Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee
Department of Children
and Families
Chapter Three
Chapter Three
DCF Resources and Organization
DCF's total expenditures (state, federal, and private) are shown in Figure III-1, at two year intervals. The time period begins with FY 90, the last year prior to the consent decree, and ends with FY 98, the last year for which complete expenditure data are available. As illustrated by the graphic, spending by DCF more than doubled during the eight-year period. This high growth rate has been continued by the FY 00 appropriation, which increases the DCF's budget by nearly 26 percent over FY 98 spending.
The rapid increase in spending by DCF is about two and a half times the rate of
increase in overall state spending during the same time period.
Figure III-2. compares the biannual increases in DCF's expenditures with
the state as a whole. The chart
shows DCF's spending increases ranged from 18 to 30 percent and exceeded overall
state spending increases in each of the years compared.
Figure III-3 graphs the relationship among the funds appropriated through the
state's budget process (designated by the heavy horizontal line labeled as $0)
and the funds requested by DCF, recommended by the governor, and expended by the
department at two-year intervals between FY 90 through FY 00.
The figure shows that in all but one of the years graphed (FY 00), DCF's
budget requests exceeded the amount appropriated by the legislature.
Conversely, in only one of the years was the governor's recommendation
greater than the amount appropriated.
 |
Unfortunately for
analytical purposes, DCF's budget levels do not directly correspond to the
department's statutory mandates. In
some instances, the mandates can be related to a single budget level, while in
other cases a mandate may be addressed through programs financed under two or
three of the levels. For example,
the programs supporting DCF's prevention responsibilities are found under Level
I, youth and community development.
On the other hand, financial support for programs dealing with DCF's
protective services mandate can be found under Levels
II, III, and IV. As
a result, caution must be used interpreting the data below, which deal with
changes in expenditures by budget level over time.
Changes
in DCF's Budget Levels Descriptions from FY 94 to FY 00 Budget Requests
Level
I of
the continuum is Youth and Community
Development Services which promote the healthy functioning of children
and youth who are POTENTIALLY at
risk of abuse, neglect, mental illness, alcohol and other drug use, or
delinquency by encouraging the healthy involvement of children and youth in
their families, at their schools, among their peers, and in their community [This
level of care serves the largest number of children, youth and their
families for the lowest unit cost and is the least intensive and least
restrictive form of intervention.]
Level
II of
the continuum is Support Services
which protects children from abuse or injury, [prevents
children's removal from their families and homes, enables
to children and their families to manage their problems]
PROVIDES IN-HOME SERVICES TO
CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES AND ATTEMPTS TO REUNIFY CHILDREN (from
substitute out-of-home care) with their families.
This level of care serves children, youth, and their families in
their own homes and communities.
Level
III of
the continuum is Supplementary
Services which HELPS restore
the functioning of children and youth and [develops
the ability of parents to cope with family life so that children and youth
can remain safely at home] ENABLES
YOUTH TO REMAIN IN THE COMMUNITY. Supplementary
care, provided through Extended Day Treatment programs, often compensates
for parental limitations or the child's serious impairment.
[This level of care
serves a small number of children, youth, and their families in order to
maintain children in their own homes.]
Level
IV of
the continuum is Substitute Services
(out-of-home placement) including residential treatment and foster family
care which protect children and/or the public and restore the child so
he/she may return home or to a permanent placement which is most family-like
and least restrictive. Substitute
services treat children and youth who require the most intensive level of
care and protect children who have been seriously abused and must be removed
from their homes. The most
intensive substitute services are provided by DCF-operated institutions. GENERALLY,
less intensive substitute services are offered by private/non-profit
temporary shelters, group homes, residential facilities, and substance abuse
treatment facilities. The least
intensive and least restrictive Substitute Services are offered by foster
families. Care and treatment at
this level, in general, is the most costly, most intensive and most
restrictive of the four levels of care.
Figure
III-4 depicts the changes in DCF's total spending by level between FY 90 and
FY 98, the last year for which complete expenditure data were available.
The figure shows the biggest increase was in management services (281
percent) and the smallest gain was in Level I, which as noted above is mainly
composed of the department's prevention services (10 percent).
