Barton Child Law and Policy Clinic Policy Paper

Brief History of Related Studies

Georgia has meticulously documented a system in crisis since at least 1989. Thousands of hours and state dollars have been spent compiling studies with identical recommendations. Six of those studies are summarized below.

• NAME: Child Protection In Georgia
  SPONSORING ORGANIZATION: The Urban Study Institute (authored by Carol Ann Dalton)
  DATE: August 1989
  PURPOSE: An overview of the Child Protective Services in Georgia. CPS workers around GA report "the biggest problem is overworked, overloaded, under trained and underpaid CPS workers."
  RECOMMENDATIONS: Official caseload of CPS workers is 27:1; DFCS needs 81 more CPS & Foster Care workers to prevent an increase in the current caseloads; 159 workers required to meet the national standards.⁷⁵

• NAME: System Review of Child Protective Services of the Georgia Division of Family and Children Services.
  SPONSORING ORGANIZATION: National Child Welfare Leadership Center.
  DATE: January 1993
  PURPOSE OF STUDY: Review Georgia's Child Protective Services system and compare with national guidelines and standards.
  RECOMMENDATIONS: Develop and implement a training program that includes identifying staff competencies and assessing staff in light of these competencies; develop a plan for the design of workload standards; formalize and enhance internal support system to offer additional benefits and incentives for staff.⁷⁶

• NAME: Report of the Senate Study Committee on Children at Risk.
  SPONSORING ORGANIZATION: The State Senate
  DATE: December 1993
  PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: Identify problems facing Georgia's "at-risk" children; discuss where the child protective, educational, judicial, and law enforcement systems are weak; recommend solutions to the problems facing Georgia's "at-risk" children.
  RECOMMENDATIONS: Georgia should fund an additional 443 CPS workers and 1,277 AFDC and Food Stamp workers to meet national standards;⁷⁷

• NAME: Child Placement Project Final Report.
  SPONSORING ORGANIZATION: Georgia Supreme Court Administration Office of the Courts.
  DATE: Completed Summer of 1996, presented to Supreme Court on October 9, 1996
  PURPOSE: To assess and evaluate court proceedings involving abused, neglected, and deprived children as they move through Georgia's superior and juvenile courts.
  RECOMMENDATIONS: Develop and implement improved, uniform methods of record-keeping and case management; increase education and training and provide cross-training and trial manuals for all persons working with juvenile court cases.⁷⁸

• NAME: Report of the Senate Study Committee on State Foster Care and Adoption.
  SPONSORING ORGANIZATION: The State Senate.
  DATE: December 1996
  PURPOSE OF STUDY: Outline ways to move towards permanent settings for children in DFCS control; ways to strengthen DFCS; possible uses for private agencies.
  RECOMMENDATIONS: Reduce caseloads to 30 by 1997 and 20 by 1999; address the situation presently existing within the CPS Program, and resolve issues giving rise to the need for salary, workload and workplace reform.⁷⁹

• NAME: Child Protective Service Task Force Report to the Commissioner of the Department of Human Resources State of Georgia.
  SPONSORING ORGANIZATION: DHR: Child Protective Services Task Force.
  DATE: April 20, 2000
  PURPOSE: To develop a comprehensive set of policy and program recommendations that when implemented would improve the effectiveness of Georgia's child protection efforts.
  RECOMMENDATIONS: Make comprehensive changes at DFCS to improve the protection of children who are identified victims of abuse and neglect (1^st order of business); add new resources for staff recruitment, retention and supervision; provide adequate tools and training.⁸⁰

Examples from Other States

The following statutes are a fairly comprehensive compilation of actions that have been taken in other states.

Alabama: The legislature required the development of a State Case Registry of Children in State Care. This registry is to contain many specific pieces of information, including information on the sizes of caseloads and whether the size of caseloads has an effect on services offered to parents and children. Ala. Code § 29-2-106 (2000).

