Performance audit, Department of Economic Security, Division of Children, Youth and Families, Child Protective Services caseloads and training

              A REPORT
TO THE
ARIZONA LEGISLATURE
Debra K. Davenport
Auditor General
Department of
Economic Security
Division of Children, Youth and Families
Child Protective Services—Caseloads and Training
Performance Audit Division
OCTOBER • 2003
REPORT NO. 03 – 09
Performance Audit
The is appointed by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, a bipartisan committee composed of five senators
and five representatives. Her mission is to provide independent and impartial information and specific recommendations to
improve the operations of state and local government entities. To this end, she provides financial audits and accounting servic-es
to the State and political subdivisions, investigates possible misuse of public monies, and conducts performance audits of
school districts, state agencies, and the programs they administer.
The Joint Legislative Audit Committee
Senator Robert Blendu, Chair Representative John Huppenthal, Vice Chair
Senator Gabrielle Giffords Representative Tom Boone
Senator Peter Rios Representative Ken Clark
Senator Thayer Verschoor Representative Ted Downing
Senator Jim Weiers Representative Steve Yarbrough
Senator Ken Bennett (ex-officio) Representative Jake Flake (ex-officio)
Audit Staff
Dot Reinhard, Manager and Contact Person
Catherine Dahlquist, Team leader Rachel Rowland
Mat Carlile Jason Taylor
Anne Hunter
Copies of the Auditor General’s reports are free.
You may request them by contacting us at:
Office of the Auditor General
2910 N. 44th Street, Suite 410 • Phoenix, AZ 85018 • (602) 553-0333
Additionally, many of our reports can be found in electronic format at:
www.auditorgen.state.az.us
2910 NORTH 44th STREET • SUITE 410 • PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85018 • (602) 553-0333 • FAX (602) 553-0051
DEBRA K. DAVENPORT, CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
WILLIAM THOMSON
DEPUTY AUDITOR GENERAL
October 22, 2003
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Janet Napolitano, Governor
Mr. David A. Berns, Director
Department of Economic Security
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Special Performance Audit of the
Department of Economic Security—Division of Children, Youth and Families—Child Protective
Services—Caseloads and Training. This report specifically addresses a legislative request
approved by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee on August 9, 2001, and was conducted under
the authority vested in the Auditor General by Arizona Revised Statutes §41-1279.03. This report is
being distributed to all members of the Legislature since it provides information on Child Protective
Services which is one of the topics of the current legislative special session. I am also transmitting with
this report a copy of the Report Highlights for this audit to provide a quick summary for your
convenience.
As outlined in its response, the Department of Economic Security agrees with all but one of the
findings and for most of the recommendations it plans to either implement them or implement
them in a different manner. The Department states that it disagrees with the finding and does not
plan to implement the recommendations related to improving the accuracy of its case manager
staffing projections.
My staff and I will be pleased to discuss or clarify items in the report.
This report will be released to the public on October 23, 2003.
Sincerely,
Debbie Davenport
Auditor General
Enclosure
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of several
areas related to Child Protective Services (CPS). CPS is a program within the
Department of Economic Security’s Division of Children, Youth and Families
(Division). This performance audit specifically addresses a legislative request
approved by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee on August 9, 2001, and was con-ducted
under the authority vested in the Auditor General by A.R.S. §41-1279.03.
The legislative request asked auditors to assess five issues: 1) the impact of funding
provided to bring CPS caseloads in-line with Child Welfare League of America stan-dards
by comparing average CPS caseloads at June 30, 2001, to average caseloads
at June 30, 2003, by type of worker, office, and district; 2) the amount and type of
training that new case managers received in June 2001 and June 2003; 3) the ade-quacy
of the Department’s supervisory training and oversight; 4) the extent of con-current
case planning; and 5) barriers to permanency. Concurrent case planning is a
permanency planning practice that simultaneously pursues both family reunification
and an alternate plan, such as adoption or legal guardianship, with the intent of mov-ing
the foster child to a permanent placement more quickly.
CPS provides or arranges for a variety of services to achieve safety, well-being, and
permanency for children, youth, and families. These services include receiving
reports about child abuse and neglect through a state-wide, toll-free, 24-hour child
abuse hotline, which anyone who wants to report suspected abuse may use. CPS
also investigates the allegations and assesses the risk of harm to the children
involved in these reports. When an investigation results in a child being removed from
his/her home, CPS places the child in an approved foster care setting, such as with
a relative or in a licensed foster or group home. Within 72 hours of the removal, CPS
must either return the child to his/her home if it is safe to do so, or file a dependency
petition with the Juvenile Court to place the child in temporary state custody. For
cases in which a child has been removed from home and placed in foster care, CPS
usually develops a case plan with a permanency goal of reunification with the fami-ly;
but the goal can also be adoption, independent living, or long-term foster care, as
appropriate. In working with children and their families to achieve the permanency
goal, a case manager provides or arranges for services such as medical, dental, and
behavioral healthcare for the child, and counseling for the child’s family.
Office of the Auditor General
SUMMARY
page i
Several changes needed to accurately project case man-ager
staffing needs (see pages 9 through 21)
The Division’s average CPS case manager caseloads were at or below 12 in both
2001 and 2003. However, the Division’s budget request indicated that excessive
caseloads were hindering CPS case managers’ ability to effectively perform their
jobs, and an additional 34 staff were needed in fiscal year 2002 to bring caseloads
in-line with the Child Welfare League of America’s (CWLA) standards. The request for
the additional staff was funded by the Legislature starting in fiscal year 2002.1 There
are some limitations to making direct comparisons between average caseloads and
the CWLA standards for two reasons. First, the Division uses three CWLA stan-dards—
investigations, ongoing in-home, and ongoing out-of-home—to project its
staffing needs, but these standards do not correspond precisely with how work is
conducted in Arizona. Second, on October 6, 2003, subsequent to the completion of
audit work, CWLA changed its interpretation of its investigative standard from 12
active cases at a point in time to 12 active cases in a month. Despite these limita-tions,
auditors were still able to compute average caseloads before and after the
additional staffing was added, and to compute the caseloads by the different types
of case managers. Auditors found that on June 30, 2001, the Division’s average
caseloads for the majority of CPS staff managing cases was 11 or fewer cases. On
June 30, 2003, the majority of CPS staff managing cases had caseloads of 12 or
fewer cases. However, the average caseloads for CPS case managers working in
investigative units was 15 cases due to a significant increase in cases and several
unfilled CPS case manager positions. Specifically, since June 2001, the Division’s
total overall caseload had increased by 30 percent, and in June 2003, the Division
reported that 37 case manager positions were unfilled. However, auditors identified
23 case managers working in investigative units with between 30 and 82 cases, and
interviewed several of these staff and found that most of the cases had been inves-tigated
and just needed to be closed on the system.
To ensure that it can accurately project its CPS case manager staffing needs, the
Division needs to modify its case management system to allow it to classify cases
according to caseload standards, include in its caseloads only cases that are being
actively worked by case management staff, and include all staff who regularly man-age
cases. Because the Division’s case management system does not allow it to
classify cases according to the three CWLA caseload standard types it uses (i.e.,
investigation, ongoing in-home, and ongoing out-of-home), the Division must esti-mate
some case types, such as ongoing in-home cases. Auditors identified some
errors in the Division’s process for determining the number of cases it has. For exam-ple,
auditors found that 56 percent of the Division’s ongoing in-home cases in June
2003 were being managed by case managers working in investigative units, and
auditors’ research suggests that many of these cases could be investigations that
1 According to Joint Legislative Budget Committee staff, the Division received enough monies to fund these positions for
three-quarters of fiscal year 2002, and this amount has remained the same in subsequent fiscal years.
State of Arizona
page ii
were completed but not closed on the case management system. In addition, audi-tors
found open cases that were assigned to case managers who had long since left
the Division, and cases that were not assigned to any employee. Finally, auditors
found that the Division does not include some staff who regularly manage cases
when determining case manager staffing needs.
Despite average caseloads being 12 or fewer, there are several indications that CPS
case managers are not able to effectively perform their jobs. For example, in the
Division’s most current semi-annual report (March 2003), it was noted that CPS case
managers were able to make the required monthly face-to-face visit with only 68 per-cent
of the children in out-of-home care. Auditors’ interviews with case managers
suggested that case manager turnover could be a contributing factor in some case
managers carrying high caseloads at certain times. As of May 2003, case manager
turnover was 14.6 percent. Therefore, the Division should work to address case man-ager
retention issues. The Division should also evaluate whether it can streamline its
processes and eliminate some case management tasks, and whether support staff
could handle some tasks currently performed by case managers. For example,
some case managers auditors interviewed characterized the amount of paperwork
as excessive and difficult to complete, and suggested that support staff could do
some of these administrative tasks.
The Division should also assess workload factors to help determine how many cases
Arizona case managers should carry because CWLA’s standards are intended to be
guidelines or starting points only, which an agency may need to adjust to reflect its
actual workload. The Division used to regularly conduct formal workload analyses
and adjust caseloads based on workload factors, but indicated that this practice was
discontinued 3 years ago because it lacked the resources to maintain the process.
Therefore, the Division may want to consider assessing workload issues through
other means. For example, workload studies have been conducted in two states
using methods other than formal analyses, such as conducting focus groups,
reviewing policy and procedures, and “shadowing,” or observing, a sample of case
managers.
Training hours have significantly increased, but other
improvements needed (see pages 23 through 28)
The Division’s revised training program for new case managers has increased the
amount and type of training new staff receive, but it is not yet functioning as envi-sioned.
The Division established this new program, known as the Child Welfare
Training Institute, in January 2002 because it felt its existing program did not provide
sufficient training to help develop skills. In addition, division budget documents indi-cate
that case managers were often not able to complete training because they were
Office of the Auditor General
page iii
required to handle cases during training, and that these problems affected its ability
to recruit and retain competent staff. The new training program costs approximately
$1.7 million annually, and allows the Division to maintain 47 trainee positions that
should not have to carry cases during training.1 Further, the Legislature added a foot-note
to the General Appropriation Acts for fiscal years 2002 through 2004 that has
the effect of law and reinforces the Division’s goal of not assigning case responsibil-ities
to new case managers before they complete the training program.
The new training program has enhanced and expanded the topics covered during
the prior program, and it increases classroom training by about 1 week and adds 25
days of structured field exercises, such as observing court hearings as well as
accompanying an experienced case manager on an initial investigation and home
visit. According to the Division, these structured activities are designed to help the
trainee transfer knowledge gained from classroom instruction to the field. However,
auditor interviews with 23 case managers and review of a letter written by 20 trainees
found that the Division should provide more practical classroom training for tasks
such as operating the Division’s computerized case management system, writing
court reports, making referrals for services, and conducting interviews. Further, even
though the Division envisioned the training program as a way to improve retention,
auditors’ analysis of the first nine training classes held between January 2002 and
October 2002 found that 8 percent of the trainees left before they completed training,
and 24 percent of the trainees left within 9 months of completing it. Making the class-room
training more practical may address some of the retention problem; however,
additional efforts may be needed. The Division already asks departing employees to
complete an exit interview, and it should continue to use this instrument to identify the
reasons new case managers leave and develop potential solutions.
Finally, despite the legislative mandate and division goal to not assign trainees case-load
duties before they complete training, the Division has assigned case responsi-bilities
to some trainees. Auditors’ analysis of several training classes found trainees
were being assigned case responsibilities. Because the practice of assigning case-load
responsibilities during training is a violation of current legislative mandate and
runs counter to the Division’s stated goal, the Division should establish a written pol-icy
that prohibits trainees from being assigned as the primary or only case manager
on a case and clarifies that trainees may be assigned case tasks only for training pur-poses.
It should also ensure that all appropriate individuals are informed of this poli-cy,
and monitor trainees’ work assignments.
State of Arizona
page iv
1 According to Joint Legislative Budget Committee staff, the Division received enough monies to fund these training posi-tions
for half of fiscal year 2002, and this amount has remained the same in subsequent fiscal years.
Steps needed to improve case manager supervisory
oversight (see pages 29 through 35)
Although supervisors provide primary case manager oversight, several reviews
showed insufficient supervision. Supervisors provide primary oversight of the
Division’s case managers through various oversight and review processes, such as
providing regular case consultation on investigative and ongoing child abuse cases.
