District of Columbia: Issues Associated with the Child and Family Services Agency's Performance and Policies
Published: 2003-04-02T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: CFSA took actions to address six of the nine AFSA requirements related to the safety and well-being of children and met or exceeded four of the eight performance criteria GAO included in this 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. 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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 criteria, 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  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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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.
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). 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.  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  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, 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.
section_title: CFSA Undertook Actions to Address Most ASFA Requirements Reviewed and Met Half of the Selected Performance Criteria
paragraphs: 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.
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.
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  frequent and meaningful home visits, and make thoughtful and well- supported decisions regarding safe and stable permanent placements.
section_title: CFSA Has Established Many Foster Care Policies but Lacks Others, and the Extent of Implementation and Documentation Varies
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: CSFA Has Established Many Foster Care Policies but Caseworkers Did Not Consistently Implement Them
paragraphs: While we previously reported in 2000 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  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.
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  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  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.
section_title: CFSA’s Automated System Lacked Data on Many Foster Care Cases
paragraphs: 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.
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. 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.
section_title: CFSA Has Enhanced Its Working Relationship With the D.C. Family Court by Working Collaboratively, But Hindrances Remain
paragraphs: 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 co- location 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.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: 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.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to  respond to any questions that you or other Subcommittee Members may  have.
section_title: GAO Contact and Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Appendix I: GAO’s Analysis of Selected Performance Criteria
paragraphs: GAO Analysis  As of September 30, 2002, 46 percent of  foster care cases had current case plans.
As of November 30, 2002, 1 percent of  children with a return home goal had  parental visits at least every 2 weeks.
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.
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.  5. Current and valid foster home licenses        Seventy-five percent of children are placed in foster home 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.  7. Foster care placement with siblings        Sixty percent of children in foster care are placed with one or        more of their 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.
As of November 30, 2002, no children in  emergency care more than 90 days.
As of November 30, 2002, 47 percent of  children were in foster homes with valid  licenses.  As of November 30, 2002, 30 percent of  children had a permanency goal of return  home for more than 18 months.  As of November 30, 2002, 63 percent of  children were placed with one or more  siblings.  As of November 30, 2002, 21 percent of  children in care since August 1, 2001, had  three or more placements.