Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on the District of 

Columbia, Committee on Appropriations, 

United States Senate 

United States General Accounting Office 

GAO

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EST 

Wednesday, April 2, 2003 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Issues Associated with the 

Child and Family Services 

Agency’s Performance and 

Policies 

Statement of Cornelia M. Ashby, Director 

Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues 

GAO-03-611T 
CFSA took actions to address six of the nine ASFA requirements related to 

the safety and well-being of children and met or exceeded four of the eight 

performance criteria GAO included in its study. 

CSFA has established many foster care policies, but caseworkers did not 

consistently implement the six GAO examined. In addition, CFSA’s 

automated system lacked data on policy implementation for 70 percent of its 

foster care cases. The table summarizes three of these policies and the 

percentage of cases for which the data indicated the policy was 

implemented. 

Table 2: The Extent of Implementation of Selected Foster Care Policies 

Policy 

Percent of foster care cases 

for which the policy was 

implemented (N= 943) 

Initiate face-to-face investigation of alleged child abuse 

or neglect within 24 hours of receiving an allegation on 

CFSA’s child abuse hotline 

26 

Complete a safety assessment within 24 hours of faceto-face contact with the child 13 

Complete a risk assessment within 30 days of 

receiving an allegation on the hotline 

73 

Source: FACES data and GAO analysis. 

CFSA has enhanced its working relationship with the Family Court. Frequent 

dialogue now occurs between CFSA’s top management and the Family 

Court, CFSA has expanded its legal services to support court activities, and 

CFSA participates in various planning committees with the court. However, 

hindrances remain, such as scheduling conflicts between the two entities; 

unclear roles and responsibilities of caseworkers, attorneys, and judges; and 

caseworkers who are not familiar with cases that have been recently 

transferred to them. 

The District of Columbia (DC) 

Child and Family Services 

Agency (CFSA) is responsible 

for protecting thousands of 

foster care children at risk of 

abuse and neglect and ensuring 

that critical services are 

provided for them and their 

families. Representative Tom 

Davis, Chairman of the House 

Committee on Government 

Reform, asked GAO to discuss 

the extent to which CFSA has 

taken actions to address the 

requirements of the Adoption 

and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 

1997 and other selected 

performance criteria, adopted 

and implemented child 

protection and foster care 

placement policies, and 

enhanced its working 

relationship with the D.C. 

Family Court.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-611T 

To view the full report, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Cornelia Ashby 

at (202) 512-8403 or ashbyc@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-03-611T a testimony 

before the Subcommittee on the District of 

Columbia, Committee on Appropriations, 

U.S. Senate 

April 2003

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Issues Associated with the Child and 

Family Services Agency’s Performance 

and Policies 
Page 1 GAO-03-611T 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss preliminary findings from our 

study of the District of Columbia’s Child and Family Services Agency 

(CFSA), done at the request of Representative Tom Davis, Chairman of the 

House Committee on Government Reform. My testimony will focus on the 

extent to which CFSA has (1) taken actions to address the requirements of 

the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA) and met selected 

performance criteria, (2) adopted and implemented child protection and 

foster care placement policies that are comparable to those generally 

accepted in the child welfare community, and (3) enhanced its working 

relationship with the D.C. Family Court. 

My comments today are based primarily on our analysis of the information 

in the District’s automated child welfare information system, known as 

FACES, which CFSA is to use to manage child welfare cases and report 

child abuse and neglect, foster care, and adoption information to the 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). We analyzed cases in 

FACES that were at least 6 months old as of November 2002 and verified 

the accuracy of its data. However, CFSA had not entered into FACES 

detailed information on the data elements we needed for our analysis with 

respect to about two-thirds of the District’s active foster care cases—

mostly cases that originated prior to FACES going on-line in October 1999. 

Consequently, we also obtained and analyzed information from paper case 

files to supplement FACES information for some cases. We also 

interviewed District officials, CFSA managers, judges, and child welfare 

experts, and we analyzed federal and District laws and regulations, related 

court documents, and child welfare policies. Our final report will be issued 

in May 2003. We conducted our work between September 2002 and March 

2003 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. 

