Performance audit and sunset review, Foster Care Review Board

              Performance Audit and Sunset Review
Foster Care Review
Board
Performance Audit Division
Debra K. Davenport
Auditor General
SEPTEMBER • 2005
REPORT NO. 05 – 10
A REPORT
TO THE
ARIZONA LEGISLATURE
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 impartial 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, investigates possible misuse of public monies, and conducts performance audits of
school districts, state agencies, and the programs they administer.
The Joint Legislative Audit Committee
Senator Robert Blendu, Chair Representative Laura Knaperek, Vice Chair
Senator Carolyn Allen Representative Tom Boone
Senator Gabrielle Giffords Representative Ted Downing
Senator John Huppenthal Representative Pete Rios
Senator Harry Mitchell Representative Steve Yarbrough
Senator Ken Bennett (ex-officio) Representative Jim Weiers (ex-officio)
Audit Staff
Melanie Chesney, Director
Shan Hays, Manager and Contact Person
Jessica Tucker, Team Leader
Bruce Coleman
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
September 22, 2005
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Janet Napolitano, Governor
Mr. Dave Byers, Director
Foster Care Review Board
1501 W. Washington, Suite 128
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Performance Audit and Sunset Review
of the Foster Care Review Board. This report is in response to a November 20, 2002, resolution
of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. The performance audit was conducted as part of the
sunset review process prescribed in Arizona Revised Statutes §41-2951 et seq. I am also
transmitting with this report a copy of the Report Highlights for this audit to provide a quick
summary for your convenience.
As outlined in its response, the Foster Care Review Board agrees with all of the findings and
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 September 23, 2005.
Sincerely,
Debbie Davenport
Auditor General
Enclosure
Services:
The Foster Care Review Board (FCRB) is responsible for conducting citizen reviews of children
who have been placed in out-of-home care. To carry out FCRB’s responsibilities, volunteer review
boards located throughout the State conduct reviews of children in out-of-home care and make
recommendations to the juvenile court, the Department of Economic Security (DES), and other
interested parties. FCRB local boards are required to conduct these reviews at least once every
6 months and submit findings and recommendations to the juvenile court. As of June 2005,
FCRB’s caseload included 5,263 cases representing 9,054 children. Additionally, in 2004, FCRB
began to prepare a report summarizing its identification of service gaps in the child welfare sys-tem
and provides the report to officials from DES, the Governor’s Office, and other stakeholders.
Board membership and staffing:
FCRB is governed by a State Board composed of 7 at-large
member positions appointed by the Arizona Supreme Court
and 35 volunteer representatives from the local boards as of
June 2005. There are approximately 417 FCRB volunteers
who serve on 94 local boards located throughout the State.
FCRB had 38 authorized FTEs, which included 4 vacant
positions, as of May 2005.
Facilities and equipment:
FCRB performs its administrative duties in Phoenix and
Tucson in offices that it leases from the Arizona Department
of Administration. Its equipment includes typical office equip-ment,
such as furniture and computer equipment. FCRB also
has four vehicles to help its program specialists facilitate
review meetings held around the State.
PROGRAM FACT SHEET
Foster Care Review Board
Office of the Auditor General
Program revenue:
$3.3 million (fiscal year 2005 actual)
State General Fund
$1,897,229
Federal Title IV-E
$761,429
Juvenile Crime
Reduction Fund
$366,465
Court Appointed
Special Advocate Fund
$232,966
______________________________________
1 Due to a legislative change to A.R.S. §8-515.04 in fiscal year 2003, FCRB is no longer required to submit recommendations. FCRB has not
included this goal in its proposed fiscal year 2006 goals.
Mission:
“The Foster Care Review Board is established by Arizona statute to review at least every 6
months the case of each child in foster care. The purposes of these reviews are to determine
and advise the juvenile court of the adequacy of efforts and progress toward placement of the
child in a permanent home; to encourage and facilitate the return of each dependent child to
his/her family whenever possible; to promote and encourage stability in the child’s placement;
and to assist in informing parents and others of their rights and responsibilities regarding a
dependent child in foster care.”
Program goals:
1. To ensure that each child has a plan for permanent placement.
2. To establish, maintain, and train sufficient volunteers to perform high-quality
case reviews.
3. To ensure that appropriate recommendations for foster care system needs are
submitted to the Supreme Court, Legislature, and Governor.1
Adequacy of goals and performance measures:
FCRB has established appropriate performance measures related to its reviews of children in
out-of-home care and volunteer training. For example, FCRB has established measures focus-ing
on the percentage of volunteers who meet the minimum training requirements and the per-centage
of children who received reviews during the fiscal year. However, FCRB has not estab-lished
performance measures related to the timeliness of its reports to the juvenile courts in
accordance with the timeliness requirements set forth in A.R.S. §8-515.03. In addition, although
it has input, output, quality, and outcome measures, it has not established any performance
measures related to efficiency. Therefore, FCRB should establish a performance measure that
tracks the percentage of reports that were sent to the juvenile court within the required 30-day
period. FCRB may also wish to consider establishing a goal related to the service gap report it
began producing in 2004.
State of Arizona
Source: Auditor General staff compilation of information obtained from Arizona Revised Statutes; vacancy reports and performance measures
information provided by FCRB; and other information provided by FCRB, including a child/case activity report as of June 20, 2005.
The Arizona Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit and
sunset review of the Foster Care Review Board (FCRB), pursuant to a November 20,
2002, resolution of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. The audit was conducted
as part of the sunset review process prescribed in Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.)
§41-2951 et seq.
FCRB is responsible for conducting reviews of children who have been placed in out-of-
home care. Approximately 90 local boards comprising about 400 volunteers
throughout the State are required to conduct these reviews at least once every 6
months and submit findings and recommendations to the juvenile court within 30
days following the review. In accordance with state statute, FCRB local boards must
advise the juvenile court of the adequacy of efforts toward a permanent placement
for the child, encourage and facilitate the return of each child to his/her family
whenever possible, and assist in informing parents and others of their rights and
responsibilities regarding children in out-of-home care. The local boards also make
recommendations to the juvenile court regarding DES’ efforts and progress toward
achieving the goals outlined in the children’s case plans, including whether additional
services are needed. The local boards’ recommendations are not legally binding, but
serve to advise the juvenile court and DES on the child’s progress toward permanent
placement.
FCRB adds value, but can improve report effectiveness
(see pages 9 through 15)
Most of the 36 judges and commissioners who participated in an Auditor General
survey believe that FCRB adds value to the child welfare system. For example, one
respondent stated, “I like to have the objective view provided by the Board. It is
another good piece of information to use in arriving in a fair, just, and equitable
decision for each case, keeping in mind the best interest of children.” However,
FCRB can improve its effectiveness by ensuring that it provides reports to the courts
in a timely manner and improving its reporting of service gaps for children in out-of-home
care.
Office of the Auditor General
SUMMARY
page i
FCRB provides case review reports to the court that detail the results of its reviews
and any recommendations to help the child find a permanent placement. According
to FCRB management, FCRB schedules its reviews 30 days before the required 6-
month court hearings. This coincides with A.R.S. §8-515.03, which requires FCRB
local boards to provide their reports to the juvenile court within 30 days following the
reviews. Although most respondents reported that FCRB reports were timely for 76
to 99 percent of their cases, 11 respondents indicated that FCRB reports were timely
for 75 percent or less of their cases. Currently, supervisors in the FCRB Phoenix and
Tucson offices use separate informal systems to record the board review meeting
dates and the mailing dates of the reports associated with the meetings. However,
they do not track the number of days that have elapsed from the review date. As a
result, they are unable to determine how many days have elapsed from the review
date and cannot use the systems to alert supervisors when reports are nearing the
30-day deadline. Auditors compiled and analyzed FCRB data for review reports that
were mailed to the courts from March 2004 through February 2005. The analysis
showed that reports for 104 of the 596 review meetings were mailed to the courts 35
days or more past the review date, meaning the reports may have arrived too late for
use in the court hearing. In one instance, the review reports from one board meeting
were not provided to the court until 111 days after the FCRB review.
To improve its effectiveness, FCRB should develop a comprehensive tracking system
and monitor it to help ensure that its reports are submitted to the courts within 30
days from the review. At a minimum, the system should track the number of days that
have elapsed from the review date and should clearly identify reports that are close
to the 30-day deadline. To help further enhance the effectiveness of its reports, FCRB
should also consider exploring the possibility of using its existing data to track the
next upcoming court hearing for each case.
