Report Template Version = 09-08-04 

Department of Health and Human Services


OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

STATE STANDARDS AND 


CAPACITY TO TRACK 


FREQUENCY OF CASEWORKER 


VISITS WITH CHILDREN IN 


FOSTER CARE


Daniel R. Levinson


Inspector General 


December 2005


OEI-04-03-00350

Report Template Version = 09-08-04 

Office of Inspector General 
 http://oig.hhs.gov 

The mission of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), as mandated by Public Law 95-452, 

as amended, is to protect the integrity of the Department of Health and Human Services 

(HHS) programs, as well as the health and welfare of beneficiaries served by those 

programs. This statutory mission is carried out through a nationwide network of audits, 

investigations, and inspections conducted by the following operating components: 

Office of Audit Services 

The Office of Audit Services provides all auditing services for HHS, either by conducting 

audits with its own audit resources or by overseeing audit work done by others. Audits 

examine the performance of HHS programs and/or its grantees and contractors in 

carrying out their respective responsibilities and are intended to provide independent 

assessments of HHS programs and operations in order to reduce waste, abuse, and 

mismanagement and to promote economy and efficiency throughout HHS. 

Office of Evaluation and Inspections 

The Office of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI) conducts management and program 

evaluations (called inspections) that focus on issues of concern to HHS, Congress, and 

the public. The findings and recommendations contained in the inspections generate 

rapid, accurate, and up-to-date information on the efficiency, vulnerability, and 

effectiveness of departmental programs. OEI also oversees State Medicaid Fraud 

Control Units which investigate and prosecute fraud and patient abuse in the Medicaid 

program. 

Office of Investigations 

The Office of Investigations (OI) conducts criminal, civil, and administrative 

investigations of allegations of wrongdoing in HHS programs or to HHS beneficiaries 

and of unjust enrichment by providers. The investigative efforts of OI lead to criminal 

convictions, administrative sanctions, or civil monetary penalties. 

Office of Counsel to the Inspector General 

The Office of Counsel to the Inspector General (OCIG) provides general legal services to 

OIG, rendering advice and opinions on HHS programs and operations and providing all 

legal support in OIG's internal operations. OCIG imposes program exclusions and civil 

monetary penalties on health care providers and litigates those actions within HHS. 

OCIG also represents OIG in the global settlement of cases arising under the Civil False 

Claims Act, develops and monitors corporate integrity agreements, develops compliance 

program guidances, renders advisory opinions on OIG sanctions to the health care 

community, and issues fraud alerts and other industry guidance. 
Report Template Version = 09-08-04 

Δ EXECUTIVE SUMMAR Y 

OBJECTIVES 

To determine (1) the written standards States have implemented for 

frequency of caseworker visits with children in foster care, (2) the extent 

to which States could provide statewide automated reports reflecting 

the frequency of caseworker visits, and (3) the extent to which statewide 

reports indicate that children were visited. 

BACKGROUND 

A critical element in maintaining the safety and well-being of children 

in foster care is face-to-face contact (visits) between caseworkers and 

children. There is no Federal requirement regarding how often children 

in foster care are visited by caseworkers. However, the Administration 

for Children and Families (ACF) reviews caseworker visits as part of its 

Child and Family Service Reviews (CFSR). ACF reviewed all 50 States, 

the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico between 2001 and 2004. 

During CFSRs, ACF determines whether the frequency of caseworker 

visits was sufficient to meet the child’s needs for approximately 50 child 

welfare cases (a combination of foster care cases and those receiving inhome services) in each State. ACF uses monthly visits as a minimum 

benchmark when assessing the frequency of visits; however, in some 

instances, more frequent visits may be necessary to meet a child’s 

needs. If visits are less than monthly, States must present substantial 

documentation that the child’s needs were being met to receive a 

positive assessment for caseworker visits. On a national level, ACF 

summarized the CFSR results of the 35 States completed in 2002 

through 2004. Twenty-seven of the States were cited as needing 

improvement in the area of frequency of caseworker visits. 

The difference between the CFSRs and this evaluation is that CFSRs 

include a detailed review of approximately 50 child welfare cases (a 

combination of foster care cases and those receiving in-home services), 

whereas our evaluation included analysis of State frequency standards 

for children in foster care. In contrast to the CFSRs, OIG’s evaluation 

focused exclusively on children in foster care and did not examine 

standards for children receiving in-home services. In addition to 

examining statewide frequency standards, this evaluation also analyzed 

State capacity to produce statewide reports and, when available, FY 

2003 statewide reports indicating the frequency of caseworker visits for 

at least 70 percent of States’ foster care caseloads. The information in 

OE I-04-03-00 350 S TAT E S TANDARDS AND CA PA C I T Y T O T RACK F R E Q U E N C Y OF CASE W O RKER V I S I T S WITH CH I L DREN I N 

F O S T E R CA R E i 
Report Template Version = 09-08-04 

this report should enhance ACF’s oversight of State foster care 

programs related to the frequency of caseworker visitation. 

Many States have implemented, or are in the process of implementing, 

automated systems that may include the capacity to capture data about 

caseworker visits and produce automated reports detailing the 

frequency of visits with children in foster care. Most commonly, States 

have implemented a Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information 

System (SACWIS). Approximately $2.8 billion in Federal and State 

funds have been spent on the design, development, implementation, and 

operation (including initial and replacement hardware) of SACWIS 

since 1994. There is no Federal requirement that States produce 

statewide reports detailing how often children in foster care are visited. 

Our primary data source for this evaluation was a document review to 

determine standards for caseworker visits for all 50 States and the 

District of Columbia (referred to as 51 States throughout this report). 

In addition, the 51 States completed an e-mail data collection 

instrument and participated in structured telephone interviews between 

February and July 2004. Since ACF uses monthly visits as a 

benchmark during its reviews of State child welfare systems, we asked 

States to submit monthly statewide caseworker visitation reports for 

Fiscal Year 2003 (FY 2003). Our request allowed us to test States’ 

ability to produce reports as well as to determine how often reports 

indicated that children were visited in FY 2003. 

This report is the first in a series of three reports about caseworker 

visits with children in foster care. In the second report, “State 

Standards and Practices for Content of Caseworker Visits With 

Children in Foster Care,” OEI-04-03-00351, OIG analyzed State written 

standards for the content of caseworker visits. The third report in the 

series, “Compendium of State Standards: Content of Caseworker Visits 

With Children in Foster Care,” OEI-04-03-00353, provides State written 

standards guiding the content of caseworker visits with children in 

foster care. The compendium includes standards provided by 38 States. 

FINDINGS 

Forty-three States had statewide written standards calling for 

caseworkers to visit children in foster care at least monthly. Fifty of 

fifty-one States had statewide minimum standards regarding the 

frequency of caseworker visits with the majority of children in foster care 

OE I-04-03-00 350 S TAT E S TANDARDS AND CA PA C I T Y T O T RACK F R E Q U E N C Y OF CASE W O RKER V I S I T S WITH CH I L DREN I N 

F O S T E R CA R E ii 
Report Template Version = 09-08-04 

EXE CUTIVE S U MMAR Y

placed in-State. Forty-three of fifty had standards for at least monthly 

visits. States reported that the CFSRs, lawsuits or consent decrees, and 

collaboration with child advocacy groups were the most common events 

that contributed to the development or enhancement of their standards. 

In addition, 33 out of 50 States had standards stating that at least some 

caseworker visits should take place specifically in the foster care 

placement. Many of these States reported about the benefits of visits in 

the placement, including the value of assessing child safety and wellbeing in the home environment. 

Twenty States demonstrated their ability to produce statewide 

reports detailing the extent to which visits occurred during FY 2003. 

Nineteen of these twenty reports were produced using SACWIS. The 

remaining statewide report was produced from the results of a State 

administrative review process. We identified several impediments to 

report production for the 31 States that did not provide statewide 

automated caseworker reports. These impediments were: documentation 

in paper case files, insufficient automated system capacity, or lack of 

resources (e.g., insufficient staffing or computer time to produce the 

reports). 

Seven of the twenty statewide reports indicated on average that 

fewer than half of children in foster care were visited monthly in 

FY 2003. Seventeen of the States that provided reports had at least 

monthly visitation standards, while the remaining three States had 

standards for less frequent visitation. Among the 17 States with 

standards providing for at least monthly visits, 5 State reports indicated 

on average that fewer than half of children were visited monthly. 

The three States with standards less frequent than monthly provided a 

range of monthly and quarterly data for FY 2003. One State provided 

monthly data only, another provided both monthly and quarterly data, 

and the third provided quarterly data only. The two State reports with 

monthly data indicated on average that fewer than half of children in 

foster care were visited monthly. However, the State report providing 

both monthly and quarterly information indicated on average that 

88 percent of children were visited by the end of the quarter. In contrast, 

the State report with only quarterly data indicated that 58 percent were 

visited during the quarter. 