In summary, CFSA has taken actions to address various ASFA 

requirements and met several selected performance criteria1

, enacted child 

protection and foster care placement policies and procedures, and 

enhanced its working relationship with the D.C. Family Court; however, 

much remains to be done. CFSA met two-thirds of the ASFA requirements 

 1

These performance criteria were among those included in the performance standards that 

CFSA had to meet in order to end the probationary period following the general 

receivership. We selected those performance criteria that in our judgment most directly 

relate to the safety and permanent placement of children. 
Page 2 GAO-03-611T 

and half of the selected foster care performance criteria we used, and 

developed written plans to address two of the three unmet ASFA 

requirements and three of the four unmet performance criteria. In 

addition, CFSA has adopted child protection and foster care placement 

policies and procedures that are comparable to most, but not all, of those 

recommended by organizations that develop standards applicable to child 

welfare programs. However, CFSA has not adopted some key policies and 

procedures for ensuring the safety and permanent placement of children, 

and caseworkers have not consistently implemented or documented some 

of the policies and procedures that have been adopted. For example, CFSA 

has developed an automated child welfare data system to help manage its 

caseload, but detailed information for the data elements related to the 

policies reviewed had not been entered into the system for about 70 

percent of its foster care cases. Further, CFSA has improved its working 

relationship with the Family Court through improved communication and 

top management support; however, both CFSA and the Family Court still 

need to overcome barriers that continue to constrain this relationship. 

CFSA is responsible for protecting thousands of foster care children who 

have been at risk of abuse and neglect and ensuring that critical services 

are provided for them and their families. However, many children in 

CFSA’s care languished for extended periods of time due to managerial 

shortcomings and long-standing organizational divisiveness. As a result of 

these deficiencies, the U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia 

issued a remedial order in 1991 to improve the performance of the agency. 

In 1995, lacking sufficient evidence of program improvement, the agency 

was removed from the District’s Department of Human Services and 

placed in general receivership. Under a modified final order (MFO) 

established by the court, CFSA was directed to comply with more than 100 

policy and procedural requirements. The efforts CFSA made during the 

receivership to improve its performance included establishing an 

automated system, FACES, to manage its caseload. The U.S. District Court 

ended the receivership in 2000, established a probationary period, and 

identified performance standards CFSA had to meet in order to end the 

probationary period. The court appointed the Center for the Study of 

Social Policy as an independent monitor to assess CFSA’s performance 

and gave them the discretion to modify the performance standards. 

However, in the summer of 2002, abuses of two children placed in group 

homes were reported, indicating that CFSA’s operations and policies, 

especially those regarding foster care cases, may still need improvement. 

Background 
Page 3 GAO-03-611T 

Additionally, several federal laws, local laws, and regulations established 

goals and processes under which CFSA must operate. ASFA, with its goal 

to place children in permanent homes in a timelier manner, placed new 

responsibilities on all child welfare agencies nationwide. AFSA 

introduced new time periods for moving children toward permanent, 

stable care arrangements and established penalties for noncompliance. 

For example, it requires states to hold a permanency planning hearing—

during which the court determines the future plans for a child, such as 

whether the state should continue to pursue reunification with the child’s 

family or some other permanency goal—not later than 12 months after the 

child enters foster care. The D.C. Family Court Act of 2001, established the 

District’s Family Court and placed several requirements on the District’s 

Mayor and various District agencies, including CFSA and the Office of 

Corporation Counsel (OCC).2

 The Family Court Act requires the Mayor, in 

consultation with the Chief Judge of the Superior Court, to ensure that 

D.C. government offices that provide social services and other related 

services to individuals served by the Family Court, including CFSA, 

provide referrals to such services on site at the Family Court. 

CFSA operates in a complex child welfare system. 3

 The agency relies on 

services provided by other District government agencies. For example, 

both the Fire Department and the Health Department inspect facilities 

where children are placed, and D.C. Public Schools prepare individual 

education plans for children in care. In addition, CFSA works with 

agencies in Maryland, Virginia, and other states to arrange the placement 

of District children in those states and also works with private agencies to 

place children in foster and adoptive homes. 

