39th Legislature, Second Regular Session, Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Child Protective Services: final report

View Description

View PDF & Text

PDF
Text

Text Search...

              COMMITTEE MEMBERS
39th LEGISLATURE, SECOND REGULAR SESSION
Final Report
September 25, 1990
JOINT LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
ON
CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES
Rep. Patricia Noland, Co-Chair
Rep. Dave McCarroll
Rep. Polly Rosenbaum
Senator John Mawhinney, Co-Chair
Senator John Hays
Senator Pete Rlos
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. Formation of the CPS oversight Committee 1
II. Historical Perspective of Child Protection Policies and Laws • . . . .. 2
III. Activities of the Oversight Committee 5
IV. Findings 9
V. Recommendations 16
VI. Summary of the Major Provisions of H.B. 2690 34
Omnibus Child Protection Act
ARIZONA STATE LIBRARY
ARCHIVES &PUBLIC RECORDS
FEB 1 7 2005
STATE DOCUMENTS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I. FORMATION OF THE CPS OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I. FORMATION OF THE CPS OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
The Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Child Protective Services
(CPS) was formed on August 29, 1989. President Robert Usdane and Speaker
Jane Hull both felt the formation of the Oversight Committee was necessary and
appropriate in light of the rapid increase in child abuse and CPS investigations
and the numerous concerns that had been voiced by the public, the Department
of Economic Security (DES), the State Foster Care Review Board (SFCRB) and
several state legislators regarding Arizona's child protective service system.
Senate Majority Leader John Mawhinney (R-Tucson) and Representative
Patricia Noland (R-Tucson) were selected to co-chair the six-member committee.
Other members assigned to the committee were Senator John Hays (R-Yarnell),
Senator Pete Rios, (D-Hayden), Assistant Minority Leader, Representative Dave
McCarroll (R-Phoenix) and Representative Polly Rosenbaum (D-Globe).
The charge of the Oversight Committee was three-fold:
1. To identify the responsibilities and scope of CPS, statutory mandates
and DES policies and procedures.
2. To identify areas for improvement and strengths in the system, new
initiatives within CPS, and suggest corrective action where
necessary.
3. To recommend legislative action if needed.
The reduction of child abuse and neglect, improved communication with
parents, more training for case workers and supervisors, the maintenance of the
family unit and the protection of individual freedoms were only a few of the
complex issues that confronted the Oversight Committee while evaluating this
system.
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I II. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF CHILD PROTECTION POLICIES AND LAWS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF CHILD PROTECTION POLICIES AND LAWS
The following is a brief overview of our society's concern for the general
well-being of children and the formation of public policy to continually improve
child welfare services.
The Victorian Era
Community concern about the well-being of children and government
intervention to protect children has been an evolving process. In 18th century
England, the Elizabethan poor laws codified this public concern by imposing
community responsibility for children and certain individuals. The English doctrine
of parens patriae allows the community to intervene when a parent is not fulfilling
his or her parental responsibilities. The English legal system served as the
foundation for many of the early laws that were established in the United States
for dealing with family relationships.
The American Industrial Era
Since the founding of our country, the focus of children's well-being within
the family has evolved in response to numerous actions at the national, state or
local level. In 1874, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children was
founded in the United States in response to concerns about children who were
imperiled by the care of their parents or caregivers.
The 1960s
In 1960, the "battered child syndrome" was identified by the American
medical profession in order to bring to light and describe the condition of
recurring fractures and bruising of children at the hands of their families. As a
result, national attention began to focus on this serious issue.
The 1970s
The Arizona Legislature's passage of the Child Abuse Reporting Law in
1970 was a direct reflection of Arizona's concern for battered children. In
addition, the Legislature created a statewide central registry for maintaining child
abuse reports and investigation records at this time. In 1974, the federal
government enacted the IIChiid Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act'l in
response to the diversity of reporting laws that existed among the states. This
federal legislation established national guidelines for reporting child abuse and
neglect. Reportable behaviors under the federal law were expanded to include
many forms of maltreatment, physical and sexual abuse, exploitation and
emotional neglect. With this new legislation, the federal government made funding
and technical assistance available to state and local governments.
