Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee
Department of Children
and Families
Introduction
Introduction
For
many years, there has been general agreement among policymakers, practitioners,
and researchers that children's needs are best met by service delivery systems
that are comprehensive, coordinated, family-focused, and community-based.
How to foster and maintain integrated human service networks that meet
the multiple and complex needs of today's children and families, however,
remains a challenge all state governments face. <![endif]>
Connecticut was the first state to consolidate responsibility for child
protection, children's mental health, and juvenile delinquency programs in a
single agency focused on children -- originally the Department of Children and
Youth Services (DCYS) and now called the Department of Children and Families.
The overall goal of consolidation was improved leadership and support in
developing a comprehensive network of public and private services to promote the
sound growth and development of all children.
The new organizational structure was expected to increase the quality and
effectiveness of children's services by clarifying administrative authority for
program areas, eliminating gaps in services as well as overlapping
responsibility, and allowing resources to be pooled so funding could
"follow" a child's needs.
Almost since its inception, there have been concerns over the ability of
the state's consolidated children's agency to carry out its broad mandate and to
achieve the goal of its enabling legislation.
In March 1999, the Legislative Program Review and Investigations
Committee voted to study the mission of DCF to determine the appropriate
roles, responsibilities, and structure for carrying out the state's policies on
children and families.
Scope.
The scope of the committee study focused on the department's mission concerning
child protective services, juvenile justice,
behavioral health for those under age 18, and prevention of abuse and
neglect, delinquency, mental illness and substance abuse among children and
adolescents. Key areas of analysis
included:
·
all
relevant statutory mandates, powers, and duties of DCF;
·
relationships
between mandates and agency activitites;
·
agency
organization and resource allocation;
·
prior
studies of the department;
·
the Juan
F. federal court consent decree and DCF's responses to comply with its
provisions;
·
relationships
between DCF and child advocacy organizations and interest
groups;
·
the
department's working relationship with other state agencies that have similar
roles and provide comparable services;
·
roles,
responsibilities, and organization of child welfare agencies in other states
compared to Connecticut; and
·
the
effectiveness and efficiency of various models for delivering children's
services, particularly the single agency versus a multi-agency approach.
How the consent decree process might impact implementation of any proposed changes to DCF's mission and structure was also examined. The committee study did not include any evaluation of the state's current child and family policies or of individual, client-based decisions related to specific cases. The location of the state's secure facility for juvenile delinquents, an issue under consideration by the General Assembly during the course of the committee's review, was also specifically excluded from the study scope.
Methods.
A variety of methods were used to gather information for the DCF study.
Committee staff reviewed state statutes and regulations, historical
legislative materials, and federal laws and regulations related to the mandates
of the Department of Children and Families.
Agency policies and written procedures as well as budget documents were
also reviewed. Management
reports on the state's children agency since it was created as well as reports
prepared on children's issues for state government since the early 1900s were
examined.
Interviews
were conducted with key DCF staff in the agency's central office, regional
offices, and facilities as well as with selected staff from a number of other
agencies that serve children and families including the departments of
correction, education, mental health and addiction services, mental retardation,
public health, and social services, the Board of Parole, and the judicial
branch. Members of the department's
statewide and regional advisory councils were contacted and meetings of those
organizations were observed by program review committee staff.
Program
review staff interviewed representatives from many children's advocacy and
interest groups in the state as well as private service provider associations.
National organizations and professional associations that cover
children's issues were contacted for information on recent research finding and
trends in children's services, organizational models, and recommended policies,
practice standards, and programming. Committee
staff also attended several conferences, workshops, and seminars covering issues
related to children's mental health, juvenile justice, and child welfare issues.
A
telephone survey of administrators of children's services agencies in 40 other
states as well as follow-up interviews with selected jurisdictions were
conducted by the program review staff to obtain information on roles and
administrative structures, service coordination and planning, service
integration, and prevention efforts. Where
applicable, agencies were additionally asked about the scope and status of any
legal actions (i.e., lawsuits, settlements, consent decrees, etc.) involving
children's services in their states.
The
program review committee held a public hearing on October 19, 1999, to receive
input from a wide variety of interested parties on the appropriate structure for
children's services in the state. Over
40 representatives of state agencies, private service providers, children's
advocates and interest groups, parents, and concerned citizens testified before
the committee.
Various department data were reviewed and analyzed to determine trends in workload and resources, characteristics of client populations, and a profile of major agency activities. The serious inadequacies of DCF’s primary automated information system prevented program review staff from carrying out several key areas of analysis. In each case, either the data required were not available or not available in any automated format, or could not be retrieved from the agency information system without a significant investment of technical staff time and effort.
For example, the agency could not provide the information needed to prepare a venn diagram analysis of its client population that would indicate how many of the children it serves have multiple service needs. Unduplicated, child-based counts of calls received, referrals, and placements necessary to assessment of service needs and demand were unavailable. Outcomes of reports of child abuse and neglect cannot be tracked through the agency’s automated case management system, and analysis of reports made in terms of severity and frequency (e.g., instances of multiple reports), patterns in screening and investigation decisions, and treatment provided and placements made would require examination of individual case files maintained throughout the agency. Trends in workload also could not be determined as reliable worker and case statistics and a standard method for calculating caseload have only recently been developed by the department.
Report
organization.
This report contains background information and analysis by the program
review staff organized into six chapters: (1) the historical development, goals,
and organizational models for children's services;
(2) the mandates and missions of DCF as well as the status of the federal
consent decree; (3) the agency's current resources and organization; (4) an
overview of key agency management functions; (5) major department activities
related to its protective services, juvenile justice, and mental health
mandates; and (6) the roles of other state agencies and private organizations in
children's services. The report's
final chapter contains the committee's findings and recommendations that are
intended to improve service delivery, strengthen accountability, and promote the
well-being of Connecticut's children and their families.
Agency response. It is the policy of the Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee to provide agencies subject to review with an opportunity to comment on recommendations in writing prior to the publication of the committee's final report. A written response to this report was solicited from the Department of Children and Families and is contained in Appendix E.