All 20 States reported factors that affected the visitation rates found in 

the reports. Many States reported negative factors that may have 

resulted in low visitation rates in their reports. These factors include 

OE I-04-03-00 350 S TAT E S TANDARDS AND CA PA C I T Y T O T RACK F R E Q U E N C Y OF CASE W O RKER V I S I T S WITH CH I L DREN I N 

F O S T E R CA R E iii 
Report Template Version = 09-08-04 

EXE CUTIVE S U MMAR Y 

insufficient documentation of caseworker visits, high caseloads and 

insufficient staff to conduct visits, and other factors such as private 

provider visitation information not being included in the reports. The 

range and severity of some of these factors reported by States clearly 

can result in reports that do not reflect all visits that occurred. In 

addition to these negative factors, States also cited positive areas 

affecting caseworker visitation, including that caseworker visits were a 

priority in the State or that it was an area that was closely monitored. 

Finally, five States reported that they either improved their visitation 

rates by the end of 2003 or that they were able to significantly improve 

their rates after that timeframe. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

For States with limited or nonexistent automated capacity to record 

the frequency of caseworker visits and produce statewide reports, 

ACF should promote the development of automated systems such 

as SACWIS. We recognize that child welfare programs are complex and 

that States face challenges related to competing priorities, resource 

issues, and the implementation of automated systems. However, in our 

evaluation, 19 States demonstrated their ability to quantify caseworker 

visits through SACWIS even though there are no requirements to have 

systems structured to produce these reports. To the extent that ACF 

wants to strengthen States’ abilities to quantify how often caseworkers 

visit children, we recommend the agency work with States to ensure that 

systems are structured to both record visits and produce reports. These 

reports could be particularly useful for States cited in the CFSRs as 

needing improvement in the area of frequency of caseworker visits. The 

reports would also enhance ACF’s ability to monitor caseworker visits, 

providing statewide, comprehensive visitation data in addition to the 

information gathered during the CFSRs. 

For States with automated system capacity to record the frequency 

of caseworker visits and produce statewide reports, ACF should 

work with States to ensure that visitation data are recorded in 

automated systems. ACF should continue to assist States to develop 

clear policies for recording caseworker visits in automated systems to 

promote the accuracy of reports. Improved visitation data would allow 

both ACF and the States to monitor visitation frequency with enhanced 

accuracy, and thereby plan program improvements more effectively. 

OE I-04-03-00 350 S TAT E S TANDARDS AND CA PA C I T Y T O T RACK F R E Q U E N C Y OF CASE W O RKER V I S I T S WITH CH I L DREN I N 

F O S T E R CA R E iv 
Report Template Version = 09-08-04 

Δ T ABLE OF CONTENTS 

EXECUTI VE SUMMARY ........................................ i

INTRODUCTI ON ................................................ 1 

FINDI NGS ...................................................... 10 

State Standards for Visits ............................... 10

States’ Ability to Produce Statewide Reports ................ 12

Visits During FY 2003 .................................. 14

RECOM M E NDATI O NS ......................................... 16 

AGENCY COMME NTS ......................................... 18 

ENDNOTE S ..................................................... 21 

APPENDI XES .................................................. 23 

Appendix A: State Standards for Frequency of Visitation ...... 23

Appendix B: State Standards for Visits Occurring in the

Foster Care Placement .................................. 25

Appendix C: Percentage of Children Visited ................ 27

ACKN O W LEDGMENTS ......................................... 34
Report Template Version = 09-08-04 

Δ INTRODU C TION 

OBJECTIVES 

To determine (1) the written standards States have implemented for 

frequency of caseworker visits with children in foster care, (2) the extent 

to which States could provide statewide reports reflecting the frequency 

of caseworker visits, and (3) the extent to which statewide reports 

indicate that children were visited. 

BACKGROUND 

Caseworker visits are a critical element in ensuring the safety and wellbeing of children in foster care. There is no Federal requirement 

regarding how often children in foster care placed in-State are visited by 

caseworkers. However, the Administration for Children and Families 

(ACF) reviews caseworker visits as part of its Child and Family Service 

Reviews (CFSR). As part of these reviews, States are assessed to 

determine if the frequency of caseworker visits with children (both those 

in foster care and those receiving in-home services) was sufficient to 

ensure adequate monitoring of children’s safety and well-being and 

whether visits focused on substantive issues. ACF uses monthly visits 

as a minimum benchmark when assessing the frequency of visits; 

however, in some instances, more frequent visits may be necessary to 

meet a child’s needs. If visits are less than monthly, States must 

present substantial documentation that the child’s needs are being met 

to receive a positive assessment for caseworker visits.1 A positive 

assessment is referred to as a strength rating; ACF reported that a 

strength rating for caseworker visits is associated with positive 

outcomes of achieving permanency and ensuring child safety. ACF 

reviewed all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico from 

2001 through 2004. 

The difference between the CFSRs and this evaluation is that CFSRs 

include a detailed review of approximately 50 child welfare cases (a 

combination of foster care cases and those receiving in-home services), 

whereas our evaluation included analysis of State frequency standards 

for children in foster care. In contrast to the CFSRs, OIG’s evaluation 

focused exclusively on children in foster care and did not examine 

standards for children receiving in-home services. In addition to 

examining statewide frequency standards, this evaluation also provided 

analysis of State capacity to produce statewide reports, and, when 

available, FY 2003 statewide reports indicating the frequency of 

OE I-04-03-00 350 S TAT E S TANDARDS AND CA PA C I T Y T O T RACK F R E Q U E N C Y OF CASE W O RKER V I S I T S WITH CH I L DREN I N 

F O S T E R CA R E 1 
Report Template Version = 09-08-04 

INTROD UCT ION 

caseworker visits for at least 70 percent of States’ foster care caseloads. 

The information in this report should enhance ACF’s oversight of State 

foster care programs related to the frequency of caseworker visitation. 

Concerns about State caseworkers’ ability to conduct visits with 

children in foster care and to meet their needs have been well 

documented. On a national level, ACF provided a summary of all States 

with completed CFSRs, with additional information about the 35 CFSRs 

that were completed during 2002 through 2004. For these 35 States, 

the ACF summary included details about caseworker visitation for the 

child welfare cases reviewed, which included both children in foster care 

and those receiving in-home services. Twenty-seven of the States were 

cited as needing improvement in the area of frequency of caseworker 

visits.2 In addition, a review of 500 foster children’s case records from a 

class action lawsuit in New Jersey was released in 2003.3 The review 

indicated that 78 percent of children in foster care had at least one 

period of more than 90 days without contact from a caseworker.4 

The Foster Care Program 

The Title IV-E Foster Care Program is an entitlement program 

administered by the Children’s Bureau within ACF, part of the 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). According to ACF, 

foster care is defined as “twenty-four-hour substitute care for children 

placed away from their parents or guardians and for whom the State 

Agency has placement and care responsibility.”5 Children in foster care 

live in a variety of placement settings, including family foster homes, 

foster homes of relatives, group homes, emergency shelters, residential 

facilities, child care institutions, and preadoptive homes.6 

The Federal budget for the foster care program in fiscal year (FY) 2005 

is $4.9 billion.7 HHS anticipates that it will provide funding for 233,000 

Title IV-E eligible children monthly during FY 2005. States receive 

Federal matching funds under Title IV-E for children in foster care 

whose families meet income requirements. States may also direct some 

of these funds to training and to the operation and development of a 

computer-based data and information collection system, typically the 

Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information Systems (SACWIS). 

Federal Role 

Although Federal law does not mandate how often caseworkers should 

visit children placed in-State,8 ACF assesses States as part of the 

CFSRs to determine if the frequency of caseworker visits with children 

is sufficient to ensure the adequate monitoring of each child’s safety and 

OE I-04-03-00 350 S TAT E S TANDARDS AND CA PA C I T Y T O T RACK F R E Q U E N C Y OF CASE W O RKER V I S I T S WITH CH I L DREN I N 

F O S T E R CA R E 2 
Report Template Version = 09-08-04 

INTROD UCT ION 

well-being. The CFSRs are one of several reviews ACF conducts as part 

of its Federal oversight role. Other reviews ACF conducts to assess 

State compliance with Federal requirements include Title IV-E 

eligibility reviews, Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting 

System reviews, and SACWIS reviews.9 Of these reviews, only CFSRs 

address caseworker visitation. 