The management of foster care cases involves several critical steps. 

Typically, these cases begin with an allegation of abuse or neglect 

reported to the CFSA child abuse hot line. CFSA staff are required to 

investigate the allegation through direct contact with the reported victim. 

If required, the child may be removed from his or her home, necessitating 

 2

The D.C. Family Court Act of 2001, established the Family Court as part of the D.C. 

Superior Court. The Family Court replaced the D.C. Superior Court’s former Family 

Division. Among other responsibilities, the Family Court handles child abuse and neglect 

cases and court hearings and other proceedings for the District’s foster children and their 

families. OCC provides legal support for CFSA caseworkers during their appearances 

before the Family Court. 

3

We issued several GAO reports that addressed CFSA operations and program plans. For 

more information see related GAO products. 
Page 4 GAO-03-611T 

various court proceedings handled by the District’s Family Court. CFSA 

case workers are responsible for managing foster care cases by developing 

case plans, visiting the children, participating in administrative hearings, 

attending court hearings, and working with other District government 

agencies. CFSA case workers are also responsible for documenting the 

steps taken and decisions made related to a child’s safety, well being, and 

proper placement. In addition, CFSA is responsible for licensing and 

monitoring organizations with which it contracts, including group homes 

that house foster care children. 

HHS is responsible for setting standards and monitoring the nation’s child 

welfare programs. The monitoring efforts include periodic reviews of the 

operations, known as Child and Family Services Reviews,4

 and of the 

automated systems, known as Statewide Automated Child Welfare 

Information System (SACWIS) Reviews, in the states and the District of 

Columbia. HHS last reviewed CFSA’s child welfare information system in 

2000 and its overall program in 2001. 

CFSA took actions to address six of the nine ASFA requirements and met 

or exceeded four of the eight performance criteria we included in our 

study. Although ASFA includes other requirements, we only included 

those directly related to the safety and well-being of children. The 

performance criteria were among those performance standards that CFSA 

had to meet in order to end the probationary period following the general 

receivership. We selected those that, in our judgment, most directly relate 

to the safety and permanent placement of children in foster care. For 

example, CFSA signed a border agreement to achieve timelier placement 

of District children in Maryland, which addresses the ASFA requirement to 

use cross-jurisdictional resources to facilitate timely adoptive or 

permanent placements for waiting children. However, CFSA did not meet 

three requirements involving (1) proceedings to terminate the rights of 

parents whose children are in foster care, (2) annual hearings to review 

permanency goals for children and (3) notice of reviews and hearings. 

Table 1 summarizes the ASFA requirements directly related to the safety 

and well-being of children and identifies whether CFSA met them. 

 4

Child and Family Services Reviews, conducted by HHS, cover a range of child and family 

service programs funded by the federal government, including child protective services, 

foster care, adoption, independent living, and family support and preservation services. The 

2001 review evaluated seven specific safety, permanency, and well-being outcomes for 

services delivered to children and families served by CFSA. 

CFSA Undertook 

Actions to Address 

Most ASFA 

Requirements 

Reviewed and Met 

Half of the Selected 

Performance Criteria 
Page 5 GAO-03-611T 

Table 1: Summary of ASFA Requirements Relating Directly to the Safety and WellBeing of Children 

ASFA Requirements Met ASFA Requirements Not Met 

1. Include the safety of the child in state 

case planning and in a case review 

system 

1. Initiate or join proceedings to 

terminate parental rights for certain 

children in foster care—such as those 

who have been in foster care for 15 of 

the most recent 22 months of care 

2. Comply with requirements for criminal 

background clearances and have 

procedures for criminal record checks 

2. Provide family members a notice of 

reviews and hearings and an 

opportunity to be heard 

3. Develop a case plan for a child for 

whom the State’s goal is adoption or 

other permanent living arrangement 

3. Conduct mandatory annual 

permanency hearings every 12 

months for a child in foster care 

4. Develop plans for the effective use of 

cross-jurisdictional resources to 

facilitate timely adoptive or permanent 

placements for waiting children 

5. Provide for health insurance coverage 

for children with special needs in state 

plans for foster care and adoption 

assistance 

6. Incorporate standards to ensure 

quality services for children in foster 

care in state plans 

Source: ASFA and HHS’ CSFR and GAO analysis. 

