster for Class Certification (thr) (Entered: 03/31/2004)
4 Letter requesting attachment by plaintiffs, re that the corrected copy of the Table of Authorities be attached to their memorandum of law in support of their motion for class certification (cwl) (Entered: 04/01/2004)
5 SUMMONS Returned Executed as to defendant Haley Barbour, defendant Donald Taylor, defendant Billy Mangold 4/1/04 Answer due on 4/21/04 for Billy Mangold, for Donald Taylor, for Haley Barbour (cwl) (Entered: 04/02/2004)
10 MOTION by plaintiff James D. Johnson, plaintiff Carla Lewis, plaintiff Sylvia Forster for Eric E. Thomspon to Appear Pro Hac Vice (cwl) (Entered: 04/08/2004)
11 MOTION by plaintiff James D. Johnson, plaintiff Carla Lewis, plaintiff Sylvia Forster for Susan Lambiase to Appear Pro Hac Vice (cwl) (Entered: 04/08/2004)
12 MOTION by plaintiff James D. Johnson, plaintiff Carla Lewis, plaintiff Sylvia Forster for Marcia Robinson Lowry to Appear Pro Hac Vice (cwl) (Entered: 04/08/2004)
13 MOTION by plaintiff James D. Johnson, plaintiff Carla Lewis, plaintiff Sylvia Forster for Shirim Nothenberg to Appear Pro Hac Vice (cwl) (Entered: 04/08/2004)
6 MOTION by plaintiff James D. Johnson, plaintiff Carla Lewis, plaintiff Sylvia Forster for Corene Kendrick to Appear Pro Hac Vice (cwl) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
Pro Hac Vice fee paid FILING FEE $ 25.00 RECEIPT # J066643 (cwl) (Entered: 04/06/2004)

04/07/2004 04/07/2004 04/07/2004 04/07/2004 04/07/2004 04/13/2004 04/13/2004 04/13/2004 04/16/2004 04/16/2004 04/16/2004 04/16/2004 04/16/2004

7 MOTION by plaintiff James D. Johnson, plaintiff Carla Lewis, plaintiff Sylvia Forster for Christian D. Carbone to Appear Pro Hac Vice (cwl) Modified on 04/08/2004 (Entered: 04/08/2004)
8 MOTION by plaintiff James D. Johnson, plaintiff Carla Lewis, plaintiff Sylvia Forster for John F. Lang to Appear Pro Hac Vice (cwl) Modified on 04/08/2004 (Entered: 04/08/2004)
9 MOTION by plaintiff James D. Johnson, plaintiff Carla Lewis, plaintiff Sylvia Forster for Eric S. Manne to Appear Pro Hac Vice (cwl) (Entered: 04/08/2004)
Recived from Katherine Alexancer on 4/7/04, re original motions for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Thompson, Lambiase, Lowry and Nothenberg. (cwl) (Entered: 04/08/2004)
Pro Hac Vice fee paid FILING FEE $ 25.00 RECEIPT # J066680, J066679, J066678 and J066677. (cwl) (Entered: 04/08/2004)
Pro Hac Vice fee paid by Eric S. Manne FILING FEE $ 25.00 RECEIPT # J066785 (cwl) (Entered: 04/13/2004)
Pro Hac Vice fee paid by John F. Lang FILING FEE $ 25.00 RECEIPT # J066784 (cwl) (Entered: 04/13/2004)
Pro Hac Vice fee paid by Christian D. Carbone FILING FEE $ 25.00 RECEIPT # J066783 (cwl) (Entered: 04/13/2004)
14 ORDER granting [9-1] motion for Eric S. Manne to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( signed by Magistrate Judge Alfred G. Nicols ); copies mailed. (cwl) (Entered: 04/16/2004)
15 ORDER granting [8-1] motion for John F. Lang to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( signed by Magistrate Judge Alfred G. Nicols ); copies mailed. (cwl) (Entered: 04/16/2004)
16 ORDER granting [7-1] motion for Christian D. Carbone to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( signed by Magistrate Judge Alfred G. Nicols ); copies mailed. (cwl) (Entered: 04/16/2004)
17 ORDER granting [6-1] motion for Corene Kendrick to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( signed by Magistrate Judge Alfred G. Nicols ); copies mailed. (cwl) (Entered: 04/16/2004)
18 ORDER granting [11-1] motion for Susan Lambiase to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( signed by Magistrate Judge Alfred G. Nicols ); copies mailed. (cwl) (Entered: 04/16/2004)

04/16/2004 04/16/2004 04/16/2004 04/21/2004 04/22/2004
04/28/2004 04/28/2004
05/17/2004 06/01/2004 06/01/2004

19 ORDER granting [12-1] motion for Marcia Robinson Lowry to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( signed by Magistrate Judge Alfred G. Nicols ); copies mailed. (cwl) (Entered: 04/16/2004)
20 ORDER granting [13-1] motion for Shirim Nothenberg to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( signed by Magistrate Judge Alfred G. Nicols ); copies mailed. (cwl) (Entered: 04/16/2004)
21 ORDER granting [10-1] motion for Eric E. Thomspon to Appear Pro Hac Vice ( signed by Magistrate Judge Alfred G. Nicols ); copies mailed. (cwl) (Entered: 04/16/2004)
22 MOTION by defendant Haley Barbour, defendant Donald Taylor, defendant Billy Mangold to Extend Time to respond to complaint and to plaintiffs' Motionfor Class Certification (sec) (Entered: 04/22/2004)
23 ORDER granting [22-1] motion to Extend Time, reset Answer deadline to 5/24/04 for Billy Mangold, for Donald Taylor, for Haley Barbour , Response to Motion reset to 5/24/04 for [2-1] motion for Class Certification ( signed by Magistrate Judge Alfred G. Nicols ); copies mailed. (pkm) (Entered: 04/23/2004)
24 Rule 16.1(A) Initial Order; copies mailed (cwl) (Entered: 04/28/2004)
Telephonic Case Management Conference set 10:00 6/10/04 location: Jackson, MS before Magistrate Judge Alfred G. Nicols copies mailed to Harold Edward Pizzetta III, Christian D. Carbone, John F. Lang, Eric S. Manne, Corene Kendrick, Shirim Nothenberg, Marcia Robinson Lowry, Susan Lambiase, Eric E. Thompson, Stephen H. Leech Jr., Melody I. McAnally, W. Wayne Drinkwater Jr. (cwl) (Entered: 04/28/2004)
25 AMENDED COMPLAINT by plaintiff James D. Johnson, plaintiff Carla Lewis, plaintiff Sylvia Forster (Answer due 5/27/04 for Billy Mangold, for Donald Taylor, for Haley Barbour ) amending [1-1] complaint (cwl) (Entered: 05/18/2004)
26 MOTION by defendant Haley Barbour, defendant Donald Taylor, defendant Billy Mangold to Dismiss (cwl) (Entered: 06/03/2004)
27 MEMORANDUM by defendant Haley Barbour, defendant Donald Taylor, defendant Billy Mangold in support of [26-1] motion to Dismiss by defendantss (cwl) (Entered: 06/03/2004)

06/01/2004 06/01/2004 06/03/2004 06/03/2004 06/15/2004
06/15/2004 06/17/2004 06/17/2004
06/17/2004 06/23/2004 06/23/2004

28 MOTION by defendant Haley Barbour, defendant Donald Taylor, defendant Billy Mangold to Stay Discovery pending ruling on the motion to dismiss (cwl) (Entered: 06/03/2004)
29 MOTION by defendant Haley Barbour, defendant Donald Taylor, defendant Billy Mangold to Stay Class Certification pending ruiling on motion to dismiss (cwl) (Entered: 06/03/2004)
30 Notice of Service of Disclosure by plaintiff James D. Johnson, plaintiff Carla Lewis, plaintiff Sylvia Forster (cwl) (Entered: 06/03/2004)
31 Letter requesting attachment by plaintiff James D. Johnson, plaintiff Carla Lewis, plaintiff Sylvia Forster, re that the certificate of service be attached to their notice of service of pre-discovery disclosure. (cwl) (Entered: 06/04/2004)
32 RESPONSE by plaintiff James D. Johnson, plaintiff Carla Lewis, plaintiff Sylvia Forster in opposition to [29-1] motion to Stay Class Certification pending ruiling on motion to dismiss by defendantss, [28-1] motion to Stay Discovery pending ruling on the motion to dismiss by defendants (cwl) (Entered: 06/15/2004)
33 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff James D. Johnson in opposition to [26-1] motion to Dismiss by defendants (cwl) (Entered: 06/15/2004)
34 Minute entry: Telephonic Case Management Conference held. (cwl) (Entered: 06/17/2004)
35 CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER Case Assigned to CJRA Track: Standard Scheduling Deadlines: Jury Trial 11/13/05 ; Final Pretrial Conference for 10/17/05 ; Discovery cutoff 7/13/05 ; Joining of parties,amending of pleadings by 7/15/04 ; Pla. Designation of Experts by 4/13/05 ; Dft Designation of Experts by 5/13/05 ; Motion Filing deadline on 7/28/05 ; ( signed by Magistrate Judge Alfred G. Nicols ) copies mailed. (cwl) (Entered: 06/17/2004)
Case assigned to Standard Track. (cwl) (Entered: 06/17/2004)
36 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff James D. Johnson, plaintiff Carla Lewis, plaintiff Sylvia Forster in opposition to [26-1] motion to Dismiss by defendants (cwl) (Entered: 06/23/2004)
37 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff James D. Johnson, plaintiff Carla Lewis, plaintiff Sylvia Forster in opposition to [29-1] motion to

06/29/2004 06/30/2004 07/12/2004 07/23/2004 07/27/2004 07/30/2004 07/30/2004 07/30/2004 07/30/2004 08/05/2004

Stay Class Certification pending ruiling on motion to dismiss by defendants (cwl) (Entered: 06/23/2004)
38 ORDER denying [28-1] motion to Stay Discovery pending ruling on the motion to dismiss ( signed by Magistrate Judge Alfred G. Nicols ); copies mailed. (cwl) (Entered: 06/29/2004)
39 MOTION by plaintiff James D. Johnson, plaintiff Carla Lewis, plaintiff Sylvia Forster to Modify the Case Management Order (cwl) (Entered: 07/01/2004)
40 ORDER granting [39-1] motion to Modify the Case Management Order to state that liability and damages will be bifurcated. ( signed by Magistrate Judge Alfred G. Nicols ); copies mailed. (cwl) (Entered: 07/12/2004)
41 NOTICE (5) by plaintiffs to take depositions of Mechille Henry, Bily Mangold, Wanda B. Gillom, Yutaska D. Simpson, and Deborah Stewart. (pkm) (Entered: 07/24/2004)
42 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance for defendant Haley Barbour, defendant Donald Taylor, defendant Billy Mangold by Betty A. Mallett, Samuel E. Scott, Amy Kebert Elder (cwl) (Entered: 07/28/2004)
43 MOTION by defendant Haley Barbour, defendant Donald Taylor, defendant Billy Mangold to Quash Notice of Depositions (cwl) (Entered: 07/30/2004)
44 MOTION by plaintiff James D. Johnson, plaintiff Carla Lewis, plaintiff Sylvia Forster to Compel Deposition Testimony (cwl) (Entered: 07/30/2004)
44 RESPONSE by plaintiff James D. Johnson, plaintiff Carla Lewis, plaintiff Sylvia Forster in opposition to [43-1] motion to Quash Notice of Depositions by defendants. (cwl) (Entered: 07/30/2004)
45 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff James D. Johnson, plaintiff Carla Lewis, plaintiff Sylvia Forster in support of [44-1] opposition response by plaintiffs, [44-1] motion to Compel Deposition Testimony by plaintiffs (cwl) (Entered: 07/30/2004)
46 CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER; tht this confidentiality order governs DHS records disclosed as part of this litigation; that it does not effect the dissemination of confidential information in the ordinary course of business at DHS under existing confidentiality policies and laws; that any proper person to whom any

08/12/2004 08/18/2004 08/25/2004 10/06/2004 10/12/2004 10/14/2004 10/14/2004
11/01/2004 11/04/2004

individually identifiable informatin identified in paragraph 2 is disclosed under the terms of this Order shall be provided a copy of this order and is directed not to reveal the contents thereof for any purpose other than as permitted in this order ( signed by Magistrate Judge Alfred G. Nicols ); copies mailed. (sec) (Entered: 08/06/2004)
47 Minute entry: Motion Hearing held before Mag. Judge Nicols. Motion to Compel - granted. Order to be entered. (cwl) (Entered: 08/12/2004)
48 NOTICE by plaintiff James D. Johnson, plaintiff Carla Lewis, plaintiff Sylvia Forster to take deposition of Billy Mangold on 8/25/04 (cwl) (Entered: 08/19/2004)
49 NOTICE by defendant Haley Barbour, defendant Donald Taylor, defendant Billy Mangold to take deposition of Clara Lewis, Zelantra Williams, James D. Johnson, Yvette Bullock, Sharon Scott and Slyvia Foster (cwl) (Entered: 08/25/2004)
50 RE-NOTICE (3) by all defendants to take deposition of Sharon Scott, Yvette Bullock, and Clara Lewis. (pkm) (Entered: 10/06/2004)
51 Re-NOTICE by defendant Haley Barbour, defendant Donald Taylor, defendant Billy Mangold to take deposition of Sharon Scott (cwl) (Entered: 10/12/2004)
52 MOTION by plaintiff James D. Johnson, plaintiff Carla Lewis, plaintiff Sylvia Forster to Compel Deposition Testimony of Linda Millsaps , for Sanctions , for Protective Order (cwl) (Entered: 10/14/2004)
53 RESPONSE by defendant Haley Barbour, defendant Donald Taylor, defendant Billy Mangold to [52-1] motion to Compel Deposition Testimony of Linda Millsaps by plaintiffss, [52-2] motion for Sanctions by plaintiffss, [52-3] motion for Protective Order by plaintiffs (cwl) (Entered: 10/14/2004)
54 MOTION by plaintiffs to Compel production of missing and supplemental named plaintiff case records. (pkm) Modified on 11/02/2004 (Entered: 11/02/2004)
55 ORDER denying [52-1] motion to Compel Deposition Testimony of Linda Millsaps, denying [52-2] motion for Sanctions ( signed by Magistrate Judge Alfred G. Nicols ); copies mailed. (cwl) (Entered: 11/05/2004)

11/05/2004 11/19/2004 11/19/2004 12/01/2004 12/08/2004 12/10/2004 12/14/2004 12/16/2004 12/17/2004
12/23/2004

56 RE-NOTICE by defendant Haley Barbour, defendant Donald Taylor, defendant Billy Mangold to take deposition of Yvette Bullock on 11/17/04 (sec) (Entered: 11/05/2004)
57 MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER granting in part, denying in part [26-1] motion to Dismiss ( signed by Judge Tom S. Lee ) ;copies mailed. ob: 2004 page: 3206-3262 (cwl) (Entered: 11/19/2004)
TEXT ONLY ORDER finding as moot 29 Motion to Stay pending ruling on motion to dismiss (ruling entered 11/19/04) (lwe) (Entered: 01/20/2005)
58 ORDER, reset Telephone Conference for 10:30 12/14/04 ( signed by Magistrate Judge Alfred G. Nicols ); copies mailed. (cwl) (Entered: 12/01/2004)
59 MOTION by defendant Haley Barbour, defendant Donald Taylor, defendant Billy Mangold to Extend Time in which to file responsive pleading to the plaintiffs' amended complaint (cwl) (Entered: 12/08/2004)
60 ANSWER by defendant Haley Barbour, defendant Donald Taylor, defendant Billy Mangold (Attorney Betty A. Mallett ) to amended complaint (cwl) (Entered: 12/13/2004)
61 ORDER granting [59-1] motion to Extend Time in which to file responsive pleading to the plaintiffs' amended complaint until 12/10/04. ( signed by Magistrate Judge Alfred G. Nicols ); copies mailed. (cwl) (Entered: 12/14/2004)
62 Minute entry: Scheduling Conference held on 12/14/04 before Mag. Judge Nicols; Court Reporter: none; Order to be submitted. (cwl) (Entered: 12/17/2004)
63 ORDER, to Amend [35-1] case management order , Set Case Management Order Deadlines Disclosure Cutoff 12/28/04 ; Jury Trial 2/13/06 ; Final Pretrial Conference for 1/12/06 ; Discovery Cutoff 10/13/05 ; Pla. Designation of Experts by 8/15/05 ; Dft Designation of Experts by 9/15/05 ; Trial Motions Filing Deadline on 10/28/05 ; Motions: Defendants opposition to plaintiffs motion for class certification by 1/17/05; plaintiffs' reply to defendants' opposition by 1/31/05. ( signed by Magistrate Alfred G. Nicols ); copies mailed. (cwl) (Entered: 12/17/2004)
64 NOTICE of Service of Disclosure by James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(Louisville, Chris) (Entered: 12/24/2004)

12/28/2004 01/14/2005 01/14/2005 01/18/2005 01/18/2005 01/20/2005 01/24/2005 01/26/2005 01/31/2005
01/31/2005 01/31/2005

65 NOTICE of Service of Disclosure to plaintiffs by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, Billy Mangold.(Louisville, Chris) (Entered: 12/29/2004)
66 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Plaintiffs' First Request for Production of Documents. (cwl ) (Entered: 01/14/2005)
67 NOTICE of Service of Priviledge Log by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, Billy Mangold (cwl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/15/2005)
68 RESPONSE in Opposition re 2 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief of Class Certification filed by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, Billy Mangold. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Scott, Samuel) (Entered: 01/18/2005)
69 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 2 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief of Class Certifcation filed by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, Billy Mangold. (Scott, Samuel) (Entered: 01/18/2005)
70 RESPONSE in Opposition re 66 MOTION for 45 Day Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Discovery filed by James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. (cwl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/20/2005)
71 ORDER granting 66 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Discovery, Responses due by 3/4/2005. Signed by Judge Alfred G. Nicols on 3/24/05. (cwl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/25/2005)
72 NOTICE of Service of Response to Request for Production by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, Billy Mangold.(cwl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 01/26/2005)
73 REPLY to Response to Motion re 2 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, 3 Memorandum in Support of Motion filed by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit # 6 Exhibit # 7 Exhibit)(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 01/31/2005)
74 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 01/31/2005)
75 MOTION to Seal Exhibit "1", MOTION to Strike 68 Response in Opposition to Motion strike only Exhibit "1" by Sharon Scott,

02/01/2005 02/01/2005 02/01/2005 02/02/2005 02/04/2005 02/14/2005
03/03/2005 03/03/2005

Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. Responses due by 1/31/2005 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit)(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 01/31/2005)
76 MOTION to Amend/Correct 68 Response in Opposition to Motion, 69 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Amend Exhibit 1 by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, Billy Mangold. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Amended)(Scott, Samuel) (Entered: 02/01/2005)
77 MOTION to Amend/Correct 68 Response in Opposition to Motion to Amend Exhibit 1 by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, Billy Mangold. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Amended Exhibit 1)(Scott, Samuel) (Entered: 02/01/2005)
78 MOTION to Amend/Correct 68 Response in Opposition to Motion To Amend Exhibit 1 by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, Billy Mangold. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Amended Exhibit 1)(Scott, Samuel) (Entered: 02/01/2005)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #76, 77: filed incorrectly by Sam Scott. Sam Scott filed corrected motion #78 on 2/1/05. (cwl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
79 Letter from attoney Sam E. Scott addressed to the Clerk of Court regarding docket entries #78, 76 and 77. (cwl, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 2/4/2005 to reflect the correct spelling of the word regarding. (cwl, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 02/04/2005)
80 RESPONSE to Plaintiff's Motion re 75 MOTION to Seal Exhibit "1" MOTION to Strike 68 Response in Opposition to Motion strike only Exhibit "1" MOTION to Strike 68 Response in Opposition to Motion strike only Exhibit "1" filed by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, Billy Mangold. (Terry, Lula) (Entered: 02/16/2005)
ORAL MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to Plaintiffs' Third Request for Production of Documents by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, Billy Mangold. (wg, ) (Entered: 03/03/2005)
81 ORDER granting oral Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Plaintiff's Third Request for Production of Documents. Responses due by 4/4/2005. Signed by Judge Alfred G. Nicols on March 3, 2005. (wg, ) (Entered: 03/03/2005)

03/04/2005 03/08/2005 03/11/2005
03/21/2005 03/22/2005
03/23/2005 03/24/2005 03/25/2005
03/30/2005

82 NOTICE of Service of Response to Request for Production by Haley Barbour.(Mallett, Betty) (Entered: 03/04/2005)
83 ORDER finding as moot 43 Motion to Quash, finding as moot 44 Motion to Compel . Signed by Judge Alfred G. Nicols on March 8, 2005. (TKR) (Entered: 03/08/2005)
84 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 2 Motion for class certification to the extent that plaintiffs seek certification of an "In-Custody Class"; finding as moot 74 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, finding as moot 75 Motion to Seal, granting 75 Motion to Strike, finding as moot 76 Motion to Amend/Correct, finding as moot 77 Motion to Amend/Correct, finding as moot 78 Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Judge Tom S. Lee on 2/11/05. (lwe) (Entered: 03/14/2005)
85 MOTION to Appoint Counsel as class counsel by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 03/21/2005)
86 ORDER granting 85 Motion to Appoint Class Counsel as follows: Children's Rights attorneys Marcia Robinson Lowry, Eric Thompson, Shirim Nothenberg and Corene Kendrick; the law firms of Bradley Arant Rose & White LLP, and Loeb & Loeb LLP; and Stephen Leech. Signed by Judge Tom S. Lee on 3/22/05. (lwe) (Entered: 03/22/2005)
87 NOTICE of Service of Response to Request for Production by Haley Barbour.(Mallett, Betty) (Entered: 03/23/2005)
88 MOTION for Erik S. Pitchal to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 03/24/2005)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 88 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Erik S. Pitchal as co-counsel for Plaintiffs upon the payment of the appropriate filing fee to the Clerk of the Court and completion of registration for electronic filing. Signed by Judge Alfred G. Nicols on March 25, 2005. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE. (wg, ) (Entered: 03/25/2005)
Pro Hac Vice fee paid by Erik S. Pitchal $ 25.00, receipt number J004828 (cwl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/30/2005)

04/01/2005 04/01/2005 04/01/2005 04/04/2005 04/11/2005 04/11/2005 04/20/2005 04/22/2005 04/22/2005 05/06/2005
05/06/2005
05/12/2005

89 NOTICE of 30(b)(6) Deposition by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 04/01/2005)
90 NOTICE of 30(b)(6) deposition by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 04/01/2005)
91 NOTICE of 30(b)(6) deposition by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 04/01/2005)
92 NOTICE of Service of Response to Request for Production by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, Billy Mangold.(Mallett, Betty) (Entered: 04/04/2005)
93 NOTICE of Service of Disclosure by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, Billy Mangold.(Mallett, Betty) (Entered: 04/11/2005)
94 NOTICE of Service of Response to Request for Production by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, Billy Mangold.(Mallett, Betty) (Entered: 04/11/2005)
95 NOTICE of Service of Request for Production by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 04/20/2005)
96 NOTICE of Service of Request for Production by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 04/22/2005)
97 NOTICE of Service of Interrogatories by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 04/22/2005)
98 NOTICE Defendants' and Mississippi Department of Human Services' Response to 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice Concerning MDHS Records by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, Billy Mangold re 91 Notice (Other) (Mallett, Betty) (Entered: 05/06/2005)
99 NOTICE Defendants' and Mississippi Department of Human Services' Response to 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice Concerning MDHS Organizational Structure by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, Billy Mangold (Mallett, Betty) (Entered: 05/06/2005)
100 MOTION Rule 16 Discovery Status Conference by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.