The large increase in expenditures under management services can be attributed
to a number of factors. Chief
among these is the near consensus view that DCF's management infrastructure
(e.g. organization, staff,
technology, training, etc.) was woefully inadequate in the 1980s and early
1990s and additional resources were needed.
Other factors contributing to this rise include a change in the state
budget process resulting in an agency's workers' compensation costs being
included in the agency's budget, the inclusion of the cost of operating DCF's
training academy mandated by the consent decree, and DCF's tendency to use the
management services category to temporarily house the costs of the new
programs.
Within the level of care continuum, the biggest increase during the FY 90 - FY 98 period occurred in Level II, support services (163 percent). The programs driving the increase in spending under Level II were children's protective services (up 242 percent from roughly $24.1 million to $82.3 million), adoption services (up 204 percent from roughly $6.7 million to $20.4 million), and the community protective services program (up 99 percent from roughly $4.8 million to $9.5 million). All three of the programs are associated with DCF's protective services mandate. Conversely, the program under Level II exhibiting the least amount of growth was community child psychiatric services (up 26 percent from roughly $8.5 million to $10.8)), which is associated with the department's mental health mandate.
The third budget category to more than double its expenditures between FY 90 and FY 98 was Level IV. Programs under this level include foster care, private facilities, and DCF facilities. Foster care, the Level IV program directly related to DCF's child protection mandate, sustained the largest increase in expenditures of the three programs, 344 percent (from roughly $15.2 million to $67.4 million). Spending on DCF facilities -- its juvenile justice and mental health institutions -- showed the least growth, 36 percent (from roughly $33.8 million to $46.2million).
In general, spending programs associated with the department's child protection mandate grew at a much higher rate than spending on programs linked to DCF's other mandates. This is a strong indicator regardless of the driving force, the stated shift within DCF from family preservation to child safety was more than words on paper.
The effect on resource allocation of the different growth rates associated with the shift in DCF's philosophy can be seen in Figure III-5. The figure compares the distribution of spending among DCF's five major budget categories prior to the consent decree (FY 90) with the spending distribution for the most recent year for which final expenditure data were available (FY 98).
The figure shows the proportion of DCF's spending on Level II programs rose from 33 percent in FY 90 to 37 percent in FY 98. Similarly, management services share of DCF's expenditures increased from 6 percent in FY 90 to 10 percent in FY 98. The proportion of DCF's expenditures accounted for by the other three categories all declined between FY 90 and FY 98. The decrease was 2 percent in Level II, 0.5 percent in Level III, and 5 percent in Level IV.
Interestingly, despite having the biggest decrease relative to the other categories, Level IV remained the largest budget category at 51 percent of total DCF spending in FY 98. Level IV illustrates what is taking place throughout the DCF budget. Spending on programs not directly associated with the child protective services mandate, such as DCF facilities for the juvenile justice and mental health populations, grew slowly (36 percent), while spending on programs related to the protective services mandate, such as foster care, grew rapidly (344 percent).
FY 99 expenditures by mandate. At the request of the legislative program review committee, the department's fiscal staff prepared a special analysis of DCF expenditures during the just completed fiscal year by mandate area. The results of this analysis are presented in Figure III-6, which illustrates the proportion of the agency's budget spent on protective services, juvenile justice, mental health and substance abuse (behavioral health), prevention, and administration. The administration category includes functions that support all mandate areas (e.g., commissioner’s office, public information, information systems, fiscal, quality management, personnel including workers’ compensation, planning, etc.).
As the figure shows, the
protective services mandate accounted for over half (55 percent) of all
department expenditures in FY 99 while behavioral health made up nearly
one-third of the agency budget (31 percent).
The juvenile justice mandate accounted for a slightly larger portion of
the budget than general administrative costs -- 7 and 6 percent, respectively
-- and funding of primary prevention activities related to child abuse and
neglect, juvenile delinquency, and mental illness and substance abuse among
those under age 18 constituted just 1 percent of
total agency expenditure in the last fiscal year.