For example, CPS supervisors must review and approve every child removal deci-sion.
However, recent reviews conducted by the Division, as well as by the Council
on Accreditation (COA), found inadequate supervisory oversight. As an example, a
division internal review conducted in December 2002 found supervisors had failed to
fill out the proper case record review guide in 42 to 71 percent of the different types
of cases reviewed. Division policy requires the supervisor to use this guide as a
checklist for ensuring that case managers adhere to multiple laws and policies.
Similarly, the COA found in an onsite review of the Division conducted between
August and November 2002 that supervisory oversight needed improvement, such
as monitoring family progress and providing the appropriate level of case consulta-tion.
The Division should take several steps to improve supervisory oversight. The
Division’s case manager-to-supervisor ratio exceeds recommended Child Welfare
League of America standards in two of the six districts, although more work is need-ed
to determine how to apply these standards in Arizona. The Division could accom-plish
this by conducting focus groups with supervisors state-wide to determine the
current workload issues impacting effective supervision, such as case manager
turnover and experience levels. If additional supervisors are needed, the Division
should also take steps to determine if existing resources could fund any new posi-tions.
Further, the Division should take steps to ensure that adequate supervisory training
is a high priority because of the supervisor’s critical role and because 33 percent of
its supervisory staff is relatively new and inexperienced. However, prior to the
December 2002 implementation of the Division’s Child Welfare Training Institute
revised supervisor training curriculum, it failed to offer initial supervisor training for
more than 16 months. In addition, the Division has no regular training program for
existing supervisors. Other states, such as New Mexico and Tennessee, require
supervisors or managers to complete yearly supervisor-specific continuing education
classes to improve their competencies. For example, Tennessee requires supervisors
to take 40 hours of continuing education with 24 hours of supervisor-specific training.
Examples of course offerings include organizational policies and practices for super-visors,
and interviewing techniques.
Office of the Auditor General
page v
Efforts needed to further improve children’s permanency
outcomes (see pages 37 through 43)
Many children nation-wide and in Arizona remain in foster care for extended periods
of time, despite the high costs of foster care to both children and governments. The
Division established concurrent case planning as one strategy for improving foster
care children’s timely placement to permanent homes. Concurrent case planning is
a permanency planning practice that simultaneously pursues both family reunifica-tion
and an alternate plan, such as adoption or legal guardianship. Studies have
found that concurrent case planning can effectively shorten foster care stays.
Although the Division implemented a concurrent case planning policy in April 2001,
both external and internal CPS reviews since then have determined that concurrent
case planning was not being used, which was one factor hindering the children’s
timely placement.
Although the Division has developed a plan to improve its implementation of con-current
case planning, further efforts are needed for successful implementation.
Specifically, the Division needs to improve its concurrent case planning curriculum
and ensure all appropriate personnel receive the training. Auditors found that there
are no practical exercises on how to use concurrent case planning, and auditors
observed that the instructors for the training class did not discuss the assessment
tool that should be used to help determine whether this approach is appropriate for
a case.
The Division should also continue its efforts to present information on concurrent
case planning to stakeholders such as foster home recruitment agencies, juvenile
court judges, and the State Foster Care Review Board (FCRB). According to the
National Resource Center for Foster Care and Permanency Planning, stakeholder
support is necessary for the successful implementation of concurrent case planning,
and the agency must inform the appropriate stakeholders of philosophical and orga-nizational
changes for concurrent case planning. Thus far, the Division has present-ed
information about concurrent case planning to FCRB and the Committee on
Juvenile Courts.
While the Division needs to improve its implementation of concurrent case planning,
it has taken efforts to increase permanency by applying other best-practice tech-niques,
and it should continue these efforts. For example, auditors found that the
Division has several units designated solely for placing children in permanent homes,
including general adoption units that find permanent homes and help adoptive fam-ilies
obtain services, and three specialized permanency units that focus specifically
on finding homes for special-needs children.
State of Arizona
page vi
Office of the Auditor General
TABLE OF CONTENTS
continued
9
9
15
17
21
23
23
25
27
28
29
29
31
35
Introduction & Background
Finding 1: Several changes needed to accurately
project case manager staffing needs
Most staff average 12 or fewer cases
Better data needed to accurately determine number of case man-agers
needed
Factors that may hinder the effective management of caseloads
should also be addressed
Recommendations
Finding 2: Training hours have significantly increased,
but other improvements needed
New program expands amount and type of training
Concerns remain with new training program
Division not complying with legislative mandate
Recommendations
Finding 3: Steps needed to improve case manager
supervisory oversight
Supervisory oversight lacking
Factors contributing to poor supervisory oversight should
be addressed
Recommendations
page vii
State of Arizona
TABLE OF CONTENTS
continued
page viii
Finding 4: Efforts needed to further improve children’s
permanency outcomes
Lengthy out-of-home care is costly and may be damaging
to children
Division needs to better implement concurrent case planning
Division should continue to apply other strategies that
increase permanency
Recommendations
Appendix
Agency Response
Figures:
1 Number of Offices by District
Fiscal Year 2003
2 Comparison of Supervisor Ratios
As of January 2003
3 Percentage of Children in Foster Care
by Length of Time
As of March 2003
(Unaudited)
37
37
39
41
43
3
31
38
Office of the Auditor General
TABLE OF CONTENTS
concluded
4
14
24
a-iii
a-ix
a-xiii
10
11
13
30
Tables:
1 Arizona Department of Economic Security
Division of Children, Youth, and Families
Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures
Years Ended June 30, 2001, 2002, and 2003
(Unaudited)
2 CPS Average Caseloads by Type of Worker
As of June 30, 2001 and 2003
3 Comparison of Old and New Case Manager Training Programs
4 CPS Average Caseloads by District
As of June 30, 2001 and 2003
5 CPS Average Caseloads by Office
As of June 30, 2001
6 CPS Average Caseloads by Office
As of June 30, 2003
Items:
1 CWLA caseload standards
2 Type of CPS units in Arizona
3 Types of CPS Staff
4 Examples of CPS supervisor responsibilities
page ix
State of Arizona
page x
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of several
areas related to Child Protective Services (CPS). CPS is a program within the
Department of Economic Security’s Division of Children, Youth and Families
(Division). This performance audit specifically addresses a legislative
request approved by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee on August
9, 2001, and was conducted under the authority vested in the Auditor
General by A.R.S. §41-1279.03.
The legislative request asked auditors to assess five issues: 1) the
impact of funding provided to bring CPS caseloads in-line with Child
Welfare League of America standards by comparing average CPS
caseloads at June 30, 2001, to average caseloads at June 30, 2003, by
type of worker, office, and district; 2) the amount and type of training that
new case managers received in June 2001 and June 2003; 3) the ade-quacy
of the Department’s supervisory training and oversight; 4) the
extent of concurrent case planning; and 5) barriers to permanency.
CPS provides child welfare and other services
CPS provides or arranges for a variety of services to achieve safety, well-being, and
permanency for children, youth, and families. These services include:
􀁺􇩒 Receiving child abuse and neglect reports—Children are referred to CPS
through a state-wide, toll-free, 24-hour child abuse hotline, which anyone who
wants to report suspected abuse may use. The hotline is the mechanism
through which all reports of abuse or neglect are received, regardless of who is
making the report. Centralized hotline workers respond to all calls using a
screening process to determine whether the allegations meet the statutory def-inition
of abuse or neglect. According to the Division’s semi-annual Child Welfare
Reporting Requirements report, between October 1, 2002, and March 31, 2003,
the hotline received 17,470 calls that met the statutory definition of abuse or neg-lect.
Of those calls, 14,634 were investigated by CPS; 2,691 were referred to
Office of the Auditor General
INTRODUCTION
& BACKGROUND
page 1
􀁺􇩐 Permanency—Generally, the
placement of a foster child with
a family that has a permanent,
legal commitment to the child’s
well-being. Examples include
reunification with the original
family, adoption, and legal
guardianship.
􀁺􇩃 Concurrent case planning—A
permanency planning practice
that simultaneously pursues
both family reunification and an
alternate plan, such as adoption
or legal guardianship.
Family Builders; and 145 were within the jurisdiction of military or tribal govern-ments
and were referred to those jurisdictions.1
􀁺􇩉 Investigating reports—When CPS determines, based on its screening process,
that a CPS investigation is necessary, a trained CPS case manager assesses
the risk of harm to the child or children involved and evaluates conditions that
support or refute the alleged abuse or neglect. If the child or children are not in
immediate harm of maltreatment but risk factors are present, the case manag-er
may allow the children to stay in the home, but recommend ongoing in-home
services as discussed below. However, if a child is in imminent danger of abuse
or neglect, CPS may temporarily remove the child from his or her home and
place the child in an approved foster care setting, such as with a relative or in a
licensed foster or group home.2 According to the Division’s semi-annual report,
between October 1, 2002 and March 31, 2003, 2,961 children were removed
from their homes.
􀁺􇨠 Ongoing services—If CPS has determined there to be a risk of harm in the
home, CPS may open a case for ongoing in-home or out-of-home services.3 In-home
services include such things as child care, counseling, and parent aid
services. For cases in which a child has been removed from home and placed
in foster care, CPS usually develops a case plan with a permanency goal of
reunification with the family; but the goal can also be such things as adoption,
independent living, or long-term foster care, as appropriate. In working with chil-dren
and their families to achieve the permanency goal, a case manager pro-vides
or arranges for services such as medical, dental, and behavioral health
care for the child, and counseling for the child’s family. Additionally, for children
with a permanency goal of adoption, CPS may file a petition to terminate
parental rights and arrange for the recruitment of adoptive parents and the com-pletion
of home studies on the prospective adoptive homes. As of March 31,
2003, 6,867 children were in foster care and receiving ongoing services.
Organization and staffing
The Division of Children, Youth and Families is part of the Arizona Department of
Economic Security. CPS is a program within the Division and provides child welfare
1 The Family Builders Program is a community-based program designed to provide services to families who are the sub-ject
of selected low-risk and potential-risk reports. According to the Division’s semi-annual report, this program was oper-ating
in Coconino, Greenlee, Maricopa, Navajo, Pima, and Yavapai Counties during the October 1, 2002 through March
31, 2003, reporting period.
2 State law limits the length of time a child may remain in out-of-home care to 72 hours, unless a dependency petition is
filed (A.R.S. §8-822). Prior to filing the petition, a Removal Review Team is required to review the removal and assess
whether other options exist, such as in-home services (A.R.S. §8-822). Parents or guardians may also request a review
of the removal within 72 hours by the Division’s Family Advocacy Office, which assesses the circumstances under which
CPS removed the child (A.R.S. §8-828).
3 Families may voluntarily accept these services or, if necessary, CPS may provide services without family consent by filing
a dependency petition with the Juvenile Court to place the child in temporary state custody.
State of Arizona
page 2
and family preservation services throughout the State. In order to accomplish this,
CPS is organized into 61 offices within 6 regional districts (see Figure 1). Further,
each office may contain various units that manage different types of cases, such as
adoption, investigative, or ongoing cases. The majority of the Division’s employees
fall within the CPS program and provide the services described above. The remain-ing
employees provide administrative and support services for the Division, such as
preparing management and financial reports,
developing policies, and coordinating the
Division’s internal quality control process. In fis-cal
year 2003, the Division had 1,598 positions,
of which 844 were case manager and supervisor
positions.1 As of June 27, 2003, of the 1,214.5
positions in its six districts, 1,148.5 were filled,
including 752 of its case manager and supervi-sor
positions.2
Budget
To provide CPS services, the Division receives
both state and federal funding. As illustrated in
Table 1 (see page 4), in fiscal year 2003, the
Division received an estimated $300.4 million to
operate its programs and provide services to
children and families. These monies consisted
primarily of State General Fund appropriations
($69.5 million), and governmental grants and
contracts ($214.6 million).
Audit scope and methodology
This audit focused on the five areas specified in the legislative request. Specifically,
the request asked auditors to determine the extent to which additional legislative
funding beginning in fiscal year 2002 brought caseloads in-line with standards devel-oped
by the Child Welfare League of America by comparing average CPS caseloads
at June 30, 2001 to average caseloads at June 30, 2003, by type of worker, office,
1 The 844 case manager and supervisor positions consist of CPS unit supervisors and CPS specialists, including 7 CPS
unit supervisors and 42 CPS specialists at the child abuse hotline. This number does not include the 47 CPS specialist
positions dedicated for training, nor does it include human service specialist or CPS program specialist positions,
although some of these positions do manage CPS cases.