05/16/2005 05/18/2005 05/19/2005
05/24/2005 05/24/2005 05/25/2005 05/25/2005 05/25/2005 05/25/2005 05/25/2005 05/25/2005

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit # 6 Exhibit)(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 05/12/2005)
101 RESPONSE in Opposition re 100 MOTION Rule 16 Discovery Status Conference filed by Haley Barbour. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6 # 7)(Mallett, Betty) (Entered: 05/16/2005)
102 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Linda Millsaps by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 05/18/2005)
103 REPLY to Response to Motion re 100 MOTION Rule 16 Discovery Status Conference, 101 Response in Opposition to Motion filed by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 05/19/2005)
104 NOTICE of Service of Response to Interrogatories by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, Billy Mangold.(Mallett, Betty) (Entered: 05/24/2005)
105 NOTICE of Service of Response to Request for Production by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, Billy Mangold.(Mallett, Betty) (Entered: 05/24/2005)
106 ORDER denying 100 Motion for Rule 16 Discovery Status Conference . Signed by Judge Alfred G. Nicols on May 25, 2005. (TKR) (Entered: 05/25/2005)
107 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Kathy Triplett by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 05/25/2005)
108 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Robert Hamrick by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 05/25/2005)
109 NOTICE to Take Deposition by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 05/25/2005)
110 NOTICE of Appearance by Dewitt L. Fortenberry, Jr on behalf of all defendants (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 05/25/2005)
111 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Gloria Salter by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 05/25/2005)

05/25/2005 05/25/2005 05/25/2005 05/25/2005 05/25/2005 05/25/2005 05/25/2005 05/25/2005 05/25/2005 05/25/2005 05/25/2005 05/25/2005

112 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Phoebe Clark by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 05/25/2005)
113 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Queen Coleman by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 05/25/2005)
114 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Clara Kilgore by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 05/25/2005)
115 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Mechille Henry by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 05/25/2005)
116 NOTICE to Take Deposition by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 05/25/2005)
117 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Martha McDaniel by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 05/25/2005)
118 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Sue Perry by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 05/25/2005)
119 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Don Taylor by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 05/25/2005)
120 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Eva Beck by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 05/25/2005)
121 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Deborah Stewart by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 05/25/2005)
122 NOTICE to Take Deposition by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 05/25/2005)
123 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Ricky Felder by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 05/25/2005)

05/25/2005 05/25/2005 05/25/2005 05/25/2005 05/25/2005 05/25/2005 05/25/2005 05/25/2005 05/27/2005
05/27/2005

124 NOTICE to Take Deposition 30(b)(6) by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 05/25/2005)
125 NOTICE to Take Deposition 30(b)(6) by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 05/25/2005)
126 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Zadie Rogers by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 05/25/2005)
127 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Maggie Mixon by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 05/25/2005)
128 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Billy Mangold by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 05/25/2005)
129 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Josie Brown by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 05/25/2005)
130 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Gail Young by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 05/25/2005)
131 NOTICE to Take Deposition by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 05/25/2005)
132 MOTION to Compel Documents Responsive to Plaintiffs' First Request for Production of Documents by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit C# 5 Exhibit D# 6 Exhibit E# 7 Exhibit F# 8 Exhibit G# 9 Exhibit H# 10 Exhibit I# 11 Exhibit J# 12 Exhibit K# 13 Exhibit L# 14 Exhibit M# 15 Exhibit N# 16 Exhibit O# 17 Exhibit P# 18 Exhibit Q# 19 Exhibit R# 20 Exhibit S# 21 Exhibit T# 22 Exhibit U# 23 Exhibit V# 24 Exhibit W# 25 Exhibit X# 26 Exhibit Y# 27 Exhibit Z# 28 Exhibit AA# 29 Exhibit BB# 30 Exhibit CC# 31 Exhibit DD-P1# 32 Exhibit DDP2)(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 05/27/2005)
133 NOTICE of Service of Interrogatories by Billy Mangold.(Mallett, Betty) (Entered: 05/27/2005)

05/31/2005 06/06/2005 06/07/2005 06/07/2005
06/09/2005 06/09/2005 06/09/2005 06/09/2005 06/09/2005 06/10/2005 06/10/2005

134 NOTICE of Service of Response to Request for Production by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, Billy Mangold.(Mallett, Betty) (Entered: 05/31/2005)
135 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Teresa Jackson by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 06/06/2005)
136 MOTION for TARA S. CREAN to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 06/07/2005)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 136 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Tara S. Crean upon the payment of the appropriate filing fee to the Clerk of the Court and completion of registration for electronic filing. Signed by Judge Alfred G. Nicols on June 7, 2005. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE. (wg, ) (Entered: 06/07/2005)
Pro Hac Vice fee paid by (Tara S. Crean) $ 25, receipt number J006187 (cwl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/09/2005)
137 NOTICE to Take Deposition (Amended) of Rickie Felder by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 06/09/2005)
138 NOTICE to Take Deposition (Amended) of Henry Goodman by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 06/09/2005)
139 NOTICE to Take Deposition (Amended) of Christine Townsend by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 06/09/2005)
140 NOTICE of Service of Request for Production by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, Billy Mangold.(Mallett, Betty) (Entered: 06/09/2005)
141 NOTICE to Take Deposition (Amended) of Maggie Mixon by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 06/10/2005)
142 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Notice of Deposition by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 06/10/2005)

06/10/2005
06/10/2005 06/10/2005 06/14/2005 06/16/2005 06/20/2005 06/24/2005
06/24/2005 06/27/2005

143 RESPONSE to Motion re 132 MOTION to Compel Documents Responsive to Plaintiffs' First Request for Production of Documents Defendants' Response & Memorandum to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel filed by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, Billy Mangold. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B Title Page# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit C)(Scott, Samuel) (Entered: 06/10/2005)
144 RESPONSE to Motion re 125 Notice to Take Deposition Designating 30(b)(6) witnesses filed by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, Billy Mangold. (Mallett, Betty) (Entered: 06/10/2005)
145 RESPONSE to Motion re 124 Notice to Take Deposition Designating 30(b)(6) Witnesses filed by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, Billy Mangold. (Mallett, Betty) (Entered: 06/10/2005)
146 REPLY to Response to Motion re 143 Response to Motion, filed by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 06/14/2005)
147 ORDER deferring ruling on 132 Motion to Compel; Defendants shall submit a revised response by June 24, 2005; Plaintiffs may submit rebuttal by June 29, 2005. Signed by Judge Alfred G. Nicols on June 14, 2005. (TKR) (Entered: 06/16/2005)
148 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Deposition by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster re 116 Notice to Take Deposition (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 06/20/2005)
149 RESPONSE to Motion re 143 Response to Motion, 132 MOTION to Compel Documents Responsive to Plaintiffs' First Request for Production of Documents, 147 Order on Motion to Compel (Revised Response) filed by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, Billy Mangold. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D)(Mallett, Betty) (Entered: 06/24/2005)
150 NOTICE of Service of Response to Request for Production by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, Billy Mangold.(Mallett, Betty) (Entered: 06/24/2005)
151 NOTICE of Service of Response to Interrogatories by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 06/27/2005)

06/29/2005 06/30/2005 07/01/2005
07/01/2005 07/01/2005 07/06/2005 07/08/2005
07/14/2005 07/14/2005 07/14/2005

152 REPLY to Response to Motion re 149 Response to Motion, filed by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3)(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 06/29/2005)
153 MOTION for John A. Piskora to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit)(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 06/30/2005)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 153 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice of John A. Piskora upon the payment of the appropriate filing fee to the Clerk of the court and completion of registration for electronic filing. Signed by Judge Alfred G. Nicols on July 1, 2005. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE. (wg, ) (Entered: 07/01/2005)
154 NOTICE of Service of Request for Production by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, Billy Mangold.(Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 07/01/2005)
Pro Hac Vice fee paid by (John A. Piskora) $ 25, receipt number J006690 (cwl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/05/2005)
155 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and Continuance of Trial Date by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, Billy Mangold. (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 07/06/2005)
156 RESPONSE in Opposition re 155 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and Continuance of Trial Date and CrossMotion to Amend Case Management Order filed by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit)(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 07/08/2005)
157 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Gloria Salters by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 07/14/2005)
158 NOTICE of Service of Disclosure by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 07/14/2005)
159 NOTICE of Service of Response to Request for Production by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, Billy Mangold.(Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 07/14/2005)

07/15/2005
07/18/2005 07/19/2005 07/20/2005 07/20/2005 07/20/2005
07/25/2005 07/25/2005 07/27/2005 07/27/2005

160 REPLY to Response to Motion re 155 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery and Continuance of Trial Date, 156 Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, Billy Mangold. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C)(Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 07/15/2005)
161 NOTICE to Take Deposition AMENDED of Billy Mangold by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 07/18/2005)
162 ORDER granting 132 Motion to Compel . Signed by Judge Alfred G. Nicols on July 19, 2005. (TKR) (Entered: 07/19/2005)
163 NOTICE of Service of Interrogatories by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 07/20/2005)
164 ORDER granting 155 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Signed by Judge Alfred G. Nicols on July 20, 2005. (TKR) (Entered: 07/20/2005)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Discovery due by 1/1/2006. Designate Experts Plaintiff Deadline due by 10/1/2005. Designate Experts for Defendant Deadline due by 12/1/2005. Motions due by 1/15/2006. Final Pretrial Conference set for 4/10/2006 09:30 AM in Courtroom 2 before District Judge Tom S. Lee. Jury Trial set for 5/1/2006 09:30 AM in Courtroom 2 before District Judge Tom S. Lee. (TKR) (Entered: 07/20/2005)
165 NOTICE to Take Deposition AMENDED of Zadie Rogers by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 07/25/2005)
166 MOTION to Quash Deposition Notice and for Protective Order Limiting Number of Depositions by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, Billy Mangold. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A"# 2 Exhibit "B"# 3 Exhibit "C")(Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 07/25/2005)
167 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Deposition by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster re 128 Notice to Take Deposition (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 07/27/2005)
168 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Deposition by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster re 118 Notice to Take Deposition (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 07/27/2005)

07/27/2005 07/28/2005 07/29/2005
07/29/2005 08/02/2005 08/02/2005 08/02/2005 08/02/2005 08/03/2005 08/04/2005

169 NOTICE to Take Deposition AMENDED of Henry Goodman by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 07/27/2005)
170 NOTICE to Take Deposition AMENDED of Renee Hood by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 07/28/2005)
171 Response in Opposition re 166 MOTION to Quash Deposition Notice and for Protective Order Limiting Number of Depositions by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, Billy Mangold. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A"# 2 Exhibit "B"# 3 Exhibit "C")(Fortenberry, Dewitt) filed by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit # 6 Exhibit # 7 Exhibit # 8 Exhibit # 9 Exhibit # 10 Exhibit # 11 Exhibit)(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 07/29/2005)
172 NOTICE of Service of Documents Pursuant to Court Order of July 18, 2005 by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, Billy Mangold (Mallett, Betty) (Entered: 07/29/2005)
173 NOTICE of Service of Response to Request for Admissions by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 08/02/2005)
174 NOTICE to Take Deposition AMENDED of Maggie Mixon by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 08/02/2005)
175 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Robin Wilson by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 08/02/2005)
176 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Deposition Notice by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster re 130 Notice to Take Deposition (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 08/02/2005)
177 NOTICE of Appearance by John T. Rouse on behalf of all defendants (Rouse, John) (Entered: 08/03/2005)
TEXT ONLY ORDER terminating 52 Motion for Protective Order, which was denied by Order entered on 11/4/05; terminating 54 Motion to Compel Named Plaintiff Case Records, as relief was included in Motion to Compel filed on 5/27/05 and granted by

08/04/2005 08/08/2005 08/09/2005 08/10/2005 08/10/2005 08/12/2005
08/15/2005

Order entered 7/19/05. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE. Signed by Judge Alfred G. Nicols on August 4, 2005. (TKR) (Entered: 08/04/2005)
178 REPLY to Response to Motion re 166 MOTION to Quash Deposition Notice and for Protective Order Limiting Number of Depositions, 171 Response in Opposition,, filed by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, Billy Mangold. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 08/04/2005)
179 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 166 Motion to Quash; Mangold Deposition is permitted, but total number of depositions limited to thirty; Motion to Compel granted as to documents submitted for in camera review; documents shall be served by September 6, 2005. Signed by Judge Alfred G. Nicols on August 8, 2005. (TKR) (Entered: 08/08/2005)
180 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Deposition by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster re 169 Notice to Take Deposition (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 08/09/2005)
181 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Felder Deposition by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster re 123 Notice to Take Deposition (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 08/10/2005)
182 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Hood Deposition by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster re 170 Notice to Take Deposition (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 08/10/2005)
183 MOTION to Expedite a Rule 35(a) Order for Defendants to Produce Named Plaintiff John A. for Mental Examination by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order# 2 Exhibit Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit Ex. C# 5 Exhibit Ex. D# 6 Exhibit Ex. E# 7 Exhibit Ex. F# 8 Exhibit Ex. G# 9 Exhibit Ex. H# 10 Exhibit Ex. I)(Thompson - PHV, Eric) (Entered: 08/12/2005)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting expedited review of Plaintiffs' Expedited Motion for a Rule 35(a) Order. Defendants' Response due on or before August 18, 2005; rebuttal due on or before August 22, 2005. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE . Signed by Judge Alfred G. Nicols on August 15, 2005. (TKR) Modified on 8/15/2005 (TKR, ). (Entered: 08/15/2005)

08/15/2005 08/18/2005 08/18/2005
08/19/2005 08/22/2005 08/22/2005
08/26/2005 09/02/2005
09/07/2005 09/08/2005

Remark Docket entry setting expedited briefing schedule correct above. (TKR) (Entered: 08/15/2005)
184 NOTICE of Deposition by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis (Thompson - PHV, Eric) (Entered: 08/18/2005)
185 RESPONSE in Opposition re 183 MOTION to Expedite a Rule 35(a) Order for Defendants to Produce Named Plaintiff John A. for Mental Examination filed by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, Billy Mangold. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-H)(Elder, Amy) (Entered: 08/18/2005)
186 ORDER granting 183 Motion to Expedite Rule 35(a) Order Requiring Mental Examination. Signed by Judge Alfred G. Nicols on August 19, 2005. (TKR) (Entered: 08/19/2005)
187 NOTICE Amended of Deposition of Robin Wilson by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis (Thompson - PHV, Eric) (Entered: 08/22/2005)
188 MOTION Application for Review of Magistrate's Order Denying Defendants' Claim of Privilege with Regard to Certain Documents and Communications re 179 Order on Motion to Quash, by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, Billy Mangold. (Elder, Amy) (Entered: 08/22/2005)
189 NOTICE of Service of Response to Interrogatories by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, Billy Mangold.(Mallett, Betty) (Entered: 08/26/2005)
190 RESPONSE to Motion re 188 MOTION Application for Review of Magistrate's Order Denying Defendants' Claim of Privilege with Regard to Certain Documents and Communications re 179 Order on Motion to Quash, filed by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, Billy Mangold. (cwl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/06/2005)
191 MOTION to Stay Proceedings by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, Billy Mangold. (cwl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/08/2005)
192 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 191 Motion to Stay ; all deadlines are stayed until October 24, 2005; Defendants shall submit Motion for Amended CMPO by that date. Signed by Judge Alfred G. Nicols on September 8, 2005. (TKR) (Entered: 09/08/2005)

09/19/2005 09/26/2005 09/26/2005 09/27/2005 09/27/2005 10/10/2005 10/11/2005 10/14/2005
10/17/2005 10/17/2005 10/20/2005

193 MOTION to Amend/Correct 192 Order on Motion to Stay by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit)(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 09/19/2005)
194 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Corene Kendrick by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 09/26/2005)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #194. Damaged pdf document. Attorney to re-file document. (cwl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 09/26/2005)
195 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Corene Kendrick by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 09/27/2005)
ORDER granting 195 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Corene Kendrick(PHV) terminated . Signed by Judge Alfred G. Nicols on September 27, 2005. (TKR) (Entered: 09/27/2005)
196 MOTION for Margaret Ross to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit)(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 10/10/2005)
Pro Hac Vice fee paid by (Margaret Ross) $ 25, receipt number J008288 (cwl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/17/2005)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 196 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Margaret Ross upon the payment of the appropriate fee to the Clerk of the Court and completion of registration for electronic filing. Signed by Judge Alfred G. Nicols on October 13, 2005. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE. (wg, ) (Entered: 10/14/2005)
197 RESPONSE to Motion re 193 MOTION to Amend/Correct 192 Order on Motion to Stay filed by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, Billy Mangold. (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 10/17/2005)
198 Second MOTION to Stay by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, Billy Mangold. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C)(Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 10/17/2005)
199 RESPONSE in Opposition re 198 Second MOTION to Stay filed by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis,

10/21/2005 11/01/2005 11/08/2005 11/08/2005 11/09/2005 12/19/2005 12/27/2005
01/04/2006 01/17/2006 01/17/2006

Sylvia Forster. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit # 6 Exhibit # 7 Exhibit)(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 10/20/2005)
200 REPLY to Response to Motion re 198 Second MOTION to Stay, 199 Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, Billy Mangold. (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 10/21/2005)
201 ORDER granting 198 Motion to Stay until January 2, 2006. Signed by Judge Alfred G. Nicols on November 1, 2005. (TKR) (Entered: 11/01/2005)
202 Letter sent to Margaret Ross informing her of her PHV number assigned modified 11/8/05 cwl, deputy clerk. (Entered: 11/08/2005)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #202 modified the description of the document to reflect - Letter sent to Margaret Ross informing her of her PHV number assigned. (cwl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/08/2005)
203 ORDER denying 188 Motion/application for review of order of magistrate judge entered 7/18/05 . Signed by Judge Tom S. Lee on 11/9/05. (lwe, ) (Entered: 11/09/2005)
204 MOTION to Amend/Correct Set Deadlines/Hearings, by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 12/19/2005)
205 RESPONSE to Motion re 204 MOTION to Amend/Correct Set Deadlines/Hearings, and Motion For New Case Management Plan Order filed by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, Billy Mangold. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 12/27/2005)
206 MOTION to Substitute Party by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, Billy Mangold. (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 01/04/2006)
207 ORDER granting 204 Motion to Amend/Correct . Signed by Judge Alfred G. Nicols on January 17, 2006. (TKR) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Discovery due by 4/17/2006. Designate Experts Plaintiff Deadline due by 2/7/2006. Designate Experts for Defendant Deadline due by 3/31/2006. Motions due by 5/1/2006.