Pursuant to 45 CFR §§ 1355.31-37, promulgated under section 1123A of 

the Social Security Act (the Act), ACF conducts CFSRs to ensure 

conformity with Federal child welfare requirements and to measure 

compliance with State plan requirements under Titles IV-B and IV-E. 

CFSRs, a joint Federal and State process, examine three categories of 

child welfare outcomes: safety, permanency, and well-being. In 

addition, the reviews address systemic factors affecting the child 

welfare system. If States are not found to be in substantial conformity, 

they must submit to ACF within 90 days a Program Improvement Plan 

(PIP) outlining steps to correct deficiencies. States not in substantial 

conformity in the first round of CFSRs must begin a full review 2 years 

after approval of their PIP. None of the States (including the District of 

Columbia and Puerto Rico) were in substantial conformity after the first 

round, and therefore ACF will schedule each State’s subsequent review 

upon State completion and ACF evaluation of the PIP. 

As part of CFSRs, a total of approximately 50 child welfare cases (a 

combination of foster care cases and those receiving in-home services) 

are reviewed in each State from selected sites.10 One of the items 

assessed is caseworker visits with children. Each case is rated as either 

a strength or needs improvement, and the State is given an overall 

rating for all cases reviewed. 

State Role 

Although all States must comply with Federal regulations to receive 

Federal funding, each State determines how services are provided to 

children in foster care. States develop their own standards for 

frequency of caseworker visits. The structure of foster care systems 

varies from State to State and often varies within States. Some have 

State-administered systems in which the State directly provides foster 

care services to children. Other States have county-administered 

systems; the State retains responsibility for the safety and well-being of 

children in foster care while counties provide the services. Adding a 

further layer of complexity, some State and county-administered 

OE I-04-03-00 350 S TAT E S TANDARDS AND CA PA C I T Y T O T RACK F R E Q U E N C Y OF CASE W O RKER V I S I T S WITH CH I L DREN I N 

F O S T E R CA R E 3 
Report Template Version = 09-08-04 

INTROD UCT ION 

programs contract a portion of or all foster care services to private 

agencies. 

To be eligible for foster care payments, States must submit a plan to be 

approved by the HHS Secretary. Section 471(a)(22) of the Act requires 

that the plan include “standards to ensure that children in foster care 

placements in public or private agencies are provided quality services 

that protect the safety and health of the children.” In addition, the 

State plan must provide for the development of a written case plan for 

each child and provide for a case review system (section 471(a)(16)). 

The case plan must include steps for ensuring that the child receives 

safe and proper care and that services are provided to the child, parents, 

and foster parents to address the needs of the child while in foster care 

(section 475(1)(B)). State case review systems must include procedures 

for ensuring that the status of each child is reviewed at least every 

6 months by either a court or by administrative review (section 

475(5)(B)). 

State Systems for Documenting Caseworker Visits 

Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information Systems. Many States have 

implemented or are in the process of implementing SACWIS. The 

development and implementation of SACWIS is not mandatory; 

however, many States and the District of Columbia chose to accept 

Federal matching funds to develop these systems. Approximately 

$2.8 billion in Federal and State funds have been spent on the design, 

development, implementation, and operation (including initial and 

replacement hardware) of SACWIS since 1994. According to the ACF 

Web site, as of May 2005, 45 States (including the District of Columbia) 

are in various stages of development, implementation, or planning of 

such systems. Six States have no SACWIS activity planned.11 

A SACWIS functions as a comprehensive case management tool for 

caseworkers’ foster care and adoption assistance case management. To 

provide a unified automated tool to support child welfare services, 

States were also encouraged to structure their SACWIS to support child 

protective and family preservation services.12 In addition, pursuant to 

45 CFR § 1355.53, these systems are required to produce data for the 

Adoption and Foster Care Analysis Reporting System and the National 

Child Abuse and Neglect Data System. As specified in ACF Transmittal 

No. ACF-OISM-001, SACWIS is also required to support both case 

planning and administrative review processes. 

OE I-04-03-00 350 S TAT E S TANDARDS AND CA PA C I T Y T O T RACK F R E Q U E N C Y OF CASE W O RKER V I S I T S WITH CH I L DREN I N 

F O S T E R CA R E 4 
Report Template Version = 09-08-04 

INTROD UCT ION 

States may choose to include a field to record caseworker visits with 

children in their SACWIS. The ability to produce reports detailing how 

frequently caseworkers visit children depends on individual State 

priorities, stage of automated system development, and how States have 

developed their systems. Even States with implemented systems may 

not have the capability to produce these reports. States are not 

required to produce reports; however, statewide visitation reports are 

one resource States can utilize to determine the extent to which 

caseworkers are visiting children in foster care. 

Other Systems for Documentation. States may also develop non-SACWIS 

systems to monitor caseworker visits with children; these systems may 

be eligible for Title IV-E funding. Types of systems States can develop 

include new Web-based systems or modifications to legacy systems. 

Some States do not use any automated system to record caseworker 

visitation, relying instead on paper case files. Due to the variation in 

States with or without automated systems, types of automated systems 

(SACWIS and other State-developed systems), and stages of automated 

system development, States may record caseworker visitation in 

automated systems, in paper case files, or in a combination of 

automated systems and paper case files. 

Related Work 

This report is the first in a series of three reports about caseworker 

visits with children in foster care. In the second report, “State 

Standards and Practices for Content of Caseworker Visits With 

Children in Foster Care,” OEI-04-03-00351, OIG analyzed State written 

standards for the content of caseworker visits. The third report in the 

series, “Compendium of State Standards: Content of Caseworker Visits 

With Children in Foster Care,” OEI-04-03-00353, provides State written 

standards guiding the content of caseworker visits with children in 

foster care. The compendium includes standards provided by 38 States. 

In addition to Office of Inspector General work, the Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) released a report in 2003 detailing the 

challenges States experienced while implementing SACWIS. GAO 

found that the reliability of child welfare data from SACWIS could be 

improved.13 GAO also examined the CFSRs in a 2004 evaluation and 

found that ACF and the States viewed the reviews as a valuable 

process. The report offered several recommendations to further improve 

the reviews.14 

OE I-04-03-00 350 S TAT E S TANDARDS AND CA PA C I T Y T O T RACK F R E Q U E N C Y OF CASE W O RKER V I S I T S WITH CH I L DREN I N 

F O S T E R CA R E 5 
Report Template Version = 09-08-04 

INTROD UCT ION

METHODOLOGY 

For the purpose of our evaluation, we defined visits as face-to-face 

contacts between caseworkers and children placed in foster care. Visits 

can take place in a variety of locations, including but not limited to the 

foster care placement (where the child lives), school, and the child 

welfare office. We defined standards as written procedures providing 

guidance for caseworker visitation included in State law, regulations, 

policies, memoranda, or other documents. 

We requested the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico to 

provide State standards for caseworker visits. Puerto Rico did not 

respond. To provide a comprehensive picture of how caseworker visits 

were addressed, the 50 States and the District of Columbia (referred to 

as 51 States throughout this report) also completed a structured data 

collection instrument via e-mail and participated in a structured 

telephone interview. In addition, we requested that all States provide 

statewide reports of caseworker visits. We also interviewed 

organizations with expertise in child welfare and conducted site visits in 

two States. 

Documentation Review, E-Mail Data Collection Instrument, and Phone 

Interview 

A critical component of data collection was our review of 51 States’ 

written standards related to caseworker visits. We specifically 

requested current standards from the States for the following areas: 

o Frequency of caseworker visits, 

o Location where caseworker visits should occur, and 

o System in which caseworkers document visits (State automated 

system and/or paper case file records). 

Documentation from the 51 States was supported by responses from 

both the e-mail data collection instruments and the telephone 

interviews. The data collection instruments and interviews were 

completed between February and July 2004. If there were discrepancies 

between State documentation and State responses, we worked with the 

States to resolve these differences. When State information was 

incomplete, we continued to follow up with States throughout the fall of 

2004. The information presented in our report regarding State written 

standards represents standards in place between February and July 

2004. 

OE I-04-03-00 350 S TAT E S TANDARDS AND CA PA C I T Y T O T RACK F R E Q U E N C Y OF CASE W O RKER V I S I T S WITH CH I L DREN I N 

F O S T E R CA R E 6 
Report Template Version = 09-08-04 

INTROD UCT ION 

Although the documentation review was the primary data source for 

standards related to caseworker visits, the e-mail data collection 

instrument and interviews helped provide a comprehensive picture of

State policies and practices. States responded to question areas 

including, but not limited to, standards for caseworker visits and the 

status of automated systems. We developed automated databases to 

compile survey and documentation information collected from States. 

We analyzed data to compile categorizations of State responses and to 

aggregate our data. 

