Evaluation, Department of Economic Security, kinship foster care, kinship care pilot program: report to the Arizona Legislature

              State of Arizona
Office
of the
Auditor General
EVALUATION
Report to the Arizona Legislature
By Debra K. Davenport
Auditor General
June 2002
Report No. 02-03
DEPARTMENT
OF
ECONOMIC SECURITY
Kinship Foster Care
Kinship Care Pilot Program
The Auditor General 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 impar-tial
information and specific recommendations to improve the operations of state and local government
entities. To this end, she provides financial audits and accounting services to the state and political
subdivisions and performance audits of state agencies and the programs they administer.
The Joint Legislative Audit Committee
Representative Roberta L. Voss, Chairman
Senator Ken Bennett, Vice Chairman
Senator Herb Guenther Representative Robert Blendu
Senator Dean Martin Representative Gabrielle Giffords
Senator Peter Rios Representative Barbara Leff
Senator Tom Smith Representative James Sedillo
Senator Randall Gnant (ex-officio) Representative James Weiers (ex-officio)
Audit Staff
Dot Reinhard—Manager
and Contact Person (602) 553-0333
Catherine Dahlquist—Team Leader
Anne Hunter—Team Member
Anita Rifkin—Team Member
Rachel Rowland—Team Member
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
June 28, 2002
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Jane Dee Hull, Governor
Mr. John L. Clayton, Director
Department of Economic Security
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, An Evaluation of Kinship
Foster Care and the Kinship Care Pilot Program administered by the Arizona
Department of Economic Security. This evaluation was conducted pursuant to Laws
2000, Chapter 182, §2 and Chapter 285, §14 which directed our Office to evaluate the
impact and effectiveness of kinship foster care and the kinship care pilot program. The
evaluation focuses primarily on the quality of the Department’s processes for
implementing the legislative requirements for kinship foster care and the kinship care
pilot program, and to the extent possible, the effectiveness of the changes. I am also
transmitting with this report a copy of the Report Highlights for this evaluation to
provide a quick summary for your convenience.
As outlined in its response, the Department of Economic Security plans to implement
all of the recommendations.
My staff and I will be pleased to discuss or clarify items in the report.
This report will be released to the public on July 1, 2002.
Sincerely,
Debbie Davenport
Auditor General
Enclosure
Pursuant to Laws 2000, Chapter 183, §2 and Chapter 285, §14, the
Office of the Auditor General has completed an evaluation of two
areas within the Department of Economic Security: kinship foster
care and kinship care1. These two areas, which both relate to
parental care provided by relatives, were identified by the
Legislature in 2000 as areas in which existing state efforts should
be enhanced. As a result of the legislation, the Department estab-lished
and began implementing new kinship foster care policies in
the fall of 2000, while a kinship care pilot program was initiated
January 1, 2001, in two locations—one in Phoenix and one in
Tucson. Within the Department, the Division of Children, Youth,
and Families oversees kinship foster care, while the Division of
Benefits and Medical Eligibility administers the kinship care pilot
program. The legislation included no additional funding or staff.
The evaluation focuses primarily on the kinship foster care and
kinship care processes implemented. However, to the extent pos-sible,
the evaluation also looks at the impact and effectiveness of
the changes.
Program Characteristics
Both kinship foster care and the kinship care pilot program
encourage kinship placements and support relative caregivers
through coordination of available financial benefits and nonfinan-cial
services. Kinship foster care and kinship care are important
options for providing care, because parenting done by relatives
helps preserve the integrity of families and can ease the trauma
children may experience; however, the programs differ in a num-ber
of ways. Specifically:
n In kinship foster care, a relative provides parenting when a
court determines that, because of child abuse or neglect, a
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL i
SUMMARY
1 The kinship legislation is repealed effective January 1, 2005. However,
the Department indicated that it will continue to place children with
relatives and provide financial benefits and nonfinancial services as
these processes existed prior to the legislation.
child should be separated from his or her parents and placed
in the custody and control of the State’s child welfare agency.
The relative caregiver can choose to become licensed or
remain unlicensed. Licensed kinship foster caregivers are eli-gible
to receive foster care maintenance payments ranging
between $11.94 and $27.81 per child per day based on the
child’s age and special needs. Unlicensed providers are not eli-gible
for foster care maintenance payments but may be eligible
for monthly cash assistance through the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) grant program. These
monthly grants provide $204 for the first child and approxi-mately
$71 for each additional child. All kinship foster care
children, whether placed with a licensed or unlicensed rela-tive,
are eligible for a variety of nonfinancial services including
medical and dental care, counseling services, and childcare.
n In kinship care, a relative also provides the parenting but does
so without a court’s or child welfare agency’s involvement.
The kinship care pilot program is primarily a financial pro-gram.
Through this program, caregivers may apply to receive
the TANF child-only grant for their relative children. In addi-tion,
the Department will provide information on other serv-ices
that may be available through the community or state
agencies.
In both programs, the majority of children live with grandparents
or great-grandparents.
Need To Improve
Compliance with Requirements
(See pages 13 through 18)
The Department needs to take additional steps to implement leg-islative
requirements for kinship foster care. These requirements
are intended to promote foster care placements with relatives and
to support these caregivers through better coordination of avail-able
services and benefits. Although the Department developed
appropriate policies to address these new requirements, it cannot
demonstrate that personnel have fully and consistently imple-mented
them. For example, the Department developed new
Summary
ii OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
KINSHIP FOSTER CARE
forms to help case managers assess a prospective caregiver’s abil-ity
to provide a secure and safe environment and to inform the
caregiver about financial support and other services. However,
these forms were used in less than one-third of the cases evalua-tors
reviewed. In addition, other concerns with compliance were
identified during interviews with Department personnel. For
example, seven case managers indicated that they verbally inform
relatives when they have been denied as a relative placement, and
do not use the Department’s form letter. However, this form letter
is important because it requires the case manager to list the rea-sons
for the denial and provide the relative with the opportunity
to appeal the Department’s decision.
The Department needs to focus additional effort in three areas to
ensure compliance with kinship foster care policies and require-ments.
n First, it needs to develop and provide additional training and
ensure staff attendance at such training. The training should
focus on the legislation’s intent and specific policy require-ments,
including the use of required forms and letters.
n Second, the Department should monitor case managers compli-ance
with program requirements. For example, the Department
could modify its automated child protective services information
system to do this.
n Third, the Department should use, where appropriate, its cur-rent
goals, objectives, and performance measures to assess the
outcomes of kinship foster care placements.
Additional Steps Needed To
Meet Legislative Intent
(See pages 35 through 42)
The Department likewise needs to take additional steps to ensure
that the kinship care pilot program achieves its intended out-comes.
The Legislature called for the Department to establish a
pilot program that would enhance the Department’s assistance to
Arizona’s kinship care families. Although families applying for
Summary
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL iii
KINSHIP CARE PILOT PROGRAM
cash assistance are receiving the maximum benefit amount in a
timely manner, the program’s success in increasing community
awareness and participation is unclear because the Department
does not have a plan to direct outreach activities or a mechanism
to assess its success. Under the program, the Department also pre-pared
resource guides for helping caregivers find services they
need, but these guides are limited. Finally, policies designed to
make it more convenient for families to apply for cash assistance,
such as requiring that only the relative child’s income be reported
when applying for the TANF child-only grant and waiving the
face-to-face interview requirement in lieu of a phone interview,
are not being consistently implemented. Eligibility workers are
processing applications for cash assistance much the same as they
did prior to the kinship care legislation. Relatives are often still
required to provide unnecessary personal financial information
and to undergo a face-to-face interview.
Improvements are needed in four areas to ensure the pilot pro-gram
meets legislative intent.
n First, a more systematic approach would enhance the
Department’s outreach efforts; for example, developing a writ-ten
plan which targets community agencies and organizations
to ensure they are aware of the kinship care program and also
determine if they can help the Department outreach to the
community. In addition, the Department should establish a
mechanism for collecting information on how relative care-givers
hear about the program to help it assess the success of
its outreach efforts.
n Second, the Department should identify and implement a more
effective referral system for assisting kinship care families obtain
other needed services. For example, it could update its current
resource quides or help families learn how to use existing com-munity
referral and information networks.
n Third, to ensure workers at the pilot offices are appropriately
implementing the streamlined application procedures, the
Department should ensure the workers undergo additional
training on the purpose and requirements of the streamlined
processes, and also revise its current cash assistance application
instructions to reflect the new processes.
Summary
iv OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
n Finally, the Department should routinely monitor its success
in meeting the intended outcomes for kinship care. This will
require the Department to develop a mechanism for identify-ing
kinship care cases separately from other cash assistance
cases and establish performance measures.