2
By the mid-1970s, Arizona's concern was focused on the growing number
of children in foster care and the lack of permanent planning for these children.
The focus of the debate centered on the appropriateness of placement and the
length of time that the child was placed in temporary custody of the state. The
goal of the legislative effort was to provide permanency and stability for children.
In 1978, now U.S. Congressman Jim Kolbe, introduced Foster Care Review Board
legislation which requires citizen involvement and planning for foster care children.
Arizona was one of the first states to implement a statewide foster care review
board system, which has served as a national model. In its first year of operation,
the foster care review board system reviewed 2,505 cases through 35 local review
boards. A decade later, the system had expanded to 52 local boards and
reviewed a total 5,072 cases in 1989.
The 1980s
The federal adoption of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act
of 1980, (PL-96-272) focused national attention on children in foster care.
Arizona was prepared to effectively respond to the new federal mandates on case
review due to the 1978 legislation establishing foster care review boards. The
high cost of foster care coupled with the negative impact of children in prolonged
and unnecessary foster care prompted federal intervention. The federal
government again provided financial incentives to states to examine policies
governing child welfare services. It was left to each state to find solutions to their
problems. Most states, including Arizona, have established adoption subsidy
programs to overcome financial barriers for adopting children with certain
handicaps.
Since 1980, numerous modifications have been made to Arizona's child
abuse laws. The following is a summary of the major changes that have been
made to these laws.
In 1981, legislation was passed that specified the conditions and
procedures for taking children into temporary custody, including that notice be
given to parents and that social workers have the ability to interview certain
children without providing notice to the parent.
In 1982, in response to a mandate of PL-96-272, the Arizona Legislature
established a goal that no more than fifty per cent of the total number of children
in foster care shall be in care for more than twenty-four consecutive months. That
same year, the Legislature imposed a two-dollar surcharge on marriage license
fees and dissolution to finance the newly created Child Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Fund. Monies from the Fund are used by DES to fund community
based prevention programs, an annual child abuse conference, and in 1989,
monies from the Fund were used to operate four Family Preservation Teams
throughout the state.
3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The following year, the Legislature expanded the grounds for terminating
a parent-child relationship to include a judicial finding that a parent refuses or is
unable to remedy the circumstances which led to the removal of a child and is
incapable of exercising proper parental care in the near future. Another legislative
proposal was adopted which allowed the state to assess fees on parents whose
children were in the custody of the Department of Economic Security, with ninety
per cent of the funds to be earmarked for the training of CPS staff.
In 1984, the Legislature modified Arizona's child abuse reporting law by
replacing the term "evidence" with "reasonable grounds to believe". Changes
were also made regarding criminal proceedings and the admissibility of
statements by children under the age of ten in cases involving sexual abuse.
Further, a provision was adopted which required Child Protective Service workers
to notify local law enforcement officers about any abuse reports they had received
in the past. Funding was also provided to the DES to identify children in foster
care who would be eligible for adoption if parental rights were terminated.
In 1987, the federal government expanded the Child Abuse Prevention
and Treatment Act to address the issues of child pornography and reform of
child adoption laws.
In 1989, the Arizona Legislature once again refined the state's definition of
child abuse and authorized the limited release of confidential reports by Child
Protective Services. The duty to report child abuse was expanded to include
reporting if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the child has been a
victim. These revisions also imposed a misdemeanor penalty for anyone who
knowingly makes a false child abuse report.
As the state of Arizona enters the 1990s, the protection of children and the
preservation of families continues to be a paramount issue for policy makers and
the citizens of this state. The Arizona Legislature will be continually challenged
to set the direction for improving Arizona's child welfare system. The remainder
of this report outlines the efforts and recommendations of the Joint Legislative
Oversight Committee on Child Protection Services' in meeting this significant
challenge.
