Performance audit, Foster Care Review Board

              PERFORMANCE AUDIT
FOSTER CARE REVIEW BOARD
Report to the Arizona Legislature
By the Auditor General
August 1995
Report # 95- 3
DOUGLAS R. NORTON, CPA
AUDITOR GENERIL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
August 2, 1995
DEBRA K. DAVENPORT, CPA
DEP" T" A" D, TomGENER,% L
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Fife Symington, Governor
Mr. David Byers, Administrative Director
Arizona Supreme Court
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Performance Audit of the
Foster Care Review Board. This report is in response to a May 5, 1993, resolution
of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. The performance audit was conducted as
part of the sunset review set forth in A. R. S. @ 41- 2951 through 41- 2957.
In this day and age of increased numbers of clvldren placed in foster care for
extended periods of time, we believe that the Foster Care Review Board ( FCRB) can
have a greater impact in facilitating permanent placement for Arizona's foster children.
This report addresses three areas in which FCRB can enhance its effectiveness. First,
FCRB reviews and reports to juvenile court judges can carry greater weight with these
decisionmakers by ensuring that key determinations regarding a child's progress are
specifically made during each and every review. These determinations, set out by
federal law, include: 1) the necessity and appropriateness of placement, 2) case plan
compliance, 3) progress toward mitigating the need for foster care, and 3) a likely date
by which the child may be returned home or placed for adoption or legal
guardianship. Second, to ensure that each review is productive, FCRB should explore
options, such as alternate board members, to increase or encourage greater board
member attendance. Finally, despite the recent addition of new staff, if caseload
continues to increase, FCRB should look to longer- term strategies, such as reducing
case processing inefficiencies and adopting a case classification " triager' system.
My staff and I will be pleased to discuss or clarify items in the report.
This report will be released to the public on August 3.
Sincerely,
ADu itor yGR. e nNesorarlt o n
DRN: lmn
Enclosure
2910 NORTH 44TH STREET . SUITE 410 I PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85018 I ( 602) 553- 0333 I FAX ( 602) 553- 0051
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit and sunset review
of the Foster Care Review Board pursuant to a May 5,1993, resolution of the Joint Legis-lative
Audit Committee. The audit was conducted under the authority vested in the Au-ditor
General by Arizona Revised Statutes ( A. R. S.) 5541- 2951 through 41- 2957.
The Foster Care Review Board ( FCRB), located within the Supreme Courtfs Administra-tive
Office of the Courts, Division of Dependent Children's Services, was established in
1978 because of concerns that foster children were being " lost" in the system. FCRB's
establishment actually preceded, by two years, federal law mandating foster care reviews
to assess progress of foster care cases. The Legislature created the FCRB as a citizen re-view
process to review at least once every six months the case of each child who is in out-of-
home placement and who is the subject of a dependency action. At each review, the
FCRB is charged with determining what efforts have been made to carry out the plan for
permanent placement. The findings of these reviews are then reported to the juvenile
court within 30 days of the review.
At the time of our review, there were 64 local boards statewide comprised of approxi-mately
5 citizen volunteers each ( 320 volunteers in total) to conduct nearly 6,000 reviews
( for approximately 5,000 children in out- of- home placement as of January l, 1995).( l) Lo-cal
board members are appointed by the juvenile court judge in each. Each board is re-quired
to " represent the various socioeconomic, racial and ethnic groups of the county in which it
serves." These volunteers dedicate a significant amount of time to fulfill their responsibili-ties.
In 1994, FCRB volunteers spent nearly 16,000 hours conducting reviews.
FCRB Can Have a Greater Impact In
Facilitating Permanent Placement
for Foster Children
( See pages 5 through 11)
Although FCRB's role in the foster care system is advisory in nature, we believe it could
do more to facilitate moving children out of the foster care system. Individuals within the
child welfare system, such as juvenile court judges, case managers, and social service
program administrators, believe there is value and benefit to conducting foster care re-views.
For example, some believe it prevents children from " getting lost in the system,"
Since our audit, an additional three boards have been established. These local boards will review
their first cases in August 1995.
while others feel it provides accountability for DES case management. Juvenile court judges
we interviewed indicated that they were generally satisfied with the information pro-vided
by FCRB. However, FCRB reports do not seem to have as much impact as one
might expect. Many of the judges indicated that the FCRB report is only one of several
pieces of information that they review and consider when making foster care decisions.
Despite the fact the FCRB was specifically established to aid the courts, judges do not
appear to attach any special significance to FCRB reports.
We assessed FCRB's effectiveness by evaluating whether review boards made critical
case determinations as required by federal law. Specifically, the law requires review boards
to make determinations regarding 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. We found that the review
boards consistently failed to make specific determinations for each of the four review
elements. In fact, no more than 4 out of the 20 case reviews we observed reached specific
conclusions on any of the review elements. Although the boards generally discuss perti-nent
issues, we found that they would " beat around the bush" on such issues and never
fully conclude on a case's progress. As a result, the information provided to juvenile court
judges does not adequately portray and address the progress of a case toward perma-nency.
FCRB needs to restructure its review process to ensure that issues essential to case progress
are addressed in each review. For example, FCRB should develop questions that will
allow the boards to make determinations addressing each of the four federal review re-quirements.
Citizen review boards in both Oregon and Nebraska developed specific ques-tions
for board members to ensure important questions are asked and reviews stay fo-cused.
FCRB should also provide training to board members and enhance the role of its
program specialists to further ensure that reviews focus on pertinent issues. Finally, FCRB
should also revise its report format to ensure that essential information is included in its
reports to the juvenile court.
Poor Board Member Attendance Can
Weaken the Case Review Process
( See pages 13 through 14)
To further ensure that quality reviews are conducted in every case, FCRB should address
board member attendance. Both statute and FCRB rule emphasize the importance of board
attendance. A. R. S. 58- 515.01 requires that " boards shall consist of either three m j v e members"
and FCRB rules require that at least three board members be in attendance for a review.
However, we identified several instances of reviews held with less than a quorum. For
example, 12 boards conducted reviews in 1994 for over 130 cases ( out of 5,790 cases re-viewed
in that year) with fewer than 3 board members present. In addition, none of the 14
boards we observed in January 1995 had full attendance for the case reviews in our study.
FCRB should consider using alternate board members to ensure adequate attendance at
each review. At least one other state, Oregon, has recently adopted this approach in re-sponse
to problems with board member absences.
Comprehensive Strategy Needed to
Contend with Foster Care Growth
( See pages 15 through 21)
FCRB needs a comprehensive strategy to prepare for future growth. Until 1994, FCRB's
caseload growth had remained fairly constant - only 33 more reviews were conducted in
1993 than in 1991. However, more recently, the number of additional reviews has sub-stantially
increased. FCRB conducted 477 ( or 9.1 percent) more reviews in 1994 than it did
in 1993. Further, in the first 5 months of 1995, 204 more cases were added to FCRB's
workload. Additionally, the increased complexity of the cases due to substance abuse
problems within the family and children needing longer periods of treatment directly
impacts the length of time a child remains in foster care. While the Legislature has re-cently
responded to FCRB's increased workload by funding two additional positions,
relief provided by this action may be short- lived given the apparent increase in caseload
growth.
To prepare for the expected continued growth, FCRB needs to address both its work
processing and case review methods. We identified a number of case processing ineffi-ciencies
that generally stem from a lack of automation. While FCRB is currently develop-ing
an automated system that will address many of these inefficiencies, it should take
more immediate interim steps, such as equipping its program specialists with laptop com-puters
to take into the case reviews and process much of their own paperwork at that
time. In addition, similar to steps taken in other states, FCRB may want to consider utiliz-ing
alternate review methods, such as paper or expedited reviews. However, other states
we contacted use these reviews in cases where the child has achieved a stable placement
and no changes are planned or where the board has concurred with the permanency plan
and found adequate case progress. FCRB should also work with juvenile court judges to
remove in- home dependency reviews ( i. e., cases where the child has already been re-turned
home) from its calendar.
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction and Background ..................................................... 1
Finding I: FCRB Can Have a
Greater Impact in Facilitating
Permanent Placement
for Foster Children ................................................................ 5
Although Considered Beneficial,
Impact of Current Reviews
Difficult to Establish .................................................................................... 5
FCRB Reviews Can Be Enhanced
to Facilitate Permanent Placement
of Foster Children ...................................................................................... 5
FCRB Reports Need Improvement
to Enhance Impact ......................................................................................... 9.
