APPENDICES
Appendix A
Agency Response: Department of Children and Families
Appendix B
PRI Approach to the DCF Study
This appendix describes the Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee approach to the study of the Connecticut Department of Children and Families. The appendix begins with an explanation of the study rationale, followed by a description of the five components of the study approach: 1) capturing and categorizing monitoring and evaluation information; 2) assessing how well the monitoring and evaluation system is working; 3) summarizing the results or accomplishments reported; 4) describing the impact this monitoring and evaluation information has had on improving DCF policies and programs; and 5) recommending improvements to the current monitoring and evaluation system as warranted.
Study rationale. The focus of this PRI study is on the monitoring and evaluation of DCF that has occurred within the past three to five years from within DCF and from external sources. If the system to monitor and evaluate services and policies is working well, then it is expected that the department would continually improve over time, benefiting the children and families served by DCF. The consequences of a poor monitoring and evaluation system is that changes to programs and policies occur blindly, without consideration of information about how they are currently working, a chance process at best. Ultimately, the question to be answered is: are the children and families better off from their experience with DCF? Did all these efforts to study, audit, review and advise the department result in improvements in the services received by the children and families?
The study examines the effectiveness of efforts to track DCF programs and goals, progress toward achieving those goals, and ways in which feedback information is used by DCF to make decisions about programs and policies. The five components are now discussed.
Capturing and Categorizing Monitoring and Evaluation Information
Capturing and categorizing the monitoring and evaluation information has three components: 1) the source of the monitoring and evaluation effort (Who is doing the monitoring and evaluation?); 2) the level of focus (Is the monitoring and evaluation focusing on the entire department, one of the four mandated areas, or a particular program?); and 3) goal type (Is the goal related to the delivery or outcome of a program or effort?). Each will now be described.
Source of monitoring and evaluation effort. The efforts to monitor and evaluate DCF come from four sources:
● internally, from DCF itself;
● externally, from the judicial branch, the legislature, federal government agencies and accrediting bodies;
● outside investigations conducted by such entities as the Office of the Child Advocate, Attorney General, and Child Fatality Review Panel; and ad hoc studies by legislative task forces or governor's blue ribbon commissions; and
● advisory groups required by state or federal law.
The identification of the source of the monitoring and evaluation is important because, depending on who is doing the tracking and monitoring, there may be differences in the effectiveness of efforts, progress made toward achieving goals, and how feedback information is used by DCF in program and policy decision making.
Level of focus. The activity being monitored, evaluated, studied or investigated by these sources may be at the program level (e.g. child abuse and neglect reporting Hotline, adoption, emergency mobile psychiatric services, juvenile justice group homes, youth suicide prevention projects), mandated area level (i.e. child protective services, children's behavioral health, juvenile justice, prevention), or agencywide—DCF overall. Organizing the monitoring and evaluation efforts into these three categories allows areas of emphasis to become apparent, as well as redundancies or gaps in monitoring and evaluation.
Depending on whether the monitoring and evaluation occurs at the program, area or agencywide level, there may be differences in the effectiveness of efforts and progress toward achieving goals. How feedback information is used by DCF to make decisions regarding programs and policies may vary.
Goal type. The agencywide, mandated area, or program-specific goal of interest—or issue being studied—may relate to a desired outcome or performance, or it may relate to the delivery of the services themselves. A goal is commonly defined as a statement of a desired state1. For purposes of this study, goals will refer to a desired state for a specific DCF program, mandated area, or the Department of Children and Families overall. They may be referred to as overall objectives, purposes, desired performance, or standards. They will answer the question, “What is trying to be accomplished?”
The accomplishment could be descriptive, defined in terms of the quantity of children and families served, time frame within which services are received, or percent completing a program. This would be a process goal or issue. The accomplishment could also be set in terms of a hoped-for impact, result or outcome of the services on the children and families receiving the services. These are outcome goals or issues.
Goal assessment criteria. The PRI study will examine the quality of the goals using the five criteria described by Kenneth Blanchard et al2. Referred to as “S.M.A.R.T. goals,” the five criteria or elements of quality goals are: Specific; Measurable; Attainable; Relevant; and Trackable.