Behavioral health expenditures include monies spent for mental health and substance abuse services provided to DCF clients involved in abuse and neglect and juvenile delinquency cases as well as children who are not committed to the agency. In FY 99, about $91 million (76 percent) of the nearly $122 million the department spent on behavioral health was for care and treatment of clients being served under its child protection and juvenile justice mandates. Agency expenditures on mental health and substance abuse services for children and youth not committed to the agency, which include the costs of department’s voluntary services program and funding for community-based programs for persons under 18 (e.g., child guidance clinics, day treatment, etc.) totaled around $29.7 million in FY 99, or 8 percent of the whole agency budget.
The allocation of department funding among mandate categories has not changed significantly over the past five years as Table III-1 indicates. The portion of the agency budget spent on protective services increased slightly, from 52 to 56 percent, between FY 95 and FY 99 but all other categories either declined slightly or remained the same. Expenditures for the prevention mandate show a dramatic percentage increase during this period but the growth in dollars was only about $3 million. In contrast, resources devoted to protective services rose by approximately $89 million, which accounted for nearly two-thirds of the total dollar increase in the agency budget since FY 95.
|
Table
III-1. DCF Expenditures by Mandate Category: FY 95 and FY 99 |
|||||
|
|
FY
95 Expenditures |
Percent
of Total |
FY
99 Expenditures |
Pct.
of Total |
Pct Increase |
|
Administration |
$19,085,758
|
8% |
$23,199,420 |
6% |
22% |
|
Prevention |
$2,202,882
|
1% |
$5,304,461 |
1% |
141% |
|
Protective
Services |
$130,901,873 |
52% |
$220,010,839 |
56% |
68% |
|
Behavioral
Health |
$81,433,273 |
32% |
$121,057,872 |
31% |
49% |
|
Juvenile
Justice |
$19,488,472 |
8% |
$25,840,219 |
7% |
33% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
$253,112,258 |
100% |
$
395,412,811 |
100% |
56% |
|
Source
of Data: Department of Children and Families |
|||||
Children's
Budget
In February 1999, the General Assembly’s Office of Fiscal Analysis (OFA) produced for the first time what is called a "children's budget." Due to the nature of the state's budgeting and accounting systems a number of caveats had to be attached to the document. Nevertheless, the budget is a good source of data, when used for its intended purpose, for describing in broad terms the allocation of resources to address children's needs in Connecticut.
Overall, the Children's Budget identified 13 agencies with programs aimed specifically at persons 18 years old and younger. Table III-2 lists the agencies, amount of money expended on children's programs in FY 96, FY 97, and FY 98, and share of the total expenditures by each agency.
The table shows spending on children's services is increasing, although as a share of total state spending it has remained constant at about 26 percent. The relatively minor year-to-year variation among agencies in terms of the percent of total funds expended indicates no single agency is acting as a driving force.
In terms of total spending on children, DCF ranks a distant third to the Department of Social Services and the State Department of Education (SDE). The three agencies account for approximately 97 percent of the total expenditures for children, with DCF's share being about 12 percent.
|
Table
III-2. Child-Related Expenditures by Agency
|
||||||
|
Agency |
FY
96 |
FY
97 |
FY
98 |
FY
96 |
FY
97 |
FY
98 |
|
|
In
$millions |
Percent
of total |
||||
|
State
Department of Education |
$1,462.4 |
$1,471.4 |
$1,521.2 |
55.5% |
54.4% |
53.0% |
|
Department
of Social Services |
$813.4 |
$824.7 |
$916.9 |
30.9% |
30.5% |
32.0% |
|
DCF |
$295.3 |
$329.7 |
$343.8 |
11.2% |
12.2% |
12.0% |
|
Judicial
Department |
$19.2 |
$26.5 |
$31.8 |
.7% |
.1% |
1.1% |
|
Department
of Mental Retardation |
$10.1 |
$21.0 |
$23.0 |
.4% |
.8% |
.8% |
|
Department
of Public Health |
$15.0 |
$15.6 |
$16.9 |
.6% |
.6% |
.6% |
|
Bd.
