The Department of Children and Families' broad statutory mandate is to: "…plan, create, develop, operate, arrange for, administer and evaluate a comprehensive and integrated state-wide program of services, including preventive services, for children and youth whose behavior does not conform to the law or to acceptable community standards, or who are mentally ill, emotionally disturbed, substance abusers, delinquent, abused, neglected, or uncared-for …."  By law, its clients include all children and youth who are or  may be committed to it by any court and all who are voluntarily admitted for services of any kind.   

            DCF has specific mandates concerning child protection, juvenile justice, mental health, substance abuse, and prevention for children up to age 18 and, in some cases, up to age 21.  It must also provide health and education services to children in its care and custody.    Some mandates are very general and simply give the agency overall responsibility for a service area, such as prevention of abuse, neglect, delinquency, mental illness, and substance abuse among children.  In other areas, especially child protection, objectives, procedures, and programs are set out in detail in statute.   An overview of DCF's policy mandates for child protective services, juvenile justice, mental health, substance abuse, and prevention follows.   

Protective Services  

   The state's child protection policy is to "protect children whose health and welfare may be adversely affected through injury and neglect, strengthen the family and make the home safe for children by improving the parent's abilities to provide child care, and provide temporary or permanent homes offering a safe and nurturing environment for children who must be removed from their birth homes".   

Specifically, DCF is required to provide general supervision over the welfare of children who require the care and protection of the state because they are abused, neglected, or uncared-for.  Guided by this policy, DCF must: develop comprehensive prevention programs for problems facing children and provide "flexible, innovative, and effective placement programs" for children committed to the department; provide appropriate services to families; develop and implement aftercare and follow-up services for children receiving DCF services; and provide outreach and assistance for persons caring for committed children.   

Juvenile Justice  

The state's juvenile justice policy, established in the 1995 Juvenile Justice Reorganization Act, is "to provide individualized supervision, care, accountability, and treatment to juveniles who violate the law to ensure public safety and to promote delinquency prevention".  The statutory goals of the system are to:

·       hold juveniles accountable for their criminal behavior;

·       provide secure and therapeutic confinement for those juveniles who are a threat to public safety;

·       protect the community and juveniles;

·       provide community-based programs and services;

·       retain and support juveniles within their homes if possible;

·       provide probation treatment based on individual case management plans;

·       include the juvenile's family in the case management plan;

·       provide supervision and service coordination, and monitor case management to prevent reoffending;

·       provide follow-up and nonresidential post-release services to juveniles and their families; and

·       develop and implement community-based programs to prevent delinquency and to minimize the extent and duration of a juvenile's involvement in the juvenile justice system.

Primary responsibility for carrying out the state's juvenile justice policies rests with the judicial branch rather than DCF.   Family court and court support services units provide intake and assessment of all juveniles charged with a crime and supervise adjudicated delinquents.  DCF's role in juvenile justice is narrowly defined and limited to providing secure care of committed (convicted) delinquents.  By law, the department administers Long Lane School, the state's only secure juvenile institution, and operates parole supervision programs.   

Mental Health  

The state's mental health policy with respect to children is not as clearly spelled out as the policies relating to child protection and juvenile justice.  The Department of Children and Families, however, clearly is responsible for mental health services to persons up to age 18 under its broad agency mandate to plan, provide, fund, coordinate, and evaluate services to meet the needs of certain children and youth including those who are mentally ill or emotionally disturbed. 

DCF is required by law to maintain certain mental health facilities: Riverview Hospital; High Meadows Residential Treatment Center; and The Connecticut Children's Place (CCP).  At present, Riverview and High Meadows are facilities solely for the intensive care and treatment of mentally ill and emotionally disturbed children and youth.  Mental health-related services are just part of CCP's role, which includes a number of protective services responsibilities.  

DCF is also statutorily required to develop and maintain a program of outpatient clinics for children, youth, and their families as well as day treatment centers and extended day treatment programs.  Recent legislation (P.A. 97-272) also mandated creation of local "systems of care," which are community-based programs for coordinating mental health services for children up to age 18 who need services from two or more public agencies and have been or are at risk of being placed out-of-home primarily to receive mental health treatment.             