Summary
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL v
vi OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
Introduction and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Kinship Foster Care
Kinship Foster Care: An Overview . . . . . . . . 9
Many Foster Children
Are Placed with Relatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Legislature Took Action
in 2000 To Enhance
Department’s Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Funding and Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Finding I: Need To
Improve Compliance
with Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Department Documentation
To Meet All Legislative
Requirements Is Incomplete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Additional Steps Should Be
Taken To Ensure Policy Changes
Are Fully Implemented . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Statutory Evaluation Components . . . . . . . . 19
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Kinship Care Pilot Program
Kinship Care Pilot Program:
An Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Kinship Care Relatives
Parent Children Not
in Foster Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Legislature Took Action in 2000
To Enhance Department’s Assistance
and Establish Pilot Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Funding and Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Finding I: Additional Steps
Needed To Meet
Legislative Intent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Legislative Intent
Not Fully Met. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Department Should Ensure
Program Meets Legislative Intent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Statutory Evaluation Components . . . . . . . . 43
Agency Response
Table of Contents
viii OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont’d)
Page
Figures and Tables
Figure 1 Children in Kinship Foster Care
by Age Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Figure 2 Children in Kinship Foster Care
by Length of Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Figure 3 Kinship Foster Care Families
by Number of Relative Children . . . . . . 21
Figure 4 Kinship Foster Care
Caregivers by Age Group . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Figure 5 Children in Kinship Care Pilot Program
by Age Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Figure 6 Kinship Care Pilot Program Families
by Number of Relative Children . . . . . . 44
Figure 7 Kinship Care Pilot Program
Caregivers by Age Group . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Table 1 Children in Foster Care
Demographics by Placement . . . . . . . . . . 27
Table of Contents
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Concl’d)
Page
x OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
Pursuant to Laws 2000, Chapter 183, §2 and Chapter 285, §14, the
Office of the Auditor General has completed an evaluation of two
areas within the Department of Economic Security: kinship foster
care and kinship care. These two areas, which both relate to
parental care provided by relatives, were identified by the
Legislature in 2000 as areas in which existing state efforts should
be enhanced. As a result of the legislation, the Department estab-lished
and began implementing new kinship foster care policies in
the fall of 2000, while a kinship care pilot program was initiated
January 1, 2001, in two locations—one in Phoenix and one in
Tucson. Within the Department, the Division of Children, Youth,
and Families oversees kinship foster care, while the Division of
Benefits and Medical Eligibility administers the kinship care pilot
program. The legislation included no additional funding or staff.
The evaluation focuses primarily on the kinship foster care and
kinship care processes implemented. However, to the extent pos-sible,
the evaluation also looks at the impact and effectiveness of
the changes.
Care by Relatives
Seen As an
Important Option
When someone other than an
actual parent must provide
parental care, relatives are an
important option because they
help preserve the integrity of the
family. In Arizona, two specific
options exist in which the State
offers financial benefits and non-financial
services to relatives—
kinship foster care and kinship
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL 1
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Item 1 Arizona’s
Relative Care
Definitions
Kinship foster care involves the
parenting of a child by a relative
when the court determines that a
child should be separated from his
or her parents due to abuse or neg-lect,
and placed in the custody and
control of the State’s child welfare
agency.
Kinship care involves the parent-ing
of a child by a relative when the
relative takes on the responsibility
without court or child welfare
agency involvement.
Relative care can ease
the trauma children
may face when leaving
familiar surroundings.
care. (See Item 1, page 1.) Some of the specific benefits of relative care
reported by the Child Welfare League of America included allowing
children to live with people they know and trust, reducing the trau-ma
children may experience and reinforcing children’s cultural iden-tity.
1
While relatives may be willing to provide such care, many of them
must first overcome a variety of barriers. For example, a report by
the National Adoption Information Clearinghouse indicated that
many relatives felt they could not care for relative children
because of limited financial and housing resources.2 In addition,
some relatives indicated they were uncertain they would be able
to obtain appropriate services to address special needs or prob-lems
the children might experience. Also, unless relatives have
legal custody of the children, they may not have the authority to
make medical and educational decisions on their behalf.
To encourage and support relative care, the Department provides
a variety of financial benefits and nonfinancial services to kinship
families. For example, services such as foster care maintenance
payments, case management, and counseling are available when
a child is placed in a kinship foster care setting. Similarly, kinship
care relatives may be able to receive a cash assistance grant,
known as a child-only TANF grant, and referrals to other
Department or community services.
Scope and Methodology
In April 2000, the Governor approved legislation designed to
enhance both kinship foster care and kinship care in Arizona. One
requirement of that legislation was for the Office of the Auditor
General to perform an evaluation of the impact and effectiveness
of these efforts (Laws 2000, Chapter 183, §2, and Chapter 285, §14).
Introduction and Background
2 OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
1 Child Welfare League of America, Inc. CWLA Standards of Excellent for Kinship
Care Services. Washington, D.C.: Child Welfare League of America, Inc. 2000.
2 Hochman, Gloria. Keeping the Family Tree Intact Through Kinship Care. Rockville,
MD: National Adoption Information Clearinghouse, 1996.
The sections that follow in this report present an overview of the
legislative requirements in each area and findings that relate to the
following:
n The Department needs to establish additional training and
monitoring mechanisms to ensure that it is emphasizing kin-ship
foster care placements and complying with legislative
requirements.
n The Department needs to take additional steps to ensure that
it is meeting legislative intent for the kinship care pilot pro-gram.
In addition, statutorily required information pertaining to kinship
foster care and the kinship care pilot program is included in each
section.
Scope limited primarily to process evaluation—This evaluation
focuses primarily on the quality of the Department’s processes for
implementing the legislative requirements for kinship foster care
and kinship care and, to the extent possible, the effectiveness of the
changes. Evaluators’ ability to conduct an evaluation that could
more fully examine the actual impact and effectiveness of the
Department’s efforts was limited by several factors. For kinship
foster care, it was not possible to compare placements before and
after the program because the Department had no means for iden-tifying
all placements with relatives before the legislation took
effect. For the kinship care pilot program, evaluators were unable
to compare the performance of the two kinship care pilot offices to
nonpilot offices because the Department implemented most of the
legislative changes in all offices. For example, every office is now
required to process child-only TANF grant applications within 20
days, thereby eliminating evaluators’ ability to make a valid com-parison
between pilot and nonpilot offices.
Several methods used to assess the two areas—Evaluators used
multiple methods to assess both the kinship foster care area and
the kinship care pilot program. The following general methods
were applied to both areas:
n Analyzing Department policies to assess whether they ade-quately
addressed the kinship foster care and kinship care leg-islative
requirements.
Introduction and Background
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL 3
n Reviewing Department training materials to determine what
type of information was provided to staff regarding the kin-ship
foster care and kinship care legislative and policy require-ments.
n Reviewing the Child Welfare League of America’s Standards
of Excellence for Kinship Care Services to obtain information
on best practices for kinship foster care and kinship care.
In addition, evaluators used the following specific methods in the
kinship foster care area:
n Reviewing 59 randomly selected kinship foster care cases from
across the State in which the child was removed from his or
her home between August 2000 and December 2001 and
placed with a relative. This review was completed to determine
if the Department was following legislative and policy require-ments
for the kinship foster care area.
n Collecting, testing, and analyzing data from the Department’s
automated child protective services information system
(CHILDS) to provide information such as the number of fos-ter
children placed with relatives, demographic information,
and the types and costs of services provided to kinship foster
care families during calendar year 2001.
n Interviewing 13 case managers, 11 supervisors, and 17
Department administrative and management officials to
obtain information about kinship foster care, including leg-islative
requirements and the Department’s new policy
requirements.
n Interviewing five kinship foster caregivers to obtain their per-spective
on relative placements. Relative interviews were lim-ited
because of confidentiality issues and the need to have rel-atives
volunteer to speak with evaluators.
Evaluators used the following specific methods to assess the kin-ship
care pilot program:
n Reviewing 102 kinship care case files from the two pilot
offices. One pilot office is located in the south Phoenix area,
and the other office is located in the south Tucson area. Files
Introduction and Background
4 OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
were selected randomly from calendar year 2000 and calendar
year 2001 to determine if cases opened since the pilot pro-gram’s
inception were being processed according to legislative
and departmental policy requirements, and to compare pro-cessing
time frames and benefit amounts prior to and after
program inception.
n Collecting, testing, and analyzing data from the Department’s
automated welfare information system (AZTEC) to provide
information on such factors as the number of kinship care fam-ilies
served and benefit amounts received during calendar
year 2001.
n Interviewing seven eligibility workers, two clerical workers,
and four supervisors from the two kinship care pilot offices to
determine their understanding of the kinship care legislative
requirements and the Department’s new policy requirements.
n Interviewing representatives from organizations involved
with community services and referrals, such as Beatitudes’
Center DOAR, Arizona Children’s Association, and the
University of Arizona’s Cooperative Extension to determine
the types of community services and referrals available to kin-ship
care families.
This evaluation 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 coop-eration
and assistance during the evaluation.
Introduction and Background
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL 5
6 OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL 7
KINSHIP FOSTER CARE
8 OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
In April 2000, legislation was passed to enhance the Department’s
assistance to relatives providing foster care. This legislation for-malized
existing processes the Department was using to provide
such assistance and also added some new requirements.
Many Foster Children
Are Placed with Relatives
Foster care provided by relatives is a significant part of Arizona’s
foster care program. In kinship foster care, a relative provides par-enting
for a child when a court determines that, because of child
abuse or neglect, the child should be separated from his or her par-ents
and placed in the control and custody of the State’s child wel-fare
agency. The Department has placed foster care children with
relatives for many years, and these placements comprise a size-able
segment of the total program. According to departmental
data, at the end of calendar year 2001, 1,450 of the approximately
6,100 foster care children in Arizona were placed with relatives. Of
the 1,450 children, 87 (6 percent) were in licensed relative foster
homes and 1,363 (94 percent) were in unlicensed relative foster
homes.
As noted above, relatives providing foster care can be either
licensed or unlicensed. Licensed kinship foster caregivers must
meet mandated licensing requirements including minimum age,
income, and health requirements; criminal history background
and character reference checks; and home space and equipment
requirements. These caregivers are eligible to receive foster care
maintenance payments ranging between $11.94 and $27.81 per
child per day based on the child’s age and special needs.
Unlicensed kinship foster caregivers do not have to meet the
licensing requirements but are still subject to the Department’s
and Court’s approval, which includes a criminal history back-ground
check and home study. Unlicensed providers are not eli-gible
for foster care maintenance payments but may be eligible for
monthly cash assistance through the Temporary Assistance to
Needy Families (TANF) grant program. These monthly grants
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL 9
KINSHIP FOSTER CARE: AN OVERVIEW
1,450 Arizona foster
children are living with
relatives.
provide $204 for the first child and approximately $71 for each
additional child.
