Department of Children and Families Findings Recommendations

In 1974, Connecticut established the consolidated children’s agency that became the Department of Children and Families (DCF) to achieve two main goals:

After 25 years, there has been some progress toward these goals, particularly in institutionalizing advocacy for the interests of children and families. However, for many reasons, the department has been unable to effectively carry out its extensive mandates for prevention, protective services, children’s behavioral health, and juvenile justice.

As study after study has found, DCF is plagued by systemic management deficiencies. Its decision-making is reactive and crisis driven. Protective services so dominates the agency its other mandates have suffered from a serious lack of attention and resources. In fairness, DCF should not be blamed for its preoccupation with its protective services mandate. The magnitude and complexity of child abuse and neglect, coupled with the pressures of public opinion, demand protective services be made a priority.

The Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee staff believes it is time to look beyond trying to "fix" DCF as the way to improve the status of children and families in Connecticut. The well-being of children is not and cannot be just one department’s responsibility.

The goals of the original plan for a consolidated children’s agency were farsighted and remain valid. Today it is widely agreed children and families need integrated, prevention-oriented services, individualized community-based care, and family involvement in service planning and delivery. Many states, through a variety of policies, organizational structures, and funding mechanisms, are trying to attain these ends.

The program review committee staff recommendations presented in this report seek to achieve these goals through more effective coordination and stronger management of children’s services systemwide. One set of recommendations shapes the development, funding, and implementation of an integrated, community-based care system for children and families. The overall intent is to create a statewide service delivery network based on children’s individual needs and family strengths instead of funding categories and target populations.

The program review committee staff also proposes a major restructuring of the responsibilities for children’s services by transferring mandates to newly created entities in some cases and between existing agencies in other cases. The primary purpose of the recommended reorganization is to consolidate related duties and missions in individual agencies so attention and resources can be focused on achieving the desired outcomes in one area without shortchanging responsibilities in another.

Under the program review committee staff proposals, protective services, children’s behavioral health, juvenile justice, prevention, and the coordination of resources and services for children and families are each made a policy and management priority. The committee staff believes the impetus to take action and fulfill statutory mandates regarding children should not be a crisis at a facility, an individual family tragedy, or a lawsuit filed against a state agency. The committee staff recommendations, therefore, are aimed at establishing a structure and system that will promote the well-being of Connecticut's children and their families now and in the future.

The program review committee staff found there is no clear statement of legislative intent guiding state government efforts to serve the best interests of the state's youngest citizens. Under current law, Connecticut's policy on children and families must be pieced together from various statutory mandates given to the Department of Children and Families, the mandates of other state departments responsible for serving children such as education, social services, public health, and mental retardation, and judicial branch mandates concerning those under the age of 18.

As discussed in the committee staff briefing report, the well-being of Connecticut's children and families is not the sole responsibility of the Department of Children and Families. Meeting the needs of children and families in trouble requires a variety of public and private entities in the state to work together to provide support and services.

The program review committee staff believes an overarching policy that establishes a unified mission and reflects the shared responsibility for the well-being of children and families should be adopted by the General Assembly.

Therefore, the program review committee staff recommends the General Assembly establish in statute the following language: "It is the policy of the state of Connecticut to promote the well-being of children and families through the development of integrated, comprehensive, child-centered, family-focused, and community-based services that are accessible, cost-effective, of good quality, and delivered in the least restrictive environment possible."

The recommended statement incorporates the many goals of current state policies and programs for children and their families -- healthy, thriving children; strong, nurturing families; positive youth development; and educational progress and success. Under the statewide policy, all branches of government, not just the state agency for families in crisis, will have a role in ensuring these and other positive outcomes for children.

When client needs cross department boundaries, mechanisms for coordinating services, resources, and information are required for effective service delivery. This is the case even if child-serving agencies are guided by a unifying mission because each state department that serves children has its own priorities, areas of expertise, funding sources, professional orientation, and target population.

The incentives to work together generally are few, since coordination takes time and staff resources away from an agency’s primary function and may even mean giving up control over clients or funding. In fact, there are usually stronger incentives for departments to try to shift costs or responsibility for difficult cases or expensive services to another agency.

In recent years, at least 27 states have established some type of structure to achieve coordination and some degree of integrated service delivery for children and families. The structures generally take the form of a children’s cabinet, comprised of the heads of all departments with a role in children’s services, or a council or commission made up of agency officials and others interested in children’s issues. Their missions, powers, and duties vary, but in all cases they have one or more of the following purposes: to overcome gaps and duplication in children’s services; develop innovative programs for coordinating services; or implement system reform by building community-based, integrated service delivery.

The program review committee staff found Connecticut has no formal structure for coordinating the services and resources of agencies responsible for children. The primary method for achieving coordination is through interagency agreements, which were described in detail in the committee staff's briefing report. While many of the current agreements appear to be effective, they are limited to specific issues or categories of clients and are not a mechanism for system-wide coordination.

Further, the committee staff found there is no entity responsible for regularly examining the "big picture," looking across categories of services to ensure the best use of resources and the best outcomes for clients. There is no agency charged with promoting wellness by tracking needs, analyzing trends across agencies, and identifying and evaluating what works to prevent the problems facing children and families in Connecticut.

The program review committee staff believes state goals for children and families cannot be met without a structure that ensures coordination of policies and resources among all state entities that serve children. To foster integrated service delivery, strengthen the state’s prevention and early intervention efforts, and focus accountability for the well-being of children and families in Connecticut, authority and responsibility for coordination must be placed in one entity.

Therefore, the program review committee staff recommends creation of a secretary for children responsible for coordinating state efforts to implement the state’s policy on children and families.

The Office of the Secretary for Children shall be an independent executive branch agency and the secretary shall be authorized to employ staff and purchase equipment, hire consultants, and convene advisory groups of public officials and private citizens as needed. The main duties of the secretary for children shall include:

Each state agency with responsibility for serving children and families shall be required to submit to the children’s secretary each year: (1) an assessment of the needs of its client population under the age of 18 and their families, overall and by region; and (2) a status report of each region in terms of children’s well-being benchmarks relevant to the policies and programs it administers.

In addition, each child-serving agency shall be required to forward its proposed biennial budget related to services for persons under 18 and their families to the secretary for children who will use the information to prepare the biennial children’s budget. In the budget submission to the secretary, each agency shall identify all resources it allocates to preventive services for children and families. Each agency shall also identify the amount of resources it proposes to pool with funds from other children’s agencies to support an integrated, community-based care system as well as estimates of the client population to be served and the types and amount of services required to be provided by the system.

The secretary for children shall convene the heads of all state departments serving children at least two times per year, once to provide advice and assistance in planning and implementing preventive services for children and families and once to help evaluate the state’s overall progress in promoting the well-being of children and families and prepare the secretary’s annual children’s status report to the governor and General Assembly. The secretary may convene the department heads or their designees to meet for other purposes and at other times as needed.