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
III. ACTIVITIES OF THE CPS OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
III. ACTIVITIES OF THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
ON CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES
The Committee held a series of 11 public meetings, one of which was held
in Tucson. During the course of these meetings executive sessions (closed to the
public) were held, as authorized by A.R.S. 38-431.03 Paragraph A, Subsection 2,
in order to review and discuss confidential CPS files.
The following is a summary of the activities of the Committee and the
issues that were reviewed and discussed by the Oversight Committee over a nine
month period.
First CPS Meeting
On September 14, 1989, the Oversight Committee heard testimony from
several executive level officials within the DES and the Maricopa County Juvenile
Court system regarding the current status of Arizona's CPS System. The primary
purpose of the meeting was to provide the Committee with an overview of the
CPS process including the emerging trends, staff qualifications and training,
budgetary issues and court procedures associated with the removal of a child by
CPS. In order to preserve public objectivity, prevent the disclosure of sensitive
or confidential information and protect the innocent, all testimony before the
Oversight Committee was given under oath.
Speakers included: Linda Moore-Cannon, Director of DES, Tim Schmaltz,
Assistant Director, Division of Social Services (DES), and Marsha Porter, Program
Administrator, Administration for Children, Youth & Families (DES), and the
Honorable James McDougall, Presiding Judge, Maricopa County Juvenile Court.
Second CPS Meeting
On October 5, 1989, the Oversight Committee heard testimony from
representatives of the State Foster Care Review Board (SFCRB), the local foster
care review boards, and the Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) program.
The Oversight Committee was given a brief overview of the organization, functions
and goals of these programs. Representatives from the SFCRB also reviewed
some of the key recommendations that the State Board has mape to DES for
improving Arizona's CPS and foster care programs.
Speakers included: Judith Robertson, Chairperson, State Foster Care
Review Board, Joseph S. Godal, Member, Past Chairperson, State Foster Care
Review Board and Mary lou Dominguez, Division Director, Dependent Children's
Services Division of the Arizona Supreme Court.
At the conclusion of the public testimony portion, the Oversight Committee
members recessed and convened in executive session to discuss confidential
matters with the Senate's legal counsel.
5
Third CPS Meeting
The Oversight Committee took seven hours of testimony from the general
public on October 18, 1989, concerning problems with the current CPS system.
In total, the Oversight Committee heard testimony from 32 individuals representing
the general public, the legal community, various advocacy groups and social
service providers regarding problems with the current CPS system and
recommendations for improving Arizona's CPS system.
Fourth CPS Meeting
November 7, 1989, the Oversight Committee held a public meeting at the
Tucson Convention Center in order to give residents of Pima County and
southern Arizona an opportunity to testify before the Oversight Committee. In
total, the Oversight Committee heard nearly nine hours of testimony from 58
individuals on various aspects of the CPS system.
Fifth CPS Meeting
Another meeting was held in Phoenix on November 27, 1989, because the
Oversight Committee was unable to hear testimony from 35 individuals who had
originally signed up to testify at the October 18th meeting. During this meeting
the Committee heard over four hours of testimony from 18 individuals who
returned to testify. Two physicians also testified before the Committee about
various forms of child abuse including sexual and emotional abuse and the
different techniques that are used by health professionals to identify and verify
allegations.
Principle speakers were: Dr. Paul Bergeson, Director, Out-Patient Clinic,
Phoenix Children's Hospital, and Dr. Eric Benjamin, Medical Director
Child/Adolescent Psychiatry, Phoenix Children's Hospital.
Sixth CPS Meeting
On December 20, 1989, the Oversight Committee held a meeting to
discuss several issues and recommendations which had surfaced as a result of
prior Committee hearings and specific findings as a result of independent analysis
by members of the Committee. Some of the primary subjects discussed during
this meeting included: CPS intake procedures, ongoing caseload management
practices, current training requirements for CPS personnel, quality assurance
issues and the development of a mediator/arbitrator concept to assist families
involved with the CPS process.