Arizona: State legislation established the Protective Services Caseload Standards Advisory Committee (recommended to refine workload measurement and identify how much additional funding would be necessary to meet workload standard) The legislation also protects CPS workers from some disciplinary actions if they have excessive caseloads. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-810 (2000).

California: The State Department of Social Services must contract with another entity to assess the adequacy of child welfare services budgeting methodology. This evaluation will result in recommendations that include information on revising budget methodology, specifically, appropriate caseload levels, supportive services, preventative services and the benefit of new advancements in the field. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 10609.5 (Deering 2000)(formerly CA Senate Bill 2030).

Connecticut: In 1999, the legislature increased the state's Department of Children and Families budget to hire staff when it discovered that DCF did not have a sufficient number of employees to comply with a court order regulating caseloads (will hire 146 additional social workers and supervisors by April 2000; eighty four additional support staff over the next two years)(citation omitted).⁸¹

District of Columbia: The City Council sought to decrease the number of children in dependency care by very specific statistical ratios. Steps to reach these goals were listed, including the goal to provide for decreased caseloads with an emphasis on preventing placements or early reunification. D.C. Code Ann. § 3-114.1 (2000).

Florida: Last year, FL passed legislation that mandates a Child Welfare System Estimating Conference to forecast child welfare caseloads. This legislation also mandates the privatization of most of the child welfare system in the state. Fla. Stat. ch. 216.136 (2000).

Indiana: In 1996, the legislature established a procedure for bringing child welfare caseloads within set standards. Ind. Code Ann. § 12-14-25.5-6 (Michie 2000).

Kentucky: Legislation mandates that the monthly statewide caseload average for social workers providing direct services in foster care, child protection, juvenile services, or adult protection shall not exceed twenty-five cases. If this average exceeds twenty-five cases for ninety days, the Department of Social Services must report that fact with recommendations to the Governor and the Legislative Research Commission. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 199.461 (Michie 1998).

Maryland: In its Child Welfare Workforce Initiative of 1998, the legislature required the development of a comprehensive plan for the recruitment, training, and retention of caseworkers. The legislation also mandated that newly hired caseworkers have social work or specific related backgrounds only and all workers must pass a competency test. A continuing education program was established and all workers must maintain a required level of continuing education credits. All contractual positions were eliminated and qualified workers were transitioned into full-time positions. Please note that this legislation did not mandate specific caseload limits, however, the legislature added "intent" language to the bill that directed the Department of Human Resources to develop a program whereby enough caseworkers would be employed to satisfy CWLA recommendations. Md. Code Ann. art. 88A, § 3A (2000).

New York: An audit was completed by the Office of the State Comptroller, Division of Management. The audit addressed questions about the deployment of caseworkers from June 1, 1995 through January 31, 1997. First, did the Department adequately monitor the deployment of the caseworkers? Second, what is the ratio of cases to caseworkers in each local district and how do these ratios compare to standards developed by the CWLA? Of the fifty-five districts reporting, twenty-six reported developing workload standards on their own (many within a few cases per caseworker of the CWLA standards), six districts reported that they use CWLA standards and the remaining twenty-three districts (including NYC) reported that they do not use a standard for assigning caseloads. The recommendation of the audit was to update and specify the staffing workload standards for Child Protective Services, Preventative Services and Foster Care. Consider adopting the CWLA standards for each program because Caseworker Workload Standards can provide the districts with a guideline or benchmark for the maximum number of cases a caseworker can be expected to handle without compromising the quality of casework performed. New York Office of the State Comptroller Division of Management, Caseworker Deployment in Selected Child Welfare Programs Report 96-S-52 (1998).

Washington: The state legislature created a "caseload forecast council" for a number of programs, including foster care and adoption support. These forecasts must be submitted to the Governor and legislature at least three times a year and are mandated to the basis of the governor's budget document and the legislature's development of biennial appropriations. Wash. Rev. Code § 43.88C.010 (2000). The legislature also established the Children, Youth, and Family Ombudsman's office within the Office of the Governor in response to overwhelming caseload burdens. Wash. Rev. Code § 43.06A.010 (2000).