FCRB can also improve its reporting of service gaps in the child welfare system.
FCRB began reporting information on service gaps in the child welfare system in
response to the Governor’s 2003 child protective services reform plan. However, the
results of the Auditor General’s survey of judges and a review of available information
regarding services for children in out-of-home care indicated that FCRB can take
steps to improve its reporting of service gaps in the child welfare system. Specifically,
FCRB should provide training to its volunteers, use available information regarding
services to children in out-of-home care, and ensure that all relevant service gaps are
reported.
State of Arizona
page ii
FCRB can further enhance its volunteer management
(see pages 17 through 20)
FCRB has the key elements of an effective volunteer management system, but it can
further enhance volunteer training compliance and diversity. Specifically, FCRB has:
􀁺􇩁 A process for screening and selecting volunteers,
􀁺􇩁 A volunteer manual defining volunteers’ role and responsibilities,
􀁺􇨠 A training program for new and experienced volunteers,
􀁺􇨠 Practices for evaluating volunteers and local boards, and
􀁺􇩁 A variety of recruiting efforts intended to provide an adequate, diverse pool of
volunteers.
Although FCRB has successfully increased the number of volunteers who meet the
training requirements from 33 percent in 2002 to 77 percent in 2004, it should
continue its efforts to ensure that more volunteers meet the requirements.
Additionally, while FCRB uses various recruiting methods to help promote diversity
among its volunteers, most volunteers are Anglo-American and over the age of 50.
FCRB should develop a diversity plan to help ensure that its recruiting efforts are
effective.
Office of the Auditor General
page iii
State of Arizona
page iv
Office of the Auditor General
TABLE OF CONTENTS
continued
1
9
9
10
11
15
17
17
18
20
21
a-i
Introduction & Background
Finding 1: FCRB adds value, but can improve
report effectiveness
Most survey respondents indicate FCRB adds value
FCRB can improve value by ensuring timely reporting
FCRB should improve reporting of service gaps in the
child welfare system
Recommendations
Finding 2: FCRB can further enhance its volunteer
management
FCRB has key elements to manage volunteers
FCRB can improve training compliance and diversity
Recommendations
Sunset Factors
Appendix
Agency Response
page v
State of Arizona
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table:
1 Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Other Changes in Fund
Balance, Years Ended June 30, 2003, 2004, and 2005 (Unaudited)
Figures:
1 FCRB 10 Standard Review Findings
2 Example of FCRB Report on Service Gaps
3 Volunteer Demographics
As of June 2005
6
4
13
19
concluded
page vi
The Arizona Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit and
sunset review of the Foster Care Review Board (FCRB) pursuant to a November 20,
2002, resolution of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. The audit was conducted
as part of the sunset review process prescribed in Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.)
§41-2951 et seq.
FCRB role and purpose
The Arizona Legislature established FCRB in 1978 in response to concerns that
Arizona’s foster children were being “lost” in out-of-home care and staying too long
in temporary placements. The primary role of FCRB is to advise the juvenile court by
reviewing cases of children who have been placed in out-of-home care
by the Department of Economic Security (DES). A.R.S. §8-515.03
requires the FCRB local boards to review these children’s cases within
6 months of placement and at least once every 6 months thereafter, and
submit findings and recommendations to the juvenile court within 30
days following the review. In accordance with state statute, FCRB must
advise the juvenile court of the adequacy of the efforts toward a
permanent placement for the child, encourage and facilitate the return
of each child to his/her family whenever possible, and assist in
informing parents and others of their rights and responsibilities
regarding children in out-of-home care. FCRB reviews are intended to
assist the courts in their reviews of these cases. A.R.S §§8-847 and 8-862 require the
juvenile courts to conduct reviews of children in out-of-home care once every 6
months and hold a permanency hearing at 12 months.
FCRB addresses federal review requirements
Through FCRB and the courts, Arizona meets the federal requirement for states to
provide a review for children in out-of-home care. Title IV-E of the Social Security Act
Office of the Auditor General
INTRODUCTION
& BACKGROUND
page 1
Permanency Hearing—At the
permanency hearing, the court
determines whether terminating
parental rights, adoption, permanent
guardianship, or some other
permanent legal status is the most
appropriate plan for the child and
orders the plan to be accomplished
within a specified time period.
(42 U.S.C.A. 670 et seq) requires states to establish a case review system for children
in out-of-home care. Specifically, states must review children in out-of-home care at
least once every 6 months and make determinations in five key areas:
􀁺􇩓 Safety of the child,
􀁺􇩎 Necessity and appropriateness of placement,
􀁺􇩃 Case plan compliance,
􀁺􇩐 Progress toward mitigating the need for foster care, and
􀁺􇩁 A likely date by which the child may be returned home or placed for adoption or
legal guardianship.
The 6-month reviews must be held by a court or a panel of appropriate persons, at
least one of who is not responsible for the case management of or the delivery of
services to either the child or the parents who are the subject of the review.
Additionally, states must hold permanency hearings no later than 12 months after the
date the child entered foster care and at least every 12 months thereafter while the
child is in foster care. The permanency hearings must be held by a court or court-appointed
body. States have three primary options to comply with the federal
requirement to provide reviews of children in out-of-home care:
􀁺􇩁 Administrative Reviews—These types of reviews are conducted by staff of the
agency responsible for the child’s placement and care.
􀁺􇩊 Judicial Reviews—These types of reviews are conducted by the court.
􀁺􇩃 Citizen Reviews—These types of reviews are conducted by boards made up
entirely of volunteers, such as Arizona’s FCRB.
Foster care review process
Most children enter the foster care system through investigations of abuse or neglect.
A child enters the foster care system when DES removes him or her from the home.
DES is the agency responsible for the placement and care of the child. Parents or
guardians may also voluntarily place their children in out-of-home care. After the child
is removed from his or her home, the juvenile court determines whether the child
should be made a dependent (ward of the court). If the child is made dependent, the
child’s DES case manager develops a case plan that is designed to help the child
State of Arizona
page 2
find a permanent placement, which may include adoption or reunification with his or
her family. The judge also assigns the case to FCRB to conduct 6-month reviews.
FCRB local boards review cases and make recommendations to the juvenile court.
Local boards typically meet once per month. However, some local boards in small
counties meet less frequently. Local boards in larger counties typically hear between
10 and 12 cases during a review meeting. According to FCRB management, review
meetings generally last approximately 6 to 7 hours and require about 6 hours of
preparation time for each board member. Prior to the review meeting, FCRB local
board members review the case plan and other relevant documentation, such as
psychological evaluations. During the review meetings, board members take
statements from any available interested parties, which may include the child’s case
manager, biological parents, foster care parents, attorney, and others interested in
the child’s case. For each review, FCRB local board members answer ten
standardized findings (see Figure 1, page 4). Additionally, local boards may make
other recommendations regarding the case. FCRB staff then compile the findings
and recommendations, along with other information, into a court report.
FCRB reviews out-of-home care cases for children who are under the direct
supervision of two divisions within DES—the Division of Children, Youth and
Families—Child Protective Services (CPS) and the Division of Developmental
Disabilities (DDD). FCRB also reviews cases that are managed by other
organizations, such as Catholic Social Services, that contract with DES to provide
limited case management services for foster care children. Most of the children
FCRB reviews are under CPS’ direct care.
Organization and staffing
FCRB is part of the Dependent Children’s Services Division of the Arizona Supreme
Court, Administrative Office of the Court. In addition to FCRB, the Dependent
Children’s Services Division administers the Court Appointed Special Advocate
(CASA) program, which is a volunteer advocacy program for abused and neglected
children in the juvenile court system, and the Court Improvement Project, which was
established in 1998 to evaluate and improve dependency case processing in the
juvenile courts. As of May 2005, FCRB had 38 FTE positions, including 4 vacancies.
FCRB’s organizational structure has three main components:
􀁺􇩆 FCRB staff (38 FTE positions, including 4 vacancies)—A majority of FCRB’s staff
are program specialists who are responsible for scheduling cases for review,
facilitating the review meetings, and preparing the case reports. FCRB has 3
supervisor positions, 20 program specialist positions, 10 administrative support
positions, 1 IT specialist position, 2 management positions, 1 training
coordinator, and 1 outreach specialist who works half-time for FCRB and half-
Office of the Auditor General
page 3
time for the CASA program. FCRB has two offices, one in Phoenix and one in
Tucson.