Recommendations .................................................................................... 1 1
Finding II: Poor Board Member
Attendance Can Weaken the
Case Review Process ........................................................... 13
Poor Member Attendance
in Some Instances ........................................................................................ 13
FCRB Should Ensure Adequate
Attendance at Board Meetings .................................................................... 14
Recommendation .......................................................................................... 14
Table of Contents ( can't)
Page
Finding Ill: Comprehensive Strategy
FNoesetdeerd C taor eC Gonrotewntdh W... i. t.. h.. ................................................................. 15
Recent Solutions to Caseload
Growth May Only be Temporary ............................................................................. 15
Comprehensive Strategy
is Needed .................................................................................................................... 17
Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 21
Other Pertinent Information ............................................................... 23
Sunset Factors ................................................................................. 27
Agency Response
List of Tables
Table 1 FCRB Compliance with Federal
Review Requirements for 20 Boards
Observed in January 1995 ................................................................................ 7
Table 2 Percentage Increase in Opened
Versus Closed Cases
Calendar Years 1991 Through 1994 ............................................................... 17
Table 3 Estimated Time Spent by
FCRB Staff on Inefficient Activities ............................................................... 1 8
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit and sunset review
of the Foster Care Review Board, pursuant to a May 5,1993, resolution of the Joint Legis-lative
Audit Committee. This audit is conducted under the authority vested in the Audi-tor
General by A. R. S. 5541- 2951 through 41- 2957.
Agency Role
and Purpose
The Legislature established the Foster Care Review Board ( 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. FCRB's primary role is to advise the juvenile court by
reviewing cases of children in out- of- home placement at least every six months and as-sessing
progress toward achieving permanent placement. FCRB is required to report its
findings to the court within 30 days of a review.
Through the existence of FCRB, Arizona meets the federal requirements of Public Law
( PL) 96- 272. According to the public law, states are required to provide independent re-views
of children in out- of- home care. There are three primary methods for conducting
reviews:
W By the agency responsible for placement and care of the child ( administrative review);
W By a judge or legally trained judicial appointee ( judicial review); or,
W By panels or boards made up entirely of volunteers ( citizen review).
As one of the first states in the nation to establish citizen review boards, Arizona's system
is unique in that it is housed within the Dependent Children's Services Division of the
Arizona Supreme Court, Administrative Office of the Court, which also administers the
Court Appointed Special Advocates ( CASA) program. In conjunction, both programs pro-vide
a special forum for the protection of dependent children. FCRB provides indepen-dent
case reviews, while CASA volunteers simultaneously act as individual representa-tives
for the child. In addition, both programs act as a child's direct voice to the juvenile
court judge.
Budget and Personnel
When FCRB first began conducting reviews in 1979,30 local boards reviewed 1,568 chil-dren.
Since that time, FCRB has grown to 64 local boards, reviewing approximately 5,000
children. FCRB administers the foster care review process with a staff of 22 FTE's and a
budget of approximately $ 1.1 million. FCRB staff are split between Phoenix and Tucson
offices and consist primarily of program specialists and support staff. Program specialists
are the professional- level positions responsible for preparing cases for review, facilitating
board meetings, and preparing reports for the court. In addition, program specialists are
responsible for developing, coordinating, and facilitating board member training. Sup-port
staff assist in this process by copying and mailing board packets and typing reports
for the court.
The Foster Care Continuum
While the intended purpose of the board is to encourage and facilitate movement toward
a permanent placement for foster children, FCRB is but one entity in the foster care con-tinuum.
The continuum typically begins when the child is removed from the home by the
Arizona Department of Economic Security ( DES), the agency responsible for placement
and care of the child. Next, the juvenile court makes the determination as to whether the
child should be made a ward of the State ( i. e., dependent) and assigns the case to the
FCRB. At the same time, DES case managers, along with other professionals ( such as
counselors, therapists, etc.) develop a case plan that is geared toward a permanent place-ment
for the child. Throughout the continuum, numerous other interested parties, in-cluding
attorneys, service providers, Court Appointed Special Advocates ( CASKS), and
foster and biological parents are also involved. FCRB's reports are considered along with
information provided by these other parties when the court reviews the case.
Barriers to Permanency
While FCRB can recommend to the court what efforts are needed to achieve permanency,
there are several systemic factors, or barriers, beyond its control that impact case progress:
Adoption Subsidy Program - DES has some available funding to provide financial
assistance to adoptive families for the care of adopted children that they would other-wise
incur at their own expense. However, these subsidies are generally limited to
children with special needs. Therefore, foster parents or guardians who are willing to
adopt a child may decline if financial assistance cannot be assured. Instead, they will
continue to care for the child, usually with a case plan of long- term foster care because
foster care maintenance payments are guaranteed.
DES Case Manager Turnover - As case manager turnover on a particular case in-creases,
the possibility that previous efforts will be retried or overlooked increases.
FCRB program specialists noted that case manager turnover impacts the length of time
a child remains in foster care. One program specialist observed that case managers are
changed frequently, and a new case manager may not be familiar with old issues or
may interpret events and progress differently. Thus, the case plan may change direc-tion
or speed. We identified one child in particular who had eight case managers in
four years. An FCRB official commented that the lack of continuity in this case im-pacted
the lack of follow- through regarding the child's care and educational needs,
and the agency's ( DES) failure to obtain court approval for placement change. Further,
none of the FCRB recommendations in this case had been acted upon.
Lack of Services or Resources - Inability or difficulty experienced by DES in access-ing
services for a child and/ or the biological parents can cause delays in the perma-nency
process as every effort to unify the family must be made before parental rights
can be severed and the child placed for adoption. For example, a child's case plan to
achieve permanent placement may call for counseling ( often for both the child and the
parents). If counseling services are not readily available or not attended in a timely
manner, completion of the case plan is further prolonged.
Scope and Methodology
This audit focuses on FCRB's compliance with federal and state mandates, the quality of
its case reviews, and the efficiency of its case processing. Our audit work included a file
review to determine whether FCRB has complied with statutory requirements to conduct
reviews and report to the court in a timely manner.(') We found that all cases were re-viewed
in accordance with statute. In addition, we found that most case reports ( over 90
percent) were received by the court within 35 days of the board's review.(=)
While FCRB has met its statutory requirements for timeliness, it needs to strengthen its
reviews and case processing. Specifically, our report contains findings and recommenda-tions
in three areas:
The need for reviews to more directly address specific detail as outlined in federal law.
The need to encourage increased board member attendance at case reviews.
The need to improve workflow processes in order to eliminate costly inefficiencies and
concentrate resources in the area of improving the quality and effectiveness of reviews.
( I) We looked at a random sample of 161 FCRB case files in which reviews were conducted from May
through October 1994 to determine compliance with these statutory requirements. We received infor-mation
from the courts for only 142 cases.
( 2) Although the statutory requirement is 30 days, we allowed 35 days for purposes of our analysis as we
found that, for various reasons, most courts did not automatically date- stamp the report the date it
was filed.
FINDING I
FCRB CAN HAVE A GREATER IMPACT
IN FACILITATING PERMANENT PLACEMENT
FOR FOSTER CHILDREN
FCRB can do more to facilitate the movement of children out of the foster care system.
While it is difficult to isolate FCRB's impact on cases, we found that children could be
better served through improved foster care reviews. Currently, foster care reviews do not
adequately determine the progress made in a child's case toward a permanent placement.
As a result, essential case information is not collected or communicated to the juvenile
court. To enhance its effectiveness, FCRB needs to restructure its review and reporting
processes.
Although Considered Beneficial, Impact
of Current Reviews Difficult to Establish
Many involved in the child welfare system believe there is value and benefit to foster care
reviews. In contacting juvenile court judges, case managers, court- appointed attorneys,
and social service program administrators, we found that some believe FCRB prevents
cases from getting lost in the system and ensures that each case receives attention. Others
believe that FCRB provides accountability for DES case management and aids case man-agers
in obtaining needed services. Further, one expert contends that because FCRB re-views
are regularly held, parents and case managers may be deterred from repeatedly
postponing decisions or extending deadlines because they know that the case will be
reviewed. However, while these individuals support FCRB's role, FCRB reports do not
seem to carry as much weight as might be expected. We talked to juvenile court judges
and commissioners and found that while they believe FCRB performs a valuable function
and they frequently agree with FCRB recommendations, FCRB reports are currently con-sidered
but one of several pieces of information used to make foster care decisions. There-fore,
it appears that little special significance is attached to its reports.
FCRB Reviews Can Be Enhanced
to Facilitate Permanent Placement
of Foster Children
FCRB needs to restructure its review process to play a greater role in the movement of
children out of the foster care system. It is clear from statutory mandates that FCRB was
specifically established to aid the courts in moving cases toward permanency. However,
by failing to specifically address questions essential to case progress, FCRB is missing its
opportunity to facilitate permanent placement for foster children. FCRB should focus more
heavily on questions central to a child's case progress through a more structured case
review, better training for board members, and greater use of program specialists as fa-cilitators
during reviews.
FCRB fails to make key determinations on case progress - To facilitate movement to-ward
a permanent placement, federal law requires that foster care reviews make determi-nations
regarding four key aspects of a case's progress. However, we found that FCRB
reviews fail to make such conclusions in each review. PL 96- 272 specifically requires re-view
boards to make determinations in these four key areas:
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.