01/18/2006 01/25/2006 01/31/2006 02/01/2006 02/07/2006
02/07/2006 02/14/2006 02/14/2006 02/14/2006 02/17/2006

Jury Trial set for 8/7/2006 09:30 AM in Courtroom 2 before District Judge Tom S. Lee. Pretrial Conference set for 7/17/2006 09:30 AM in Courtroom 2 before District Judge Tom S. Lee. (TKR) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
208 NOTICE of Service of Response to Request for Production by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, Billy Mangold.(Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 01/18/2006)
209 ORDER granting 206 Motion to Substitute Party. Ricky Felder added. Billy Mangold terminated . Signed by Judge Alfred G. Nicols on January 25, 2006. (TKR) (Entered: 01/25/2006)
210 NOTICE of Service of Response to Request for Production by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, Billy Mangold.(Zmitrovich, Gretchen) (Entered: 01/31/2006)
211 MOTION to Substitute Attorney by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor. (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 02/01/2006)
212 ORDER granting 211 Motion to Substitute Attorney. Added attorney Gretchen L. Zmitrovich, Ashley Tullos Young, and Kenya Key Rachal for defendants. Attorney Samuel E. Scott; Amy Kebert Elder and Betty A. Mallett terminated . Signed by Judge Alfred G. Nicols on February 7, 2006. (wg, ) (Entered: 02/07/2006)
213 Designation of Experts by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 02/07/2006)
214 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Don Taylor by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 02/14/2006)
215 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Rickie Felder by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 02/14/2006)
216 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Peter Boulette by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 02/14/2006)
217 NOTICE of Service of Disclosure by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor.(Zmitrovich, Gretchen) (Entered: 02/17/2006)

02/17/2006 02/17/2006
02/17/2006 02/17/2006 02/21/2006 02/28/2006 03/01/2006 03/01/2006 03/03/2006
03/03/2006 03/03/2006

218 NOTICE of Service of Request for Production by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor.(Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 02/17/2006)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #218 notified attorney Fortenberry that the notice of service of interrogatories and request for production should be filed as separate documents. CM/ECF system cannot accomodate filing of multiple events with one entry. (cwl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/17/2006)
219 NOTICE of Service of Interrogatories by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor.(Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 02/17/2006)
220 NOTICE of Service of Request for Production by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor.(Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 02/17/2006)
Judge James C. Sumner added. Judge Alfred G. Nicols no longer assigned to case, pursuant to Administrative Order signed by Chief Judge Wingate on January 30, 2006. (cwl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/22/2006)
221 NOTICE of Service of Request for Production by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 02/28/2006)
222 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motions by Haley Barbour. (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 03/01/2006)
223 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment by Haley Barbour. (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 03/01/2006)
224 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RELEASE THE REDACTED SOCIAL WORK EXPERT REPORT OF DR. LEWIS re 213 Designation of Experts by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Under Seal# 2 Exhibit)(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 03/03/2006)
225 NOTICE to Take Deposition of 30(b)(6) of Governor's Office by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 03/03/2006)
231 NOTICE of Conventional filing by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster, re Exhibit "A" filed under

03/03/2006
03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/06/2006 03/09/2006
03/09/2006 03/09/2006

seal, re 224 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RELEASE THE REDACTED SOCIAL WORK EXPERT REPORT OF DR. LEWIS re 213 Designation of Experts. (cwl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
ATTACHMENT/Exhibit "A" re 224 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RELEASE THE REDACTED SOCIAL WORK EXPERT REPORT OF DR. LEWIS re 213 Designation of Experts by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. (1 sealed env.) (cwl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/07/2006)
226 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Dr. Marva Lewis by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor.(Young, Ashley) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
227 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Dr. Peg Hess by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor.(Young, Ashley) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
228 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Dr. Wood Hiatt by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor.(Young, Ashley) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
229 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Dr. Bill Brister by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor.(Young, Ashley) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
230 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Dr. Cathy Crabtree by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor.(Young, Ashley) (Entered: 03/06/2006)
232 RESPONSE to Motion re 223 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 03/09/2006)
233 RESPONSE in Opposition re 222 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motions filed by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit)(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 03/09/2006)
234 NOTICE to Take Deposition AMENDED of 30(b)(6) of Governor's Office by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 03/09/2006)

03/10/2006 03/13/2006
03/13/2006 03/13/2006 03/13/2006 03/16/2006 03/17/2006 03/17/2006 03/20/2006 03/20/2006 03/20/2006 03/20/2006 03/20/2006

235 NOTICE of Service of Request for Production by Haley Barbour.(Rachal, Kenya) (Entered: 03/10/2006)
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE set per request of and in agreement by all parties before Judge Sumner on THURSDAY, MARCH 16, 2006 AT 9:30 A.M. The parties are directed to provide Judge Sumner with a Settlement Memo three days prior to the conference. (CSF, ) (Entered: 03/13/2006)
Set Hearings: Settlement Conference set for 3/16/2006 09:30 AM before Magistrate Judge James C. Sumner. (CSF, ) (Entered: 03/13/2006)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #235 document filed w/o proper signature. Attorney to re-file document to reflect her signature on the pleading. (cwl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/13/2006)
236 NOTICE of Service of Response to Request for Production by Haley Barbour.(Rachal, Kenya) (Entered: 03/13/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge James C. Sumner : Settlement Conference held on 3/16/2006. (CSF, ) (Entered: 03/16/2006)
237 NOTICE of Conventional Filing by Haley Barbour (Rachal, Kenya) (Entered: 03/17/2006)
238 RESPONSE to Motion re 231 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) Defendants Response- Redacted Version filed by Haley Barbour. (Rachal, Kenya) (Entered: 03/17/2006)
239 NOTICE of Service of Response to Interrogatories by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 03/20/2006)
240 NOTICE of Service of Response to Request for Production by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 03/20/2006)
241 REPLY to Response to Motion re 233 Response in Opposition to Motion to Extend Deadline for Filing Motions filed by Haley Barbour. (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 03/20/2006)
242 NOTICE of Service of Disclosure by Haley Barbour.(Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 03/20/2006)
243 NOTICE of Service of Disclosure by Haley Barbour.(Young, Ashley) (Entered: 03/20/2006)

03/23/2006 03/24/2006 03/27/2006 03/29/2006 03/29/2006 03/31/2006 03/31/2006 03/31/2006 03/31/2006 03/31/2006 04/03/2006 04/10/2006 04/13/2006

244 REPLY to Response to Motion re 238 Response to Motion filed by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 03/23/2006)
245 NOTICE of Service of Response to Request for Production by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, Billy Mangold.(Rachal, Kenya) (Entered: 03/24/2006)
246 NOTICE of Service of Disclosure by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, Billy Mangold.(Young, Ashley) (Entered: 03/27/2006)
247 PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUBPOENA by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 03/29/2006)
248 ORDER denying 222 Motion for Extension of Time to File . Signed by Judge James C. Sumner on March 29, 2006. (TKR) (Entered: 03/29/2006)
249 NOTICE of Change of Address by Eric E. Thompson - PHV (Thompson - PHV, Eric) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
250 NOTICE of Service of Response to Request for Production by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, Billy Mangold.(Rachal, Kenya) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
251 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Deb Biggers by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
252 First Designation of Experts by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor.(Young, Ashley) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
253 NOTICE of Service of Response to Request for Production by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor.(Young, Ashley) (Entered: 03/31/2006)
254 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Sue D. Steib by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 04/03/2006)
255 NOTICE of Service of Disclosure by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor.(Young, Ashley) (Entered: 04/10/2006)
256 NOTICE of Service of Response to Request for Production by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor.(Rachal, Kenya) (Entered: 04/13/2006)

04/17/2006
04/17/2006 04/19/2006 04/19/2006 04/24/2006 04/24/2006 04/25/2006
04/25/2006 04/25/2006

257 MOTION to Compel by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit # 6 Exhibit # 7 Exhibit # 8 Exhibit # 9 Exhibit # 10 Exhibit # 11 Exhibit # 12 Exhibit # 13 Exhibit # 14 Exhibit # 15 Exhibit # 16 Exhibit # 17 Exhibit # 18 Exhibit # 19 Exhibit # 20 Exhibit # 21 Exhibit)(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 04/17/2006)
258 NOTICE of Service of Response to Request for Production by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor.(Rachal, Kenya) (Entered: 04/17/2006)
259 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney of Erik Pitchal by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 04/19/2006)
260 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney of Margaret Ross by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 04/19/2006)
261 ORDER granting 223 Motion for leave to exceed page limitation . Signed by Judge Tom S. Lee on 4/24/06. (lwe, ) (Entered: 04/25/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge James C. Sumner : Settlement Conference held on 4/24/2006. (CSF, ) (Entered: 04/25/2006)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 259 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney; Erik Pitchal, granting 260 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney; Margaret Ross. Erik Pitchal and Margaret Ross terminated. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE. Signed by Judge James C. Sumner on April 25, 2006. (TKR) (Entered: 04/25/2006)
262 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 04/25/2006)
263 ORDER granting 262 Motion of plaintiffs to exceed page limitation for memoranda in support of their motion for summary judgment . Signed by Judge Tom S. Lee on 4/25/06. (lwe, ) (Entered: 04/25/2006)

04/26/2006 04/27/2006 05/01/2006 05/01/2006 05/01/2006 05/01/2006 05/01/2006
05/01/2006 05/01/2006

264 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney and Substitution of Counsel by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor. (Rouse, John) (Entered: 04/26/2006)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 264 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney John T. Rouse terminated. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE . Signed by Judge James C. Sumner on April 27, 2006. (TKR) (Entered: 04/27/2006)
265 NOTICE of Conventional Filing by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
266 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Liability by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
267 MOTION Exclude Expert Testimony of Bill Brister, PH.D. by Haley Barbour. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A Part 1# 2 Exhibit Exhibit A Part 2# 3 Exhibit Exhibit B Part 1# 4 Exhibit Exhibit B Part 2)(Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
268 MEMORANDUM in Support re 266 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Liability filed by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
269 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction For Abstention Based on Younger v. Harris by Haley Barbour. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit B# 2 Exhibit Exhibit J# 3 Exhibit Exhibit L# 4 Exhibit Exhibit M Part 1# 5 Exhibit Exhibit M Part 2# 6 Exhibit Exhibit O# 7 Exhibit Exhibit P# 8 Exhibit Exhibit Q# 9 Exhibit Exhibit R)(Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
270 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Brief in Support of Motion for Abstention Based on Younger v. Harris by Haley Barbour. (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
271 NOTICE of Conventional Filing Exhibit A by Haley Barbour re 269 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction For Abstention Based on Younger v. Harris, 270 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Brief in Support of Motion for Abstention Based on Younger v. Harris (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 05/01/2006)

05/01/2006 05/01/2006 05/01/2006 05/01/2006 05/01/2006 05/01/2006 05/01/2006 05/01/2006 05/01/2006 05/01/2006
05/01/2006 05/01/2006 05/01/2006
05/01/2006

272 NOTICE of Conventional Filing Exhibit C by Haley Barbour (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
273 NOTICE of Conventional Filing Exhibit D by Haley Barbour (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
274 NOTICE of Conventional Filing Exhibit E by Haley Barbour (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
275 NOTICE of Conventional Filing Exhibit F by Haley Barbour (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
276 NOTICE of Conventional Filing Exhibit G by Haley Barbour (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
277 NOTICE of Conventional Filing Exhibit H by Haley Barbour (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
278 NOTICE of Conventional Filing Exhibit I by Haley Barbour (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
279 NOTICE of Conventional Filing Exhibit N by Haley Barbour (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
280 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Haley Barbour. (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
281 ***ERROR***DISREGARD THIS ENTRY. SEE CORRECTED ENTRY 296 . MOTION for Summary Judgment Memorandum in Support of by Haley Barbour. (Zmitrovich, Gretchen) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
282 NOTICE of Conventional Filing Exhibit Q by Haley Barbour (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
283 NOTICE of Conventional Filing Exhibit FF by Haley Barbour (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
284 NOTICE of Conventional Filing Exhibit HH by Haley Barbour re 280 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
285 NOTICE of Conventional Filing Exhibit JJ by Haley Barbour re 280 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 05/01/2006)

05/01/2006 05/01/2006 05/01/2006 05/01/2006 05/01/2006 05/01/2006 05/01/2006 05/01/2006 05/02/2006
05/02/2006

286 NOTICE of Conventional Filing Exhibit LL by Haley Barbour re 280 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
287 NOTICE of Conventional Filing Exhibit MM by Haley Barbour re 280 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
288 NOTICE of Conventional Filing Exhibit RR by Haley Barbour re 280 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
289 NOTICE of Conventional Filing Exhibit SS by Haley Barbour re 280 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
290 NOTICE of Conventional Filing Exhibit BBB by Haley Barbour re 280 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 05/01/2006)
291 EXHIBITS 1-44, Exhibit 5 under seal, re 266 plaintiffs motion for summary judgment by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. (1 large white box filed in exhibit room.)(cwl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/02/2006)
294 EXHIBITS (Sealed) q, jj, ll, mm, rr, ss, bbb and unredacted versions of ff and hh to defendants motion for summary judgment by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor. (1 white env.)(cwl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/02/2006)
297 EXHIBITS (SEALED) a, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, k and n, re defendants motion to dismiss(abstain) by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor. (cwl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/02/2006)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #267 Motion to Exclude Testimony of Bill Brister with incorporated Memorandum in Support filed incorrectly. Left message for attorney Fortenberry to file his Memorandum in Support, re the CM/ECF system cannot accomodate filing of multiple events with one entry, such as a motion which also contains the memoramdum in support. In such a case, the memorandum should be filed separately. This event in located under responses and replies. (cwl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/02/2006)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #270 filed incorrectly as a motion to dismiss instead the pdf document reflects memorandum in support of document 269 motion to dismiss. Left message for

05/02/2006
05/02/2006 05/02/2006 05/02/2006 05/02/2006 05/02/2006 05/02/2006 05/02/2006

attorney to re-file the docment. Motion to be termed, 270 motion to dismiss. (cwl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/02/2006)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #281 filed incorrectly as a motion for summary judgment instead the pdf document reflects memorandum in support of document 280 motion for summary judgment. Left message for attorney to re-file the document. Motion to be termed, re 281 motion for summary judgment. Note: The memoramdum in support of motion event is located under responses and replies(cwl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/02/2006)
292 NOTICE of Conventional Filing as the Result of Technical Failure by Haley Barbour re 280 MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Supplement Attachments)(Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 05/02/2006)
293 MEMORANDUM in Support re 267 MOTION Exclude Expert Testimony of Bill Brister, PH.D. filed by Haley Barbour. (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 05/02/2006)
295 MEMORANDUM in Support re 269 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction For Abstention Based on Younger v. Harris filed by Haley Barbour. (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 05/02/2006)
296 MEMORANDUM in Support re 280 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Haley Barbour. (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 05/02/2006)
298 Remark - Letter from attorney McAnally requesting that amended vol. 6 of the exhibits in support of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment be replaced for the incorrect one filed 5/1/06. (cwl, Deputy Clerk) Additional attachment(s) added on 5/3/2006 (cwl, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 05/02/2006)
299 EXHIBITS: 24-44 (amended vol. 6 of 6), re 266 plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. (cwl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/02/2006)
300 EXHIBITS: A through III in support of, re 280 Motion for Summary Judgment by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor. (1 box placed in exhibit room.)(cwl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/02/2006)

05/03/2006 05/03/2006 05/15/2006 05/18/2006
05/18/2006 05/18/2006 05/18/2006
05/18/2006

301 RESPONSE to Motion re 257 MOTION to Compel filed by Haley Barbour. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Rachal, Kenya) (Entered: 05/03/2006)
302 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 301 Response to Motion, re 257 Motion to Compel filed by Haley Barbour. (Rachal, Kenya) (Entered: 05/03/2006)
303 REPLY to Response to Motion re 301 Response to Motion, 302 Memorandum in Support, 257 MOTION to Compel filed by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit)(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 05/15/2006)
304 MOTION to Strike 280 MOTION for Summary Judgment Portions of Exhibits by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit # 6 Exhibit # 7 Exhibit # 8 Exhibit # 9 Exhibit # 10 Exhibit # 11 Exhibit # 12 Exhibit # 13 Exhibit # 14 Exhibit)(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 05/18/2006)
305 RESPONSE in Opposition re 267 MOTION Exclude Expert Testimony of Bill Brister, PH.D. filed by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit # 6 Exhibit # 7 Exhibit # 8 Exhibit)(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 05/18/2006)
306 RESPONSE in Opposition re 266 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Liability filed by Haley Barbour. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit JJJ# 2 Exhibit KKK# 3 Exhibit LLL# 4 Exhibit MMM)(Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 05/18/2006)
307 RESPONSE in Opposition re 269 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction For Abstention Based on Younger v. Harris, 270 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Brief in Support of Motion for Abstention Based on Younger v. Harris filed by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit # 6 Exhibit # 7 Exhibit)(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 05/18/2006)
308 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 306 Response in Opposition to Motion, re 266 Motion for Summary Judgment on Liability filed by Haley Barbour. (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 05/18/2006)

05/18/2006
05/30/2006 05/30/2006 05/30/2006 05/30/2006
05/30/2006 05/30/2006 05/30/2006 05/30/2006 05/30/2006

309 RESPONSE in Opposition re 280 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 281 MOTION for Summary Judgment Memorandum in Support of filed by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit # 6 Exhibit # 7 Exhibit # 8 Exhibit # 9 Exhibit)(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 05/18/2006)
310 REPLY to Response to Motion re 305 Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Haley Barbour. (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #310 incorrect pdf document attached. Attorney to re-file pleading. (cwl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
311 REPLY to Response to Motion re 305 Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Haley Barbour. (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
312 REPLY to Response to Motion re 307 Response in Opposition to Motion,re 269 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction For Abstention Based on Younger v. Harris, 270 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Haley Barbour. (Fortenberry, Dewitt) Modified on 12/22/2016 (cwl). (Entered: 05/30/2006)
313 REPLY to Response to Motion re 309 Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Haley Barbour. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit OOO# 2 Exhibit SSS# 3 Exhibit UUU# 4 Exhibit VVV# 5 Exhibit WWW)(Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
314 NOTICE of Conventional Filing Exhibit NNN by Haley Barbour re 313 Reply to Response to Motion (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
315 NOTICE of Conventional Filing Exhibit OOO by Haley Barbour re 313 Reply to Response to Motion (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
316 NOTICE of Conventional Filing Exhibit PPP by Haley Barbour re 313 Reply to Response to Motion (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
317 NOTICE of Conventional Filing Exhibit QQQ by Haley Barbour re 313 Reply to Response to Motion (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 05/30/2006)

05/30/2006 05/30/2006 05/30/2006 05/30/2006 05/30/2006
05/31/2006 05/31/2006 05/31/2006 05/31/2006 05/31/2006

318 NOTICE of Conventional Filing Exhibit RRR by Haley Barbour re 313 Reply to Response to Motion (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
319 NOTICE of Conventional Filing Exhibit TTT by Haley Barbour re 313 Reply to Response to Motion (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
320 REPLY to Response to Motion re 266 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Liability filed by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
321 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 320 Reply to Response to Motion 266 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
328 SEALED EXHIBITS: NNN, OOO, PPP, QQQ, RRR, AND TTT, re 313 REPLY to Response to Motion re 309 Response in Opposition to Motion, re 280 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 281 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Haley Barbour. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit OOO# 2 Exhibit SSS# 3 Exhibit UUU# 4 Exhibit VVV# 5 Exhibit WWW) by Haley Barbour. ( 1 sealed white env.)(cwl, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 12/20/2016 (cwl). (Entered: 06/02/2006)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #314-319 filed without certificate service attached. Notified attorney to file same. (cwl, Deputy Clerk) Modified on 5/31/2006 (cwl, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 05/31/2006)
322 NOTICE of Conventional Filing Exhibit NNN by Haley Barbour re 313 Reply to Response to Motion (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 05/31/2006)
323 NOTICE of Conventional Filing Exhibit OOO by Haley Barbour re 313 Reply to Response to Motion (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 05/31/2006)
324 NOTICE of Conventional Filing Exhibit PPP by Haley Barbour re 313 Reply to Response to Motion (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 05/31/2006)
325 NOTICE of Conventional Filing Exhibit QQQ by Haley Barbour re 313 Reply to Response to Motion (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 05/31/2006)

