Prior to the 20^th century in Connecticut and other states, children's services were provided by local and county governments or private charitable organizations.  State government had little funding or administrative responsibility for the education, care, or support of Connecticut's children and youth.   In Connecticut, towns had primary responsibility for supporting their dependent residents -- those who were poor or "mentally defective," as well as orphans and neglected children. [1]    Delinquent children, too, were handled by local authorities, usually municipal police departments, and housed in town jails.   

During the 1800s, county boards of management were responsible for finding "temporary homes" -- the precursor of today's foster homes -- for dependent and neglected children.  The first statewide agency with a role in child welfare was the State Board of Charities, established in 1884.  It was responsible for a wide variety of public welfare services, including almshouses, an  institute for the blind, the state reformatory (prison), homes for the aged, infant boarding places, insane asylums, orphan asylums, and institutions for girls and paupers.  Its initial role in child welfare was limited to recommending to the county boards suitable family homes to serve as temporary residences.   Also in the mid-1800s, the first state juvenile institution, a reform school for delinquent boys administered by a board of trustees, was established.   During this same time period, the first state mental hospital, similarly supervised by a trustee board, was founded to care for insane persons of any age.   Later, the state also established institutions -- residential training schools --  for mentally retarded persons and a state reformatory school for girls.

Over time, primary responsibility for child welfare, mental health and juvenile justice shifted from local to state government.  State social service mandates broadened and the number of programs and facilities to carry them out increased.  Also, with greater awareness of how children’s treatment needs and service requirements differ from adults, separate children’s facilities and units were created and age-appropriate programs were developed.   

The state welfare department, which replaced the charities board in 1921, eventually became responsible for supervising wards of the state, operating the aid to dependent children program, and reviewing the family situation of cases presented in juvenile court.  By the 1960s, its child welfare division was also investigating and responding to reports of child abuse and neglect. Offices of mental health and mental retardation created within the state public health department in the 1920s became independent departments responsible for overseeing state-supported services and facilities for those client populations in the 1950s and 1960s.  A statewide juvenile court system was created in 1941, and in 1969, a state agency, the Department of Children and Youth Services, was established to provide care and custody of adjudicated juvenile delinquents.   

            In the 1970s, Connecticut became the first state to consolidate juvenile justice programs,  child protective services, and children’s mental health functions in a single executive agency focused solely on children and their families.  Legislation enacted in 1974 significantly expanded the mandate of DCYS to include: (1) psychiatric and related services for children transferred from the Department of Mental Health; and (2) protective services functions for dependent, neglected, and uncared-for children formerly assigned to the state welfare department.   

The 1974 act also established a commission to study the consolidation of children’s services that was charged with preparing an action plan for the transfer of mental health services.  In its plan submitted to the General Assembly in 1975, the commission outlined recommended goals, a structure, and programs for the new department, noting the end result is an agency with major responsibility for a large number of seriously disadvantaged children (delinquent, dependent, neglected, uncared-for, mentally ill, and emotionally disturbed) and the potential for treating each one according to his or her needs, whatever they may be.  

Since the 1974 consolidation, no major changes have been made in scope of the department’s mandate although a few specific programs have been transferred in and out of the agency.  The department maintained its independent status through a number of government reorganization efforts over the last 20 years and only underwent a name change, to the Department of Children and Families, in 1993.   

At the same time, there have been significant policy shifts, prompted by both state and federal initiatives, that have had an impact on how DCF carries out its mandates.  For example, there has been a renewed emphasis on protecting children since 1995, in response to the deaths of and serious injury to several children involved with the department. New federal laws stressing permanency require state child welfare systems to shorten the length of time children spend in out-of-home care without a long-term goal and reduce the amount of time birth parents are given to meet the objectives of a treatment plan in order to regain custody of their children.  The more punitive approach for serious juvenile offenses called for by the state's 1995 Juvenile Justice Reorganization Act has focused attention on the effectiveness of court commitment to the state's only secure facility for adjudicated delinquents, Long Lane School. The impact of managed care on access to mental health services has led to questions about the availability of appropriate treatment for emotionally disturbed and mentally ill children.    