We based our evaluation of FCRB's review effectiveness on whether boards made critical
case determinations as required by federal law. We conducted a comprehensive review
of 20 typical foster care cases from 14 different boards across the State.@ W) e spent over
100 hours reviewing both the FCRB and DES case files, analyzing previous FCRB review
reports to the court, and observing the FCRB reviews for each case. As we observed the
reviews, we found that the boards generally discussed some aspects of these essential
factors. For example, board members would questions whether the parents were receiv-ing
needed services or how the child was doing in the foster home. However, as illus-trated
in Table 1 ( see page 7), the boards consistently failed to make specific determina-tions
for each of the 4 review elements. In fact, no more than 4 out of the 20 reviews we
observed reached specific conclusions on any of the review elements.
Using overall case demographics, we selected typical cases based on the number of children involved
in the case, the reason for out- of- home placement, and the case plan goal. Most of the cases selected
involved fewer than three children who had been neglected and had a case plan goal of return to
parent. All the cases were heard by an FCRB board in January 1995.
Table I
FCRB Compliance with Federal
Review Requirements for
20 Boards Observed in Januarv 1995
No. of Reviews No. of Reviews
Completing for Which This
Federal Review Requirement Requirement was Applicable
Determine the continuing necessity for
and the appropriateness of the
placement,
Determine the extent of compliance
with the case plan,
Determine the extent of progress toward
mitigating the need for foster care, 2
Project a likely date ( target date) by
which the child may be returned home or
placed for adoption or legal guardianship. 0
Source: Auhtor General observations of 20 foster care reviews conducted in January 1995.
Missed opportunity to facilitate permanent placement - By not making key determina-tions
in its reviews, FCRB has not taken its opportunity to assist in moving cases toward
permanency. The following example illustrates the limited impact of the reviews we ob-served:
Case A - This child, now two years old, was only two months old when placed in
foster care due to substance exposure at birth. Both parents are drug dependent. At the
time of the particular review that we observed, the child had been in foster care for 18
months. Up to that point, the parents had only sporadically complied with the services
offered to achieve a case plan goal of return to parent. For example, while they com-pleted
inpatient drug treatment programs, they have not participated in required after-care
sessions, parenting classes, or requisite random drug testing.
During the January review, the board only indirectly covered the federal review ele-ments
that would ensure they made the necessary determinations regarding case
progress. In fact, our observation of this and other boards revealed that the boards
generally " beat around the bush" on issues critical to concluding on a case. For ex-ample,
in this review, while there was lengthy discussion about the parents' sporadic
participation in services and the concern expressed by the child's case manager that
progress was not being made on the case, there was no comprehensive review of the
case plan ( which includes timeliness for completing services and the consequences if
terms of the plan are not met) to determine compliance. Moreover, while the board
agreed with the case plan, it did so with reservations. Further, it identified barriers to
achieving this goal, such as the substance abuse and domestic violence issues, and the
instability of the parents. Although they recognized these factors, the board never
determined the extent to which progress had been made toward the child's return
home. Finally, the board noted, as a concern, the length of time the child had been in
care, but did not discuss a target date for the child's return home.
Comment - While FCRB has reviewed this case 3 times during the 18 months this
child has been in care, there does not appear to be a strong push to either make the
parents accountable or to revise the case plan. The case plan has remained as " return
to parent," although the board has had reservations about the viability of that plan in
each of its reviews. Moreover, the parents are still not complying with all the case
plan's provisions to a degree that would suggest that the child could live with them
permanently.
Changes needed to improve reviews - FCRB can improve at least three aspects of its
review process to ensure that issues essential to case progress are addressed in each re-view.
First, FCRB can provide more guidance to boards in making key determinations
regarding case progress. FCRB's established review protocol currently provides direction
for the chronology and components expected in its case review process. For example, it
instructs boards in each review to introduce the case with a case summary, followed by a
report from the case manager and individual statements by interested parties regarding
case progress. In addition, FCRB's manual provides suggested questions for board mem-bers
as a guide to assess case progress. However, neither the protocol nor the manual
direct board members to ask specific questions in each review geared toward the four key
case progress determinations set forth in PL 96- 272.
Similar to other states, FCRB should help board members focus on questions that will
allow the boards to make determinations addressing each of the four federal review re-quirements.
For example, the Oregon Citizen Review Board restructured its review pro-cess
to provide consistency and to focus on pertinent issues. In doing so, it developed
suggested questions for board members to ask of the case manager, the child, the parents,
and the foster parent. Responses to these questions are used to make findings on 14 spe-cific
issues central to case progress, such as the continuing need for out- of- home place-ment,
compliance with the case plan, progress toward achieving permanency, and a likely
date the child is expected to leave substitute care. By making its findings, the boards have
also addressed each of the federal review requirements. In addition, Nebraska citizen
review boards are required to make similar findings, thus ensuring important questions
are asked and reviews stay focused.
Second, FCRB needs to revise its training program for board members to help them focus
on critical issues. Currently, FCRB provides only 30 minutes out of a total of 9% hours of
new board member training on the specific review elements required by federal law. An
additional three hours focus on the review process. The remainder of the training pro-gram
covers such areas as the organization and role of FCRB, the role of child welfare
agencies, and cultural competency. In contrast, when restructuring its review process,
Oregon expanded its training program from 7 to 14 hours and revised the format from
mostly lecture to more experience- oriented training, such as role playing and other re-view-
focused exercises. According to the Oregon citizen review board administrator, the
restructured reviews alone were not enough - the key to focusing reviews was increased
board member training. Nearly 12 of the 14 hours of training are devoted directly to the
specific review requirements and how the reviews should be conducted to ensure that
they are focused on essential issues. Oregon's board administrator further stated that its
board members are much better prepared to conduct reviews as a result of its revised
training format.
Finally, FCRB program specialists need to take a stronger role in ensuring that meetings
are focused on pertinent issues. While program specialists currently provide some meet-ing
facilitation, they spend a majority of their time taking notes and interested party state-ments.
To ensure focused reviews, program specialists need to facilitate the review, in-cluding
guiding board members through an appropriate series of questions and monitor-ing
the progress of the review in addressing pertinent issues.
FCRB Reports Need Improvement
to Enhance Impact
Because FCRB reviews fail to adequately conclude on case progress, its reports to the
juvenile courts lack critical information. While FCRB is charged with advising the court
on foster care cases, its reports have failed to provide judges critical case determinations
for use in making their decisions. Similar to other states, FCRB should develop reporting
formats to ensure that essential information is provided.
FCRB reports do not provide critical information - FCRB reports, like the case reviews,
fail to conclude on key elements regarding case progress. FCRB reports, based on an
independent review by an arm of the court system, are specifically prepared for juvenile
court judges to assist them in decision- making. Judges, the ultimate decision- makers in
foster care cases, use a number of information sources, including FCRB, when conducting
annual reviews. We surveyed over 20 juvenile court judges and commissioners and found
that they were generally satisfied with the information provided by FCRB. Some judges
indicated that FCRB reports are useful as " red flags" when the board disagrees with the
case plan. However, as mentioned earlier, these reports do not seem to have any special
significance attached to them by the judges as most of the judges we talked to considered
FCRB reports to carry only equal weight with the many other pieces of information they
receive about a case.
We believe one reason the reports do not have more impact is because they do not convey
firm positions on the cases reviewed. Instead, the reports provide mostly background
information to the courts such as case demographics, a listing of current reports received,
services planned, provided, and completed, whether a case plan is in place, a listing of
statements made by interested parties, and whether the board agrees with the perma-nency
plan. Additionally, while the boards report any barriers or other observations that
may impact the successful completion of the case plan, their reports do not specifically
conclude as to the extent to which progress has been made to mitigate the need for foster
care, the extent of compliance with the case plan, and a likely date by which the child may
be returned home or placed for adoption. In fact, the omission of a projected target date in
FCRB reports had been noted in a 1992 federal triennial review assessing DES' compli-ance
with federal requirements for documenting foster care case plans. The review rec-ommended
that target dates be included in FCRB reports to highlight the time frames for
achieving goals.
Because the boards do not take a hard position on the key questions addressing the move-ment
of a child's case toward permanency, their impact is diminished. The board report
becomes just another of many reports considered by the judges in their decision- making
process.
FCRB should consider report format similar to other states - FCRB should consider
developing a report format similar to those used in other states to ensure essential infor-mation
is included in its reports to the court. For example, Washington's citizen review
report format requires the board to make an assessment on each of the four areas set out
in federal law ( i. e., progress toward reunification, progress toward achieving permanency,
why the child needs to continue in out- of- home placement, and the child's expected date
to return home or obtain other permanent placement).@ I) n addition, the format includes
11 specific " yes/ noU findings that the board must report to further support its assess-ments.