05/31/2006 05/31/2006 06/05/2006 06/05/2006
06/05/2006 06/06/2006 06/06/2006 06/06/2006 06/06/2006 06/06/2006
06/09/2006

326 NOTICE of Conventional Filing Exhibit RRR by Haley Barbour re 313 Reply to Response to Motion (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 05/31/2006)
327 NOTICE of Conventional Filing Exhibit TTT by Haley Barbour re 313 Reply to Response to Motion (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 05/31/2006)
329 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 257 Motion to Compel . Signed by Judge James C. Sumner on June 2, 2006. (TKR) (Entered: 06/05/2006)
TEXT ONLY ORDER finding as moot 193 Motion to Amend/Correct Order on Motion to Stay, as case is no longer stayed. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE. Signed by Judge James C. Sumner on June 5, 2006. (TKR) (Entered: 06/05/2006)
330 RESPONSE to Motion re 304 MOTION to Strike 280 MOTION for Summary Judgment Portions of Exhibits filed by Haley Barbour. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit XXX# 2 Exhibit YYY)(Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 06/05/2006)
331 MOTION for Leave to File Surrebuttal by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2)(Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 06/06/2006)
332 NOTICE of Conventional Filing Exhibit ZZZ by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor re 331 MOTION for Leave to File Surrebuttal (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 06/06/2006)
333 NOTICE of Conventional Filing Exhibit AAAA by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor re 331 MOTION for Leave to File Surrebuttal (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 06/06/2006)
334 NOTICE of Conventional Filing Exhibit BBBB by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor re 331 MOTION for Leave to File Surrebuttal (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 06/06/2006)
335 SEALED EXHIBITS: ZZZ, AAAA, BBBB, re 331 Motion for Leave to File a Surrebuttal to plaintiffs' reply in further support of plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor.(1 sealed white env.) (cwl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/07/2006)
336 REPLY to Response to Motion re 304 MOTION to Strike 280 MOTION for Summary Judgment Portions of

06/16/2006
06/16/2006 06/16/2006 06/21/2006 06/26/2006 07/10/2006 07/10/2006
07/10/2006 07/14/2006 07/17/2006

Exhibits, 330 Response to Motion filed by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit)(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 06/09/2006)
337 RESPONSE in Opposition re 331 MOTION for Leave to File Surrebuttal filed by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit)(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 06/16/2006)
338 NOTICE of Conventional Filing by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster re 337 Response in Opposition to Motion (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 06/16/2006)
339 ATTACHMENT/Exhbit A, re 337 Response in Opposition to Motion by Sharon Scott, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. ( 1 sealed env.) (cwl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 06/19/2006)
340 REPLY to Response to Motion re 337 Response in Opposition to Motion to File a Surrebuttal filed by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor. (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 06/21/2006)
341 ORDER granting 224 Motion for Leave to Release the Redacted Social Work Expert Report of Dr. Lewis . Signed by Judge James C. Sumner on June 26, 2006. (TKR) (Entered: 06/26/2006)
342 ORDER SEALING PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBITS, as identified in Order. Signed by Judge James C. Sumner on July 10, 2006. (TKR) (Entered: 07/10/2006)
343 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemented Witness List by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit # 6 Exhibit # 7 Exhibit # 8 Exhibit # 9 Exhibit)(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 07/10/2006)
344 ORDER SEALING DEFENDANTS' EXHIBITS, as identified in Order. Signed by Judge James C. Sumner on July 10, 2006. (TKR) (Entered: 07/10/2006)
345 ORDER Sealing Documents. Signed by Judge James C. Sumner on July 14, 2006. (TKR) (Entered: 07/14/2006)
346 NOTICE of Conventional Filing of Sealed Exhibits 3A and 3B by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia

07/18/2006 07/31/2006
08/04/2006 08/29/2006
09/21/2006 10/17/2006 10/17/2006 10/18/2006 11/06/2006

Forster re 343 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemented Witness List (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 07/17/2006)
347 ATTACHMENT/Sealed Exhibits 3A and 3B re 343 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemented Witness List by plaintiffs. (1 env. filed in exhibits room.)(cwl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/18/2006)
348 RESPONSE in Opposition re 343 MOTION for Leave to File Supplemented Witness List filed by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor, Billy Mangold. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C)(Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 07/31/2006)
349 REPLY to Response to Motion re 348 Response in Opposition to Motion filed by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 08/04/2006)
350 ORDER denying 266 Motion for Summary Judgment, denying 267 Motion to exclude expert testimony, denying 269 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, denying 280 Motion for Summary Judgment, denying 304 Motion to Strike, granting 331 Motion for Leave to File surrebuttal. Signed by Judge Tom S. Lee on 8/29/06. (lwe, ) (Entered: 08/29/2006)
351 TRIAL CALENDAR/Final Pretrial Conference set for 10/16/2006 10:45 AM before District Judge Tom S. Lee. (lwe, ) (Entered: 09/21/2006)
352 NOTICE of Appearance by Dewitt L. Fortenberry, Jr on behalf of all defendants (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 10/17/2006)
353 NOTICE of Change of Address by Stephen H. Leech, Jr (Leech, Stephen) (Entered: 10/17/2006)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #352 incorporated document, re notice of appearance and motion for copies. Attorney to file motion for coipes separately.(cwl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/18/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Tom S. Lee : Initial Pretrial Conference held on 11/6/2006. Bench Trial set for term commencing 5/7/2007 09:00 AM before District Judge Tom S. Lee. Final Pretrial Conference set for 2/26/2007 09:30 AM before District Judge Tom S. Lee. Estimated length of trial: 10-20 days (lwe, ) (Entered: 11/06/2006)

11/13/2006
11/13/2006 11/27/2006 12/18/2006 12/18/2006 12/18/2006 01/12/2007
01/17/2007 01/17/2007 01/18/2007 01/22/2007 01/24/2007

354 SCHEDULING ORDER: Final Pretrial Conference set for 2/26/2007 09:30 AM before District Judge Tom S. Lee. Bench Trial set for term commencing 5/7/2007 09:00 AM before District Judge Tom S. Lee. Proposed Pretrial Order due by 2/19/2007.. Signed by Judge Tom S. Lee on 11/13/06. (lwe, ) (Entered: 11/13/2006)
355 ORDER granting 343 Motion for Leave to File supplemental plaintiffs' witness list as set out herein. Signed by Judge Tom S. Lee on 11/13/06. (lwe, ) (Entered: 11/13/2006)
356 NOTICE of Service of Disclosure by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster.(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 11/27/2006)
357 NOTICE to Take Deposition Henry Goodman by Haley Barbour.(Campbell, Barry) (Entered: 12/18/2006)
358 NOTICE to Take Deposition Ellen Carter by Haley Barbour.(Campbell, Barry) (Entered: 12/18/2006)
359 NOTICE to Take Deposition James R. Roebuck by Haley Barbour.(Campbell, Barry) (Entered: 12/18/2006)
360 MOTION to Dismiss Named Plaintiffs Olivia Y and Cody B by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit Exhibit B)(Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 01/12/2007)
361 NOTICE to Take Deposition Ellen Carter by Haley Barbour.(Campbell, Barry) (Entered: 01/17/2007)
362 ATTACHMENT re 361 Notice to Take Deposition Certificate of Service by Haley Barbour. (Campbell, Barry) (Entered: 01/17/2007)
363 NOTICE to Take Deposition Henry Goodman by Haley Barbour.(Campbell, Barry) (Entered: 01/18/2007)
364 PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUBPOENA by Haley Barbour Henry Goodman (Campbell, Barry) (Entered: 01/22/2007)
365 MOTION Substitution of Rule 17(c) Next Friend for Named Plaintiff Jamison J. (Unopposed) by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 01/24/2007)

01/25/2007 01/26/2007 01/30/2007 01/30/2007 01/30/2007 01/30/2007 01/30/2007 01/30/2007 02/01/2007 02/01/2007

366 ORDER granting 365 Motion to substitute party plaintiff (Chris Powell, Esquire, shall serve as next friend on behalf of Named Plaintiff Jamison J.). Signed by Judge Tom S. Lee on 1/25/07. (lwe, ) (Entered: 01/25/2007)
367 RESPONSE in Opposition re 360 MOTION to Dismiss Named Plaintiffs Olivia Y and Cody B filed by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, Chris Powell, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit)(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 01/26/2007)
368 NOTICE of Appearance by Melody McAnally on behalf of Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, Chris Powell, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 01/30/2007)
369 MOTION for Leave to File Supplement to Defendants' Initial Disclosures by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B Part 1 of 3# 3 Exhibit B Part 2 of 3# 4 Exhibit B Part 3 of 3# 5 Exhibit C)(Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 01/30/2007)
370 ATTACHMENT re 369 MOTION for Leave to File Supplement to Defendants' Initial Disclosures Exhibit D by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit D Part 2# 2 Exhibit D Part 3# 3 Exhibit D Part 4)(Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 01/30/2007)
371 ATTACHMENT re 369 MOTION for Leave to File Supplement to Defendants' Initial Disclosures Exhibit E by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit E Part 2# 2 Exhibit E Part 3# 3 Exhibit E Part 4)(Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 01/30/2007)
372 ATTACHMENT re 369 MOTION for Leave to File Supplement to Defendants' Initial Disclosures Exhibit E Part 5 by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit E Part 6# 2 Exhibit E Part 7)(Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 01/30/2007)
373 PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUBPOENA by Haley Barbour for Ellen Carter (Campbell, Barry) (Entered: 01/30/2007)
374 Supplemental MOTION for Discovery re Document 369 by Haley Barbour. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6)(Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 02/01/2007)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #374 inadvertetnly filed as Supplemental MOTION for Discovery re Document 369 instead it

02/01/2007 02/02/2007 02/08/2007 02/08/2007 02/13/2007
02/19/2007 02/19/2007 02/19/2007 02/19/2007

should have been filed as an attachment to document 369 . Attorney to re-submit the document. Document 374 supplemental motion to be termed. (cwl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/01/2007)
375 ATTACHMENT re 369 MOTION for Leave to File Supplement to Defendants' Initial Disclosures by Haley Barbour. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6)(Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 02/01/2007)
376 RESPONSE in Support re 360 MOTION to Dismiss Named Plaintiffs Olivia Y and Cody B filed by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour. (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 02/02/2007)
377 MOTION for Leave to File Sur-Reply by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, Chris Powell, Sylvia Forster. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit)(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 02/08/2007)
378 ATTACHMENT re 377 MOTION for Leave to File SurReply Exhibit 2 by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, Chris Powell, James D. Johnson, Sylvia Forster. (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 02/08/2007)
379 RESPONSE in Opposition re 374 Supplemental MOTION for Discovery re Document 369, 369 MOTION for Leave to File Supplement to Defendants' Initial Disclosures filed by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, Chris Powell, James D. Johnson, Sylvia Forster. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit # 6 Exhibit # 7 Exhibit # 8 Exhibit # 9 Exhibit # 10 Exhibit # 11 Exhibit # 12 Exhibit # 13 Exhibit)(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 02/13/2007)
380 MOTION in Limine by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, Chris Powell, James D. Johnson, Sylvia Forster. (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 02/19/2007)
381 ATTACHMENT re 380 MOTION in Limine by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, Chris Powell, James D. Johnson, Sylvia Forster. (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 02/19/2007)
382 ATTACHMENT re 380 MOTION in Limine by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, Chris Powell, James D. Johnson, Sylvia Forster. (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 02/19/2007)
383 ATTACHMENT re 380 MOTION in Limine by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, Chris Powell, James D. Johnson, Sylvia Forster. (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 02/19/2007)

02/19/2007 02/19/2007 02/19/2007 02/19/2007 02/19/2007 02/19/2007 02/19/2007 02/19/2007 02/19/2007 02/19/2007 02/19/2007 02/19/2007

384 ATTACHMENT re 380 MOTION in Limine by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, Chris Powell, James D. Johnson, Sylvia Forster. (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 02/19/2007)
385 ATTACHMENT re 380 MOTION in Limine by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, Chris Powell, James D. Johnson, Sylvia Forster. (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 02/19/2007)
386 ATTACHMENT re 380 MOTION in Limine by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, Chris Powell, James D. Johnson, Sylvia Forster. (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 02/19/2007)
387 ATTACHMENT re 380 MOTION in Limine by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, Chris Powell, James D. Johnson, Sylvia Forster. (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 02/19/2007)
388 ATTACHMENT re 380 MOTION in Limine by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, Chris Powell, James D. Johnson, Sylvia Forster. (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 02/19/2007)
389 ATTACHMENT re 380 MOTION in Limine by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, Chris Powell, James D. Johnson, Sylvia Forster. (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 02/19/2007)
390 ATTACHMENT re 380 MOTION in Limine by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, Chris Powell, James D. Johnson, Sylvia Forster. (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 02/19/2007)
391 ATTACHMENT re 380 MOTION in Limine by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, Chris Powell, James D. Johnson, Sylvia Forster. (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 02/19/2007)
392 ATTACHMENT re 380 MOTION in Limine by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, Chris Powell, James D. Johnson, Sylvia Forster. (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 02/19/2007)
393 ATTACHMENT re 380 MOTION in Limine by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, Chris Powell, James D. Johnson, Sylvia Forster. (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 02/19/2007)
394 ATTACHMENT re 380 MOTION in Limine by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, Chris Powell, James D. Johnson, Sylvia Forster. (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 02/19/2007)
395 ATTACHMENT re 380 MOTION in Limine by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, Chris Powell, James D. Johnson, Sylvia Forster. (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 02/19/2007)

02/19/2007 02/19/2007 02/26/2007 02/26/2007
02/26/2007 03/08/2007
03/22/2007 03/29/2007 04/03/2007

396 ATTACHMENT re 380 MOTION in Limine by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, Chris Powell, James D. Johnson, Sylvia Forster. (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 02/19/2007)
397 ATTACHMENT re 380 MOTION in Limine by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, Chris Powell, James D. Johnson, Sylvia Forster. (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 02/19/2007)
398 REPLY to Response to Motion re 369 MOTION for Leave to File Supplement to Defendants' Initial Disclosures filed by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour. (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 02/26/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Tom S. Lee : Interim Pretrial Conference held on 2/26/27. BENCH TRIAL set for 5/7/07 9:00 a.m. Estimated length of trial: 30 days; Final pretrial set for 4/10/07 9:30 a.m. 3/26/07 deadline for settlement discussions before Judge Lee; briefing schedule to be set by the parties (lwe, ) Modified on 3/5/2007 to reflect correct pretrial conference date (Entered: 02/27/2007)
Set/Reset Hearings: Bench Trial set for 5/7/2007 09:00 AM before District Judge Tom S. Lee. Final Pretrial Conference set for 4/10/2007 09:30 AM before District Judge Tom S. Lee. (lwe, ) (Entered: 02/27/2007)
399 ORDER granting 377 MOTION for Leave to File Sur-Reply; Motions in limine due by 4/9/2007, responses by 4/23/07. Bench Trial set for 5/7/2007 09:00 AM before District Judge Tom S. Lee. Final Pretrial Conference set for 4/10/2007 09:30 AM before District Judge Tom S. Lee. Settlement Conference set to begin 3/26/2007 09:00 AM as set out herein. Magistrate Judge James C. Sumner will be available during settlement negotiations at the request of any party to participate and facilitage negotiations as needed . Signed by Judge Tom S. Lee on 3/8/07. (lwe, ) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
400 MOTION in Limine by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor. (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 03/22/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Tom S. Lee : Status Conference held on 3/29/07 re: structured settlement discussion. Fairness hearing, if necessary, to be held 5/17/07 9:30 a.m. (lwe, ) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
401 Joint MOTION for Settlement Preliminary Approval by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, Chris Powell, James D. Johnson, Sylvia Forster.

04/03/2007 04/10/2007 04/18/2007 04/20/2007 04/23/2007 04/23/2007 04/26/2007 05/03/2007 05/03/2007 05/07/2007 05/07/2007

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit)(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 04/03/2007)
402 ORDER granting 401 Motion for Settlement as set out herein. Signed by Judge Tom S. Lee on 4/3/07. (lwe, ) (Entered: 04/03/2007)
403 NOTICE of Hearing: Fairness Hearing set for 5/17/2007 09:30 AM before District Judge Tom S. Lee. (lwe, ) (Entered: 04/10/2007)
404 NOTICE of Filing Affidavit Certifying Complaince with Notice Requirements by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 04/18/2007)
405 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Marcia Robinson Lowry containing, re 403 NOTICE of Hearing: Fairness Hearing set for 5/17/2007 09:30 AM before District Judge Tom S. Lee. (cwl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/20/2007)
406 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Tara S. Crean containing, re 403 NOTICE of Hearing: Fairness Hearing set for 5/17/2007 09:30 AM before District Judge Tom S. Lee. (cwl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/23/2007)
407 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, Chris Powell, James D. Johnson, Sylvia Forster. (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 04/23/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Tom S. Lee : In Chambers Conference held on 4/26/2007. re: Mediation, etc. (lwe, ) (Entered: 04/26/2007)
408 ORDER APPOINTING RUBEN V. ANDERSON AS MEDIATOR. Signed by Judge Tom S. Lee on 5/3/07. (jpw, ) (Entered: 05/03/2007)
Case referred to mediation per Order appointing RUBEN V. ANDERSON as Mediator. Signed by Judge Tom S. Lee on 5/3/07. (cwl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/07/2007)
409 NOTICE (Letter) by Mississippi Youth Justice Project re 403 Notice of Hearing (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(cwl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/07/2007)
410 NOTICE (Letter) by Catholic Charities, Inc. re 403 Notice of Hearing (cwl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/07/2007)

05/07/2007 05/07/2007 05/07/2007
05/07/2007 05/07/2007 05/08/2007 05/08/2007 05/08/2007 05/08/2007 05/14/2007
05/14/2007
05/16/2007

411 NOTICE (Letter) by Coalition for Children's Welfare re 403 Notice of Hearing (cwl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/07/2007)
412 NOTICE (Letter) by Jerelyn Jones re 403 Notice of Hearing (cwl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/07/2007)
413 NOTICE (Letter) by Mississippi Children's Home Services re 403 Notice of Hearing (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit - Continuing of Care Model Document)(cwl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/07/2007)
414 NOTICE (Letter) by Teresa A. Wells re 403 Notice of Hearing (cwl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/07/2007)
415 NOTICE (Letter) by H. Gordon Myrick, Inc. re 403 Notice of Hearing (cwl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/07/2007)
416 NOTICE (Letter) by Sacred Heart Ministry for Children, Inc. re 403 Notice of Hearing (cwl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/08/2007)
417 NOTICE (Letter) by Elizabeth Shanks Frizsell re 403 Notice of Hearing (cwl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/08/2007)
418 NOTICE (Letter) by Jean Smith re 403 Notice of Hearing (cwl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/08/2007)
419 NOTICE (Letter) by Annie Anderson re 403 Notice of Hearing (cwl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 05/08/2007)
420 Joint MOTION for Settlement Approval by James D. Johnson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Stipulated Settlement Agreement# 2 Exhibit Manual for Complex Litigation excerpt# 3 Exhibit Submitted Comments)(Thompson - PHV, Eric) (Entered: 05/14/2007)
421 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 420 Joint MOTION for Settlement Approval filed by James D. Johnson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A1 - Steib report (part 1)# 2 Exhibit A2 - Steib report (part 2)# 3 Exhibit A3 - Steib report (part 3)# 4 Exhibit B - Lowry declaration# 5 Exhibit C - Wheeler affidavit# 6 Exhibit D Kraemer affidavit)(Thompson - PHV, Eric) (Entered: 05/14/2007)
422 Response in Opposition re 416 NOTICE (Letter) by Sacred Heart Ministry for Children, Inc. re 403 Notice of Hearing (cwl, Deputy Clerk) filed by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, Chris Powell, James D.