All kinship foster care children, whether placed with a licensed or
an unlicensed relative, are eligible for daily clothing and personal
allowances that vary depending on the child’s age, ranging from
$0.63 to $2.63 a day. Furthermore, special payments for such items
as books, tuition, diapers, and day camp may be available based
on demonstrated need.
In addition to the financial benefits, a variety of other services are
available to children in kinship foster care and relative caregivers
including medical and dental care for the children, case manage-ment
services, counseling, parent aide services, and childcare. The
children’s parents are also offered services.
Legislature Took Action
in 2000 To Enhance
Department’s Assistance
In April 2000, the Governor signed kinship foster care legislation
intended to encourage kinship placements and support relative
caregivers through coordination of available services and benefits.
Under Arizona Revised Statutes §§8-514.03 (Laws 2000, Chapters
183 and 285), the Legislature formalized some of the Department’s
existing processes and added new requirements, such as requir-ing
the Department to establish procedures for notifying appli-cants
when they are denied as a kinship foster care placement and
for informing kinship foster care families of available financial
benefits and nonfinancial services. Specific legislative require-ments
include:
n Background assessments—Although the Department was
already evaluating the appropriateness of out-of-home place-ments,
the legislation requires the Department to implement
specific procedures for assessing a prospective relative caregiv-er’s
ability to provide a secure and safe environment for the child.
For example, character reference checks on the caregiver and a
home study must be conducted. In addition, criminal history
background checks must be obtained on all adult members of
the household. The Court reviews this information prior to issu-
Kinship Foster Care: An Overview
10 OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Kinship foster care leg-islation
intended to
promote relative place-ments.
ing an order to place a child in the physical custody of a relative
caregiver.
n Appeal process—In addition, the legislation requires the
Department to implement specific procedures for notifying rela-tives
when they have been denied as a placement. For example,
if the Department determines that a kinship foster care place-ment
is not in the child’s best interest, it must provide written
notification to the relative within 15 business days that it will not
recommend the placement, and make the relative aware of his
or her opportunity to appeal the decision.
n Financial and nonfinancial services—The Department is
required to establish procedures for informing kinship foster
care families about available financial benefits such as foster
care maintenance payments and nonfinancial services such as
medical and dental care for the foster child, counseling servic-es,
and childcare. In addition, if a family declines to apply for
financial benefits or nonfinancial services, the family must sign
a statement indicating that they declined services, and the
Department must provide a copy of the statement to the fam-ily.
Funding and Staff
The kinship foster care legislation did not provide any additional
funding since the Department was already placing foster children
with relatives. As a result, any costs associated with developing
new policies, providing training, modifying automated systems,
and processing kinship foster care cases are absorbed within the
existing budget of the Department’s Division of Children, Youth,
and Families, which oversees the foster care program. The
Division’s fiscal year 2002 budget (appropriated and non-appro-priated
funds) is approximately $256 million. These funds must
cover the full array of the Division’s child welfare and child pro-tection
programs and services, including child abuse prevention
programs, case management services, in-home family support
services (necessary to maintain children in their own homes), serv-ices
required for children placed in out-of-home care (including
medical and dental care), and permanency services for children
(including the adoption and guardianship programs). These
funds include approximately $55 million in federal Title IV-E
funding; however Title IV-E funding is restricted to licensed care-
Kinship Foster Care: An Overview
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL 11
Legislation included no
additional funding or
staff for kinship foster
care.
givers, and only six percent of the kinship foster caregivers are
licensed.
For the most part, no specific staff are dedicated solely to working
on relative cases. Rather, case managers within each of the
Division’s six districts handle kinship foster care cases as part of
their workload.
12 OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Kinship Foster Care: An Overview
The Department needs to take additional steps to ensure that it
meets the intent of the kinship foster care legislation. The legisla-tion’s
intent is to promote relative placements and to support rel-ative
caregivers through the coordination of available services and
benefits. Although the Department developed policies to address
new legislative requirements, it cannot demonstrate that its per-sonnel
have fully and consistently implemented them. For exam-ple,
many cases reviewed lacked documentation showing that
legislative requirements had been fulfilled. To improve, the
Department needs to provide better training to staff who admin-ister
the program, establish better ways to monitor staff compli-ance
with policies, and adapt, where appropriate, its current goals,
objectives, and performance measures to track the outcomes of
children placed in kinship foster care.
Department Documentation
To Meet All Legislative
Requirements Is Incomplete
The Department lacks complete documentation of its efforts to
meet legislative requirements. A file review of kinship foster care
cases found forms designed to meet legislative requirements are
often not being used. Furthermore, interviews with some depart-ment
personnel suggest additional areas of concern, such as
whether case managers are following the required notification
procedure when denying a relative as a foster care placement.
Forms to carry out legislative directives are not being used—The
Department has three main forms to help ensure that its person-nel
meet kinship foster care legislative requirements. These forms
assist workers in assessing the safety of the prospective kinship
foster care placement, informing relative caretakers of available
financial benefits and nonfinancial services, and ensuring the well-being
of the children placed with relative caregivers. However,
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL 13
FINDING I NEED TO IMPROVE
COMPLIANCE WITH
REQUIREMENTS
evaluators’ review of 59 files from across the State found that in
most cases, these forms were not being used.
n Placement consideration form—The Information for Kinship
Foster Care Placement Consideration form was developed to
collect information on the prospective relative caregiver and
all other household members. This form is used to help the
Department assess the caregiver’s ability to provide a secure
and safe environment for the child and to inform the caregiv-er
of available financial benefits and nonfinancial services.
However, 75 percent of the files reviewed, or 44 files, did not
contain this form.
n Assessment checklist form—The Checklist for Assessment
of Kinship Foster Care and Significant Person Placement form
helps the Department assess the safety of the home environ-ment.
This form collects self-reported information on an indi-vidual’s
criminal history background and involvement with
child abuse and neglect reports. However, 80 percent of the
files reviewed, or 47 files, did not contain this form.
n Placement agreement form—The Agreement for Child
Placement form is intended to help ensure the well-being of a
child placed with a relative caregiver. The form outlines the
conditions of the placement, including requiring the caregiver
to work in cooperation with the Department and to deny vis-itation
between the child and any individual who the
Department has determined may be unsafe. However, 68 per-cent
of the files reviewed, or 40 files, did not contain this form.
A recent federal review conducted by the Administration of
Children and Families found that overall, the Department’s efforts
to place foster children with relatives were strong, but it also noted
instances where case files lacked documentation as to whether
relatives were either sought or considered and the reasons rela-tives
were excluded.1
Interviews suggest additional areas of concern—Two additional
areas of concern were noted by evaluators during interviews with
Finding I
14 OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
1 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for
Children and Families. Arizona Child and Family Services Review Final
Report. Washington, D.C. 2002.
Placement considera-tion
forms used in
assessing prospective
caregivers found in less
than one-quarter of
case files.
some Department personnel. First, not all case managers inter-viewed
were following the Department’s procedure for notifying
relatives in writing when they are declined as a relative place-ment.
For example, seven case managers indicated that they ver-bally
inform relatives when they have been denied as a relative
placement, and do not use the Department’s form letter.1
However, this form letter is important because it requires the case
manager to list the reasons for the denial and provide the relative
with the opportunity to appeal the Department’s decision.
Second, there may be a potential disincentive to place foster care
children with relatives due to the additional time and work
required. For example, to place a foster care child with a relative,
the case manager must conduct a home study and begin a back-ground
assessment. However, the worker does not have to do
these additional things if placing the child in an existing licensed
home or facility because the work was already done by a licensing
specialist.
Additional Steps Should Be
Taken To Ensure Policy Changes
Are Fully Implemented
Although no appropriation was provided for kinship foster care,
the Department needs to take steps to address the reasons why its
kinship foster care policies have not been fully implemented.
Specifically, the Department should direct its efforts at providing
additional training, developing additional monitoring mecha-nisms
to review compliance with policy requirements, and sepa-rately
identifying and tracking the outcomes of children placed in
kinship foster care.
Additional training needed—The Child Welfare League of
America recommends that child welfare agencies recognize the
importance of adequately training staff regarding kinship foster
care programs.2 Although the Department developed some train-ing
to address the new kinship foster care requirements, evalua-
Finding I
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL 15
1 Evaluators were unable to determine the extent to which case managers are
not using the required denial form as the case managers interviewed did not
constitute a representative sample.
2 Child Welfare League of America, Inc. CWLA Standards of Excellence for Kinship
Care Services. Washington, D.C. 2000.
tors’ interviews with case managers indicated that some case
managers were not fully familiar with new policy requirements.
Therefore, the Department should enhance its training in two
ways.
n Training needs to emphasize legislative requirements—The
Department should ensure that this training covers the legis-lation’s
intent and specific policy requirements, including the
use of required kinship foster care forms and letters.
n Greater emphasis needed on staff attendance—When the
Department provides training, it should ensure that all case
managers, unit supervisors, and other staff who are involved
with kinship foster care are in attendance. Although the
Department declared its previous kinship foster care training
to be mandatory, some case managers reported that they did
not attend the training sessions because their caseloads and
schedules did not permit it. Further, interviews conducted
with 11 case managers throughout the State to determine why
policies were not being fully implemented revealed that more
than half did not attend or did not recall attending the train-ing.
Establish additional monitoring mechanisms—Although the
Department requires supervisory review of all cases, additional
monitoring mechanisms are needed to ensure compliance with
kinship foster care legislation and policy requirements.
Department supervisors have a general oversight responsibility
with regard to foster care, in that according to policy, supervisors
are required to review all foster care cases at least once a quarter.
However, they have no specific mechanisms to help them oversee
the kinship foster care requirements.
Various options exist for better ensuring kinship foster care com-pliance.