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Seventh CPS Meeting
The Oversight Committee met on January 17, 1990 to discuss and review
in Executive Session confidential material concerning specific CPS case files. The
Co-Chairmen also informed the public about future activities of the Oversight
Committee regarding CPS, which would include: 1) discussing with concerned
parties specific proposals developed by the Oversight Committee; 2) submitting
a final report to the Legislature regarding the Oversight Committee's findings and
recommendations; and 3) drafting legislation to refine and improve the system.
Remaining CPS Meetings
From February 14th to March 14th, the Committee held several public
meetings to discuss 50 different House and Senate draft proposals for improving
and refining Arizona's CPS system. In all, 16 major policy issue categories were
identified, organized and discussed by the Oversight Committee. By the end of
the last public meeting, the Committee had formally adopted 35 of the draft
proposals. Eventually, 19 of these proposals were incorporated into House Bill
2690, the Omnibus Child Protection Act.
Other activities of the Oversight Committee
Since the formation of the Committee, the members have participated in
a wide range of investigative activities in order to gather relevant information and
improve the Committee's overall understanding of the complex issues surrounding
Arizona's CPS system. These activities included:
1) Reviewing confidential CPS case files with CPS caseworkers and
supervisors at the DES district offices and discussing the problems
and issues related to these cases with DES administrators and
Oversight Committee members in Executive Session.
2) Reviewing several videotaped interviews of children involved in
alleged sexual abuse cases in order to observe techniques used by
the interviewers and the results of these interviewers.
3) Requesting and receiving information and recommendations from
numerous individuals and institutions, including:
o The Department of Economic Security
o Judges and private attorneys from Arizona's Juvenile Court
System
o State and Local Foster Care Review Boards
o Volunteers from Court Appointed Special Advocates Program
o Representatives from VOCAL (Victims of Child Abuse Laws)
and various foster parent associations
o The Attorney General's Office
7
4)
5)
6)
o The Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC)
o The Auditor General's Office
o The Department of Administration
o The Governor's Council on Children
o Various health, social service and law enforcement
professionals throughout Arizona
o The National Conference of State Legislatures
Interviewing CPS personnel at several district offices about various
aspects of the CPS process, including workloads, staffing ratios and
worker morale.
Reviewing what other states have recently done in the area of Child
Welfare and Child Protective Services.
Attending Juvenile Court proceedings in both Maricopa and Pima
Counties.
8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IV. FINDINGS OF THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IV. FINDINGS OF THE CPS OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
The following are the key findings of the Oversight Committee regarding
Arizona's present CPS system. These findings have been consolidated under
sixteen various issue statements that were developed as a result of the
Committee's investigations and hearings.
A. Improved communication between CPS and families
Once a child is taken into custOdy, parents and other family members are
often confused and uninformed regarding CPS policies and procedures, their
legal rights and responsibilities, the judicial process and availability of support
services. Moreover, the CPS system lacks an effective mechanism for resolving
disputes that may arise between CPS and families. Even though the DES
maintains a Client Advocate Office that does provide some assistance to families,
there is a basic mistrust by the general public of this office due to its close
affiliation with CPS. Therefore, there is a need to enhance the CPS administrative
review and appeals process through which complaints and grievances can be
objectively addressed in a timely and responsive manner.
Testimony presented to the Committee suggested that parents do not
always receive prompt notification when CPS takes a child into temporary
custody. A significant number of these complaints involved the removal of a child
from a school or child care facility. Following the removal of the child, it has been
alleged that DES does not always provide parents with any written literature
regarding the CPS process, even though the Department has published material
available, such as the "Parent's Guide to Child Protective Services".
The Committee concluded that in addition to improving communications
between CPS and families there is a need to enhance communication between
CPS staff and court-appointed advocates and other judicial personnel.
B. Initial placement of a child
Arizona statute allows DES to place a child in temporary custody in a
licensed foster care facility, but only authorizes the juvenile courts to place a child
in a non-licensed home, such as the home of an extended family member. As
a result, when DES takes a child into temporary custody and a dependency
petition is filed, the child cannot be placed with a relative without a court order.