􀁺􇩆 FCRB local boards (94 boards, 417 volunteers, 53 vacancies)—A.R.S. §8-
515.01 requires the establishment of one local citizen review board for every 100
children in out-of-home care. State-wide, there are a total of 94 local boards.
There is at least one board in each of Arizona’s 15 counties. Some larger
counties, like Maricopa, have more than one board. Volunteers are appointed to
a local board after they complete FCRB’s application and selection process.
State of Arizona
page 4
Figure 1: FCRB 10 Standard Review Findings
1. Reasonable efforts were made to prevent the removal of the children from the home and that
continuation therein would be contrary to the welfare of the children.
2. The Board makes a determination that continuation of the child(ren) in out-of-home care
placement is necessary.
3. The Board makes a determination that the placement(s) is/are safe, appropriate, and least
restrictive.
4. The Board makes a determination that there is an appropriate case plan(s) which outlines tasks
for each participant in the case.
5. The Board makes a determination that each case participant is following the tasks outlined in
the case plan.
6. The Board makes a determination that progress is being made toward removing the causes
necessitating out-of-home placement.
7. In cases other than long-term foster care or independent living, the Board makes a
determination that a realistic target date for the completion of the permanency goal is
established.
8. The Board recommends that a judicial determination be made that reasonable efforts are being
made by the Agency to implement the permanency plan for the child(ren).
9. The child(ren)’s education is being implemented successfully.
10. The Board makes a determination that there are no significant service gaps or system problems
in this case.
Source: FCRB Findings and Determinations Guidebook for Volunteer Members and FCRB Staff.
FCRB local board members serve a 3-year term. FCRB local boards have the
authority to make recommendations to the juvenile court regarding the efforts
and progress made by the child welfare agency toward achieving the goals
outlined in the children’s case plans. The FCRB boards also make
recommendations regarding the treatment and care of the child, including
whether additional services are needed. The boards’ recommendations are not
legally binding and serve only to advise the juvenile court and the child welfare
agency on the child’s progress toward permanent placement.
FCRB’s volunteers have contributed many hours to help ensure that children in
foster care receive reviews of their cases. Specifically, according to information
provided by FCRB, volunteers donated approximately 120 hours each (over
40,000 hours total) to participate in review boards and another 6,276 hours in
training related to their board participation during 2004. Many FCRB volunteers
have served on review boards for several years. According to FCRB, 27 percent
of board members have served for 5 to 9 years, 8 percent have served for 10 to
20 years, and 2 percent have served for more than 20 years.
􀁺􇩆 FCRB State Board (7 state-wide positions, 1 vacancy, 35 local board
members)—In addition to the local boards, A.R.S. §8-515.04 also provides for
the FCRB State Board. The State Board serves as an oversight body for the
FCRB. The State Board is composed of 7 member positions appointed by the
Arizona Supreme Court and had 35 additional members from the local boards
as of June 2005. The State Board is responsible for establishing the policies and
procedures that govern the local boards, including training requirements for
local board members. The State Board also advocates for child and family
needs through interaction with legislators and collaborates with entities and
stakeholders involved with foster care. A.R.S. §8-515.04(C) requires the State
Board to meet no less than twice annually.
Funding
FCRB receives most of its funding from the State General Fund. As shown in Table 1
(see page 6), FCRB received approximately $1.9 million in General Fund monies
during fiscal year 2005. Starting in fiscal year 2004, FCRB also receives additional
state monies from the CASA Fund and grant monies from the Juvenile Crime
Reduction Fund (JCRF), which is funded by the Criminal Justice Enhancement Fund.
Finally, FCRB receives Federal Title IV-E monies from the Arizona Department of
Economic Security. In fiscal year 2005, FCRB received approximately $761,000 in
Title IV-E monies. In fiscal year 2005, FCRB received approximately $233,000 in
CASA monies and $366,000 in JCRF monies, while its General Fund appropriation
was approximately $104,000 less than it had been in fiscal year 2003 before FCRB
began receiving these monies.
Office of the Auditor General
page 5
Scope and methodology
This audit focused on the value the FCRB program adds to the foster care review
process and its management of volunteers. This performance audit and sunset
review includes two findings, an analysis of the 12 statutory sunset factors, and
associated recommendations:
􀁺􇩔 To improve report effectiveness, FCRB should develop a comprehensive report
tracking system, revise its service gap report to ensure that it encompasses
relevant service gaps in the child welfare system, provide its volunteers with
training on identifying service gaps, and continue its efforts to obtain access to
CPS’ IT system, CHILDS.
􀁺􇩔 To further enhance its volunteer management, FCRB should continue its efforts
to increase volunteer compliance with training requirements and develop a
diversity plan.
State of Arizona
page 6
Table 1: Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Other Changes in Fund Balance
Years Ended June 30, 2003, 2004, and 2005
(Unaudited)
2003 2004 2005
Revenues:
State General Fund appropriations $2,001,485 $1,767,105 $1,897,229
Federal Title IV-E 1 490,665 588,121 761,429
Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) Fund 2 282,643 232,966
Juvenile Crime Reduction Fund (JCRF)3 30,134 366,465
Total revenues 2,492,150 2,668,003 3,258,089
Expenditures and transfers out:4
Personal services and employee related 1,634,036 1,849,113 2,057,228
Professional and outside services 25,173 22,752 41,677
Travel 81,129 107,308 108,712
Other operating 388,958 370,179 424,936
Equipment 11,562 4,543
Total expenditures 2,140,858 2,353,895 2,632,553
Transfers to other Arizona Supreme Court functions 5 57,809 140,242 460,451
Total expenditures and transfers 2,198,667 2,494,137 3,093,004
Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures and transfers out 293,483 173,866 165,085
Fund balance, beginning of year 653,253 946,736 1,120,602
Fund balance, end of year 6 $ 946,736 $1,120,602 $1,285,687
1 FCRB has an interagency agreement with DES to receive federal Title IV-E foster care reimbursement monies. Title IV-E monies are
provided to DES by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to cover a portion of the costs associated with administering
the foster care program, including foster care reviews.
2 Amount is the portion of CASA fund monies appropriated by the Legislature for board operations.
3 Amount is the portion of JCRF monies that are available for encouraging the design, development, and successful implementation of
state-wide, community-based programs for reducing juvenile crime. The JCRF is funded with state Criminal Justice Enhancement
Fund monies.
4 Includes administrative adjustments from the prior year.
5 Amount is the portion of the Title IV-E reimbursements that are used to pay for other Arizona Supreme Court functions, such as the
Model Court program.
6 Amount is primarily the unspent Title IV-E reimbursements.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of the financial information prepared by the Arizona Supreme Court for the years ended
June 30, 2003, 2004, and 2005.
􀁺􇩗 Within the sunset factors, the report recommends that, in accordance with
statute, FCRB should provide written notification to the Joint Legislative Budget
Committee regarding its retention of Title IV-E monies.
Auditors used a variety of methods to study the issues addressed in the audit,
including interviews with FCRB management and staff and a review of applicable
state and federal statutes and regulations, and FCRB policies and procedures. To
perform more specific audit steps, auditors used the following methods:
􀁺􇨠 To evaluate the value that FCRB adds to the child welfare system, auditors
conducted an online survey of 57 juvenile court judges and commissioners
regarding the quality and timeliness of its reports and recommendations. The
survey had a 63 percent response rate. Auditors took steps to provide
reasonable assurance that the survey encompassed all juvenile court judges
and commissioners in the State who heard dependency cases as of February
2005 (see Appendix, pages a-iii through a-v).1 Auditors also interviewed officials
from DES—Administration for Children, Youth and Families; the Department of
Health Services, Division of Behavioral Health Services; and the Governor’s
Office.
􀁺􇨠 To evaluate FCRB’s volunteer management practices, auditors interviewed FCRB
volunteers, reviewed the FCRB volunteer training report for calendar year 2004, and
conducted a review of studies and books on volunteer management.2–5 Finally,
auditors interviewed officials from New Mexico, New Jersey, Oregon, and South
Carolina to determine how these states manage their volunteer training
programs. Auditors selected these states because they have similar populations
or were among the first few states to establish a citizen foster care review
system.