Specific. The goal must be well-defined (simple, concise, explicit), so that achievement of the goal is clearly spelled out. By having a specific goal that deals with one area, the performance that is expected is understood and can then be measured.
Measurable. The success or achievement of the goal must be demonstrable by measurement. If it cannot be measured, then the goal will be difficult to influence or attain. Choosing a goal that relates to a reduction in something only makes sense if there is a baseline to compare it against.
Attainable. The goal chosen must be realistic given the current situation, resources and time available. The goal is within reach (possible and credible) rather than an impossible dream.
Relevant. The goal should be consistent with other goals that have already been established. The goal should be important in the accomplishment of the agency or program's mission.
Trackable. The goal should be phrased in such a way that progress can be reviewed or monitored. This criterion assesses how progress toward achieving the goal will be measured and what the actual goal is in terms of the measurement. Having a goal where interim progress can be measured allows the steps to achieving the goal to be assessed.
Assessing How Well the Monitoring and Evaluation System is Working
Assessing how well the monitoring and evaluation system is working has two parts: 1) the efforts to monitor and evaluate (What steps were taken to measure whether the goal occurred?); and 2) the match between the measurement and goal or question (Were the measurement steps taken logically linked to the goal?).
Efforts to monitor and evaluate. The efforts made to monitor and evaluate DCF will be gathered as part of the PRI study. Measurements of goals may be comprehensive, determined in multiple ways, or nonexistent. The PRI study will identify any instances where a goal may have been set, but tracking of progress toward achieving the goal is absent.
In addition to efforts to monitor and evaluate process and outcome goals, efforts to investigate or study questions or concerns will also be examined. For example, an investigation undertaken by the Child Advocate and Attorney General on the Department's child abuse and neglect hotline is included in the PRI study. In this instance, PRI staff examined how the investigation was conducted, including the sources of information and measurements used.
Efforts to monitor and evaluate are important to understanding what happened once a goal or study question was posed. How well was the question answered or how completely was the goal tracked? The consequences of a poor monitoring and evaluation system are that an organization makes decisions blindly, without consideration of information about how things are currently working. How would one know whether DCF is helping children and families without some sort of assessment?
Match between measurement and goal/question. The degree to which the measures used match up with the associated goal will also be examined. A measure may be employed, for example, because it is readily available, but may not be logically related to the goal being monitored or evaluated. Similarly, the degree to which the measures used match up with the questions will also be examined for studies or investigations.
Without a logical match between the measurement and goal, the resulting information reported is irrelevant. How would one know whether DCF's services are improving without information linked to what it is trying to accomplish? Similarly, the relevancy of the actual investigation to the question under study is key to answering the posed question.
Summarizing the Results or Accomplishments Reported
After examining monitoring and evaluation processes, actual results will be summarized. What has DCF accomplished? Were programs provided in the manner described in the programs' goals? Are the children and families any better off as a result of the services received from DCF?
Whether progress was or was not made in attaining a particular goal (or the situation worsened), this information is important in directing future program and policy changes in an effort to improve results. Similarly, what were the results of the study or investigation? Were the findings favorable or did they point to serious deficiencies? Advisory groups are often charged with making recommendations to DCF. What were the recommendations? This information is the end product of monitoring, evaluation or study efforts—the bottom line.
Similar to assessing the quality of goals put forth, the format of recommendations can be assessed. While a set of criteria such as S.M.A.R.T. goals does not exist for assessing recommendations, criteria, based in part on Government Auditing Standards3, will be applied. Recommendations should:
● Be clearly stated;
● Flow logically from the findings and conclusions; and
● Specify action(s) to be taken.
Describing the Impact on Improving DCF Policies and Programs
The impact of monitoring and evaluation information on improvements to DCF has two components: 1) use of results and recommendations by DCF (Was the information considered or used by DCF in their decision making?); and 2) impact on services received (If the information figured into changes made by DCF, did the changes lead to improvements for the children and families served?).
Use of results and recommendations by DCF. As noted previously, feedback is important to improving services to children and families. The extent to which this information is considered by DCF, however, determines whether the monitoring and evaluation results are used to inform policy decisions or changes to programs, or ignored.