These statutory requirements significantly limit the Department's ability to place
a child in a setting other than foster care. Current statute limits DES by allowing
them to take a child into voluntary placement only if the child is in immediate
danger. The Committee felt some statutory changes were needed to provide
DES with greater flexibility in determining a child's out-of-home placement. The
Oversight Committee concluded that more consideration should be given for
relative placement by DES and eventually the Courts. The Committee believes
that such placement with a trusted relative can provide a child with a safe
9
environment while at the same time reduce the trauma and stress to the child
(and extended-family members) that is often associated with out-of-home
placements.
C. Modification of Central Registry system
Reports of alleged abuse, neglect or abandonment are maintained in a
centralized data repository (the Central Registry) until a child reaches the age of
eighteen. False allegations are possible. Unsubstantiated reports of child abuse
have the potential to be retained in the Central Registry. As a result of these two
possibilities, the Oversight Committee concluded that a system should be
implemented whereby certain reports can be safely expunged from the Central
Registry without limiting the ability of the Department or law enforcement agencies
to use the Central Registry as an effective management and investigative tool.
D. Videotaping of children's interviews
Alleged victims of sexual abuse may be subjected to a multitude of
interviews by different jurisdictions which may cause needless stress or trauma
to the child. The Oversight Committee concluded that the current CPS system
lacks a mechanism to coordinate interviews in order to minimize the trauma to the
child. The Committee agrees that a system should be implemented to ensure
that videotaped interviews are conducted by properly trained personnel and that
a standard but flexible format for these type of interviews be developed and
coordinated by CPS and law enforcement personnel to reduce multiple
interviews.
The Committee concluded that the videotaping of child interviews should
be limited to cases involving alleged sexual abuse and studied through a pilot
project before this practice is implemented on a statewide basis.
E. Definitions of IIAbusell and IINeglecr
In 1989, legislation was enacted (H.B. 2484) which brought Arizona's
statutory definitions of "abuse" and "neglect" into compliance with Federal law.
Nonetheless, the Oversight Committee reviewed and considered the possibility of
~xpanding these definitions as well as Arizona's mandatory reporting laws in light
of the significant increase in the number of newborn infants who have suffered
harm due to exposure to a controlled substance during pregnancy. Currently,
Arizona's statutes do not require health care providers to mandatorily report
cases of newborn infants who have been exposed to a controlled substance
during the mother's pregnancy. Although proposals for changing these statutes
were not adopted by the Committee, this unresolved issue will likely require
further study in Mure legislative sessions.
10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
F. Continued legislative oversight
in light of the alarming rise in reports of child abuse and neglect in Arizona
over the last decade, as well as the increased demand for children and family
services, the Oversight Committee recommends that a permanent standing
legislative committee be created in order to provide continuous and objective
oversight of state agencies which provide services to Arizona's families and
children. A permanent standing committee would allow the Legislature to intensify
its efforts to develop effective policy in the area of family and children services,
continue the work which has been initiated by the Joint Legislative Oversight
Committee on Child Protective Services and oversee the implementation of H.B.
2690. It is recommended by the Committee that the new standing committee
continue to study and review the CPS system especially in the areas of employee
training, expanding the definitions of lIabusell and IIneglectll and identifying new
ways for funding an lIintegrated child welfare systemll.
G. Court proceedings involving CPS cases
No specific time frames for completing a dependency trial or determining
final adjudication of a dependency petition currently exists, even though the law
requires a dependency petition be filed within 48 hours after a child is taken into
temporary custody and an initial dependency hearing must be set no later than
21 days from the filing of the petition. In addition, the current juvenile court
system is plagued with numerous court delays and continuances, which hampers
case planning and delays the establishment of permanency for the children.
The Committee's investigations found parents were often misinformed
about the purpose of the various CPS-related court proceedings and some
parents do not always receive proper legal counsel prior to the 5-day temporary
custody hearing or the initial 21-day dependency hearing. Testimony before the
Oversight Committee indicated that it is often unrealistic to expect legal counsel
and their clients to be adequately prepared for a dependency hearing within 21
days from the filing of a petition. However, since the issue involves the longterm
welfare and placement of a child, the Oversight Committee decided that a
maximum time frame must be established for the courts to complete the
dependency adjUdication process.