of Ed. & Services for the Blind |
$11.4 |
$8.8 |
$7.1 |
.4% |
.3% |
.3% |
|
Office
of Policy & Management |
$5.7 |
$3.5 |
$4.1 |
.2% |
.1% |
.1% |
|
Attorney
General. |
$1.7 |
$2.3 |
$2.8 |
.1% |
.1% |
.1% |
|
Department
of Labor |
$.7 |
$.8 |
$.8 |
<.1% |
<.1% |
<.1% |
|
Commission
on Children |
$.3 |
$.3 |
$.3 |
<.1% |
<.1% |
<.1% |
|
Office
of the Child Advocate |
|
$.1 |
$.1 |
|
<.1% |
<.1% |
|
Department
of Public Works |
$.1 |
$.1 |
$.1 |
<.1% |
<.1% |
<.1% |
|
Total |
$2,635.3 |
$2,283.4 |
$2,869.0 |
|
|
|
|
Source
of Data: Office of Fiscal Analysis Children's Budget |
||||||
Also included in the Children's Budget is a breakdown of spending by program type. A brief description of the programs identified in the budget document follows:
Advocacy: programs that promote and protect children's interests;
Behavioral Health: programs that provide mental health or substance abuse services;
Child Care: programs that provide child care subsidies to individuals, grants to facilities, and regulation of child care facilities;
Child Welfare: programs aimed at preventing abuse and neglect and providing services to those who have been abused or neglected;
Education: programs that assist children to learn directly or indirectly through support for planning and administration;
Family support: DSS support programs aimed at children;
Health: programs that provide to children direct medical services, prevention, and screening;
Juvenile Justice: programs that support planning and treatment for juveniles adjudicated delinquent;
Mental Retardation/Early Intervention: programs that support developmentally disabled children; and
Youth Services: programs that provide support for youth service bureaus, youth camps, and summer youth employment.
Table III-3 lists the programs identified in the Children's Budget, the amount of money spent on each program in FY 98, the allocation of the money among the programs, the amount spent by DCF on each program, percent of total program spending accounted for by DCF, and the internal allocation of DCF's spending among the programs.
Using share of spending as the criterion, DCF is the lead agency for child welfare and children's behavioral health programs and shares the lead role with the judicial t in the juvenile justice area. In terms of its internal allocation, the Children's Budget indicates DCF spends about three-quarters of its money on child welfare programs (i.e., programs aimed at preventing abuse and neglect and providing services to those who have been abused or neglected). DCF spends an estimated 15 percent of its money on behavioral health programs (i.e., mental health and substance abuse prevention and treatment) and around 10 percent of its funds in the juvenile justice area.
|
Table
III-3. Child Related
Expenditures by Program
|
|||||
|
Program |
FY
98 Spending in millions |
Share
of spending on children |
DCF's
FY98 Spending in millions |
DCF's
share of program |
Distribution
of DCF's spending |
|
Advocacy |
$3.2 |
.1% |
$0 |
0% |
0% |
|
Behavioral
Health |
$51.2 |
1.8% |
$50.3 |
98.4% |
15% |
|
Child
Care |
$133.5 |
4.7% |
$0 |
0% |
0% |
|
Child
Welfare |
$259.0 |
9.0% |
$259.0 |
100.0% |
75% |
|
Education |
$1,516.0 |
52.8% |
$2.8 |
.2% |
1% |
|
Family
support |
$190.3 |
6.6% |
$0 |
0% |
0% |
|
Health |
$618.0 |
21.5% |
$0 |
0% |
0% |
|
Juvenile
Justice |
$63.3 |
2.2% |
$31.7 |
50.0% |
10% |
|
Mental
Retardation |
$23.0 |
.8% |
$0 |
0% |
0% |
|
Youth
Services |
$11.6 |
.4% |
$0 |
0% |
0% |
|
Source
of Data: Children's Budget |
|||||
An examination of the three-year spending trends reported in the Children's
Budget (FY 96 - FY 98) reveals DCF's expenditures in the child welfare area were
up 23.2 percent. The department's
spending on behavioral health programs was up 3.1 percent and juvenile justice
expenditures were down 6.3 percent. This
resource allocation pattern is another indicator of where DCF is placing its
priorities.
Department
Organization
The Department of Children and Families' organization is evolving under the current commissioner, who was appointed in February of 1997. The latest agency organization chart is shown in Figure III-7. It shows the agency consists of four divisions: Programs; Strategic Planning and Research; Management; and Fiscal and Human Services. The programs and management divisions are headed by deputy commissioners, while fiscal and human services is overseen by an assistant commissioner. The strategic planning division is scheduled to be headed by a director, although the position is currently vacant.