We analyzed automated data related to eight selected performance criteria 

and found that CFSA met or exceeded four of them. For example, one of 

the criteria requires sixty percent of children in foster care to be placed 

with one or more of their siblings; we found that as of November 30, 2002, 

63 percent of children were placed with one or more siblings. The areas in 

which CFSA’s performance fell short included criteria related to (1) social 

worker visitation with children in foster care, (2) placement of children in 

foster homes with valid licenses, and (3) progress toward permanency for 

children in foster care and (4) parental visits with children in foster care 

who had a goal of returning home. For example, none of the 144 children 

placed in foster care during the 2-month period prior to November 30, 

2002, received required weekly visits by a CFSA caseworker. In addition, 

52 of 183 foster care children (32 percent), for whom CFSA had not met 

the progress towards permanency goal, had been in foster care without 

returning home for 36 months or more. Twenty-two of these children had 

been in foster care 5 or more years without returning home. A complete 

list of the performance criteria and our analysis is shown in appendix I. 
Page 6 GAO-03-611T 

CFSA has written plans to address two of the three unmet ASFA 

requirements and three of the four unmet performance criteria we selected 

for our study. One of CFSA’s plans includes actions to address one 

criterion for which the agency fell short—parental visits. This plan, the 

Interim Implementation Plan, includes measures that were developed to 

show the agency’s plans for meeting the requirements of the MFO issued 

by the court. The plan states that, for new contracts, CFSA will require its 

contactors to identify sites in the community for parental visits to help 

facilitate visits between parents and their children. However, CFSA does 

not have written plans that address other unmet criteria, such as reducing 

the number of children in foster care who, for 18 months or more, have 

had a permanency goal to return home. CFSA has also not implemented 

the ASFA requirement to provide foster parents, relative caregivers, and 

pre-adoptive parents the opportunity to be heard in any review or hearing 

held with respect to the child. Without complete plans for improving on all 

measures, CFSA’s ability to comply with the ASFA requirements and meet 

the selected performance criteria may be difficult. Furthermore, unless 

these requirements and criteria are met the child’s safety may be 

jeopardized, the time a child spends in foster care may be prolonged, or 

the best decisions regarding a child’s future well-being may not be 

reached. 

Agency officials cited external demands, including court-imposed 

requirements, staffing shortages, and high caseloads, as factors that 

hindered CFSA’s ability to fully meet the ASFA requirements and the 

selected performance criteria. For example, program managers and 

supervisors said that the new court-imposed mediation process intended 

to address family issues without formal court hearings places considerable 

demands on caseworkers’ time. The time spent in court for mediation 

proceedings, which can be as much as 1 day, reduces the time available for 

caseworkers to respond to other case management duties, such as visiting 

with children in foster care. Furthermore, managers and supervisors 

reported that staffing shortages have contributed to delays in performing 

critical case management activities, such as filing for the termination of 

parental rights. Staffing shortages are not a unique problem to CFSA. We 

recently reported that caseworkers in other states said that staffing 

shortages and high caseloads had detrimental effects on their abilities to 

make well-supported and timely decisions regarding children’s safety. We 

also reported that as a result of these shortages, caseworkers have less 

time to establish relationships with children and their families, conduct 
Page 7 GAO-03-611T 

frequent and meaningful home visits, and make thoughtful and wellsupported decisions regarding safe and stable permanent placements.5

CSFA has established many foster care policies but, caseworkers did not 

consistently implement the six we examined. In addition, CFSA’s 

automated system lacked data on policy implementation for 70 percent of 

its foster care cases. When CFSA’s caseworkers are not consistently 

implementing the policies essential steps are not always being taken for all 

children in a timely manner. As a result, children may be subject to 

continued abuse and neglect or efforts to achieve permanent and safe 

placements may be delayed. Furthermore, without information on all 

cases, caseworkers do not have a readily available summary of the child’s 

history needed to make future decisions and managers do not have 

information needed to assess and improve program operations. 