For example, the board must individually report whether the child welfare agency,
the mother, the father, and the child are in compliance with the case plan. In addition, as
noted previously, citizen review boards in Nebraska and Oregon are also required to
report similar findings.
Citizen reviews in Washington are currently being conducted as a pilot project.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. FCRB should further develop its case review procedures to specifically address issues
central to case progress toward permanent placement. For example, in accordance
with PL 96- 272, questions should be developed to allow the boards to assess:
The continuing necessity for and appropriateness of the placement;
The extent of compliance with the case plan;
W The extent of progress that has been made toward alleviating or mitigating the
need for foster care; and
A likely date by which the child may be returned to the home or placed for adop-tion.
2. FCRB should provide additional training to board members on what constitutes a
complete and appropriate review of each child's case.
3. FCRB should increase the program specialists' role as facilitator to ensure that ques-tions
central to case progress are indeed addressed.
4. FCRB should revise its case review report to ensure that all information central to each
child's case is included so that the courts can make the most appropriate decisions for
the child.
( This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
FINDING II
POOR BOARD MEMBER ATTENDANCE CAN
WEAKEN THE CASE REVIEW PROCESS
To further ensure that quality reviews are conducted in every case, FCRB should address
board member attendance. We identified several instances of poor attendance at FCRB
reviews. FCRB should ensure that enough board members attend to provide for a pro-ductive
review.
Poor Member Attendance
in Some Instances
In addition to restructuring foster care reviews, FCRB could also benefit from increased
board member attendance. Wlule we recognize that FCRB members have volunteered a
significant amount of time to assist in the foster care review process, we also recognize the
importance of having sufficient members in attendance at each review. This is also stressed
in both statute and FCRB rules. A. R. S. 58- 515.01 requires that " boards shall consist of either
three mfive members." In addition, FCRB rules require that boards must have a quorum of
at least three members in order to conduct reviews. According to an FCRB official, the
rule requiring a quorum was established to ensure that local boards produce quality re-views
with credible recommendations that are based on a full board's decisions, not just
the opinions of one or two members.
Despite the mechanism set up to achieve a certain number of members in attendance, we
identified instances of reviews held with less than a quorum. For example, 12 boards, or
approximately 20 percent of the 61 local boards around the State that conducted reviews
during 1994, had only 2 members present for at least 1 monthly review day. This trans-lates
to over 130 cases reviewed ( out of a total of 5,790 cases reviewed that year) with
fewer than 3 board members. In addition, we observed 20 reviews conducted by 14 dif-ferent
boards in January 1995 ( see Finding I) and found that none of the boards had full
attendance. One of these reviews was conducted even though only one board member
with knowledge of the case was present. The other reviewer was brought in from another
board at the last moment so that the review would not have to be canceled. However, this
board member had no knowledge of the case and, therefore, could not contribute to the
review.
Because board members are volunteers, some absences are expected as many hold full-time
jobs and have family responsibilities. However, we identified 20 board members, or
7 percent of the approximately 300 members statewide, whose number of absences dur-
ing 1994 exceeded the acceptable level outlined in the agencfs attendance policy. FCRB's
policy defines " inadequate attendance" as 3 consecutive missed meetings or 4 missed
meetings in any consecutive 12- month period. cl) Absences appeared to be primarily em-ployment-,
health-, or family- related. In those instances, FCRB has a system in place to
provide for substitutes ( i. e., volunteers from other local review boards). However, often
times, substitution occurs with very little " lead time" to allow the substitute time to famil-iarize
himself or herself with the cases to be reviewed that day.
FCRB - Should Ensure Adequate
Attendance at Board Meetings
FCRB should explore options to increase or encourage greater attendance. Similar to other
states, FCRB may want to consider using alternate board members. For example, Oregon
recently amended its statutes to add two permanent alternate members to each of its local
review boards, bringing the total number of members of each board to seven. Ths change
came in response to problems with board member absences, particularly in counties with
only one local board each. An Oregon FCRB official stated that reviews conducted with
fewer than three board members are weaker and not as effective or thorough as reviews
conducted with full board attendance.
This appears to be a viable option for Arizona. According to an FCRB official, FCRB is
informed of absences prior to the day of board meetings ' about 50 percent of the time.
Therefore, alternate board members could be called and provided with information in
sufficient time to actively participate in the review.
However, increasing the " pool" of board volunteers will require a statutory change and
may require additional staff time to recruit and train new members. As was the case in
Oregon, Arizona's FCRB would need to amend its statutes ( specifically A. R. S. 58- 515.01A)
to allow juvenile court judges to appoint more than five members to a local review board.
Additionally, as FCRB would be increasing the number of review volunteers, its staff will
have the added responsibility of recruiting and training these new board members. FCRB's
fiscal year 1997 budget request identifies a need to adequately fund these training efforts.
According to FCRB officials, these training funds will be needed as all current staff re-sources
are being utilized to meet the demands of completing the required reviews.
RECOMMENDATION
1. In order to increase attendance at board meetings, the Legislature should amend A. R. S.
58- 515.01A to allow FCRB to use alternate board members.
The attendance policy includes a provision that allows board members with " special situations" to
request policy waivers either prior to or after absences have occurred.
14
FINDING Ill
COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY
NEEDED TO CONTEND
WITH FOSTER CARE GROWTH
FCRB needs a comprehensive strategy to prepare for future growth. FCRB has recently
experienced a dramatic increase in its caseload size. While the addition of new staff will
ease the workload burden, it may not suffice if rapid growth continues. Therefore, to
address continued growth, FCRB must develop long- term strategies such as reducing
case processing inefficiencies and adopting a case classification " triage" system.
Recent Solutions to Caseload
Growth May Only be Temporary
Recent staff additions to FCRB may only be a temporary solution to its increasing case-load.
A sudden growth in the number of children entering the foster care system has
challenged FCRB's ability to complete reviews and reports within the mandated time
frames. The Legislature has responded to this growth by allocating two more positions.
However, if the caseload continues to increase, the relief provided by these additional
positions may only be temporary.
Growth and complexity in cases challenges FCRB's ability to meet mandates - The
number of cases assigned to FCRB has grown both in number and complexity. Until 1994,
FCRB's caseload growth had remained fairly constant. In 1993, FCRB conducted only 33
( less than 1 percent) more foster care reviews than it did in 1991. However, more recently,
the number of additional FCRB reviews conducted has substantially increased. FCRB
conducted 477 ( or 9.1 percent) more reviews in 1994 than it did in 1993. Further, just
within the first 5 months of 1995,204 more cases ( representing 310 children) were added
to FCRB's rolls. This growth is further compounded by the complexity of cases. Studies
conducted in the early 1990' s reveal that foster children are more likely to have special
needs and come from families in which substance abuse is a problem. These types of
issues facing many foster children's families require longer periods of treatment for both
parent and child before they can be resolved, if at all, and directly impact the length of
time a child remains in foster care.
As a result, FCRB has had difficulty in some instances meeting its mandates. State statute
charges FCRB with the responsibility of sending a report of a review to the juvenile court
within 30 days of a review. However, in a December 1994 letter, FCRB notified all presid-
ing juvenile court judges that " in some situations, we are currently unable fo meet the mandated
requirement to submit the review reports within 30 days of the review." FCRB is further chal-lenged
in its ability to conduct all reviews every six months as mandated by federal and
state law. FCRB officials have had to " juggle" its calendar in recent months to accommo-date
the increased number of cases.
Recent staff additions - The Legislature has recently responded to FCRB's need for ad-ditional
staff. Two additional program specialist positions were approved in the fiscal
year 1995- 96 budget. FCRB officials believe that these positions will allow for adequate
coverage of all 65 local boards. In addition, it will allow the current program specialists to
return to a more acceptable caseload size as the increased caseload had previously been
distributed among them.
Staff additions may only temporarily address caseload growth - While the recent staff
additions will undoubtedly ease the workload burden for FCRB employees, this " reprieve"
may be short- lived as the apparent upward trend in caseload growth will likely continue.
As mentioned earlier, the increased complexity of cases can have a direct impact on the
length of time cases remain in the system. We found that length of time in the system has,
in fact, further compounded FCRB's workload. A comparison of opened and closed cases
revealed that FCRB's overall caseload is growing at a rapid rate. Table 2 on page 17 illus-trates
that in each of the last 4 calendar years, the percentage increase in cases opened is
double the percentage of cases closed, with the most rapid growth experienced in 1994.
For example, in the first half of calendar year 1994,20 percent more cases were opened
than were closed. By year- end, the rate had increased from 20 percent to 35 percent. In
addition, it appears that the gap between opened and closed cases may continue to widen.
FCRB activity reports for the period between September 1994 and January 1995 indicate
that a trend of declining numbers of " cases closed" may be emerging.