West Virginia: Legislation authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Resources to transfer funds between all personnel and non-personnel revenue accounts under her control for "the sole purpose of increasing the number of front line child protective service case workers and investigators." The legislation specifically does not authorize the hiring of more workers if funding is not provided for that. W. Va. Code § 49-6-1a (2000).

Legislatively Established Caseload Limits

The concept of applying minimum/maximum workload and caseload standards involves issues that make it unworkable without appropriate legislative enforcement. Since neither DHR nor DFCS has budget appropriations authority, it is unlikely that they would or could impose meaningful caseload/workload standards. Unpredictable conditions could render them vulnerable to violating their own standards because they do not have the power to hire additional staff 'as needed.' Such situations present liability considerations for the State as well as individual workers.⁸² Legislation which both sets caseload/workload maximums, possibly through reference to CWLA criteria, and provides for staffing increases when these numbers exceed mandated levels by a set amount (i.e. 10%) for a given period of time (i.e. six months) is essential to Georgia's efforts to achieve compliance with CWLA standards. This type of legislation has been introduced in New Jersey (Bill A-2104) and similar legislation has been enacted in Delaware, Indiana, and the State of Washington.⁸³

Use of Law Enforcement for CPS Investigations⁸⁴

A pilot program in Florida utilizes law enforcement officers to investigate child abuse and neglect complaints, a task that usually is handled by social workers and health officials in most states. Four counties in Florida are experimenting with the concept of having police investigate child abuse, but many are worried about the police involvement, claiming that this could set a dangerous precedent.

In Manatee County, police are much more involved in child abuse and neglect cases than they are in other parts of the state. Police with arrest powers are sending a strong message about the state's attitude towards abuse: it won't be condoned. This change came about because the old system had too many problems. It would be days before caseworker could get in touch with the family, plus social workers are not qualified to declare if a crime has occurred, because they can't investigate crime scenes.

Manatee County is having the police investigate all child cases, but this may complicate child welfare services. CPS workers co-investigate cases of abuse and neglect with police. During these calls, the officers are wearing guns and although they try to be welcoming, the children still seem scared. Police say their presence might discourage parents from hurting their child. The car with sirens and other things stand out and remind people of the power of the law and that laws need to be followed.

This fundamental change in investigative tactics has meant a change in attitude for the police. The chief compares it to the change of attitude needed years ago in domestic violence cases. For domestic cases, it took a few years after the passage of domestic violence legislation for old timers, especially, to understand particular issues special to women. Some top child welfare advocates are skeptical -- they think this practice is equivalent to "turning the system upside down; it's an overreaction." The deputy director of the CWLA says a better approach would be to look at the current system and build it up. Three-fourths of all abuse complaints never end up in child welfare services so police don't need to be involved in all those investigations. Law enforcement has a different focus from DFCS. Allowing police to investigate will result in a more law enforcement/prosecution mentality instead of a social services mentality meaning that more children will be taken out of their homes. An example is one woman who repeatedly left her children alone. An increased social services budget might help her to find ways to be a better parent, instead of using police to intervene.

Anecdotally, the system seems to be working. Police have become more sensitive to children's issues. At first they didn't necessarily equate a filthy home at a crime scene with a problem for the children present; now they see those issues and report them.

The new system has not done anything to reduce caseloads, which have increased, in part because of high profile case in late 1998 of Kayla McKean. This case changed the ways that teachers, social workers, and other professionals respond to cases. One caseworker said "Nine, ten cases a person per week, as soon as you make sure one child is safe, you have another case to do. You can never do enough." This results in high turnover. CWLA says that we are facing a workforce crisis in child welfare services in US" and if there is more money in the system, the legislature should use the money to make DFCS 100% responsive to cases, not to involve police.