The secretary shall be appointed to a five-year term by the governor subject to the approval of the General Assembly. The secretary shall have the following qualifications: an advanced degree in management and administration and at least 10 years experience in a high-level management position requiring skills such as strategic planning, financial analysis, negotiations, and public relations.

Under the program review committee staff recommendation, preventive services, which are key to promoting the well-being of children and families, and integrated community-based service delivery, the ultimate goal of interagency coordination, will be the priorities of the secretary of children. The proposed structure assures these functions will not have to compete for attention and resources in agencies whose priorities are providing direct services to particular client populations. In addition, the children’s secretary will have clear authority and responsibility for overseeing implementation of the state’s policy for children and families. Accountability for the well-being of children, which now is fragmented among at least a dozen executive agencies and the judicial branch, will be centered in the secretary’s office.

The secretary’s purview will be broad, covering programs carried out by many child-serving entities and the courts. At a minimum, all of the major human service departments -- children and families, mental health and substance abuse, mental retardation, public health, social services, education, and the juvenile operations of the courts such as juvenile detention and juvenile probation including families with service needs and community support services programs -- should be linked to the secretary’s office for the purposes of the children’s budget.

Children’s budget. Knowing in detail what resources are available throughout state government for children’s services and how they are being used is another key element for stronger accountability and more efficient and effective service delivery. The state’s first children’s budget, prepared by the legislature’s Office of Fiscal Analysis in February 1999, allowed policymakers to take a comprehensive look at how the state allocates resources to address children’s needs. The program review committee staff believes a children’s budget should become a regular part of the state’s appropriation process. It will provide information and guidance on children’s matters to legislators as they make budget decisions and help assure a comprehensive approach is taken when resources are allocated to meet children’s needs.

Under the committee staff recommendation, the children’s secretary will be responsible for preparing a proposed children’s budget after reviewing the funding requests for children’s services from all of the child-serving agencies. The children’s budget will constitute the secretary’s recommendations to the General Assembly for allocating resources to meet the needs of Connecticut’s children and their families.

To carry out the duties of the Office of the Secretary for Children, the program review committee staff recommends the children’s secretary have specific authority to propose the funding level for the integrated, community-based service delivery system for children and families.

This would be a specific item in the children’s budget subject to review and action by the General Assembly like any other appropriated agency program. The legislature would be able to consider the secretary’s request for funding this purpose along with the proposed budgets from each child-serving agency and make the final allocation decision. The secretary would then be responsible for operating the community care system within the funding level set for these purposes through the appropriations act.

Integrated community-based care. A common goal for all children’s services is "seamless" delivery of needs-based care in a way that maintains a child’s relationships with family and community. There is general agreement among experts and practitioners that integrated, community-based services result in better outcomes for children and more efficient use of resources.

The optimal integrated system allows for multiple points of access -- state agencies, the courts, schools, private providers, and local child and family organizations may refer clients to the system -- but a single point of accountability for the client -- one intake process and one case manager. The services provided are based on an individualized plan of care developed by a multidisciplinary team with family participation.

Studies of human service delivery models have found integrated service delivery is not necessarily achieved through organizational changes. What is needed to provide comprehensive, needs-based services is flexible funding. Services can best be tailored to effectively meet the problems of a particular child and family when funding is not categorical and resources are not restricted to specific programs and client populations.

The major stumbling blocks to integrated services in Connecticut and most states include categorical federal and state funding sources, competition among programs and agencies, and the lack of effective coordinating mechanisms. Loss of control over which clients are served and how money is spent is a disincentive for state agencies and private providers to cooperate and share resources.

The program review committee staff found the most effective incentives for interagency coordination appear to be financial. States that have had success in integrating services began by finding ways to blend funding from multiple sources to establish service delivery systems that target human needs and not the client populations (e.g., abused, delinquent, etc.). The key is to create a consortium of categorical agencies to actually pool their funds and serve their clients through the integrated system.

The program review committee staff's previous recommendation seeks to move the current system in this direction by giving the secretary for children the authority and responsibility for creating an interagency pool of funds for children's services, the first step to integrating service delivery. The secretary is further required to establish a community-based system of care for children and their families in accordance with each participating agency's assessment of needs and available resources.

The program review committee staff envisions the community care system as partnerships of private providers formally joined together to offer a comprehensive continuum of community-based services needed by the children and their families. Each community partnership would have a core agency responsible for fiscal and administrative duties, overall case management, and arranging, through subcontracts and agreements, a network of services required by the partnership clients. Partnerships would serve clients within certain geographic areas determined by community needs and resource. For example, several partnerships might operate within a large city, while in rural area, a number of towns might be served by one partnership

Under performance-based contracts between the secretary and the core agency, the partnerships would provide a wide range of services, at capitated rates, to children and families who could be the clients of a variety of state agencies. Services would be provided to the clients referred by participating state agencies in accordance with an individualized plan of care, developed by the core agency case manager and a team of key individuals involved in the case. The care plan team would include family members, clinicians and other service providers, and state agency staff assigned to the client's case (e.g., a protective services social worker or a juvenile parole officer).

While state agency staff would be involved in developing and monitoring their clients’ care plans, the partnerships would have full responsibility for carrying out case management and treatment within the agreed upon payment rates. A state agency's role regarding clients served by community partnerships would primarily be quality assurance. State agency case workers, for example, would be responsible for determining the client's eligibility for state-funded services and ensuring the services provided are meeting the client's needs and fulfilling the agency's goals.

The partnerships would be held accountable through their performance-based contracts, which would outline expected client outcomes as well as worker caseloads, clinical and professional requirements, and other minimum quality standards. The contracts would also outline financial audit and other quality assurance requirements (e.g., administrative case reviews for DCF protective services clients) the partnerships would be expected to fulfill.

A major benefit of the recommended community partnership system is state agencies can access a network of services for their clients through a single contract. The partnership model, therefore, can significantly reduce the time and effort state agencies and private providers currently spend on contracting functions.

The community partnerships also offer opportunities for greater efficiency and accountability in the delivery of services to children and families. Providers are given more flexibility to control services so children and their families can receive care appropriate to their needs in a timely manner. At the same time, providers are directly responsibility for outcomes specified in their contracts. Figure I-1 presents an overview of the roles and responsibilities of the secretary, the categorical child serving agencies and their regional offices, and the community partnerships under the committee staff recommendations.

Community-based system of care models that provide comprehensive, individualized services to children and families with flexible funding have been implemented in at least nine states (Alaska, California, Kentucky, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Wisconsin). Typically, they began in response to federal system of care initiatives for serving seriously emotionally disturbed children and developed into more formally financed and organized service delivery structures for children and families in the early 1990s.

Similar models are under consideration or being piloted in several other states, including Connecticut. DCF is experimenting with a new integrated service delivery model with a small number of its clients as part of a five-year, federal demonstration project. The department has contracted with two provider networks to organize and manage a continuum of care for children in need of residential placement. The network receives an established case rate per child for a 15-month period in addition to a flat fee for administrative costs. An outside contractor was hired to develop and carry out a research design to evaluate the effectiveness of the continuum of care projects. The results of the DCF demonstration projects should be very instructive to the children’s secretary in developing the community partnerships.

