Legislative Program Review

& Investigations Committee

Department of Children and Families

Monitoring and Evaluation

December 2007

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES MONITORING AND EVALUATION

Executive Summary i

Introduction 1

Purpose 1

Study Approach 2

Methodology 6

Report Organization 8

I. Background: Overview of DCF. 9

Mission, Guiding Principles, and Goals 9

Major Duties and Responsibilities 13

State Mandate Areas and Programs 15

Organization and Budget 22

II. DCF Internal Monitoring and Evaluation Activities 29

Bureau of Continuous Quality Improvement 29

Other Internal Monitoring and Evaluation Efforts 41

Contracted Monitoring and Evaluation 43

DCF Information Systems 48

III. DCF External Monitoring and Evaluation Activities 51

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 51

Federally-Required Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Plan 65

DCF Federal Grant Funding 68

Judicial Oversight 70

Legislative Oversight 83

Accrediting Body Oversight 88

Other Regulatory Monitoring and Evaluation Reporting 94

IV. Outside Investigations and Reviews 97

Office of the Child Advocate 97

Child Fatality Review Panel 102

State Attorney General 105

V. Advisory Group Monitoring and Evaluation Activities 107

Overview 107

Agencywide and Area Advisory Groups 109

DCF Facility Advisory Groups 109

Federally Mandated Advisory Groups 111

Issue-Specific Advisory Groups 111

Inactive Advisory Groups 113

Advisory Groups Requiring DCF Participation 113

VI. Results from Monitoring and Evaluation Efforts 117

Overview 117

Detailed Monitoring and Evaluation Results Within Child Protective Services 119

Detailed Monitoring and Evaluation Results Within Behavioral Health Services 132

Detailed Monitoring and Evaluation Results Within Juvenile Services 138

Detailed Monitoring and Evaluation Results Within Prevention Services 139

Detailed Agencywide Results 141

Summary of Results from Key Monitoring and Evaluation Efforts 142

VII. Findings and Recommendations 145

Agency Goals 146

Overall System Assessment 150

Internal Efforts 159

External Efforts 171

Outside Investigations and Reviews 178

Advisory Group Efforts 181

Executive Summary

Department of Children and Families Monitoring and Evaluation

Formed in 1974 as a consolidated children's agency, the Connecticut Department of Children and Families (DCF) has broad authority and primary responsibility for state mandates concerning child protection, children's behavioral health, juvenile delinquency, and prevention services related to children and families. The department has been studied, audited, reviewed, and subject to legal action almost continuously since it was created due to ongoing concerns about its ability to carry out its challenging mission.

Numerous internal quality improvement efforts, as well as oversight by multiple outside entities including federal and other state agencies, various advisory groups, the courts, and the legislature, have focused on how to achieve better outcomes for the children and families DCF serves. The Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee (PRI) alone had completed seven different reports on the department prior to undertaking a review of the overall DCF accountability system in April 2007. Unlike previous PRI reviews, this study evaluated a critical function -- monitoring and evaluation of agency results -- rather than a particular mandate.

An effective results-based monitoring and evaluating system is important for three main reasons: 1) it provides an agency with productive feedback on actual outcomes and progress toward goals; 2) it allows agency staff, policymakers, and stakeholders to know where the agency is successful, where it is not, and how to make improvements; and 3) ultimately, it helps the agency provide services that meet clients' needs and make cost-effective use of taxpayer resources. The purpose of the 2007 program review committee study was to determine areas of strength and weakness, as well as gaps and redundancies, in the existing DCF accountability system, and to identify needed improvements.

Study approach and methods. The committee study employed two primary research methods: interviews with key stakeholders; and analysis of monitoring and evaluation reports and other documents produced through DCF quality assurance, performance evaluation, and oversight efforts. There were four main sources of efforts:

To put into context all the information gathered about the process, sources, and results of DCF monitoring and evaluation, the core components of the current system were also compared with a national model for child welfare agency quality improvement.

The program review committee's final report contains an assessment of the overall DCF monitoring and evaluation system, details the system's positive features as well as deficiencies, and recommends nearly 40 administrative and legislative changes to improve its effectiveness. The report also summarizes data on agency accomplishments that were compiled by program review staff from more than 100 different monitoring and evaluation documents analyzed during the study.