􀁺􇩔 To develop the Introduction and Background section, auditors compiled
unaudited information from state and federal laws and regulations, the FCRB
policies and procedures manual, revenue and expenditure information provided
by the Administrative Office of the Courts from its financial management
1 Dependency cases include children who are in need of proper and effective parental care and control and have no parent
or guardian, or whose homes are “unfit” by reason of abuse, neglect, cruelty, or depravity by a parent, guardian, or other
persons having care or custody of the child.
2 McCurley, Steve, and Rick Lynch. Essential Volunteer Management. Downers Grove, IL: The Volunteer Management
Series of VMSystems, 1989.
3 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Head Start Bureau. A Handbook for Volunteer Coordinators in Head Start.
Washington, D.C.: DHHS, Jan. 1990.
4 McCurley, Steve. Volunteer Management Policies. Downers Grove, IL: The Volunteer Management Series of VMSystems,
1990.
5 McCurley, Steve. Recruiting and Retaining Volunteers: Jossey-Bass Handbook of Nonprofit Leadership and Management.
San Francisco:Jossey-Bass,1994.
Office of the Auditor General
page 7
accounting system, and other information provided by FCRB. Auditors also
observed three court dependency hearings.
The audit was conducted in accordance with government auditing standards.
The Auditor General and staff express appreciation to the FCRB board members,
management, and staff for their cooperation and assistance throughout this audit.
State of Arizona
page 8
FCRB adds value, but can improve report
effectiveness
Most juvenile court judges and commissioners who responded to the Auditor
General’s survey stated that FCRB adds value to the child welfare system. FCRB
local boards are required to provide reports to the juvenile court that detail the results
of the reviews and any recommendations to help the child find a permanent
placement. Two aspects of these reports, however, can be improved. First, FCRB
currently has no comprehensive system for monitoring report timeliness and should
develop one. Second, although FCRB volunteers check for service gaps for the
children they review, their reports do not disclose the full extent of service gaps that
exist. FCRB should obtain input from stakeholders on the types of service gaps that
should be reported and provide training to volunteers on how to identify all the gaps
that may exist.
Most survey respondents indicate FCRB adds value
Most of the juvenile court judges and commissioners who participated in an auditors’
survey reported that FCRB adds value to the foster care review process. Auditors
surveyed 57 juvenile court judges and commissioners throughout the State to solicit
their input. Auditors took steps to provide reasonable assurance that the survey
encompassed all juvenile court judges and commissioners in the State who heard
dependency cases as of February 2005. Thirty-six persons responded to the survey
for a 63 percent response rate (see Appendix, pages a-iii through a-v). The survey
respondents represented all 15 counties in Arizona. A majority of the survey
respondents reported that FCRB adds value to the foster care review process.
Specifically, 29 of the respondents listed in their written comments one or more
positive factors that FCRB adds to the foster care review process. For example, one
respondent stated, “I like to have the objective view provided by the Board. It is
another good piece of information to use in arriving in a fair, just, and equitable
decision for each case, keeping in mind the best interest of children.”
Twenty-nine
respondents indicated
that FCRB adds value to
the foster care review
process.
Office of the Auditor General
FINDING 1
page 9
Most respondents also reported that FCRB recommendations are reasonable and its
reports are generally accurate. Specifically, 28 respondents reported that FCRB
recommendations were reasonable for 76 to 99 percent of their cases, and 2
respondents reported that the recommendations were reasonable for 100 percent of
their cases. Most respondents also indicated that FCRB reports were accurate and
complete for 76 to 99 percent of their cases. In addition, although most respondents
indicated that FCRB made different or additional recommendations from the case
plan in only 1 to 25 percent of their cases, nearly all stated that those
recommendations were generally appropriate. For example, one respondent stated,
“Usually, when there is a difference, FCRB is recommending that a more permanent
plan can be achieved over long-term foster care. At the Report and Reviews, I usually,
but not always, tend to agree with the case plan. However, I do not mind
contrasting points of view at all, because I will scrutinize matters and question
the GALs and case managers more closely if FCRB does not agree with the
case plan.” Although most judges who responded to the survey believe that
FCRB adds value, three respondents reported in their written comments that
FCRB does not add value to the foster care review process. For example, one
judge indicated that FCRB resources would be better used elsewhere.
FCRB can improve value by ensuring timely reporting
Survey responses and an auditor review of FCRB internal reports indicate that FCRB
can improve report effectiveness by ensuring that the reports are provided to the
courts in a timely manner. FCRB local boards are required to provide reports to the
juvenile court that detail the results of its reviews and any recommendations to help
the child find a permanent placement. The judge, in turn, is required to address
FCRB recommendations on the court record. Although most survey respondents
indicated that they received FCRB reports in enough time for the court hearing for 76
to 99 percent of their cases, 11 survey respondents reported that they received
FCRB’s reports in enough time for 75 percent or less of their cases. Further, in a
related survey question, only about half (19) of the respondents said the information
in FCRB case reports was current for more than 75 percent of their cases. Fourteen
respondents reported that the information was current for only 51 to 75 percent of
their cases, and 3 reported that it was current for 50 percent or less of their cases.
According to FCRB management, an initial FCRB review is scheduled 5 months after
the child is first removed from his/her home and every 6 months thereafter to ensure
that the reports are submitted in time for the court hearings. This places the review
30 days before the required 6-month court review, which coincides with the A.R.S.
§8-515.03 requirement that FCRB local boards provide reports to the juvenile court
within 30 days following the reviews. Currently, supervisors in its Phoenix and Tucson
offices use separate informal systems to track the dates of board review meetings
and the mailing dates of the reports associated with the meetings. However, they do
State of Arizona
page 10
Guardian ad Litem (GAL)—A person
with formal legal training appointed
by a judge to represent the best
interests of an allegedly abused or
neglected child.
not track the number of days that have elapsed from the review date. Specifically, the
offices record the date a board met and reviewed a group of cases and the
subsequent date the associated reports were mailed to the courts. Although FCRB
tracks the review date and mailing date, they are unable to determine from the
systems how many days have elapsed from the review date and cannot use the
systems to alert supervisors when case reports are nearing the 30-day deadline.
Auditors compiled and analyzed FCRB data for review reports that were mailed to the
courts from March 2004 through February 2005. The analysis found that reports for
104 of the 596 review meetings were mailed to the courts 35 days or more past the
FCRB review date, meaning the reports may have arrived too late for use in the court
hearings for all the cases in those reviews. In one instance, the review reports from
one board meeting were not provided to the court until 111 days after the FCRB
review. According to FCRB management, several former employees’ performance
issues contributed to the late reports.
The lack of a comprehensive tracking system makes it more difficult to know if
reports are arriving late, and if so, the reasons for the delays. Therefore, to improve
its effectiveness, FCRB should develop a comprehensive tracking system to help
ensure that its reports are submitted to the courts within the required 30 days. At a
minimum, the system should track the review date, the date mailed for the reports,
and the number of days that have elapsed from the review date to help monitor and
prioritize reports that are close to the 30-day deadline. To help further enhance the
effectiveness of its reports, FCRB should also consider exploring the possibility of
using its existing data to track the next upcoming court hearing for each case.
FCRB should improve reporting of service gaps in the
child welfare system
In response to the Governor’s 2003 child protective services action plan, FCRB
began reporting information on service gaps in the child welfare system. However,
FCRB should take steps to improve its service gap reports. Specifically, FCRB should
better identify service gaps by training volunteers to ask detailed questions and by
obtaining access to necessary information. In addition, FCRB should improve the
usefulness of its reports by ensuring that they encompass all relevant services and
clearly differentiate gaps in services to children from gaps related to DES’ failure to
participate in the review process.
FCRB reports service gaps in the child welfare system—FCRB
developed a service gap report in response to the Governor’s 2003 Child Protective
Services Reform Action Plan, which called for communication between FCRB and
CPS regarding service gaps in the child welfare system. In 2004, FCRB implemented
a requirement for local boards to identify and report service gaps, and developed a
The Governor’s 2003
CPS Action Plan called
for improved
communication
regarding service gaps.
Office of the Auditor General
page 11
report to compile this information to identify service gaps in the child welfare system.