Richard Gellis of the Children's Research and Policy Practice with the University of Pennsylvania says that reforms over the years have always meant growing the system. More resources haven't helped reduce or improve the problem, so advocates must think outside the box. Police involvement is out of the box thinking. Gellis is heading a three-year study for the U.S. Department of Justice to assess the effectiveness of Florida's program and to see if the new program helps increase worker satisfaction at all.

Consent Decrees

In many states, child welfare systems have been improved through consent decrees arising from class action lawsuits on behalf of children. This can be an expensive and lengthy process. In Georgia, a consent decree would read much like the recommendations of the studies summarized above in this paper; the state already knows what needs to change to protect children. A quick review of the facts of some of the most recent lawsuits on behalf of children clearly shows that Georgia's situation is frighteningly similar to those of states whose child welfare systems are now in federal receivership.

• Angela R. v. Clinton, 999 F.2d 320 (8th Cir. 1993).

  • The complaint discussed abuse and neglect investigations and child protective services, placement prevention and family reunification services, out-of-home placement, health care for foster children, caseloads and staff training, case planning, case review, and quality assurance. The original consent decree addressed qualifications, caseloads, and training. This consent decree was later modified.

• Aristotle P. v. McDonald, 721 F.Supp. 1002 (N.D. Ill. 1988).

  • This class action suit was brought on behalf of children who are or in the future will be in the custody of DFCS in Illinois. The class alleged that DFCS regularly placed siblings in different placements without arranging or permitting visits between the siblings. The consent decree addressed the training of caseworkers.

• B.M. v. Richardson, No. IP 89 1054C (S.D. Ind. filed Oct. 1989).

  • Suit was filed alleging that welfare workers in Marion County, Indiana are unable to provide minimal services to prevent unnecessary separation of children from families, to assure the safety of children in foster homes, and to meet with parents and children to formulate a service plan. Caseloads of DFCS workers were an issue in the case.

• Charlie and Nadine H. v. Whitman, No. 99-3468 (GEB) (N.J. filed Aug. 4, 1999).

  • The class action was filed on behalf of all children affected by the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services. Caseloads, training, and qualifications of child protective workers are an issue in the case.

• David C. v. Leavitt, No. 93-C-206W (D.Ut. filed Feb. 25, 1993).

  • The Complaint addressed abuse and neglect investigations and child protective services, quality and safety of out-of-home placements, health care and mental health care for foster children, caseloads and staff training, case planning, case review, and permanency planning. A settlement was entered into and the legislature increased the state child welfare agency's budget by almost $15 million to pay for reforms mandated by new legislation and by the first year's requirements in the settlement of this case. Caseloads and training for DFCS workers were an issue in the case.

• Doe v. King, No. 37561 (Mass. Super. Ct., filed Sept. 24, 1979); No. 80-51 (Mass. App. Ct.); No. SJC-2115 (Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct.).

  • Suit was filed on behalf of abused and neglected children to challenge Massachusetts' child protective system. A settlement was entered into and the settlement agreement provided that caseworker workload would decrease, and case workers would receive training.

• Eric L. v. Bird, No. 91-376-M (N.H. 1991).

  • Suit was filed on behalf of all children in foster care challenging the state's failure to properly investigate abuse and neglect reports, provide services to keep families together, provide safe and stable placements for children who cannot live at home, and provide proper care and services, and stable, appropriate placements, to children with disabilities. The settlement agreement provided that child protection staff would receive more training, and that the department would hire another foster care recruitment worker.

• G.L. v. Stangler, 564 F. Supp. 1030 (W.D. Mo. 1983) (consent decree), 731 F.Supp.365 (W.D. Mo. 1990).

  • Suit was filed on behalf of all children placed in Jackson County, Missouri foster homes by DFS. A consent decree was entered into, but DFS violated the consent decree, so the court's order addressed caseload size. The court ordered the state to lobby for a budget increase, and if it failed to get the budget increase, to transfer workers from other counties to ease Kansas City's case load problem.

• Jeanine B. v. Thompson, No. 93-C-0547 (E.D. Wisc., filed June 1, 1993).