One option would be to modify the Department’s auto-mated
child protective services information system to capture
information regarding kinship foster care cases. Supervisors could
use the system to more easily review the work completed on rel-ative
placements and to track case manager compliance with kin-ship
foster care requirements. To obtain the system modifications,
a request would need to be submitted through the Department’s
existing system review and approval process.
Finding I
16 OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Six of 11 case managers
interviewed could not
recall attending the
training.
Supervisors lack specif-ic
mechanisms to help
them oversee case man-ager
compliance.
A second option would be through the new Continuous Quality
Improvement case review process the Department is developing.
This process intends to annually review a total of approximately
100 foster care cases and will focus on the quality of services pro-vided.
The Department could incorporate the most critical com-ponents
regarding relative placements into this review to ensure
compliance with kinship foster care policies. In addition, the
Department should explore options for addressing any disincen-tives
that may exist for placing children with relatives, such as the
extra time and work required to conduct home studies.
Performance measures needed—The Department should, where
appropriate, adapt some of its current goals, objectives, and per-formance
measures to specifically address kinship foster care
cases. The Department has goals, objectives, and performance
measures relating to the entire foster care population, but lacks
any that specifically relate to kinship foster care children. Yet,
many of the broader goals and objectives are just as relevant to the
kinship foster care group. For example, one Department goal is
“to enhance children’s health and development by providing sta-ble
and nurturing environments.” Further, one objective is “to
increase the percentage of children who move no more than twice
during a 12- to 24-month period in care by 5 percent.”
By separately tracking kinship foster care cases, the Deparment
will be able to monitor its progress in achieving successful out-comes
for children placed with relative caregivers. Further, this
will allow the Department to respond to the statutory reporting
requirement to compare its placement of children with relative
caregivers to nonrelative caregivers.
Finding I
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL 17
Department should use
current goals, objec-tives,
and performance
measures to track kin-ship
foster care cases.
Recommendations
Although no appropriation was provided for kinship foster care,
additional steps are needed to better ensure it meets legislative
intent.
1. The Department should develop and provide additional kin-ship
foster care training and place greater emphasis on
staff attendance. The training should focus on the legisla-tion’s
intent and specific policy requirements, including
the use of required forms and letters.
2. The Department should develop additional monitoring mecha-nisms
to help ensure compliance with kinship foster care
requirements. To do so, the Department should consider:
a. Modifying the Department’s automated child protec-tive
services information system to track case manag-er
compliance with the requirements.
b. Incorporating critical aspects of relative placements
into the Continuous Quality Improvement process the
Department is developing.
c. Exploring options to address any disincentives for
placing foster care children with relatives.
3. The Department should use, where appropriate, its current
goals, objectives, and performance measures to assess the out-comes
of kinship foster care placements.
Finding I
18 OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Pursuant to Laws 2000, Chapter 183, §2 and Chapter 285, §14, the
Office of the Auditor General is required to include the following
information in the kinship foster care evaluation. The data report-ed
in this section is for children in foster care as of December 31,
2001. The data was provided by the Department and analyzed by
Auditor General staff.
E.1. The number of children placed in kinship foster care.
There were 1,450 children in kinship foster care as of
December 31, 2001. Of these children, 87 (6 percent) were
in licensed relative foster homes and 1,363 (94 percent)
were in unlicensed relative foster homes.
E.2. The number of families served through kinship foster
care.
There were 895 families participating in kinship foster care
as of December 31, 2001. Of these families, 40 (4 percent)
were licensed foster families and 855 (96 percent) were
unlicensed foster families.
E.3. Demographic information concerning the families in
kinship foster care.
Child Information—Demographic and other information
is reported for the 1,450 children in kinship foster care as of
December 31, 2001.
􀂄􈑃 Child’s relationship to caregiver—Half (50 percent)
of the children in kinship foster care lived with grand-parents
or great-grandparents; 29 percent were with
aunts or uncles; and 9 percent were with others, such
as siblings, cousins, stepparents, or family friends. The
Department was unable to provide this information for
the remaining 168 (12 percent) children.
􀂄􈑃 Child’s age—The largest age group of children in kin-ship
foster care was birth to 4 years; however, more
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL 19
STATUTORY EVALUATION COMPONENTS
than two-thirds of the children in kinship foster care
were under the age of 10. (See Figure 1.)
􀂄􈑃 Child’s gender—Half (50 percent) of the children in
kinship foster care were female and half were male.
􀂄􈑃 Child’s ethnicity—The greatest percentage (43 per-cent)
of children in kinship foster care were Caucasian,
37 percent were Hispanic, 11 percent were African-
American, 6 percent were Native American, and the
remaining 3 percent were Asian or other.
􀂄􈑌 Length of time in placement—Most of the children in
kinship foster care have been in their current place-ment
with a relative between 1 and 12 months. (See
Figure 2, page 21.)
Statutory Evaluation Components
20 OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
577
415
322
133
Birth to 4
years
5 to 9
years
10 to 14
years
15 years
and older
Figure 1 Children in
Kinship Foster Care
by Age Group 1
1 The Department was unable to provide this
information for three children.
Caregiver Information—Demographic and other infor-mation
is reported for the 895 relative caregivers partici-pating
in kinship foster care as of December 31, 2001. This
information is reported for only one relative caregiver, the
primary caregiver, in each kinship foster care family.
􀂄􈑎 Number of relative children per kinship foster care
family—Arizona’s kinship foster care families typical-ly
cared for one or two relative children. (See Figure 3.)
Statutory Evaluation Components
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL 21
Figure 2 Children in Kinship Foster Care
by Length of Placement
100
450
335
378
136
51
Less than
1 month
1 to 3
months
4 to 6
months
7 to 12
months
13 to 24
months
25
months
or more
Kinship Foster Care Families
by Number of Relative Children
535
235
76
33 16
1
child
2
children
3
children
4
children
5 to 7
children
Figure 3
􀂄􈑃 Caregiver’s marital status—The majority (54 percent)
of relative caregivers were married.
􀂄􈑃 Caregiver’s gender—The vast majority (89 percent) of
the relative caregivers were women.
􀂄􈑃 Caregiver’s county of residence—Almost half (44
percent) of the relative caregivers resided in Maricopa
County, while another 33 percent resided in Pima
County. The percentage of caregivers residing in the
remaining counties ranged from 0 to 3 percent.
􀂄􈑃 Caregiver’s age—Half (50 percent) of relative care-givers
fall within the 45-to-64-year-old age range. (See
Figure 4.)
􀂄􈑃 Caregiver’s ethnicity—The majority (54 percent) of
relative caregivers were Caucasian, 30 percent were
Hispanic, 9 percent were African-American, and 4 per-cent
were Native American. The Department was
unable to provide this information for the remaining 3
percent of the caregivers.
Statutory Evaluation Components
22 OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Figure 4
30
124
214
448
55
Under
25 years
25 to 34
years
35 to 44
years
45 to 64
years
65 years and
older
Kinship Foster Care
Caregivers by Age Group 1
1 The Department was unable to provide this information
for 24 relative caregivers.
E.4. The type of services provided to kinship foster care
families.
Kinship foster care families are eligible for a variety of
financial benefits and nonfinancial services. Financial ben-efits
are direct payments to caregivers for the costs of pro-viding
care. Nonfinancial services are services provided to
the child, relative caregiver, or biological parents. These
benefits and services are provided directly through the
Department, or through contracts or referrals to other
agencies and community service providers. Some exam-ples
of these benefits and services are listed below.
􀂄􈑆 Financial benefits are available through two primary
sources. Licensed relative caregivers are eligible for fos-ter
care maintenance payments ranging from between
$11.94 and $27.81 per day based on the child’s age and
special needs.1 Unlicensed relative caregivers may be
eligible for monthly cash assistance through the TANF
child-only grant, which is $204 for the first child and
approximately $71 for each additional child. In addi-tion
to these payments, all kinship foster care children
are eligible for daily clothing and personal allowances
that vary depending on the child’s age, ranging from
$0.63 to $2.63 a day. Furthermore, special payments for
items such as books, tuition, diapers, and day camp
may be available based on a demonstrated need.
􀂄􈑃 Counseling services, including individual and
group/family counseling, inpatient psychiatric treat-ment
for children under the age of 18, and emergency
mental health care.
􀂄􈑐 Parenting skills training to help caregivers update
their parenting and knowledge skills on issues such as
appropriate discipline and providing adequate super-vision.
􀂄􈑃 Case management services to assist caregivers with
tasks such as identifying and coordinating appropriate
Statutory Evaluation Components
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL 23
1 The daily basic rates for foster care maintenance payments are $11.94
for children up to age 11 and $13.95 for children age 12 and older.
services and communicating with service providers. In
addition, case managers regularly meet with the kin-ship
care family to assess how the relative children are
doing and to assist with the resolution of any problems
identified. Finally, case managers monitor the family’s
use of services and progress toward completion of case
plan tasks and goals.
􀂄􈑐 Parent aides to assist relative caregivers by providing
information on child management, and also by pro-viding
transportation and visitation supervision.
􀂄􈑒 Respite care to provide relative caretakers with tem-porary
relief from their caretaking responsibilities is
available for up to 144 hours a year for licensed relative
caregivers.
􀂄􈑃 Childcare services are available to relative caregivers
at a reduced rate dependent on the need and circum-stances
of the caregiver and children.
􀂄􈑍 Medical and dental coverage is available to all kin-ship
foster care children through the State’s
Comprehensive Medical and Dental Program or the
Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System.
E.5. The cost of services provided to kinship foster care
families.
Only a limited amount of information on the cost of serv-ices
provided to kinship foster care families can be provid-ed
because the Department has no mechanism for tracking
all costs by case, child, or family. However, data obtained
from the Departm;ent’s ;child protective services informa-tion
system—CHILDS—indicates that $1.3 million in case-or
client-specific costs were paid during calendar year 2001
for the 1,450 kinship foster care children.1
Statutory Evaluation Components
24 OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
1 This amount is the cost for those foster care children living with rela-tives
on December 31, 2001, and only for the period of time in calen-dar
year 2001 that the child was living with the relative. For example,
if a child was placed with a relative on September 20, 2001, the cost
reported for calendar year 2001 would be for the period September
20, 2001, through December 31, 2001.