According to FCRB management, the report was developed in collaboration with
CPS and FCRB intended to review the report’s format and make needed revisions
after using it for a year. FCRB reports its service gap findings to DES, Department of
Health Services’ Division of Behavioral Health Services (BHS), and the Governor’s
Office. As shown in Figure 2 (see page 13), FCRB local boards reviewed 6,054 cases
from July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005. Of the total cases reviewed during that
period, FCRB local boards identified service gaps in 1,623, or 26.8 percent, of their
cases. According to FCRB’s report, local boards identified 3,798 instances of service
gaps related to the 1,623 cases. One child can have multiple service gaps.
However, the highest instances of service gaps shown in the FCRB report pertain to
DES’ participation in the FCRB process, with relatively few gaps related to services
needed by children in out-of-home care. Specifically, the highest instances of FCRB-reported
service gaps are related to the case managers not providing their case
report in time for the FCRB review, or case managers not attending the review. As
shown in Figure 2 (see page 13), FCRB reported that it did not receive case reports
in about 1,677 instances, and case managers did not attend the reviews in about 617
instances for cases reviewed during the period of July 2004 through June 2005.
FCRB also reports on services the foster child needs but is not receiving, such as
behavioral health services or case manager visits. For example, as shown in Figure
2 (see page 13), FCRB reports on various aspects of behavioral health services, such
as whether the recommended treatment services are currently available.
FCRB reports do not fully reflect service gaps in the child welfare
system—The results of the auditors’ survey and a review of available information
regarding services for children in out-of-home care indicate that FCRB reports do not
adequately reflect service gaps in the child welfare system. Specifically:
􀁺􇩍 Most survey respondents reported that service gaps existed in 26 to 50 percent
of their cases.
􀁺􇨠 Information from other sources indicates FCRB under-reports two specific types
of service gaps to children. Specifically, reports CPS prepared indicate a higher
percentage of children not receiving monthly visits from case managers than
shown on the FCRB report, and a BHS official stated that the FCRB report
under-reports gaps in behavioral health system services.
􀁺􇩆 FCRB service gap reports do not include information on all relevant services. For
example, FCRB service gap reports do not include information related to the
children’s education. Three child welfare officials interviewed by auditors
indicated that service gap information related to education is important.
Although FCRB reports this information to judges separately on a case-by-case
basis, that information is not included on the service gap report to make it readily
available to other stakeholders.
State of Arizona
page 12
Office of the Auditor General
page 13
Figure 2: Example of FCRB Report on Service Gaps
Information from DES could help FCRB local boards better identify service gaps. For
example, DES case plans often include detailed information about needed services
for the child and his/her family. However, FCRB does not always receive these plans
from case managers. As shown in Figure 2 (see page 13), FCRB reports instances
in which it did not have the case plan or the case manager did not attend the review
meeting. In these cases, it may be difficult for the local board to determine if service
gaps exist because they did not have the case plans or could not interview the case
manager. Although FCRB has a written agreement with DES to access CPS’ CHILDS
case management computer system, which contains information regarding the case
plans and needed services, FCRB management reports that its staff are currently
unable to access CHILDS. According to FCRB management, FCRB and CPS are
working to provide FCRB access to CHILDS by end of summer 2005.
FCRB can take steps to improve its reporting of service gaps—To help
ensure that its local boards accurately identify service gaps, FCRB can take steps to
help improve its identification and reporting of service gaps. First, FCRB should
consider suggestions made by survey respondents for improving its
identification of service gaps (see text box). Second, FCRB should
continue its efforts to obtain access to CHILDS to ensure that its staff
are able to access information on case plans that are otherwise
unavailable. According to FCRB management, volunteers have not
yet received comprehensive training on how to identify and report
service gaps. It should develop training that could include the survey
respondents’ suggestions and also inform volunteers about using
available resources, such as the case plans, to help ensure they
accurately identify service gaps to children in out-of-home care.
FCRB should also revise its service gap report to ensure that it clearly
reports relevant gaps in the child welfare system. For example, it
should ensure that its report encompasses service gaps related to
education. To help identify additional types of service gaps to include
in its report, FCRB should obtain input from other stakeholders, such
as BHS. Finally, to communicate more clearly to stakeholders, FCRB
should clearly differentiate between service gaps related to DES’
failure to participate in the review process and actual service gaps
related to children in out-of-home care, such as the availability of
behavioral health services.
State of Arizona
page 14
Judges’ Suggestions for Improving FCRB
Service Gap Reporting
• FCRB local boards should ask the case
managers detailed questions regarding
when the request for the service was
submitted, the follow-up process for the
requested service, and why needed
services were not requested.
• FCRB local boards should be more aware
of the services that are available locally
and state-wide.
• FCRB local boards should be familiar with
the various systems, and ask the entities in
the cases what’s missing or not being
provided.
Recommendations:
1. FCRB should develop a comprehensive tracking system and monitor it to help
ensure that its reports are submitted to the courts within 30 days from the review.
At a minimum, the system should track the number of days that have elapsed
from the review date and should clearly identify reports that are close to the
30-day deadline. To help further enhance the effectiveness of its reports, FCRB
should also consider exploring the possibility of using its existing data to track
the next upcoming court hearing for each case.
2. To help ensure that local boards better identify service gaps, FCRB should:
a. Provide training to its volunteers regarding the identification and reporting
of service gaps in the child welfare system. This training could include
information about the types of services that are available locally and state-wide,
and instruction on using available resources, such as the case plans.
b. Continue its efforts to obtain access to CPS’ case management system to
ensure that its staff can access case plans that are otherwise unavailable,
and to help ensure that local boards better identify service gaps.
3. FCRB should revise its service gap report and obtain input from other
stakeholders, such as the Department of Health Services’ Division of Behavioral
Health Services, to help ensure that it encompasses relevant service gaps in the
child welfare system, such as service gaps related to education.
4. When reporting service gaps, FCRB should clearly differentiate between service
gaps related to DES’ failure to participate in the review process and actual
service gaps related to children in out-of-home care, such as the availability of
behavioral health services.
Office of the Auditor General
page 15
State of Arizona
page 16
FCRB can further enhance its volunteer
management
Although FCRB has the components of an effective volunteer management system,
it can further enhance training compliance and diversity. Specifically, FCRB should
continue its efforts to improve compliance with its training and develop a diversity
plan to help further its efforts to effectively recruit volunteers.
FCRB has key elements to manage volunteers
Experts in the field of volunteer management offer suggestions for an effective
volunteer management system that can be categorized into five basic areas. FCRB
has components of each of these following areas:
􀁺􇨠 Selection process—Organizations should have a process to screen and select
potential volunteers. FCRB has established such a process. Potential volunteers
must submit an application that includes general questions regarding their
occupation, education, affiliations, life experience, and availability. Applicants
must also sign a “Pre-Screening Criteria” form that includes information
regarding time commitments, attendance, confidentiality, and training
requirements. After applicants complete the application process, including a
background check, their names and information are sent to the presiding court
judge, who then decides whether to appoint the volunteers to local boards.
􀁺􇨠 Define roles and responsibilities—Organizations should clearly define
volunteers’ roles and responsibilities. FCRB has a volunteer manual that
includes detailed information regarding the roles and responsibilities of its
volunteers. The manual also includes information regarding state and federal
foster care review laws, FCRB training and attendance requirements, and a
step-by-step description of the foster care review process.
Office of the Auditor General
page 17
FINDING 2
􀁺􇩔 Training—Organizations should have a volunteer training program that includes
both initial and ongoing training. FCRB has a volunteer training program that
includes an initial orientation training session and ongoing annual training
requirements. New volunteers are required to attend a 2-day orientation within
90 days of their appointment. This orientation covers several topics related to
foster care review and the child welfare system, such as CPS’ intake process,
protocol and demeanor, the review process, and how to write effective
recommendations to the court. Volunteers are required to complete 6 hours of
continuing education annually, or 8 hours if FCRB sponsors a training
conference during the year.