Table 2
Percentage lncrease in Opened Versus Closed Cases
Calendar Years 1991 throuqh 1994
Year Opened Closed Increase Open Over Closedca)
1991 868 844 3% more opened than closed
1992 794 733 8% more opened than closed
1993 904 795 14% more opened than closed
1994 1,034 764 35% more opened than closed
(" 1 Open cases includes previous cases that have been reopened or reactivated.
Source: Auditor General analysis of FCRB Activity Reports, Calendar Years 1991 through 1994.
Comprehensive Strategy
is Needed
To prepare for the expected continued growth, FCRB needs to develop a comprehensive
strategy to address both its work processing and case review methods. We identified a
number of processing inefficiencies currently in place at FCRB. While FCRB is in the
a comp- uiearu iomaGoii pro, i: iekclaii sho- uid of these inefficiencies,
interim measures would produce immediate efficiency gains. In addition, FCRB should
consider longer- term strategies that would reduce the number of cases that come before
the local boards for a full review.
Work process needs to be updated - FCRB could free up the equivalent of at least two
FTE's by updating its case processing system. FCRB's case processing system has not
evolved since the program's inception in 1979. Additionally, its current automation capa-bilities
are very limited. For example, program specialists cannot access necessary case
data or prepare reports on their computers and statistical reports are prepared on word
processing software. As a result, there is a heavy reliance on clerical staff to perform such
inefficient activities as typing four- page handwritten reports prepared by the program
specialists and entering data into a Case Information Update report, much of which al-ready
exists in two other documents. In addition, program specialists spend from two to
six hours for each review day collecting and updating address information from DES that
is needed to notify interested parties of upcoming case reviews. According to FCRB pro-gram
specialists, while DES case managers should be submitting this information two
weeks prior to a review, it is often outdated, and in some instances is not received at all.
As shown in Table 3, based on estimates provided by both program specialists and cleri-cal
staff, these 3 activities combined result in over 5,000 hours annually being spent per-forming
inefficient activities.
Table 3
Estimated Time Spent by FCRB Staff
On Inefficient Activities
Activity
Estimated Time
Spent FTE
TY ping 3,135 hours
Duplicating Data Entry 627 hours
Collecting Address Information 1,254 hours
Total 5,016 hours
( a) We used the most conservative estimates provided by FCRB staff. In two of the activities ( typing
and duplicative data entry), we were provided with estimates double the amount shown in the
chart.
Source: Auditor General analysis based on FCRB staff estimates of time spent in case processing activities.
Automation and interim measures needed - While FCRB is in the process of developing
a computer automation project that will address many of its case processing inefficien-cies,
more immediate measures should be taken. According to FCRB officials, the pro-posed
system will enable program specialists to work directly on- line, thus reducing their
reliance on secretarial support staff. Furthermore, the system will be designed so that
individual pieces of data can be entered once and relayed to various reports. While FCRB
has not analyzed the time savings that will result from eliminating processing inefficien-cies,
we estimate that the time spent by clerical staff processing cases will be reduced by
approximately 62 percent. However, these efficiencies ( requiring significant software and
programming enhancements) will not be realized for at least a year, as FCRB officials
estimate that the system will not be operational until June 1996.
Given the urgent need to address caseload growth, more immediate interim steps should
be taken. First, FCRB should consider providing program specialists with laptop comput-ers
to take into reviews, thus enabling them to do their own word processing, and it
recently implemented a pilot program in its Tucson office to do this. One program spe-cialist
was equipped with a computer during reviews, which eliminated the need for her
to handwrite information and then provide it to clerical staff to type. FCRB should con-tinue
in this direction. Since equipment will eventually be needed for the planned auto-mation
project, FCRB could purchase the necessary equipment and software for all pro-gram
specialists at a cost of $ 30,000 to $ 35,000. FCRB officials have told us that $ 63,000 is
currently available for equipment purchases for automation needs.
In addition, FCRB should work toward reducing time spent by program specialists in
gathering addresses of interested parties. FCRB officials report that DES has been respon-sive
to requests that case managers submit progress reports more diligently. Therefore,
future correspondence should stress the inclusion of updated address forms, which would
greatly enhance FCRB's ability to efficiently process cases.
Alternative methods for conducting reviews - Though updated and streamlined work
processes will reduce case- related work, FCRB must also confront the issue of caseload
growth in order to maintain its ability to conduct citizen reviews. FCRB should consider
alternative review methods such as paper or expedited reviews, and possibly attempt to
eliminate certain reviews from its calendar.
Paper or expedited reviews - Some states, facing circumstances similar to Arizona's,
have begun to utilize alternative review methods to meet the demands of growing
caseloads. For instance, approximately 5 percent of the foster care reviews conducted in
Nebraska are paper reviews that include a review of case progress reports and court
documents without involving interested parties. Program specialists have the discretion
to use paper reviews if a case has remained stable ( i. e., no changes of placement or trans-fers
of case management within the social service agency), all services are being received,
and no other changes occurred or are planned. According to a Nebraska official, examples
of cases considered appropriate for a paper review include teenage foster children who
reside in a residential or group home setting and are expected to remain in those place-ments
until reaching the age of 18.
Maryland, too, has taken steps to ensure its ability to remain accountable for the review of
every child's case. Maryland officials state that they needed to take steps to resolve the
tension between funding limitations and the number of children needing review. There-fore,
within the last two years, they developed a case classification system that includes
full, abbreviated, and expedited reviews. Full reviews obviously allow for participation
of all interested parties. Abbreviated reviews are used for the second or subsequent re-view
of children for whom the board concurred with the permanency plan and found
adequate progress at the prior review. As such, they are attended only by the case man-ager
and the child's parents. In an expedited review, the parents are invited, but the case
manager does not have to attend if the case plan was completed within 60 days prior to
the review. Cases classified as eligible for an expedited review include children in achieved
permanent foster care placements, and children with case plans previously reviewed and
approved by a board, such as long- term relative placements and independent living. If,
during an abbreviated or expedited review, a review board finds inadequate progress or
disagrees with the permanency plan, then a full review is scheduled. Furthermore, if a
child's placement changes between reviews, then the case returns to the " full review"
category. Maryland officials state that by classifying cases, enhancing computer capabili-ties,
and taking other efficiency- improving steps, it has been able to maintain the same
budget it had in 1989 though its caseload has increased 30 percent.
Despite the perceived benefits of such review methods, FCRB officials are philosophi-cally
opposed to conducting less than full reviews on any child placed in foster care.
Specifically, FCRB officials state that if paper and/ or expedited reviews were used in
certain cases the quality of these reviews would suffer from a lack of interested party
input and interaction. However, while not intended or planned, FCRB, in a sense, already
conducts paper reviews on some cases. For example, in some instances the only individu-als
in attendance at a review are the board members themselves. Therefore, they are only
able to review the materials provided and discuss among themselves the particulars of
the case. In addition, FCRB officials admitted that the cases where there is no outside
participation are those that involve children who have been in care for a long time and are
in a stable placement.
By utilizing paper or expedited reviews, FCRB could possibly reduce its full review case-load
by 275. This figure is based on the current number of children 15 years and older
who are in long- term placement with a relative and those who are working toward inde-pendent
living. By reducing the number of cases needing a full review, FCRB would
eliminate some case processing steps, such as notifying interested parties of the review,
and allow for more flexibility in scheduling the reviews.
In- home dependencies - I€, in the future, FCRB encounters situations where it has to
" juggle" its calendar to accommodate all out- of- home placement reviews, FCRB, in con-junction
with the courts, should consider eliminating certain in- home dependency cases
from its review calendar. In some instances, though a child has been returned to his/ her
parents, a judge may request that FCRB continue to review and monitor the case. These
cases, classified by FCRB as " remain with parent," currently account for approximately 5
percent of the total FCRB caseload ( 235 cases).
The necessity of an FCRB review in these instances should at least be considered on a
case- by- case basis. Statutorily, FCRB is charged with reviewing out- of- home placements
at least every six months to determine what efforts have been made to carry out the plan
for permanent placement. Children returned home, yet retained under the court's juris-diction
as dependent wards, do not necessarily warrant an FCRB review. According to
FCRB officials, some judges routinely continue FCRB's involvement in in- home depen-dencies,
preferring the " check and balance," to review the stability of the home and to
ensure that needed services are being provided. In contrast, other judges generally re-lieve
FCRB of its responsibility once the child has been returned home. FCRB officials
also stated that FCRB boards themselves differ in their determined need for continued
reviews - some will request to remain involved in a case, while others do not see a
continued need and will request that the judge relieve FCRB of its responsibility.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. FCRB should continue in its efforts to implement a fully automated system.
2. FCRB should immediately purchase computer equipment to automate the report prepa-ration
process.
3. FCRB, in conjunction with DES, should work toward improving the frequency at which
case managers submit updated address forms.
4. FCRB should consider reducing the number of cases needing a full review by:
W Using alternative review methods such as paper and expedited reviews in some
instances, and
W Working with the juvenile courts to reduce the number of in- home placement re-views.