Substance Abuse  

The state's substance abuse policy is defined by current laws that make it illegal for persons of any age to possess, sell, distribute, manufacture, or transport illegal drugs.  The use of a controlled drug is not expressly prohibited.  Policies regarding substance abuse treatment and prevention, especially for children, are not set out in state statute.  Instead, DCF is required under its broad agency mandate, to plan, provide, and fund services for children and youth who are substance abusers.  There are no specific statutory provisions requiring the agency to operate, license, or fund specific substance abuse treatment facilities or programs.   

In 1997, the Connecticut Alcohol and Drug Policy Council (CADPC) was statutorily created (P.A. 97-248) to establish public policy to address the issue of substance abuse through prevention, education, treatment, and criminal sanctions and to develop an interagency plan to coordinate the activities and resources of all relevant state agencies and the judicial branch in implementing the state’s substance abuse policy.  The council consists of members from the treatment, medical, education, prevention and intervention, and criminal justice fields and is staffed by the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services and the Office of Policy and Management (OPM).  

Prevention  

The state's policy concerning preventive services for children and youth is not defined in statute.  However, the Department of Children and Families is responsible by law for a comprehensive and integrated program of services for children and youth that includes preventive services.   The department is required to cooperate with other child-serving agencies and organizations in providing or arranging preventive programs for children and their families that address, but are not limited to, teenage pregnancy and youth suicide.  Several statutes require DCF to carry out specific prevention programs such as Healthy Families Connecticut, which is aimed at reducing abuse and neglect of infants by identifying and working with high-risk parents.  

DCF Mission Statements  

            The mission statement of a state agency typically operationalizes its statutory mandate.  It sets a direction for agency policy and procedures, and often defines it goals, objectives and client population.  The mission of the Department of Children and Families, according to its current budget and other public documents, is to "ensure the safety of children, achieve permanency for children in a safe environment, strengthen families, and help young people reach their fullest potential."  

            During 1999, DCF developed a strategic plan that included a revised mission statement.  The latest mission includes references to services for mentally ill and substance abusing children as well as juvenile delinquents.  However, the strategies outlined in the strategic plan focus primarily on child protective services and further advance the traditional approach of categorizing clients, resources, and services within each service mandate.  

            The department's mission statements, which are outlined in Appendix D, have changed significantly since the initial statement was developed nearly 30 years ago.  Originally, the agency's mission focused on juvenile delinquents.  Over time, the mission broadened as DCF's role and responsibilities grew to include a wider range of children and youth.  In recent years, revisions to DCF's mission statement have focused on the emphasis given to protecting abused and neglect children.  Changes in mission statements since the agency was established are analyzed below.   

Progression of mission statements.  The original mission of the department was to administer two statewide juvenile correctional facilities and to provide delinquency prevention services.  When the department's mandate expanded in the mid-1970s its mission statement changed to become: "to provide leadership and support to the development of a comprehensive statewide network of governmental and non-governmental programs and services promoting the sound growth and development of all children in Connecticut."  

In the early 1980s, the mission statement was fine-tuned to clarify the types of children the department was directing its attention toward (e.g., "abused, neglected, mentally ill, emotionally disturbed, or delinquent").  In 1987, the agency's mission statement was revised to read: "to preserve and strengthen families so they may care for their children while simultaneously ensuring that children are safe and have opportunities for healthy development."  The mission focused, for the first time, on preserving and strengthening families so children could remain safely at home or be returned to a safe family environment if an out-of-home placement had been made.  The next year, the department issued its first public mission statement; which stressed coordination and integration with "others" to provide services to ensure safe and healthy conditions under which children could develop as healthy and productive persons.  

In 1991, the department rewrote its mission and returned to its practice of specifying its client population.  The statement now read: "children are in need of protective, mental health, juvenile justice, and substance abuse services as well as permanent, stable settings, free from harm, where they are able to achieve their potential.".  In 1996, the department's mission was again revised.  This time references to specifically mandated client populations were dropped.  The mission was narrowed to the following: "to protect children, strengthen families, and help young people reach their fullest potential."  

Yet another new mission statement was issued by DCF in 1999.  It places emphasis on the safety of the child and clearly de-emphasizes preserving the family.  Even more significant with respect to the program review committee's study is the absence of any direct mention of the department's juvenile justice, mental health, substance abuse, and prevention mandates.  