While we previously reported in 20006

 that CFSA lacked some important 

child protection and foster care placement policies, CFSA has now 

established many such policies and most are comparable to those 

recommended by organizations that develop standards applicable to child 

welfare programs. For example, CFSA has policies for investigating 

allegations of child abuse, developing case plans, and establishing 

permanency goals for foster children. In addition, one policy is more 

rigorous than suggested standards. Specifically, CFSA’s policy requires an 

initial face-to-face meeting with children within 24 hours of reported abuse 

or neglect, while the suggested standard is 48 hours or longer in cases that 

are not high risk. However, CFSA still lacks some that are recommended, 

namely (1) written time frames for arranging needed services for children 

and families (e.g., tutoring and drug treatment for family members); (2) 

limits on the number of cases assigned to a caseworker, based on case 

complexity and worker experience; and (3) procedures for providing 

 5

U.S. General Accounting Office, Child Welfare: HHS Could Play a Greater Role in 

Helping Child Welfare Agencies Recruit and Retain Staff, GAO-03-357 (Washington, D.C.: 

Mar. 31, 2003). 

6

U.S. General Accounting Office, District of Columbia Child Welfare: Long-Term 

Challenges in Ensuring Children’s Well-Being, GAO-01-191 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 29, 

2000), and U.S. General Accounting Office, Foster Care: Status of the District of 

Columbia’s Child Welfare System Reform Efforts, GAO/HEHS-00-109 (Washington, D.C.: 

May 5, 2000). 

CFSA Has Established 

Many Foster Care 

Policies but Lacks 

Others, and the 

Extent of 

Implementation and 

Documentation Varies 

CSFA Has Established 

Many Foster Care Policies 

but Caseworkers Did Not 

Consistently Implement 

Them 
Page 8 GAO-03-611T 

advance notice to each person involved in a case about the benefits and 

risks of services planned for a child and alternatives to those services. 

CFSA did not consistently implement the six policies we examined. We 

selected policies that covered the range of activities involved in a foster 

care case, but did not duplicate those examined in our review of the AFSA 

requirements or the selected performance criteria. For three of the six 

policies, data in FACES on all foster care cases indicate that the extent to 

which caseworkers implemented them varied considerably. Table 2 

summarizes these three policies and the percentage of cases for which the 

data indicated the policy was implemented. 

Table 2: The Extent of Implementation of Selected Foster Care Policies 

Policy 

Percent of foster care cases

for which the policy was 

implemented (N= 943) 

Initiate face-to-face investigation of alleged child 

abuse or neglect within 24 hours of receiving an 

allegation on CFSA’s child abuse hotline 

26

Complete a safety assessment within 24 hours of 

face-to-face contact with the child 

13

Complete a risk assessment within 30 days of 

receiving an allegation on the hotline 

73

Source: FACES data and GAO analysis. 

In some cases, it took CFSA caseworkers considerably longer than the 

required time to initiate an investigation or complete safety and risk 

assessments. In 93 cases, CFSA caseworkers took more than 10 days to 

initiate the investigation and in 78 cases, it took caseworkers longer than 

100 days to complete a risk assessment, more than three times longer than 

the 30-day requirement. 

For the other three policies, we reviewed case files and examined related 

data from FACES for 30 cases, because officials told us that the 

information related to these policies was not routinely recorded in FACES. 

One policy requires caseworkers to complete a case plan within 30 days of 

a child’s entry into foster care. Our analysis and file review found that case 

plans were not routinely completed within 30 days. Another policy 

requires conducting administrative review hearings every six months. 

These reviews ensure that key stakeholders are involved in permanency 

planning for the child. We found that administrative review hearings were 

rescheduled for a variety of reasons, such as the caseworker had to appear 

at a hearing for another case or the attorney was not available. The third 

policy requires caseworkers to identify and arrange for services for 
Page 9 GAO-03-611T 

children and their families. It was difficult to determine whether services 

recommended by caseworkers were approved by supervisors or if needed 

services were provided. Managers said that sometimes services are 

arranged by telephone and the results not entered into FACES. 