( This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
During the course of our audit, we compiled information on various studies and projects
that directly involve the Foster Care Review Board or may potentially impact the foster
care review process in the future.
Foster Care Review Board Effectiveness Study - The Center for Policy Research in
Denver, Colorado, is currently conducting a two- year assessment of the strengths and
weaknesses of various foster care review processes. Six states in total will participate in
the study that encompasses the three types of foster care review: citizen, administrative,
and judicial review. Identified as having a strong foster care review system, Arizona was
selected as one of the states representing citizen review.
The study will include a comprehensive review of case- specific data extracted from court
and agency records for a sample of cases from each state. This data will be used to com-pare
and contrast foster care review models on a variety of outcome measures, including
the extent to which each process is able to:
Conform with federal review deadlines,
W Speed case processing,
W Prevent contested hearings,
Produce treatment plans and long- range plans that are acceptable to the court, and
Encourage compliance with the plans.
In addition, non- case specific quantitative data will document such factors as the costs
associated with foster care review and the amount of court time devoted to out- of- home
placements.
The data will be analyzed to respond to such questions as:
w Does the length of time children remain in out- of- home placements vary systemati-cally
according to the review process that is in use?
W Is there evidence that successful reunification differs according to the review method
that is employed?
To what extent does the court act on the board's recommendation? Are specific types
of recommendations more likely to be implemented? Do recommendations from ad-ministrative
and citizen reviews appear to receive equal weight?
Additionally, interviews will be conducted with various " actors" in the foster care sys-tem,
such as juvenile court judges and administrators, child protective service adminis-trators,
case managers, and attorneys. These interviews will address such questions as:
What do judges, court administrators, and hearing officers perceive to be the impact
on the court system of citizen review boards, administrative review boards, and judi-cial
review?
What type of information is typically available to judges at the time of the disposi-tional
hearing? Does the nature or quality of the information vary according to the
review procedure in place?
This study is expected to be completed in December 1995.
FCRB Annual Report Committee Project - FCRB's Annual Report Committee has also
undertaken a project to assess its performance in fulfilling its mission as well as to deter-mine
the appropriateness of its role. As part of this project FCRB has surveyed approxi-mately
2,000 individuals who work with the boards or have direct knowledge of their
function including juvenile court judges and commissioners, attorneys, FCRB and CASA
volunteers and staff, DES staff, and other child welfare agency staff. In addition, over
1,600 surveys were sent to foster parents in April 1995, to obtain their input on any needed
or suggested changes in the foster care review program. According to FCRB officials,
some individuals have suggested that FCRB be involved in such areas as foster care li-censing
and the review of juvenile delinquency cases.
FCRB expects to complete this project in the fall of 1995 and include the results in its 1996
annual report.
In addition to these two studies, there are several other ongoing projects within the child
welfare system that do not directly involve FCRB but may impact the foster care review
process in the future:
" Families for Kids" Initiative - The Arizona Children's Home in Tucson is one of
ten grantee recipients from across the country of the Kellogg Foundation's " Families
for Kids" initiative project. It is expected that through this project, Arizona will be
able to demonstrate how to provide fm a systemic reduction in time children spend in foster
care awaiting adoption, as well as how to provide consistent casework services and a
coordinated network of support and treatment services so that permanency plans can
be accomplished in one year.
Initially, this plan will be implemented only in Pima County. The project is expected
to be completed by December 1997,
W Court Improvement Program - The Dependent Children's Services Division of the
Arizona Supreme Court, Administrative Offices of the Court has applied for funding
from the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services ( HHS) to assess state foster
care and adoption laws and judicial processes, to develop a plan for system improve-ments,
and to implement such planned improvements. The impetus for this program
was the Family Preservation and Support Services Act of 1993, in which Congress set
aside $ 35 million to fund improvements in juvenile and family courts handling abuse
and neglect cases. HHS has required that foster care review systems are afforded the
opportunity to review the application and provide comments about the assessment
once it is completed.
Data will be collected in target counties centering on organization and staffing of
the court, hearings and judicial decision- making, and implementation of federal
foster care court reforms, such as reasonable efforts, case plans, and procedural
safeguards.
The first phase ( assessment) of this four- year project is scheduled to be completed
by January 1997. Following the assessment phase, outcome measurement criteria
will be developed along with a monitoring system to measure the effects of changes
in court procedures. Throughout the project, legislative changes will be recom-mended
as they are identified. Final completion of the project is expected by 1999.
H DES Program Redesign - DES is currently in the second year of its two- year " Pro-gram
Redesign" project to overhaul Arizona's child welfare system. As part of that
project, there are several areas currently being discussed that could impact a child's
length of stay in foster care. For example, a steering committee identified the need for
clear, realistic plans for families that allow them a reasonable period of time to comply
with court orders. Currently, there is no uniform, workable way to deal with cases in
which reunification is not a viable prospect. In addition, another subcommittee is con-sidering
the need for a protective supervision statute that would strengthen the ability
of DES to provide in- home services and allow families the opportunity to solve their
problems without removing the child from the home. Finally, DES is considering the
need to revise the legal definition of " dependency." Current statutes allow for all chil-dren
served by the juvenile justice system or other agencies that service children, such
as the Department of Youth, Treatment and Rehabilitation and Department of Health
Services, Behavioral Health Division, to be the responsibility of DES. However, DES
does not have the resources to place or provide services for these children. Narrowing
the definition of dependency would limit the category of children served by DES to
those that have come into the system by way of Child Protective Services; not the
juvenile courts or the Department of Youth, Treatment and Rehabilitation for delin-quent
teens or the Department of Health Services for children with mental health needs.
As such, the Director of DES is planning to initiate discussions with her counterparts
in these agencies to determine how a change in the definition would impact their
ability to serve these children.
Program Redesign is expected to be completed by January 1996.
( This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
SUNSET FACTORS
In accordance with A. R. S. 941- 2954, the Legislature should consider the following 12 fac-tors
in determining whether the Foster Care Review Board should be continued or termi-nated.
1. Objective and purpose in establishing the FCRB.
The Arizona Foster Care Review Board was established in 1978 in response to con-cerns
that Arizona's foster children were being " lost" in out- of- home care and thus,
staying too long in temporary placement.
FCRB's mission is to review at least every six 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;
Encourage and facilitate the return of each dependent child to hs/ her family
whenever possible; and
Assist in informing parents and others of their rights and responsibilities regard-ing
a dependent child in foster care
2. The effectiveness with which the FCRB has met its objectives and purposes
and the efficiency with which the FCRB has operated.
Through the existence of FCRB, Arizona meets the requirements of PL 96- 272. How-ever,
the extent to which FCRB has influenced the stability and permanence of
children's lives is indeterminable. FCRB acts only in an advisory role to the court
and is but one small piece of the child welfare system. As such, it is difficult to
quantify or measure the effect of FCRB's individual contribution.
Although FCRB has met its specific responsibility of reviewing cases of children in
foster care and then reporting findings to the juvenile court, recent increases in case-load
size may threaten its future ability to meet these responsibilities. As the number
of children in out- of- home care has increased, FCRB noted in a December 1994 letter
to all presiding juvenile court judges that in some situations, it experienced diffi-culty
in submitting reports to the court within the specified time frame. Further-more,
FCRB's ability to conduct all reviews is threatened. ( See Finding 111, page 15.)
In addition, the quality of these reviews can be greatly enhanced. A comprehensive
analysis of 20 cases revealed that FCRB reviews fail to make key determinations
regarding case progress toward achieving permanency. As a result, FCRB reports
have failed to provide juvenile court judges with critical case determinations for
their use in making foster care decisions. ( See Finding I, page 5).
Furthermore, FCRB can do much to improve the efficiency of its operations. Its method
of operation has not changed since it first began reviewing cases in 1979, though
office technology has greatly advanced. We identified a number of case processing
activities that should be streamlined and/ or eliminated. For example, program spe-cialists
should be equipped with computers rather than submitting all documents to
the clerical staff for typing. ( See Finding 111, page 15).
The extent to which the FCRB has operated within the public interest.
FCRB operates within the public interest by the mere fact that it is a citizen review
process. Over 300 volunteers across the State performed nearly 6,000 reviews in 1994.
In doing so, FCRB provides information to the juvenile court, which is ultimately
responsible for the welfare of dependent children. Prior to reporting to the court,
FCRB reviews bring together all parties involved in a case, which in and of itself can
help expedite case resolution. As one juvenile court judge reflected, parents are of-ten
intimidated by the court and will not offer information. FCRB presents a less
formal atmosphere in which the board is less likely to be perceived as part of the
" system."
Additionally, in the past 16 years, FCRB has made over 300 recommendations to the
Governor and Legislature regarding Arizona's child welfare system. According to
FCRB, some of the major changes that have been influenced by FCRB include:
Written case plans that set forth goals, objectives, and tasks that can be moni-tored
to ensure permanency planning.
Routine court reviews at least once a year.