Family advocates. Many experts and practitioners believe outcomes for children are better when families are involved in the planning and delivery process for services. States are required, under federal mental health grant requirements, to promote parental involvement in service planning and delivery for children. One way DCF currently meets this requirement is to use federal funds to employ family advocates to help parents access services for their seriously emotionally disturbed children. The family advocates are parents of children with mental health needs who have been successful in navigating the mental health service system. They then provide information and support to families currently seeking or receiving services and promote the family's inclusion in all aspects of their child’s care.

The program review committee staff believes family advocates should be a component of new community partnership system. Such advocates can enhance access to services and provide feedback on the partnership's performance from the client's point of view. Therefore, the program review committee staff recommends the Office of the Secretary for Children be responsible for funding and overseeing family advocates for children services.

Training and public education. Studies of new models of service delivery like the partnerships recommended by committee staff have shown the value of efforts to educate agencies, providers, and the public about community-based care systems. Training and public information activities build support and gain acceptance for the concept.

The program review committee staff recommends the secretary develop and provide training about community partnerships to all state agencies, making sure to include both management, line staff, and private provider organizations. The secretary should also conduct public information programs to educate communities and the general public about the partnership model.

Phase-in schedule. Based on the experiences of other states, establishing an integrated community-based care system is a gradual process that can only be implemented over time. Recognizing this, the program review committee staff recommends a schedule be developed by the secretary for children to phase-in implementation of the recommendations concerning the responsibilities of the secretary and the community partnerships over a five-year period.

In the first year following passage of the enabling legislation, the secretary for children, with the advice and assistance of representatives from each child-serving agency and the Office of Policy and Management, shall establish the children’s budget process, the service needs assessment process, the process for contracting with community partnerships and shall prepare a plan for phasing in community partnerships statewide over a five-year period.

During the first year, the secretary should begin by identifying all funding sources available in state agency budgets to support the community partnerships. A legislatively mandated study of Medicaid funding for children’s behavioral health services due to be completed in February 2000 should help the secretary carry out this task. The secretary, with the assistance of the state agencies, should determine if waivers from federal requirements will be required to allow federal money to be pooled for community partnership services and oversee waiver application processes.

Through the children’s budget process, once the legislature authorizes funding for the community partnerships, the secretary will determine the appropriate allocation of funding among regions of the state on the basis of estimates of service and resource needs submitted by the state agencies during the budget process. To ensure comparability among agencies in terms of needs assessment, standards will be needed. The program review committee staff recommends the secretary establish, and the state agencies be required to use, standards and guidelines for conducting needs assessment for community-based services.

To contract with the community partnerships, the secretary will need to develop requests for proposals or other means for soliciting potential partnerships and standard elements for performance-based contract documents. To accomplish this, the secretary, with the assistance of the child-serving agencies, must determine:

After the foundation elements have been instituted, the committee staff believes the secretary for children will need discretion and flexibility to phase-in the community partnerships network. The secretary, in consultation with child-serving state agencies and private providers, must develop a phase-in schedule during the first year of the transition and should report that schedule to the General Assembly and governor. However, the only specific requirement for the phase-in is that the community partnerships should be operating statewide, with all child-serving agencies participating and all eligible clients being served, by the end of the fifth year.

Prevention. Within the context of this study, prevention means efforts to ensure children are not exposed to or raised in an environment that has negative consequences for their health, safety, or positive emotional and social development. Under current law, the Department of Children and Families has lead responsibility for programs to prevent abuse, neglect, delinquency, and mental illness, emotional disturbance, and substance abuse among children and youth. However, as the committee briefing report showed, the department has no coordinated system of preventive services, no unit or staff dedicated to prevention efforts, and in the past fiscal year expended about 1 percent of its total budget on prevention programs.

Prevention is an important and cross cutting function where many state agencies, the legislature, and the courts as well as local governments and communities have roles. Coordinating the state's prevention efforts for children and families needs to be one entity’s main focus and the program review committee staff believes the Office of Secretary for Children is the best location for this function.

Through the committee staff recommendations for a children's budget and prevention plan, the secretary can focus the resources available to all state agencies for children’s preventive services more effectively. The goal of the secretary’s prevention plan should be to identify and recommend funding for services needed to promote the well-being of children and to help children and families at risk address their problems before state intervention through the protective services, behavioral health, or juvenile justice systems are required. The biennial plan should be developed by the secretary in consultation with each state agency that serves children and families and the judicial branch. The prevention planning process should include opportunities for input, review, and comment by public and private groups, individuals involved in children’s issues, and the general public.

The committee staff recommendations for a biennial prevention plan and a budget to implement it should make for a stronger statewide commitment to provide the services children and families need before their problems reach a crisis level. Through the planning process the secretary can address gaps, overlap, and duplication among preventive services and ensure prevention is part of the continuum of care available through the community care systems.

Benchmarks and annual status report. Establishing benchmarks to measure progress in areas related to the well-being of children is a key step in determining how well the state’s policies and programs on children and families are meeting their intended purpose. The program review committee staff recommends the children’s secretary, in consultation with officials from the state entities that serve children and with input from the public, develop measures to serve as benchmarks of the well-being of Connecticut’s children and families.

Responsibility for monitoring indicators and reporting annually on their status will be a critical function of the secretary’s office. The program review committee staff believes accountability for the condition of children and families will be strengthened by having specific benchmarks tracked and reported on annually. Broad participation from child-serving agencies and groups and individuals interested in children’s issues should help with the development of comprehensive and meaningful benchmarks. In turn, tracking the state's success in meeting the benchmarks will assist in the development of the children's budget as well as performance-based contracting procedures.

Research and evaluation. Effective implementation of the secretary for children’s planning, budgeting, and annual status reporting duties requires access to good data and strong research capabilities. At present, many state departments regularly collect information related to children’s needs and the services they receive. Data are rarely compiled across agencies, however, and efforts to evaluate state children’s programs tend to be sporadic and scattered. Information in a variety of forms and from multiple sources will have to be analyzed to link what children need to what services are effective.

Universities have great expertise in carrying out complex research projects. Connecticut is fortunate to be the home of several higher education institutions renowned for their research related to children and families. The program review committee staff recommends the secretary for children establish formal relationships with one or more local institutions of higher education to carry out research and evaluation projects related to the well-being of children and families in Connecticut.

Using higher education institutions for research and evaluation projects can provide more continuity than using outside consultants. It is also likely to cost less. In addition, university researchers are more likely to take a critical perspective than an agency’s internal research staff or a hired consultant. University researchers also have the interest and ability to do longitudinal studies, something that is difficult for consultants but essential for understanding children’s issues.