05/17/2007 05/24/2007 05/29/2007
05/29/2007 06/15/2007 06/15/2007 06/21/2007 06/29/2007 07/02/2007

Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster. (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 05/16/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Tom S. Lee : Fairness hearing held on 5/17/2007; settlement approved as to liability issue (Court Reporter C. Bond (601/540-5482) (LWE) (Entered: 05/31/2007)
423 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct 46 Order,, to Extend Confidentiality Order to Mediator by James D. Johnson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Consent Order)(Thompson - PHV, Eric) (Entered: 05/24/2007)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to # 423 Motion filed incorrectly with attached proposed order. The attorney should re-file the motion separately. The Administrative Procedures manual requires proposed orders to be submitted to the judges' chambers by e-mail in WordPerfect format. Motion 423 termed. (cwl) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
424 CONSENT ORDER: The court's 8/5/04 confidentiality order shall extend to the mediator so as to allow Reuben V. Anderson to participate in complete and candid negotiations among the parties in this case Signed by Judge Tom S. Lee on 5/29/07 (LWE) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
425 STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. Signed by Judge Tom S. Lee on 6/14/07 (cwl) (Entered: 06/15/2007)
426 AGREED ORDER granting the parties one additional week, or until July 9, 2007 to agree on an entity to monitor compliance with the detailed plan as provided for in Section 4.E of the Settlement Agreement. Signed by Judge Tom S. Lee on 6/15/07 (jpw, ) (Entered: 06/15/2007)
427 NOTICE by Ezell Lanier re 403 Notice of Hearing (cwl) (Entered: 06/21/2007)
428 DOCKET ANNOTATION: This case has a trial deadline previously set. However, this case is not in a posture to be placed on the trial calendar at this time(lwe) (Entered: 06/29/07 Modified on 6/29/2007 (LWE). (Entered: 06/29/2007)
429 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Sheila A. Bedi containing Stipulated Settlement Agreement filed 6/15/07. (cwl) (Entered: 07/03/2007)

07/06/2007 08/24/2007 09/06/2007 09/06/2007 09/06/2007 09/06/2007 09/13/2007
09/24/2007 11/08/2007 11/08/2007

430 ORDER granting the parties until 9/14/07 to agree on an entity to monitor compliance with Section 4.E of the Settlement Agreement as set out herein Signed by Judge Tom S. Lee on 7/6/07 (LWE) (Entered: 07/06/2007)
431 MOTION for Court Determination of the Scope of Plaintiffs' Constitutional Substantive Due Process Rights by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 08/24/2007)
432 NOTICE of Service of Interrogatories by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 09/06/2007)
433 NOTICE of Service of Request for Production by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 09/06/2007)
434 NOTICE of Service of Interrogatories by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 09/06/2007)
435 NOTICE of Service of Request for Production by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, Chris Powell, James D. Johnson, Sylvia Forster (McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 09/06/2007)
436 RESPONSE to Motion re 431 MOTION for Court Determination of the Scope of Plaintiffs' Constitutional Substantive Due Process Rights filed by James D. Johnson (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3)(Thompson PHV, Eric) (Entered: 09/13/2007)
437 RESPONSE in Support re 431 MOTION for Court Determination of the Scope of Plaintiffs' Constitutional Substantive Due Process Rights filed by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 09/24/2007)
438 Joint MOTION for Settlement by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, Chris Powell, James D. Johnson, Sylvia Forster (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit # 6 Exhibit 6)(McAnally, Melody) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
439 ORDER granting 438 Motion for Settlement as set out herein. Fairness hearing set for 1/4/08 9:30 a.m. Signed by Judge Tom S. Lee on 11/8/07 (LWE) (Entered: 11/08/2007)

12/04/2007 12/10/2007 12/18/2007 12/18/2007
12/18/2007 12/18/2007 12/18/2007 12/19/2007 12/19/2007
12/19/2007
12/20/2007

440 NOTICE of Filing Affidavit Certifying Complaince with Notice Requirements by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 12/04/2007)
441 NOTICE (Letter) by Professionals Advocating for Children Together re 439 Order on Motion for Settlement. (cwl) (Entered: 12/10/2007)
442 NOTICE(Letter) by Catholic Diocese of Jackson re 439 Order on Motion for Settlement. (cwl) (Entered: 12/18/2007)
443 Response in Opposition re 439 ORDER granting 438 Motion for Settlement as set out herein. Fairness hearing set for 1/4/08 9:30 a.m. Signed by Judge Tom S. Lee on 11/8/07 (LWE) filed by George Whitten (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1-4)(cwl) Additional attachment(s) added on 12/20/2007 (cwl). (Entered: 12/18/2007)
444 NOTICE(Letter) by Catholic Charities, Inc. re 439 Order on Motion for Settlement. (cwl) (Entered: 12/18/2007)
445 NOTICE (Letter) by National Association of Social Workers re 439 Order on Motion for Settlement. (cwl) (Entered: 12/18/2007)
446 NOTICE (Letter) by Whitney M. Johnson, Reginald D. Johnson re 439 Order on Motion for Settlement. (cwl) (Entered: 12/19/2007)
447 NOTICE (Letter) by Delta State University re 439 Order on Motion for Settlement. (cwl) (Entered: 12/19/2007)
448 Emergency MOTION to Seal the Court Record Concerning Exhibit "4" to Objection to Settlement Filed by George Whitten, Jr. by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 12/19/2007)
449 ORDER granting in part 448 Motion to Seal the Court Record Concerning Exhibit "4" to Objection to Settlement Filed by George Whitten, Jr. Signed by Judge James C. Sumner on 12/19/07 (cwl) (Entered: 12/19/2007)
450 MOTION for Settlement Pls.' Mot. for Final Approval of Mississippi Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, Chris Powell, James D. Johnson, Sylvia Forster (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Mississippi Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan and Appendix A# 2 Exhibit 2 Order granting Joint Mot. for Prelim. Approval# 3 Exhibit 3 Defs. Notice

12/20/2007
12/21/2007 12/27/2007
12/27/2007 12/28/2007 12/28/2007

Certifying Compliance with Notice Requirements# 4 Exhibit 4 Compilation of letters filed with court# 5 Exhibit 5 Kraemer Affidavit)(Thompson - PHV, Eric) (Entered: 12/20/2007)
451 MEMORANDUM in Support re 450 MOTION for Settlement Pls.' Mot. for Final Approval of Mississippi Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan filed by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, Chris Powell, James D. Johnson, Sylvia Forster (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Minute Entry, May 17, 2007# 2 Exhibit B Agreements on Services and Plans for Named Plaintiffs# 3 Exhibit C Lowry Declaration# 4 Exhibit D Nothenberg Declaration# 5 Exhibit E DFCS Policy Manual excerpt# 6 Exhibit F CWLA Standards of Excellence# 7 Exhibit G Steib Expert Report# 8 Exhibit H-1 Crabtree Expert Report, part 1# 9 Exhibit H-2 - Crabtree Expert Report, part 2# 10 Exhibit I Lopes Resume)(Thompson - PHV, Eric) (Entered: 12/20/2007)
452 Joint MOTION to Seal Document Exhibit 5 to Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, Chris Powell, James D. Johnson, Sylvia Forster (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Confidentiality Order)(Thompson PHV, Eric) (Entered: 12/21/2007)
453 Response in Opposition re 443 Response in Opposition re 439 ORDER granting 438 Motion for Settlement as set out herein. Fairness hearing set for 1/4/08 9:30 a.m. Signed by Judge Tom S. Lee on 11/8/07 (LWE) filed by George Whitten (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1-4)(cwl) Additional attachment(s) added on 12/20/2007 (cwl). Defendants' Response in Opposition to Objections of George Whitten, Jr. to Proposed Settlement Agreement filed by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 12/27/2007)
454 MOTION Defendants' Motion for Final Approval of Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 12/27/2007)
455 ORDER granting 452 Motion to Seal Document Signed by Judge James C. Sumner on December 28, 2007 (DCL) (Entered: 12/28/2007)
457 RESPONSE to Motion re 448 Emergency MOTION to Seal the Court Record Concerning Exhibit "4" to Objection to Settlement Filed by George Whitten, Jr. filed by George Whitten (SEC) ). (Entered: 01/03/2008)

01/02/2008 01/04/2008 01/04/2008
01/04/2008 01/22/2008 01/31/2008 01/31/2008 01/31/2008 02/04/2008
02/07/2008

456 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Fees by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, Chris Powell, James D. Johnson, Sylvia Forster (Thompson - PHV, Eric) (Entered: 01/02/2008)
458 ORDER granting 456 Motion for Extension of Time to File Signed by Judge James C. Sumner on January 4, 2008 (DCL) (Entered: 01/04/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Tom S. Lee : Fairness Hearing held on 1/4/2008. Court heard testimony of various individuals and counsel. Settlement order approved and will be entered with the court. (Court Reporter C. Bond (601/9654410) (LWE) (Entered: 01/04/2008)
459 MISSISSIPPI SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND REFORM PLAN agreed to and approved as set out herein. (Resolves all remaining claims in this case). Signed by Judge Tom S. Lee on 1/4/08 (LWE) (Entered: 01/04/2008)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Tom S. Lee: Meeting held on 1/22/2008 with Grace Lopes, Special Arbiter, regarding status/ monitoring matters. (LWE) (Entered: 02/08/2008)
460 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on January 4, 2008, re Motion for Final Settlement before Judge Tom S. Lee. Court Reporter: Cherie Gallaspy Bond. (1 vol.) (cwl) (Entered: 01/31/2008)
461 MOTION for Jessica Elyse Polansky to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, Chris Powell, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster (cwl) (Entered: 01/31/2008)
Pro Hac Vice fee paid by (Jessica Polansky) $ 100, receipt number J023322 (cwl) (Entered: 01/31/2008)
462 ORDER granting 461 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, that Jessica Polansky be admitted pro hac vice on behalf of the plaintiffs in association with local counsel, upon payment of the required fee and upon registration for electronic filing as required by the Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge James C. Sumner on February 4, 2008 (CSF) (Entered: 02/04/2008)
463 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Fees and Costs by Zelatra W (Thompson - PHV, Eric) (Entered: 02/07/2008)

02/07/2008 03/04/2008 03/04/2008 04/08/2008 04/08/2008 04/28/2008 04/28/2008 05/09/2008
05/09/2008

464 ORDER granting 463 Motion for consent order extending time to file motion for fees and costs until 3/10/08, as set out herein. signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 2/7/08 (LWE) (Entered: 02/07/2008)
465 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Fees and Costs by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, Chris Powell, James D. Johnson, Sylvia Forster (Thompson - PHV, Eric) (Entered: 03/04/2008)
466 CONSENT ORDER granting 465 Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Fees and Costs Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 3/4/08 (cwl) (Entered: 03/04/2008)
467 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Fees and Costs by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, Chris Powell, James D. Johnson, Sylvia Forster (Nothenberg - PHV, Shirim) (Entered: 04/08/2008)
468 ORDER granting 467 Motion for Extension of Time to File motion for fees and costs. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 4/8/08 (LWE) (Entered: 04/08/2008)
469 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Fees and Costs by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, Chris Powell, James D. Johnson, Sylvia Forster (Thompson - PHV, Eric) (Entered: 04/28/2008)
470 ORDER granting 469 Motion for Extension of Time to File for fees and costs until 5/9/08 as set out herein. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 4/28/08 (LWE) (Entered: 04/28/2008)
471 MOTION for Attorney Fees Pls.' Unopposed Mot. for Approval of Settlement Regarding Pls.' Attorneys' Fees and Order of Notice to the Class by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, Chris Powell, James D. Johnson, Sylvia Forster (Thompson - PHV, Eric) (Entered: 05/09/2008)
472 MEMORANDUM in Support re 471 MOTION for Attorney Fees Pls.' Unopposed Mot. for Approval of Settlement Regarding Pls.' Attorneys' Fees and Order of Notice to the Class filed by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, Chris Powell, James D. Johnson, Sylvia Forster (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Remedial Order, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Lowry Decl., Pages 1-53, # 3 Exhibit 2 - Lowry Decl., Pages 54-1221, # 4 Exhibit 2 - Lowry Decl., Pages 1222-1879, # 5 Exhibit 2 - Lowry Decl., Pages 1880-1912, # 6 Exhibit 2 Lowry Decl., Pages 1913-1945, # 7 Exhibit 2 - Lowry Decl., Pages

05/09/2008 06/02/2008 06/05/2008 06/17/2008 06/23/2008
07/23/2008 07/24/2008 08/07/2008

1946-2608, # 8 Exhibit 3 - Drinkwater Decl., Pages 1-50, # 9 Exhibit 3 - Drinkwater Decl., Pages 51-105, # 10 Exhibit 3 Drinkwater Decl., Pages 106-158, # 11 Exhibit 4 - Leech Decl., # 12 Exhibit 5 - Dove Decl., # 13 Exhibit 6 - Lang Decl., Pages 150, # 14 Exhibit 6 - Lang Decl., Pages 51-100, # 15 Exhibit 6 Lang Decl., Pages 101-145, # 16 Exhibit 6 - Lang Decl., Pages 146-182, # 17 Exhibit 7 - Bergmark Decl.)(Thompson - PHV, Eric) (Entered: 05/09/2008)
473 ORDER granting IN PART 471 unopposed Motion for approval of settlement regarding plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and order of notice to the class as set out herein. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 5/9/08 (LWE) (Entered: 05/09/2008)
474 NOTICE of Defendants' Filing Affidavit Certifying Compliance with Notice Requirements by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 06/02/2008)
475 Letter from Maxine S. Williams, re no objections to the attorney fee. (cwl) (Entered: 06/05/2008)
476 Letter from Steven Wheeler. (cwl) (Entered: 06/17/2008)
477 MEMORANDUM in Support re 471 MOTION for Attorney Fees Pls.' Unopposed Mot. for Approval of Settlement Regarding Pls.' Attorneys' Fees and Order of Notice to the Class - Pls.' Memo. in Further Supp. of Pls.' Unopposed Mot. for Approval of Settlement Regarding Pls.' Attorneys' Fees - filed by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, Chris Powell, James D. Johnson, Sylvia Forster (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - May 9, 2008 Court Order, # 2 Exhibit B - Maxine Williams letter to Court, # 3 Exhibit C Steven Wheeler letter to Court, # 4 Exhibit D - Nothenberg Decl.)(Nothenberg - PHV, Shirim) (Entered: 06/23/2008)
478 Joint MOTION for Formal Appointment of Grace M. Lopes as Monitor by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 07/23/2008)
479 ORDER granting 478 joint motion for formal appointment of Grace M. Lopes as monitor as set out herein. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 7/24/08 (LWE) (Entered: 07/24/2008)
480 CONSENT ORDERgranting plaintiffs' unopposed motion for approval of settlement regarding plaintiffs' attorneys' fees. FURTHER ORDERED that partial final judgment be entered in favor of plaintiffs in the sum of $4,863,557.50 for all plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses through the 1/4/08 fairness hearing,

10/21/2008 12/30/2008 01/06/2009 01/16/2009 01/20/2009
01/22/2009 03/27/2009 03/27/2009 04/23/2009
05/04/2009

pursuant to the fees settlement agreement of the parties. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 8/7/08 (LWE) (Entered: 08/07/2008)
481 STATUS REPORT Jointly Filed by Plaintiffs and Defendants on behalf of Grace M. Lopes, Court Monitor by Grace M. Lopes (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 10/21/2008)
482 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Year Two Implementation Plan by Haley Barbour (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 12/30/2008)
483 ORDER granting 482 Motion for Extension of time to file Year Two Implementation Plan, as set out herein. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 1/1/09 (LWE) (Entered: 01/06/2009)
484 Joint MOTION for Grace M. Lopes to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Haley Barbour (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Exhibit Certification of Grace Lopes)(Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 01/16/2009)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 484 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, that Grace M. Lopes be admitted pro hac vice in this case in association with local counsel, upon payment of the required fee and upon registration for electronic filing as required by the Court. NO WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE. Signed by Magistrate Judge James C. Sumner on January 20, 2009 (CSF) (Entered: 01/20/2009)
Pro Hac Vice fee paid by (Grace M. Lopes) $ 100, receipt number J029804 (cwl) (Entered: 01/22/2009)
485 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Year Two Implementation Plan by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, Chris Powell, James D. Johnson, Sylvia Forster (Polansky - PHV, Jessica) (Entered: 03/27/2009)
486 CONSENT ORDER filed. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 3/27/09 (cwl) (Entered: 03/27/2009)
TEXT ONLY ORDER finding as moot 485 Motion for Extension of Time to File. (*this motion was granted by 486 order entered 3/27/09). Issued by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 4/23/09. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE. (LWE) (Entered: 04/23/2009)
487 NOTICE of Filing of Period 2 Annual Implementation Plan by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, Chris Powell, James D. Johnson, Sylvia

06/05/2009
07/29/2009 07/29/2009 08/03/2009 08/04/2009 08/04/2009 08/10/2009 08/10/2009 01/29/2010

Forster (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of Technical Difficulties)(Polansky - PHV, Jessica) (Entered: 05/04/2009)
488 STATUS REPORT The Court Monitor's Report to the Court Regarding Defendants' Progress Toward Meeting Period-1 Requirements by Grace M. Lopes (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. 1A - Ex. 1J, # 2 Exhibit Ex. 2 - Ex. 5F, # 3 Exhibit Ex. 5G - Ex. 9B, # 4 Exhibit Ex. 10A - Ex. 12F, # 5 Exhibit Ex. 12G - Ex. 16C, # 6 Exhibit Ex. 17A - Ex. 17C, # 7 Exhibit Ex. 17D - Ex. 19D)(Lopes - PHV, Grace) (Entered: 06/05/2009)
489 MOTION for Attorney Fees Unopposed Motion for Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Expenses by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, Chris Powell, James D. Johnson, Sylvia Forster (Nothenberg - PHV, Shirim) (Entered: 07/29/2009)
490 MEMORANDUM in Support re 489 MOTION for Attorney Fees Unopposed Motion for Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Expenses filed by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, Chris Powell, James D. Johnson, Sylvia Forster (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Nothenberg - PHV, Shirim) (Entered: 07/29/2009)
491 NOTICE of Intention Not to Respond to Motion Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2 (C)(1) by Ricky Felder, Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor re 489 MOTION for Attorney Fees Unopposed Motion for Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Expenses (Young, Ashley) (Entered: 08/03/2009)
DOCKET ANNOTATION: Counsel should note that the correct judge and magistrate judge designation for the case is TSL-JCS instead of LN, and all pleadings filed should reflect same. (cwl) (Entered: 08/04/2009)
492 ORDER granting 489 Motion for Attorney Fees as set out herein. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 8/4/09 (LWE) (Entered: 08/04/2009)
493 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Whitney M. Johnson. (cwl) (Entered: 08/10/2009)
494 Change of Address filed by Whitney M. Johnson: 416 N. Clark Street, Milledgeville, GA 31061 (cwl) (Entered: 08/10/2009)
505 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge James C. Sumner no longer

03/26/2010 03/29/2010 04/16/2010 04/16/2010 06/09/2010 06/09/2010
06/09/2010 06/10/2010 07/23/2010 09/08/2010

assigned to case Signed by District Judge Henry T. Wingate on 1/29/2010 (cwl) (Entered: 09/09/2010)
495 Joint MOTION for Consent Order by Sharon Scott, Zelatra W, Chris Powell, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sylvia Forster (Attachments: # 1 [Proposed] Consent Order)(Nothenberg - PHV, Shirim) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
496 ORDER granting 495 Motion for a proposed furlough of DFCS employees of no more than three days during the current fiscal year, as set out herein. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 3/29/2010 (LWE) (Entered: 03/29/2010)
497 Mail Returned as Undeliverable forward time expired. Mail sent to Richard Ferguson, re 496 Order. (cwl) (Entered: 04/16/2010)
498 Change of Address filed by Richard Ferguson: P.O. Box 1767, Phildelphia, MS 39350. Re-mailed 496 Order. (cwl) (Entered: 04/16/2010)
499 Joint MOTION for Entry of Agreed Order Setting Forth Corrective Action by Haley Barbour, Ricky Felder, Donald Taylor (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 06/09/2010)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to # 499 incomplete proposed order. Proposed orders must be e-mailed to the appropriate judge not filed as an attachment to a pleading or filed as a separate pleading. Attorney advised to refile motion. Motion 499 termed. (cwl) (Entered: 06/09/2010)
500 Joint MOTION for Entry of Agreed Order Setting Forth Corrective Action by Haley Barbour, Ricky Felder, Donald Taylor (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 06/09/2010)
501 ORDER granting 500 Motion Joint MOTION for Entry of Agreed Order Setting Forth Corrective Action Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 6/20/2010 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Proposed Schedule for Producing Data Reports) (cwl) (Entered: 06/10/2010)
502 STATUS REPORT by Grace M. Lopes (Lopes - PHV, Grace) (Entered: 07/23/2010)
503 STATUS REPORT The Court Monitor's Report to the Court Regarding Defendants' Progress Toward Meeting Period 2 Requirements by Grace M. Lopes (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit,

09/08/2010 09/10/2010 09/14/2010 09/17/2010 09/22/2010 10/05/2010 10/05/2010
10/05/2010