2 The Division does not have a specific report on the fiscal year 2003 vacancy rate for its administrative and support func-tions,
such as its financial and business operations administration and Comprehensive Medical and Dental Program.
Therefore, auditors are unable to provide vacancy information on the Division’s remaining 383.5 positions.
Office of the Auditor General
page 3
District IV
7 Offices
District I
17 Offices
District II
8 Offices
District III
10 Offices
District V
9 Offices
District VI
10 Offices
Figure 1: Number of Offices by District
Fiscal Year 2003
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of the Division of Children, Youth and Families’
directory of Child Protective Services Offices.
State of Arizona
page 4
Division of Children, Youth and Families
Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures1
Years Ended June 30, 2001, 2002, and 2003
(Unaudited)
2001 2002 2003
(Actual) (Estimated) (Estimated)
Revenues:
State General Fund appropriations 2 $ 97,997,408 $ 97,299,609 $ 69,489,200
General administrative activities 3 13,609,647 15,719,696 13,569,200
Government grants and contracts:
Federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 57,529,125 72,088,208 91,210,500
Title IV-E 67,267,522 59,351,210 62,257,600
Social Services Block Grant 14,112,463 19,421,012 21,089,000
AHCCCS capitation 4 9,538,381 10,754,014 14,334,500
Title IV-B Part 1 & 2 10,394,492 11,892,146 12,707,600
Other 3,052,362 9,249,109 13,040,200
Miscellaneous 5 1,865,808 2,342,511 2,674,400
Total revenues $ 275,367,208 $298,117,515 $300,372,200
Expenditures:
Personal services and employee-related $ 61,617,425 $ 65,112,301 $ 69,301,700
Professional and outside services 3,172,694 2,788,712 2,653,800
Travel 2,743,171 3,097,727 2,734,600
Assistance to individuals and other governments 176,857,375 195,548,536 199,616,200
Equipment 1,338,347 791,112 209,000
Other 5,305,163 5,282,855 4,598,100
Support services costs 24,333,033 25,496,272 21,258,800
Total expenditures $ 275,367,208 $298,117,515 $300,372,200
1 This schedule is presented on a budgetary basis, in which expenditures are reported in the budget year incurred.
2 Amounts presented are net of reversions to the State General Fund of $190,370 for 2001, and estimated reversions of $29,391 for
2002.
3 The Department allocates support service costs to its various divisions. A portion of the Division’s allocated support service costs
were funded by the Department’s Administration Division. Those amounts are reported as general administrative activities revenues
in this schedule.
4 Consists of monthly premium payments from the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) for providing health-care
services to eligible foster care children.
5 Consists primarily of Social Security and Veteran’s Assistance monies collected on behalf of clients; contributions through state
income tax designations; surcharges on marriage licenses, divorce filings; donations; and a percentage of court-ordered
assessments collected.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of financial information provided by the Arizona Department of Economic Security for the years
ended June 30, 2001, 2002, and 2003, from its Financial Management Control System as of September 15, 2003. The
amounts for 2002 and 2003 include estimates, as further administrative adjustments are anticipated for those years.
Table 1: Arizona Department of Economic Security
Division of Children, Youth, and Families
Schedule of Revenues and Expenditures
Years Ended June 30, 2001, 2002, and 2003
(Unaudited)
and district. The request also asked auditors to compare the Division’s revised train-ing
program for new case managers to the previous program and to review the ade-quacy
of supervisor training and oversight, and the extent to which concurrent case
planning occurs, and to identify barriers that impede permanent placements. This
report includes the following four findings and associated recommendations:
􀁺􇨠 The Division should take steps to ensure it accurately projects case manager
staffing needs including modifying its case management system so that cases
can be classified according to standards and closing out completed cases, and
should also address factors that may be hindering case managers’ ability to
effectively manage their cases, including streamlining its processes and improv-ing
case manager retention.
􀁺􇩔 The Division has increased the amount and type of training new case managers
receive, but should take several steps to further improve its training, including
developing strategies for enhancing retention, and ensuring trainees are not
being assigned primary caseload responsibilities.
􀁺􇩔 The Division should take steps to improve supervisory oversight by establishing
a supervisor-to-staff ratio that is appropriate for CPS, filling vacant supervisor
positions, and ensuring that training its supervisors is a high priority.
􀁺􇨠 The Division should continue its efforts to eliminate barriers to permanency by
more effectively implementing concurrent case planning.
Auditors used a variety of methods to study the areas addressed by the legislative
request. General methods used for all areas included interviews with division per-sonnel,
including interviews with over 100 case managers and supervisors, and offi-cials
at public and private child welfare organizations, literature reviews, and reviews
of division policies and procedures. Additionally, to the extent possible, auditors used
information from other recent division reviews performed internally by the Division
and by other organizations, such as the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services.
The following specific methods were used in reviewing each area specified in the leg-islative
request:
􀁺􇩃 CPS caseloads—To establish baseline measures for average caseloads as of
June 30, 2001, and to compare that information to caseload information as of
June 30, 2003, auditors analyzed the Division’s electronic data downloaded
from the Division. Auditors also obtained the Child Welfare League of America’s
caseload standards and conducted interviews with officials from the organiza-tion
to learn more about their standards. In addition, because the Division did
not have a comprehensive listing of all CPS units in the State, auditors compiled
a list of CPS units and their functions to ensure that all appropriate case man-
Office of the Auditor General
page 5
agers and cases were included in the analyses. Auditors also obtained and ana-lyzed
information on the Division’s method of reporting caseloads and calculat-ing
staffing needs, and analyzed CPS case manager vacancy information to
determine the number of vacant positions. In addition, auditors interviewed 24
CPS supervisors and case managers about the size of their caseloads, and 23
additional case managers about the barriers to effectively managing their case-loads.
Throughout the process of analyzing the Division’s caseload data, auditors
shared their methodology with the Division, such as the type of workers as well
as the specific units (or offices) that would be included in the analysis. After
auditors completed their work, the Division indicated that auditors should
include additional cases in their analysis. Auditors conducted some additional
research on these cases and determined that they should not be included in the
analysis for several reasons. For example, many of the cases had a case sta-tus
of “pending closed” on or before June 30, 2003, the date on which auditors’
analysis of average caseloads was done. Pending closed means that the case
manager’s work on the case has been completed and the case is awaiting final
supervisory review so it can be closed on the system. In addition, many other
cases were assigned to units that do not provide CPS case management serv-ices,
such as a data processing unit in District II responsible for entering case
notes for contracted adoption case managers. Finally, other cases were ones
that the Division itself had identified as “stale,” meaning there were no case
notes or service authorizations for more than 60 days, suggesting the cases
had been completed but not closed on the system.
􀁺􇩃 Case manager training and retention—To compare the old CPS case manager
training to the new training program that was implemented in January 2002,
auditors observed several training classes, conducted a review of the case man-ager
training curriculum, attended four Training Advisory Council meetings, and
reviewed evaluations of the training program. In addition, auditors analyzed
training and caseload data to determine if, during the training program, the
trainees were assigned case management responsibilities. Auditors also inter-viewed
23 case managers who completed the new training program and
reviewed a letter written by 20 trainees in November 2002 that identified various
concerns with the training program. Finally, auditors reviewed a report on the
Division’s training program prepared by Strategic Partners in 1998, and
reviewed staff exit interview surveys completed between January 2002 and July
2003.1
1 According to a Division budget document, Strategic Partners is a consulting firm experienced in child welfare training.
State of Arizona
page 6
􀁺􇩓 Supervisor training and oversight—To determine the effectiveness of supervisor
training for ensuring compliance with laws and policies and assessing the ade-quacy
of supervisory oversight of case managers, auditors conducted a review
of the Division’s supervisory training program, analyzed unit supervisors’ train-ing
feedback forms, and interviewed 13 unit supervisors throughout the State on
their perceptions of the usefulness of training and factors impacting their ability
to effectively supervise staff. Auditors also examined internal and external
reviews of the Division, which addressed supervisory oversight, and analyzed
personnel data from the Department of Administration to determine the experi-ence
level of supervisors and ratio of authorized supervisor positions to author-ized
case manager positions. Further, auditors examined case manager exit
surveys that were completed between January 2002 and April 2003 to determine
if supervisory oversight was a factor in case managers’ decisions to leave their
current CPS positions. Finally, auditors contacted child welfare agency adminis-trators
in seven states to determine their practices for effectively training new and
existing supervisors on laws and policies.1
􀁺􇩃 Concurrent case planning and barriers to permanency—In determining the
extent to which concurrent case planning occurs and to identify barriers the
Division experiences in achieving timely permanency for children in its custody,
auditors evaluated the implementation and effectiveness of corrective actions
the Division identified to improve permanency and concurrent case planning. In
addition, auditors interviewed personnel from agencies that contract with the
State to find adoptive families and an Arizona Superior Court justice to gain an
understanding of the barriers to permanency and some of the steps the Division
had taken to alleviate those barriers. Auditors also observed a case manager
training class and reviewed the case manager training curriculum to determine
the adequacy of concurrent case planning training, and conducted several inter-views
with and reviewed documents provided by an official from Lutheran
Community Services Northwest, the organization that was instrumental in devel-oping
the model for most concurrent case planning programs around the coun-try.
This audit was conducted in accordance with government auditing standards.
The Auditor General and staff express appreciation to the director and staff of the
Department of Economic Security for their cooperation and assistance throughout
the audit.
1 Auditors contacted child welfare agencies in California, Colorado, Illinois, New Mexico, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah.
States were selected either because of their close proximity to Arizona or because they were identified as best-practice
states by the Child Welfare League of America.
Office of the Auditor General
page 7
State of Arizona
page 8
Several changes needed to accurately project
case manager staffing needs
The Division was provided additional case management staff starting in fiscal year
2002 to bring its caseloads in-line with the Child Welfare League of America’s (CWLA)
caseload standards. Although there are some limitations to making direct compar-isons
between average caseloads and the CWLA standards, auditors were able to
compute average caseloads before and after the additional staffing was added.
Auditors determined that the average caseloads for the majority of CPS staff who
were managing cases were at or below 12 cases in both 2001 and 2003. To ensure
the Division accurately projects its case manager staffing needs, the Division should
address several factors, including modifying its case management system so that
staff can classify cases according to standards, and closing cases on the system
that are open but have been completed. In addition, the Division should evaluate
whether it can improve case manager retention and streamline its processes, and
should assess workload factors to help determine whether CWLA’s caseload stan-dards
are appropriate for Arizona.
Most staff average 12 or fewer cases
The Division’s average CPS case manager caseloads for most staff were at or below
12 in both 2001 and 2003. However, the Division’s budget request indicated that
excessive caseloads were hindering CPS case managers’ ability to effectively per-form
their jobs, and an additional 34 staff were needed starting in fiscal year 2002 to
bring caseloads in-line with CWLA standards. The request for the additional staff was
funded by the Legislature starting in fiscal year 2002.1 Although there are some limi-tations
to making direct comparisons between average caseloads and the stan-dards,
auditors were able to compute average caseloads before and after the
additional staffing was added, and to compute the caseloads by the different types
of case managers. Auditors determined that the average caseloads for most staff
managing cases were 11 or fewer cases on June 30, 2001. On June 30, 2003, audi-
1 According to Joint Legislative Budget Committee staff, the Division received enough monies to fund these positions for
three-quarters of fiscal year 2002, and this amount has remained the same in subsequent fiscal years.
Office of the Auditor General
page 9
FINDING 1
tors determined that the majority of CPS staff managing cases still had caseloads at
or below 12 cases. However, case managers working in investigative units managed
an average of 15 cases because of a 30 percent increase in the Division’s overall
caseload and 37 unfilled case manager positions.
Division requested and received additional FTE—Because the Division
was concerned that excessive caseloads were hindering CPS case managers’ abili-ty
to perform their job as required, thus putting children at risk, it requested and
received additional staff from the Legislature to bring its caseloads in-line with CWLA
standards (see Item 1).1 The Division noted in its request that case managers were
able to make the required monthly, face-to-face visits with only 54 percent of the out-of-
home care (that is, foster care) children, and were not always able to meet with in-home
clients (that is, families where the children have not been removed from their
homes, but the family is receiving services to help prevent abuse and neglect). In
addition, the Division’s request indicated that high caseloads were resulting in a
higher-than-normal case manager turnover rate, 21 percent in fiscal year 2000.