Early in the process the secretary will need to resolve issues related to the confidentiality of the data regarding children in the care of the state and of information contained in medical records. Funding to support the university research centers should be requested through the budget of the Office of the Secretary for Children.

Qualifications and terms. The children’s secretary will be responsible for overseeing and bringing together a wide variety of organizations with different missions and professional viewpoints and for creating a totally new system for delivering state services to children and their families. The secretary’s most important skills will be the ability to plan to meet a goal, put the plan into action, and lead others to follow the plan and reach the goal. For this reason, management-related education and experience are the central qualifications for the position of secretary for children. The program review committee staff does not consider expertise in a human service area or professional specialty to be essential for the secretary. In fact, such a background could be viewed by as biasing the secretary toward a particular agency or service philosophy.

The initial five-year term for the secretary is recommended to promote stable leadership while the structural support of the secretary’s office and functions is built. The term of the first secretary will coincide with the phase-in schedule for developing the office’s budget and planning processes, establishing the state’s benchmarks and annual report format, and creating the community-based integrated care system. After the first five-year appointment, when the office should be well-established and fully operational, standard four-year terms should be instituted. Therefore, the committee staff recommends subsequent terms for the secretary for children be four years coterminous with the appointing governor.

The Office of the Child Advocate, the Commission on Children, and the Children’s Trust Fund have important roles in assuring the quality and effectiveness of the state’s system of children’s services. The child advocate protects the rights and interests of children by evaluating the delivery of state services and investigating complaints about programs or procedures. The children’s commission serves as a policy advisor and research resource on children’s matters to the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. The trust fund solicits federal funds, grants, and private monies to support its grant programs for child abuse and neglect prevention and family support services.

The program review committee staff finds the Office of the Child Advocate, the Commission on Children, and the Children’s Trust Fund are critical components of an effective system to promote the well-being of children. However, the program review committee staff believes they have not been used to their full potential by the legislature or the executive branch. In combination, their efforts can serve as a strong quality assurance mechanism for children’s services and support the functions of the Office of the Secretary for Children. To promote this connection, the program review committee staff recommends the Office of the Child Advocate, the Commission on Children, and the Children’s Trust Fund be transferred to the Office of the Secretary for Children for administrative purposes only in accordance with C.G.S. § 4-38f.

Quality assurance functions generally includes oversight to ensure compliance with policies and procedures, efforts to maximize resources, and activities to evaluate and improve performance. The advocate, the commission, and the trust fund each carry out aspects of quality assurance, which can help the secretary effect change in the state children’s services system.

Under current law, the commission and the trust fund each have advisory groups comprised of state agency representatives and other members. The program review committee staff recommends the secretary for children replace the commissioners of children and families, mental retardation, public health, education, social services, and correction as the sole ex officio member of the Commission on Children and the commissioners of children and families, public health, social services, and education on the Children’s Trust Fund Council.

While the advocate’s office also has an advisory council, it is not recommended the secretary for children be added as a member. To be effective, the advocate must retain a neutral status independent from all children’s agencies including the Office of the Secretary for Children.

Responsibility for juvenile justice, protective services, and children's mental health as well as substance abuse service functions was consolidated in a single executive agency focused solely on children and their families in 1974. It was expected the new Department of Children and Youth Services, as a consolidated children's agency, would: be important enough to have parity with other human service agencies; increase the state's commitment to prevention of emotional, developmental, behavioral, and social problems of children; and increase the quality and effectiveness of children's services. The overall goal was to provide leadership and support in developing a comprehensive network of public and private programs and services.

Conceptually, it makes sense to consolidate mandates within a single agency to achieve integration of services. Yet, there is no overriding reason for grouping protective services, mental health, and juvenile justice and not incorporating mental retardation, health care, probation, or special education. In practical terms, no single agency can sufficiently balance the importance of every mandate for children and prioritize integration of services.

Indeed, the program review committee staff found management studies produced over the past 25 years, including several by the program review committee, have repeatedly shown DCF's organization remains functionally divided along service lines and client populations; its planning and budgeting processes and its information systems remain fragmented. The committee staff briefing report noted child protective services is the driving force in the agency's mission statements, budget, organization, planning, and management. Other DCF mandates -- juvenile justice and children's mental health and substance abuse services -- have been neglected and tend only to receive attention when a crisis arises (e.g., a suicide at Long Lane School) or a lawsuit or legislative initiative is threatened or ordered. The program review committee staff found full integration of services and balanced management of mandates within the Department of Children and Families has not been achieved.

For integrated service delivery to occur, there must be parity among all children's service mandates in terms of their importance and the allocation of resources in proportion to needs. Balance must be reached so that one mandate does not dominate as is presently occurring within DCF. As stated, the agency's concentration on protective services severely handicaps the delivery of juvenile justice, mental health, and substance abuse services.

An executive branch structure should allow state agencies to: develop and provide expertise and specialization in a service area; assure a system of quality services is available; provide funds for services; and acutally provide services when they cannot be made available any other way. There will always be multiple state agencies involved in providing services that impact children and their families.

The recommendations in Section I will achieve integrated service delivery through interagency coordination and pooled agency resources under the direction of the children's secretary. The committee staff finds what is also needed is to strengthen the policy and management of each mandate area.

Therefore, it is recommended the responsibilities of the Department of Children and Families shall be realigned as follows:

The transferring of responsibilities from DCF to other state agencies brings Connecticut's child welfare system "full circle." Prior to the 1970s, DCF was solely a juvenile justice agency and mental health services for adults and children were the responsibility of a single state agency. Protective services for children were predominately provided by local communities with oversight by the state's welfare agency. There was no formal state management of substance abuse services. The chief complaint by child advocates, service providers, and clients was that children were often neglected and overshadowed by the adult service systems. It was thought that by consolidating responsibilities for children's services in a single agency -- DCF -- their needs would be brought to the forefront and given sufficient attention and resources.

The needs of children, particularly those at risk or in crisis, have received more attention and have benefited from increased resources since DCF was established. This is the result of many factors. Twenty-five years of research, medical and pharmaceutical advances, changing clinical and social work practices, lawsuits, advocacy, and political and public scrutiny have done as much for elevating the status of children as any state organizational structure.

Protecting children's interests through a single state agency structure is of less concern now because leadership for children's issues has been institutionalized. It is more important to ensure an adequate and timely response to the various categories of children's needs. For example, the dramatic increase in the caseload of abuse and neglect was not anticipated 25 years ago, and no one could have predicted the severity and complexity of the problems faced by children and their families today. There was no way to plan for the significant impact the nation's substance abuse problem has had on the lives of children. Also, the full effects of welfare reform on children have yet to be realized.

The committee staff acknowledges that more resources can be appropriated to DCF and additional attempts can be made to strengthen its leadership, make its management more effective, and improve its service delivery systems. However, many comprehensive management studies of the department have shown innovations and organizational changes fail to be funded or fully implemented. DCF has been unable to sustain management improvements initiated with changes in its leadership. It is the conclusion of the committee staff report that Connecticut can achieve the goal of integrated community-based services for children and families more effectively by giving each department mandate (i.e., juvenile justice and children's mental health and substance abuse services) equal importance and promoting parity among state agencies responsible for children's servcies.