Statewide Monthly Reports of Caseworker Visitation With Children in Foster 

Care 

Using a benchmark of monthly visits from ACF’s CFSRs, we asked all 

States to submit monthly statewide caseworker visitation reports. We 

requested FY 2003 data (October 1, 2002, through September 30, 2003) 

since it was the most recent complete fiscal year of data available at the 

time of our evaluation. The request allowed us to test the extent to 

which States could provide reports. In addition, monthly data allowed 

us to systematically determine the extent to which State reports 

indicated that caseworkers were visiting children in foster care. For 

each month in FY 2003, we asked States to provide the total number of 

children in foster care and the number who received caseworker visits. 

If States did not immediately provide reports or required additional 

clarification, we e-mailed them a table providing an example of the 

requested data. 

Based on these data, we calculated a monthly average of children 

visited in FY 2003 by dividing the number of children visited each 

month throughout the year by the total number of children in foster 

care. For example, if for a 6-month period there were 100 children in 

foster care each month and the numbers of children visited were 40, 50, 

60, 70, 80, and 90, then the monthly average number of children visited 

would be 65 percent ((40+50+60+70+80+90)/600). Our report presents 

both the monthly range as well as the monthly average for each State 

when available. If States were unable to produce reports, we 

determined the reasons during our telephone interview. This type of 

statewide data had never been systematically requested from States on 

a national level before our evaluation. 

We anticipated several reasons that States would not be able to meet 

our request for monthly statewide visitation reports. First, a statewide 

report of caseworker visitation was only available if a State recorded 

OE I-04-03-00 350 S TAT E S TANDARDS AND CA PA C I T Y T O T RACK F R E Q U E N C Y OF CASE W O RKER V I S I T S WITH CH I L DREN I N 

F O S T E R CA R E 7 
Report Template Version = 09-08-04 

INTROD UCT ION 

visits in a statewide, automated system or performed and reported 

summary information from statewide reviews of foster care cases. If 

States did not have statewide data for the entire 12-month period, we 

accepted data for the months available. Also, if a State had a previous 

report providing aggregate visitation information for FY 2003 that was 

not detailed for each month, we accepted those reports as well. We 

requested monthly data for our analysis, and also gave States the option 

of providing quarterly information in addition to the monthly data; 

however, we did not request that States provide visitation data in 

accordance with their frequency standards. For example, if a State had 

a biweekly visitation standard, we did not request biweekly visitation 

data. Data presented in the report are annotated to reflect any 

limitations in Appendix C. 

In addition to statewide reports that included children placed in foster 

care, we also received reports from some States that included a sample 

of their foster care cases. Due to the limited number of cases and the 

wide variation in how this information was presented by each State, we 

only included statewide reports that included at least 70 percent of 

children in foster care. 

Interviews With Organizations and Site Visits to States 

To gain a richer understanding of how caseworker visits were addressed 

in States prior to designing our evaluation, we interviewed 

organizations and conducted site visits in two States. The organizations 

included: Chapin Hall, the Center for Law and Social Policy, Children’s 

Defense Fund, Children’s Rights, Inc., Child Welfare League of 

America,15 the Heritage Foundation, and the Urban Institute. In 

addition, we visited one predominately urban State and one State that 

was more rural (Florida and Kentucky) to: examine foster care records 

and determine the format in which caseworker visits were recorded, 

interview State and local administrators, conduct a focus group with 

foster parents (Kentucky only), interview caseworkers, collect State 

regulations and policies regarding caseworker visitation, and review 

computer data systems. We also solicited input from ACF staff. 

Limitations 

Safety of children in foster care is affected by many factors in addition 

to frequency of caseworker visits. However, our evaluation focused 

specifically on frequency of caseworker visits and does not address any 

other factors. We focused exclusively on standards and reports from the 

State level. We did not examine standards from local or county levels of 

OE I-04-03-00 350 S TAT E S TANDARDS AND CA PA C I T Y T O T RACK F R E Q U E N C Y OF CASE W O RKER V I S I T S WITH CH I L DREN I N 

F O S T E R CA R E 8 
Report Template Version = 09-08-04 

INTROD UCT ION 

State child welfare systems, nor did we examine standards private 

agencies may have in place. In addition, our review of visitation 

standards was limited to children placed in-State and did not include 

children placed out-of-State. Also, many States have exceptions to their 

visitation standards, which are determined by factors such as how 

recently the child was placed in foster care, type of placement setting, 

needs of the child, case status, and caseworker caseload size. We did 

not categorize exceptions to State standards. 

Regarding the reports we received, we did not verify whether the visits 

reflected in the reports actually occurred, nor did we independently 

validate that all visits were reflected in reports. Also, we did not assess 

whether visits were meeting children’s needs. 

Standards 

We conducted this inspection in accordance with the “Quality Standards 

for Inspections” issued by the President’s Council on Integrity and 

Efficiency and the Executive Council on Integrity and Efficiency. 

OE I-04-03-00 350 S TAT E S TANDARDS AND CA PA C I T Y T O T RACK F R E Q U E N C Y OF CASE W O RKER V I S I T S WITH CH I L DREN I N 

F O S T E R CA R E 9 
Report Template Version = 09-08-04 

Δ FINDINGS

Forty-three States had statewide written 

standards calling for caseworkers to visit 

children in foster care at least monthly 

Fifty of fifty-one States had 

minimum standards regarding the 

frequency of caseworker visits with 

children in foster care.16 Fortythree out of fifty States had statewide written standards that call for 

caseworkers to visit the majority of children in foster care placed 

in-State at least once a month. Of these 43 States, 39 had monthly 

standards and the remaining 4 had more frequent standards. In 

contrast, the remaining seven States had standards that were less 

frequent than monthly. They were as follows: 

o Quarterly (three States), 

o Every 2 months (one State), We define visits as face-to-face 

o Every 6 weeks (one State), contacts between caseworkers and 

children placed in foster care. 

o Between once a week and Visits can take place in a variety of 

once every 12 weeks (one locations, including but not limited 

State), and to, where the child lives, school, 

and the child welfare office. 

o Range from monthly (not to 

exceed 35 days) to quarterly 

(one State). 

State standards often specified exceptions that could result in either 

more or less frequent visits. One common exception that resulted in 

more frequent visitation standards was how recently the child has been 

placed in foster care. Other exceptions included type of placement 

setting, needs of the child, case status, and caseworker caseload size. 

We did not report exceptions to State standards. For a complete listing 

of State standards, please refer to Appendix A. 

States reported several events that contributed to the development or 

enhancement of their standards for both the frequency and content of 

caseworker visitation. (States could report more than one event, 

therefore the total is higher than 50.) States most commonly reported 

the following: 

o Lawsuits and/or consent decrees (8 States), 

o Collaboration with child advocacy groups (8 States), 

o Child and Family Services Review process (10 States), 

OE I-04-03-00 350 S TAT E S TANDARDS AND CA PA C I T Y T O T RACK F R E Q U E N C Y OF CASE W O RKER V I S I T S WITH CH I L DREN I N 10

F O S T E R CA R E 
Report Template Version = 09-08-04 

F I NDING S 

o Other events, such as State legislative action; consultations with 

other States, ACF, or stakeholders; new leadership or 

organizational restructuring; media reports; best practice work 

groups; and a child’s death (17 States). 

Eighteen States reported that their standards were not modified or 

developed due to any particular event. 

Thirty-three States had written standards detailing how often visits should 

occur in the placement setting: 15 States recommended that every visit 

occur in the placement, and 18 States recommended some visits in the 

placement 

Although there are no Federal requirements mandating that 

caseworkers visit children where they live, 33 of 50 States’ standards 

specified that at least a portion of visits should occur in the placement 

setting for the majority of children in foster care. The specifications 

ranged from seeing the child in the foster care placement for every visit 

to outlining that some visits should occur in the foster care placement. 

Some State standards specified exceptions that could result in either 

more or less frequent visits in the foster care placement, such as how 

recently the child was placed in foster care and type of placement 

setting. However, we did not categorize these exceptions to State 

standards. For a complete listing of State standards, please refer to 

Appendix B. 

Fifteen of the 33 States had standards stating that children should be 

seen in their foster care placements during every visit. These States 

most often reported that the main value in requiring visits where the 

child lives was the ability to assess child safety and well-being or the 

home environment. Other benefits cited by States included ensuring 

that the child’s needs are being met 

while in care, building caseworker “We feel it’s very important for 

relationships with the child, ensuring the caseworker to see where the 

that the child is actually at the foster 

child is living . . . it is our 

home, assessing the nature of the belief that the State assumes the 

responsibility of the parent.” foster parent’s relationship with the —West Virginia 

child, and assessing other children in 

the home. 