Therefore, the Division’s budget decision package indicated that 34 additional case
management full-time equivalent positions (FTE) starting in fiscal year 2002, at a cost
of approximately $1.5 million annually, would be needed to bring it in-line with CWLA
standards.2 The request for the additional FTE was funded by the Legislature start-ing
in fiscal year 2002.3
Average caseloads not directly comparable to
standards—Although auditors were able to analyze the
impact of the additional FTE on caseloads, the average case-loads
computed by auditors are not directly comparable to
CWLA standards for two reasons. First, auditors had to devel-op
comparable caseload standards for case managers work-ing
in the Division’s ongoing and mixed units (see Item 2,
page 11) because the CWLA caseload standards the Division
uses to request CPS staff do not correspond precisely with
how work is conducted in Arizona, and the standards are both
child-based and case-based. For example, CWLA provides
one standard for ongoing in-home cases and a separate
standard for ongoing out-of-home cases (i.e., family foster
care), but the in-home standard is case-based and the out-of-home
standard is child-based.4 Further, in Arizona, CPS case
managers simultaneously handle both types of ongoing
1 CWLA is the oldest and largest national nonprofit organization developing and promoting policies and programs to pro-tect
America’s children and strengthen its families.
2 The $1.5 million annual cost for the 34 additional case management positions does not include travel or equipment
expenses.
3 According to Joint Legislative Budget Committee staff, the Division received enough monies to fund these positions for
three-quarters of fiscal year 2002 and this amount has remained the same in subsequent fiscal years.
4 The case-based in-home standard means that a case manager’s caseload is based on the number of cases assigned
to the case manager and does not consider whether each case includes only one or multiple children. The child-based
out-of-home standard means that a case manager’s caseload is based on the number of children in out-of-home place-ments
who are assigned to the case manager, not the number of cases.
State of Arizona
page 10
Item 1: CWLA caseload standards
􀁺􇩉 Investigation caseload—12 active cases, per month1
􀁺􇩏 Ongoing in-home caseload—17 active cases
􀁺􇩆 Family foster care caseload (i.e., ongoing out-of-home
care)—12 to 15 children
1 In October 2003, CWLA revised its interpretation of the investi-gation
standard that was provided to auditors in August 2002
(see text at right for explanation of the revised interpretation).
Sources: Child Welfare League of America. Recommended Caseload/Workload
Standards excerpted from CWLA Standards of Excellence for Child
Welfare Practice. Washington, D.C. May 2003.
Office of the Auditor General
page 11
Item 2: Types of CPS units in Arizona
􀁺􇩉 Investigative—Case managers in these units respond to reports of child abuse and neglect,
including investigating allegations and assessing the need for intervention.
􀁺􇩏 Ongoing—Case managers in these units manage ongoing in-home and out-of-home cases,
including developing case plans, assessing the needs of children, parents, and caregivers,
identifying placements for children such as foster and adoptive homes, and monitoring service
provision.
􀁺􇩍 Mixed—Case managers in these units perform both investigative and ongoing functions.
:
􀁺􇩁 Administrative—These units encompass several units that administrative managers oversee.
However, some staff in administrative positions will sometimes have cases assigned to them,
for example, a high-profile case (i.e., one that is receiving widespread media attention).
􀁺􇩁 After-hours investigation team—These units, located only in District I and II (Maricopa and
Pima Counties), are responsible for providing investigative services after normal working hours
and on weekends. Case managers in these units only handle cases for a short time before
transferring them to regular investigative units.
􀁺􇩄 Dually adjudicated youth—These units, located only in District 1 (Maricopa County), handle
ongoing cases where at least one child in the case is under the jurisdiction of both CPS and a
Juvenile Probation Office.
􀁺􇩆 Family preservation—This unit, located in District I (Maricopa County), handles only ongoing
in-home cases. Case managers in this unit arrange for intensive, time-limited services for at-risk
families, use contracted service providers to conduct home visits, and assess families’
progress.
􀁺􇩙 Young adult program—These units, located only in District I and II (Maricopa and Pima coun-ties),
manage ongoing cases involving foster children who are 16 years of age or older working
toward living independently.
Source: Interviews with division personnel and review of division policy.
cases. In addition, some CPS case managers work in mixed units and handle both
investigation and ongoing cases. Therefore, to determine whether CPS case man-agers’
average caseloads were in-line with CWLA standards, auditors had to devel-op
comparable standards. To do so, auditors used information provided by the
Division on the proportion of in-home versus out-of-home cases and the average
number of children per each type of case, and determined that 12 cases per case
manager would be a comparable standard for those case managers who manage
both in-home and out-of-home cases. In addition, since the CWLA standard for
investigation cases at the time auditors’ analysis was being conducted was also 12
cases, auditors reasoned that a comparable standard for CPS case managers work-ing
in mixed units would also be 12 cases.
Second, subsequent to the completion of audit work, CWLA changed its interpreta-tion
of one of the standards used by the Division—the investigation caseload stan-dard—
thus preventing a direct comparison of the average caseload for staff
managing cases in investigative units (see Item 2, page 11) with the new interpreta-tion
of the CWLA investigative caseload standard. In August 2002, auditors contact-ed
CWLA to obtain clarification on how to interpret the CWLA investigative standard
and were told it should be interpreted as no more than 12 active cases at any point
in time. However, on October 6, 2003, after auditors’ work was completed, CWLA
provided auditors with a revised interpretation of the investigative caseload standard,
which now indicates that an investigative case manager should be assigned no more
than 12 active cases within a month. Had this standard not changed, the average
caseloads presented by auditors for staff managing cases in investigative units
would have provided a good indication of whether caseloads were in-line with
CWLA’s investigative standard.
Average caseloads 11 or fewer on June 30, 2001—Auditors found that on
June 30, 2001, the average caseloads for the vast majority of CPS staff managing
cases was 11 or fewer cases (see Table 2, page 14). Specifically, the overall average
caseload for CPS’ primary case management staff, CPS specialists (see Item 3,
page 13), in its typical case carrying units was 10 cases. In addition, although the
Division only considers CPS specialists as legitimate case management staff, other
staff—human service specialists and CPS program specialists—regularly manage
cases as provided for in their job specifications. Auditors determined that the overall
average caseload for these staff was six cases. Some CPS supervisors, whose func-tion
is to supervise staff managing cases and whose job description does not pro-vide
for managing cases, also had some cases assigned to them.1 Auditors
determined that the overall average caseload for those CPS supervisors managing
cases at June 30, 2001 was about four cases. Further, because the total number of
cases supervisors are managing is small, if these cases were included in the cases
managed by CPS specialists in the Division’s typical units, the average caseload for
CPS specialists would increase by only about a half of a case, from 10.1 to 10.6
cases. As shown in Table 2 (see page 14), the only staff who had caseloads above
12 in 2001 were CPS specialists working in the Division’s Family Preservation and
Young Adult Program specialty units (see Item 2, page 11). However, auditors’ inter-views
with supervisors in these units found that higher caseloads are appropriate
because some of the case management responsibilities are different than those in
the typical CPS units. For example, case managers may have fewer responsibilities
associated with their cases or fewer children per case.
1 Auditors’ interviews with supervisors found that on occasion the supervisor will be required to actively work cases
because of staff absences, such as medical leave, or turnover. To distinguish between case assignments actively being
worked by a supervisor and those on which the supervisor is temporarily assigned, auditors included in their case count
all cases that are assigned to a supervisor for at least 7 days as part of the supervisor’s caseload.
State of Arizona
page 12
Office of the Auditor General
page 13
Item 3: Types of CPS Staff
􀁺􇩃 CPS specialist—The Division considers the CPS specialist position to be its primary case
management position, and as shown in Table 2 (see page 14), these staff manage the majority
of CPS’ cases. The minimum level qualification for the entry-level specialist position is a mas-ter’s
degree in social work; or a bachelor’s degree in social work or a master’s degree in a
related field and one year of social service experience; or a bachelor’s degree and 2 years of
social service experience; or 2 years of experience as a human service specialist l in Child
Protective Services.
􀁺􇩈 Human service specialist—Although the Division does not consider these staff to be case
managers, experienced staff may manage cases as allowed in their job specifications.The mini-mum
qualification for a level ll (experienced) human service specialist is 2 years of experience
equivalent to a level l human service specialist, or a bachelor’s degree in social work or a relat-ed
field and 1 year of the required work experience, or a master’s degree in social work or a
related field.
􀁺􇩃 CPS program specialist—The Division also does not consider the program specialist position
to be a case management staff position. However, these staff do handle cases under certain
circumstances, such as managing high-profile or conflict-of-interest cases. These staff also
provide case consultation and staff training, and may supervise staff, including case managers,
as needed. The minimum qualification for this position is 2 years of experience as a CPS spe-cialist
lll; or a master’s degree in social work and 4 years of child protective service experience;
or a bachelor’s degree in social work and 5 years of child protective service experience.
􀁺􇩃 CPS unit supervisor—The Division does not consider this position to be a case management
position, which is consistent with the supervisor’s job description. Supervisors typically over-see
three to seven case managers and are the primary means for ensuring case managers’
compliance with laws and policies (see Finding 3, pages 29 through 35). The minimum quali-fications
for this position is 2 years experience as a CPS specialist lll; or a master’s degree in
social work and 4 years of child protective service experience; or bachelor’s degree in social
work and 5 years of child protective service experience.
Source: Division position specifications obtained from the Arizona Department of Administration.
Further, analyses of the caseloads by district and office also found that with only
some exceptions, on June 30, 2001, the average caseloads fell at or below 12 cases.
For example, by district, the overall average caseloads for CPS specialists working
in the typical units ranged from 7 cases in Districts V and VI to 16 cases in District III.
However, auditors determined that the high average caseload in District III was due,
in part, to several workers who had high caseloads because they had not closed
their completed cases on the Division’s computerized case management system.
See Tables 4 and 5 in the Appendix (pages a-iii through a-xii) for a more detailed
breakout of the caseloads by district and office on June 30, 2001.
State of Arizona
page 14
2001 2003
Type of Worker Workers Cases
Average
Caseload Workers Cases
Average
Caseload
CPS Specialist
Typical Units
Investigative 178 1,670 9.4 204 3,141 15.4
Ongoing 244 2,535 10.4 267 2,837 10.6
Mixed 77 817 10.6 79 956 12.1
Specialty Units
Administrative 2 5 2.5 2 9 4.5
After-hours investigation team 14 67 4.8 16 72 4.5
Dually adjudicated 13 150 11.5 12 161 13.4
Family preservation 6 153 25.5 6 151 25.2
Young adult program 40 618 15.5 38 641 16.9
Total for CPS Specialist 574 6,015 624 7,968
Human Service Specialist
Typical Units
Investigative 2 3 1.5 2 33 16.5
Ongoing 16 88 5.5 13 126 9.7
Mixed 15 102 6.8 13 118 9.1
Specialty Units
Administrative 1 1 1.0
Total for Human Services Specialist 33 193 29 278
CPS Program Specialist
Typical Units
Investigative 4 22 5.5 5 54 10.8
Ongoing 1 11 11.0 3 16 5.3
Mixed 4 28 7.0 4 43 10.8
Specialty Units
Administrative 7 34 4.9 7 16 2.3
Total for CPS Program Specialist 16 95 19 129
CPS Supervisor
Typical Units
Investigative 26 75 2.9 12 41 3.4
Ongoing 27 109 4.0 19 60 3.2
Mixed 11 55 5.0 6 51 8.5
Specialty Units
Administrative 2 14 7.0 3 3 1.0
After-hours investigation team 1 2 2.0 2 2 1.0
Dually adjudicated 2 3 1.5
Family preservation 1 27 27.0
Young adult program 1 3 3.0
Total for CPS Supervisor 69 258 44 187
Total by type of worker 692 6,561 716 8,562
Table 2: CPS Average Caseloads by Type of Worker
As of June 30, 2001 and 2003
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of automated case and employee data for June 30, 2001 and June 30, 2003 provided by the Division of
Children, Youth and Families
Average caseloads at or below 12 on June 30, 2003—On June 30, 2003,
the majority of CPS staff managing cases still had caseloads at or below 12.