The pattern of mission statement changes during the 1990s raises questions about DCF's long-range focus.  In the early 1990s, DCF's mission statement identified the department's client group as "all children."  Mission statements from the mid-1990s more clearly specified the department's client group as children "in need of protection, mental health, juvenile justice, and substance abuse services."  By 1996, DCF narrowed its stated mission to "protect children and strengthen families," and eliminated references to specific types of children in need.  

The importance of DCF's mission statement in guiding its activities should not be under-estimated.  For example, it is central to the specific child protection mission statement included in the agency's official policy manuals, which guide both policy development and direct case work practices and procedures.  According to the manual, the DCF child protection mission is based on the following three principals, two of which come directly from the overall agency mission statement:  

·       the child is the client;

·       the primary focus is safety; and

·       the secondary focus is permanent placement of the child, which includes reunification with the birth family or relatives if appropriate.  

It should be noted, similar mission statements for juvenile justice, mental health, substance abuse, or preventive services have not been developed for the agency policy manuals.  In fact, these mandate areas are only addressed by the current manuals within the context of child protection policies and practices.

DCF Consent Decree  

            In addition to its state statutory requirements, DCF is obligated to comply with the provisions of a federal court consent decree resulting from a class action lawsuit concerning its child protective service mandate.  Background on the consent decree and overview of its current status are provided below.  Information on consent decrees in other states is also presented.  

            Background.  In 1989, a federal lawsuit, Juan F. v. O'Neill, was filed on behalf of nine minors against the Department of Children and Families.  The suit alleged the department did not adequately protect the children it was required to care for in violation of the federal constitution and two federal statutes.  Forgoing lengthy litigation, the parties agreed to mediate a settlement.  

            The federal court signed the mediation order in July 1990.   The order appointed a three-member mediation panel: one person was selected by the plaintiffs, one by the defendants (DCF), and one by the settlement judge (the Honorable Robert Zampano).  The mediation panel was granted full and complete authority to formulate procedures and to take any and all action to resolve each issue or matter detailed by the lawsuit.  The panel had until December 31, 1990, to prepare a consent decree.  

            The parties signed the consent decree on January 7, 1991.  It covered all areas of policy, management, procedures, and operations of the department's child protective services.  The services included: investigations of child abuse and neglect; foster care and other out-of-home placements; care for children placed in the care of DCF; adoptive services; and mental health services both for children involved in protective services cases and children receiving such services on a voluntary (noncommitted) basis. 

The decree also covered qualifications, training, responsibilities, workload, and supervision of DCF's protective services staff, as well as internal systems operations such as case reviews, quality assurance, data management, and administration.  The consent decree did not cover juvenile justice, substance abuse, or prevention services unless they were included as part of a protective services case.

            Court monitor.  Initially, the consent decree established the original mediation panel as the monitoring panel with authority to determine the specific methodology and pace for implementing the decree.  The monitoring panel developed and approved policies, standards, procedures, programs, operating manuals, and staff levels needed for compliance.  It also established the funding levels needed to accomplish implementation of the decree.  The panel was empowered to decide all matters related to interpreting the decree, and its unanimous decision was final.  The decree stipulated that the state pay for all consent decree mandates.  

The panel prepared the manuals required by the consent decree, which were approved by the court on September 1, 1992.  On October 26, 1992, the panel was dismantled and the court appointed a full-time monitor to oversee implementation of all consent decree provisions.  

The court monitor is responsible solely to the court, specifically the trial judge (now the Honorable Alan Nevis), but the monitor also works closely with the department and plaintiffs to ensure timely and effective compliance with the provisions of the consent decree. The office of the court monitor is funded by the state.  Currently, the monitor's office has two full-time professional staff and one child welfare consultant under contract.   

The consent decree's monitoring order established the role and responsibility of the court monitor, and the procedure for tracking compliance, requesting modifications, and negotiating between the parties.  The monitoring order requires the court monitor to focus on patterns of compliance or noncompliance, and not on individual cases.  The court monitor is not responsible for the administration of any DCF programs or activities.  The monitor's specific responsibilities are to:  

·       monitor implementation of and compliance with the consent decree;

·       perform duties specified in the consent decree;

·       establish a reporting structure to assess the progress in implementing the consent decree;

·       meet with either party alone or jointly;

·       review requests for modification of the consent decree by either party, attempt to resolve the request informally, or make a recommendation to the court regarding the request; and

·       submit semi-annual compliance reports to the court.