Eighteen out of thirty-three States had standards stating that some 

visits occur in the placement. For these 18 States, standards for visits 

where the child lives were less frequent than the minimum visitation 

standards. We determined that State standards recommended visits: 

OE I-04-03-00 350 S TAT E S TANDARDS AND CA PA C I T Y T O T RACK F R E Q U E N C Y OF CASE W O RKER V I S I T S WITH CH I L DREN I N 11

F O S T E R CA R E 
Report Template Version = 09-08-04 

F I NDING S 

o Quarterly in the foster care placement (eight States), 

o Every 2 months in the foster care placement (six States), 

o Where the child lives, but not at a specific frequency (three 

States), or 

o At least once every 6 months in the foster care placement (one 

State). 

Twenty out of fifty-one States demonstrated their Production of statewide visitation 

ability to produce statewide reports detailing the reports is one method States can 

extent to which visits occurred during FY 2003 use to determine how frequently 

caseworkers are visiting children 

in foster care. Therefore, we requested State reports detailing 

caseworker visits with children in foster care for FY 2003. Given the 

significant Federal investment in SACWIS, we anticipated that 

SACWIS would be a likely source of State visitation reports. There are 

no specific Federal requirements for States to produce reports reflecting 

caseworker visitation. 

Of the 20 statewide reports, 19 were from States with SACWIS and 1 resulted 

from a State administrative review process 

Many States’ SACWIS were structured to produce reports before our 

evaluation. Some States used the reports to monitor caseworker visits. 

We are aware of at least two States that post their visitation reports 

either on the Web or on their own Intranet. In contrast, other States 

were not producing visitation reports prior to our evaluation and 

produced these reports specifically at our request. One such State 

produced both our requested statewide report and specific reports for 

localities within the State to be used by local foster care offices. 

Only one State, Colorado, provided a visitation report resulting from a 

review of caseworker visits during its 6-month administrative reviews of 

children in foster care. Children were reviewed 6 months after 

placement in foster care and every 6 months thereafter. Cases were 

assigned a “yes” if it was determined that the caseworker had a monthly 

visit with the child after the first month. The cases were then 

summarized in statewide reports. In FY 2003, Colorado generated the 

case review results using its own proprietary database. However, 

beginning in July 2004, these reports were generated from its SACWIS. 

OE I-04-03-00 350 S TAT E S TANDARDS AND CA PA C I T Y T O T RACK F R E Q U E N C Y OF CASE W O RKER V I S I T S WITH CH I L DREN I N 12

F O S T E R CA R E 
Report Template Version = 09-08-04 

F I NDING S 

We identified several impediments to report production from the 31 States 

that did not provide statewide automated caseworker reports 

Based on States’ responses to the telephone interviews and their 

documentation standards and practices, we identified three impediments 

to State report production: 

o Documentation: States record visitation information primarily in 

paper case files. 

o Insufficient capacity: State automated systems could not produce 

reports, either because systems were not implemented statewide 

or because systems were not structured to extract the information. 

o Lack of resources: States reported they did not have resources 

such as staffing or computer time to produce the reports. 

These impediments are explained below. 

Eighteen of the thirty-one States recorded caseworker visits primarily in paper 

case files during FY 2003. These States did not provide statewide reports 

detailing caseworker visitation for FY 2003. Many of these States were 

in the process of either planning or implementing SACWIS or other 

automated systems. However, these States reported that during 

FY 2003, caseworkers were not recording visits primarily in an 

automated system. One of the eighteen States reported that 

caseworkers were not recording visits in their automated system in FY 

2003; however, this State reported it could produce statewide visitation 

reports starting in 2004. Four of the eighteen States reported that they 

had automated system capacity to record caseworker visits, but that 

caseworkers were still using paper case files as their primary record of 

visits in FY 2003. 

Eight of the thirty-one States reported that their systems did not have the capacity 

to produce visitation reports for FY 2003. The specific issues affecting capacity 

varied. In one of these eight States, SACWIS had not yet been 

implemented statewide, and therefore the data were not available for all 

children. In this State, visits were recorded in both the automated system 

and in paper case files. In another five of these eight States, visits were 

documented in the automated 

system but the system was not “[We] built the program to gather 

structured to produce the caseworker contacts 11 months ago 

reports. One of the eight States [Fall 2003] . . . still getting the bugs 

reported that its system was not out of the system . . .”— Oregon 

developed in time to produce 

OE I-04-03-00 350 S TAT E S TANDARDS AND CA PA C I T Y T O T RACK F R E Q U E N C Y OF CASE W O RKER V I S I T S WITH CH I L DREN I N 13

F O S T E R CA R E 
Report Template Version = 09-08-04 

F I NDING S 

reports specifically for FY 2003, but reported that capability for 2004. 

Another State reported that it was still working through issues with its 

system. 

Five of the thirty-one States reported that they did not have the resources to 

produce the reports. These States cited issues such as limited staff 

resources or computer time as the reasons they could not produce the 

reports. One of these States cited the competing priority of the CFSRs 

as a barrier to generating reports. 

Two of the five States reported that “[We] don't have the manpower to 

their systems would have the 

capability to produce visitation 

reports in 2004. 

Seven of the twenty statewide reports 

indicated on average that fewer than half of 

children in foster care were visited monthly in 

FY 2003 

generate reports.” — New Mexico 

Using the benchmark of monthly 

visits from ACF’s CFSRs, we asked 

all States to submit monthly 

statewide caseworker visitation 

reports. Twenty States provided 

statewide reports, and these States had different visitation standards. 

States with standards for at least monthly visits 

Seventeen States with standards for at least monthly visitation 

submitted statewide reports for FY 2003. These reports reflected on 

average that 5 of the 17 States visited fewer than half of children 

monthly. Five other State reports detailed that on average between 

50 and 75 percent of children were visited monthly. The remaining 

seven States provided reports indicating that between an average of 

76 and 97 percent of their children were visited monthly. 

States with standards for visits less frequent than monthly 

The three remaining States that also submitted reports did not have 

monthly visitation standards. Virginia and Washington both had a 

quarterly minimum visitation standard. Iowa had minimum visitation 

standards ranging from monthly (not to exceed 35 days) to quarterly, 

depending on both the placement setting and whether private agencies 

provide the foster care services. 

Virginia provided monthly reports for FY 2003 which indicated that an 

average of 45 percent of children were visited monthly. Iowa provided 

both monthly and quarterly information. Its report indicted that 

on average 24 percent of children were visited monthly and that, on 

average, 88 percent of children were visited by the end of the quarter. 

In contrast, Washington provided a quarterly report for April through 

OE I-04-03-00 350 S TAT E S TANDARDS AND CA PA C I T Y T O T RACK F R E Q U E N C Y OF CASE W O RKER V I S I T S WITH CH I L DREN I N 14

F O S T E R CA R E 
Report Template Version = 09-08-04 

F I NDING S 

June 2003. The report showed that 58 percent of children were visited 

during the quarter. Monthly data were not available. 

State-reported factors affecting visitation rates 

States reported multiple factors that may have resulted in lower 

visitation rates in their reports. These factors could affect accurate 

reporting for the visitation rate and/or actual visitation frequency. 

Seven States reported that the percentages reflected in their reports 

were affected by documentation issues. These issues included workers 

not documenting visits in the system or workers using the wrong codes 

or fields for data entry. Five States cited other issues that negatively 

affected their visitation rate, such as private providers not entering 

visits in the system and visits only being included in the reports if they 

took place specifically in the foster care placement. Five States reported 

that insufficient staffing/high caseloads affected their rates. These 

factors affected some States more than others. For example, of the two 

States that reported that private provider visits were not included in 

reports, one had a 44 percent monthly average visitation rate and the 

other had a 78 percent rate. The range and severity of some of these 

factors reported by States clearly can result in reports in which not all 

visits that occurred are reflected in State monthly averages. In other 

instances, the factors affected actual visitation frequency. 

States also cited several positive areas affecting caseworker visitation. 

Seven States indicated either that conducting caseworker visits was a 

priority, or that it was something that was closely monitored. The 

positive impact of monitoring the visitation rate was also indicated by 

States that had comparatively low rates in FY 2003. Five States 

reported that they either improved their visitation rates by the end of 

2003 or were able to significantly improve their rates after that time. 

Two additional States reported plans to address visitation issues 

through their CFSR PIP. For a detailed summary of each State’s 

visitation report and the factors affecting visitation rates, refer to 

Appendix C, Tables 1 and 2. 