􀁺􇨠 Evaluation—Organizations should have a system in place to periodically
evaluate volunteers and provide feedback. FCRB uses several methods to
evaluate its volunteers. Specifically, according to FCRB management, program
specialists use assessment tools to periodically evaluate their boards and
address performance issues with board members. In addition, FCRB program
specialists continually monitor volunteers at the review meetings and forward the
names of volunteers who do not consistently meet the attendance requirements
to judges for possible dismissal. Finally, FCRB worked with a local community
college to conduct a survey of all parties who attended a FCRB review meeting
from April 2004 through October 2004. The survey’s purpose was to assess the
local boards’ strengths and weaknesses. FCRB received the survey results in
August 2005 and as of September 2005 was making plans to share the results
with board members.
􀁺􇩒 Recruiting—Organizations should ensure that recruiting efforts are effective and
help ensure a diverse volunteer population. FCRB uses a variety of recruiting
methods to help ensure that it has an adequate number of volunteers. For
example, FCRB uses newspapers and radio announcements to raise
awareness and recruit volunteers. FCRB staff also attend community events
including fairs, forums, and town meetings. Additionally, in 2004, FCRB
developed a recruitment plan, which includes tasks for developing media
campaigns and recruiting graduate students from universities. As discussed in
the next section, FCRB can further enhance its efforts to ensure that its
volunteers are diverse.
FCRB can improve training compliance and diversity
Although FCRB has the elements of an effective volunteer management system, it
should continue to monitor training compliance and further enhance its efforts to help
ensure that its volunteers are adequately diverse. According to a strategic planning
report, only 33 percent of its volunteers met the annual training requirements in 2002.
To help ensure that volunteers more consistently meet training requirements, FCRB
State of Arizona
page 18
established a process to send letters to volunteers each year indicating the number
of training hours needed to comply with FCRB requirements for the calendar year
and held training sessions at board meetings to provide training on specific topics,
such as protocol and demeanor at review meetings, the judicial system, and CPS
policies. FCRB data indicates that 77 percent of volunteers met the annual training
requirements in 2004. The increase in volunteer compliance between 2002 and 2004
suggests these efforts have had an impact. However, given that 23 percent of the
volunteers still did not obtain the required training, FCRB should continue to
emphasize and monitor efforts in this area.
In addition to monitoring training compliance, FCRB should develop a diversity plan
to enhance its recruiting efforts. A.R.S. §8-515.01
requires that members of each local board
represent, to the extent possible, the
demographics of the county in which they serve.
As shown in Figure 3, most FCRB volunteers are
Anglo-American. In addition, FCRB records show
that nearly two-thirds are over 50 years old, and
about one-third are retired.
Experts on volunteer management recommend
that organizations take steps to ensure volunteer
diversity. For example, one book on volunteer
recruitment recommends that organizations
distribute their brochures to corporate volunteer
programs, libraries, post offices, and job
counseling offices.1 Another book on volunteer
diversity recommends that organizations should
contact culturally diverse organizations and
arrange for referrals or presentations to help raise
awareness and recruit new volunteers.2 FCRB
uses similar recruiting methods to help ensure that
it has an adequate number of qualified volunteers
who represent the demographics of the
community. For example, FCRB has included
tasks in its recruiting plan for distributing its
brochures to libraries, churches, and jury assembly rooms. Additionally, FCRB staff
conduct presentations at various diverse organizations including churches, rotary
groups, universities and colleges, and Hispanic organizations. To help ensure that its
recruiting efforts are effective, FCRB should establish a diversity plan. The plan
should include a clear policy statement that communicates the FCRB commitment
In 2004, 77 percent of
volunteers met the
annual training
requirements.
1 McCurley, Steve and Sue Vineyard. 101 Tips for Volunteer Recruitment. Downers Grove, IL: Heritage Arts Publishing,
1988.
2 McCurley, Steve and Sue Vineyard. Managing Volunteer Diversity: A Rainbow of Opportunities. Downers Grove, IL:
Heritage Arts Publishing, 1992.
Office of the Auditor General
page 19
Figure 3: Volunteer Demographics
As of June 2005
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of Foster Care Review Board
Demographic Report, June 15, 2005.
Asian—<1%
Native American—1%
African-American—5%
Anglo-American—88% Latino—6%
to diversity and the most current demographic data for Arizona’s major regions to
help ensure that the recruiting efforts are appropriately targeted.
Recommendations:
1. FCRB should continue its efforts to ensure that volunteers meet training
requirements, such as monitoring volunteer compliance and notifying volunteers
who have not met the annual requirement.
2. FCRB should establish a diversity plan to help ensure that its recruiting efforts
are effective. The plan should include a clear policy statement that
communicates the FCRB commitment to diversity and the most current
demographic data for Arizona’s major regions to help ensure that the recruiting
efforts are appropriately targeted.
State of Arizona
page 20
In accordance with A.R.S. §41-2954, the Legislature should consider the following 12
factors in determining whether the Foster Care Review Board (FCRB) should be
continued or terminated.
1. Objective and purpose in establishing FCRB.
The Legislature established the Arizona Foster Care Review Board in 1978 in
response to concerns that Arizona’s foster children were being “lost” in out-of-home
care and staying too long in temporary placements. The primary role of
FCRB is to advise the juvenile court by reviewing cases of children who have
been placed in out-of-home care by the Department of Economic Security at
least once every 6 months, in accordance with A.R.S. §8-515.03. The purposes
of these reviews are to:
􀁺􇨠 Determine and advise the juvenile court of the adequacy of the efforts and
progress made toward placement of the child in a permanent home;
􀁺􇩅 Encourage and facilitate the return of each dependent child to his/her family
whenever possible; and
􀁺􇩁 Assist in informing parents and others of their rights and responsibilities
regarding a dependent child in foster care.
2. The effectiveness with which FCRB has met its objectives and purposes and the
efficiency with which the FCRB has operated.
Through FCRB and court reviews, Arizona meets federal requirements to
establish a review system for children in out-of-home care. However, the extent
to which FCRB has affected the stability and quality of care for children in out-of-
home care cannot be easily measured because FCRB acts only in an
advisory role to the court and is one small piece of the child welfare system.
Office of the Auditor General
page 21
SUNSET FACTORS
An auditors’ survey of juvenile court judges and commissioners indicates that
most of the survey respondents (29 out of 36) believe that FCRB adds value to
the foster care review process (see Finding 1, page 9). However, this audit found
that FCRB should improve the timeliness of its reports to the juvenile court and
its reporting of service gaps in the child welfare system (see Finding 1, page 10).
Additionally, FCRB can improve management of its volunteers by continuing its
efforts to increase volunteer compliance with training requirements and
developing a diversity plan (see Finding 2, page 18).
3. The extent to which FCRB has operated within the public interest.
FCRB operates within the public interest by conducting citizen reviews of
children in out-of-home care, but should improve compliance with requirements
in one area. FCRB reported that over 400 volunteers across the State conducted
reviews of 7,931 children during 2004. The FCRB local boards provide
information, observations, and recommendations to the juvenile court judges to
help inform their decisions regarding children in out-of-home care.
However, FCRB should comply with a state law that requires it to notify the Joint
Legislative Budget Committee of its retention of federal Title IV-E reimbursement
monies that it receives from DES to cover costs associated with reviewing
children in out-of-home care. A.R.S. §35-142.01 requires state budget units to
either deposit federal reimbursement monies in the State General Fund or notify
JLBC of federal reimbursement monies. While FCRB is not required to deposit
its Title IV-E reimbursements, it should notify JLBC about them. According to
FCRB management, the annual budget request reflects Title IV-E monies.
However, FCRB has not notified JLBC of its balance of $1.2 million in unused
Title IV-E monies it has accumulated since 1999. According to FCRB
management, some of these monies have been set aside for automation
projects. FCRB should provide annual written notification to JLBC regarding its
retention of Title IV-E monies.
4. The extent to which rules adopted by FCRB are consistent with the legislative
mandate.
FCRB rules are promulgated in accordance with Arizona Supreme Court Rules
of Procedure and are consistent with legislative mandate.
FCRB should notify the
JLBC of its retention of
federal monies.
State of Arizona
page 22
5. The extent to which FCRB has encouraged input from the public before
adopting its rules and the extent to which it has informed the public as to its
actions and their expected impact on the public.
As a program of the Arizona Supreme Court, FCRB is not covered by the
Administrative Procedures Act. FCRB has not promulgated new rules since
1980. However, according to FCRB management, FCRB rule changes are
adopted by the court after the opportunity for public comment, as provided for
by the Rules of the Supreme Court.