The monitor has access to all DCF files, reports, and case records as well as the authority to make site visits and interview agency staff and clients.  

            DCF monitoring team.  During the mid-1990s, the department assigned a team of employees to oversee implementation of the consent decree.  The team consisted of a central office coordinator, who reported directly to the commissioner, and a regional coordinator in each of the five regional offices.  Currently, one full-time manager within the strategic planning division performs this function.  Two other planning unit staff assist with consent decree implementation duties. 

            Dispute resolution and modifications.  The consent decree and monitoring order established a procedure for the parties to attempt to resolve disputes without the intervention of the court.   Under the procedure, the court monitor is used to mediate disputes between the parties regarding  compliance or progress.  If the issue cannot be resolved, then the parties may go to court and the monitor will present recommendations to the judge.  

A dispute over noncompliance can be raised by either the court monitor or the plaintiffs.  If noncompliance is alleged, the monitor confers with DCF and, if there is significant noncompliance, the plaintiffs in an attempt to resolve the issue.  The monitoring order provides five days to reach a resolution.  If there is no resolution, the court monitor must notify the plaintiffs within 15 days and then submit the issue, with recommendations, to the court for resolution.  The court monitor and staff may be called as witnesses at the hearing by the trial judge or either party.  

            DCF may request modifications of any provision of the consent decree when it has shown after a good faith effort that it cannot comply or when compliance would: (1) be unsuccessful in carrying out a specific mandate; (2) create an unnecessary detrimental effect on the services or operation of the department; or (3) no longer be the most cost-effective means of achieving the mandate.  

            To request a modification, DCF must provide written notice specifying the area of noncompliance and proposed change to the court monitor and plaintiff.  The monitor then attempts to informally resolve the issue with the department and plaintiff.  If an agreement is reached, it is incorporated into the consent decree upon court approval.  If no agreement is reached, the court will decide whether to approve the modification.

            Since the signing of the consent decree in 1992, there have been three instances in which issues regarding DCF compliance were filed with the court.  The first, in June 1993, addressed the department's failure to comply with the staffing requirements set out in the consent decree.  The court ordered the state to fund the hiring of additional social workers.  The state appealed the order to a federal appeals court, but the lower court ruling was upheld in1994. The United States Supreme Court later denied the state's request for a review of the decision.  

A second issue,  presented to the court in June 1996, addressed the department's failure to prepare and implement a resource development plan for the delivery of services to children.  The court ordered the department to develop the plan.  The state filed a notice of appeal to the federal appeals court but it was never pursued.  In December 1996, the plaintiffs filed a motion related to  DCF's failure to complete the resource development plan in a timely manner, and after two court hearings, the parties reached an agreement regarding the plan's completion.  

            The third instance of court activity, filed in February 1999, focused on DCF's failure to comply with the consent decree requirements regarding the foster care system.  Hearings and were held throughout 1999.  A resolution was eventually reached between all parties and the department’s compliance with the specific requirements is being monitored. 

            Compliance monitoring.  Implementation manuals were developed to operationalize requirements of the consent decree by identifying specific tasks, staffing levels, funding, and compliance schedules.  These manuals focused on the process to implement the consent decree requirements, and not on outcomes.  Rigidly drafted, the manuals quickly became unworkable.  DCF subsequently drafted its own manuals, which are now used by the court monitor to track compliance.      

            Initially, the court monitor was tracking over 1,000 requirements.  During the past three years, compliance monitoring has focused more on broader areas of concern and overall goals of the system, such as permanency for children in out-of-home placement and reduction of caseloads.  

            Although the monitoring order requires the court monitor to issue a report on the department's compliance status every six months, the monitor ceased producing these reports about two years ago.  According to the court monitor it became too difficult and time-consuming to prepare written reports, and the court is satisfied with informal updates.  

            The consent decree does not contain an exit plan or termination agreement.  Nor does the consent decree define a process to stop monitoring a requirement once full compliance has been achieved. The court monitor, however, intends to draft an exit plan that will measure outcomes based on the broad mandates contained in the consent decree.  The exit plan will also outline how an area can be removed from the monitoring process once full compliance is achieved and a method to vacate or suspend the consent decree or dismiss it without prejudice.  