However, since 2001, the Division’s total overall caseload increased by 30 percent,
from 6,561 cases to 8,562 cases. The increase in cases occurred in all districts; how-ever,
auditors’ analysis shows that it primarily occurred in the investigations area, with
the number of investigative cases nearly doubling since June 2001 (see Table 2,
page 14). As a result, on June 30, 2003, CPS specialists working in investigative units
managed an average of 15 cases. However, auditors’ analysis also identified 23 CPS
specialists in investigative units with caseloads ranging from 30 to 82. Auditors inter-viewed
many of these staff and found that many of their investigative cases were
completed but just not closed on the Division’s computerized case management
system. However, to be conservative, auditors left all 1,090 cases assigned to these
staff in the analysis. Further, auditors determined that even with these completed
investigative cases included, if all the vacant CPS specialists positions were filled, the
overall average caseload for CPS specialists would be 12 cases. As of June 27,
2003, the Division reported that 37 of its CPS specialist positions were vacant. Thus,
all 34 of the new positions CPS received starting in fiscal year 2002 were vacant, as
well as 3 additional positions.
On June 30, 2003, the overall average caseloads for human service specialists, CPS
program specialists, CPS supervisors, and CPS specialists working in the Division’s
specialty units were similar to what was reported in 2001 (see Table 2, page 14).
However, there were 25 fewer supervisors managing caseloads, so the Division is
moving closer to its goal of not having supervisors manage cases. See Tables 4 and
6 in the Appendix (pages a-iii through viii and a-xiii through a-xvi) for a more detailed
breakout of the caseloads by district and office at June 30, 2003.
Better data needed to accurately determine number of
case managers needed
The Division should address several factors to ensure that it can accurately project
its staffing needs. First, the Division’s case management system does not allow staff
to categorize cases based on the CWLA standards used by the Division. In addition,
the Division has cases on its case management system that appear to be complet-ed
but have not been closed out, such as cases assigned to staff who are no longer
with the Division. Finally, when determining the number of staff needed, the Division
should include all staff who regularly manage cases.
Case management system does not capture necessary data—The
Division’s computerized case management system does not allow staff to classify
cases according to the three CWLA caseload standard types used by the Division
(i.e., investigation, ongoing in-home, and ongoing out-of-home). Because this infor-mation
is not available, the Division cannot reliably project its entire staffing needs.
Office of the Auditor General
page 15
Caseloads grew by
30 percent from
June 2001 to 2003.
The Division can determine the number of investigations that have been assigned
during the month or year, but it must estimate both types of its ongoing caseloads.
Auditors identified several problems with the Division’s process for determining its
ongoing caseloads, such as including some investigation cases in its ongoing case
counts. For example, the Division includes in the ongoing in-home case count any
case that has been open more than 30 days without a child in an out-of-home place-ment.
However, auditors found that 56 percent of the ongoing in-home cases in June
2003 were being managed by case managers working in investigative units. This
suggests that many of these cases may be investigations that were completed but
not closed on the case management system. To ensure it can accurately determine
its CPS case manager staffing needs according to CWLA standards, the Division
should modify its case management system to classify cases according to the three
CWLA standards it uses and ensure staff are required to use these classifications.
Include only cases that are being actively worked—The Division has
cases on its case management system that are not being worked. Auditors found
open cases that were assigned to workers who had long since left the Division; cases
that were not assigned to any employee; and workers with high investigative case-loads,
many of which were cases that were completed but not closed on the com-puterized
case management system (see page 15). For example, auditors identified
an in-home ongoing case that continues to remain open, but has not had any doc-umented
case activity since November 1997. In addition, the only case manager
assigned to the case left CPS employment in January 1999. The Division should take
steps to ensure that it includes only cases that are actively being worked by active
employees. To do so, the Division should consider establishing additional policies as
necessary for closing out or transferring cases in a timely manner. For example,
although statute and division policy require case managers to document whether the
alleged abuse or neglect report should be proposed for substantiation within 21
days, it does not have a policy that establishes the time frame in which an investiga-tion
should be closed. The Division should also use computer-generated exception
reports to identify and correct issues such as cases assigned to employees who no
longer work for the Division, employees with high caseloads, and cases that are not
assigned to any employee.
Count all staff positions managing cases—When determining the number
of staff needed, the Division does not include all staff who regularly manage cases.
Specifically, the Division considers only the job classification of CPS specialist as its
case management position. The majority of staff managing cases are hired under
this classification. However, as mentioned in Item 3 on page 13, the Division does not
consider the job classification of human service specialist as a case management
position, even though experienced staff in these positions regularly manage cases.
For example, in both 2001 and 2003, auditors’ analysis identified staff in this job clas-sification
who were managing cases.1 According to the Division’s job specifications,
the human service specialist classification provides a means for workers without a
bachelor’s degree to work toward a case management-designated position. This
State of Arizona
page 16
1 The Division maintains 16 FTE for contracted case managers for Districts III and VI. It does count these contracted posi-tions
as case-carrying staff when projecting staffing needs, but does not count other human service specialist staff who
regularly manage cases.
classification is also used for Arizona State University Master’s of Social Work stu-dents
who intern for the Division. According to division personnel, the interns do
mostly shadowing activities their first semester; however, they manage CPS cases
their second semester. The Division also does not consider the CPS program spe-cialist
classification to be a case management position. Auditors also identified staff
in this job classification in 2001 and 2003 who were managing cases. Staff in these
positions do manage cases under certain circumstances (see Item 3, page 13) such
as managing high-profile and conflict-of-interest cases, or taking on a caseload when
a unit is short-staffed. When determining staffing needs, the Division should include
all positions that regularly manage cases, and provide justification for excluding any
positions whose job description allows them to manage cases.
Factors that may hinder the effective management of
caseloads should also be addressed
Despite caseloads being near 12 cases for most staff, there are several indications
that CPS case managers are not able to effectively perform their jobs. Therefore, the
Division should improve case manager retention and evaluate whether it can stream-line
its case management processes. The Division should also assess workload fac-tors
to help determine how many cases Arizona case managers should carry
because the CWLA standards are meant to be guidelines and not formulas for deter-mining
staffing needs.
Division not effectively managing caseloads—There are several indications
that CPS case managers are not able to effectively perform their jobs. For example,
in the Division’s most current semi-annual report (March 2003), it was noted that CPS
case managers were able to make the required monthly, face-to-face visit with only
68 percent of the children in out-of-home care. In addition, in a review conducted in
2001, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services noted that there is a need
for improvement in several areas, such as case planning and achieving permanen-cy
goals in a timely manner.1 Further, three internal reviews completed in calendar
year 2002 identified several areas where case managers were not effectively per-forming
their job duties.2 For example, in the December 2002 review, the Division
found that investigations were not being initiated within the required time frames in
47 percent of the cases reviewed. Also, 39 percent of the cases reviewed lacked
adequate case notes and summary documentation. Furthermore, almost half of the
24 case managers auditors interviewed indicated that they could not successfully
manage their caseloads for a variety of reasons, even some whose caseloads were
Office of the Auditor General
page 17
Only 68 percent of chil-dren
in out-of-home
care received required
monthly case manager
visits.
1 United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families Pacific Hub. Child and
Family Services Review Final Report. February 1, 2002.
2 The Division conducts a quarterly review of 100 or more randomly selected cases to monitor its performance outcomes
in several areas, such as safety, permanency and child and family well-being. These quarterly reviews are a part of the
Division’s Continuous Quality Improvement process, which, according to the Division, conforms to the national Council
on Accreditation standards, and has received federal approval.
State of Arizona
page 18
fewer than 12 cases. For example, one case manager with 11 cases indicated her
caseload was difficult to effectively manage because of all the travel time required
and because of a lack of services, which caused her to spend time attempting to
locate scarce services. Another case manager with 10 cases indicated that he was
having difficulty with his caseload because of the amount of paperwork required for
each case, and because the office was experiencing high turnover.
In addition, some stakeholders perceive that CPS case managers are overworked
and are having difficulty effectively managing their cases. For example, in a report
recently commissioned by the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, stakeholders such
as juvenile court judges and community service providers indicated that child abuse
and neglect cases are more time-consuming, and require additional investigation
and evaluation, and that CPS case managers are overwhelmed, which affects their
ability to protect children adequately.1 In addition, the Children’s Action Alliance, a
local child welfare advocacy organization, notes that the CPS system struggles to
provide the case management services necessary to provide a safe, stable environ-ment
for children.2
Division should explore issues hindering effective case manage-ment—
The Division needs to examine factors, other than caseload size, that may
be affecting its ability to effectively manage its caseloads. The following areas should
be explored:
􀁺􇩒 Retention—Interviews with case managers throughout the State suggest that
turnover and the associated shortage of staff may be a factor in some case
managers carrying high caseloads at certain times. Fourteen of the 25 case
managers auditors interviewed attributed unmanageably high caseloads to staff
shortages, and case managers also cited a staff shortage as the main reason
for falling behind in case administrative tasks. According to information provid-ed
by the Department of Administration’s Human Resources Division, the annu-alized
turnover rate for CPS case managers was 14.6 percent as of May 2003.3
To help address its retention issue, the Division should: 1) investigate the rea-sons
for high turnover rates, 2) attempt to fill vacant case manager positions,
and 3) research best practices for enhancing case manager retention. A 2003
review by the United States General Accounting Office (GAO) noted that child
welfare agencies are implementing various workforce practices to improve
1 Cox, S. In Harm’s Way: A Report on Policy Conflict That Fails Children and the System Established to Protect Them.
Prepared for the Honorable Richard Romley, Maricopa County Attorney. March 15, 2003.
2 Children’s Action Alliance. Beyond Kissing Babies: Transforming Campaign Sound Bites into Common Sense Solutions
for Arizona’s Kids and Families. April 2002.
3 The turnover rate reflects CPS specialist positions only.
Office of the Auditor General
page 19
retention of case managers, including accreditation and enhanced supervi-sion.
1,2 Although the Division has addressed the retention of case managers in
its 2004 strategic plan by seeking to improve the level of CPS employee satis-faction,
and is currently in the process of becoming accredited, it should con-tinue
to explore other workforce practices that may improve case manager
retention.
􀁺􇩓 Streamlining processes—The Division should explore how its CPS processes
could be streamlined, whether some case management tasks could be elimi-nated,
or whether support staff could do some work handled by case managers.
For example, several case managers stated that the computerized case man-agement
system that is used to track cases is inefficient and time-consuming.
In addition, some case managers characterized the amount of paperwork as
excessive and difficult to complete, and noted that it kept them from spending
the necessary time with children and families. Further, some case managers and
supervisors suggested that support staff could perform some administrative
tasks. For example, secretaries or clerical workers could enter case data into the
computerized case management system.
The Division established a workgroup in October 2002 that provided recom-mendations
for streamlining its investigative process, and plans to do the same
for its ongoing case management process. However, it appears this investiga-tive
workgroup found mostly minor modifications that could be made. Therefore,
in reviewing its ongoing case management process, the Division should also
research what other states’ child welfare agencies are doing to streamline
processes and procedures. For example, the Georgia Division of Family and
Children Services is in the process of assessing and improving policies, proce-dures,
business processes, and automated systems.
Division should consider establishing an Arizona caseload stan-dard—
The Division should also assess and document workload factors to help
determine whether CWLA caseload standards are appropriate for Arizona or whether
different standards need to be developed. The Division should consider developing
Arizona-specific caseload standards because CWLA standards do not correspond
with the way CPS work is conducted in Arizona. Further, the standards are meant to
be guidelines or starting points that an agency adjusts to reflect its own workload.
Auditors’ interviews with 24 case managers identified that some workload factors
1 United States General Accounting Office. Child Welfare: HHS Could Play a Greater Role in Helping Child Welfare Agencies
Recruit and Retain Staff. Report to Congressional Requesters. United States General Accounting Office (report GAO-03-
357). March 2003.
2 This review included the analysis of 585 exit interview documents completed by former child welfare caseworkers and
supervisors from 17 state, 40 county, and 19 private child welfare agencies from across the country; 50 interviews with
child welfare practitioners and researchers; and comprehensive site visits in California, Illinois, Kentucky, and Texas.