Evidence of use of the results and recommendations may be found in management meeting minutes, internal reports, and interviews with DCF managers and other personnel. Interviews and reports produced by accrediting bodies, court monitors, advisory groups, and federal agency staff (with monitoring and evaluation responsibilities) will also be used to gather such evidence.
Impact on services received by children and families. If the results of the monitoring and evaluation efforts are used by DCF to make changes to their programs and policies, the next question is whether there is evidence that the children and families benefited from these changes. Were the changes truly an improvement? This question may be the most difficult to answer, although it is clearly the purpose of the department to improve the lives of children and families. Every effort will be made to locate information currently available regarding resulting impact of program and policy changes made as a result of monitoring and evaluation results. Interviews with DCF personnel, consumer groups, and other key stakeholders will be conducted as an attempt to answer this question.
Recommending Improvements as Warranted
An effective monitoring and evaluation system is the cornerstone of accountability and improved performance of state agencies. In comprehensively viewing this function, ways in which the system can be improved may become apparent. Recommendations may be as specific as strengthening oversight of a particular program or as broad as elimination of redundancies across sources of monitoring and evaluation. Areas in which the monitoring and evaluation is working especially well will also be identified and considered for expansion to other areas where feasible.
Appendix C
DCF: Developments Since 1999
In 1999, the program review committee study of DCF found long-standing deficiencies in the areas of agency management and strategic planning. The study also revealed little integration of funding and activities across protective services, behavioral health, and juvenile justice systems, an overall lack of leadership, and weak, fragmented accountability. In particular, the committee found the agency's behavioral health and juvenile justice mandates had suffered from lack of attention and resources, largely because of DCF's focus on the Juan F. child welfare lawsuit. The main goals of establishing a consolidated children's agency back in 1974—strong leadership on children's issues and comprehensive, integrated community-based services that promote the well-being of children and families—had not been achieved.
For many years, experts and practitioners have agreed comprehensive services, with a single point of entry, coordinated delivery, and flexible funding, result in better outcomes for troubled children and their families. Research studies also support the many benefits of providing a broad range of integrated, community-based human services.
There was no evidence in 1999 (or now) linking effective service delivery to a particular organizational model (e.g., a consolidated agency, an umbrella agency, coordinated independent agencies, etc.). According to national experts, what seems more important than any specific structure is: having clear policy to guide decisions on programs and services; ways to systematically assess results; strategic planning to achieve measurable goals; and a strong management commitment to quality assurance and continuous improvement.
However, the agency's lack of progress in integrating children's services despite 25 years of consolidation, and the domination of its protective services mandate due to the Juan F. consent decree, led the program review committee to look beyond trying to “fix” DCF to incorporate these critical elements. To strengthen the chances of achieving the department's mission, the final 1999 report recommended a comprehensive reform of the state system for serving children and families, briefly described below.
1999 Study Recommendations
The DCF report accepted by the program review committee in November 1999 proposed implementing a new structure and system for providing children's services that centered on:
● enacting a clear state policy on children and families focused on outcomes;
● establishing an independent secretary for children, responsible for
regularly evaluating goals and results,
coordinating policies, programs and resources across agencies involved in children's services to achieve the goals, and
implementing a community-based children's service delivery system statewide.
The report also recommended existing department mandates be reorganized, to ensure strong management for each one, by:
● transferring DCF behavioral health responsibilities to DMHAS, specifically to a new children's behavioral health division;
● transferring DCF juvenile justice services as well as Judicial Branch responsibilities for juvenile detention to a new, separate entity;
● retaining all child protective services responsibilities in DCF; and
● placing responsibility for overseeing all prevention efforts with the new secretary for children.
The committee's proposed realignment grew out of concerns that the agency was dominated by its protective services mandate, due both to the serious nature of child abuse and the impact of the 1991 Juan F. consent decree. At that time, DCF had made little progress in implementing required reforms of its child protection system and there was no strategy for achieving compliance with the consent decree. Without an action plan for exiting the Juan F. consent decree, it seemed unlikely the department would be able to give adequate attention needed to its equally important, if not as critical, behavioral health, juvenile justice and prevention mandates.