Officials said that several factors affected the implementation of some of 

the policies we reviewed. Agency officials explained that, in part, the data 

on implementation of the initial investigations and safety assessment 

reflected that the District’s Metropolitan Police Department was 

responsible for the initial investigation of child abuse cases until October 

2001 and that data was not entered into FACES. CFSA now has 

responsibility for both child abuse and neglect investigations. Further, 

program managers and supervisors said that several factors contribute to 

the time frames required to initiate face-to-face investigations, including 

difficulty in finding the child’s correct home address, contacting the child 

if the family tries to hide the child from investigators, and even obtaining 

vehicles to get to the location. Caseworkers’ supervisors and managers 

explained that generally, the policies were not always implemented 

because of limited staff and competing demands and the policies were not 

documented because some caseworkers did not find FACES to be user 

friendly. 

CFSA officials said they recently made changes to help improve the 

implementation of some of the policies we reviewed. CFSA has focused on 

reducing its backlog of investigations and reduced the number of 

investigations open more than 30 days from 807 in May 2001 to 263 in May 

2002. CFSA officials said that they anticipate a reduction in the number of 

administrative review hearings that are rescheduled. The responsibility for 

notifying administrative review hearing participants when a hearing is 

scheduled was transferred from caseworkers to the staff in the 

administrative review unit, and notification will be automatically 

generated well in advance of the hearings. Additionally, another official 

said that CFSA has begun testing a process to ensure that all needed 

services are in place within 45 days. 

However, without consistently implementing policies for timely 

investigations and safety and risk assessments, a child may be subject to 

continued abuse and neglect. Delaying case plans and rescheduling 

administrative review hearings delay efforts to place children in 

permanent homes or reunite them with their families. Further, without 

knowing whether children or families received needed services, CFSA 

cannot determine whether steps have been taken to resolve problems or 
Page 10 GAO-03-611T 

improve conditions, which also delays moving children toward their 

permanency goals. 

In addition to its policies for managing cases, CFSA has policies for 

licensing and monitoring group homes, plans for training staff in group 

homes, and a goal to reduce the number of young children in group homes. 

CFSA’s policies for group homes are based primarily on District 

regulations that went into effect July 1, 2002. According to a CFSA official, 

the agency was precluded from placing children in an unlicensed group 

home as of January 1, 2003. As of March 2003, all CFSA group homes were 

licensed, except one, and CFSA was in the process of removing children 

from that home. In the future, CFSA plans to use requirements for 

licensing group homes as well as contractual provisions as criteria for 

monitoring them. CFSA also plans to provide training to group home staff 

to make it clear that, as District regulations require, any staff member who 

observes or receives information indicating that a child in the group home 

has been abused must report it. Further, CFSA has a goal to reduce the 

number of children under 13 who are placed in group homes. CFSA has 

reduced the number of children under 13 in group homes from 128 in 

August 2002, to 70 as of February 2003; and, has plans to reduce that 

number even further by requiring providers of group home care to link 

with agencies that seek foster care and adoptive families. 

While CFSA’s policies with regard to is automated child welfare 

information system --FACES—were not among the six policies we initially 

selected for examination, in our efforts to assess CFSA’s implementation 

of the selected foster care policies, we determined that FACES lacked 

such data for about 70 percent of its active foster care cases. Of the 

population of foster care cases at least 6 months old as of November 30, 

2002—2,510 cases—data on the initial investigation and safety and risk 

assessment policies were not available for 1,763 of them. CFSA officials 

explained that all of these cases predated FACES and the previous system 

was used primarily to capture information for accounting and payroll 

purposes, not for case management. Top agency managers said that CFSA 

does not currently plan to make it an agency priority to include data in 

FACES for these pre-FACES cases. Additionally, FACES reports showed 

that data was not available on many of the more recent foster care cases. 

For example, complete data on the initiation of investigations and safety 

assessments were not available for about half of the 943 cases that entered 

the foster care system after FACES came on line. Officials explained that 

their plans are to focus on improving a few data elements at a time for 

current and future actions. 