However, the factor that has most influenced the Department of Children and Families over the past 10 years is the 1991 Juan F. v O’Neill federal consent decree.  The consent decree, described in detail in Chapter II, has mandated the department and legislature to focus resources and activities on child protective services, especially the foster care system.  As analysis presented in Chapters III and IV shows, the consent decree has been the driving force behind the most recent improvements in DCF operations and the increase in appropriations for child protective services and related staffing.  However, by prioritizing protective services over other mandates, the consent decree has contributed to a decrease in attention and resources that might otherwise have been focused on juvenile justice, mental health, and prevention mandates. In effect, the consent decree has promoted separateness rather than integration of DCF's primary mandates.

 It is important to note the legislative and organizational changes that have occurred in child protection, juvenile justice, and mental health services are the result of many factors.  Federal mandates, court decisions, medical advances, advocacy groups, and public opinion all have had an impact on the development of the current system.  As Figure I-1 illustrates, changes in one mandate area are often paralleled in the others.   A brief legislative history of each service area highlighting these various factors is presented in Appendix A.  The major federal mandates that have an impact on children’s services in Connecticut are summarized in Appendix B.   

Goals of Children's Services Systems  

A frequently stated goal for children’s services is a “seamless system of delivery,” with a single point of entry, a continuum of care, and funding that follows the child.  Comprehensive, integrated service systems are viewed as critically important for children. Children tend to have multiple needs that change as they grow and develop.  

From the early 1900s through the present time, a number of studies, reports, and surveys have been conducted in Connecticut examining the needs of neglected, dependent, and delinquent children, mental health issues related to children, and ways to improve services to children.  The earlier reports called for greater attention to children’s services and a stronger state role in providing them.  All contained one or more of the following recurring themes:   

·       coordination, communication, and joint planning needed;

·       study/research/understanding of children's problems needed;

·       treatment of the whole child and/or family required;

·       mental health services lacking for children;

·       specialized services, separate from adults, needed;

·       critical services lacking, existing services too fragmented, and gaps and overlaps in service delivery; and

·       early discovery/identification/intervention critical and prevention is a must.

Findings from many of these studies were used in 1975 as evidence of the need to establish a consolidated children’s agency in Connecticut with a commissioner whose priority and commitment is to the needs of children.  Supporters of the consolidated children’s agency expected the new department would:

·       be important enough to have parity with other human services 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 for the new consolidated agency was to provide leadership and support in developing a comprehensive statewide network of public and private programs and services.  The network would be designed to: promote the sound growth and development of all children; prevent dependency, neglect, delinquency, and mental illness and emotional disorder in children; identify children at risk; and restore children to useful functioning.  In addition, it was intended the new department, together with citizens advisory councils and private voluntary organizations, would provide broad advocacy for children and help safeguard their basic rights.  

Organizational Models  

State structures for providing child protection, children's mental health, and juvenile justice services vary considerably.  However, there are three main organizational models: (1) multiple agencies; (2) multiple divisions within an umbrella agency; and (3) a consolidated children's services agency.  To date, there is no consensus on an ideal structure for child welfare services or for human services generally.

Other state structures.  The current administrative structures for children's services for all 50 states are summarized below in Table I-1.  As the table shows, the vast majority of states (38) have adopted a multiple agency approach with two or more autonomous, cabinet-level agencies having separate chief administrators, budgets, and policy development processes, each responsible for protective services, juvenile justice, and children's mental health.   

Seven states (Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Utah) fall under the umbrella agency model, maintaining two or more separate divisions within a single cabinet-level agency.  The divisions in these states are organized around specific populations or functions and typically share a single chief administrator, budget, and policy development procedure.  Only five states -- Connecticut, Delaware, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and, most recently, Tennessee -- have created a single, autonomous, cabinet-level agency responsible for administering child protective services, mental health services for children, and juvenile justice services.  

The most common combination of services in multiple agency states is protective services and juvenile justice.  Twenty-two states administer protective services and juvenile justice within a division under an umbrella agency.  Thirteen states administer protective services and mental health services for children via one agency or a single division within an umbrella

agency.  Six states administer juvenile justice and mental health services for children by way of a single agency or particular division within an umbrella agency.  