Main findings. The program review committee found little attention has been given to examining DCF as a whole or assessing how well the agency is achieving its broad goals of safety, permanency, and well-being for all children and families. Further, while the department is responsible for carrying out four major mandates, monitoring and evaluation is focused primarily on the child protective services mandate, due largely to the ongoing impact of the federal Juan F. lawsuit consent decree and requirements of federal agencies.

The PRI study showed there is greater emphasis on tracking how services for children and families are delivered rather than on assessing their end results. While high quality service delivery is important, the crucial indicator of effectiveness is whether programs are making a difference and achieving stated goals. In general, more attention to outcome information is needed throughout the DCF accountability system.

The committee's review also identified pockets of strength within the system, such as the Juan F. exit plan process and related DCF area office quality improvement processes, the department's licensing procedures, the agency's recently revised special review process, and the activities of on-site facility monitors.

Some major weaknesses were revealed as well. In particular, the agency's contracting process provides little accountability, consequences for poor performance are rare, and working relationships with private providers need improvement. The committee also found ineffective use of some important sources of feedback on services and programs, such as child fatality reviews, OCA investigations, and even the department's own program review reports and contracted evaluations.

In part, these deficiencies are due to both fragmentation of quality improvement efforts within the agency and the fact that results data are not regularly integrated and analyzed. Both problems are related to the department's information systems, which are themselves fragmented and in some cases inadequate. Another challenge is a lack of department staff with the analytic skills and research experience needed to use results data and information. Further, there is no centralized place – like an agencywide strategic plan – where all DCF goals and information about service delivery and outcomes are brought together.

Duplication of external monitoring efforts also was revealed by the program review committee's examination of statutorily required DCF plans and reports. The committee determined several mandates could be eliminated without a loss of accountability, as certain documents have become obsolete or been replaced by newer sources of similar information. In addition, reducing the number and clarifying the purpose of reporting mandates could improve the quality of information on department results available to the legislature and the public.

Committee recommendations. Ultimately, the point of all monitoring and evaluation efforts, whether internal, external, investigatory, or advisory, is to ensure programs and services are having desired results. Taken together, the PRI committee recommendations listed below are aimed at making the current DCF accountability system more effective by:

Recommendations

Introduction

Department of Children and Families Monitoring and Evaluation

The Connecticut Department of Children and Families (DCF) has broad authority and primary responsibility for the state's main child welfare mandates -- protecting children from abuse and neglect, providing children's behavioral health and juvenile justice services, and carrying out prevention efforts for children and families at risk of abuse, neglect, mental illness, substance abuse, and juvenile delinquency. To carry out its mission, the department has an annual budget exceeding $800 million and a full-time staff of nearly 3,500 employees.

Since its formation as a consolidated children's agency in 1974, the department has been studied, audited, reviewed, and subject to legal action almost continuously. Multiple entities outside the agency, such as the state Office of the Child Advocate (OCA), legislative committees, the Judicial Branch, national accrediting bodies, federal agencies that provide funding for children's services, and the federal courts, track aspects of DCF performance and provide oversight of various program outcomes. Concerns continue to be raised about the efficiency, effectiveness, and advocacy capabilities of DCF through these many oversight efforts.

At the same time, there has been a number of initiatives to improve department operations and services in recent years. Many changes have been made in response to the ongoing federal Juan F. consent decree concerning Connecticut's child welfare system.

Reports from the federal court monitor show caseloads for the agency's social workers comply with national standards, community-based treatment and support services have been expanded, and there is more collaboration with other agencies involved with children and families such as the Departments of Social Services, Mental Health and Addiction Services, Developmental Services (DSS, DMHAS, DDS) and the Court Support Services Division (CSSD) of the Judicial Branch. The Department of Children and Families also has instituted various internal monitoring and evaluation efforts, such as those carried out by its continuous quality improvement bureau, as ways to strengthen management and policy decision making.

An effective process for tracking and assessing results is the cornerstone of accountability and improved performance of state agencies. In April 2007, the Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee (PRI) voted to undertake a comprehensive assessment of efforts to monitor and evaluate DCF.