            Areas monitored.  While the consent decree addresses hundreds of specific issues, current monitoring is focused on broad goals and mandates.  These include:  

·       caseload reduction;

·       foster care, particularly recruitment, licensing, training, and retention of foster homes, restructuring of the DCF division and units responsible for foster care, determination of resources, matching children with appropriate foster homes, and reducing multiple placements per child;

·       the agency's Safe Home initiative;

·       automated case management system and resource directory;

·       needs assessment and outcome-based contracting;

·       Child Abuse and Neglect Hotline (or Careline);

·       training; and

·       quality assurance, especially the treatment planning and case review process. 

Because there is no written compliance report available, program review committee staff met with the court monitor to discuss the department's compliance status in the areas listed above.  Overall, the monitor is satisfied with DCF's recent efforts to meet the consent decree mandates and improve its performance.  The monitor believes the department, under the current administration, is making a "good faith" effort to comply; however, DCF is not in full compliance.  

Specifically, the court monitor is satisfied with the department's progress to date in the following areas: the Safe Homes program for children between the ages of 3 and 12 who are being placed for the first time in foster care; the agency's automated case management system; the Child Abuse and Neglect Hotline; the training academy; and the treatment planning and case review processes.  However, at present, the department is not in full compliance with the foster care provisions or requirements related to needs assessment and outcome-based contracting.  Although progress has been made by DCF in its method for calculating caseloads, this issue remains an obstacle to achieving full compliance.  

Legal Actions in Other States  

            As part of its analysis, the program review and investigations committee conducted a telephone survey of agencies responsible for children's services in other states.  Information was obtained from 40 states.  One issue discussed with other states was whether they have federal court consent decrees or other legal actions in effect that cover aspects of their child protection services, children's mental health, or juvenile justice systems.   

Of the 40 states contacted, 21 are operating under a consent decree or judicial order affecting either their child protective services, mental health services, or juvenile justice system.  As shown in Table II-1, the consent decrees focus overwhelming on protective services (16 of the 21 states).  Interestingly, 12 of the 16 states have consent decrees that target the foster care system.  Of the remaining five states, four have juvenile justice consent decrees, generally focusing on the conditions at reformatory facilities and institutions, and one state has a children's mental health consent decree.  

Three states -- Illinois, New York, and Pennsylvania -- have multiple protective service consent decrees.  In these states, child welfare systems are county-adminstered and thus have specific consent decrees.  One other state, Kentucky, has consent decrees in two different child welfare areas -- protective services and juvenile justice.  

All of the consent decrees, with the exception of Rhode Island’s, were ordered by federal courts during the 1990s.  Most (16 of 21) occurred prior to 1995.  Rhode Island's consent decree was ordered more than 20 years ago (in 1975) and focuses on that state's social worker training academy.  

Table II-1.  States with Federal Child Welfare Consent Decrees
Protective Services	Juvenile Justice	Mental Health
Alabama Arkansas Connecticut Delaware Illinois* Kentucky* Maryland Michigan Missouri New Jersey New Mexico New York* Ohio Pennsylvania* Rhode Island West Virginia	Georgia Hawaii Kentucky* South Carolina	Maine
*States with multiple consent decrees.

In recent years, only one state -- Delaware -- has successfully complied with a consent decree allowing the court to vacate the order (terminate the consent decree).  The program review committee found only two states -- Idaho and Oregon -- of the 40 states contacted had avoided consent decrees.  While no suits were filed against these states, children's advocacy groups had threatened action to correct inadequacies in the child welfare systems.  However, the states' responses, prior to legal action, were deemed sufficient enough so that no suits were filed.  In addition, Louisiana, New York, and Virginia are currently litigating suits alleging inadequacies in the protective services system and juvenile justice and mental health facilities.   <![endif]>

            From a state's perspective, an important aspect of a consent decree is a mechanism, such as an exit plan, for determining full compliance, which would vacate the decree.  As noted above, Connecticut's Juan F. consent decree has no formal exit plan.  The program review committee found only six states (Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Hawaii, Missouri, and New Jersey) that have an exit plan or termination agreement as part of their consent decrees.  As previously stated, only Delaware has successfully terminated its consent decree.  It should be noted that the lack of an exit plan or termination agreement does not prohibit the states from attaining full compliance or the court from vacating an order.