Post-study action. In 2000, the program review committee raised legislation to implement the report recommendations and held a public hearing. PRI favorably reported out a bill containing the proposed realignment of DCF functions, which then was referred to the committee of cognizance where no further action was taken.
The proposed restructuring of the department was not supported by DCF and most of the children's services advocacy organizations and associations of private service providers for two main reasons:
1. placing responsibility for children's behavioral health services and juvenile justice in separate state agencies would increase bureaucracy and not improve services to children and their families; and
2. an office of the secretary for children would duplicate administrative functions and only add more government.
Additionally, the complexity of implementing such a large-scale reform was and is a significant barrier to any major structural change. Pending litigation in several areas of children's services has been another factor inhibiting major reorganization. While the specific recommendations from the 1999 study were not embraced, it seems fair to say the findings contained in the final report contributed, to some degree, to the many legislative and administrative changes that have been made to state policies and programs for children and families since 2000.
Developments Since 1999
A number of changes in internal capacity and operations, as well as new and revised state and federal policies, have affected the Department of Children and Families and how it carries out its responsibilities since the 1999 PRI study was completed. One dramatic difference is lower caseloads for the agency's social workers, a factor that contributes to more timely performance of important protective services functions (e.g., investigations, visits, permanency planning). In recent years, DCF has consistently met the caseload standards required for its child welfare staff (17-20 cases per worker depending on their assignment) under the Juan F. consent decree.
Structural changes made in the agency since 1999 include a separate bureau that oversees behavioral health and medical functions. The types and amounts of DCF community-based mental health services have greatly expanded. The department also has improved automated information systems and more capacity for internal quality improvement functions than it did in 1999.
One of the most significant developments for DCF is the on-going implementation of the court-approved exit plan for the Juan F. consent decree. The agency now has a strategic “roadmap” for ending federal judicial oversight of the state's child protection services system.
Major developments related to DCF operations that program review staff has identified to date are highlighted in Table C-1. Despite the many changes that have occurred since 1999, there are continued concerns about the department's ability to meet the needs of at-risk children and families. The ultimate question is: do DCF clients have better outcomes as a result of the state services they receive?
The importance of tracking results, and targeting corrective actions to achieve and sustain desired outcomes, was recognized by the Juan F. plaintiffs. A primary goal of the original consent decree and current exit plan is to ensure that DCF has strong internal capacity for continuous quality improvement through self-monitoring and evaluation.
Further, experts agree an effective accountability system is essential for ensuring programs and services have desired results, and that public and private resources are used efficiently. This requires the following elements: clear goals; good quality performance measures; strong communication and reporting on results; and a commitment from managers and decision makers to use this feedback to achieve and sustain desired outcomes. Each of these elements were assessed through the current PRI study of the DCF monitoring and evaluation system.
Table C-1. Developments Related to DCF Services Since 1999 | |
In 1999 |
As of 2007 |
Limited progress in complying with 1991 Juan F. consent decree |
Exit plan with 22 specific outcomes approved and DCF implementing action plan to achieve compliance; as of June 2007, department had met and sustained compliance with 15 measures for at least 2 consecutive quarters |
Neglect of children's behavioral health mandate |
n Dedicated behavioral health bureau created in DCF n Children's Behavioral Health Advisory Committee to the DCF State Advisory Council established n Written agreement between DCF and DMHAS regarding transition services for children entering adult system |
Lack of comprehensive, integrated, community-based services |
n Five DCF regions replaced with 14 service areas with intent of stronger local relationships and better service coordination n CT Community KidCare system (25 collaborative behavioral health service networks) in place statewide; KidCare system incorporated within Behavioral Health Partnership between DCF and DSS n WR settlement agreement expands community-based services for children with complex behavioral health needs, with more collaboration among DCF, DMHAS, and DMR n Emily J. settlement increases community-based services for juveniles and collaboration between the courts (CSSD) and DCF |
|
n Emily J. settlement agreement provides more community-based '”wraparound” services to divert juveniles from detention n Revisions to FWSN law include more community-based services for status offenders n Reforms implemented at DCF secure facility for delinquent boys (CJTS) to improve assessment, treatment, and discharge planning |