The cost information presented here is primarily monies
directly paid to relative foster caregivers for foster care
maintenance payments and allowances. Specifically, all
the licensed relative foster care homes received foster care
maintenance payments, and almost all kinship care rela-tives
(94 percent), regardless of whether they were
licensed, received allowance payments.
The cost information does not include payments made for
several types of services. For example, although all foster
care children are eligible to receive medical, dental, and
behavioral health services, these services are often paid for
through a capitated or group rate, and are not captured in
CHILDS.1 In addition, CHILDS does not capture informa-tion
on child-only TANF benefits paid to unlicensed rela-tive
caregivers. Information reported by the Department
indicates that $105,623 in child-only benefits were paid to
407 unlicensed kinship foster care families during
December 2001.
E.6. Information on provider referrals.
The data needed to report on the number of provider refer-rals
made for kinship foster care families is not available.
The Department currently has no mechanism for collect-ing
this information.
E.7. Recommendations regarding program administration.
Several recommendations were made to ensure the
Department is meeting the intent of the kinship foster care
legislation. (See Finding I, pages 13 through 18.) These rec-ommendations
focused on three areas.
􀂄􈑄 Developing and providing additional kinship foster
care training and placing greater emphasis on staff
attending the training.
Statutory Evaluation Components
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL 25
1 According to Department officials, CHILDS captures a limited
amount of information on these types of services when they are pro-vided
on an emergency basis to comply with a court order.
􀂄􈑄 Developing additional monitoring mechanisms to
help the Department ensure case manager compliance
with kinship foster care requirements.
􀂄􈑕 Using, where appropriate, its current goals, objectives
and performance measures to assess the outcomes of
kinship foster care placements.
E.8. This statutory evaluation component pertains only to
the Department’s kinship care pilot program. (See
page 47.)
E.9. This statutory evaluation component pertains only to
the Department’s kinship care pilot program. (See
page 47.)
E.10. The effect of kinship foster care in reducing the num-ber
of children placed in nonkinship foster care.
Prior to September 2001, the Department had no way to
identify all of its kinship foster care families. Therefore,
there is no baseline data by which to assess this evaluation
component.
E.11. A comparison of the placement of children with rela-tive
caregivers to nonrelative placements by the
Department of Economic Security. (See Table 1, page
27.)
Of the 6,068 children in foster care as of December 31, 2001,
1,450 (24 percent) were placed with relative caregivers. The
demographic information presented in Table 1 (see page
27) is provided for comparative purposes.
To help the Department better respond to statutory
components E.10 and E.11, evaluators recommended
that the Department develop goals and performance
measures specific to the kinship foster care program.
(See page 18.)
Statutory Evaluation Components
26 OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Statutory Evaluation Components
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL 27
Table 1
Children in Foster Care
Demographics by Placement
Characteristics Relative 1 Nonrelative 2
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Age
Birth to 4 years 577 40% 851 18%
5 to 9 years 415 29 681 15
10 to 14 years 322 22 944 20
15 years or older 133 9 998 22
Missing 3 <1 1,144 25
Gender
Female 726 50 2,117 46
Male 721 50 2,498 54
Missing 3 <1 3 <1
Ethnicity
African-American 155 11 657 14
Caucasian 623 43 2,293 50
Hispanic 537 37 1,292 28
Native American 90 6 271 6
Other 42 3 105 2
Missing 3 <1 0 0
County of residence
Apache 2 <1 28 1
Cochise 26 2 141 3
Coconino 3 <1 118 3
Gila 10 1 46 1
Graham 16 1 25 <1
Greenlee 7 <1 2 <1
La Paz 0 0 2 <1
Maricopa 631 44 2,366 51
Mohave 18 1 90 2
Navajo 20 1 33 1
Pima 510 35 1,285 28
Pinal 40 3 169 4
Santa Cruz 0 0 12 <1
Yavapa i 26 2 216 5
Yuma 26 2 85 2
Out of state/country 97 7 0 0
Missing 18 1 0 0
1 n = 1,450
2 n = 4,618
28 OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL 29
KINSHIP CARE PILOT PROGRAM
30 OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
In April 2000, the Governor approved legislation also
designed to enhance assistance to relatives who, while not
participating in the State’s foster care program, provide
parental care for family members. This legislation established
a pilot program for encouraging relatives to provide such
care and for better coordinating the services the State can pro-vide
to them.
Kinship Care Relatives
Parent Children Not
in Foster Care
Besides being an important group of caregivers within the
State’s foster care program, relatives are also an important
group of kinship care providers. Kinship care families are
families in which a relative takes on the parenting of a child
without the involvement of a court or the State’s child welfare
agency. The Department’s primary support of these families
is through its TANF child-only grants, which provide cash
assistance to relatives to help meet the needs of the relative
children they are providing care for. Although the total num-ber
of Arizona children living with relatives is unknown,
according to departmental data, at the end of calendar year
2001 there were approximately 6,400 Arizona kinship care
families statewide caring for nearly 11,000 relative children.
Legislature Took Action in 2000
To Enhance Department’s Assistance
and Establish Pilot Program
Under Arizona Revised Statutes §8-514.04 (Laws 2000,
Chapters 183 and 285), the Legislature established a pilot
program to improve the State’s efforts regarding kinship
care. Although the Department was already providing TANF
child-only grants to relatives, the legislation established four
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL 31
KINSHIP CARE PILOT PROGRAM: AN OVERVIEW
Appoximately 6,400
Arizona kinship care
families statewide are
caring for nearly
11,000 relative chil-dren.
main goals for the program (see Item 2), formalized some
of the Department’s existing processes, and added new
requirements, such as:
n Use existing outreach and marketing measures to
facilitate community awareness of the pilot program;
n Streamline the application process by waiving the
face-to-face interview requirement; and
n Establish an expedited process for processing TANF
child-only grants.
The legislation required that these new mandates be piloted
in at least two locations within the State. The Department
chose to locate the pilot program at one office serving the
south Phoenix area and one serving the south Tucson area.
These offices were selected based on the high number of kin-ship
care cases they already had and because they are located
within multi-service offices housing other Department pro-grams,
such as Child Care and Job Service.
Funding and Staff
The kinship care legislation did not provide any additional
funding for the pilot program since the Department was
already providing TANF child-only grants to relative care-givers.
As a result, any costs associated with developing new
policies, providing training, modifying automated systems,
and processing the kinship care cases are absorbed within the
existing budget of the Department’s Division of Benefits and
Medical Eligibility. Although there is no specific appropria-tion
for the kinship care pilot program, in December 2001, a
total of nearly $1.6 million in financial assistance was provid-ed
to relative caregivers statewide, including $80,000 provid-ed
through the kinship care pilot offices. The monthly grant
amount available for the care of relative children is based on
a sliding scale, with a maximum of $204 for the first child and
approximately $71 for each additional child.
Overview
32 OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Item 2 Kinship Care
Program Goals
t To streamline, expedite, and
coordinate existing services
and referrals;
t To preserve families;
t To help meet the protection,
developmental, cultural, and
permanency needs of children;
and
t To enable families to sustain
support for a child who cannot
live with the child’s parents.
Legislation included no
additional funding or
staff for the program.
Currently, the Phoenix pilot office dedicates one of its exist-ing
eligibility workers to process its kinship care cases,
although all of the office’s workers are trained to handle kin-ship
care cases. In contrast, all 26 of the Tucson pilot office’s
eligibility workers process kinship care cases along with their
responsibilities for other non-kinship care cases.1
Overview
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL 33
1 This office also has other eligibility workers dedicated to specific
tasks such as conducting medical assistance reviews.
34 OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
The Department needs to take additional steps to ensure that the
kinship care pilot program achieves its intended outcomes. The
Department took steps to implement the legislative requirements
for this pilot program such as implementing new policies.
However, it is unclear whether the Department’s outreach efforts
have increased community awareness of the pilot program.
Further, its new processes for referring families to services, and for
streamlining the application process, are not being consistently
used. Therefore, additional steps, such as developing a written
outreach plan, providing additional training, and gathering out-come
information are needed to better ensure program outcomes
are achieved.
Legislative Intent
Not Fully Met
The Department took steps to implement the legislative require-ments
for the kinship care pilot program, but additional steps are
needed to ensure the pilot program achieves its intended out-comes.
At the pilot offices, the Department continues to process
TANF applications in a timely manner and provide applicants
with the maximum cash benefit amount. However, its success in
increasing community awareness of the kinship care program is
unclear because the Department currently does not gather infor-mation
on how new applicants heard about the program. Further,
the mechanism it developed to refer kinship care families to need-ed
services is limited, and the policy changes designed to make
the application process more convenient for families are not being
consistently implemented.
Department continues to provide relative caregivers with maxi-mum
benefit amount in a timely manner—While the Department
implemented new policies designed to ensure that kinship care
families receive the maximum TANF child-only grant amount in
a timely manner, this was already occurring at the pilot offices.
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL 35
FINDING I ADDITIONAL STEPS NEEDED
TO MEET LEGISLATIVE INTENT
n Maximum benefit already being awarded—To better enable
kinship care families to sustain support for their relative chil-dren,
the Department revised its policy to automatically make
these families eligible for the maximum TANF child-only
grant amount. Currently, the maximum monthly benefit
amount is $204 for the first child and approximately $71 for
each additional child.1 However, according to Department
officials, kinship care families typically were receiving the
maximum benefit amount before the policy change.