OE I-04-03-00 350 S TAT E S TANDARDS AND CA PA C I T Y T O T RACK F R E Q U E N C Y OF CASE W O RKER V I S I T S WITH CH I L DREN I N 15

F O S T E R CA R E 
Report Template Version = 09-08-04 

Δ RECOMME NDA TIONS 

Children in foster care represent one of the most vulnerable segments of 

our society. We recognize that child welfare programs are complex and 

that States face challenges related to competing priorities, resource 

issues, and the implementation of automated systems. However, 

caseworker visits with children in foster care are a critical element of 

ensuring child safety and well-being. Most recently, ACF found that 

27 out of 35 States needed to improve the frequency of caseworker visits 

with children. Our study found that 50 out of 51 States have statewide 

written standards regarding the frequency of caseworker visits with 

children in foster care. Most States have implemented standards for at 

least monthly visits for the majority of children in foster care. In 

addition, many States have developed or are in the process of developing 

statewide automated systems (both SACWIS and non-SACWIS). For 

our evaluation, 19 States produced reports from SACWIS. These 

systems provide the opportunity for States to quantify the extent to 

which caseworkers visit children in foster care. Therefore, to the extent 

to which ACF wants to strengthen States’ abilities to quantify how often 

caseworkers within their State are visiting children, we recommend the 

following: 

For States with limited or nonexistent automated capacity to record the 

frequency of caseworker visits and produce statewide reports, ACF should 

promote the development of automated systems such as SACWIS. 

These reports could be particularly useful for States cited in the CFSRs as 

“needing improvement” in the area of frequency of caseworker visits. The 

reports would also enhance ACF’s ability to monitor caseworker visits, 

providing statewide, comprehensive visitation data. Some States have 

already begun to examine caseworker visits through automated systems to 

ensure that visits are occurring, even though there are no requirements to 

have systems structured to produce these reports. Several States in our 

evaluation reported that although caseworkers were recording information 

in automated systems, this information could not be extracted to produce 

reports. As SACWIS and other systems continue to develop, ACF should 

consider working with States to ensure that systems are structured to both 

record visits and produce reports. 

OE I-04-03-00 350 S TAT E S TANDARDS AND CA PA C I T Y T O T RACK F R E Q U E N C Y OF CASE W O RKER V I S I T S WITH CH I L DREN I N 16

F O S T E R CA R E 
Report Template Version = 09-08-04 

R E C O MMENDA T I O N S 

For States with automated system capacity to record the frequency of 

caseworker visits and produce statewide reports, ACF should work with 

States to ensure that visitation data are recorded in automated systems. 

Seven States that provided reports indicated that their visitation rates 

were affected by documentation issues in FY 2003. ACF should continue 

to assist States to develop clear policies for recording caseworker visits in 

automated systems to promote the accuracy of reports. Improved 

visitation data would allow both ACF and the States to monitor visitation 

frequency with enhanced accuracy, and thereby plan program 

improvements more effectively. 

AGENCY COMMENTS 

In its comments to the draft report, ACF concurred with our 

recommendations. ACF plans to initiate an effort to develop direct 

guidance to States to implement management reporting capabilities to 

determine the frequency and outcomes of client visitation. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL RESPONSE 

We appreciate ACF’s comments to this report and are pleased that it 

will continue to provide technical assistance to States in the area of 

automation. In addition, we look forward to ACF’s development of 

direct guidance that will assist States in implementing management 

reporting capabilities within current automated systems specific to 

client visitation. 

OE I-04-03-00 350 S TAT E S TANDARDS AND CA PA C I T Y T O T RACK F R E Q U E N C Y OF CASE W O RKER V I S I T S WITH CH I L DREN I N 17

F O S T E R CA R E 
Report Template Version = 09-08-04 

Δ AGENCY COMMENTS 

OE I-04-03-00 350 S TAT E S TANDARDS AND CA PA C I T Y T O T RACK F R E Q U E N C Y OF CASE W O RKER V I S I T S WITH CH I L DREN I N 18

F O S T E R CA R E
Report Template Version = 09-08-04 

A G E N C Y CO MMENT S

OE I-04-03-00 350 S TAT E S TANDARDS AND CA PA C I T Y T O T RACK F R E Q U E N C Y OF CASE W O RKER V I S I T S WITH CH I L DREN I N 19

F O S T E R CA R E
Report Template Version = 09-08-04 

A G E N C Y CO MMENT S

OE I-04-03-00 350 S TAT E S TANDARDS AND CA PA C I T Y T O T RACK F R E Q U E N C Y OF CASE W O RKER V I S I T S WITH CH I L DREN I N 20

F O S T E R CA R E
Report Template Version = 09-08-04 

Δ ENDNOTE S 

1 http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwrp/tools/onsitefinal.pdf. 

2 http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwrp/results/statefindings/ 

genfindings04/index.htm, accessed November 1, 2005. 

3 http://childrensrights.org/press_releases/07-09-03.htm, accessed 

December 8, 2004. 

4 Figure applies to children in foster care longer than 90 days. 

5 http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm01/appendb.htm, 

accessed April 25, 2005. 

6 http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm01/appendb.htm, 

accessed April 25, 2005. 

7 http://www.hhs.gov/budget/05budget/acf.html, accessed April 25, 2005. 

8 For children placed in foster care out of State, the Federal Government 

requires a minimum of one annual visit either by the State in which 

the child’s parents live or by the State in which the child has been 

placed. [Section 475(5)(A)(ii) of the Social Security Act.] 

9 http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/olab/legislative/testimony/2004/cw_ 

testimony.htm, accessed April 25, 2005. 

10 The cases reviewed onsite are selected from a random oversample of no 

more than 150 foster care and 150 in-home services cases. 45 CFR 

1355.33(c)(6). The onsite review may take place in several political 

subdivisions of the State, but must include a State’s largest 

metropolitan subdivision. 45 CFR 1355.33(c)(2). 

11 http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/dis/sacwis/statestatus.htm, 

accessed May 11, 2005. 

12 http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/dis/sacwis/about.htm, accessed 

May 11, 2005. 

OE I-04-03-00 350 S TAT E S TANDARDS AND CA PA C I T Y T O T RACK F R E Q U E N C Y OF CASE W O RKER V I S I T S WITH CH I L DREN I N 21

F O S T E R CA R E 
Report Template Version = 09-08-04 

13 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03809.pdf. 

14 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04333.pdf. 

15 The Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) recommends that 

caseworkers visit children in foster care monthly. CWLA’s standards 

allow for more or less visitation based on the needs of the child or as 

requested by the foster parent, but never less than once every 2 

months. 

16 Wisconsin did not have a minimum visitation standard that applied 

statewide. This State provided monthly standards from its only Stateadministered county, which were created as a result of a lawsuit. 

Wisconsin reported that most local offices/counties had standards for 

frequency. 

OE I-04-03-00 350 S TAT E S TANDARDS AND CA PA C I T Y T O T RACK F R E Q U E N C Y OF CASE W O RKER V I S I T S WITH CH I L DREN I N 22

F O S T E R CA R E 
Report Template Version = 09-08-04 

Δ APPENDIX ~ A 

Table 1 shows the caseworker visitation standards reflected in State 

documentation for the majority of children in foster care. Table 2 

describes the standards for States classified as “Other” in Table 1 (Iowa 

and New Jersey). 

Table 1: Minimum Caseworker Visitation Standards for the Majority of Children in Foster 

Care, February–July 2004 

State Weekly Twice 

Monthly 

Monthly Every 6 

weeks 

Every 2 

Months 

Quarterly Other* 

AK X 

AL X 

AR X 

AZ X 

CA X 

CO X 

CT X 

DC X 

DE X 

FL X 

GA X 

HI X 

IA X 

ID X 

IL X 

IN X 

KS X 

KY X 

LA X 

MA X 

MD X 

ME X 

MI X 

MN X 

MO X 

MS X 

MT X 

NC X 

ND X 

NE X 

NH X 

NJ X 

NM X 

NV X 

OE I-04-03-00 350 S TAT E S TANDARDS AND CA PA C I T Y T O T RACK F R E Q U E N C Y OF CASE W O RKER V I S I T S WITH CH I L DREN I N 23

F O S T E R CA R E 
Report Template Version = 09-08-04 

APP E N D I X ~A 

Table 1: Minimum Caseworker Visitation Standards for the Majority of Children in Foster 

Care, February–July 2004 

State Weekly Twice 

Monthly 

Monthly Every 6 

weeks 

Every 2 

Months 

Quarterly Other* 

NY X 

OH X 

OK X 

OR X 

PA X 

RI X 

SC X 

SD X 

TN X 

TX X 

UT X 

VA X 

VT X 

WA X 

WV X 

WY X 

Total 1 3 39 1 1 3 2 

*Please refer to Table 2 for a description of “Other” State standards. 