Lack of focus on prevention |
n Children's Trust Fund resources expanded (to 18 staff and a current budget of $15 million) n Small central office prevention division (3 staff ) created and prevention liaisons assigned in area offices |
Absence of national child welfare outcome standards for States |
n Federal Child and Family Services Review process established to measure states against national child welfare outcomes; DCF implementing corrective actions from the first (2002) review |
Modest attention to quality improvement |
n DCF Bureau of Continuous Quality Improvement created, area office quality improvement teams put in place, Administrative Case Review process implemented, automated “Results-Oriented Management” information system established |
Fragmented complaint process for children, families and others |
n Independent DCF ombudsman (with 8 staff ) created to receive and resolve specific complaints “in a way that is in the best interests of children” |
Inadequate automated information system and poor quality data |
n Improvement in the reliability of the central child welfare information system; management reporting capability (ROM) added that allows tracking of performance at all levels for key protective services functions |
Appendix D
History of DCF
Major events related to the Department of Children and Families and the delivery of services to at-risk children in Connecticut over time are presented in Figure D-1. As the figure indicates, the predecessor agency to the DCF, the Department of Children and Youth Services (DCYS), was established in 1969. DCYS was created to oversee the state's two secure facilities for adjudicated juvenile delinquents (the Meriden School for Boys and Long Lane School for Girls). At that time, and since the Juvenile Court was created in 1941, the judicial branch was and still is responsible for juvenile detention and probation, in addition to all court proceedings related to juveniles.4
Also at that time, protective services for abused or neglected children, including adoption and foster care, were carried out by the State Welfare Department. Behavioral health services for Connecticut residents of any age were the responsibility of the Department of Mental Health (DMH). That agency operated or funded a number of mental health and substance abuse programs for children and youth, including psychiatric hospital units for adolescents and outpatient clinics for children, until the late 1970s.
Legislation enacted in 1974 (S.A. 74-52) mandated the transfer of services for “dependent, neglected and uncared for children” from the welfare department, to DCYS. The act also established a study commission, comprised of state agency heads and mental health experts, to: 1) develop a transfer plan for psychiatric and related services for children and adolescents within the mental health department; and 2) provide the legislature with recommendations for further consolidation of children's services.
The study commission report issued in 1975 outlined the structure and duties of a cabinet level agency -- an expanded Department Children and Youth Services -- responsible for: “… the care and treatment of delinquent, dependent, neglected, uncared-for, mentally ill and emotionally disturbed children, while guarding against the possibility of any preventable harm coming to any of them.” The proposed department structure incorporated: significant citizen participation through statewide, regional, and facility advisory groups; regionalized service delivery and liaisons with private, nonprofit providers; and a strong evaluation, research and planning office. The commission's plan also recommended the agency be organized to promote coordinated service delivery, early intervention and prevention, and treatment based on a child's needs rather than disability category or legal status.
Public Act 75-524 implemented the commission's recommendation for a consolidated children's agency structure. Connecticut was the first state to create a state agency with jurisdiction over all major spheres of child welfare services -- child protection, behavioral health, juvenile delinquency, and prevention. The goal of this consolidation was both improved leadership on children's issues and the development of a “seamless” service delivery system, from prevention to aftercare, that promotes the sound development of all children and youth.
Policy changes. No fundamental changes have been made to the structure or scope of the state children's agency since the original consolidation although its name was changed to the Department of Children and Families in 1993. Most subsequent legislative actions have centered on policies and programs that:
● promote community-based, family-focused, child-centered services, such as the state's KidCare behavioral health initiative begun in 2000;
● create prevention and early intervention programs, such as Healthy Families, an effort to work with high-risk families to reduce abuse and neglect of infants5; and
● improve program accountability through various statutory requirements for outcome measures, data collection and tracking, and independent performance evaluations.
A major shift in the emphasis of DCF practice, from family reunification to child safety, occurred in the mid-1990s in response to the deaths of several children in state foster care. Legislation enacted in 1995 (P.A. 95-242) established two new entities to protect children and prevent abuse and neglect, an independent Office of the Child Advocate (OCA) and the Child Fatality Review Panel (CFRP).