Evaluators’ review of kinship care case files from the two pilot
offices supported this impression. Evaluators found that all of
the files reviewed that had been opened prior to the policy
change were already receiving the higher benefit level.
n TANF applications continue to be processed in a timely
manner—To expedite the processing of applications for child-only
TANF cash assistance, the Department shortened the
application review and called for approving applications in a
maximum of 20 calendar days rather than 45 days. Evaluators’
review of kinship care case files from the two pilot offices
found that the average time to process the child-only TANF
applications was 15 days prior to the expedited process and 13
days afterwards.
Success of outreach unclear—The Department has participated in
a variety of outreach activities; however, it is unclear how suc-cessful
it has been in increasing community awareness of the pilot
program. Because the majority of children in kinship care live with
grandparents, the Department has focused its activities mainly on
the State’s elderly population.2 Specifically, the Department’s out-reach
activities have primarily centered on attending grandparent
support group meetings at the Travis Williams Family Center in
south Phoenix and participating in local Town Hall meetings
sponsored by the Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Southern
Arizona Coalition. In addition, the Tucson pilot office held six
monthly meetings through July 2001 to which community agency
representatives and grandparents were invited to discuss the
application process for TANF child-only grants.
Finding I
36 OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
1 Prior to the policy change, a lower TANF child-only grant was also available,
totaling $128 for the first child and $45 for each additional child.
2 Seventy-three percent of program children were in the care of grandparents
as of December 2001.
The success of the Department’s outreach activities, however, can-not
be measured. Specifically, although 78 new kinship care cases
were opened at the two pilot offices during calendar year 2001, it
is unclear if these are the result of its outreach efforts, because the
Department does not collect information on how the kinship care
families heard about the program.1 Further, evaluators found that
for several of the new cases, the relative caretaker had prior con-tact
with the Department’s Division of Benefit and Medical
Eligibility, which administers the kinship care program, and so
may have already been aware of the program.
Mechanism for referring relatives to other needed services is lim-ited—
Although the Department developed resource guides to
help address the legislative program goals of coordinating refer-rals
and enabling families to sustain support for their relative chil-dren,
these guides are not effectively meeting those purposes. For
each office involved in the pilot program, the Department devel-oped
a written list of private and public organizations that pro-vide
services such as legal assistance and childcare. However,
some staff find that the guides are not very useful and are not
handing them out. While Department officials acknowledge that
the guides are limited, they have not taken steps to revise them
because no appropriation was provided for the pilot program.
Streamlined application process has not been fully implement-ed—
Although the kinship care legislation sought to make the
application process more convenient for relatives, Department
policies designed to address this concern are not being consistent-ly
implemented.
n Face-to-face interview waiver not regularly used—To
streamline its application process, the Department obtained
approval from the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services to waive the face-to-face interview requirement when
applying for the TANF child-only grant. This action was taken
to address the concern that some relative caregivers may not
Finding I
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL 37
1 This number does not include unlicensed kinship foster care cases,
which are referred to the Division of Benefits and Medical Eligibility
from the Department’s Division of Children, Youth, and Families.
During calendar year 2001, there were an additional 12 kinship foster
care cases referred from this Division and opened at the two pilot
offices.
Referral resource
guides not considered
useful.
apply for the TANF child-only grant because of difficulty get-ting
to a welfare office. Although the requirement for a face-to-face
interview has been waived, some staff at the pilot offices
indicated that they do not typically inform first time applicants
of this option when they schedule the eligibility interview.
Moreover, although evaluators were unable to determine
whether an applicant was offered the option of waiving the
face-to-face interview and chose to decline the offer, a review
of kinship case files from the two pilot offices found that a tele-phone
interview was used instead of a face-to face interview
in only 4 of 21 cases.1
n Department still requesting unnecessary information—
Department staff are still requesting relatives to provide two
types of information that is no longer necessary2. First,
although Department procedure requires that only the relative
child’s income be reported when applying for the TANF child-only
grant, the application instructions have not been revised
to reflect this procedure. The application instructions still indi-cate
that when applying for cash assistance, the applicant must
provide personal financial information even if not personally
applying for the benefit. In addition, one pilot office verbally
instructs all applicants to complete the entire application.
According to some community group representatives, this has
caused confusion and frustration among relative caregivers
because they are being told about the streamlined processes,
yet when they go to the Department, they are still being
instructed to provide income information on all household
members. Evaluators’ review of kinship care files from the two
pilot offices found that two-thirds of the caregivers only apply-ing
for child-only cash assistance provided their income infor-mation.
Finding I
38 OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
1 This review excluded cases where the kinship care applicant was also
applying for food stamps because policy initially required anyone
applying for food stamps to undergo a face-to-face interview.
However, this policy was revised as of October 2001 to allow kinship
care applicants to waive the face-to-face interview even when apply-ing
for food stamps.
2 If the relative caregiver is also applying for food stamps, he or she
must then provide personal income information and show the rela-tive
child has a shelter/rent obligation.
Second, despite the fact that it is no longer a requirement, sev-eral
eligibility workers are still asking relatives to show that
their relative children have a shelter/rent obligation in order
to receive the maximum benefit amount.
Department Should Ensure
Program Meets Legislative Intent
Although no appropriation was provided for the pilot program,
additional steps are needed to better ensure the kinship care pilot
program meets legislative intent. Therefore, as the Department
prioritizes its responsibilities based on its available resources, it
should consider the following recommendations. First, a formal
written plan and tracking mechanism should be developed to
guide the Department’s outreach efforts for the kinship care pro-gram.
Second, a more effective referral mechanism should be
identified and implemented. Third, the Department should
ensure its streamlined processes are implemented appropriately
through additional training and changes in application instruc-tions.
Finally, the Department should gather information to help it
assess whether the program’s intended outcomes are being
achieved.
Outreach plan needed—The Department could better ensure the
requirement to facilitate community awareness of the pilot pro-gram
is met by developing a written strategy, or plan. The plan
should build upon existing outreach and marketing mechanisms
within all of the Department’s various divisions. Additionally, the
plan should target those community agencies and organizations
that assist relative caregivers to ensure these organizations are
aware of the kinship care program and determine if they can help
the Department outreach to the community. For example, the
University of Arizona Cooperative Extension has included a
detailed description of the Department’s TANF child-only appli-cation
process on its Web site, and other agencies may be willing
to take similar measures.
In addition, the Department should establish a mechanism for col-lecting
information on how relative caregivers hear about the pro-gram
to help it assess the success of its outreach efforts. This mech-anism
could be in the form of a question on the application, a sep-arate
checklist provided with the application, or a verbal question
Finding I
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL 39
A written plan is need-ed
for outreach activi-ties.
asked in conjunction with the eligibility interview. Finally, the
Department should assign an individual who, in conjunction with
his or her other responsibilities, will be responsible for overseeing
the development and implementation of the outreach plan and
monitoring mechanism.
Improve referral mechanism—The Department should take steps
to enhance its referral mechanism to better assist families identify
and locate other needed services. The Department could update
and enhance its current resource guides, and should also make
sure that staff routinely ask applicants about other needed servic-es
and provide them with a resource guide or referrals to other
services. Another possible approach would be to help kinship care
families learn how to use existing community referral and infor-mation
networks. The Department already provides about
$400,000 in funding to two information referral networks—one
located in Phoenix and one in Tucson—which could be used by
kinship care families to find additional community services such
as legal aid, family counseling, and housing assistance. These
referral services are available 24-hours a day via helplines and the
Internet.
Ensure streamlined processes are implemented consistently—The
Department needs to take additional steps to ensure its stream-lined
processes are implemented consistently. Specifically:
n Provide additional training—Because its new program poli-cies
and procedures are not being consistently used, the
Department should ensure eligibility workers and any other
relevant staff at the pilot offices undergo additional training.
This training should focus on the purpose and requirements of
the streamlined processes, such as waiving the face-to-face
interview and not requiring the caregiver to provide personal
income information when applying for the TANF child-only
grant. As resources permit, this training should also be pro-vided
to staff in its other offices because the new policies to
streamline services were implemented statewide.
n Revise TANF application instructions—Additionally, the
Department should revise its current TANF application
instructions to clearly note that the face-to-face interview can
be waived in favor of a telephone interview. Further, the appli-
Finding I
40 OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
cation instructions should clearly state that the relative care-giver
does not need to provide personal financial information
when applying for the TANF child-only grant.
Gather outcome information—The Department should routinely
monitor its success in meeting the intended outcomes for kinship
care. The kinship care legislation established goals for the pilot
program (see page 32); however, the Department has not yet
established any performance measures. Further, the Department
indicates in its comprehensive kinship care plan that it would
establish benchmarks and performance measures for kinship care
services. Therefore, the Department should develop a mechanism
for identifying kinship care cases separately from other cash assis-tance
cases and establish performance measures to monitor its
progress in achieving the program’s legislative intent.
Finding I
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL 41
Performance measures
needed to assess
Department’s progress
in achieving the pilot
program’s legislative
intent.
Recommendations
Although no appropriation was provided for the pilot program,
additional steps are needed to better ensure the program meets
legislative intent.
1. The Department should enhance its outreach efforts by:
a. Developing a written outreach plan that builds upon exist-ing
outreach and marketing mechanisms within all the
Department’s various divisions and targets those commu-nity
agencies and organizations that assist relative care-givers;
b. Establishing a mechanism for collecting information on
how relative caregivers hear about the program to assess
the success of the Department’s outreach efforts; and
c. Delegating appropriate personnel within the Department
to be responsible for overseeing development and imple-mentation
of the plan and monitoring mechanism.
2. The Department should improve its referral mechanism to
better assist families identify and locate needed services.