In addition, although FCRB is not required to comply with the State’s open
meeting law, FCRB management reports that FCRB informs the public of its
actions through public service announcements, speaking engagements, and a
quarterly newsletter.
6. The extent to which FCRB has been able to investigate and resolve complaints
that are within its jurisdiction.
This factor does not apply because the FCRB has no statutory authority to
investigate and resolve complaints.
7. The extent to which the Attorney General or any other applicable agency of the
state government has the authority to prosecute actions under the enabling
legislation.
This factor does not apply because the FCRB enabling legislation does not
establish any authority that would require prosecuting actions.
8. The extent to which FCRB has addressed deficiencies in the enabling statutes
which prevent it from fulfilling its statutory mandate.
Auditors did not identify any deficiencies in the FCRB statutes that prevent it
from fulfilling its statutory mandate. FCRB has not proposed or sought the
introduction of any legislation within the past 5 years, nor does it have any plans
to propose legislation during the 2006 legislative session.
9. The extent to which changes are necessary in FCRB laws to adequately comply
with the factors listed in the sunset laws.
Auditors did not identify any needed changes to FCRB statutes. Additionally,
FCRB management did not identify any legislative changes that are needed to
comply with the factors listed in the sunset laws.
Office of the Auditor General
page 23
10. The extent to which the termination of FCRB would significantly harm the public
health, safety, or welfare.
Terminating the FCRB would end the citizen review component of Arizona’s
foster care review system. If FCRB were terminated, to comply with federal law,
the State would have to rely solely on the courts to conduct judicial reviews or
establish a panel of appropriate persons. For example, the Department of
Economic Security (DES) could conduct the reviews. However, DES reviews
would essentially be internal reviews of itself because DES is the agency
responsible for the child’s placement and care.
11. The extent to which the level of regulation exercised by FCRB is appropriate and
whether less or more stringent levels of regulation would be appropriate.
This factor does not apply because FCRB has no regulatory authority.
12. The extent to which FCRB has used private contractors in the performance of its
duties and how effective use of private contractors could be accomplished.
FCRB uses private contractors for interpreting services and report translation for
reviews of children in out-of-home care. FCRB has also hired individual
contractors to provide training services to its staff and volunteers. Additionally,
FCRB has contracted with temporary service agencies to hire former employees
who are willing to assist during periods of staff turnover. This audit did not
identify any additional opportunities for FCRB to use private contractors.
State of Arizona
page 24
Office of the Auditor General
APPENDIX
page a-i
State of Arizona
page a-ii
Office of the Auditor General
page a-iii
SURVEY RESULTS
One important FCRB function is to provide recommendations to the juvenile courts regarding children in out-of-home care. To help
assess the value FCRB adds to the child welfare system, auditors conducted an online survey of juvenile court judges and
commissioners throughout Arizona. At the audit team’s request, FCRB provided a list of all juvenile court judges and
commissioners who heard dependency cases as of February 2005. Auditors took steps to confirm the list’s accuracy and
completeness. The total number of valid potential survey participants was 57.
There were 36 valid responses to the survey. The judges and commissioners who participated in the survey represented all 15
counties in Arizona. The survey questions covered a wide range of topics related to FCRB reports and recommendations.
Specifically, the questions focused on the quality, usefulness, and relevance of FCRB’s reports and recommendations. A summary
of the survey results follows:
SURVEY RESULTS SUMMARY
Potential Survey Participants
57
Valid Surveys Completed
36
Response Rate
63%
Thinking about only your dependency
cases in the last 2 years,
in about what percent of cases:
0% 1-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-99% 100%
1. were FCRB reports submitted in enough
time to allow you to review the reports
prior to the court hearing?
- 1 1 9 24 1
2. where you received a FCRB report in
time for the dependency hearing did you
consider any information in the FCRB
reports when making a decision?
- 6 3 5 10 12
3. was the information in the FCRB reports
current?
- 1 2 14 17 2
4. was the information in the FCRB reports
complete?
- 1 5 4 24 2
5. was the information in the FCRB reports
accurate?
- - 1 7 26 2
Appendix
State of Arizona
page a-iv
6. Your comments are important to us. In your opinion, what can FCRB do to improve the timeliness, completeness, and
accuracy of its reports?
There were 25 responses to this question.
7. Below are the main components of a typical FCRB report. Please rank in order of usefulness from 1 to 5 the following
components of the FCRB report (1 being the most useful and 5 being the least useful):
Background information ("Review/Child Information")
10 standard questions about the case ("Findings")
Statements from the interested parties ("According To")
FCRB Observations and Concerns ("Observations/Concerns")
FCRB recommendations ("Review Board Recommendations")
8. Consider the section of the report that you ranked #1 (most useful). Why do you believe this section of the report is
the most useful?
There were 34 responses to this question.
9. Consider the section of the report that you ranked #5 (least useful). Why do you believe this section of the report is
the least useful?
There were 34 responses to this question.
10. Are there any steps that FCRB can take to improve the usefulness of its reports?
There were 21 responses with suggestions.
Thinking about only your dependency
cases in the last 2 years,
in about what percent of cases:
0% 1-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-99% 100%
11. would you describe the FCRB report
recommendations as reasonable?
- - - 6 28 2
12. did you make a decision that incorporated
any of the recommendations in the FCRB
reports? If you are not sure, please
estimate.
- 6 4 9 17 -
13. What steps can FCRB take to make its recommendations more helpful to you when you make your decisions?
There were 14 valid responses to this question.
Thinking about only your dependency
cases in the last 2 years,
in about what percent of cases:
0% 1-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-99% 100%
14. did the FCRB reports have
recommendations that differed from the
case plan? For example, the FCRB
recommended adoption for the child, but
the case plan specified that the child
should be returned to his/her family.
1 29 5 - 1 -
Appendix (cont’d)
Office of the Auditor General
page a-v
15. Please consider cases for which the FCRB report recommendations differed from the case plan. In your opinion,
were those recommendations generally appropriate? Please explain or give examples.
There were 30 responses to this question.
Thinking about only your dependency
cases in the last 2 years,
in about what percent of cases:
0% 1-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-99% 100%
16. did the FCRB reports identify additional
recommendations that were not part of
the case plan? For example, the FCRB
recommended that the child receive
counseling services that were not
specified in the child’s case plan.
- 25 7 3 1
17. Please consider the cases for which the FCRB reports identified additional recommendations that were not in the
case plan. In your opinion, were those recommendations generally appropriate?
There were 30 responses to this question.
18. In your opinion, what can FCRB do to improve the quality and effectiveness of its recommendations?
There were 19 responses to this question.
-
Thinking about only your dependency
cases in the last 2 years,
in about what percent of cases:
0% 1-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-99% 100%
19. do you believe had service gaps? For
example, substance abuse treatment was
not adequately available.
1 - 24 8 3 -
20. When service gaps were evident, in about
how many cases did FCRB accurately
identify the service gaps?
1 8 11 6 10 -
21. In your opinion, what steps can FCRB take to ensure its reports accurately identify service gaps?
There were 15 valid responses to this question.
22. In your opinion, what value – if any – does FCRB add to the foster care review process? Please explain.
There were 31 responses to this question.
23. Do you have any additional comments or suggestions regarding the FCRB that you would like us to consider?
There were 11 valid responses to this question.
Appendix (concl’d)
State of Arizona
page a-vi
Office of the Auditor General
AGENCY RESPONSE
State of Arizona
September 15, 2005
Ms. Debra K. Davenport, Auditor General
Office of the Auditor General
2910 North 44th Street, Suite 410
Phoenix, Arizona 85018
Dear Ms. Davenport:
Enclosed you will find our response to the recommendations found in your second draft
of the performance audit completed on the Foster Care Review Board Program.
Again, we appreciate the cooperation of your staff throughout the performance audit
process.
Sincerely,
David K. Byers, Administrative Director
Administrative Office of the Courts
Enclosure
cc: Shan Hayes, Performance Audit Manager
Bill Stanton, Division Director, DCSD
Caroline Lautt-Owens, Program Manager, FCRB
Administrative Office of the Courts
Foster Care Review Board
Sunset Review Final Report
Response to Auditor General Recommendations
Finding 1
1. FCRB should develop a comprehensive tracking system and monitor it to help
ensure that its reports are submitted to the courts within 30 days from the review.