Purpose

The purpose of the program review committee study of DCF monitoring and evaluation was to determine areas of strength and weakness, as well as any gaps and redundancies, within the existing agency accountability system. The main goal was to identify improvements to internal and external oversight efforts that would lead to better agency performance and, ultimately, to better outcomes for children and families.

Specifically, the study centered on: 1) describing how goals set for and by the agency are measured and tracked; 2) evaluating the department's progress in attaining its goals; 3) examining the extent to which the results of monitoring and evaluation efforts are used by DCF to improve the services it provides to children and families; and 4) identifying ways to increase the overall effectiveness of the DCF accountability system. Unlike all previous PRI studies of the Department of Children and Families, the focus was on a critical function -- monitoring and evaluation -- rather than a particular agency mandate.

Previous committee DCF studies. It is not uncommon for the program review committee to conduct multiple studies of a state agency over time, especially a complex one like the Department of Children and Families. Six prior PRI studies evaluated how the agency carried out its various mandates and identified ways to make specific programs more efficient and effective.² The committee's last report on DCF, issued in December 1999, examined implementation of its overall consolidated children's services mission. PRI proposed a significant restructuring of department duties that was intended to achieve higher quality services, better coordination and integration, and stronger leadership and oversight.

While there has not been a major reorganization of child protection, behavioral health, and juvenile justice programs in Connecticut since the 1999 PRI study, a number of changes have occurred within DCF and in the general environment of children's services. Since 1999, DCF's capacity for self-evaluation and corrective action has increased and there are more external mechanisms for providing productive feedback and accountability for results. Major developments in effective oversight within and outside DCF are highlighted in Chapter I, and described more fully in Appendix C.

In reviewing these developments, it appeared to the program review committee that better monitoring and evaluation efforts might attain the improvements in agency performance sought previously through restructuring proposals. This study, therefore, centered on the effectiveness of the system for tracking, assessing, and using information on DCF outcomes to reach agency goals for children and families.

Study Approach

The committee study scope was limited to monitoring and evaluation of DCF that has occurred both within and outside of the agency over the past three to five years. For the purposes of the study, the following definitions were used:

If the DCF monitoring and evaluation system is working well, the quality of agency programs and services should continually improve, benefiting the clients, and justifying the public's investment. When information on actual results is produced, and then used by the agency to guide decisions on policies, operations, and resources, more efficient and effective services for children and families should result. The key research question is: do existing efforts to track agency accomplishments and assess client outcomes result in better services for children and families?

The committee's overall approach to the study, illustrated in Figure 1, had five main components. These components, described in detail in Appendix B, were:

As Figure 1 shows, four main sources of DCF monitoring and evaluation were identified and analyzed: internal efforts; external efforts; outside investigations and reviews; and advisory groups established under federal or state law. Each source is summarized in Table 1.

Methodology

The committee, through its staff, employed two main research methods to study the DCF monitoring and evaluation system. The methods were: key stakeholder interviews; and analysis of monitoring and evaluation reports and related documents produced through all four sources of efforts -- internal, external, investigative, and advisory.

Stakeholder interviews. Committee staff conducted approximately 100 interviews with: division and unit personnel within the DCF bureaus; court monitor staff; Office of the Child Advocate staff; advisory group chairs; federal agency officials; external evaluators; and representatives of providers and advocacy groups. Given the time and resource constraints of the study, not every area office or DCF facility could be visited; however, efforts were made to visit or interview staff from a full range of locations and types of operations.

Document analysis. Committee staff reviewed 126 reports and materials pertaining to monitoring and evaluation of DCF. The study focused on reports and other materials documenting monitoring and evaluation efforts that occurred within the past three to five years (through September 2007). In order to assess the efforts, PRI staff evaluated each document using an internally developed standardized rating system to answer the questions shown in Table 2. Ratings required agreement between two PRI staff who had independently reviewed the documents and then met to discuss their ratings.

Study limitations. Several limitations were encountered during the committee study. First, PRI staff was unable, within the study time frame, to completely assess every effort to monitor and evaluate the Department of Children and Families. For example, while work force development and employee performance evaluation procedures have an important role in supporting quality improvement, the DCF human resources division, the department's Training Academy, and the agency's use of the Performance Assessment and Recognition System (PARS) were not examined.