Establishment of a statewide Court Appointed Special Advocate ( CASA) pro-gram
that utilizes volunteers to act as advocates for children in foster care.
4. The extent to which rules and regulations promulgated by the FCRB are con-sistent
with the legislative mandate.
Revision of the rules occurred in 1984 and the rules are promulgated in accordance
with Arizona Supreme Court Rules of Procedure and are, therefore, consistent with
the legislative mandate.
5. The extent to which the FCRB has encouraged input from the public before
promulgating its rules and regulations and the extent to which it has informed
the public as to its actions and their expected impact on the public.
As an agency of the Arizona Supreme Court, FCRB is not covered by the Adminis-trative
Procedures Act. However, FCRB rule changes are adopted by the court after
the opportunity for public comment, as provided by Rules of the Supreme Court.
In addition, FCRB attempts to increase public awareness of its program in a variety
of ways. FCRB publishes brochures that give basic information about the review
process and serving on a local review board, and compares the differences between
FCRB and CASA. FCRB further attempts to increase awareness through public ser-vice
announcements, speaking engagements, and preparing a quarterly newsletter.
6. The extent to which the FCRB has been able to investigate and resolve com-plaints
that are within its jurisdiction.
This factor does not apply as 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
state government has authority to prosecute actions under the enabling legis-lation.
The FCRB's enabling legislation does not establish such authority.
8. The extent to which the FCRB has addressed deficiencies in its enabling stat-utes
which prevent it from fulfilling its statutory mandate.
Past legislation expanded the category of children being served from " children who
are in foster care, who have been adjudicated dependent" to " children who are in out- of- home
placement and who are the subject of a dependen y action." This permits a review to occur
prior to adjudication of dependency, which could take several months or longer to
occur. Also, statutory change has granted the Court the discretion to assign cases for
early review ( within 60 days after removal of a child from his/ her home).
While no legislation has been submitted for 1995, FCRB is currently undergoing an
assessment of its effectiveness which could result in future legislation. Many FCRB
volunteers express a belief that granting FCRB authority and expanding its role would
benefit children in foster care. FCRB's assessment is gathering feedback on the fol-lowing
ideas:
FCRB should have subpoena power for the appearance of interested parties at
case reviews.
Recommendations should carry the same authority as a court order.
FCRB should assume the additional responsibility of being present and partici-pating
in the juvenile court's Report and Review hearings.
FCRB should assume the additional responsibility of reviewing foster parent
licensing decisions.
9. The extent to which changes are necessary in the laws of the FCRB to ad-equately
comply with the factors listed in the Sunset Law.
In order for FCRB to improve board attendance through the use of alternates, A. R. S.
58- 515.01A would need an amendment allowing juvenile court judges to appoint
more than 5 volunteers to a local review board ( see Finding 11, pages 13 through 14).
10. The extent to which termination of the FCRB would significantly harm the
public health, safety, or welfare.
While termination of FCRB would not end the process of foster care review, the
citizen review process, as intended by the Legislature, would no longer be in place.
If FCRB were discontinued, the State would have to rely on either the courts to con-duct
a judicial review ( conducted by a judge or other judicial appointee) or DES to
conduct an administrative review ( internal review by the agency responsible for
placement and care of the child). While each process has its perceived advantages
and disadvantages, neither the judicial nor administrative review meet the legisla-tive
intent to have a review by individuals representative of the " various socioeco-nomic,
racial, and ethnic groups of the county" in which they serve. In addition, citizen
reviews provide for an independent and objective review and are generally less
expensive than administrative or judicial reviews. Finally, FCRB officials believe its
reviews offer the following benefits:
Accountability - External review helps to keep DES accountable for fulfillment
of its case management obligations. FCRB reviews, at a minimum, " force" action
on cases, thus preventing cases from being " lost in the system."
Facilitation of Communication - FCRB reviews provide an opportunity for all
parties involved in the case to gather and build consensus or discuss disagree-ment.
Documentation - FCRB Findings and Recommendations reports document the
level of parent participation in the case plan. This documentation can be valuable
if termination of parental rights is pursued.
Financial - FCRB reviews assist DES in meeting the requirements of PL 96- 272.
As a result, approximately $ 2.5 million federal dollars are received by DES each
year.
Continuity - Often the FCRB review board is the only constant in a child's case.
While many cases experience case manager turnover and changes in placement,
FCRB members know the history of the case, eliminating the learning curve that
often occurs due to unfamiliarity with case specifics.
Influence Change in Foster Care System - As noted previously, FCRB has made
over 300 recommendations to the Legislature and the Governor regarding
Arizona's Child Welfare System. FCRB officials believe that system changes have
occurred, at least in part, as a result of FCRB's annual report recommendations.
11. The extent to which the level of regulation exercised by the FCRB is appropri-ate
and whether less or more stringent levels of regulation would be appropri-ate.
This factor does not apply as FCRB has no regulatory authority.
12. The extent to which the FCRB has used private contractors in the performance
of its duties and how the effective use of private contractors could be accom-plished.
FCRB regularly uses private contractors for interpreting services and report transla-tion.
In addition, FCRB has hired contractors to provide training at FCRB- spon-sored
conferences and for database development services.
Agency Response
Stanlev G. Feldman
~ h; ef Justice I
July 27, 1995
supreme Mourt
STATE OF ARIZONA
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
David K. Byers
Adrnin~ stmtive Director
of the Courts
I Douglas R. Norton, Auditor General
Office of the Auditor General I 2910 North 44th Street, Suite 410
Phoenix, Arizona 85018
I Dear Mr. Norton:
I Enclosed you will find our response to your second draft of the performance audit
completed on the Foster Care Review Board Program.
I We understand that these comments will be included in the text of the published
report.
I Again, we thank your s t a for the professionalism demonstrated throughout the
course of this audit and appreciate some of the helpful suggestions made in this audit
report.
' strative Director ' & zBKe--
I of the Courts
Enclosure
cc: Mary Lou Quintana, Division Director, Dependent Children's Services Division
I Pat Jenson, Program Manager, Foster Care Review Board
I 1501 WEST WASHINGTON STREET PHOENIX. ARIZONA 85007- 3327 602- 542- 9300 ( TDD) 602- 542- 9545
FOSTER CARE REVIEW BOARD
RESPONSE TO AUDITOR'S REPORT
FINDING I
FCRB CAN HAVE A GREATER IMPACT IN FACILITATING
PERMANENT PLACEMENT FOR FOSTER CHILDREN
RECOMMENDATION # I:
FCRB should further develop its case review procedures to specifically address issues
central to case progress toward permanent placement. For example, in accordance
with P. L. 96- 272, questions should be developed to allow the boards to assess:
The continuing necessity for and appropriateness of the placement;
The extent of compliance with the case plan;
The extent of progress that has been made toward alleviating or
mitigating the need for foster care; and
A likely date by which the child may be returned to the home or placed
for adoption.
FCRB RESPONSE:
The Foster Care Review Board agrees with the importance of case
reviews focusing on the four key areas. The volunteer manual used in New
Board Member Orientation and provided to each board member contains
adequate questions that cover each of these four areas. Consequently, we
believe the weakness has been the inability to provide the depth and
frequency of training for effective implementation of the information
contained in the manual. ( See response to Recommendation # 2 and # 3 below
for additional information about training issues.)
The manual was revised in 1993 and is due for another revision this
year. We will work to further clarify the focus of these four key areas
pursuant to your suggestions, both through training as well as through the
organization of manual and training materials.
The Foster Care Review Board agrees that in some instances, the
Foster Care Review Board Recommendation Report is not given special
significance by the juvenile court judges. However, there are also instances
where juvenile court judges will not conduct their Judicial Report and
Review Hearings without the Foster Care Review Board Report. As a part
of enhancements to our report format and our review process, we will enlist
feedback directly from the juvenile judges. The goal will be to better meet
the judges needs and thereby increase the significance of the Foster Care
Review Board Report.
Page 1
RECOMMENDATION # 2:
FCRB should provide additional training to board members on what constitutes a
complete and appropriate review of each child's case.
FCRB RESPONSE:
We support this recommendation. We agree that the Program training
may need to refocus on the four key areas noted by the audit. In addition
to new board member training, the Program needs to be able to offer its
volunteers comprehensive ongoing education programs.
We will be able to provide some refocus of our New Board Member
Orientation as early as July 1995. Our regional training conferences and
mini training sessions provide the forums to include specific skill training
regarding the review process. In order to provide the quality training
required, funding for this function and for staff to carry it out will be
required.
Our FY ' 97 budget request includes a request for funds to allow staff
to perform training functions, funds for the cost of speakers and trainers,
and funds to reimburse the volunteers for their travel and per diem to
attend training. The Foster Care Review Board will require these funds in
order to provide the recommended training. Currently, all staff resources
are being utilized to meet the needs and demands of completing the
required reviews.