3. The Department should ensure its streamlined processes are
implemented consistently by:
a. Ensuring pilot office eligibility workers and any other rele-vant
staff undergo additional training on the purpose and
requirements of the streamlined processes;
b. Revising the application instructions to clearly note that
the face-to-face interview can be waived in favor of a tele-phone
interview, and that the relative caregiver does not
need to provide personal financial information when
applying for the TANF child-only grant; and
c. Providing training to staff at its other statewide offices, as
resources allow.
4. The Department should routinely monitor its success in meeting
the intended outcomes for kinship care by developing a mecha-nism
for identifying kinship care cases separately from other
cash assistance cases and establishing performance measures.
Finding I
42 OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Pursuant to Laws 2000, Chapter 183, §2 and Chapter 285, §14, the
Office of the Auditor General is required to include the following
information in the kinship care pilot program evaluation. The data
reported in this section is for children in the kinship care pilot pro-gram
as of December 31, 2001. The data was provided by the
Department and analyzed by Auditor General staff.
E.1. This statutory evaluation component pertains only to
the Department’s kinship foster care program. (See
page 19.)
E.2. This statutory evaluation component pertains only to
the Department’s kinship foster care program. (See
page 19.)
E.3. Demographic information concerning the families in
the kinship care pilot program.
Child Information—Demographic and other information
is reported for the 569 children in the kinship care pilot
program during December 2001.
􀂄􈑃 Child’s relationship to caregiver—Almost three-quarters
(73 percent) of the children in kinship care
lived with grandparents; 23 percent were with aunts or
uncles; and 5 percent were with others, such as sib-lings,
cousins, or family friends.
􀂄􈑃 Child’s gender—About half (51 percent) of the chil-dren
in kinship care were female and 49 percent were
male.
􀂄􈑃 Child’s ethnicity—The majority (53 percent) of the
children in kinship care were Hispanic, 20 percent
were Native American, 13 percent were African-
American, 12 percent were Caucasian, and less than 1
percent were Asian. The Department was unable to
provide this information for the remaining 2 percent of
the children.
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL 43
STATUTORY EVALUATION COMPONENTS
􀂄􈑃 Child’s age—Most children in kinship care are 10 to 14
years old. (See Figure 5.)
Caregiver Information—Demographic and other infor-mation
is reported for the 313 relative caregivers partici-pating
in the kinship care pilot program during December
2001. This information is reported for only the primary
caregiver in each kinship care family.
􀂄􈑎 Number of relative children per kinship care
family—Arizona’s kinship care families typically cared
for one or two relative children. (See Figure 6.)
Statutory Evaluation Components
44 OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
87
184
216
82
Birth to 4
years
5 to 9
years
10 to 14
years
15 years and
older
Figure 5 Children in Kinship Care
Pilot Program
by Age Group
Figure 6
155
97
41
10 10
1
child
2
children
3
children
4
children
5 to 7
children
Kinship Care Pilot Program Families
by Number of Relative Children
􀂄􈑈 Household size per kinship care family—Almost
half the relative caretakers had households consisting
of two to three persons, 34 percent consisted of four to
five persons, 13 percent consisted of six to seven per-sons,
and the remaining 5 percent ranged in size from
8 to 11 persons. Household size was based on all indi-viduals
living in the home, regardless of their relation-ship
to each other.
􀂄􈑃 Caregiver’s marital status—The greatest percentage
(39 percent) of relative caregivers were married.
􀂄􈑃 Caregiver’s gender—The vast majority (89 percent) of
the relative caregivers were women.
􀂄􈑃 Caregiver’s age—The largest group of relative care-givers
(63 percent) fall within the 45-to-64-year-old age
range. (See Figure 7.)
􀂄􈑃 Caregiver’s ethnicity—The majority (54 percent) of
relative caregivers were Hispanic, 14 percent were
Caucasian, 13 percent were African-American, 12 per-cent
were Native American, and 1 percent were Asian
or other. The Department was unable to provide this
information for the remaining 6 percent of the care-givers.
Statutory Evaluation Components
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL 45
Figure 7
3
25
56
199
30
Under 25
years
25 to 34
years
35 to 44
years
45 to 64
years
65 years and
older
Kinship Care Pilot Program
Caregivers by Age Group
E.4. This statutory evaluation component pertains only to
the Department’s kinship foster care program. (See
pages 22 through 24.)
E.5. This statutory evaluation component pertains only to
the Department’s kinship foster care program. (See
pages 24 through 25.)
E.6. Information on provider referrals.
The data needed to report on the number of provider refer-rals
made for kinship care families is not available. The
Department currently has no mechanism for collecting this
information.
E.7. Recommendations regarding program administration.
Several recommendations were made to ensure the
Department is meeting the intent of the kinship care
legislation. (See Finding I, pages 35 through 42.) These
recommendations focused on four areas.
􀂄􈑄 Developing and implementing a written outreach
plan, and monitoring its success in facilitating
community awareness of and participation in the
kinship care pilot program.
􀂄􈑉 Improving its referral mechanism for assisting kin-ship
care families identify and locate additional
needed services.
􀂄􈑅 Ensuring workers at the two pilot offices undergo
additional training on the purpose and require-ments
of the new streamlined application process-es
and revising the application instructions to
reflect the new processes.
􀂄􈑅 Establishing performance measures and a mecha-nism
to identify kinship care cases separately from
other cash assistance cases to monitor success in
meeting the intended outcomes for the kinship care
pilot program.
Statutory Evaluation Components
46 OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
E.8. The increase in temporary assistance to needy fami-lies,
child-only cash assistance payments.
The Department revised its policy to automatically make
kinship care families eligible for the higher TANF child-only
grant. However, evaluators found that families at the
two pilot offices typically were receiving the maximum
amount even before the change. (See Finding I, pages 35
through 42.)
E.9. The extent to which the objectives of the pilot project
as prescribed in A.R.S. §8-514.04, are being success-fully
met.
Although the intent of the kinship care legislation was to
enhance the Department’s assistance to Arizona’s kinship
care families, the Department has had limited success
in meeting this intent. (See Finding I, pages 35 through
42.)
E.10. This statutory evaluation component pertains only
to the Department’s kinship foster care program.
(See page 26.)
E.11. This statutory evaluation component pertains only
to the Department’s kinship foster care program.
(See pages 26 through 27.)
Statutory Evaluation Components
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL 47
48 OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
AGENCY RESPONSE
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
_______________ ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY _________________
1717 W. Jefferson - P.O. Box 6123 - Phoenix, AZ 85005
Jane Dee Hull John L. Clayton
Governor Director
Debbie Davenport
Auditor General
Office of the Auditor General
2910 North 44 Street, Suite 410
Phoenix, Arizona 85018
Dear Ms. Davenport:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the evaluation of the Kinship Foster
Care and Kinship Care Pilot Program. I appreciate you incorporating some of the earlier
comments provided by members of my staff. I do not believe that we reached complete
agreement on the issue of the statutory requirements versus the “legislative intent.” The
legislation established broad goals for the Kinship Care Program but only specified process
improvements and use of existing services and measures.
I am committed to providing timely and effective services to both formal and informal
kinship caregivers. The care provided by relatives when parents are not available gives
children the security and continuity that families provide. I know that kinship families could
be further strengthened with additional supports and services and will continue to seek
additional resources to meet these needs.
I appreciate that you noted that the legislation included no additional funding or staff and that
the Department had to absorb the costs associated with implementing the requirements of the
legislation. The report captured many of our accomplishments. We developed appropriate
policies to address new requirements, resource guides were prepared, and families applying
for cash assistance receive the maximum benefit amount in a timely manner.
The Department’s response to the report is attached. The recommendations in the report will
require the Department to devote additional resources at a time when we are reducing
program budgets. Nevertheless, based on my commitment to these families, the Department
will implement the recommendations as indicated.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at 542-5678.
Sincerely,
John L. Clayton
Attachments
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY’S RESPONSE
TO THE AUDITOR GENERAL’S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
THE KINSHIP FOSTER CARE PROGRAM
The Office of the Auditor General’s evaluation of the Kinship Foster Care Program
provides one (1) Finding and (3) Recommendations. The Department of Economic
Security is pleased to provide the following comments regarding the finding and
recommendations.
The Department’s Division of Children, Youth and Families administers the Kinship
Foster Care Program, and is referred to as “the Division” in this response.
FINDING I: Need to Improve Compliance with Requirements
Recommendation 1:
The Department should develop and provide additional kinship foster care training and
place greater emphasis on staff attendance. The training should focus on the legislation’s
intent and specific policy requirements, including the use of required forms and letters.
DES Response:
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.
On January 7, 2002, the Division’s Child Welfare Training Institute incorporated the
policy and automation requirements for kinship foster care into the Case Manager Core
curriculum. As of June 10, 2002, eight classes (groups) of case managers had
participated in this training. New classes (groups) are scheduled to begin training each
month on a continuous basis.
During September 2002, the Division’s Child Welfare Training Institute will begin Child
Welfare Supervisor Core training. The Supervisor Core curriculum is currently being
developed, and will include the specific policy requirements for kinship foster care.
In addition to the above, the Division’s Foster Care Policy Specialist is providing on-site
training to local office units throughout the state regarding kinship foster care
requirements. As of May 31, 2002, 42 case managers, supervisors, or assistant program
managers from rural and urban child protective services offices, and 9 specialists from the
Office of Licensing, Certification and Regulation attended the kinship foster care policy
training. Additional training sessions are being scheduled in rural and urban local offices.
Attendance sheets are maintained for all training sessions.
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY’S RESPONSE
TO THE AUDITOR GENERAL’S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
THE KINSHIP FOSTER CARE PROGRAM
Page 2
Beginning in July 2002, the Division will disseminate Policy Reminders to case
managers and supervisors statewide. The Policy Reminders, issued through the electronic
Exchange System, will serve as training tools for case managers and supervisors by
providing concise policy-specific information on kinship foster care. Policy Reminder
materials will include information regarding referral for foster home licensure, kinship
foster care forms and letters, and the requirements when kinship foster care placement is
denied.