Transferring children's behavioral health and juvenile justice to separate agencies and focusing DCF on protective services will ensure each mandate has leadership, advocacy, and access to resources. At the same time, all state agencies serving children and their families can participate in a system that provides for integrated, community-based service delivery. The program review committee staff believes imposing the recommended structure over the current service delivery system demands changes in agency mandates.

Connecticut’s child welfare problems are not unique. Like most other states, it is struggling with its function to provide child protective services. Although DCF, like similar agencies in other states, has been vested with a great deal of authority to carry out its responsibilities, its actual ability to protect all children from abuse and neglect is limited. The department cannot be expected to judge with perfect foresight which children are actually at risk of abuse or neglect. Moreover, the number of abuse and neglect cases throughout the country has dramatically increased, and the children and families involved present severe and complex problems. These factors have strained the abilities and capacities of child protective service agencies to respond effectively to abuse and neglect. However, this only underscores the need for a lead agency that can give full attention to providing protective services. The previous recommendation assures the Department of Children and Families will be in a position to accomplish this by being focused on the safety and permanence of all children who are abused, neglected, abandoned, or at risk of being harmed.

Under the recommendation, DCF will retain its current statutory protective services mandates, powers, and duties including:

investigating reports of abuse and neglect;
representing state and children in custody and adoption proceedings resulting from removal due to abuse, neglect, or abandonment;
serving as the legal guardian -- or parent -- to children removed from their families;
administering oversight and quality assurance for protective service case treatment plans and programs;
licensing child care facilities, homes, and programs; and
administering the Connecticut Children’s Place.

Having a single mission will allow DCF to focus on the long-standing management problems that have plagued the department for years and led to the consent decree. The problems include: the department’s difficulty in maintaining a skilled work force; a lack of consistency in establishing and implementing policy and procedures; the absence of useful management information; and inappropriate placements of children. Faced with these problems, DCF has been unable to comply with the staff-to-caseload ratio established by the consent decree. It has responded by attempting to hire more and more staff. This tactic has not proved effective. Realistically, the department cannot hire its way out of a crisis.

Concentrating DCF mandates, activities, and resources on protective services will also allow it to focus on fully complying with the Juan F. consent decree. Since 1993, it has been a primary goal of both DCF and the legislature to end the federal court’s authority over the state’s administration of child welfare services by implementing the requirements of the court order. While the department has made a good faith effort to comply and has improved in a few areas covered by the consent decree, it still has to address several significant issues such as its automated information system, staffing ratios, and the foster care crisis.

Management strategy. The issue facing the department, under the program review committee staff recommendation, is how to be an effective child protective services agency whose management is not driven by crisis. To reach this goal, the program review committee staff believes DCF needs a new management strategy.

One strategy promoted by child welfare experts and implemented in several states (i.e., Florida, Missouri, Kentucky, and Iowa) is a differential response to abuse and neglect reports combined with a network of community-based family support services. The previous recommendations support this strategy in two ways. First, the structure establishes a community-based treatment system -- the community partnerships for children -- that serves the individual needs of children and their families and focuses on keeping children within their families and communities. Second, the staff recommendations call for the establishment of a comprehensive, statewide network of prevention services available for children and families who are presenting problems that do not meet the statutory standards for abuse and neglect, but are in need of assistance.

The premise of the differential response strategy is that all protective services cases do not require the same costly, time consuming investigation, which can be coercive, intrusive, traumatic to a child, and stigmatize a family. The strategy incorporates a flexible response that allows protective services cases to be grouped according to the nature of the allegation. It recognizes different allegations require different responses. For example, the level of investigation required to protect a child in a sexual abuse case may be unnecessary and overly reactive for a report of neglect due to missed doctor's appointments or truancy.

Current DCF system. Current DCF policy requires all allegations meeting the statutory definition for abuse or neglect, regardless of the level of risk to the child, be accepted for investigation. Approximately 73 percent of the more than 100,000 calls received by DCF's abuse and neglect hotline are accepted for investigation.

Calls accepted for investigation are categorized by the level of risk to the child’s safety. The risk category determines the time in which the department must begin the investigation. For example, the investigation of a high risk case must begin within two hours whereas DCF staff have up to 24 hours to begin the investigation of a moderate risk report and 72 hours for low risk.

This procedure indicates the department has successfully implemented the first step in the differential response process, but the strategy can only be effective when cases are culled throughout the investigation phase. However, once the risk level is determine, DCF responds in the same manner to all accepted calls. Delaying the time an investigation is initiated does not negate this "one size fits all" approach to investigating abuse and neglect reports. It does not factor in the degree of risk to the child, the reasons for and extent of the family’s need for intervention and support, or the family’s willingness to accept help.

The committee staff attempted to analyze what happens to abuse and neglect reports once they are received by DCF. However, the department was unable to provide complete data because it either did not record the information or was unable to retrieve it from the automated management information system. The committee staff compiled an estimate of the caseload at various points in the process based on information gathered from DCF’s regularly produced management reports and data DCF was able to produce.

As shown in Figure II-1, for every 100 calls, 41were accepted as reports meeting the standard for abuse or neglect, and 59 were screened out for not meeting the standard. Of the accepted reports, 24 were classified as low risk, 16 as moderate risk, and only one was found to pose a high risk to the child involved. Most calls did not require immediate or even a 24-hour response. As shown in the flowchart, DCF did perform a risk assessment that screened out an additional 10 reports where no further action was taken. Of the 31 reports DCF accepted for investigation, the allegations were substantiated in about 50 percent of the cases. Substantiated reports are then referred within DCF for treatment.

The program review committee staff believes DCF can better carry out its protective services mandate and more effectively manage its resources by reducing the number of unsubstantiated reports being investigated. The key is to rely on community-based assessment and treatment for lower risk cases. Therefore, the program review committee staff recommends DCF develop an assessment standard and tool to determine which calls require a full investigation response by its staff and which can be referred to a state-contracted community partnership for children for assessment and services. The differential response process shall be fully implemented by the fourth year of the phase-in of community partnerships that was discussed earlier in this report.

The analysis of DCF’s caseload shows three levels of cases need to be considered when developing the differential response policy. The first level would be comprised of those cases in which the report does not meet the statutory abuse or neglect definitions or there is no evidence to support state intervention. As previously stated, DCF seems to be adequately screening these cases and recognizing some families who are referred should not be.

The second would consist of cases drawn from reports classified as low or moderate risk. Under the differential response strategy, these cases would not be investigated by DCF as is currently the policy. Rather, these cases would be referred to a local community partnership for assessment and services. This new approach has the added benefit of making communities more responsible for children and families and allowing earlier intervention for services by eliminating the investigation phase.