RECOMMENDATION 63:
FCRB should increase the program specialists' role as facilitator to ensure that
questions central to case progress are indeed addressed.
FCRB RESPONSE:
We agree with this recommendation. The program specialist's job
description specifies their role as a resource to, and facilitator of, the review
process. In the past 18 months, the Foster Care Review Board Program
experienced a 65% turnover rate in the program specialist personnel
category. This unprecedented turnover occurred simultaneous to the
growth in case volume. ( During fiscal year 1995, there was an 18% growth
in the number of children requiring reviews.) The weaknesses observed of
the staff's facilitation role is a result of the inability to adequately train staff
during this growth period and due to an unusually high number of new staff
who were in various training stages. Over the past few years, FCRB staff
could do little more than keep up with reviewing cases. Additionally, the
restrictions imposed by the Fair Labor Standards Act, do not allow those
staff who may wish to volunteer to work overtime to do so and FCRB funds
Page 2
available to use for overtime pay are minimal. As is evidenced by the
turnover rate, the low salary and high workIoad provide an environment
where the program specialist position is considered a stepping stone to
other positions in the field.
With the addition of the two new FTEs appropriated in fiscal year
1996, we have reassessed staff training needs and are developing a plan to
provide additional and enhanced training. Some aspects of this enhanced
training will occur as soon as August 1995 and other parts will be
implemented beginning November 1995. As recommended, this training will
include facilitation skills development.
RECOMMENDATION # 4:
FCRB should revise its case review report to ensure that all information central to
each child's case is included so that the courts can make the most appropriate
decisions for the child.
FCRB RESPONSE:
Extensive work has already been completed to fulfill this
recommendation as a result of our database development process. However,
as noted in your report, the implementation of these changes is still at least
12 months away. We, too, are concerned that more immediate measures
need to be taken in this regard and have acted on some of your suggestions.
Specifically, we have contacted the states of Nebraska and Oregon to obtain
copies of the report format, and we have established a workgroup made up
of staff and volunteers to revise the recommendation format. It is our goal
to implement a revised report by November 1995. However, even with the
redesign of our report format, given the continued increase in children
requiring case review, we still may have difficulty keeping up.
Page 3
FINDING I1
POOR BOARD MEMBER ATTENDANCE CAN WEAKEN THE
CASE REVIEW PROCESS
RECOMMENDATION # 1:
FCRB should consider use of alternate board members in order to increase attendance
at board meetings.
FCRB RJ3SPONSE:
In calendar year 1994, there were 61 active review boards. ( At the
time the auditors observed in January and February 1995, three additional
boards had been established for a total of 64.) These boards met for a total
of 645 meetings. The average number of board members present at review
board meetings was:
3.4 Maricopa County
4.0 Pima County
3.9 13 Other Rural Counties
3.68 Statewide Average
In January, 1995, 57 of the 61 boards met. The average of board
members present at review board meetings was:
3.8 Maricopa County
3.9 Pima County
3.2 13 Other Rural Counties
3.65 Statewide Average
We believe this average board member attendance meets the
requirement that three or five members participate in reviews. While we
understand that the auditors may have observed boards that had only two
volunteers, the statistics indicate we maintained compliance overall. The
130 cases out of a total of 5,790 cases reviewed in which there were fewer
than three board members equals 2.2%. While this is a very small percent,
we will work to improve this.
Page 4
Throughout the years, the Program has struggled with the concept of
alternate board members. To implement this concept would require a
statutory change. In 1993, the Program conducted an informal survey to
assess the absenteeism issue and the use of alternates. The survey results
concluded that, most often, notification about an absence occurs one day, or
less, from the review date. This would not give staff sufficient time to
prepare an alternate.
In order to address the absenteeism, the Foster Care Review Board,
long ago, developed a system in which current appointees are sought to
serve as substitutes. We are able to use current appointees from one county
to serve in another county. In many instances, the notification time is not
adequate to arrange for a substitute nor to adequately prepare a substitute.
Those who assessed the survey noted the similarities between the current
use of substitutes and the proposed use of appointed alternates. It was
determined that the Foster Care Review Board and court time needed to
handle formal appointments was not warranted. Due to these conclusions,
along with the fact that to pursue a change would require legislative action,
the State Board opted not to pursue a legislative change at that time.
However, we note that the Foster Care Review Board volunteers have,
again, recently questioned the need for an alternate system. Based on the
audit recommendation and the Foster Care Review Board volunteers' recent
inquiry, we will support the assessment, development and implementation
of an alternate appointment process. As a part of the assessment, it has
been suggested that the Foster Care Review Board Program Specialist could
serve as a board member alternate when a quorum is not present. This
might assist with those situations where the notification of an absence does
not occur in enough time to adequately prepare either a substitute or
alternate.
We need to note, however, that the implementation of an alternate
system will increase costs. As we increase the number of board members
per board, this will increase recruiting and training costs and could also
increase travel and reimbursement costs for the volunteers.
Page 5
FINDING I11
COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY NEEDED TO CONTEND
WITH FOSTER CARE GROWTH
RECOMMENDATION # 1:
FCRB should continue in its efforts to implement a fully automated system.
RECOMMENDATION # 2:
FCRB should immediately purchase computer equipment to automate the report
preparation process.
FCRB RESPONSE: ( TO # 1 AND # 2)
We agree with these recommendations. At the end of fiscal year 1995,
we were able to purchase new computer equipment for all 11 support staff
and 5 laptops for program specialists. This equipment came to a total wst
of $ 64,500. The purchase of most of this equipment was to enhance the
Program's technology to more current standards.
We note, however, that only 5 laptops and supporting equipment were
purchased for program specialists in fiscal year 1995. The total required for
program specialists, supervisors and managers is 16, leaving 11 more to be
purchased. The amount required to purchase the 11 additional laptops and
supporting equipment is $ 70,000. In fiscal year 1996, no equipment funds
were appropriated to the Foster Care Review Board
We believe the purchase of this equipment is the first step toward
enhancing the Program's work processes. However, a more critical step is
the development of software to manage case information. As noted by the
auditors, the development of a new database is planned and should be
implemented by the end of fiscal year 1996. The completion of this database
is the kes to achieving efficiency, not only in improved processes, but in
improved reports.
Interim steps as recommended by the auditors are planned to change
the Foster Care Review Board recommendation report format prior to the
completion of the database development. It is our goal to implement a
revised report format by November 1,1995.
Page 6
RECOMMENDATION # 3:
FCRB, in conjunction with DES, should work toward improving the frequency at
which case managers submit updated address forms.
FCRB RESPONSE:
We agree that the inaccuracy or lack of interested party information
from DES requires significant time to be spent by the Foster Care Review
Board program specialists. Acquiring accurate information about
interested parties in a case is essential to the quality of a review. We will
work with DES officials to address this issue. We wish to note that the
current development of a database system by DES is expected to
significantly improve this process.
RECOMRIENDATION # 4:
FCRB should consider reducing the number of cases needing a full review by:
Using alternative review methods such as paper and expedited reviews in some
instances, and
Working with the juvenile courts to reduce the number of in- home placement
reviews.
FCRB RESPONSE:
The Foster Care Review Board does not philosophically agree with a
process that provides less than a full review for every child. We have
concerns about the need to balance efficiency and volume versus a quality
review process for all children.
We are aware that in fact some reviews do end up being a paper
review. In the mqjority of cases, volunteers consider this a weakness. We
know that the input from, and participation of, interested parties provides
the most revealing and important information about the cases.
We are also aware that other states have developed a paper or
alternate review system. It is our opinion that this has been done because
volume and lack of resources have demanded so, not because it is
considered a quality review or oversight process for children in care.
Page 7
Given the increased volume of children requiring a review in Arizona
and the limited number of staff resources of our program, we will assess
alternate methods of reviews. However, we look to the Legislature for
direction as to the implementation of alternate types of reviews.
Our goal, if required to consider any alternate methods of review, will
be to attempt to preserve a quality review and oversight process.
The recommendation to reduce the number of in- home placement
reviews is sometimes shared by staff and volunteers. However, it is
important to note that often times the first few months of a child's return to
parents can be high risk. In such situations, the Court has requested the
continued review and oversight by the Foster Care Review Board and this
is considered highly appropriate. In other cases, the board volunteers
themselves have recommended a continued review due to risk concerns.
In assessing the savings factor realized if in- home reviews were
deleted from our case loads, we determined the following:
Cost to Review a Child's Case Per Year $ 208 *
( regardless of number of reviews)
Number of Children in In- home Placement 250
Total Cost for Reviewing Cases of
Children in In- home Placement
Additionally, we note that the average number of children in a
program specialist's case load is 500. The reduction of the in- home cases
would relieve only one- half of an FTE. The Legislature will need to decide
if these savings are worth the potential risk.
* Based on Foster Care Review Board's fiscal year 1995 amended budget
and the number of children in case load as of May 1995.
Page $