Additionally, a key department program, foster care, was undergoing a major restructuring at the time of the committee review. Nearly all aspects of foster care monitoring and evaluation were being revamped, so little about efforts in that area could be assessed as it was too soon to know the impact of the new procedures.

Further, not every activity or product within a given type of monitoring and evaluation effort (e.g., licensing visit report, quality improvement plan, advisory group meeting, evaluation report, etc.) could be examined. Due in part to the fragmentation of the DCF monitoring and evaluation system, it is likely that other documents that could have been included in the analysis were not identified. However, the committee believes that the statistical reports, studies, and other documented information about major programs within the department reviewed by PRI staff are a representative sample of monitoring and evaluation currently underway.

There were also situations where multiple monitoring and evaluation efforts were overlapping or occurring simultaneously. This made it difficult to discern which effort led to changes in programs or facilities, particularly when recommendations were similar. Another challenge was attributing outcomes to particular programs, especially when children and families were receiving a variety of services and supports at the same time.

Lastly, it is important to note the rating system employed for the study does not capture the magnitude of a particular monitoring and evaluation activity. The committee staff did not try to assess the significance of each effort or any resulting recommendation. Staff calculated only the percent of recommendations implemented, and did not attempt to rate their impact or importance.

Report Organization

This report consists of seven chapters and a number of appendices. Chapter I provides background information on the Department of Children and Families including descriptions of its mission, goals, major mandates and activities, current organization, and operating budget. The agency's internal efforts to monitor and evaluate its programs and services through various quality assurance and improvement functions such as licensing, case reviews, performance-based contracting, program reviews, risk management analysis, and contracted evaluations are described in Chapter II.

External monitoring and evaluation of DCF activities that are carried out by federal agencies, the courts, the legislature, other state agencies, and national accrediting organizations are described in Chapter III. Outside investigations and reviews, which are conducted by the Office of the Child Advocate, the Child Fatality Review Panel, and the state attorney general's office are discussed in Chapter IV. The many advisory groups responsible under state or federal law for assisting the department in carrying out its mission and assessing its performance are highlighted in Chapter V.

Information about the results of DCF programs and services that was compiled from the monitoring and evaluation reports reviewed for this study is provided in Chapter VI. The program review committee's findings concerning the strengths and deficiencies of current internal, external, investigatory, and advisory monitoring and evaluation efforts are presented in Chapter VII, along with recommendations for improving the DCF accountability system through administrative and legislative changes.

Agency response. It is the policy of the Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee to provide agencies subject to a study with an opportunity to review and comment formally on committee recommendations prior to publication of the final report. A written response to this study was submitted by the Department of Children and Families and is presented in Appendix A.

Chapter I

Background: Overview of DCF

Connecticut established its consolidated children's agency, the Department of Children and Families, in the 1970s. The legislature combined the state's primary child welfare programs in one organization with the intent of achieving a comprehensive, coordinated statewide system of services for children and families who are at risk because of abuse or neglect, delinquency, mental illness, emotional disturbance, or substance abuse problems.

Since its formation, the department has undergone numerous internal reorganizations, shifts in policy and practice, and almost continuous critical review as it seeks to carry out its complex mission. Background information on DCF is presented in this chapter and includes: an overview of the agency's mission and operating principles; descriptions of its major mandates and associated programs and activities; and a summary of the department's current organization and budget. A brief history of the agency and children's services in Connecticut is provided in Appendix D.

Mission, Guiding Principles and Goals

The purpose and goals of the Department of Children and Families are implied in many of its legislative mandates, although there is no single statutory policy statement about the agency's role. Over time, the department has adopted various mission statements that reflect its broad scope as well as the general evolution of child welfare policy and practice. The current mission of DCF, as stated on the agency's website, is: to protect children, improve child and family well-being and support and preserve families.

DCF management officially adopted six guiding principles for all agency activities based on its mission statement. They include the following overarching principle encompassing the core agency mission and five specific principles intended to guide department practice:

Descriptions of each principle were developed by the department and are provided to all employees and contracted providers, and made available to the general public. A copy of the agency's mission and guiding principles document is presented in Appendix E.