The third level would be cases in which the child’s safety is an immediate concern and coercive action and/or immediate intervention by DCF is required. The department can retain its existing investigation policy for these cases.

It should be noted, the committee staff recognizes that the current classifications -- low, moderate, and high risk -- may not accurately reflect the risk levels that should be used in developing the new strategy. The program review committee staff believes the department must ultimately decide which cases do not pose an immediate safety issue for the children involved and, therefore, can be better serviced at the community level. As a result, the recommendation has been written in such a way as to give DCF flexibility in developing the process.

Other state models. Several states and large cities are implementing this reform strategy. Missouri, Iowa, and Florida limit investigations to the most serious cases of abuse or neglect and provide an assessment and service-oriented response to families referred for other child protective concerns. The states have also developed partnerships in the community to provide better-coordinated services and a more individualized response to families. Each state’s legislature enacted a law to allow its protective service agency to establish two different responses to reports of child abuse or neglect. Basically, the laws require a mandatory investigation for high risk cases and voluntary assessment for lower risk cases. As a recent study found, the impetus for some legislative changes came from a consensus "that the [child protective services] agency was intervening too aggressively in families who might have been served on a voluntary basis, and that the system was not intervening effectively enough to protect children in the most serious cases because it was overwhelmed with nonserious cases and was treating serious and nonserious cases alike."

Since it was created in 1974, the Department of Children and Families was intended to be the lead agency for children's mental health and substance abuse. However, the program review committee staff found the department has failed to provide strong leadership for children's behavioral health services.

DCF's current organizational structure does not support or prioritize its children's mental health and substance abuse responsibilities. There is no mental health bureau, headed by a deputy commissioner with clinical experience, as called for in the original 1975 plan for creating the consolidated children's agency. A total of four central office staff are responsible for planning and overseeing mental health and substance abuse services for all children in Connecticut. The department's social work staff are not required to have any background in children's behavioral health issues nor do they receive any substantive training in this area.

Without the structural supports that ensure management attention and adequate resources, the agency's mental health and substance abuse mandate has been neglected within the consolidated children's agency. Behavioral health is essentially viewed as an ancillary service in the treatment of abused and neglected children. Mental health providers funded by the department are required by contract to give priority to children committed to the agency. Substance abuse services funded by DCF typically are provided to treat the caregivers of abused and neglected children to advance protective services goals; few resources are directed at providing treatment for children's alcohol and drug abuse problems.

The department's administration of the voluntary services program, which makes mental health and substance abuse treatment available to children who are not committed to its custody, has been weak. Social workers responsible for voluntary cases have little or no training on mental health issues, policies are inconsistently applied across regions, and program regulations remain in draft form after two years. As discussed in the committee's briefing report, DCF's role in developing local systems of care for seriously emotionally disturbed children -- its major initiative for providing integrated, individualized services -- has been minimal.

DCF has not produced a comprehensive children's mental health plan as required by statute since 1986. The mental health component of the agency's current strategic plan does not identify what range of services are needed by Connecticut's children or how to fund and provide them. Behavioral health plans that have been prepared have been developed in consultation with other agencies.

In recent years, the impetus for change or specific attention to children's mental health issues or services has come from outside DCF. Recent legislation to clarify the voluntary services program and establish systems of care was initiated and pursued by advocacy groups and parent groups. Members of the State Advisory Council to DCF found it necessary to form an ad hoc committee to focus the department's attention on children's mental health problems and issues. Much of the increased attention to and funding for mental health services for children in DCF custody is the result of the Juan F. consent decree requirements.

The central purpose of creating a consolidated children's agency was to achieve a comprehensive, statewide network of mental health and other services that can address the multiple needs of children and families. The previous recommendations establishing the secretary's office and the community partnerships will accomplish this purpose and make mental health services more accessible to the children and families that need them regardless of their protective services status. The program review committee staff believes an effective management structure to carry out the state's mandate for children's behavioral health is lacking.

The program review committee staff recommends a Division of Children's Behavioral Health be established within the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services. The division shall have primary responsibility for state mental health and substance abuse services for persons under the age of 18. It shall: develop policy; plan, evaluate, and assure the quality of behavioral health services for children; and oversee the establishment and maintenance of a comprehensive continuum of mental health and substance abuse services responsive to the individualized needs of children.

The children's behavioral health division shall be headed by a deputy commissioner who is a clinically competent professional experienced in the administration of children's mental health and substance abuse services. The deputy commission shall have responsibility for all children's mental health and substance abuse programs, services, and facilities.

All existing statutory requirements relating to children's mental health and substance abuse shall be transferred from DCF to DMHAS. Responsibility for the policies, procedures, administration, and operation of the state's existing children's mental health facilities, Riverview Hospital and the High Meadows residential treatment facility, shall be transferred to the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services. DMHAS shall be authorized to establish any other facility or program required to carry out its children's behavioral health mission.

The children's behavioral health division shall have the following specific powers and responsibilities:

establish policy and long-range strategic plans for children's behavioral health;
develop standards and protocols for a continuum of children's mental health and substance abuse facilities, programs, and services that are responsive to the individual needs of children and their families;
conduct evaluation, research, and quality assurance of behavioral health programs and services for children;
establish procedures for the transition of clients from the children's system of behavioral health services to the adult system, when necessary;
provide clinical and technical assistance related to children's mental health and substance abuse issues to other state agencies including the Department of Children and Families and the Connecticut Justice Authority;
coordinate efforts with the secretary for children and the Department of Social Services to ensure the provision of medically necessary behavioral health services required by children who are mentally ill or emotionally disturbed and who are covered by the Medicaid program;
assist and cooperate with the secretary for children, including submitting: (1) an annual assessment of the statewide and regional behavioral health needs of children, including those who are abused, neglected, abandoned, or delinquent; (2) a status report on the benchmarks relevant to children's behavioral health; and (3) an estimate of its client population to be served by the community partnerships for children;
submit a proposed biennial budget related to services for children under 18 and their families, separate from the department's adult services budget, to the legislature and the children's secretary and fully participate in the process to pool funds with other state children's agencies to support integrated, community-based care systems and prevention services; and
coordinate efforts with the judicial branch and any other state agency as necessary to effectively and efficiently provide behavioral health services to children.

The composition of the Board of Mental Health and Addiction Services shall be amended to include representation from individuals with experience and interest in children's behavioral health as follows: four of the 10 board members who must be experienced in substance abuse and in mental health shall have expertise in children's services in those areas including one who must be a child psychiatrist and one who must be a child psychologist. Five new members, who shall be individuals interested in children's behavioral health but not service providers and shall represent each region in the state, shall be added to the board.

The commissioner of mental health and addiction services shall be required to establish regional children's behavioral health advisory councils comprised of up to 20 individuals, with the majority being persons who earn less than 50 percent of their salaries from providing services to children and families. The regional councils shall advise the commisioner and deputy commissioner for children's behavioral health on the mental health and substance abuse needs of and services for persons under the age of 18 within their respective regions. Each council shall elect its own chair who shall not be a service provider and will serve as the regional representative to the state mental health and addiction services board.