Source: Document review of State foster care visitation standards by OIG. 

Table 2: Description of Minimum Visitation Standards for States Categorized as Other, 

February–July 2004 

State Minimum Visitation Standards 

IA Standards vary depending on both the placement setting and whether the services are 

purchased. Standards range from monthly (not to exceed 35 days) to quarterly. 

NJ Between once a week and once every 12 weeks. 

Source: Document review of State foster care visitation standards by OIG. 

OE I-04-03-00 350 S TAT E S TANDARDS AND CA PA C I T Y T O T RACK F R E Q U E N C Y OF CASE W O RKER V I S I T S WITH CH I L DREN I N 24

F O S T E R CA R E 
Report Template Version = 09-08-04 

Δ APPENDIX ~ B 

Standards for How Often Caseworkers Were I

February–July 2004 

nstructed to Visit Children Specifically in Foster Care Placement,

State Minimum 

Visitation 

Standard 

Same as 

Minimum 

Visitation 

Guideline 

Every 2 

Months 

Quarterly Every 6 

Months 

Recommend 

Visits Take 

Place in Home 

No Specifications 

AK Monthly X 

AL Monthly X 

AR Weekly X 

AZ Monthly X 

CA Monthly X 

CO Monthly X 

CT Monthly X 

DC Twice a 

Month 

X 

DE Monthly X 

FL Monthly X 

GA Monthly X 

HI Monthly X 

IA Other* X 

ID Monthly X 

IL Monthly X 

IN Every 2 

Months 

X 

KS Monthly X 

KY Monthly X 

LA Monthly X 

MA Monthly X 

MD Monthly X 

ME Every 6

Weeks 

X 

MI Monthly X 

MN Monthly X 

MO Twice a 

Month 

X 

MS Monthly X 

MT Monthly X 

NC Monthly X 

ND Monthly X 

NE Monthly X 

NH Monthly X 

NJ Other* X 

NM Monthly X 

NV Monthly X 

NY Quarterly X 

OH Monthly X 

OK Monthly X 

OR Monthly X 

PA Monthly X 

RI Monthly X 

OE I-04-03-00 350 S TAT E S TANDARDS AND CA PA C I T Y T O T RACK F R E Q U E N C Y OF CASE W O RKER V I S I T S WITH CH I L DREN I N 25

F O S T E R CA R E 
Report Template Version = 09-08-04 

APP E N D I X ~B 

Standards for How Often Caseworkers Were Instructed to Visit Children Specifically in Foster Care Placement,

February–July 2004 

State Minimum 

Visitation 

Standard 

Same as 

Minimum 

Visitation 

Guideline 

Every 2 

Months 

Quarterly Every 6 

Months 

Recommend 

Visits Take 

Place in Home 

No Specifications 

SC Monthly X 

SD Monthly X 

TN Twice a 

Month 

X 

TX Monthly X 

UT Monthly X 

VT Monthly X 

VA Quarterly X 

WA Quarterly X 

WV Monthly X 

WY Monthly X 

Total 15 6 8 1 3 17 

*See Appendix A, Table 2. 

Source: Document review of State foster care visitation standards by OIG. 

OE I-04-03-00 350 S TAT E S TANDARDS AND CA PA C I T Y T O T RACK F R E Q U E N C Y OF CASE W O RKER V I S I T S WITH CH I L DREN I N 26

F O S T E R CA R E 
Report Template V

Δ

 

APPENDIX ~ C 

The following tables provide caseworker visitation data for the 20 States that provided statewide reports. These taState-by-State comparison of visitation standards and rates for FY 2003. While we were most interested in statewfoster care cases only, States track their foster care population in different ways. Several States monitor children part of their overall child welfare population and therefore include other groups in these reports, such as children rin-home care or children in independent living programs. Some States excluded specific populations for reasons subelonging to a particular placement status (e.g., adoptive placements), children classified as runaways, or children different visitation standard. In addition, some States chose to include out-of-State children, while other States ex

population. For these reasons, we have included a column entitled “Data Considerations” for each State, describinpopulations and other important information for understanding each State’s visitation rate. Unless otherwise indicated, the visitation rates below represent face-to-face visits with all children in foster care (rwhether the visits occurred in the placement) with the exception of AR, MA, and WA, which only include visits thaplacement in their visitation data. Table 1 includes the visitation information for the 17 States with at least monthly visitation standards, with the fo

columns:

o State minimum visitation standards, o FY 2003 months included in State reports, o Monthly range and monthly average of children visited for FY 2003, 

o Data considerations about populations included in State reports, and o State reported factors affecting the visitation rate. 

Table 2 provides the visitation data for three States with visitation standards less frequent than monthly. It incluinformation as Table 1, and also lists the type of data provided (monthly and quarterly) as well as the quarterly viand average for FY 2003 when available. 

OE I-04-03-00 350 S TAT E S TANDARDS AND CA PA C I T Y T O T RACK F R E Q U E N C Y OF CASE W O RKER V I S I T S WITH CH I L DREN I N F O S T E R CARE 
Report Template V

APP E N D I X ~C 

Table 1: Caseworker Visitation Reports for FY 2003 Generated by States With at Least Monthly Standards 

State Minimum 

Visitation Standard 

Months Included 

Range ofChildren in Care Visited Monthly 

MonthlyAverage 

State-Reported Data Considerations State

Visita

AR Weekly 12 Months: 

10/01/02- 09/30/03 

68-75% 71% Populations excluded: Out-of-State children, children in therapeutic

foster homes, and children in preadoptive placements (totaling approximately 22 percent during FY 2003). Children in the report forwhom monthly data were not available are not included in these figures (less than 1 percent). Other: Visits reflected in the report include only those occurring in 

the placement; face-to-face visits occurring elsewhere are not counted. 

The Ssignifaffecttime gincreareportmay r

AZ Monthly 12 Months: 

10/01/02- 09/30/03 

55-66% 59% Populations excluded: Out-of-State children and runaway children 

(totaling approximately 5 percent of caseload for April through September 2003). 

AZ rereflecdocumdid notheir visitaall vis

CA Monthly 6 Months: 

04/03-09/03 

85-86% 86% Populations excluded: Children classified as having exceptions to 

their monthly visitation standard (an average of 20 percent permonth). Exceptions included: child contacted by another agency, child placed with legal guardian, child placed with relative, child placed out of State, child receiving family reunification services/ stable, child receiving permanent placement services/stable, child under 2 years of age, and child’s whereabouts unknown. Population included in report in addition to children in foster care: 

Children receiving in-home care (approximately 8.7 percent of total children during 04/03-09/03). 

CA remethoin Juldata oexclus

CO Monthly 12 Months: 

10/01/02- 09/30/03 

89-94% 91% Populations excluded: Out-of-State children represented 

approximately 5 percent of the reviewed population during FY 2003. Other: Statistics are from the review of caseworker visits as part of 

CO’s administrative case review of all children in foster care for 6 months. Children are reviewed 6 months after placement in fostercare and every 6 months thereafter. 

CO revisitatime. casewcriticachild 

OE I-04-03-00 350 S TAT E S TANDARDS AND CA PA C I T Y T O T RACK F R E Q U E N C Y OF CASE W O RKER V I S I T S WITH CH I L DREN I N F O S T E R CARE 
Report Template V

APP E N D I X ~C 

Table 1 (cont): Caseworker Visitation Reports for FY 2003 Generated by States With at Least Monthly Standar

State Minimum 

Visitation Standard 

Months Included 

Range ofChildren in Care Visited Monthly 

MonthlyAverage 

State-Reported Data Considerations State

Visita

DC Twice a 

Month 

4 Months: 06/03-09/03 

42-44% 43% Populations excluded: Children in third-party kinship nonfoster care 

and those placed outside DC, MD, and VA or in residential treatment facilities more than 100 miles away were excluded (totalingapproximately 4 percent of children during 06/03-09/03). 

In 200was to focusifor chSACWshiftechildrthat athe mincrea

FL Monthly 9 Months: 

01/01/03- 09/30/03 

93-96% 95% Out-of-State placements included: Out-of-State children represented 

approximately 3 percent of children in September 2003. Population included in report in addition to children in foster care: Children receiving in-home care (approximately 33 percent of children 01/03-09/03) and children receiving young adult services (accountingfor less than 1 percent of children 03/03-09/03). 

FL stavisitacommand inmeasucommnecesthat rto enseach m

KY Monthly 12 Months: 

10/01/02- 09/30/03 

36-53% 44% Out-of-State placements included: Out-of State children represented 

approximately 1.5 percent of children in FY 2003. Other: KY reported that approximately 40-45 percent of children

were receiving care from private providers. These children receive quarterly visits from State caseworkers, and may receive more frequent visits from private providers. Visits from private providers 

are not reflected in these data as private provider visitation is not tracked by the State in its visitation reports. 