CFSA’s Automated System 

Lacked Data on Many 

Foster Care Cases 
Page 11 GAO-03-611T 

Complete and accurate data is an important aspect of effective child 

welfare systems. HHS requires all states and D.C. to have an automated 

child welfare information system. These systems, known as Statewide 

Automated Child Welfare Information Systems (SACWIS), must be able to 

record key child welfare functions, such as intake management, case 

management, and resource management. However, it its review of FACES, 

HHS found the system to be in noncompliance with several requirements, 

including the requirements to prepare and document service/case plans 

and to conduct and record the results of case reviews.7

 In addition to the 

standards and requirements established by HHS for all child welfare 

systems, the MFO requirements stress the importance of an automated 

system for CFSA. Many of the requirements the MFO imposed on CFSA 

direct CFSA to produce management data. For example, the MFO requires 

that CFSA be able to produce management data showing (1) how many 

children who need medical reports received them within 48 hours after the 

report of neglect or abuse was supported, (2) the caseload figures by 

worker for all workers conducting investigations of reports of abuse or 

neglect, and (3) the number of supervisors with at least 3 years of social 

work experience in child welfare. 

It is very important to have accurate and timely automated case 

management data for all cases. An expert from a child welfare 

organization stated that there is a great need to transfer information from 

old case records to new automated systems in a systematic way. Without 

such a transfer, paper records with important information may be lost. She 

said that records of older teens have been lost, and, with them, valuable 

information such as the identity of the child’s father, has also been lost. 

Without data in FACES, if caseworkers need missing data they will have to 

look for paper records in the case files, some of which are voluminous. 

This file review effort is much more time consuming than reviewing an 

automated report and requires more time for caseworkers to become 

familiar with cases when cases are transferred to new caseworkers. 

Complete, accurate, and timely case management data enables 

caseworkers to quickly learn about new cases, supervisors to know the 

extent that caseworkers are completing their tasks, and managers to know 

whether any aspects of the agency’s operations are in need of 

improvement. 

 7

HHS completed its SACWIS assessment review of FACES in June 2000. The purpose of 

this review is to assess whether the child welfare information system performs functions 

that are important to meeting the minimal requirements. 
Page 12 GAO-03-611T 

CFSA has enhanced its working relationship with the Family Court 

through its commitment to promoting improved communication and by 

expanding its legal support services for court activities. CFSA participates 

in various planning committees with the Family Court, such as the 

Implementation Planning Committee, and assists in providing service 

referrals on site at the Family Court. Since 2002, attorneys from the OCC 

have been located at CFSA and work closely with caseworkers. This colocation has improved the working relationship between CFSA and the 

Family Court because CFSA caseworkers and the attorneys are better 

prepared for court appearances. Additionally, training sessions have been 

held that included CFSA caseworkers, OCC attorneys, and Family Court 

judges. Furthermore, frequent dialogue between top management at CFSA 

and the Family Court and top management support have been key factors 

in improving these relationships. 

However, CFSA officials and Family Court judges noted several 

hindrances that constrain their working relationships. These hindrances 

include scheduling conflicts between the court and CFSA, an insufficient 

number of caseworkers, caseworkers who are unfamiliar with cases that 

have been transferred to them, and the unclear roles and responsibilities 

of CFSA caseworkers, attorneys, and judges. For example, CFSA officials 

said that Family Court judges often override caseworker 

recommendations that affect children and families. Family Court judges 

told us that they believe caseworkers do not always recommend 

appropriate services for children and their families. As a result of these 

conflicting perspectives, court officials said that appropriate decisions 

affecting children and families might not be reached in a timely manner. 

While CFSA has met several procedural ASFA requirements and other 

performance criteria, developed essential policies, and enhanced its 

working relationship with the Family Court, it needs to make further 

improvement in order to ensure the protection and proper and timely 

placement of all of the District’s children. To improve outcomes for foster 

care children, CFSA needs a comprehensive set of policies; effective 

implementation of all policies; complete, accurate, and timely automated 

data on which to base its program management; and an effective working 

relationship with the D.C. Family Court. However, gaps in its foster care 

policies, inconsistent policy implementation, and incomplete automated 

data may hinder CFSA’s ability to protect and improve the outcomes for 

the District’s children. We expect to have recommendations in our final 

report that will address these issues and strengthen CFSA’s operations. 