Division should
establish appropriate
caseload standards
for Arizona.
State of Arizona
page 20
appear to impact case managers across the State, and others do not. For example,
factors such as the complexity of certain cases (for example, sexual abuse) or the
documentation required by policy were cited by case managers in all districts; where-as
other factors, such as the time spent traveling to visit children, were most often
cited by workers in the rural districts. Additionally, the Division should review some
other issues that may be impacting case managers’ ability to effectively manage their
caseloads—problems with case manager training (see Finding 2, pages 23 through
28), and poor supervisory oversight (see Finding 3, pages 29 through 35).
The Division used to regularly conduct formal workload analyses and adjust case-loads
based on workload factors, but indicated that this practice was discontinued 3
years ago because it lacked resources to maintain the process. Therefore, the
Division may want to consider assessing workload factors through other means. For
example, workload studies have been completed in two states using methods other
than formal analyses, such as conducting focus groups, reviewing policy and pro-cedures,
and shadowing a sample of case managers. In Pennsylvania, the Allegheny
County Office of Children, Youth and Families conducted a workload assessment in
collaboration with researchers at the University of Pittsburgh’s School of Social Work.
County officials and researchers from the university used several research methods
including focus groups, observations of workers, and a case review to determine the
maximum caseload per type of worker.
Whatever standards are chosen, the Division should also ensure that its computer-ized
case management system captures the necessary information that is needed to
accurately report case managers’ caseloads.
Office of the Auditor General
page 21
Recommendations
1. The Division should take steps to ensure that it can accurately project its case
manager staffing needs. The Division should ensure that:
a. Cases can be classified on its computerized case management system
according to standards;
b. It includes only cases that are being actively worked; and
c. It includes all positions that regularly manage cases in its count of author-ized
case management positions.
2. The Division should also investigate factors that may be hindering its ability to
effectively manage its caseloads, including:
a. Continuing to investigate reasons for case manager turnover, attempting to
fill vacant case manager positions, and researching best practices for
enhancing retention; and
b. Continuing to assess ways to streamline its case management processes,
eliminate tasks, and assign case management tasks to support workers.
3. The Division should establish appropriate caseload standards for Arizona. In
doing so, the Division should:
a. Assess workload factors through such means as focus groups with staff;
and
b. Document any factors that are used to justify using CWLA’s standards or
Arizona-specific standards.
State of Arizona
page 22
Training hours have significantly increased, but
other improvements needed
The Division’s revised training program for new case managers has increased the
amount and type of training new staff receive, but it is not yet functioning as envi-sioned.
Because of concerns that inadequate training was making it harder for the
Division to retain qualified and competent staff, the Division implemented a new train-ing
program in January 2002. In contrast to the old program, this new program was
expected to provide trainees with improved classroom and structured field activities
before they were given caseload responsibilities. However, recent graduates of the
new program identified the need for more practical training and more consistent field
activities. Further, nearly one-third of trainees left their positions either prior to com-pleting
training or within 9 months of completing it. Finally, even though the legisla-tive
mandate and the Division’s goal was to establish a program where trainees
would not be assigned cases prior to completing training, some trainees continue to
receive case responsibilities before their training is completed.
New program expands amount and type of training
The Division established a new training program in January 2002, known as the Child
Welfare Training Institute, which increases the amount and type of training new case
managers receive. The Division established this new program because it felt its exist-ing
program did not provide sufficient training to help develop skills. In addition, divi-sion
budget documents indicate that case managers were often not able to complete
training because they were required to handle cases during training, often starting on
their first day. Because the Division believed that these problems affected its ability
to recruit and retain competent staff, it established a new training program. This new
training program has 47 dedicated training positions that the Division estimates cost
approximately $1.7 million annually.1 These positions allow trainees to focus solely on
acquiring the knowledge and skills needed to perform their case management
responsibilities. Further, the Legislature added a footnote to the General
1 According to Joint Legislative Budget Committee staff, the Division received enough monies to fund these training posi-tions
for half of fiscal year 2002, and this amount has remained the same in subsequent fiscal years.
Office of the Auditor General
page 23
FINDING 2
Dedicated training posi-tions
cost about $1.7
million annually.
State of Arizona
page 24
Appropriation Acts for fiscal years 2002 through 2004 that has the effect of law and
reinforces the Division’s goal of not assigning case responsibilities to new case man-agers
before they complete the training program.1 According to the Division’s train-ing
staff, as of June 30, 2003, 280 new case managers have completed training since
the program’s inception.
The new training program has enhanced and expanded the topics covered during
the prior program as well as increased the number of hours of training, which
includes several weeks of structured field activities. Table 3 outlines the differences
between the old and new programs. Specifically, the new program expanded class-room
training by about 1 week, by adding emphasis to such topics as domestic vio-lence
and substance abuse, as well as adding new topics such as after-care plan,
1 General Appropriation Acts footnote (Laws 2002, Ch. 321, §12; Laws 2002, Ch. 327, §19; and Laws 2003 Ch. 262, §29).
“The department of economic security shall provide training to any new child protective services full-time equivalent posi-tions
before assigning to any of these employees any client caseload duties.” General appropriations law is effective for
one fiscal year.
Program Prior to January 2002 Program Since January 2002
Format: Lecture-based classroom training only Combination of lecture-based classroom training and
structured fieldwork activities
Duration: 22 days (138 hours) 28 days (190 hours) of classroom training and 25
days (200 hours) of fieldwork activities
Timeframe: Training was spread over 6 months, and
typically completed within 12 months
Training begins within the first month of employment
and is completed within 12 consecutive weeks
Location: Phoenix Phoenix and Tucson
Curriculum: Lecture topics:
1. Family-centered child protective services
2. Legal aspects in child protection
3. Casework planning
4. Family-centered casework
5. Child development
6. Separation, placement, and reunification in
child welfare cases
7. Managing cultural diversity
8. Substance abuse families
1. Previous lecture topics enhanced and expanded
2. Emphasis added to the following topics:
a. Domestic violence
b. Substance abuse
3. New topics added:
a. After-care plan
b. Behavioral health
c. Child safety assessment
Table 3: Comparison of Old and New Case Manager Training Programs
Source: Auditor General staff summary of interviews, and training information and materials provided by Division of Children, Youth and
Families training officials.
More practical class-room
training and con-sistent
implementation
of field exercises need-ed.
Office of the Auditor General
page 25
behavioral health, and child safety assessment. In addition, an even more significant
change is the adding of 25 days, or 200 hours, of structured field exercises, which
include activities such as observing court hearings as well as accompanying an
experienced case manager on initial investigations and home visits. According to the
Division, these structured activities are designed to help the trainee transfer knowl-edge
gained from classroom instruction to the field. In contrast, the old program did
not have a formal fieldwork component; rather, trainees learned by working their
assigned cases while attending formal classroom training, generally without a men-tor’s
assistance. The new focus on field exercises and mentoring is in-line with rec-ommendations
from Strategic Partners, which according to a division budget
document is a consulting firm experienced in child welfare training, which conducted
an evaluation of the Division’s old training program in fiscal year 1998.
Concerns remain with new training program
In practice, the new training program has not fully addressed the Division’s concerns
with the old program. Trainees are less than satisfied with the curriculum, and there
is still high turnover among new hires. To address these remaining concerns, the
Division needs to take steps to further enhance its training curriculum, implement
strategies to improve new case manager retention, and develop effective evaluation
tools for the new program.
Training curriculum has some inadequacies—Interviews with new training
program graduates indicate that they need more practical classroom instruction and
the field activities are not being consistently implemented. Auditors interviewed 23
case managers who completed the new training program between March 2002 and
January 2003, and reviewed a letter written by 20 trainees in November 2002. Both
the interviews and letter indicated that the Division should provide more practical
classroom training. Specifically, 20 of the case managers interviewed indicated that
they wanted more in-depth practical classroom training for such tasks as operating
the Division’s computerized case management system, writing court reports, making
referrals for services, and conducting interviews. Further, auditors evaluated the con-current
case-planning curriculum and found that it lacked applied exercises that
would guide case managers on when and how to properly implement a concurrent
case plan (see Finding 4, pages 37 through 43).1 To ensure the new training program
adequately prepares staff to do their jobs, the Division should adopt staff’s sugges-tions
to provide more practical classroom exercises.
Additionally, the interviews and letter indicated that the experiences provided during
structured field activities differ from trainee to trainee. For example, one case man-ager
indicated that she was provided an opportunity to conduct an interview with a
client, while another case manager indicated that she was not given this opportuni-ty.
The Division has also recognized that there are inconsistencies in the structured
field activities and plans to meet with district trainers to evaluate this issue and cre-
1 Concurrent case planning is a permanency planning practice that simultaneously pursues both family reunification and
an alternate plan, such as adoption or legal guardianship.
Twenty-four percent of
case manager trainees
quit within 9 months of
completing training.
State of Arizona
page 26
ate state-wide expectations for the field activities. The Division should continue to
take steps to ensure that the field portion of the training is implemented consistently
state-wide.
Turnover high among new trainees—Even though the Division envisioned the
training program as a way to improve retention, auditor analysis of the first nine train-ing
classes held between January 2002 and October 2002 found that 8 percent of
the trainees left before they completed training, and 24 percent left within 9 months
of completing it. Making the classroom training more practical may address some of
the retention problem. The Division asks departing employees to complete an exit
interview survey, which contains questions regarding why an employee chose to
leave his or her position.1 Auditors’ review of exit surveys completed between
January 2002 and July 2003 found eight surveys from staff who had attended the
new training program. Five of the eight staff indicated that the training inadequately
prepared them for their job, and three of these five indicated that the availability/suf-ficiency
of the training was a contributing factor to their leaving.2 This feedback is sim-ilar
to another state’s experience. A recent Florida report that examined the high
turnover of its child protection staff also noted that staff felt that having more practi-cal
classroom training would help employee retention.3
However, additional steps may be needed to improve retention. Therefore, the
Division should continue to use its exit surveys to identify and develop potential solu-tions
for addressing the high percentage of new case manager turnover.
Division training evaluation mechanisms not effective—Although the
Division has established some evaluation tools, they are not working as intended. For
example, the Division asks graduates to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the new
case manager training program. This assessment includes questions about whether
the training provided them with basic knowledge needed to complete job assign-ments,
and if there was enough time provided for different aspects of the training.
However, the assessment is not mandatory and as of July 2003, the Division reports
receiving only nine assessments back. Division training officials indicated that the
Division is in the process of evaluating all of its evaluation tools. In doing so, the
Division should make certain that trainees are informed of the importance of their
feedback for ensuring an effective training program and are strongly encouraged or
required to provide feedback. In addition, the Division should adopt a suggestion
made by its training advisory committee to collaborate with the Arizona State
1 Examples of questions found in the exit interview include: “Is salary a primary reason for leaving your position?” and, “How
much did factors related to the nature of the work itself contribute to your leaving your current position?”
2 Several of the eight survey respondents also identified stress-related factors such as “job pressure/stress” and “demands
of the job” as having contributed to their resignation.
3 The Florida Senate. Child and Families Committee Interim Project Report 2003-110. January 2003.
1 The advisory committee was established in 2002 to participate in assessing the Division’s training program. This com-mittee
comprises division staff, and representatives from organizations such as the Arizona Coalition Against Domestic
Violence, Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections, Arizona State University School of Social Work, Attorney General’s
Office, Child Help, Children’s Action Alliance, Intertribal Council of Arizona, Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Mesa
Juvenile Court, and Our Town Family Center.
Office of the Auditor General
page 27
University School of Social Work to evaluate its training program evaluation forms.1
The Division already collaborates with the school on a program to recruit social work
students for CPS case manager positions. Finally, the Division should examine the
use of additional mechanisms identified by Strategic Partners, such as obtaining
feedback from new trainees’ supervisors and mentors through either questionnaires
or focus groups to ensure that the training program is as effective as possible.
Division not complying with legislative mandate
Despite the legislative mandate and the Division’s goal to not assign trainees case-load
duties before they complete training, the Division has assigned case responsi-bilities
to some trainees. Specifically, in the first five classes held between January
2002 and June 2002, 38 percent of the trainees were assigned some caseload
duties, with two trainees carrying full caseloads. When auditors informed division
management about this practice, they indicated that it was not in keeping with their
stated goal. However, auditors’ analysis of training classes that took place even after
division management had been notified showed the practice was still occurring.