The Oversight Committee found that the 5-day temporary custody hearing
seldom provides parents with a meaningful opportunity to present a rebuttal to
the allegations of abuse or neglect that are presented by the Department and the
Attorney General's Office. In some instances, parents are not adequately
prepared or informed about the purpose of the temporary custody hearing. The
Oversight Committee determined that both parties should be allowed to state
what their preliminary evidence would indicate if a full evidentiary hearing were
scheduled.
11
Presently, the Maricopa County Juvenile Court System is revising Court
rules and procedures to expedite the dependency adjudication process. The
Committee supports these efforts and recommends that these changes be
implemented on a statewide basis.
H. In-house training of CPS workers
The Federal government has sanctioned the Department in the recent past
for not complying with P.L. 96-272 "reasonable efforts" requirements. According
to DES officials, as well as some juvenile court judges, the Federal government
has failed to provide sufficient gUidelines or interpretation of what constitutes
"reasonable efforts". The Oversight Committee has recommended that both DES
and the Courts should revise their rules and implement appropriate in-house
training programs to ensure that the state maintain compliance with federal
"reasonable efforts" requirements.
The existent DES training program for CPS caseworkers appears to be
sparse and inconsistent. In addition, supervisory training appears to be
insufficient. The DES administration has been over-reliant upon contracted
professionals to train staff, which appears to have created inconsistency in the
development and implementation of CPS internal policies and procedures.
In some instances, new CPS caseworkers are being trained on the job and
making critical decisions without receiving sufficient in-house training as required
under current DES rules. According to DES officials, this situation occurs
because the Department currently lacks sufficient "line" staff and backup
personnel to properly investigate all appropriate referrals.
According to a Department of Administration (DOA) 1989 assessment study
of CPS workers, many former employees indicated that "...their jobs were not
social work but that the investigatory role was primary and that many going into
the position were not prepared for investigations and court workups and
presentations." The DOA report concluded that improved training of CPS
personnel regarding court case preparation and presentation would make an
early contribution to worker job satisfaction.
I. Effectiveness and timeliness of a child's case plan
The Committee determined that case plans are not always focused on
specific family problems or needs and as a result the case plan may be extended
indefinitely. Evidence presented to the Committee indicated that CPS personnel
may order services that have been attempted before or are not relevant to the
circumstances which led to the out-of home placement of the child. The
Oversight Committee recognized that the development and implementation of
case plans is an evolving and continuous process. The Committee, however,
believes that families should be reunited once the goals and requirements of the
case plan are achieved and that no additional prerequisites be added to the
12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
social contract unless absolutely necessary to protect the welfare of the child.
As a result of public testimony and other investigative activities the
Oversight Committee has reached the following conclusions:
1) There is an obvious need to revise the required information that is
included in the case plans as well as the information that DES must
submit to the courts in conjunction with dependency actions.
2) The local foster care review boards should be given greater
opportunity to review case plans earlier than the current six month
after placement review requirement. The Oversight Committee
further concluded that these earlier reviews are in the best interest
of the child and may lead to earlier reunification of the family.
3) There is a shortage of available remedial services that parents must
receive before the family can be reunited.
4) There is a shortage of in-home services which could assist families
in crisis and possibly diminish the need to take children into
temporary custody.
5) The extent of these shortages in children and family services is
uncertain, therefore the Oversight Committee recommends that a
study be conducted to identify what services are currently available
to families in crisis.
J. Initial professional evaluation
According to the Department, every decision to remove a child from a
home is reviewed by caseworkers, their supervisors, and ultimately juvenile court
judges. Nonetheless, the Oversight Committee found that this was not always the
case and concluded that specific review teams should be established to assess
a caseworker's decision to remove a child within a specific time period. The
review teams should also determine whether or not appropriate in-home services
and alternative child placements were properly considered by CPS personnel
prior to the removal of the child.