Under the committee staff recommendation, children's behavioral health will be placed within an agency that is focused on mental health and substance abuse. Policies, plans, and resource allocation decisions within DMHAS are made within a behavioral health context. To protect against domination by the adult system, the recommendation establishes in statute a clear mandate and structure for children's mental health and substance abuse services. The children's system will have its own division, budget, plan, advisory groups, and deputy commissioner.

DCF has a limited, but important, role in the juvenile justice system. It provides the state’s most punitive response -- secure custody -- to delinquent youths convicted of serious or repeat offenses. The department is, however, only responsible for a small percentage (12 percent) of all convicted delinquents. The judicial branch is responsible for the supervision and treatment of most convicted delinquents (88 percent). It is also responsible for pre-trial detention services for children charged with delinquent acts. Typically, the court supervises pre-delinquent youth (e.g., Family with Service Needs), first-time offenders, and delinquents convicted of less serious offenses who can safely remain in their communities.

In the staff briefing report, committee staff made several preliminary findings regarding the lack of integration of DCF’s primary mandates (i.e., protective services, juvenile justice, and children’s mental health and substance abuse services). While these findings related to the lack of integration among all of DCF's mandates, as presented below they specifically address the juvenile justice area. The committee staff found the department’s:

mission statement focuses on its protective services role and responsibilities and does not specifically address juvenile justice;
juvenile justice planning is sporadic, and related policies and procedures are not comprehensive or integrated with protective services;
resources have been disproportionally allocated to programs that service children and families in abuse and neglect cases;
management staffing for juvenile justice is minimal compared to protective services;
management information system does not incorporate juvenile justice data with protective services caseload information; and
mental health and substance abuse services are primarily provided to children involved in protective services cases and not juvenile delinquents.

In 1999, Governor Rowland appointed a project director to oversee the: (1) construction of the Connecticut Juvenile Training School (CJTS) facility and development of programs and services; (2) training and transfer of DCF staff from Long Lane; and (3) transition of committed youth from Long Lane. In addition to these duties, the director was asked to review the continuum of services for DCF-committed delinquents.

In a related matter, the project director is also the co-chair of the critical response team created in 1999 (P.A. 99-26) to report to the legislature and the governor on a range of issues, including the operation of the new juvenile training school and DCF’s oversight of committed delinquents. Given both sets of responsibilities, the project director has significant authority to develop the juvenile justice policy, procedure, facilities, and programs that are eventually to be administered by DCF.

Thus, the legislature and governor have given decision-making and planning authority for the reforms currently underway to the critical response team and CJTS project director, not DCF. The committee staff believes this apparent lack of confidence by state officials in DCF's juvenile justice capabilities is significant.

Traditionally, the mission of the juvenile justice system has been to provide treatment for the juvenile offender whose rehabilitation is considered far more important than concern for public safety and punishment. Increases in juvenile crime against persons and property and the severity of violent acts committed by children during the early 1990s fueled growing public opinion that, for the most part, the juvenile justice system has been largely unsuccessful in its efforts to rehabilitate juvenile offenders. In response, Connecticut, like most other states, enacted more punitive sanctions to hold delinquent youth accountable for their criminal behavior.

A 1995 juvenile justice reorganization (P.A. 95-225) instituted a series of reforms that emphasized protecting the public from juvenile offenders and holding delinquent youth accountable for their criminal actions. The measures adopted:

In addition, in 1999 (P.A. 99-26), the legislature authorized $38.8 million to build a new secure detention facility -- the Connecticut Juvenile Training School (CJTS) -- to replace Long Lane School. The CJTS is significantly different in terms of its structural design and purpose than Long Lane. CJTS is designed to provide maximum security detention whereas Long Lane School is an open-campus setting.

The program review committee staff believes the goals and objectives of the recent juvenile justice reorganization inherently conflict with DCF's child protective services responsibilities. As previously discussed, the paramount concern of protective services is protecting the child from his or her family or other perpetrator, and the aim is to maintain the child’s attachment to and status in the family and community. In most cases, children are the victims in protective services cases. In contrast, the juvenile delinquent is the offender who must be removed from his or her family and community for public safety reasons. Delinquent youth are placed in restrictive settings and supervising their behavior is a primary responsibility.

The committee staff finds the disconnect between DCF and the judicial branch has led to a lack of leadership in the juvenile justice system.The committee staff believes there are limited remedies to address the dual agency organizational structure unless significant legislative changes in the roles and responsibilities of the court and executive branch juvenile justice agency are initiated.

DCF and the judicial branch each have specific statutory authority and responsibilities, develop independent policies and procedures, operate separate facilities, and individually fund services and programs. Overall, the committee staff found very little coordination between the two agencies. DCF has no involvement with a delinquent youth until he or she has been committed to its custody by the court. The court, however, retains its authority over a committed delinquent until he or she has completely served his or her sentence. (A convicted delinquent is committed to DCF for a period of up to 18 months and a serious juvenile offender for up to four years.)

In 1995, the legislature attempted to formalize a link between the department and the judicial branch as part of a series of reforms aimed at strengthening the juvenile justice system. The Juvenile Justice Reorganization Act (P.A. 95-225) required DCF and the judicial branch to coordinate efforts in several areas, including: implementing the reforms contained in the law; developing a protocol for jointly providing services to certain pre-delinquent and delinquent youth; and co-contracting for services and programs funded by both agencies. In addition, a policy group was established, comprised of DCF, the judicial branch, and the Office of Policy and Management. The group was charged with developing an interagency plan to implement a continuum of services designed to balance the need for institutional and community-based services.

The plan, submitted to the legislature and governor in 1996, did not significantly alter the existing organizational structure or authority of DCF or the judicial branch. It did result in written agreements between the two agencies to clarify and limit responsibilities for specific services and clients, such as court-ordered mental health evaluations conducted by DCF’s Riverview Hospital and placement criteria for children involved in a family with service needs case. It did not, however, develop or result in a cohesive response to treating delinquents or coordinating the efforts of DCF and the judicial branch.

The 1995 law set forth an overarching state policy for juvenile justice, which is: "to provide individualized supervision, care, accountability, and treatment to juveniles who violate the law to ensure public safety and to promote delinquency prevention." Currently, the primary responsibility for carrying out the mission rests with the judicial branch. DCF was required to incorporate the policy into its strategic plan for juvenile justice services. However, the department has not adequately addressed the policy in its current strategic plan.

The program review committee staff believes the changes in DCF's culture brought about by added mandates and conflicting responsibilities make it impossible for the department to ever regain the focus needed to successfully address the state's juvenile justice needs. Therefore, the program review committee staff recommends the creation of the Connecticut Juvenile Authority, which shall be responsible for ensuring public safety and intervening in delinquent behavior by providing individualized supervision, care, and treatment to juveniles under 16 who require pre-trial detention or who are committed as delinquent by the court.