Many goals have been established internally and externally for the Department of Children and Families. At this time, the department does not have a single document containing all goals for the overall agency, its mandate areas, or its specific programs. The information about DCF goals presented below was compiled from a variety of sources, including state

statutes, agency plans and budget documents, mission and goal statements included on the agency's webpage, and interviews with agency staff. A summary is in Appendix F.

Agencywide goals. As its overarching principle indicates, the Department of Children and Families has three main goals for children: 1) safety; 2) permanency; and 3) well-being. These goals, like the agency mission statement and its guiding principles, are not specified in state statute. However, they are implied in many of the laws directing DCF operations.

Safety and permanency as goals for children in the department's care and custody do have a statutory basis. Since 1998, DCF is required by law to prepare a written plan for each child and youth under agency supervision that includes, but is not limited to: “… a goal for permanent placement … which may include reunification with the parent, long-term foster care, independent living, transfer of guardianship or adoption. The child's or youth's health and safety shall be the paramount concern in formulating the plan.” Under another state statute, it is the policy of Connecticut to protect children from abuse, strengthen the family and make homes safe for children, and provide a temporary or permanent nurturing and safe environment for children when necessary.

Other agencywide goals are the department's Positive Outcomes for Children. These 22 positive outcomes mirror the exit plan outcome measure established under the federal Juan F. child welfare consent decree, which are described in detail in Chapter III and summarized in Appendix F. All of the positive outcomes/exit plan outcome measures are focused on safety, permanency, and the well-being of children and families. The agency mission, guiding principles, and positive outcomes are posted throughout the agency and the department has developed and revised an action plan for meeting the performance goals set under the Juan F. consent decree exit plan.

Child protection mandate goals. The department's goals related to its children's protective services mandate are based on state statutory policy directives to protect children from abuse and neglect, plan for permanent placement, and provide comprehensive services to meet the needs of at risk children and their families. They parallel the child welfare goals set for states under federal legislation. Like its agencywide goals, DCF's main child protection goals are: safety; permanency; and well-being.

Specific child protection goals include the 22 outcome measures for the Juan F. exit plan and the closely-related federal outcomes standards for state child welfare agencies. These standards are summarized, with all other major agency goals, in Appendix F.

As noted above, the department has an action plan, with specific strategies and time frames, for achieving compliance with the Juan F. consent decree goals. Progress in implementing the plan is regularly assessed by department management as well as the court monitor. The Juan F. action plan also is incorporated in DCF's Child and Family Services Plan, developed in accordance with federal requirements to outline the agency's child welfare goals and strategies for achieving them. Another document containing department child protection goals is its Performance Improvement Plan that must be prepared and implemented in response to federal Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) findings. (CFSR and other federal requirements are discussed in more detail in Chapter III.)

Behavioral health mandate goals. The goals of the DCF's behavioral health mandate, as defined in the agency's FY2008-2009 biennium governor's budget document, are:

Goals for the department's overall behavioral health system are not clearly set out in statute. However, expected outcomes for the state's major behavioral health reform initiative, the Connecticut Behavioral Health Partnership, and for KidCare, the children's services component overseen by DCF, are described in state law. The statutory goals for KidCare are included in Appendix F.

DCF participates in the statewide mental health planning process the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services carries out to meet federal mental health block grant funding requirements. DCF prepares the section of the federal plan on children's services, which must describe how the state will implement an organized, community-based system for improving mental health services for children with serious emotional disturbances.

In addition to describing the current state service system, the federal mental health plan must: identify and analyze system strengths, needs, and priorities; and discuss performance goals and action plans for improvement. Although goals and measures are outlined in the children's services section, the document does not appear to be used by DCF or its behavioral health bureau as a strategic guide for providing services.

A two-year strategic plan that sets goals for Riverview, the children's psychiatric hospital operated by DCF, was developed by facility staff with the help of the DCF Bureau of Continuous Quality Improvement in the spring of 2007. A multidisciplinary hospital staff workgroup is responsible for implementation, and progress is reviewed quarterly by facility management, a BCQI representative, and an on-site monitor from the Office of the Child Advocate.