  • Suit was filed on behalf of children in the Milwaukee County child welfare system alleging that the children are deprived of timely and appropriate investigations of abuse and neglect, do not receive services that might prevent the need for foster care, do not receive appropriate case planning and services once they enter foster care, are placed in inadequate an unmonitored foster homes (in which they are often abused and neglected), are not provided services that would allow them to return home, and children who cannot return home are not provided with services that would allow them to be adopted. Caseloads are a concern in the case, but as of this writing, nothing had yet been settled.

• Joseph A. v. New Mexico Dep't of Human Services, 575 F.Supp. 346 (D.N.M. 1982) (consent decree).

  • Suit was brought on behalf of children stuck in "foster care limbo" under the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act. The consent decree addressed employee qualifications, social worker training, case planning, and caseload size.

• Juan F. v. O'Neill, 37 F.3d 874 (2d Cir. 1994).

  • Suit was filed challenging the understaffing and underfunding of the Connecticut Department of Children and Youth Services. The consent decree dealt with low pay and understaffing of case workers, but in 1993 the legislature cut funding to the agency. After three children died in 1995, the Plaintiff's attorney and Court Monitor forced the state to hire 200 more social workers.

• L.J. v. Massinga, 838 F.2d 118 (4^th Cir. 1988) aff'd preliminary injunction; cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1080, 109 S. Ct. 816; 699 F.Supp. 508 (D. Md. 1988) (approving consent decree); 778 F. Supp. 253 (D. Md. 1991)(modifying consent decree).

  • A civil rights action was brought on behalf of roughly 2,500 foster children in Baltimore, Maryland alleging misplacement of children, low foster care payments, an insufficient number of homes combined with a lack of recruitment efforts, inadequate health care, failure to train foster parents and case workers, infrequent caseworker monitoring visits, and failure to provide services to children placed with relatives. The September 1988 consent decree set standards for caseloads and provided for caseworker training. In October of 1991, the consent decree was modified to include kinship care. However, in kinship care cases, there is an actual caseload cap, as opposed to a caseload standard.

• LaShawn v. Barry, 762 F.Supp. 959 (D.D.C. 1991), aff'd; 990 F.2d 1319 (D.C. Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 691 (1994).

  • A civil rights action was filed on behalf of children placed in foster care by the District of Columbia's Department of Human Services and children who have been abused and neglected and who are or should be known to the Department by virtue of that abuse. The consent decree dealt with case worker qualifications, training, and caseload standards.

• MacFarland v. Dukakis, 550 F.Supp. 325 (D. Mass. 1982), 719 F.2d 504 (1st Cir. 1983).

  • Suit was filed to address problems of unnecessary removal of children due to lack of services, protracted stays in foster care, frequent moves to different placements, injuries resulting from inadequate supervision, and inappropriate delays in returning children from foster care. Caseloads for DFCS workers were an issue in the case.

• Marisol v. Giuliani, No. 95-Civ-10533 (S.D.N.Y., filed Dec. 13, 1995).

  • Suit was filed charging that New York City failed to care for and protect children in its custody, or those reported to be in danger of abuse and neglect. Training of DFCS workers was an issue in the case.

• R.C. v. Nachman, No. 88-D-1170-N (M.D. Ala. Filed 1988).

  • Suit was filed alleging that Alabama failed to preserve the families of and provide treatment to children with emotional or behavioral disorders. The consent order dealt with the setting of caseload standards.

• Ward v. Kearney, No. 98-71370CIV-MORENO (D.Ct. S.D. Fla., Fort Lauderdale Division, filed Oct. 20, 1998).

  • Children in state's custody allege that they have been subject to serious physical, sexual, and emotional abuse because they have been deliberately placed in overcrowded foster and shelter care facilities. In addition, DFCS has failed to screen or appropriately evaluate the children to insure that they are placed with children who will not pose a threat to them, and DFCS has failed to monitor placements. Finally, plaintiffs argue that caseloads are excessively high and case worker turnover prevents adequate case management.⁸⁵