Auditor interviews with supervisors assigning caseload responsibilities to trainees
found various explanations for this practice, including the need to cover staff short-ages,
unclear expectations regarding trainee case responsibilities, and the percep-tion
that such responsibilities provided a valuable training opportunity.
Because the practice of assigning caseload responsibilities during training is a vio-lation
of current legislative mandate and runs counter to the Division’s stated goal,
the Division should stop assigning cases to trainees and take steps to ensure future
trainees are not assigned caseload responsibilities until completing their training.
However, because the current legislative mandate does not define “caseload duties,”
the Division may be permitted to allow trainees to complete some case tasks for
training purposes, such as learning how to use the Division’s computer system.
Auditors’ analysis found that trainees were assigned different case responsibilities
ranging from being assigned as the primary worker responsible for the outcome of
the case to being assigned as a support worker responsible for completing specific
tasks, such as entering case notes onto the Division’s computer system. However, to
ensure trainees are not assigned as the primary or only case manager on a case and
are assigned case tasks only for training purposes, the Division should establish a
written policy and ensure that all appropriate individuals are informed of this policy.
In addition, it should develop and implement a mechanism or process to routinely
monitor its trainees’ work assignments.
The Division needs a
policy prohibiting
trainees from being
assigned as the primary
or only case manager
on cases during train-ing.
Recommendations
1. The Division should revise its training curriculum to include additional practical
classroom exercises for the computerized case management system, writing
court reports, making referrals for services, and conducting interviews.
2. The Division should continue to take steps to ensure that the field portion of the
training is implemented consistently state-wide.
3. The Division should continue to use its exit interview surveys to assess why new
case managers are leaving and develop strategies for addressing poor reten-tion
of new case managers.
4. The Division should continue with its plans to revise its training evaluation forms.
In doing so, the Division should:
a. Make certain that trainees are informed of the importance of their feedback
for ensuring an effective training program and are strongly encouraged or
required to provide feedback.
b. Consider collaborating with the Arizona State University School of Social
Work to help revise its forms.
c. Examine using additional mechanisms to evaluate its new case manager
trainee program, such as obtaining feedback from new trainees’ supervi-sors
and mentors through either questionnaires or focus groups.
5. To ensure that the Division complies with the legislative mandate regarding not
assigning caseload duties to trainees, it should:
a. Establish a written policy that prohibits trainees from being assigned as the
primary or only case manager on a case, and clarifies that trainees may be
assigned case tasks only for training purposes.
b. Ensure that all appropriate individuals are informed of this policy.
c. Develop and implement a mechanism or process to routinely monitor its
trainees’ work assignments.
State of Arizona
page 28
Steps needed to improve case manager supervi-sory
oversight
The Division needs to improve its supervisory oversight of case managers. Although
supervisors provide the primary means for overseeing case managers’ compliance
with laws and policies, reviews have found inadequacies with the level and amount
of supervisory review. For example, many files lack evidence that supervisory review
was completed on important processing steps and decision points. Some addition-al
supervisory staff may be needed, although the Division should conduct additional
work to determine what the appropriate staffing level should be. The Division also
needs to strengthen its training programs for new and existing supervisors, because
many supervisors have limited experience and little opportunity for training.
Supervisory oversight lacking
Although supervisors provide primary case manager oversight, several reviews have
found supervision lacking. Supervisors provide primary oversight of the Division’s
case managers through a variety of oversight and review processes, such as pro-viding
regular case consultation on investigative and ongoing child abuse cases.
However, recent reviews conducted by the Division, as well as the Council on
Accreditation (COA), found inadequate supervisory oversight.
Supervisors provide primary oversight—CPS supervisors provide the pri-mary
means for overseeing case managers’ compliance with laws and policies. A
2003 review by the United States General Accounting Office (GAO) found that super-visors
are critical to providing case managers direction and guidance in various case
management decisions.1 In Arizona, CPS supervisors are required by both adminis-trative
rule and division policy to perform a variety of critical oversight tasks (see Item
4, page 30).
Office of the Auditor General
page 29
1 This review included the analysis of 585 exit interview documents completed by former child welfare caseworkers and
supervisors from 17 state, 40 county, and 19 private child welfare agencies from across the country; 50 interviews with
child welfare practitioners and researchers; and comprehensive site visits in California, Illinois, Kentucky, and Texas.
FINDING 3
1 These internal reviews are part of the Division’s Continuous Quality Improvement process, which allows it to look at activ-ities,
performance, and outcomes and create plans for improvement. According to the Division, this process conforms
to the national Council on Accreditation standards, and has received federal approval.
State of Arizona
page 30
Supervisory oversight found inadequate—Internal and external reviews have
identified several problems with the adequacy of supervision. Specifically,
􀁺􇩉 Insufficient documentation of supervisory review—The Division conducts its own
review of 100 randomly selected cases on a quarterly basis, and the three
reviews it completed in calendar year 2002 showed that supervisors were not
completing all the required supervisory reviews, as evidenced by lack of proper
case file documentation.1 For example, in the December 2002 review, the
Division found supervisors had failed to fill out the required supervisory case
record review guide in 67 percent of adoption cases, 71 percent of foster care
cases, 62 percent of in-home cases, and 42 percent of the investigation cases.
Division policy requires the supervisor to use this guide as a checklist for ensur-ing
that case managers adhere to multiple laws and policies. Conducting this
review is especially important because the same internal reviews also disclosed
inadequacies in how well case managers were documenting their cases.
􀁺􇩉 Inadequate consulting with case managers—Internal and external reviews have
also found problems with the extent of case managers’ supervisory consultation.
For example, a December 2002 internal review assessed whether supervisors
were implementing a new supervisory oversight requirement, the Clinical
Supervision conference. This conference is designed to monitor case activity at
key decision points, consistency of policy application, and the implementation
and appropriateness of services. The review found these conferences were not
conducted in 60 percent of the applicable cases. Similarly, when the Council on
Between 42 and 71 per-cent
of the different
types of cases internally
examined lacked
required supervisory
documentation.
Item 4: Examples of CPS supervisor responsibilities
􀁺􇩒 Review and approve every child removal decision—The CPS supervisor must review and
approve every child removal decision. To do so, the supervisor should discuss the child abuse
report and investigative information with the case manager to determine if the circumstances
meet Arizona’s removal standards—imminent harm—which are outlined in law and rule.
􀁺􇩒 Review and approve all CPS case plans—The CPS supervisor must review and approve all CPS
case plans. Case plans outline the goals for the child/family such as return to the family, the
services that the child/family needs to meet the case plan goals, and timelines for meeting these
goals.
􀁺􇩐 Provide individual case consultation—The CPS supervisor must provide case managers individ-ual
case consultation and guidance, as well as conduct a variety of personnel-related activities,
such as staff training and evaluations.
Source: Auditor General staff summary of CPS supervision responsibilities as described in the Division’s New Supervision Handbook,
Children’s Services manual, and Arizona Administrative Code R6-5-5514.
Accreditation conducted onsite reviews of the Division between August and
November 2002, it found that improvements were needed in supervisory over-sight,
such as monitoring of the families’ progress and providing the appropri-ate
level of case consultation.
􀁺􇩐 Poor supervisory oversight and guidance—Auditors’ review of 77 division case
manager exit interviews from January 2002 to April 2003 found that poor super-visory
practices and skills were identified as a contributing factor in decisions to
leave. For example, 23 percent of the case managers identified the amount of
direct support from their supervisor as a factor in leaving. Similarly, the March
2003 GAO report on recruiting and retaining child welfare staff found that strong
supervisory support motivated case managers to stay despite the stress, while
lack of support was a critical factor in case managers’ decisions to leave. Given
the high levels of turnover that continue to exist among case managers, (see
Finding 1, pages 9 through 21, and Finding 2, pages 23 through 28), attention
to this matter seems increasingly important.
Factors contributing to poor supervisory oversight should
be addressed
The Division should take several steps to improve
supervisory oversight. First, it should do some addi-tional
work to determine if more supervisory positions
are needed. Further, because supervisory oversight is
critical both to effective management and staff reten-tion,
the Division should ensure that adequate supervi-sory
training is a high priority.
Some additional supervisors may be need-ed—
The Division’s case-manager-to-supervisor ratio
exceeds recommended Child Welfare League of
America (CWLA) standards in two of the six districts, as
shown in Figure 2.1 However, the Division needs to do
more work to determine how these standards should
be applied in Arizona. CWLA recommends one super-visor
for every five case managers as a result of the
critical nature of supervisory responsibilities, but it also
indicates this recommendation is a guideline that
should be adjusted based on an agency’s specific
workload factors. Auditors reviewed the Division’s
authorized full-time supervisor and case manager
positions for fiscal year 2003 and found that although
there are fewer than five staff per supervisor in the four rural districts, the Division’s
Office of the Auditor General
page 31
Review of 77 exit inter-views
found 23 percent
indicated poor supervi-sory
support was a con-tributing
factor in
employees’ decisions to
leave.
1 Child Welfare League of America. Standards of Excellence for Services for Abused or Neglected Children and Their
Families, revised edition. Washington, D.C.: Child Welfare League of America,1999.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Average Number of Case
Managers per Supervisor
I II III IV V VI
Districts
Child Welfare League of America Standard
District I Maricopa County
District II Pima County
District III Apache, Coconino, Navajo, and Yavapai Counties
District IV La Paz, Mohave, and Yuma Counties
District V Gila and Pinal Counties
District VI Cochise, Graham, Greenlee, and Santa Cruz
Counties
Figure 2: Comparison of Supervisor Ratios
As of January 2003
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of the Division of Children, Youth and
Families authorized full-time employee positions from the Regular
Positions Work Sheet for fiscal year 2003, as of January 23, 2003.
case-manager-to-supervisor ratio exceeds the CWLA standard in both of its metro-politan
districts. Division officials explained that the rural districts have fewer case
managers to supervisors than the recommended CWLA standard because rural
offices have fewer case managers, but still require a supervisor.
The Council on Accreditation (COA) has also developed supervisor-to-staff ratios,
with its standards dependent on the experience levels of the staff supervised. COA’s
standards call for one supervisor to oversee no more than seven experienced and
professionally trained workers, or five workers who have less professional education
and experience. A recent COA review of the Division reported that only two districts
were in full compliance with the COA supervisor-to-staff ratio. This further suggests
the necessity of reviewing the current supervisory workload and determining the
impact of workload factors, such as employee turnover. According to information
provided by the Department of Administration’s Human Resources Division, the
annualized turnover rate for CPS case managers was 14.6 percent as of May 2003
(see Finding 1, pages 9 through 20). In addition, auditors interviewed 13 supervisors
state-wide and found that many reported supervising more staff than standards rec-ommend.
Supervisors also reported barriers such as supervising inexperienced staff,
case manager turnover, and lack of placements. As a result, over half of the supervi-sors
interviewed indicated that they did not have sufficient time to complete their
assigned tasks.
To determine if the CWLA supervisor-to-case manger ratio is appropriate for Arizona,
the Division should assess and document workload factors impacting its supervi-sors.
The Division could accomplish this by conducting focus groups with unit super-visors
state-wide to determine the current workload issues impacting effective
supervision, such as case manager turnover. If additional supervisors are needed,
the Division should take steps to determine if any new positions could be funded with
existing resources, because the costs may be substantial. For example, if the
Division believes that CWLA standards are appropriate for Arizona, it would need to
hire an additional 25 supervisors, all to be placed in District I and District II.
Specifically, District I would require 16 supervisors and District II 9 supervisors to
meet CWLA standards. The Division reported the starting salary for a CPS unit super-visor
is $34,307, with an additional $8,000 needed for employee-related expenses.
However, the Division should consider whether there is a way to reallocate some of
the supervisor positions from Districts III through VI to District I or II to improve super-visor-
to-case manager ratios in the metropolitan areas. If reallocating positions is not
practical, the Division should determine if any of the additional positions could be
funded from its existing budget. Regardless, the Division should also work to fill exist-ing
vacancies state-wide. As of June 2003, the Division reported that 6 of the 119
authorized supervisory positions in Districts I through VI were vacant.1 However, fill-ing
vacancies will not improve the ratio because auditors’ analysis was done on
1 The Division also has seven supervisor positions assigned to the hotline, which receives and screens reports of child
abuse and neglect.