Juvenile justice mandate goals. DCF's juvenile justice goals, as outlined on the agency's Juvenile Services Bureau website, are:

Further, there are specific statutory goals for the state juvenile justice system, which apply to the courts as well as DCF. These are also listed in Appendix F and are generally reflected in the juvenile services bureau goal statement.

A statewide juvenile justice strategic plan was prepared by the DCF Juvenile Services Bureau and the Court Support Services Division of the Judicial Branch with input from many public and private stakeholders.⁵ Issued in August 2006, it sets a vision, mission, 10 guiding principles, and 12 broad system goals in four areas (resource development; coordination, collaboration, and information sharing; data analysis; and work force development).

A workgroup of staff from the DCF Juvenile Services Bureau and the Court Support Services Division, advocates, and parents, with the help of a consultant, operationalized the statewide plan into a results-based accountability format. In addition, DCF and CSSD have jointly developed a plan that both carries out the goals and meets the required service outcomes under the final settlement agreement for the Emily J. juvenile justice class action lawsuit.

Staff at the DCF Connecticut Juvenile Training School (CJTS) developed a strategic action plan for that secure juvenile justice facility in the summer of 2005. In addition to setting six main goals for improving programming and accountability, the plan: defined objectives and outcomes for each goal; included specific action steps for each one; and outlined implementation time frames and responsibilities. Progress was monitored and strategies were revised as needed on a monthly basis until the end of 2006. Strategic planning for CJTS has been put on hold pending a final decision about the facility's future.

Prevention mandate goals. State statute specifically includes prevention services as a DCF responsibility in providing comprehensive services to children and families at risk for abuse, neglect, delinquency, and behavioral health problems. The department's goals for its prevention mandate are set out in detail on the agency webpage and budget document. In brief, they are to:

The DCF prevention office also has adopted seven guiding principles that reflect and expand on the agencywide guiding principles (see Appendix E). Further, the department developed a five-year child welfare prevention plan in 2006 that outlines four goals related to primary prevention and early intervention efforts carried out by the agency. Progress is monitored by the prevention office director, who provides status reports as needed or on request to agency top management.

Major programs. Goals of each of the major department programs within each of the four mandate areas are also listed in Appendix F. The main source for program-specific goals is the agency's budget document. All of the more than 70 specific budgeted programs reviewed have stated goals, although they do vary in specificity, measurability, and relevance.

Many of the program goals are related to outcomes for children and families, usually in very broad terms (e.g., “foster positive youth development”), but a significant number primarily relate to how services are to be delivered (e.g., “receive appropriate services in the least restrictive setting”). Few of the program goals identified by PRI staff incorporate the agency's guiding principles concerning family-centered practice, partnerships, and cultural competence. For the most part, however, they are consistent with the agency's overall and mandate area goals.

Major Duties and Responsibilities

The Department of Children and Families has broad authority and responsibility for protecting and supporting children and families by carrying out state and federal child welfare, juvenile justice, and children's mental health and substance abuse programs. Current state statutes require the department to:

At present, the agency contracts with nearly 200 different private providers for more than 100 types of services for its clients. The Department of Children and Families, as specified in state statute, also operates the state's only public psychiatric hospital for children and youth, two residential treatment facilities, and a secure correctional facility for delinquent boys. The department runs a therapeutic program for troubled youth through its Wilderness School, another facility named in statute. Table I-1 provides a brief description of each DCF facility.

Monitoring and evaluation. The agency has a number of specific statutory charges to monitor, assess, and evaluate its activities. It is required to:

DCF is also required by law to award funding to community service programs in proportion to their effectiveness. Furthermore, it must: evaluate the programs based on analysis of their outcomes and an assessment of service needs; and collect, maintain, and analyze data used for evaluation on an ongoing basis. As noted below in the discussion of the current agency organization, a grants development and contracts division within the Bureau of Finance has responsibility for the DCF performance-based contracting process. The agency's contract monitoring procedures, including how contractor performance information is used for decision making, is described in Chapter II.

Under state statute, DCF must report each year to the governor and legislature on the status of all children committed to the department. It also must establish and maintain a central registry of all children with permanency plans that recommend adoption and, under legislation enacted in 1999, have a system in place to monitor progress in implementing such plans. Information on the status of the various reports, plans, and reviews the department is required by state or federal law to produce, or to receive from service providers and advisory groups, is provided in more detail in Chapter III.