Also during the 1990s, new federal laws stressing permanency goals for children in state custody went into effect, requiring child welfare agencies to reduce time spent in temporary out-of-home placements and to increase adoption rates. The federal government began conducting Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs) in FY 01 to ensure state child welfare agencies conform to federal requirements related to the safety, permanency, and well-being of children in their care. Under state law enacted in 1999 (P.A. 99-166), DCF was specifically mandated to set standards for permanency plans for the children in its care, monitor implementation of each child's plan, and establish an advisory group to help promote adoption of children difficult to place.
In the last five years, a number of major changes have been made to the department's juvenile justice program. After decades of unsatisfactory performance, Long Lane School, the state residential facility for adjudicated male and female juvenile delinquents, was closed in February 2002. It was replaced by the Connecticut Juvenile Training School (CJTS), a maximum security facility for boys only, which opened in 2001. To date, no secure facility specifically for delinquent girls has been developed; they currently are placed in various private residential treatment programs and sometimes older girls are placed at the state's adult correctional facility for women in Niantic.
Most recently, the General Assembly enacted a bill to incorporate 16 and 17 year olds into the juvenile justice system, effective July 1, 2010 (P.A. 07-4, June SS). This legislation, based on the recommendations of the Juvenile Jurisdiction Planning and Implementation Committee established in 2006 (P.A. 06-18), could significantly expand DCF's responsibilities for delinquency-related services. It has also prompted reexamination of the governor's plan to close the Connecticut Juvenile Training School as a juvenile correctional facility during 2008.
Court cases. The action that has had the most influence on DCF operations over the past decade is the 1989 Juan F. v. O'Neill federal class action lawsuit and its resulting settlement plans. Alleging the state did not adequately protect the children in its care, the lawsuit raised issues regarding the policies and practices of the then Department of Children and Youth Services in the following areas: investigation of abuse and neglect cases; foster care and other out-of-home placements; medical and mental health care; adoption; staffing; and management.
The parties agreed to mediate a resolution to the suit and, with the help of a settlement judge, negotiated a consent decree that was ordered by the U.S. District Court in January 1991. An independent monitor solely responsible to the trial judge for the case was later appointed to track and report on the department's compliance progress. The federal court also ruled the consent decree requires no less than 100 percent compliance and that the state must provide the funding necessary to implement its mandates.
Efforts to achieve compliance with the Juan F. consent decree have dominated agency resources and activities ever since it was ordered. The department's budget and workforce have substantially increased to improve social worker caseload ratios, the timeliness of case management functions, and the availability of appropriate services for children committed to the agency, as called for by the consent decree provisions.6 The agency's multimillion dollar automated information system known as LINK, and an internal training academy for all DCF staff, were also put in place to meet consent decree requirements.
Over the years, a series of corrective action agreements and revised monitoring orders have been developed by the parties and the court to address disputes over noncompliance. Since 1999, DCF, in conjunction with the other parties and the court monitor have focused on developing and implementing a plan for “exiting” court oversight that contains specific performance goals and a set timeframe for meeting them. The first exit plan, approved by the court in February 2002, has been revised several times and now contains 22 outcome measures that are monitored on a quarterly basis. The quarterly progress report issued June 20, 2007 by the Juan F court monitor's office states DCF is in compliance with a majority of the current exit plan requirements but still faces challenges in several areas (i.e., treatment planning and meeting children's needs).
Two other federal class action lawsuits, Emily J., which was filed in 1993, and W.R., et al v. Connecticut Department of Children and Families from 2002, also have had an impact, although to a lesser extent, on the agency. The Emily J. case was brought on behalf of children placed in juvenile detention centers and affected both the Judicial Department and DCF. An initial settlement agreement reached in 1997 established requirements that applied primarily to the Judicial Department. Under a second settlement agreement reached in 2002, DCF and the Judicial Department were both ordered to carry out a corrective action plan for improving screening, assessment, planning, and service delivery to children in the juvenile justice system with mental health needs.
In 2005, a third court-ordered agreement targeted DCF and called for development of new or expanded community based-services for children involved with the juvenile court. DCF is working with the Court Support Services Division (CCSD) of the Judicial Department to develop and implement a plan for services.