Recommendation 2:
The Department should develop additional monitoring mechanisms to help ensure
compliance with kinship foster care requirements. To do so, the Department should
consider: modifying the Department’s automated child protective services information
system to track caseworker compliance with the requirements; incorporating critical
aspects of relative placements into the Continuous Quality Improvement process the
Department is developing; and options to address any disincentives for placing foster care
children with relatives.
DES Response:
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the recommendation will be
implemented.
Since the Department did not receive an additional appropriation to implement and
monitor the Kinship Foster Care Program, the Division will monitor case manager
compliance with the legislative and policy requirements for Kinship Foster Care by
incorporating the critical aspects of relative placements into the Continuous Quality
Improvement (CQI) process.
As part of CQI, the Division is implementing a Peer Record Review Process and an
Administrative Case Record Review Process (Clinical Supervision Process). The tools
used for these CQI functions are based upon the case record review tools used by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services Children’s Bureau and the Council on
Accreditation.
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY’S RESPONSE
TO THE AUDITOR GENERAL’S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
THE KINSHIP FOSTER CARE PROGRAM
Page 3
The Peer Record Review Process and Administrative Case Record Review Process will
assist the Division in monitoring the Kinship Foster Care Program. Case-specific
information will be obtained through these CQI functions, including: information on the
consideration and use of relatives as caregivers for children in out-of-home care; data
regarding changes in placement settings for children in non-relative foster care and
kinship foster care; and case record information regarding compliance with kinship care
policies and forms.
This method is considered preferable to additional automation enhancements, as the
legislative requirements for kinship foster care necessitate the use of hardcopy
documents, such as fingerprinting, a criminal records check, the kinship foster caregiver’s
signature, and the Division’s written Report to the Juvenile Court.
Please Note: Automation enhancements were completed as part of the Division’s
initial implementation plan for the Kinship Foster Care Program. These
enhancements included the following modifications for the Division’s social
services automated system (CHILDS).
In December 2001, the CHILDS automated system was modified to record the
relationship between children and adults in open child welfare cases. This
CHILDS’s modification enables case managers, supervisors, and management
statewide to monitor the frequency of, and trends for kinship foster care
placements, and progress toward increasing the number of kinship foster care
placements. In addition, the licensure status of the kinship foster caregiver can
now be obtained through this automation enhancement.
Case managers use the Court Document Detail window in CHILDS for preparing
court reports. One of the court reports is the Assessment for Kinship Foster Care.
Since the court reports are listed in alphabetical order, the Assessment for Kinship
Foster Care is prominent in the listing.
The Division concurs that kinship foster care may adversely impact a case manager’s
workload and may be viewed as a disincentive to kinship foster care placement. Kinship
foster care requires additional staff time on behalf of the case manager to complete
diligent searches for potential kinship foster caregivers, to evaluate the caregivers’ ability
to meet the child’s placement needs, to prepare and submit the written Report to the
Court, to actively engage the caregiver in meeting the unique needs of children subjected
to abuse and neglect, and to document compliance with all legislative and policy
requirements.
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY’S RESPONSE
TO THE AUDITOR GENERAL’S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
THE KINSHIP FOSTER CARE PROGRAM
Page 4
Since there was no legislative appropriation for the Kinship Foster Care Program, the
Division is limited in its ability to address these disincentives.
As an effort to enhance the Kinship Foster Care Program, on May 13, 2002, the Division
launched an outreach initiative to pursue licensure of kinship foster caregivers. This
initiative supports the concept and intent of the Kinship Foster Care Program, as kinship
foster caregivers who choose to become licensed will receive additional supports, both
financial and nonfinancial. Kinship foster caregivers who are currently providing out-of-home
care for a related foster child, were mailed a letter and an interest-sheet from the
Division. The letter provides the kinship foster caregiver with the benefits of foster home
licensure. An interest-sheet and pre-stamped return envelope accompanies the letter, so
kinship foster caregivers who are interested in knowing more about the foster home
licensing process can easily inform the Division of their interest. The Division is
coordinating this initiative with the Office of Licensing, Certification, and Regulation and
the Administration for Children, Youth and Families’ District Offices.
Recommendation 3:
The Department should use, where appropriate, its current goals, objectives, and
performance measures to assess the outcomes of kinship foster care placements.
DES Response:
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit recommendation will be
implemented.
During July 2002, the Division will review current goals, objectives, and performance
measures for children in out-of-home placement. The Division will determine the
specific performance measures which will best assist in comparing outcomes regarding
children placed in kinship foster care and children placed in non-relative foster care.
Outcome data, such as length of time in out-of-home placement and changes in
placement settings (mobility/movement while in foster care) will assist in our ongoing
evaluation of the kinship foster care program.
_______________________________
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY’S RESPONSE
TO THE AUDITOR GENERAL’S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
THE KINSHIP CARE PROGRAM
The Office of the Auditor General’s evaluation of the Kinship Care Program provides one
(1) Finding and four (4) Recommendations. The Department of Economic Security
provides the following comments regarding the recommendations.
The Department’s Division of Benefits and Medical Eligibility administers the Kinship
Care Program, and is referred to as “the Division” in this response.
FINDING 2: Additional Steps Needed To Meet Legislative Intent
Recommendation 1:
The Department should enhance its outreach efforts by:
a. Developing a written outreach plan that builds upon existing outreach and
marketing mechanisms within all the Department’s various divisions and
targets those community agencies and organizations that assist relative care
givers;
b. Establishing a mechanism for collecting information on how relative
caregivers hear about the program to assess the success of the Department’s
outreach the efforts; and
c. Delegating the appropriate personnel within the Department to be responsible
for overseeing development and implementation of the plan and monitoring
mechanism.
DES Response:
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the recommendation will be
implemented in the two (2) pilot sites.
a. The Division will coordinate outreach efforts with other Divisions
within the Department and target agencies and organizations that
operate within the pilot office’s catchment areas.
b. The Division will ask applicants in the pilot offices how they heard
about the availability of cash assistance payments for kinship
caregivers and match the responses to the agencies and organizations
that were targeted in the outreach efforts.
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY’S RESPONSE
TO THE AUDITOR GENERAL’S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
THE KINSHIP CARE PROGRAM
Page 2
c. The Division will identify a staff person will have as one of his/her
duties the responsibility for overseeing the development of the
outreach plan and monitoring data collection.
Recommendation 2:
The Department should improve its referral mechanism to better assist families identify
and locate needed services.
DES Response:
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the recommendation will be
implemented in the two pilot locations.
The Department will instruct staff to provide information about the availability of
Community Information and Referral services to kinship care applicants.
Recommendation 3:
The Department should ensure its streamlined processes are implemented consistently by:
a. Ensuring pilot office eligibility workers and any other relevant staff undergo
additional training on the purpose and requirements of the streamlined
processes.
b. Revising the application instructions to clearly note that the face-to-face
interview can be waived in favor of a telephone interview or home visit, and
that the relative caregiver does not need to provide personal financial
information when applying for the TANF child-only grant; and
c. Providing training to staff at its other statewide offices, as resources allow.
DES Response:
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the Division will implement the
recommendation. The Division will:
a. Provide additional training to staff in the two pilot locations within 90 days.
b. Revise the application instructions as recommended at the next scheduled
printing.
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY’S RESPONSE
TO THE AUDITOR GENERAL’S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
THE KINSHIP CARE PROGRAM
Page 3
c. Provide training to staff at other statewide offices as resources allow.
Recommendation 4:
The Department should routinely monitor its success in meeting the intended outcomes
for kinship care cases separately from other cash assistance cases and establishing
performance measures.
DES Response:
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the Department will implement the
recommendation.
The Division will identify and track performance measures in the pilot offices
based on the streamlining and expediting processes that are specified in statute.
Other Performance Audit Reports Issued Within
the Last 12 Months
01-10
Future Performance Audit Reports
Arizona State Parks Board—Heritage Fund
01-6 Board of Osteopathic Examiners in
Medicine and Surgery
01-7 Arizona Department
of Corrections—Support Services
01-8 Arizona Game and Fish Commission
and Department—Wildlife
Management Program
01-9 Arizona Game and Fish
Commission—Heritage Fund
01-10 Department of Public Safety—
Licensing Bureau
01-11 Arizona Commission on the Arts
01-12 Board of Chiropractic Examiners
01-13 Arizona Department of
Corrections—Private Prisons
01-14 Arizona Automobile Theft
Authority
01-15 Department of Real Estate
01-16 Department of Veterans’ Services
Arizona State Veteran Home,
Veterans’ Conservatorship/
Guardianship Program, and
Veterans’ Services Program
01-17 Arizona Board of Dispensing
Opticians
01-18 Arizona Department of Correct-ions—
Administrative Services
and Information Technology
01-19 Arizona Department of Education—
Early Childhood Block Grant
01-20 Department of Public Safety—
Highway Patrol
01-21 Board of Nursing
01-22 Department of Public Safety—
Criminal Investigations Division
01-23 Department of Building and
Fire Safety
01-24 Arizona Veterans’ Service
Advisory Commission
01-25 Department of Corrections—
Arizona Correctional Industries
01-26 Department of Corrections—
Sunset Factors
01-27 Board of Regents
01-28 Department of Public Safety—
Criminal Information Services
Bureau, Access Integrity Unit, and
Fingerprint Identification Bureau
01-29 Department of Public Safety—
Sunset Factors
01-30 Family Builders Program
01-31 Perinatal Substance Abuse
Pilot Program
01-32 Homeless Youth Intervention Program
Letter Report: Department of
Environmental Quality—Fiduciary
01-33 Department of Health Services—
Behavioral Health Services
Reporting Requirements
02-01 Arizona Works
02-02 Arizona State Lottery Commission