Figure III-8. DCF Regional and Sub-regional Offices
 |
|
×=
Regional office |
The juvenile justice bureau has primary responsibility for dealing with
children adjudicated as delinquents and placed in the custody of DCF.
The bureau oversees Long Lane School and the “parole” services
program for juveniles, which is administered on a day-to-day basis by the
facility's superintendent and staff.
The
health and education services bureau is responsible for ensuring children
living in any DCF facility or other out-of-home placement receive proper
medical care, including behavioral health services, and educational
programming. It oversees two DCF
mental health facilities, Riverview Hospital and High Meadows, which are run
by facility superintendents. Educational
services for DCF clients in agency facilities are provided through its
Unified School District #2, a DCF entity authorized by the State Board
of Education and headed by a superintendent of schools.
The school superintendent also administers the Wilderness School, an
Outward Bound-type program run by the agency primarily for delinquent
adolescents.
The Office of Foster Care and Adoption Services supports regional activities
to recruit, license, and train foster and adoptive families and the state-wide
efforts to retain foster parents. The department's adoption specialists, who
develop adoption plans and provide case management for adoption cases, are
assigned to this office.
Division
of Strategic Planning and Research. This
division is responsible for agency-wide planning, monitoring implementation of
the consent decree, and providing research services.
The department's information systems unit, which is responsible for all
computer-related services, including administration of the agency's automated
case management system, is also located in this division.
Management
Division.
The
Bureau of Quality Management, which is responsible for the agency's internal
and external quality assurance functions, and the DCF training academy, is
included within the management division at present.
The department's quality management activities are described in the
Chapter IV. The training academy,
which was established to meet consent decree requirements, provides
pre-service and in-service training for all DCF employees.
Division
of Fiscal and Human Services.
The division, through its finance bureau, is responsible for all fiscal
operations of the agency including budget preparation and resource allocation,
accounting, and contracting. All
personnel functions are also handled by staff within this division.
Organizational issues
The
unstable nature of the department's organizational structure has contributed
to several long-standing management issues. The issues, which have been
repeatedly identified in past management studies of the agency (see Appendix
C), include: overlapping responsibilities; weak accountability;
amorphous roles; and overly broad spans of control for managers.
Management concerns are clearly evident within the agency's Bureau of Child
Protection. The bureau, which is
responsible for the bulk of the agency's resources and activities including
all protective services field operations, is not a stand-alone functional
division. Rather, the bureau is
one of four within the programs division, each of which must compete for the
attention of one deputy commissioner. The
ability of a manager located at this level of the organization to ensure
consistency among regional office operations and compliance with agency
protective services policy has been questioned by outside reviewers and the
agency's own top managers.
Several additional issues with respect to key management roles and
relationships are raised by the agency's current configuration.
These include the following observations:
· there is no clearly identifiable unit or staff responsible for preventive services, a primary mandate of the department;
· responsibility for the department's mental health and substance abuse mandates rests with two directors within the health and education bureau;
· the mental health director does not have any clear authority regarding DCF's residential facilities even though each provides mental health treatment and services, has no management control over the voluntary services program which serves seriously emotionally disturbed children and their families who are not involved protective services case, and has no direct role in overseeing the agency's new pilot program to develop the continuum of care model for providing community-based mental health and other services to children;
· for the previous 18-month period, the health and education division had been administered by an acting director, who was also the superintendent of Riverview Hospital. In November 1999, the acting director was made permanent, but now the superintendent position for Riverview Hospital is vacant; and
· to date, the department has not filled the director position for its Strategic Planning and Research Division.
Management issues are also raised by the central office staffing levels for key mandates. The agency's mental health division is currently comprised of two individuals, although three additional positions, two professional and one administrative support, were recently authorized to carry out the state mental health mandate for all children and youth in the state. The central office substance abuse staff, responsible for the state's alcohol and drug treatment and prevention mandate for those under age 18, consists of four individuals. DCF's Bureau of Juvenile Justice is staffed by four central office positions -- a director and three assistants. There are four central office and 14 regional office manager positions with direct responsibility for various aspects of child protection services.