State of Arizona
page 32
Supervisors’ workload
should be assessed in
determining need for
more supervisors.
Office of the Auditor General
page 33
authorized positions, although it should improve actual workloads for existing super-visors
who have taken on additional responsibilities for the unfilled positions.
Inexperienced supervisors and retention efforts should be
addressed—One reason the Division may want to hire some additional supervi-sors
is that its supervisory staff is relatively new and inexperienced and may benefit
from a reduced workload. For example, a review of the personnel data from April
2003 shows that 17 percent of the CPS supervisors were promoted to their current
position within the last year, and 33 percent within 2 years. Additionally, a division offi-cial
noted that the level of case management experience prior to supervisory pro-motion
has declined from 6 to 3 years. The official noted that, as a result, supervisors
may be unable to adequately mentor new case managers because they themselves
have not had sufficient time to learn the intricacies of the CPS function.
In addition to the Division considering lower workloads for supervisors in the metro-politan
areas, it should continue its efforts to improve retention. The March 2003 GAO
report notes that state officials in two states that have become fully accredited
through the Council on Accreditation have reported improved supervisory retention
as a result of meeting and maintaining COA standards. Several factors, such as a
more manageable supervisor-to-case manager ratio and a focus on recruiting qual-ified
applicants, were attributed to the improvement. Although the Division is current-ly
undergoing the accreditation review process, it does not have a target date for
correcting the deficiencies the Council noted in their fall 2002 review.
Initial supervisor training should be held—The Division’s Child Welfare
Training Institute should hold regular initial supervisor training. Prior to the December
2002 implementation of the Institute’s revised supervisor training curriculum, the
Division failed to offer initial supervisor training for over 16 months.1 Division person-nel
indicated that the supervisor training was halted because it needed to focus on
the new case manager training and was revising the supervisor curriculum.
Supervisors were provided only generic courses offered through the Department’s
Office of Organization and Management Development, such as ethics and positive
discipline. In December 2002, the Institute began offering its revised supervisor core
training to all supervisors who did not attend the supervisor core training since their
promotion. This totaled 49 of the Division’s 126 CPS supervisors. However, in April
2003, according to division personnel, due to the class size and budget constraints,
the new supervisor training was again halted midway through the required courses.
This training was resumed in September 2003, as well as training being provided to
a new group of 30 supervisors. Because the Division has a relatively new and inex-perienced
supervisory staff, a consistent and comprehensive training program
becomes even more critical to ensuring supervisors are equipped with the skills to
complete their job. The Division should ensure sufficient resources are available to
provide consistent training to new supervisors.
1 The Division’s previous supervisor core curriculum consisted of seven 3-day modules spread over a 7-month period. The last
supervisor training offered by the old supervisor curriculum began in November 2000 and ended in July 2001.
Division should improve
its supervisor training
and develop a continu-ing
education program
for supervisors.
State of Arizona
page 34
Curriculum changes needed—In addition to making initial supervisor training a
high priority, the Division should also make some curriculum changes. Although the
Division recently revised the supervisor core training, additional changes are need-ed.
The revised supervisor core curriculum/training, which was implemented in
December 2002, includes two new modules—clinical supervision and policy train-ing—
which attempt to address deficiencies identified with past training. However,
over 30 percent of the course evaluations for the clinical supervision module showed
that the course did not meet supervisors’ training needs. Specifically, some supervi-sors
noted that it lacked sufficient information on the practical application of clinical
supervision and its implementation based on division policy and procedure. For
example, one supervisor stated that the content needs to focus on the tools and
materials approved for use in Arizona. Similarly, another supervisor stated that the
course needs to be drastically modified to meet the needs of the field; for example,
how to do clinical supervision as it pertains to division policy and procedure. The
Division has established a supervisor training workgroup that functions as a sound-ing
board for training needs and works to put suggestions into practice. It should
continue to use this group to make recommendations on how to improve superviso-ry
training, including enhancing the clinical supervision module.
Continuing supervisor education needs improvement—The Division
also needs to develop a continuing education program to meet the needs of new and
existing supervisors. The Division recognized in its budget request prepared in
September 2002 for the Training Institute that a continuing education program is crit-ical
for supervisors to carry out several vital functions, including mentoring new
employees, ensuring adherence to division policy and procedure, making case-plan-ning
recommendations, and providing assistance to the staff they supervise. The
Division identified the need for an in-house continuing education program for super-visors
and requires all staff to complete 12 hours of ongoing training annually.
However, auditors’ review of the specialized training offered in 2002 and the first quar-ter
of 2003 shows that no classes have been offered that specifically address the
needs of the CPS supervisor. Further, interviews with 13 CPS unit supervisors
throughout the State revealed that none had been offered supervisor-specific contin-uing
education training through the Institute. However, close to half of the supervisors
interviewed indicated the need for additional training in several supervisor-specific
topic areas, including employee relations, legal processes, and clarification on new
policies and procedures.
Other states, such as New Mexico and Tennessee, require supervisors or managers
to complete supervisor-specific continuing education classes yearly to improve their
competencies. For example, Tennessee requires supervisors to take 40 hours of con-tinuing
education with 24 hours of supervisor-specific training. Examples of course
offerings include organizational policies and practices for supervisors, and tech-niques
for interviewing prospective staff.
Recommendations
1. The Division should determine an appropriate supervisor-to-case manager ratio
for Arizona by assessing and documenting workload factors impacting its
supervisors, such as turnover and staff experience level.
2. Once the Division has determined an appropriate supervisor-to-staff ratio for
Arizona, the Division should:
a. Explore the feasibility of reallocating existing supervisors’ positions within
the districts to ensure that all districts meet the approved standards; and,
b. Determine if any new positions could be funded from its existing budget.
3. The Division should take steps to fill vacant supervisor positions.
4. The Division should develop and implement strategies for increasing CPS
supervisor retention, including continuing the accreditation process through the
Council on Accreditation.
5. The Division should deliver a comprehensive training program to new and exist-ing
CPS supervisors to ensure they are equipped with the appropriate level of
skills to complete their job. To do so, the Division should:
a. Ensure the consistent delivery of the supervisor core curriculum to newly
promoted CPS supervisors.
b. Continue to use its supervisor workgroup to identify ways to improve the
supervisory training.
c. Develop a centralized continuing education program specifically focused
on the CPS supervisors’ professional development needs.
Office of the Auditor General
page 35
State of Arizona
page 36
Efforts needed to further improve children’s per-manency
outcomes
The Division needs to make better use of concurrent case planning as a tool in
achieving permanent placements for foster children. Concurrent case planning
involves simultaneously pursuing both family reunification and an alternate plan,
such as adoption or legal guardianship, as options for placing a foster child with a
family that has a permanent legal commitment to the child’s well-being. This
approach has been found to reduce the length of time that children spend in out-of-home
care, and for 2 years, the Division has had a policy calling for its use. However,
the Division has made limited progress in putting this policy into practice. To ensure
better use of concurrent case planning, the Division needs to improve its staff train-ing
related to this approach, as well as its efforts to present information about this
approach to stakeholders, such as foster-home recruitment agencies and juvenile
court judges. The Division has made efforts to increase permanency by applying
other techniques besides concurrent case planning, and should continue these
efforts.
Lengthy out-of-home care is costly and may be damag-ing
to children
Many children remain in out-of-home care for long periods, despite changes
designed to expedite permanency. Lengthy out-of-home care is costly for govern-ments
and, according to some studies, can be harmful to children. Lack of concur-rent
case planning is one of many barriers that have been identified as hindering
timely placements.
Many children remain in costly out-of-home care—Efforts to expedite per-manent
placements of foster children, both nationally and in Arizona, have met with
limited success. In response to concerns that some children were languishing in tem-
Office of the Auditor General
page 37
FINDING 4
State of Arizona
page 38
porary foster care, Congress enacted the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) in
1997. ASFA sought to expedite permanency for these children by changing child wel-fare
requirements and creating adoption-related funding sources. Despite the
changes made by ASFA, many children nation-wide and in Arizona remain in foster
care for extended periods of time. According to division
data, as of March 31, 2003, 29 percent of Arizona’s fos-ter
children had been in care for 2 years or more (see
Figure 3). The national percentage is even higher, as the
most recent estimate indicated that, as of September 30,
2001, 44 percent of the children in foster care across the
United States had been in care for 2 years or more.1 This
problem is further illustrated by the results of the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services’ (DHHS)
recent Child and Family Services Reviews, which evalu-ate
states’ child welfare systems and outcomes. In fed-eral
fiscal years 2001 and 2002, DHHS reviewed 32
states, including Arizona. None of the states reviewed
were found to be in substantial conformity with the meas-ure
for permanency of children in their living situations.2
Lengthy out-of-home care is costly for governments and
may be harmful to children. The Division estimated the
average monthly cost of out-of-home care to be between
$1,200 and $2,897 per case, per month, depending on
the placement setting.3 In addition, based on informa-tion
provided by the Division, it spent more than $60 mil-lion
from the General Fund and other appropriated funds
on foster care children in fiscal year 2003.4 Further,
although research on the impact of long-term foster care
on children’s lives is mixed, some studies suggest that
long-term foster care may be harmful to children’s health
and future self-sufficiency.
Several barriers to permanency have been identified—The difficulty in
making greater progress toward permanency is linked to a number of barriers,
according to various studies conducted nationally and in Arizona. Some of the cited
Division-estimated costs
for out-of-home care
range from $1,200 to
$2,897 per month per
case.
1 Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System, Report #8: Preliminary FY 2001 Estimates as of March 2003.
2 Results based on the first of the two permanency outcomes. DHHS’ Child and Family Service Reviews measure two
Permanency Outcomes: a) Permanency Outcome 1: Children have permanency and stability in their living situations,
which measures performance in such areas as adoption, appropriateness of permanency goals, and other planned per-manent
living arrangements; and b) Permanency Outcome 2: The continuity of family relationships and connections is
preserved for children, which focuses primarily on family preservation in foster care.
3 The Division’s cost-per-case estimates were developed in October 2002 and include an average monthly case manage-ment
cost, maintenance payment, and a personal and clothing allowance.
4 The Division’s reported amount of appropriated expenditures encompasses all types of expenditures for out-of-home
care including case management costs, maintenance payments, and costs for medical and dental services provided
through the State’s Comprehensive Medical and Dental Program (CMDP). CMDP expenditures are through the end of
fiscal year 2003, and all other expenditures are through the end of May 2003.
Less than 1 year
(3,321)
1 year
(1,539)
2 years
(697)
3 years
(337)
4 years and over
(973)
Figure 3: Percentage of Children in Foster Care
by Length of Time
As of March 2003
(Unaudited)
Note: 6,867 children were in foster care as of March 2003.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of data obtained from the Division of Children,
Youth and Families on May 23, 2003.
In March 2003, 29 per-cent
of Arizona’s foster
children had been in
care 2 years or more,
compared to the most
recent (2001) national
estimate of 44 percent.
Office of the Auditor General
page 39
obstacles center on the characteristics of the children themselves. These include dif-ficulties
in placing older children and children with severe mental health issues, as
well as inadequate support services for children with severe mental health issues. For
example, a major finding of a 2001 report by Arizona’s Foster Care Review Board
was that children with mental health problems are not well supported, and their men-tal
health problems may prevent them from achieving permanency.1
Other barriers are related more to the CPS system itself, including the lack of con-current
planning. Other system-related examples include delays in terminating
parental rights, delays in conducting administrative tasks (such as performing back-ground
checks on potential adoptive families), and delays in identifying an adoptive
parent. Some of the Division’s internal reviews have linked delayed attempts to iden-tify
an adoptive parent with a lack of concurrent case planning.2
Division needs to better implement concurrent case
planning
Although the Division established concurrent case planning as one strategy for
improving the timely placement of foster care children in permanent homes, its imple-mentation
of that strategy has been limited. Studies have found that concurrent case
planning can effectively shorten foster care stays. However, while the Division imple-mented
a concurrent case planning policy in April 2001, external and internal CPS
reviews since then have determined that concurrent case planning was not being
used, which was one factor hindering the timely placement of children. Although the
Division has since identified and partially implemented steps to improve its use of
concurrent case pl