Plaintiffs in the recently settled W.R. case claimed the state failed to provide the continuum of services that would allow certain DCF clients with mental health needs to live successfully in the community. After almost a year of negotiating, the parties to this class action suit reached a settlement in April 2007, which was subsequently approved by the General Assembly.
|
Figure D-1. Major Events Related to Children's Services in Connecticut | |
2007 |
● DCF issues Juan F. Action Plan for improving performance on exit plan outcomes ● W.R. class action settlement agreement finalized ● Emily J. case closed ● Law to expand jurisdiction of juvenile court to 16 and 17 year olds effective 2010 enacted |
2006 |
● Juan F. Exit Plan modified to incorporate new case review method and additional data reporting ● Federal court orders management authority be returned to DCF, disbands task force |
2005 |
● Revised Emily J. settlement agreement requires community services for juveniles ● Governor announces plan to close CJTS in 2008 ● DCF, in collaboration with DSS, mandated to implement the Connecticut Behavioral Health Partnership community-based service delivery system, which incorporates KidCare |
2004 |
● Revised Juan F. Exit Plan establishes 22 specific goals ● DCF issues “Positive Outcomes for Children,” a plan to guide Juan F. compliance efforts |
2003 |
● Federal court orders management authority for DCF be given to three-member task force headed by Juan F. court monitor |
2002 |
● DCF closes Long Lane School ● First exit plan for Juan F. consent decree negotiated and approved by court ● Federal class action lawsuit claiming DCF failed to provide adequate services to youth with serious mental health issues, W.R. v. DCF, filed |
2001 |
● DCF opens Connecticut Juvenile Training School for delinquent boys ● Federal Administration for Children begins Child and Family Services Review (CSFR) process of state child welfare agencies |
2000 |
● DCF, in consultation with DSS, mandated to develop, fund, and evaluate KidCare community-based behavioral health service delivery system for children and youth |
1997 |
● DCF required by law to implement, within available appropriations, a “system of care” planning process for children with mental health needs ● Children's Trust Fund Council established as independent agency with authority to fund community-based child abuse prevention programs |
1995 |
● Independent Office of the Child Advocate and Child Fatality Review Panel established |
1994 |
● DCF responsibility for substance abuse services for children clarified in statute |
1993 |
● DCYS agency name changed to Department of Children and Families ● Federal class action lawsuit regarding juvenile detention conditions, Emily J. v. Weicker, filed |
1991 |
● Juan F. consent decree approved; requires significant child welfare system reforms, substantial increase in DCYS staff and program funding |
1989 |
● Federal class action lawsuit alleging state's failure to protect children in DCYS custody, Juan F. v O'Neill, filed |
1988 |
● Interagency agreement transfers authority for children's substance abuse services to DCYS |
1983 |
● Children's Trust Fund created to coordinate and fund child abuse prevention efforts |
1981 |
● State program for juveniles committing status offenses, Family with Service Needs (FWSN), goes into effect |
1975 |
● Psychiatric services for children transferred to DCYS as recommended by study commission |
1974 |
● Transfer of protective services to DCYS mandated; commission to study and recommend consolidation of children's services created |
1972 |
● DCYS revamps Long Lane School as co-educational facility for juvenile delinquents |
1969 |
● Department of Children and Youth Services, the state juvenile correction agency, established as state's juvenile correction agency (to operate the two state facilities for juvenile delinquents, Long Lane School for Girls and Meriden School for Boys) |
1965 |
● State Welfare Department responsible for children's protective services |
1953 |
● State Department of Mental Health, responsible for psychiatric services for adults and children, established |
1941 |
● Juvenile Court, responsible for court proceedings, probation and detention for those under 16, established |
The mission of the Department of Children and Families is to protect children, improve child and family well-being and support and preserve families. These efforts are accomplished by respecting and working within individual cultures and communities in Connecticut, and in partnership with others. ● Overarching Principle - Safety/Permanency/Well-Being: The Department of Children and Families (DCF) is committed to the support and care of all children, including those in need of protection, who require mental health or substance abuse services, and who come to the attention of the juvenile services system. ● Principle One - Families as Allies: The integrity of families and each individual family member is respected, and the importance of the attachments between family members is accepted as critical. All families have strengths and the goal is to build on these strengths. Family involvement and self-determination in the planning and service delivery process is essential. ● Principle Two – Cultural Competence: The diversity of all people is recognized and appreciated and children and families are to be understood in the context of their own family rules, traditions, history and culture. ● Principle Three – Partnerships: Children and families are best served when they are part of and supported by their community. The Department is part of this community, works in association with community members, and is committed to its services being localized, accessible and individualized to meet the variety of children and families needs. ● Principle Four – Organizational Commitment: A successful organizational structure promotes effective communication, establishes clear directions, defines roles and responsibilities, values the input and professionalism of staff, creates a supportive, respectful and positive environment, and endorses continuous quality improvement and best practice. ● Principle Five – Work Force Development: The work force is highly qualified, well trained and competent, and is provided with the skills necessary to engage, assess, and intervene to assist children and families achieve safety, permanence and well-being.