At a minimum, the system should track the number of days that have elapsed
from the review date and should clearly identify reports that are close to the 30-
day deadline. To help further enhance the effectiveness of its reports, FCRB
should also consider exploring the possibility of using its existing data to track the
next upcoming court hearing for each case.
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit recommendation
will be implemented. The FCRB will review its Recommendation Report Tracking
Systems, as well as its automated system to determine if there is a less
cumbersome and more efficient tracking method that calculates the numbers of
days that have elapsed from the review date. The program will also continue its
efforts in synchronizing its reviews with court hearings.
2. To help ensure that local boards better identify service gaps, FCRB should:
a. Provide training to its volunteers regarding the identification and reporting
of service gaps in the child welfare system. This training could include
information about the types of services that are available locally and
statewide, and instruction on using available resources, such as the case
plans.
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit
recommendation will be implemented. Although many reports and
documentations are used by the FCRB volunteers when reviewing a case
and identifying service gaps, the case plan is perhaps one of the most
essential resources for the FCRB. The essence of a FCRB volunteer’s job
is to identify service gaps and system problems and make appropriate
recommendations based upon their findings. However, the FCRB is
committed to providing volunteers with ongoing training and will expand
its training dealing with identifying service gaps and system problems
when its Finding 10 and subsequent Service Gaps and System Problems
report is revised.
b. Continue its efforts to obtain access to CPS’ case management system to
ensure that its staff can access case plans that are otherwise unavailable,
and to help ensure that local boards better identify service gaps.
The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit
recommendation will be implemented. It is the responsibility of CPS to
provide information to the FCRB. The FCRB has provided several ways
in which this information can be submitted (fax, email or hard copy). The
FCRB has continued its efforts to obtain access to CPS’s case
management system and hopes to have this completed shortly. It is still
unknown if this access will rectify the problem, but FCRB will continue
exploring, with CPS, ways in which it can simplify the transfer of
information so that CPS can more easily met its responsibility.
3. FCRB should revise its service gap report and obtain input from other
stakeholders, such as the Department of Health Services’ Division of Behavioral
Health Services, to help ensure that it encompasses relevant service gaps in the
child welfare system, such as service gaps related to education.
The finding of the auditor general is agreed to and the audit recommendation will
be implemented. The service gap report was created approximately one year ago
with the intention of having the stakeholders and volunteer representatives
reconvene to discuss possible needed modifications. The first meeting to address
needed modifications was held in late August.
4. When reporting service gaps, FCRB should clearly differentiate between service
gaps related to DES’ failure to participate in the review process and actual service
gaps related to children in out-of-home care, such as the availability of behavioral
health services.
The finding of the auditor general is agreed to and will be implemented. The
Governor’s Action Plan for Child Welfare Reform called for the reporting of
service gaps and system problems. The FCRB is committed to fulfilling this
charge and will continue to modify its report to ensure a report that is as
beneficial to stakeholders as possible.
Finding 2
1. FCRB should continue its efforts to ensure that volunteers meet training
requirements, such as monitoring volunteer compliance and notifying volunteers
who have not met the annual requirement.
The finding of the auditor general is agreed to and the audit recommendation will
be implemented. The FCRB volunteers dedicate a great deal of time to the review
process. Not only do they dedicate one full day a month to serve on a board, but
also spend many hours preparing and reading documents for the reviews.
The FCRB proposed specific procedures to supports its enforcement of training
requirements to the COJC (Committee on Juvenile Courts) in lat 2003. The
proposal was approved by the COJC and the FCRB began implementation of the
procedures in 2004. The FCRB is committed to continuing these efforts,
acknowledges and appreciates the time the volunteers already provide to the
review process and is encouraged by the approximate 77% compliance rate in
2004.
2. FCRB should establish a diversity plan to help ensure that its recruiting efforts are
effective. The plan should include a clear policy statement that communicates the
FCRB commitment to diversity and the most current demographic data for
Arizona’s major regions to help ensure that the recruiting efforts are appropriately
targeted.
The finding of the auditor general is agreed to and the audit recommendation will
be implemented. Utilizing the information provided in the auditor General’s
report, the FCRB will contact the states identified in the report to further discuss
their diversity plans and will incorporate their ideas with the needs or Arizona to
develop an effective diversity plan. It should be noted however, that although
some states do have diversity plans in place, the demographics of their volunteers
are similar to that of Arizona. It is difficult to recruit volunteers who come from
lower income, minority households, due to their employment commitments. The
type of volunteer commitment that is required to serve on a FCRB review board is
usually best accommodated by a retired individual who has reliable
transportation and no financial need to continue working past usual retirement
age.
Sunset Factor Recommendations
1. The extent to which the FCRB has operated within the public interest.
The FCRB operates within the public interest by conducting citizen reviews of
children in out-of-home care, but should improve compliance with requirements
in two areas. FCRB reported that over 400 volunteers across the State conducted
reviews of 7,931 children during 2004. The FCRB local boards provide
information, observations, and recommendations to the juvenile court judges to
help inform their decisions regarding children in out-of-home care.
However, FCRB should comply with a state law that requires it to notify the Joint
Legislative Budget Committee of its retention of federal Title IV-E
reimbursement monies that it receives for DES to cover costs associated with
reviewing children in out-of-home care. A.R.S. §35-142.01 requires state budget
units to either deposit federal reimbursement monies in the State General Fund or
notify JLBC of federal reimbursement monies. While FCRB is not required to
deposit its federal reimbursements, is should notify JLBC about them. According
to FCRB management, the annual budget request reflects Title IV-E monies.
However, FCRB has not notified JLBC of its balance of $1.2 million in unused
Title IV-E monies it has accumulated since 1999. According to FCRB
management, some of these monies have been set aside for automation projects.
FCRB should provide annual written notification to JLBC regarding its retention
of Title IV-E monies.
The finding of the auditor general is agreed to and the audit recommendation will
be implemented. The Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) has been
notified of the federal Title IV-E reimbursement monies historically within the
Non-Appropriated Fund report and more recently in the Judicial Budget request.
It was the understanding of this branch that the inclusion in the budget request of
these non-appropriated reimbursement monies satisfied the state law requirement
of notification to JLBC.
03-08 Arizona Department of
Commerce
03-09 Department of Economic
Security—Division of Children,
Youth and Families,
Child Protective Services—
Caseloads and Training
04-L1 Letter Report—Arizona Medical
Board
04-L2 Letter Report—Gila County
Transportation Excise Tax
04-L3 Letter Report—Department of
Economic Security—Population
Estimates
04-01 Arizona Tourism and
Sports Authority
04-02 Department of Economic
Security—Welfare Programs
04-03 Behavioral Health Services’
HB2003 Funding for Adults
with Serious Mental Illness
04-04 Department of Emergency and
Military Affairs and
State Emergency Council
04-05 Department of Environmental
Quality—Water Quality Division
04-06 Department of Environmental
Quality—Waste Programs
Division
04-07 Department of Environmental
Quality—Air Quality Division
04-08 Department of Environmental
Quality—Sunset Factors
04-09 Arizona Department of
Transportation, Motor Vehicle
Division— State Revenue
Collection Functions
04-10 Arizona Department of
Transportation, Motor Vehicle
Division—Information Security
and E-government Services
04-11 Arizona Department of
Transportation, Motor Vehicle
Division—Sunset Factors
04-12 Board of Examiners of Nursing
Care Institution Administrators
and Assisted Living Facility
Managers
05-L1 Letter Report—Department
of Health Services—
Ultrasound Reviews
05-01 Department of Economic
Security—Division of
Employment and
Rehabilitation Services—
Unemployment Insurance
Program
05-02 Department of Administration—
Financial Services Division
05-03 Government Information
Technology Agency (GITA) &
Information Technology
Authorization Committee (ITAC)
05-04 Department of Economic
Security—Information Security
05-05 Department of Economic
Security—Service Integration
Initiative
05-06 Department of Revenue—Audit
Division
05-07 Department of Economic
Security—Division of
Developmental Disabilities
05-08 Department of Economic
Security—Sunset Factors
05-09 Arizona State Retirement
System
Performance Audit Division reports issued within the last 24 months
Future Performance Audit Division reports
Department of Administration—Information Services Division and Telecommunications
Program Office
Department of Administration—Human Resources Division