Legislation enacted in 2005 requires the department to seek accreditation from the national accrediting body for public child welfare agencies, the Council on Accreditation (COA). The COA accreditation process and standards and DCF efforts to comply with this requirement are also discussed in Chapter III.

Federal mandates. DCF is the state agency responsible for carrying out a number of federal mandates in areas of child welfare, children's behavioral health, and juvenile delinquency. Currently, the department is subject to oversight by: the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families; the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration of HHS; and the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. It must prepare any required state plans, grant applications, and reports for these federal agencies.

Federal monitoring and evaluation activities related to DCF, such as the Child and Family Services Reviews carried out for all state child welfare agencies, were examined in depth by committee staff. Major federal oversight activities on DCF services and programs for children and families are described in Chapter III.

Advisory groups. More than a dozen councils, committees, commissions, and boards established in accordance with state and federal law have responsibility for advising and assisting DCF or generally providing input to the governor and/or legislature on matters within the department's purview. These groups include:

Program review staff reviewed the roles of these advisory groups in tracking program outcomes, assessing performance, and making recommendations to DCF for service improvements. Descriptive information on the advisory groups is presented in Chapter V.

State Mandate Areas and Programs

The department's many programs and activities are generally organized by its four main statutory mandate areas: child protective services; children and youth behavioral health services; juvenile justice services for adjudicated delinquents; and prevention services. DCF also categorizes its treatment services within each area on a continuum ranging from community-based and in-home services to increasingly intensive out-of-home placements. Like federal and other state children's agencies, providing appropriate care in the least restrictive, most family-like environment possible is the underlying goal of most of the department's efforts.

Each DCF mandate area and the main programs and activities it includes are described briefly below. Figure I-1 summarizes, by area, the many types of services carried out or funded by the department at the time of the committee's review. (The most recent annual data available for DCF activities were for FY 06 while funding information reflects FY 07 appropriations).

Child protection. Efforts to protect children from abuse or injury are the core work of DCF in its role as the state's primary child welfare agency. If children cannot remain safely at home, the department must arrange temporary placements with relatives, in foster homes, or in other residential settings. When reunification with their families is not possible, DCF is required to seek permanent homes for children through other means, such as adoption and subsidized relative care.

Services in the child protection area usually start with the Child Abuse and Neglect Hotline, which is the state's single point of contact for reporting suspected child abuse and neglect. It is operated 24 hours a day, seven days a week by DCF. Reports accepted for investigation are forwarded to trained professional social work staff in the department's area offices. If abuse or neglect is substantiated, the case is assigned to an area office treatment social worker for ongoing services to help ensure the child is safe and the family is supported. DCF received 43,500 abuse and neglect reports, investigated 28,790, and substantiated 7,568 during FY 06.

The treatment social worker is responsible for providing appropriate services to the child and family. If the child's safety can be assured without removal, services may include in-home supports, such as a parent aide or substance abuse screening. If removal is required, out-of-home care is provided. In accordance with federal and state requirements, DCF must develop an initial written treatment plan for every child under its supervision within a specific time frame and treatment plans must be reviewed every six months.

In most cases, children who are removed from their homes are placed in foster homes, all of which are licensed by the department. On average during FY 06, about 3,200 children were living in foster care. If the department determines reunification with the child's own family is not possible, the social worker will try to achieve permanency through other options such as adoption, a subsidized guardianship with a relative, or sometimes, in the case of older children, independent living arrangements. In FY 06, over 1,200 children were living with licensed relative caregivers and over 700 youths were in independent living situations. Also that year, the department finalized 498 adoptions and granted 308 subsidized guardianships.

Behavioral health. DCF is responsible for addressing the behavioral health needs of Connecticut's children by planning, developing, and providing appropriate mental health and substance abuse assessment, treatment, and aftercare services. The agency provides behavioral health services to: children committed to DCF because of abuse and/or neglect; delinquents committed to its custody; and to children and youth with behavioral health needs and no involvement with DCF. State law allows families to apply on a voluntary basis to the department for state funded mental health and substance abuse services for children under 18.