| |
|
APPENDIX G Child Welfare Quality Assurance Framework Components | ||
Goal |
Steps |
Actions |
Drive practice to achieve desired outcomes |
Step 1: Adopt outcomes and standards |
Define outcomes ● Make goals an explicit part of the statewide strategic plan ● Use as basis for setting client level outcomes and service quality standards to meet the needs of children and families Define practice standards ● Ensure outcomes and standards are communicated throughout the organization ● Develop standards that define the expectations of day-to-day practice |
Create a culture that supports quality improvement |
Step 2: Incorporate Quality Improvement throughout the agency |
● Incorporate main outcomes and indicators in agency strategic plan ● Create a Quality Improvement structure that monitors performance and supports quality ● Involve wide range of staff and organizations in these initiatives; engage external stakeholders ● Communicate quality expectations throughout the agency and broader community ● Include them in budgets, training and personnel performance evaluations, licensing standards, provider contracts |
Use data and information to inform the quality improvement process |
Step 3: Gather data and information
|
● Collect and continually track quantitative data on outcomes and systemic factors ● Conduct case reviews (both record reviews and qualitative case reviews) ● Gather input from children and families and external stakeholders ● Use all available information such as internal and external evaluations of programs; evaluations of staff/provider training sessions; legislative audits; reports from citizen review panels; child fatality review team results |
Translate results into understandable, relevant information |
Step 4: Analyze data and information |
Involve a variety of staff in analyzing information ● Dedicated Quality Improvement staff, administrators, managers, and staff at all levels, external stakeholder and community members, consultants, university staff Translate data and information into quality assurance reports ● Useful types are outcome reports, practice reports and compliance reports ● Useful formats are comparative, exception and early warning ● On a systemwide level, have a regular process for analyzing quality data Communicate regular information to all employees about service quality |
Plan and implement improvements that will enhance service quality and outcomes for children and families |
Step 5: Use analysis and information to make improvements |
● Create feedback loops ● Feed results of process and analyses back to staff in variety of ways ● Evaluate actions taken; continually check effectiveness and make decisions about revisions |
|
Source: A Framework for Quality Assurance in Child Welfare, National Child Welfare Resource Center for Organizational Improvement, Edmund S. Muskie School of Public Service, March 2002. | ||
1 From Rossi and Freeman (1993), “Evaluation: A Systematic Approach.”
2 From Blanchard, K., Zigliarmi, P., & Zigliarmi, D. (1985). Leadership and the One Minute Manager, New York: William Morrow and Co.
3 GAO-07-162G Government Auditing Standards January 2007 Revision (The Yellow Book), p. 162.
4 In Connecticut, unlike all but two other states (North Carolina and New York), juveniles are defined as persons under age 16. Individuals age 16 and over who violate the law are, under most circumstances, treated by the courts as adults and subject to adult probation requirements and incarceration in adult correctional facilities. However, beginning in 2010, Connecticut juvenile court jurisdiction will be extended to 16 and 17 year olds (P.A. 07-04, June SS).
5 Most recently, the Healthy Families program was revamped as the Nurturing Families Network and transferred from DCF to the Children's Trust Fund Council in 2005.
6 Between FY 91 and FY 07, the total DCF budget grew from about $152 million to close to $1 billion. Over the same time period, the agency workforce went from about 1,700 to nearly 3,500 permanent full-time employees.