Table I-1.  Current State Administrative Structures for Child and Families Services (Child Protection, Juvenile Justice, and Children's Mental Health)
Model	Multiple Agencies	Multiple Divisions  in Single (Umbrella) Agency	Consolidated Agency
Description	Two or more Autonomous Cabinet-level agencies   Separate chief administrators, budgets, policy development	Two or more separate divisions within single cabinet-level agency   Divisions organized around population or function   Same chief administrator, overall budget and policy development	Single, autonomous cabinet-level agency
States	38 states    3 agencies -- 17    2 agencies -- 21	7 states (AK, AR, IA, NH, NC, PA, UT)	5 states (CT, RI, DE, NM, TN) Texas considering
Sources of Data:  Ct. Office of Legislative Research, National Conference of State Legislatures, The Council of State Governments, and LPR&IC staff telephone survey of  children’s services agencies in other states.

Coordination mechanisms.  Results of a telephone survey of other states conducted by program review committee staff showed at least nine states have an executive branch human services cabinet or a similar body responsible for coordinating services for children on a statewide basis.  However, the presence of such a coordinating body seems unrelated to a state's administrative structure for child welfare services. Other modes of coordinating and integrating services for children common among the states surveyed included: preparation of a children’s budget, which identifies all resources expended by a state to benefit those under 18; formal statewide children's needs assessments; memoranda of understanding or agreement among state agencies responsible for serving children; and interagency coordinating committees.  These various mechanisms occur irrespective of whether a state has a consolidated or multiple agency approach for providing services to children and youth. 

Concerns and trends.  Regardless of their type of organization, state children's agencies are experiencing similar challenges in the delivery of services.  For example, a number of states interviewed reported substance abuse treatment programs and prevention efforts are generally lacking.  A number also reported having difficulties coordinating services for children with multiple needs or for those who are dually committed (e.g., delinquent and under agency care because of abuse or neglect).  Another problem noted by most states surveyed is that children's service systems are not well coordinated with adult service systems, particularly in the area of mental health.  A widely noted observation crossing state boundaries is that many youth in critical need of mental health services “age-out” of the custody of their children's agency, but do not transition to the adult system.  Left without treatment, they often engage in criminal activity and end up in the adult correctional system.  

            A growing trend among the states surveyed is the development of innovative community-based approaches to treating abused, neglected, delinquent, and mentally ill children.  Indiana, for example, began to develop “pilot communities” in 1998 that are working to identify and overcome regulatory, fiscal, and policy barriers to the integration of services for children and youth.  Missouri created the “Interdepartmental Initiative for Children”, a consortium of the Departments of Elementary and Secondary Education, Mental Health, and Social Services, designed to be a more responsive and localized approach to treating children with severe behavioral health needs.  Oregon’s Commission on Children and Families has identified core statewide goals and given local citizens' commissions responsibility for developing and implementing their own plans to achieve better outcomes for children and families through strong community supports and prevention efforts.  Georgia, through its children and families policy council, also has established benchmarks intended to improve results for children and families, and is promoting local community partnerships as a way to develop comprehensive, integrated services with a bias toward prevention.  Finally, in Florida, legislation to privatize foster care and certain related child welfare functions, including child protection investigation responsibilities, is under consideration by the state senate as a way to strengthen community involvement in child and family services.  

Objectives.  Consolidated and multiple agency models have both strengths and weaknesses.  For example, while consolidation can reduce duplication and improve communication and coordination, the resulting agency can become too large to be managed effectively.  In addition, service components within a consolidated agency must compete for attention and resources in what becomes an internal battle out of the view and support of the service's constituency.  With multiple agencies, expertise, specialization, and accountability can be promoted, but “turf wars” are often a by-product.  

Historically, consolidation has been pursued as a way to reduce fragmentation of services, streamline programs, and contain administrative costs. However, it must be remembered restructuring alone may not overcome turf issues, policy conflicts, lack of leadership, inadequate funding, poor management, and other factors that impede effective service delivery.  

While the perfect structure for administering and delivering children’s services has not been identified, experts agree it would have the following traits:  

·       family-focused services;

·       prevention-oriented;

·       comprehensive continuum of services;

·       “flexible” funding;

·       well-trained staff with manageable caseloads;

·       community-based services responsive to local needs;

·       accountability; and

·       communication and collaboration encouraged and facilitated [2] .