Visits includadditithat bchildrcasewquart

OE I-04-03-00 350 S TAT E S TANDARDS AND CA PA C I T Y T O T RACK F R E Q U E N C Y OF CASE W O RKER V I S I T S WITH CH I L DREN I N F O S T E R CARE 
Report Template V

APP E N D I X ~C 

Table 1 (cont): Caseworker Visitation Reports for FY 2003 Generated by States With at Least Monthly Standar

State Minimum 

Visitation Standard 

Months Included 

Range ofChildren in Care Visited Monthly 

MonthlyAverage 

State-Reported Data Considerations State-Repor

Rate 

MA Monthly 12 Months: 

10/01/02- 09/30/03 

75-80% 78% Populations excluded: Out-of-State children represented 

approximately 3 percent of children in September 2003. Other: Visits reflected in the report include only visitsoccurring in the placement; face-to-face visits occurring elsewhere are not counted. In addition, visits conducted by

private agencies are not included in the report. Visits are recorded by those agencies and furnished to the State via quarterly reports. 

The report iassist social casework coreport only iplacement bface-to-face worker assigwith the fost

addition, visagencies are Private agenseparately. 

NE Monthly 11 Months: 

11/01/02- 09/30/03 

11-68% 50% Out-of-State placements included: Out-of-State children 

represented approximately 1 percent of children in September 2003. Population included in report in addition to children in foster care: Children receiving in-home care. According tothe State, in-home care cases represent less than 10 percent of total children in FY 2003. 

NE reported were low durequirementinto the auto2002). 

NH Monthly 6 Months: 

01/01/03- 06/30/03 

NA 49% Out-of-State placements included: Out-of-State children 

represented approximately 8 percent of children in September 2003. Populations excluded: Children placed in residential 

facilities (approximately 26 percent of total children during 01/03-06/03) are not included in these figures, since monthly information was not presented for them. Other: Report was a 6-month summary of children infoster family homes visited at least once a month and did not include month-by-month totals. Therefore, a range could not be calculated. 

NH provided indicating thfoster family once a montNH reported receiving a Cachieved” foreviewed, anreport indicanot visited iprogress on Children, Yo

OE I-04-03-00 350 S TAT E S TANDARDS AND CA PA C I T Y T O T RACK F R E Q U E N C Y OF CASE W O RKER V I S I T S WITH CH I L DREN I N F O S T E R CARE 
Report Template V

APP E N D I X ~C 

Table 1 (cont): Caseworker Visitation Reports for FY 2003 Generated by States With at Least Monthly Standar

State Minimum 

Visitation Standard 

Months Included 

Range ofChildren in Care Visited Monthly 

MonthlyAverage 

State-Reported Data Considerations State-Report

Visitation Ra

OK Monthly 12 Months: 

10/01/02- 09/30/03 

92-95% 94% Populations excluded: Out-of-State children, children in 

tribal foster care who are not in State custody, children incare fewer than 14 days, and children in trial adoption (approximately 6 percent of all children during FY 2003). 

OK reported be a priority ensure safetywithout visitreported monall levels. 

SC Monthly 12 Months: 

10/01/02- 09/30/03 

96-97% 97% Out-of-State placements included: Out-of-State children 

represented approximately 4 percent of children in September 2003. Population included in report in addition to children in foster care: Children in the independent living program(approximately 6 percent of all children during FY 2003). 

SC reported visit every chat that.” SC visitation as outcome mealegislature. information children recequarter. 

TN Twice a 

Month 

12 Months: 10/01/02- 09/30/03 

41-81% 53% Out-of-State placements included: Out-of-State children 

represented approximately 4 percent of children in FY2003. Populations excluded: Children in the placement types of 

youth development center and runaway––approximately 10percent of children in September 2003. 

TN reported rates during affecting visiindicated it hcontrols aroucase managelast 3 monthvisitation ra

TX Monthly 12 Months: 

10/01/02- 09/30/03 

69-77% 75% Out-of-State placements included: Out-of-State children 

represented less than 2 percent of children in September 2003. 

TX reported visitation figcaseworkers rates in the cthe State repaffecting its caseloads an

OE I-04-03-00 350 S TAT E S TANDARDS AND CA PA C I T Y T O T RACK F R E Q U E N C Y OF CASE W O RKER V I S I T S WITH CH I L DREN I N F O S T E R CARE 
Report Template V

APP E N D I X ~C 

Table 1 (cont): Caseworker Visitation Reports for FY 2003 Generated by States With at Least Monthly Standar

State Minimum 

Visitation Standard 

Months Included 

Range ofChildren in Care Visited Monthly 

MonthlyAverage 

State-Reported Data Considerations State-Repo

Visitation R

UT Monthly 12 Months: 

10/01/02- 09/30/03 

91-94% 93% Out-of-State placements included: Out-of-State children 

represented approximately 2 percent of children in September 2003. Other: Starting in May 2003, UT changed its standard

from twice a month to monthly visits. 

UT stated best way foresponsibilthat they hvisitation f

WV Monthly 12 Months: 

10/01/02- 09/30/03 

35-46% 42% Populations excluded: Out-of-State children represented 

approximately 15 percent of all children in FY 2003. 

The State rcaseload israte. 

WY Monthly 12 Months: 

10/01/02- 09/30/03 

13-46% 27% Populations excluded: Children placed out-of-State via 

Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, in tribal placements, in adoption placements, and those categorized as runaways are excluded from the report. (Approximately30 percent of all children were classified in these groups onSeptember 30, 2003.) 

WY reporteperiod wheroutinely eHowever, WMay 2004, substantiavisitation r2004. 

Source: Document review of State visitation reports by OIG. OE I-04-03-00 350 S TAT E S TANDARDS AND CA PA C I T Y T O T RACK F R E Q U E N C Y OF CASE W O RKER V I S I T S WITH CH I L DREN I N F O S T E R CARE 
Report Template V

APP E N D I X ~C 

Table 2: Caseworker Visitation Reports for FY 2003 Generated by States With Standards Less Frequent Than M

State Minimum 

Visitation Standard 

Type ofData Provided 

Months Provided 

Range ofChildren in Care Visited Monthly 

MonthlyAverage 

Range ofChildren in Care Visited Quarterly 

QuarterlyAverage 

State-Reported Data Considerations 

SV

IA Ranges

from monthly to quarterly 

Monthlyand quarterly 

12 Months: 10/01/02- 09/30/03 

21-26% 24% 86-89% 88% Out-of-State placements included: 

Out-of-State children represented less than 1 percent of children in 09/03. 

IA hdvaAchstachm

VA Quarterly Monthly 12 

Months: 10/01/02- 09/30/03 

41-50% 45% NA NA Out-of-State placements included: 

Out-of-State children represented less than 3 percent of children in 09/03.Population included in report in addition to children in foster care: Children receiving in-home care. According to VA, these cases were approximately 11 percent of total children in FY 2003. 

TqmpimSstim

WA Quarterly Quarterly 3 

Months: 04/03-06/03 

NA NA NA 58% Populations excluded: Children in 

care for less than 60 days(estimated to account for 13 percentof all children during 04/03-06/03). Out-of-State placements included: 

Out-of State children represented less than 2 percent of children in 09/03.Other: Report reflects visits

occurring in the placement only; face-to-face visits occurring elsewhere are not counted. 

Wcadinvthraaimwvd

Source: Document review of State visitation reports by OIG. OE I-04-03-00 350 S TAT E S TANDARDS AND CA PA C I T Y T O T RACK F R E Q U E N C Y OF CASE W O RKER V I S I T S WITH CH I L DREN I N F O S T E R CARE 
Report Template Version = 09-08-04 

Δ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

This report was prepared under the direction of Ann O’Connor, Regional 

Inspector General for Evaluation and Inspections in the Atlanta 

regional office, and Graham Rawsthorn, Assistant Regional Inspector 

General. Other principal Office of Evaluation and Inspections staff who 

contributed include: 

Stacey Bloomer, Co-Team Leader 

Peggy Daniel, Project Lead 

Linda Moody, Program Specialist 

Gerius Patterson, Data and Statistical Analyst 

Elander Phillips, Program Analyst 

Joe Townsel, Co-Team Leader 

Elise Stein, Director, Public Health and Human Services 

Michala Walker, Program Analyst 

OE I-04-03-00 350 S TAT E S TANDARDS AND CA PA C I T Y T O T RACK F R E Q U E N C Y OF CASE W O RKER V I S I T S WITH CH I L DREN I N 34

F O S T E R CA R E