The CJA shall be headed by a commissioner who is experienced and qualified as a juvenile justice administrator. The commissioner shall be appointed by the governor. The commissioner shall be assisted by two deputy commissioners, one of whom is experienced and qualified in the administration and operation of secure juvenile facilities and the other in the development and implementation of programs and services to treat delinquent youth.

Responsibility for the policies, procedures, administration, and operation of the state's existing juvenile justice detention facilities, pre-trial detention centers, Connecticut Juvenile Training School, Long Lane School, and the Wilderness Program, shall be transferred from DCF to the Connecticut Juvenile Authority. CJA shall be authorized to establish any other facility or program required to carry out its juvenile justice mission.

Further, all existing statutory requirements relating to juvenile justice shall be transferred from DCF to CJA. The CJA shall also have the following specific powers and responsibilities:

implement the mandates of C.G.S. 46b-121h (reorganization law);
organize its facilities, programs, and services in accordance with geographical boundaries defined by the state's five human service regions;
conduct intake and assessment of all youth in its custody and facilities and provide that information, when necessary, to the judicial branch and other state agencies serving the delinquent population;
establish intake guidelines and protocols for pre-trial detention centers, including eligibility requirements and supervision conditions for pre-trial release supervision;
develop policies and procedures for a minimum-time-served requirement based on a standardized risk assessment and individualized treatment plan for all committed delinquents to determine when and under what conditions the youth may be released from confinement to a residential program or the community;
establish a community supervision program that includes an offender revocation unit and other specialized supervision units for specific populations (e.g., sex offender or sexually reactive youth, violent or repeat offenders, dually diagnosed offenders, etc.);
assist and cooperate with the secretary for children, including submitting: (1) an annual assessment of the statewide and regional needs of the delinquent population; (2) a status report on the benchmarks relevant to juvenile justice; and (3) an estimate of its client population to be served by the community partnerships for children;
submit a proposed biennial budget related to services for delinquent youth under 16 and their families to the children's secretary and fully participate in the process to pool funds with other state children's agencies to support integrated, community-based care systems and prevention services; and
coordinate efforts with the judicial branch and any other state agency necessary to effectively and efficiently provide juvenile justice services.

The committee staff has concluded there are enough significant issues involved in dealing with delinquency that the state would be better served by an agency solely focused on administering juvenile justice. Interestingly, DCF was originally created as a juvenile justice agency to focus on the special needs of delinquent youth. After other child welfare responsibilities were consolidated with the juvenile justice mandate in 1973, delinquent youth quickly lost their priority within the agency. As a result, over the past 25 years, the juvenile justice system has suffered from a lack of resources and neglect.

The problems did not go unnoticed. Legislative and management studies continually found significant procedural and resource problems in DCF's juvenile justice system. However, the legislative and executive branches did not prioritize a response to the issues, either financially or administratively. Juvenile justice tended only to receive attention when a crisis arose (e.g., a suicide at Long Lane School) or a lawsuit was threatened.

In addition to transferring the juvenile justice responsibilities from DCF to the new Connecticut Juvenile Authority, the committee staff recommendation also proposes transferring the pre-trial detention centers currently administered by the judicial branch. The area in which the disconnect between DCF and the judicial branch is most apparent is in the administration of the pre-trial detention centers. In fact, during the recent reorganization of the judicial branch, it found the pre-trial detention facilities and services "do not fit into the juvenile supervision process."

One of the reforms of the 1995 juvenile justice reorganization was to transfer the detention centers to DCF to consolidate the state's juvenile confinement responsibilities into one agency. The policy group reviewed that plan, but recommended, in its 1996 report, leaving the responsibility within the judicial branch. The final decision to retain the status quo was based on a federal court consent decree (Emily J.) issued in 1996 that covered almost all operational aspects of juvenile detention centers and the problems occurring at Long Lane School.

There is a requirement, established by the 1999 law (P.A. 99-26) authorizing the Connecticut Juvenile Training School, that is contrary to the responsibilities recommended for the Connecticut Juvenile Authority. State law authorizes the court to commit a delinquent to DCF for a specific period of time. The agency is authorized to determine the specific placement and period of time spent in confinement before release to a less restrictive setting. In practice, however, the court orders DCF to confine a delinquent in either Long Lane School or a specific residential program. This practice began when overcrowding at Long Lane shortened the average length of stay for committed delinquents, and the court was concerned sufficient supervision was not being provided by DCF.

This practice was recognized in state statute in 1999 (P.A. 99-26). The new law permits the court to specify a placement facility in its commitment order to DCF. It can require a delinquent be confined at CJTS, Long Lane School, or specifically select a contracted residential placement program. The committee staff believes the law will prevent the Connecticut Juvenile Authority from effectively implementing its responsibilities. Therefore, the staff recommends this law be repealed, effective upon the establishment of the Connecticut Juvenile Authority.

The program review committee staff recognizes the recommended reorganization of DCF's mandates will involve major revisions to existing statutes as well as the reallocation of current resources, facilities, and staffing among the new agencies. To accomplish this task, the committee staff recommends a team of individuals from outside state government be established to develop and oversee implementation of a transition to create realign the Department of Children and Families and create the Division of Children's Behavioral Health within the Department of Mental Health and Addication Services and the new Connecticut Juvenile Authority.

The team shall be comprised of five public members appointed by the governor. A transition plan shall be developed by the team with the advice and assistance of the commissioners of children and families, mental health and addiction services, the chief court administrator, the secretary of policy and management, and the heads of the new juvenile authority, the children's behavioral health division, and the children's secretary, once they are appointed. The court monitor should also be invited to participate in the planning related to services for children covered under the Juan F. consent decree. The team shall be authorized to hire its own staff and consultants to assist in carrying out its duties.

The plan for transition shall be completed and submitted to the General Assembly for approval within one year after the reorganization legislation goes into effect.

The committee staff believes a reogranization of this magnitude requires more time and attention than the heads of major state operating agencies can give it. A team of individuals from outside state government is better able to provide the sustained leadership to successfully carry out the transition. In addition, the team will be independent from the interests of any particular state agency in making resource allocations and other reoganization decisions.

Finally, the program review committee staff believes the new children's agencies and the secretary's office and all its related functions should be evaluated at the end of five years to determine whether they are achieving their intended purposes. The legislature's sunset review process is a well-established and effective mechanism for carrying out this type of evaluation. Therefore, the program review committee staff recommends the Office of the Secretary for Children, the Department of Children and Families, the Division of Children's Behavioral Health, and the Connecticut Juvenile Authority be scheduled to terminate effective July 1, 2006, unless reauthorized by the General Assembly. During the year prior to the automatic termination, the Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee shall conduct a sunset review and report its findings and recommendations regarding the continuation, modification, or termination of each entity for consideration by the General Assembly during the regular legislative session in 2006.