# 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Lopes - PHV, Grace) (Entered: 09/08/2010)
504 MOTION to Seal Motion to Place Exhibits to the Court Monitor's Report to the Court Regarding Defendants' Progress Toward Meeting Period 2 Requirements Under Seal by Grace M. Lopes (Lopes - PHV, Grace) (Entered: 09/08/2010)
506 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Court Monitor's Report by Grace M. Lopes (Lopes - PHV, Grace) (Entered: 09/10/2010)
507 ORDER granting 506 Motion for Extension of Time until 11/10/10 for Court Monitor to File report on Bridge Plan, as set out herein. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 9/14/10 (LWE) (Entered: 09/14/2010)
508 ORDER granting 504 Motion to Seal exhibits as set forth herein Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on September 17, 2010 (DCL) (Entered: 09/17/2010)
509 NOTICE Notice of Filing Exhibits Under Seal by Grace M. Lopes (Lopes - PHV, Grace) (Entered: 09/22/2010)
511 MOTION for Contempt and for the Appointment of a Receiver by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Nothenberg - PHV, Shirim) (Entered: 10/05/2010)
512 MEMORANDUM in Support re 511 MOTION for Contempt and for the Appointment of a Receiver filed by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Exhibit A - Dobies Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit C - Period Two Monitoring Report, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit D - Period One Monitoring Report, # 4 Affidavit Exhibit E - Nothenberg Declaration, # 5 Exhibit F - Settlement Agreement, # 6 Exhibit G - Period One IP, # 7 Exhibit H - Period Two IP, # 8 Exhibit I - Bridge Plan, # 9 Exhibit J - G.L. Order, # 10 Exhibit K - Juan F. Stipulation, # 11 Exhibit L - Juan F. Letter to Court Monitor, # 12 Exhibit M - Juan F. Quarterly Report)(Nothenberg PHV, Shirim) Modified on 1/12/2011 ATTACHMENT 4 WITHDRAWN PURSUANT TO ORDER 551 (cwl). (Entered: 10/05/2010)
513 MOTION to Appoint Receiver and for Contempt by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Chris Powell, Sharon

10/05/2010
10/05/2010
10/05/2010 10/05/2010 10/06/2010 10/06/2010 10/06/2010

Scott, Zelatra W (Nothenberg - PHV, Shirim) (Entered: 10/05/2010)
514 AFFIDAVIT re 512 Memorandum in Support of Motion, re 511 MOTION for Contempt and for the Appointment of a Receiver of Daniel Dobies by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Compliance Requirements Chart, # 2 Exhibit 2 Bridge Plan Data Chart)(Nothenberg - PHV, Shirim) (Entered: 10/05/2010)
515 DOCUMENT WITHDRAWN PURSUANT TO ORDER 551 : AFFIDAVIT re 512 Memorandum in Support of Motion,,, of Shirim Nothenberg by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 - Practice Model, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2 Letter from Lowry to Fortenberry, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3 - CSF Assessment, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4 - Letter from Thompson, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5 - TPR Assessment, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 6 CQI Plan, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 7 - CFSR Presentation, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 8 - Policy Manual Plan)(Nothenberg - PHV, Shirim) Modified on 1/12/2011 (cwl). (Entered: 10/05/2010)
516 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages to Plaintiffs' Motion for Contempt and for the Appointment of a Receiver by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Nothenberg - PHV, Shirim) (Entered: 10/05/2010)
517 MOTION to Seal Declaration of Jessica Polansky by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Nothenberg - PHV, Shirim) (Entered: 10/05/2010)
518 ORDER granting 516 Motion for Leave to exceed page limitation. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 10/6/10 (LWE) (Entered: 10/06/2010)
519 ORDER granting 517 Motion to Seal declaration of Jessica Polansky. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 10/6/10 (LWE) (Entered: 10/06/2010)
520 Sealed Document: DECLARATION of Jessica Polansky, Exhibit B RE: 512 Memorandum in Support of Motion, filed by Zelatra W, Sharon Scott, Carla Lewis, Chris Powell, Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, MDHS (DFCS) Special Safety Review - Resource Home, MACWIS Resource with ID Number, # 2 Exhibit 2, Serious Incident Report, dated 9-11-09,

10/12/2010 10/12/2010
11/10/2010 11/10/2010

# 3 Exhibit 3, Serious Incident Report, dated 10-22-09, # 4 Exhibit 4, Serious Incident Report, dated 8-6-09, # 5 Exhibit 5, true and correct copies of selections from the DFCS file of former classmember as provided to plaintiffs by Monitor, # 6 Exhibit 6, true and correct copies of selections from the DFCS file of former classmember, # 7 Exhibit 7, true and correct copies of selections from the DFCS file of former classmember, # 8 Exhibit 8, true and correct copies of selections from the DFCS file of former classmember, # 9 Exhibit 9, true and correct copies of selections from the DFCS file of former classmember, # 10 Exhibit 10, true and correct copies of selections from the DFCS file of former classmember, # 11 Exhibit 11, true and correct copies of selections from the DFCS file of former classmember, # 12 Exhibit 12, true and correct copies of selections from the DFCS file of former classmember, # 13 Exhibit 13, true and correct copies of selections from the DFCS file of former classmember, # 14 Exhibit 14, true and correct copies of selections from the DFCS file of former classmember, # 15 Exhibit 15, true and correct copies of selections from the DFCS file of former classmember, # 16 Exhibit 16, true and correct copies of selections from the DFCS file of former classmember, # 17 Exhibit 17, true and correct copies of selections from the DFCS file of former classmember, # 18 Cover Letter)(cwl) (Entered: 10/06/2010)
521 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 511 MOTION for Contempt and for the Appointment of a Receiver by Haley Barbour, Ricky Felder, Donald Taylor (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 10/12/2010)
522 ORDER granting 521 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 511 MOTION for Contempt and for the Appointment of a Receiver, 513 MOTION to Appoint Receiver and for Contempt. Responses due by 11/15/2010. Replies due by 12/3/2010. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 10/12/10 (YWJ) (Entered: 10/12/2010)
523 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Court Monitor's Report by Grace M. Lopes (Lopes - PHV, Grace) (Entered: 11/10/2010)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to Doc. 523 : Memoranda in support should be filed separately and shown as a related document to the motion (Courts Administrative Procedures for Electronic Case Filing Sec. 3.A.7). Attorney is directed to file the Memorandum as a separate document and link it to the appropriate document. (EJS) (Entered: 11/10/2010)

11/10/2010
11/10/2010 11/12/2010 11/12/2010 11/12/2010
11/23/2010
11/29/2010 11/29/2010 12/03/2010 12/03/2010

DOCKET ANNOTATION as to Doc. 523 : Proposed orders are not to be electronically filed as a separate pleading or as an attachment to a pleading, but instead are to be provided to chambers by e-mail (Courts Administrative Procedures for Electronic Case Filing Sec.5.B.). Attorney is advised to follow this procedure in future filings. (EJS) (Entered: 11/10/2010)
524 MEMORANDUM in Support re 523 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Court Monitor's Report filed by Grace M. Lopes (Lopes - PHV, Grace) (Entered: 11/10/2010)
525 ORDER granting 523 Motion for Extension of Time to File monitor's report. Report due by 11/23/10. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 11/12/10 (LWE) (Entered: 11/12/2010)
526 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 511 MOTION for Contempt and for the Appointment of a Receiver by Haley Barbour, Ricky Felder, Donald Taylor (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 11/12/2010)
527 ORDER granting 526 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Response to 511 motion for contempt/appointment of receive due by 12/3/10; reply in support of motion for contempt/for appointment of receiver due by 12/23/10. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 11/12/10 (LWE) (Entered: 11/12/2010)
528 STATUS REPORT The Court Monitor's November 23, 2010 Report to the Court Regarding the June 10, 2010 Agreed Order for Corrective Action by Grace M. Lopes (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Exhibit 1 - Exhibit 7, # 2 Appendix Exhibit 8, # 3 Appendix Exhibit 9 - Exhibit 25, # 4 Appendix Exhibit 26 - Exhibit 30, # 5 Appendix Exhibit 31 - Exhibit 38, # 6 Appendix Exhibit 39 Exhibit 45)(Lopes - PHV, Grace) (Entered: 11/23/2010)
529 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Richard Ferguson containing 527 Order. (cwl) (Entered: 11/29/2010)
530 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Richard Ferguson containing 525 Order. (cwl) (Entered: 11/29/2010)
531 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Haley Barbour, Ricky Felder, Donald Taylor (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 12/03/2010)
532 MOTION to Seal Exhibits X, Y, & Z by Haley Barbour, Ricky Felder, Donald Taylor (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 12/03/2010)

12/03/2010 12/03/2010 12/03/2010 12/03/2010
12/03/2010 12/03/2010
12/07/2010 12/08/2010 12/23/2010

533 ORDER granting 531 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 12/3/10. (jpw) (Entered: 12/03/2010)
534 ORDER granting 532 Motion to Seal Exhibits X, Y and Z. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 12/3/10. (jpw) (Entered: 12/03/2010)
535 MOTION to Strike 515 Affidavit,, by Haley Barbour, Ricky Felder, Donald Taylor (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit AC)(Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 12/03/2010)
536 RESPONSE in Opposition re 511 MOTION for Contempt and for the Appointment of a Receiver filed by Haley Barbour, Ricky Felder, Donald Taylor (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit BC, # 3 Exhibit D, # 4 Exhibit E-S, # 5 Exhibit T, # 6 Exhibit UZ)(Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 12/03/2010)
537 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 511 MOTION for Contempt and for the Appointment of a Receiver filed by Haley Barbour, Ricky Felder, Donald Taylor (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 12/03/2010)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to # 535 and 536 Local Rule 7 requires that all supporting exhibits to a document be denominated by an exhibit letter or number and a meaningful description. For example Exhibit 1, Affidavit of John Doe. Attorney is advised to follow this rule in future filings. (cwl) (Entered: 12/03/2010)
538 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 535 MOTION to Strike 515 Affidavit,, by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Nothenberg PHV, Shirim) (Entered: 12/07/2010)
539 ORDER granting 538 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 535 MOTION to Strike 515 Affidavit. Reply in further support of motion due by 1/7/2011. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 12/8/10 (LWE) (Entered: 12/08/2010)
543 REPLY to Response to Motion re 536 Response in Opposition to Motion, 511 MOTION for Contempt and for the Appointment of a Receiver filed by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A Correspondence from G. Lopes to D. Thomspon, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B - Correspondence to K. Rachal, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C Letter from J. Bock to D. Thompson, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit D MACWIS Report, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit E - Monitor's Interim

12/23/2010 12/23/2010 12/23/2010
12/23/2010 12/27/2010 12/28/2010 12/29/2010

Findings on Period Two, # 6 Affidavit Exhibit F - Affidavit of Daniel Dobies)(Nothenberg - PHV, Shirim) (Entered: 12/23/2010)
544 ATTACHMENT re 543 Reply to Response to Motion,, to Affidavit of Daniel Dobies by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 - Compliance Chart and Correlating Bridge Plan Requirements)(Nothenberg - PHV, Shirim) (Entered: 12/23/2010)
545 MOTION to Withdraw 515 Affidavit,, and to Substitute Declaration by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A Declaration of Shirim Nothenberg, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B - List of Substitute Citations)(Nothenberg - PHV, Shirim) (Entered: 12/23/2010)
546 AFFIDAVIT re 515 Affidavit,, of Shirim Nothenberg by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 - Practice Model, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2 - Letter from M. Lowry to R. Fortenberry, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3 - Foster Care Assessments, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4 - Letter from D. Thompson, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5 - TPR Assessment, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 6 - CQI Plan, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 7 Preliminary CFSR Findings, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 8 - Schedule for Revising Policy Manual)(Nothenberg - PHV, Shirim) (Entered: 12/23/2010)
547 RESPONSE to Motion re 535 MOTION to Strike 515 Affidavit,, of Shirim Nothenberg filed by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Nothenberg - PHV, Shirim) (Entered: 12/23/2010)
548 Unopposed MOTION to Seal Document 515 Affidavit,, Exhibit 5 to Nothenberg Declaration by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A - Confidentiality Order)(Nothenberg - PHV, Shirim) (Entered: 12/27/2010)
549 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Richard Ferguson (SEC) (Entered: 12/28/2010)
550 ORDER SEALING EXHIBIT-5: granting 548 Motion to Seal Document Exhibit-5 to the Original Declaration of Shirim Nothenberg(Document No 515 under seal). Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 12/29/10 (SEC) (Entered: 12/29/2010)

01/11/2011
01/12/2011
03/25/2011 04/04/2011 04/04/2011 04/07/2011 05/13/2011

551 ORDER granting 545 Motion to Withdraw. The Nothenberg Declaration, filed as Exhibit E to Plaintiffs Memorandum of Law shall be withdrawn and the revised Declaration of Shirim Nothenberg, attached as Exhibit A to Plaintiffs Motion to Withdraw, shall be substituted as Exhibit E; and The original citations to the Declaration of Shirim Nothenberg in Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law shall be replaced with the citations listed in Exhibit B to Plaintiffs Motion to Withdraw. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 1/11/2011 (cwl) (Entered: 01/11/2011)
552 AFFIDAVIT re 512 Memorandum in Support of Motion,,, Exhibit E to Memorandum in Support of Motion for Contempt and for the Appointment of a Receiver - Declaration of Shirim Nothenberg by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1- Practice Model, # 2 Exhibit 2 - Letter from M. Lowry to R. Fortenberry, # 3 Exhibit 3 - Foster Care Assessments, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Letter from D. Thompson, # 5 Exhibit 5 - TPR Assessment, # 6 Exhibit 6 - CQI Plan, # 7 Exhibit 7 - Preliminary CFSR Findings, # 8 Exhibit 8 - Schedule for Revising Policy Manual)(Polansky PHV, Jessica) (Entered: 01/12/2011)
NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 511 MOTION for Contempt and for the Appointment of a Receiver, 513 MOTION to Appoint Receiver and for Contempt : Motion Hearing set for 5/13/2011 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3 (Jackson) before District Judge Tom S. Lee (LWE) (Entered: 03/25/2011)
553 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Teresa A, Wells containing Notice of hearing filed on 3/25/2011. Re-mailed notice to forwarding address, re P. O. Box 14, Mt. Pleasant, MS 38649. (cwl) (Entered: 04/04/2011)
554 Change of Address filed by Teresa A. Wells, P.O. Box 14, Mt. Pleasant, MS 38649 (Entered: 04/04/2011)
555 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Richard Ferguson containing Notice of Hearing filed on 3/25/2011. (cwl) (Entered: 04/07/2011)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Tom S. Lee: Motion Hearing held on 5/13/2011 re 511 MOTION for Contempt and for the Appointment of a Receiver filed by Zelatra W, Sharon Scott, Carla Lewis, Chris Powell, Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson. Ruling forthcoming. (Court Reporter B. Wolverton (601/965-6015) (LWE) (Entered: 05/13/2011)

05/13/2011 05/17/2011
05/25/2011 06/10/2011 09/22/2011 09/22/2011 02/07/2012 02/07/2012
02/13/2012

556 Exhibit List/Exhibit entered at motion hearing 5/13/11 (G-1) (LWE) (Entered: 05/13/2011)
557 ORDER denying 511 Motion for Contempt; denying 513 Motion to Appoint Receiver. The parties are directed to work toward a modified agreement, as directed herein, and report to the court on the progress of their efforts within 30 days hereof. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 5/17/11 (LWE) (Entered: 05/17/2011)
558 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Theresa A. Wells containing 557 Order. Remailed document, re Teresa A. Wells, P.O. Box 14, Mt. Pleasant, MS 38649. (cwl) (Entered: 05/25/2011)
559 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Richard Ferguson containing 557 Order. (cwl) (Entered: 06/10/2011)
560 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Susan Lambiase by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Nothenberg - PHV, Shirim) (Entered: 09/22/2011)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 560 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Susan Lambiase(PHV) terminated and no longer represents Plaintiffs. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on September 22, 2011. (WS) (Entered: 09/22/2011)
561 Unopposed MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Nothenberg - PHV, Shirim) (Entered: 02/07/2012)
562 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 561 Unopposed MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses filed by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1: Declaration of Marcia Robinson Lowry, # 2 Exhibit Attachment A, # 3 Exhibit Attachment B: Part 1, # 4 Exhibit Attachment B: Part 2, # 5 Exhibit Attachment B: Part 3, # 6 Exhibit Attachment C, # 7 Exhibit Attachment D)(Nothenberg - PHV, Shirim) (Entered: 02/07/2012)
563 AGREED ORDER granting 561 Motion for Attorney Fees of $323,517.81 for legal services rendered 10/1/09 through 12/31/10, as set out herein. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 2/13/12 (LWE) (Entered: 02/13/2012)

02/22/2012 02/22/2012 02/22/2012 05/04/2012 05/11/2012 05/11/2012
05/21/2012
05/21/2012 06/04/2012
06/22/2012

564 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Teresa A. Wells (SEC) (Entered: 02/22/2012)
565 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Annie Anderson (SEC) (Entered: 02/22/2012)
566 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Richard Ferguson (SEC) (Entered: 02/22/2012)
Minute Entry: Phone conference held with Judge Lee and all counsel 5/4/12 re: request for fail-safe provision. ACTION TAKEN: Denied.(LWE) (Entered: 05/04/2012)
567 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Shirim Nothenberg by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Polansky - PHV, Jessica) (Entered: 05/11/2012)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 567 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Shirim Nothenberg - PHV terminated. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 5/11/2012. (WS) (Entered: 05/11/2012)
568 MOTION for Sarah Russo to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Russo Certificate stating read and familiar with rules of court, # 2 Exhibit B-Russo Certificate of Good Standing)(Drinkwater, W.) (Entered: 05/21/2012)
Pro Hac Vice fee paid by (Sarah Teresa Russo) $ 100, receipt number 34643015922 (cwl) (Entered: 05/21/2012)
TEXT-ONLY ORDER granting 568 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice that Sarah Russon be admitted pro hac vice in this case on behalf of Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott and Zelatra W in association with local counsel and upon registration for electronic filing as required by the Court. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE FROM THE COURT. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 6/4/12. (JEJ) (Entered: 06/04/2012)
569 MOTION for Miriam F. Ingber to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Certificate of Familiarity, # 2 Exhibit B-Certificate of Good Standing)(Drinkwater, W.) (Entered: 06/22/2012)

06/22/2012 06/29/2012
06/29/2012
07/06/2012 07/12/2012
07/12/2012 07/16/2012 07/17/2012 07/19/2012

Pro Hac Vice fee paid by (Miriam F. Ingber) $ 100, receipt number 34643016416. (EJS) (Entered: 06/22/2012)
TEXT-ONLY ORDER granting 569 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice that Miriam F. Ingber be admitted pro hac vice in this case on behalf of Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W in association with local counsel and upon registration for electronic filing as required by the Court. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE FROM THE COURT. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 6/29/12. (JEJ) (Entered: 06/29/2012)
570 STATUS REPORT The Court Monitor's Report to the Court Regarding Findings From the Second Case Record Review and Other Matters Relevant to Defendants' Progress Toward Satisfying the Requirements of the Settlement Agreement by Grace M. Lopes (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. 1 - Ex. 30)(Lopes - PHV, Grace) (Entered: 06/29/2012)
571 MODIFIED MISSISSIPPI SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND REFORM PLAN. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 7/6/12 (LWE) (Entered: 07/06/2012)
572 Joint MOTION FOR ENTRY OF AN AGREEMENT REGARDING THE ENHANCEMENT OF FEDERAL FUNDING by Haley Barbour, Ricky Felder, Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Billy Mangold, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Donald Taylor, Zelatra W (Ingber - PHV, Miriam) (Entered: 07/12/2012)
573 ORDER/AGREEMENT granting 572 Motion regarding enhancement of federal funding, as set out herein. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 7/12/12 (LWE) (Entered: 07/12/2012)
574 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Teresa A. Wells and Richard Ferguson containing 571 Modified Mississippi Settlement Agreement and Reform Plan. (cwl) (Entered: 07/16/2012)
575 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney of Record by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Ingber - PHV, Miriam) (Entered: 07/17/2012)
576 ORDER granting 575 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Jessica Polansky - PHV terminated. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 7/19/12. (YWJ) (Entered: 07/19/2012)

07/20/2012 07/20/2012 10/25/2012
10/25/2012 12/14/2012 12/17/2012
01/25/2013 02/08/2013 02/08/2013
02/11/2013