CFSA Has Enhanced Its 

Working Relationship With 

the D.C. Family Court by 

Working Collaboratively, 

But Hindrances Remain 

Conclusions 
Page 13 GAO-03-611T 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to 

respond to any questions that you or other Subcommittee Members may 

have. 

For further contacts regarding this testimony, please call Cornelia M. 

Ashby at (202) 512-8403. Individuals making key contributions to this 

testimony included Carolyn M. Taylor, Mark Ward, Sheila Nicholson, 

Vernette Shaw, and James Rebbe. 

GAO Contact and 

Acknowledgments 
Page 14 GAO-03-611T 

Performance Criteria GAO Analysis 

1. Current case plans for foster care cases

 Forty-five percent of foster care cases have current case 

 plans. 

Met As of September 30, 2002, 46 percent of 

foster care cases had current case plans. 

2. Visitation between children in foster care and their parents

 Thirty-five percent of cases in which children have a 

 goal of returning home have parental visits at least 

 every 2 weeks. 

Not met As of November 30, 2002, 1 percent of 

children with a return home goal had 

parental visits at least every 2 weeks. 

3. Social worker visitation with children in foster care

Twenty-five percent of children in foster care have weekly 

visits with caseworkers in their first 8 weeks of care; 35 percent 

of all children in foster care have at least monthly visits with a 

social worker. 

Not met As of November 30, 2002, no children had 

weekly visits; 0.3 percent had at least 

monthly visits with a social worker. 

4. Appropriate legal status for children in foster care

 No child in emergency care (legal status) for more than 90 

 days. 

Met As of November 30, 2002, no children in 

emergency care more than 90 days. 

5. Current and valid foster home licenses

 Seventy-five percent of children are placed in foster home with 

 valid licenses. 

Not met As of November 30, 2002, 47 percent of 

children were in foster homes with valid 

licenses. 

6. Progress toward permanency

 No more than 10 percent of children in foster care have 

 a permanency goal of return home for more than 18 months. 

Not met As of November 30, 2002, 30 percent of 

children had a permanency goal of return 

home for more than 18 months. 

7. Foster care placement with siblings

 Sixty percent of children in foster care are placed with one or 

 more of their siblings. 

Met As of November 30, 2002, 63 percent of 

children were placed with one or more 

siblings. 

8. Placement stability

 No more than 25 percent of children in foster care as 

 of May 31, 2002, have had three or more placements. 

Met As of November 30, 2002, 21 percent of 

children in care since August 1, 2001, had 

three or more placements. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

Appendix I: GAO’s Analysis of Selected 

Performance Criteria 
Page 15 GAO-03-611T 

HHS Can Play a Greater Role in Helping Child Welfare Agencies Recruit 

and Retain Staff. GAO-03-357. Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2003. 

District of Columbia: More Details Needed on Plans to Integrate 

Computer Systems With the Family Court and Use Federal Funds. GAO02-948. Washington, D.C.: August 7, 2002. 

Foster Care: Recent Legislation Helps States Focus on Finding 

Permanent Homes for Children, but Long-Standing Barriers Remain. 

GAO-02-585. Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2002. 

D.C. Family Court: Progress Made Toward Planned Transition and 

Interagency Coordination, but Some Challenges Remain. GAO-02-797T. 

Washington, D.C.: June 5, 2002. 

D.C. Family Court: Additional Actions Should Be Taken to Fully 

Implement Its Transition. GAO-02-584. Washington, D.C.: May 6, 2002. 

D.C. Family Court: Progress Made Toward Planned Transition, but 

Some Challenges Remain. GAO-02-660T. Washington, D.C.: April 24, 2002. 

District of Columbia Child Welfare: Long-Term Challenges in Ensuring 

Children’s Well-Being. GAO-01-191. Washington, D.C.: December 29, 2000. 

Foster Care: Status of the District of Columbia’s Child Welfare System 

Reform Efforts. GAO/T-HEHS-00-109. Washington, D.C.: May 5, 2000. 

Related GAO Products 

(130255)