577 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Richard Ferguson (cwl) (Entered: 07/20/2012)
578 Mail Returned as Undeliverable. Mail sent to Teresa A. Wells (cwl) (Entered: 07/20/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Tom S. Lee: Telephonic status Conference held on 10/25/2012. Report due between 1/7/13-1/15/13. Parties may respond within 2 weeks. HEARING ON REPORT WILL BE HELD ON 2/21/13. (Phone participants: Grace Lopes, Miriam Ingber, Marcia Lowry, Kenya Rachal, Ashley Tullos Young) (LWE) (Entered: 10/25/2012)
STATUS HEARING set for 2/21/2013 09:00 AM in Courtroom 4A (Jackson) before District Judge Tom S. Lee (4 hours) (LWE) (Entered: 10/25/2012)
579 MOTION for Extension of Time to File by Grace M. Lopes (Lopes - PHV, Grace) (Entered: 12/14/2012)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 579 Motion for Extension of Time to File Monitor's report. Extension of time for filing Monitor's report granted from January 15, 2013, to JANUARY 25, 2013, with deadline for responsive pleadings thereto extended from January 29, 2013 to FEBRUARY 15, 2013. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE FROM THIS COURT. Issued by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 12/17/12 (LWE) (Entered: 12/17/2012)
580 STATUS REPORT by Grace M. Lopes (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Lopes - PHV, Grace) (Entered: 01/25/2013)
581 Unopposed MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Ingber - PHV, Miriam) (Entered: 02/08/2013)
582 MEMORANDUM in Support re 581 Unopposed MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses filed by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1: Declaration of Marcia Robinson Lowry, # 2 Exhibit Attachment A, # 3 Exhibit Attachment B, # 4 Exhibit Attachment C)(Ingber - PHV, Miriam) (Entered: 02/08/2013)
583 ORDER granting 581 Motion for Attorney Fees and expenses in the amount of $288,401.98 upon appropriation by the Mississippi legislature, for legal services and expenses incurred from 1/1/11

02/15/2013 02/15/2013 02/21/2013
02/21/2013 04/04/2013 04/23/2013 04/30/2013 05/09/2013 05/28/2013

through 8/31/12, as set out herein. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 2/11/13 (LWE) (Entered: 02/11/2013)
584 STATUS REPORT Plaintiffs' Response to the Court Monitor's Status Report to the Court Regarding Progress During Period Three by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Ingber - PHV, Miriam) (Entered: 02/15/2013)
585 STATUS REPORT Defendants' Response to the Court Monitor's Report by Haley Barbour, Ricky Felder, Donald Taylor (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 02/15/2013)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Tom S. Lee: Status Conference held on 2/21/2013, in which all counsel updated the court as to the progress of this case. A telephone conference will be held on Thursday, April 25, 2012, at 10:30 a.m. (Court Reporter C. Bond (601/608-4186) (LWE) (Entered: 02/21/2013)
Set/Reset Hearings: Telephone Conference set for 4/25/2013 10:30 AM before District Judge Tom S. Lee (LWE) (Entered: 02/21/2013)
NOTICE/Email forwarded to counsel advising of TIME CHANGE ONLY: Phone conference set with Judge Lee on April 25, 2013, has been changed from 10:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. (c/mailed to Atty. Marcia Lowry, as no email address is on file for her) (LWE) (Entered: 04/04/2013)
Set/Reset Hearings: Telephone Conference re-set for 4/30/2013 02:00 PM before District Judge Tom S. Lee (LWE) (Entered: 04/23/2013)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Tom S. Lee: Telephone Conference held on 4/30/2013. The parties are to submit an agreed order setting forth a schedule. (LWE) (Entered: 05/01/2013)
586 ORDER: The parties will submit a schedule to the court by 5/24/13 setting forth specific tasks and deadlines, etc., as set out herein. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 5/9/13 (LWE) (Entered: 05/09/2013)
587 AGREED ORDER extending deadline of 5/24/13 to 6/11/13. Remaining provisions of the 5/9/13 order remain in effect. Signed

06/11/2013 06/24/2013 07/18/2013 09/05/2013 09/13/2013 09/16/2013
09/20/2013 11/08/2013

by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 5/28/13 (LWE) (Entered: 05/28/2013)
588 STATUS REPORT Jointly Submitted to the Court by Haley Barbour, Ricky Felder, Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Donald Taylor, Zelatra W (Ingber - PHV, Miriam) (Entered: 06/11/2013)
589 ORDER APPROVING project schedule for defendants' production of data reports required by Appendix C of modified settlement agreement, as set out herein. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 6/24/13 (LWE) (Entered: 06/24/2013)
590 NOTICE of Filing of Initial Period 4 Implementation Plan by Haley Barbour, Ricky Felder, Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Billy Mangold, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Donald Taylor, Zelatra W (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Ingber - PHV, Miriam) (Entered: 07/18/2013)
591 STATUS REPORT The Court Monitor's Update to the Court Regarding Progress During Period 3 As Reflected In Certain Data Reports Produced By the Defendants by Grace M. Lopes (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Lopes - PHV, Grace) (Entered: 09/05/2013)
592 STATUS REPORT Plaintiffs' Response to the Court Monitor's Update to the Court Regarding Progress During Period 3 as Reflected in Certain Data Reports Produced by the Defendants by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Ingber - PHV, Miriam) (Entered: 09/13/2013)
593 STATUS REPORT Plaintiffs' Amended Response to the Court Monitor's Update to the Court Regarding Progress During Period 3 as Reflected in Certain Data Reports Produced by the Defendants by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Ingber - PHV, Miriam) (Entered: 09/16/2013)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Hearing set for 11/8/2013 09:00 AM in Courtroom 4A (Jackson) before District Judge Tom S. Lee (LWE) (Entered: 09/20/2013)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Tom S. Lee: Status Conference held 11/8/2013, wherein counsel presented an update of this action. A hearing will be held during the latter part of February, 2014, to be scheduled at a later date. Present were Attys. Marcia Lowry; W. Drinkwater; J. Davis; K. Rachal

12/23/2013 12/23/2013 12/30/2013
01/08/2014 02/24/2014 02/24/2014
02/25/2014 03/04/2014

and Grace Lopes, Court Monitor. (Court Reporter B. Wolverton (601/608-4188) (LWE) (Entered: 11/08/2013)
594 MOTION for Julia Davis to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Certification, # 2 Exhibit B-Certificate of Good Standing)(Drinkwater, W.) (Entered: 12/23/2013)
Pro Hac Vice fee paid by (Julia Davis) $ 100, receipt number 34643025231. (TLC) (Entered: 12/23/2013)
TEXT-ONLY ORDER granting 594 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. That Julia Davis be admitted pro hac vice in this case on behalf of the plaintiffs in association with local counsel and upon registration for electronic filing as required by the Court. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE FROM THE COURT. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 12/30/2013. (JEJ) (Entered: 12/30/2013)
595 NOTICE of Filing of Final Period 4 Implementation Plan by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Davis PHV, Julia) (Entered: 01/08/2014)
596 Unopposed MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Davis - PHV, Julia) (Entered: 02/24/2014)
597 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 596 Unopposed MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses filed by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Lowry Decl., # 2 Exhibit Lowry Decl. Attach. A, # 3 Exhibit Lowry Decl. Attach. B, # 4 Exhibit Lowry Decl. Attach. C)(Davis - PHV, Julia) (Entered: 02/24/2014)
598 ORDER granting 596 Motion for Attorneys' Fees in the agreedupon amount of $171,412.60 for services and expenses incurred 9/1/2012 thru 8/31/2013, as set out herein. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 2/25/14 (LWE) (Entered: 02/25/2014)
599 Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to 598 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees. Mail sent to Richard Ferguson. (cwl) Modified on 3/4/2014 (cwl). (Entered: 03/04/2014)

03/04/2014 03/12/2014 05/05/2014
05/05/2014 05/07/2014 05/07/2014 05/07/2014
05/08/2014
05/08/2014 05/22/2014

600 Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to 598 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees. Mail sent to Teresa A. Wells. (cwl) (Entered: 03/04/2014)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Hearing set for 5/22/2014 09:00 AM in Courtroom 4A (Jackson) before District Judge Tom S. Lee (LWE) (Entered: 03/12/2014)
601 MOTION for Kathryn A. Wood to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice, # 2 Exhibit Certificates of Good Standing)(Drinkwater, W.) (Entered: 05/05/2014)
Pro Hac Vice fee paid by (Kathryn A. Wood) $ 100, receipt number 34643027161 (cwl) (Entered: 05/05/2014)
602 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Miriam Ingber by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Davis - PHV, Julia) (Entered: 05/07/2014)
603 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Sarah T. Russo by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Davis - PHV, Julia) (Entered: 05/07/2014)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 602 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Miriam F. Ingber - PHV terminated; granting 603 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Sarah Teresa Russo - PHV terminated. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 5/7/14. (YWJ) (Entered: 05/07/2014)
TEXT-ONLY ORDER granting 601 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. That Kathryn A. Wood be admitted pro hac vice in this case on behalf of the plaintiffs in association with local counsel and upon registration for electronic filing as required by the Court. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE FROM THE COURT. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 5/8/14. (JEJ) (Entered: 05/08/2014)
604 STATUS REPORT by Grace M. Lopes (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit)(Lopes - PHV, Grace) (Entered: 05/08/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Tom S. Lee: Status hearing held on 5/22/2014. The court heard reports from Attorneys Marcia Lowry and Rusty Fortenberry, as well as

05/22/2014 06/30/2014 07/08/2014 07/09/2014
07/09/2014 07/11/2014 07/15/2014 07/17/2014 07/21/2014 08/05/2014
09/02/2014

Court Monitor Grace Lopes. A status hearing has been set for June 26, 2014, at 9:00 a.m. to present an agreed order to the court for entry. Court Reporter/Transcriber Brenda Wolverton, Telephone Number : 601-608-4188. (LWE) (Entered: 05/22/2014)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 6/26/2014 09:00 AM in Courtroom 4A (Jackson) before District Judge Tom S. Lee (LWE) (Entered: 05/22/2014)
605 ORDER creating director for sustainable transformation and transformation team agreed to as set out herein. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 6/30/14 (LWE) (Entered: 06/30/2014)
606 Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to 605 Order. Mail sent to Richard Johnson. (cwl) (Entered: 07/08/2014)
607 CORRECTED ORDER creating director for sustainable transformation and transformation team, agreed to as set out herein. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 7/9/14 (LWE) (Entered: 07/09/2014)
608 Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to 605 Order. Mail sent to Teresa A. Wells (MGB) (Entered: 07/09/2014)
609 Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to 605 Order. Mail sent to Geroge Whitten. (cwl) (Entered: 07/11/2014)
610 Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to 607 Order. Mail sent to Richard Ferguson (cwl) (Entered: 07/15/2014)
611 Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to 607 Order. Mail sent to Teresa A. Wells (cwl) (Entered: 07/17/2014)
612 Letter from Frank and Martha Hartley, Sr. expressing concerns. (cwl) (Entered: 07/21/2014)
TEXT ONLY ORDER directing the Clerk of Court to file 612 Letter UNDER SEAL, as said document contains confidential identifying information. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE FROM THIS COURT. Issued by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 8/5/14 (LWE) (Entered: 08/05/2014)
613 MOTION for Sara Robinson-Glasser to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Ex. A-Glasser Certificate of Good Standing)(Drinkwater, W.) (Entered: 09/02/2014)

09/02/2014 09/04/2014
09/16/2014 09/16/2014 09/16/2014 09/26/2014 09/30/2014
12/23/2014 03/02/2015

Pro Hac Vice fee paid for Sara Robinson-Glasser receipt number 0538-2762337 $ 100 (Drinkwater, W.) (Entered: 09/02/2014)
TEXT-ONLY ORDER denying 613 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. That the motion for pro hac vice admission of Sara Robinson-Glasser is denied for failure to attach a certificate of good standing by the appropriate licensing authority according to L. U. R. Civ. 83.1(d)(4). No further written order shall issue from the Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 9/4/2014. (JEJ) (Entered: 09/04/2014)
614 NOTICE of Change of Addess - Marcia Lowry by James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Drinkwater, W.) (Entered: 09/16/2014)
615 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Julia A. Davis and Kathryn A. Wood by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Drinkwater, W.) (Entered: 09/16/2014)
616 ORDER granting 615 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Julia L. Davis - PHV and Kathryn A. Wood - PHV terminated. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 9/16/14. (YWJ) (Entered: 09/16/2014)
617 MOTION for Sara Robinson-Glasser to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-Certificate of Good Standing)(Drinkwater, W.) (Entered: 09/26/2014)
TEXT-ONLY ORDER granting 617 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. That Sara Robinson-Glasser be admitted pro hac vice in this case on behalf of the plaintiffs in association with local counsel and upon registration for electronic filing as required by the Court. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE FROM THE COURT. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 9/30/2014. (JEJ) (Entered: 09/30/2014)
618 NOTICE of Filing of Period 5 Implementation Plan by Donald Taylor (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Year 5 Implementation Plan)(Tullos, Ashley) (Entered: 12/23/2014)
619 ****ERROR****DISREGARD THIS ENTRY. MOTION for Stephen A. Dixon to Appear Pro Hac Vice by James D. Johnson, Sylvia Forster and Carla Lewis (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit LA State Bar Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Exhibit Supreme Court LA

03/02/2015 03/03/2015 03/04/2015
03/09/2015 03/09/2015
03/09/2015 03/09/2015
03/13/2015

Certificate of Good Standing)(Bentley, Michael) Modified on 3/2/2015 (cwl). Modified on 3/3/2015 (cwl). (Entered: 03/02/2015)
Pro Hac Vice fee paid for Stephen A. Dixon receipt number 05382891099 $ 100 (Bentley, Michael) (Entered: 03/02/2015)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to # 619 : Attorney advises that there is an error in this entry, and it should be disregarded. Motion 619 termed. (cwl) (Entered: 03/03/2015)
620 Amended MOTION for Stephen A. Dixon to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing-LA State Bar, # 2 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing-LA Supreme Court)(Bentley, Michael) (Entered: 03/04/2015)
621 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Lowry - PHV, Marcia) (Entered: 03/09/2015)
622 MOTION for Contempt by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Monitor's Chart, # 2 Exhibit Monitor's Chart, # 3 Exhibit Monitor's Chart, # 4 Exhibit Monitor's Chart, # 5 Exhibit Monitor's Chart, # 6 Exhibit Monitor's Chart, # 7 Exhibit Monitor's Chart, # 8 Exhibit Monitor's Chart, # 9 Exhibit Monitor's Chart, # 10 Exhibit Monitor's Chart, # 11 Affidavit Declaration of Marcia Robinson Lowry, # 12 Affidavit Declaration of Dr. Viola Miller)(Lowry - PHV, Marcia) (Entered: 03/09/2015)
623 MEMORANDUM in Support re 622 MOTION for Contempt filed by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Lowry - PHV, Marcia) (Entered: 03/09/2015)
TEXT-ONLY ORDER granting 620 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. That Stephen A. Dixon be admitted pro hac vice in this case on behalf of the plaintiffs in association with local counsel and upon registration for electronic filing as required by the Court. No further written order shall issue from the Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 3/9/2015. (JEJ) (Entered: 03/09/2015)
Scheduling Conference set for 3/24/2015 09:30 AM before District Judge Tom S. Lee in Chambers located at 501 East Court Street, Room 4.756, Jackson, MS. (*At this conference, scheduling/discovery deadlines and date for evidentiary hearing on

03/24/2015
03/24/2015 03/25/2015 04/02/2015 04/02/2015 04/03/2015 04/03/2015 04/06/2015

motion for contempt will be determined.) (LWE) (Entered: 03/13/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Tom S. Lee: Scheduling Conference held on 3/24/2015 in Chambers. Counsel will prepare and submit an agreed scheduling order for entry as to deadlines for response and rebuttal to contempt motion, depositions, and limited discovery (limited to materials reviewed by Ms. Lopes thru report period ending 6/30/14). An evidentiary hearing will be held August 10, 2015 (Estimated length 3-5 days). Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law due to Judge Lee by July 31, 2015. (COUNSEL PRESENT: FOR PLAINTIFF Marcia Lowery, Wayne Drinkwater, Michael Bentley; FOR THE STATE - Rusty Fortenberry, Kenya Rachal, Ashley Tullos; FOR OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR - Drew Snyder, Bobby Waites. COURT MONITOR GRACE LOPES PARTICIPATED VIA PHONE) (LWE) (Entered: 03/24/2015)
Contempt Hearing set for 8/10/2015 09:00 AM in Courtroom 4A (Jackson) before District Judge Tom S. Lee (Estimated length: 3-5 days) (LWE) (Entered: 03/24/2015)
624 Pro Se Registration for Electonic Receipt of Court Filings as to C. Randy Cotton. (Attachments: # 1 Letter, # 2 Envelope) (cwl) (Entered: 03/25/2015)
625 NOTICE of Service of Plaintiffs' First Request for Production by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Drinkwater, W.) (Entered: 04/02/2015)
626 NOTICE of Service of Plaintiffs' Interrogatories by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Drinkwater, W.) (Entered: 04/02/2015)
627 First NOTICE of Service of Interrogatories by Haley Barbour, Ricky Felder, Donald Taylor (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 04/03/2015)
628 First NOTICE of Service of Request for Production by Haley Barbour, Ricky Felder, Donald Taylor (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 04/03/2015)
629 SCHEDULING ORDER FOR PLAINITIFFS' RENEWED MOTION FOR CONTEMPT, FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER, agreed to as set out herein. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 4/6/15 (LWE) (Entered: 04/06/2015)

04/09/2015 04/14/2015 04/15/2015 04/16/2015 04/17/2015 04/20/2015 04/22/2015 04/22/2015 04/24/2015 05/11/2015
05/12/2015

630 Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to 629 Set Scheduling Order. Mail sent to George Whitten, Jr. Document re-mailed to George Whitten, Jr., at 310 High St., Greenwood, MS 38930. (cwl) (Entered: 04/09/2015)
631 Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to 629 Scheduling Order. Mail sent to Teresa A. Wells. (cwl) (Entered: 04/14/2015)
632 Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to 629 Set Scheduling Order Deadlines/Hearings. Mail sent to Richard Ferguson (cwl) (Entered: 04/15/2015)
633 Unopposed MOTION for Attorney Fees by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Robinson-Glasser - PHV, Sara) (Entered: 04/16/2015)
634 RESPONSE to Motion re 633 Unopposed MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Haley Barbour, Ricky Felder, Donald Taylor (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 04/17/2015)
635 ORDER granting 633 Motion for Attorney Fees, as set out herein. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 4/20/15 (LWE) (Entered: 04/20/2015)
636 NOTICE of Service of Response to Interrogatories by Haley Barbour, Ricky Felder, Donald Taylor (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 04/22/2015)
637 NOTICE of Service of Response to Request for Production by Haley Barbour, Ricky Felder, Donald Taylor (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 04/22/2015)
638 Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to 635 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees. Mail sent to George Whitten. (cwl) (Entered: 04/24/2015)
639 NOTICE of Service of Plaintiffs' Responses to Defentants' First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Production by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Robinson-Glasser - PHV, Sara) (Entered: 05/11/2015)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to 639 : This document notices service of multiple forms of discovery. Each event should be separately docketed. The same PDF document may be used for all entries. Attorney is advised to docket additional events as needed.

05/12/2015 05/12/2015 05/12/2015 05/12/2015 05/20/2015 05/21/2015 05/22/2015
06/04/2015 06/04/2015 06/10/2015

These events are found in the electronic docketing system under Discovery Documents. (PKM) (Entered: 05/12/2015)
640 NOTICE of Service of Response to Interrogatories by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Bentley, Michael) (Entered: 05/12/2015)
641 NOTICE of Service of Response to Request for Production by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Bentley, Michael) (Entered: 05/12/2015)
642 NOTICE of Service of Response to Request for Production by Haley Barbour, Ricky Felder, Donald Taylor (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 05/12/2015)
643 NOTICE of Service of Response to Interrogatories by Haley Barbour, Ricky Felder, Donald Taylor (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 05/12/2015)
644 Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to 635 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees. Mail sent to Ezell Lanier. (cwl) (Entered: 05/20/2015)
645 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct 629 Set Scheduling Order Deadlines/Hearings, by Haley Barbour, Ricky Felder, Donald Taylor (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 05/21/2015)
646 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER FOR PLAINITIFFS' RENEWED MOTION FOR CONTEMPT, FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A RECEIVER: granting 645 Motion to Amend/Correct 629 Scheduling Order as set out herein. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 5/22/2015 (cwl) Modified docket text on 5/22/2015 (cwl). (Entered: 05/22/2015)
647 NOTICE to Take Deposition by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (RobinsonGlasser - PHV, Sara) (Entered: 06/04/2015)
648 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Jerry Milner by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Robinson-Glasser - PHV, Sara) (Entered: 06/04/2015)
649 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Haley Barbour, Ricky Felder, Donald Taylor (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 06/10/2015)

06/11/2015 06/12/2015 06/12/2015 06/12/2015
06/15/2015 06/15/2015 06/15/2015

650 ORDER granting 649 Motion for Leave to exceed page limitation. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 6/11/15 (LWE) (Entered: 06/11/2015)
651 Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to 650 Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages,. Mail sent to Ezell Lanier (cwl) (Entered: 06/12/2015)
652 NOTICE of Service of Designation of Experts by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Bentley, Michael) (Entered: 06/12/2015)
653 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of STATUS CONFERENCE held on February 21, 2013 before Judge Tom S. Lee. Court Reporter/Transcriber Cherie Bond, Telephone Number : 601-608-4186. NOTICE RE : REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no Notice is filed, the transcript will be made electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on the court website at www.mssd.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 7/6/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/13/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/10/2015. (CB) (Entered: 06/12/2015)
654 NOTICE of Service of Corrected Designation of Experts by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Bentley, Michael) (Entered: 06/15/2015)
655 STATUS REPORT Court Monitor's Report to the Court Regarding Implementation Period 4 by Grace M. Lopes (Attachments: # 1 Appendix, # 2 Appendix)(Lopes - PHV, Grace) (Entered: 06/15/2015)
656 RESPONSE in Opposition re 622 MOTION for Contempt filed by Haley Barbour, Ricky Felder, Donald Taylor (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A- David C. v. Leavitt, # 2 Exhibit B - Tennessee's Modified Settlement Agreement, # 3 Exhibit C - United States GAO Status, # 4 Exhibit D - LaShawn A. v. Gray, # 5 Exhibit E David C. v. Huntsman, # 6 Exhibit F - Affidavit of Mark Smith, # 7 Exhibit G - TFACTS Is A Pricey Failure, # 8 Exhibit H - More Glitches, # 9 Exhibit I - June 11, 2014 Report of the Brian A, # 10 Exhibit J - Data Quality Reports, # 11 Exhibit K - Affidavit of

06/15/2015 06/15/2015 06/16/2015
06/16/2015

Cindy Greer, # 12 Exhibit L - Affidavit of Jennifer Walker, # 13 Exhibit M - Statewide Performance for Period 4, # 14 Exhibit N - MIC Investigation Letter and Plan, # 15 Exhibit O - MIC Reduction Letter, # 16 Exhibit P - Jan. 15, 2014 DHHS Letter, # 17 Exhibit Q - June 19, 2014 DHHS Letter, # 18 Exhibit R DFCS CQI Corrective Action)(Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 06/15/2015)
657 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 656 Response in Opposition to Motion, re 622 Motion for Contempt filed by Haley Barbour, Ricky Felder, Donald Taylor (Fortenberry, Dewitt) Modified on 6/16/2015 (cwl). (Entered: 06/15/2015)
658 MOTION to Strike 622 MOTION for Contempt Exhibit K (Declaration of Marcia Robinson Lowry) by Haley Barbour, Ricky Felder, Donald Taylor (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Declaration of M. Lowry)(Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 06/15/2015)
659 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 11/8/2013 before Judge Tom S. Lee. Court Reporter Brenda Wolverton, Telephone Number : 601-6084188. NOTICE RE : REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no Notice is filed, the transcript will be made electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on the court website at www.mssd.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 7/7/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/17/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/14/2015. (BW) (Entered: 06/16/2015)
660 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 5/22/2014 before Judge Tom S. Lee. Court Reporter Brenda Wolverton, Telephone Number : 601-6084188. NOTICE RE : REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no Notice is filed, the transcript will be made electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on the court website at www.mssd.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through

06/16/2015
06/23/2015 06/25/2015 07/21/2015 07/23/2015
07/28/2015 07/31/2015 08/04/2015 08/06/2015 08/10/2015

PACER. Redaction Request due 7/7/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/17/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/14/2015. (BW) (Entered: 06/16/2015)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to # 657 : Incorrect linkage made. MEMORANDUM in Support should be linked to 622 MOTION for Contempt. All related filings to motions (using the "Responses and Replies" category, with the exception of "Response to Order") should be linked back to the original motion. Court staff has made the correction. (cwl) (cwl) (Entered: 06/16/2015)
661 NOTICE of Service of Supplemental Response to Interrogatories by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Bentley, Michael) (Entered: 06/23/2015)
662 Second NOTICE of Service of Response to Interrogatories by Haley Barbour (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 06/25/2015)
663 Joint MOTION to Continue Evidentiary Hearing on Motion for Contempt by Haley Barbour, Ricky Felder, Donald Taylor (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 07/21/2015)
664 AGREED ORDER granting 663 Motion to Continue the hearing on plaintiffs' renewed motion for contempt, pursuant to the terms set out herein. In the event of non-compliance, a hearing may be immediately sought on the remedial portion of the pending motion for contempt. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 7/23/15 (LWE) (Entered: 07/23/2015)
665 Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to 664 Order on Motion to Continue,. Mail sent to George Whitten. (cwl) (Entered: 07/28/2015)
666 Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to 664 Order on Motion to Continue. Mail sent to Teresa A. Wells. (RRL) (Entered: 07/31/2015)
667 Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to 664 Order on Motion to Continue. Mail sent to Annie Anderson. (cwl) (Entered: 08/04/2015)
668 Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to 664 Order on Motion to Continue,. Mail sent to Ezell Lanier (cwl) (Entered: 08/06/2015)
669 Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to 664 Order on Motion to Continue. Mail sent to Richard Ferguson. (cwl) (Entered: 08/10/2015)

08/31/2015 09/21/2015 12/09/2015 12/21/2015
12/21/2015 12/21/2015 12/22/2015 12/30/2015

Set/Reset Hearings: Telephone Conference set for 9/21/2015 10:00 AM before District Judge Tom S. Lee (LWE) (Entered: 08/31/2015)
Minute Entry: Status update via telephone conference with Judge Lee held on 9/21/2015. Status update due by 11/23/15, with hearing set for 12/21/2015 01:00 PM in Courtroom 4A (Jackson) before District Judge Tom S. Lee. (LWE) (Entered: 09/21/2015)
***NOTICE OF TIME CHANGE ONLY*** Set/Reset Hearings: Hearing set for 12/21/2015 09:00 AM in Courtroom 4A (Jackson) before District Judge Tom S. Lee (*was previously set for 1:00 p.m.) (LWE) (Entered: 12/09/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Tom S. Lee: Status Conference held in open court on 12/21/2015. An interim remedial order will be presented for Judge Lee's signature and filing with the court today. The Public Catalyst will advise the parties by 5/1/16 if the State is in compliance with the order. The remedy phase of the motion for contempt is continued until 5/15/16, at which time the parties shall submit a final remedial order or in the absence of an agreement, plaintiffs shall proceed with the remedy phase of the contempt motion. Deadline of January 5, 2016 for filing any motion with regard to confidentiality of the Monitor's report, with response due by 1/9/16, and rebuttal, if any, due by 1/11/16. Court Reporter/Transcriber Teri Norton, Telephone Number : 228-563-1748. (LWE) Modified on 12/21/2015 (LWE). (Entered: 12/21/2015)
***PREVIOUS DOCKET ENTRY REGARDING STATUS CONFERNCE HAS BEEN MODIFIED; PLEASE SEE CORRECTED MINUTE ENTRY ENTERED ON DOCKET 12/21/15. (LWE) (Entered: 12/21/2015)
670 Joint MOTION for Entry of Interim Remedial Order by Haley Barbour, Ricky Felder, Donald Taylor (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 12/21/2015)
671 INTERIM REMEDIAL ORDER/ORDER granting 670 joint Motion for entry of interim remedial order, agreed to as set out herein. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 12/22/15 (LWE) (Entered: 12/22/2015)
672 Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to 671 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. Mail sent to Richard Ferguson (cwl) (Entered: 12/30/2015)

12/30/2015 01/06/2016 01/07/2016 01/08/2016
01/13/2016 01/13/2016 01/29/2016 02/01/2016 02/08/2016

673 Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to 671 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. Mail sent to T. Wells (cwl) (Entered: 12/30/2015)
674 STATUS REPORT Court Monitor's Interim Report for Period 5 by Grace M. Lopes (Lopes - PHV, Grace) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
675 Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to 671 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. Mail sent to Ezell Lanier. (cwl) (Entered: 01/07/2016)
676 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 12/21/2015 before Judge Tom Lee. Court Reporter/Transcriber Teri Norton, Telephone Number : 228-5631748. NOTICE RE : REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no Notice is filed, the transcript will be made electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days. The policy is located on the court website at www.mssd.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 1/29/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/8/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/7/2016. (TN) (Entered: 01/08/2016)
677 Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to 671 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. Mail sent to to plaintiff. (cwl) (Entered: 01/13/2016)
678 NOTICE of Intent to Request Redaction by Kenya Key Rachal re 676 Transcript. (Rachal, Kenya) (Entered: 01/13/2016)
679 Joint MOTION for Additional Redactions re 678 Notice of Intent to Request Redaction re Transcript by Haley Barbour, Ricky Felder, Donald Taylor (Rachal, Kenya) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
680 ORDER granting 679 Motion for transcript redaction as set otu herein. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 2/1/16 (LWE) (Entered: 02/01/2016)
681 Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to 680 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. Mail sent to Richard Ferguson. (PKM) (Entered: 02/08/2016)

02/09/2016 02/17/2016 02/18/2016 03/25/2016 04/01/2016
04/01/2016 04/18/2016 04/18/2016 04/22/2016 05/06/2016

682 Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to 680 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. Mail sent to Ezell Lanier (MGB) (Entered: 02/09/2016)
683 Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to 680 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. Mail sent to Whitney M. Johnson (cwl) (Entered: 02/17/2016)
684 Redacted Transcript 676 Transcript,,, (TN) (Entered: 02/18/2016)
685 Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to 680 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. Mail sent to Teresa A. Wells (MGB) (Entered: 03/25/2016)
686 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-Declaration of M.Lowry, # 2 Exhibit 2-Declaration of S.Glasser, # 3 Exhibit 3-Declaration of S.Dixon, # 4 Exhibit 4-Declaration of W.Drinkwater, # 5 Exhibit 5-Declaration of L.Dove)(Lowry - PHV, Marcia) (Entered: 04/01/2016)
687 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 686 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses filed by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Lowry PHV, Marcia) (Entered: 04/01/2016)
688 RESPONSE in Opposition re 686 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses filed by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A- Declaration of Dewitt Fortenberry)(Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 04/18/2016)
689 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 688 Response in Opposition to Motion, re 686 Motion for Award of Class Counsel's Fees and Expenses filed by Haley Barbour, Donald Taylor (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 04/18/2016)
690 REPLY to Response to Motion re 686 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses filed by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Lowry PHV, Marcia) (Entered: 04/22/2016)
691 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 686 Motion for Attorney Fees and expenses, as set out herein. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 5/6/16 (LWE) (Entered: 05/06/2016)

05/10/2016 05/17/2016 05/19/2016 05/19/2016 05/19/2016 05/20/2016
05/23/2016 05/23/2016 05/24/2016 06/01/2016 10/13/2016

692 Joint MOTION for Entry of a Stipulated Second Remedial Order by Haley Barbour, Ricky Felder, Donald Taylor (Fortenberry, Dewitt) (Entered: 05/10/2016)
693 Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to 691 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees. Mail sent to mail return. (cwl) (Entered: 05/17/2016)
694 STIPULATED SECOND REMEDIAL ORDER/ORDER granting 692 Motion for entry of a stipulated second remedial order, agreed to as set out herein. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 5/19/16 (LWE) (Entered: 05/19/2016)
695 ***ERROR***DISREGARD THIS ENTRY. NOTICE by Grace M. Lopes (Lopes - PHV, Grace) Modified on 5/20/2016 (cwl). (Entered: 05/19/2016)
696 Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to 691 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees. Mail sent to Teresa A. Wells (cwl) (Entered: 05/19/2016)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to # 695 : This document is not signed in compliance with the court's Administrative Procedures for Electronic Case Filing Sec. 3.D.1. which pertains to both civil and criminal pleadings. Attorney is directed to refile the document with an appropriate signature. (cwl) (Entered: 05/20/2016)
697 Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to 691 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees. Mail sent to Whitney M. Johnson (cwl) (Entered: 05/23/2016)
698 NOTICE TO THE COURT REGARDING THE COURT MONITORS FOLLOW UP REPORT ON PERIOD 5 by Grace M. Lopes (Lopes - PHV, Grace) Modified on 5/23/2016 (cwl). (Entered: 05/23/2016)
699 Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to 694 STIPULATED SECOND REMEDIAL ORDER. Mail sent to Annie Anderson. (cwl) (Entered: 05/24/2016)
700 Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to 694 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. Mail sent to Whitney Johnson. (cwl) (Entered: 06/01/2016)
701 Joint MOTION for Suspension of Specific Obligations by Haley Barbour, Ricky Felder, Donald Taylor (Rachal, Kenya) (Entered: 10/13/2016)

10/14/2016
10/24/2016 10/24/2016 10/24/2016 11/29/2016 11/29/2016 12/01/2016
12/05/2016 12/06/2016 12/07/2016

702 AGREED ORDER granting 701 Motion for suspension of specific obligations. The date of 10/17/16 is hereby adjourned to 12/5/16. Further obligations are suspended until 12/5/16, as set out herein. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 10/14/16 (copies mailed to counsel/parties not notified electronically by CM/ECF) (LWE) (Entered: 10/14/2016)
703 Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to 702 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. Mail sent to Whitney M. Johnson. (cwl) (Entered: 10/24/2016)
704 Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to 702 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. Mail sent to Ezell Lanier. (cwl) (Entered: 10/24/2016)
705 Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to 702 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. Mail sent to Teresa Wells. (cwl) (Entered: 10/24/2016)
706 NOTICE of Appearance by James N. Adams, Jr on behalf of Haley Barbour, Ricky Felder, Donald Taylor (Adams, James) (Entered: 11/29/2016)
707 MOTION to Substitute Attorney , MOTION to Substitute Party by Haley Barbour, Ricky Felder, Donald Taylor (Rachal, Kenya) (Entered: 11/29/2016)
708 ORDER granting 707 Motion to Substitute Attorney. Attorney Gretchen L. Zmitrovich; Dewitt L. Fortenberry, Jr and Ashley C. Tullos terminated; granting 707 Motion to Substitute Party. Phil Bryant, David Chandler and Tracy Malone added. Donald Taylor (as Executive Director of the Department of Human Services), Haley Barbour and Ricky Felder terminated Signed by Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball on 12/1/2016 (cwl) (Entered: 12/01/2016)
709 Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to 708 Order on Motion to Substitute Attorney, Order on Motion to Substitute Party,,. Mail sent to Annie Anderson (MGB) (Entered: 12/05/2016)
710 STATUS REPORT by Grace M. Lopes (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(Lopes - PHV, Grace) (Entered: 12/06/2016)
Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to 708 Order on Motion to Substitute Attorney, Order on Motion to Substitute Party. Mail sent to Ezell Lanier (cwl) (Entered: 12/07/2016)

12/09/2016 12/19/2016 12/19/2016
12/21/2016 01/04/2017 01/09/2017 03/31/2017
03/31/2017 04/14/2017

711 Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to 708 Order on Motion to Substitute Attorney, Order on Motion to Substitute Party. Mail sent to Whitney M. Johnson. (cwl) (Entered: 12/09/2016)
712 SECOND MODIFIED MISSISSIPPI SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND REFORM PLAN (LWE) (Entered: 12/19/2016)
713 STIPULATED THIRD REMEDIAL ORDER agreed to as set out herein. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 12/19/16 (LWE) Modified on 12/19/2016 to reflect that copy of NEF and order mailed to counsel/parties not notified electronically by CM/ECF) (LWE). (Entered: 12/19/2016)
714 Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to 713 Order. Mail sent to Ezell Lanier (cwl) (Entered: 12/21/2016)
715 Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to 713 Order. Mail sent to Whitney M. Johnson. (cwl) (Entered: 01/04/2017)
716 Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to 713 Order. Mail sent to Teresa A. Wells. (PKM) (Entered: 01/09/2017)
717 MOTION Plaintiffs' March 2017 for Award of Class Counsel's Fees and Expenses by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-Lowry Declaration, # 2 Exhibit 2Drinkwater)(Drinkwater, W.) (Entered: 03/31/2017)
718 MEMORANDUM in Support re 717 MOTION Plaintiffs' March 2017 for Award of Class Counsel's Fees and Expenses filed by Sylvia Forster, James D. Johnson, Carla Lewis, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Drinkwater, W.) (Entered: 03/31/2017)
719 ***ERROR***DISREGARD THIS ENTRY. RESPONSE in Opposition re 717 MOTION Plaintiffs' March 2017 for Award of Class Counsel's Fees and Expenses filed by Haley Barbour, Phil Bryant, David Chandler, Ricky Felder, Tracy Malone, Billy Mangold, Donald Taylor (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Fees on Fees, # 2 Exhibit B - Vague Fees, # 3 Exhibit C - Duplicitative Work, # 4 Exhibit D - Clerical Fees Billed by Paralegal, # 5 Exhibit E - Clerical... Work Billed by Attorney, # 6 Exhibit F Block Billing, # 7 Exhibit G - Marketing, # 8 Exhibit H - Fees on Fess not related to Motion)(Rachal, Kenya) Modified on 4/14/2017 (cwl). (Entered: 04/14/2017)

04/14/2017 04/14/2017 04/14/2017 04/14/2017
04/14/2017 04/20/2017 07/21/2017

720 ***ERROR***DISREGARD THIS ENTRY.MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 719 Response in Opposition to Motion,, filed by Haley Barbour, Phil Bryant, David Chandler, Ricky Felder, Tracy Malone, Billy Mangold, Donald Taylor (Rachal, Kenya) Modified on 4/14/2017 (cwl). (Entered: 04/14/2017)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to # 719 , 720 : Attorney advises that there is an error in the entries, and it should be disregarded. (cwl) (Entered: 04/14/2017)
721 RESPONSE in Opposition re 717 MOTION Plaintiffs' March 2017 for Award of Class Counsel's Fees and Expenses filed by Haley Barbour, Phil Bryant, David Chandler, Ricky Felder, Tracy Malone, Billy Mangold, Donald Taylor (Rachal, Kenya) (Entered: 04/14/2017)
722 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 721 Response in Opposition to Motion, 717 MOTION filed by Haley Barbour, Phil Bryant, David Chandler, Ricky Felder, Tracy Malone, Billy Mangold, Donald Taylor (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Fees related to 2016 Motion, # 2 Exhibit B - Vague Fees, # 3 Exhibit C - Duplicitative Work, # 4 Exhibit D - Clerical fees billed by paralegal, # 5 Exhibit E - Clerical work billed by attorney, # 6 Exhibit F - Block Billing, # 7 Exhibit G - Marketing, # 8 Exhibit H - Fees not related to 2016 Motion)(Rachal, Kenya) Modified on 4/14/2017 (cwl). (Entered: 04/14/2017)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to # 722 : All related filings to motions (using the "Responses and Replies" category, with the exception of "Response to Order") should be linked back to the original motion. Court staff has made the correction. Attorney is directed to follow this procedure in future filings. (cwl) (Entered: 04/14/2017)
723 Rebuttal re 717 MOTION Plaintiffs' March 2017 for Award of Class Counsel's Fees and Expenses filed by Sylvia Forster, Carla Lewis, Chris Powell, Sharon Scott, Zelatra W (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Glasser Declaration)(Drinkwater, W.) (Entered: 04/20/2017)
724 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part, denying in part 717 Motion for attorneys' fees and expenses. Attorneys' fees granted in the amount of $330,540.76, and expenses granted in the amount of $23,746.96, as set out herein. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 7/21/17 (LWE) (Entered: 07/21/2017)

07/31/2017 08/03/2017 08/10/2017 08/14/2017
08/21/2017 08/23/2017 08/24/2017 09/27/2017

725 Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to 724 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Mail sent to Whitney M. Johnson. (cwl) (Entered: 07/31/2017)
726 Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to 724 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part. Mail sent to Ezell Lanier. (cwl) (Entered: 08/03/2017)
727 Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to 724 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Mail sent to Teresa A. Wells. (cwl) (Entered: 08/10/2017)
728 ORDER: The 724 Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Motion for attorneys' fees should reflect that plaintiffs' counsel are granted $333,540.77 attorneys' fees, plus $23,746.96 expenses, for a total of $357,287.72, as set out herein. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 8/14/17 (LWE) (Entered: 08/14/2017)
729 Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to 724 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,. Mail sent to Attorney Marcia Robinson Lowry and Attorney Tara S. Crean (KNS) (Entered: 08/21/2017)
Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to 728 ORDER. Mail sent to Ezell Lanier.(cwl) (Entered: 08/23/2017)
730 Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to 728 Order. Mail sent to Teresa A. Wells (cwl) (Entered: 08/24/2017)
731 Mail Returned as Undeliverable as to 728 Order. Mail sent to H. Gordon Myrick, Inc. (cwl) (Entered: 09/27/2017)

PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt

PACER Login: Description: Billable Pages:

11/11/2017 18:43:24

hs0328:2563377:0 Client Code:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

30

Cost:

3:04-cv-00251-TSL-FKB 3.00