K. Staff retention, recruitment and morale
On December 12, 1989 the Department of Administration (DOA) provided
the Oversight Committee with its initial findings regarding a classification
maintenance review of CPS workers that was originally requested by the
Department. The DOA's maintenance review focused on the issues of CPS
personnel turnover, recruitment, job qualifications and salary compensation rates.
13
The DOA study indicated that individuals with degrees are predominately
getting hired as CPS workers. The study also indicated that monthly salaries for
the CPS Human Services Specialist II classification is somewhat lower than other
Western States. Salaries for Human Services Specialist III positions were found
to be slightly higher in Arizona in comparison to other Western states. Overall,
the DOA estimates that it would cost $1.5 million to bring CPS specialist and
supervisor salaries to a level which is competitive to social work positions in
Arizona and other Western states.
The DOA's Class Maintenance Review of CPS revealed that the turnover
rates for CPS Human Services Specialists II and III are somewhat lower compared
to the average State Service turnover rate of 13 per cent. A DOA survey of
former CPS employees revealed that the two primary reasons why employees left
their jobs were 1) to accept a better job and, 2) for family reasons.
L. Budgeting for attorneys
Currently, attorneys in the Attorney General's Office who are assigned to
DES cases are paid from the DES budget rather than the Attorney General's
Office. The Oversight Committee believes that this legal function may be
performed in a more objective and impartial manner if these attorneys were
compensated through the Attorney General's Office rather than the DES budget.
Ultimately, the Oversight Committee determined that this funding issue should be
resolved in the legislative appropriation process.
M. Preventive Programs
At the present time Arizona lacks an integrated child welfare system which
can provide both child protective services as well as in-home services to families
and children which may prevent the need to remove children in the first place.
The Committee concluded that the state agencies providing services to families
and children do not adequately interface or communicate with each other, thereby
diminishing the effective distribution and use of these limited resources. The
Oversight Committee also determined that the funding and development of an
lIintegrated child welfare systemll should be studied by the Joint Standing
Committee on Children and Family Services.
N. Complete assessment and investigation of referrals
Over the last few years, there has been a dramatic increase in the number
of reports received by CPS on cases of alleged abuse and neglect. According to
DES figures, CPS received a total of 35,980 reports in 1989 compared to 26,100
reports in 1987. The agency has experienced a 36% increase in the total number
of reports from FY 1988 to FY 1989 and the Department predicts that it will be
receiving 55,000 reports per year by 1993. This tremendous influx of reports,
coupled with current CPS staffing levels has created a situation where the agency
is unable to investigate 100% of those reports which are appropriate for
14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
investigation and has forced the agency to develop a case priority system for
investigating reports. The Department has proposed a plan which requests more
funding for additional caseworkers to achieve a 100% investigation rate within
three years. The Oversight Committee concluded that CPS should receive
sufficient resources to investigate 100% of appropriate referrals. However, the
Committee further concluded, that since the Department could not supply the
Committee with caseload and other vital statistical information, the Legislature
could not accurately appropriate sufficient funds to accomplish this objective. To
this end, the Oversight Committee has recommended that the Auditor General
conduct an audit of the CPS worker's caseload size and submit a report with its
recommendations and findings to the Governor and the Legislature by January
1, 1991.
Q. Improved quality assurance and accountability
The Oversight Committee has determined that the DES Division of Children,
Youth and Families lacks a comprehensive and systematic program for monitoring
and evaluating the CPS process. The DES has requested funds to develop and
implement an automated client information system is designed to enable CPS to
properly track its clients, caseloads, caseload mix and staffing ratios. According
to DES, this system will enable the Department to better monitor and evaluate the
performance of contract providers that are involved in the CPS system and
ensure that CPS personnel in the various district offices are adhering to
Departmental policies and procedures.
P. Expedited Severance
The Oversight Committee believes that higher priority should be given to
meeting a child's basic need for a permanent and stable home environment and
to ensure that decisions associated with the involuntary termination of parental
rights and permanency planning should be handled in a careful yet expeditious
fashion. The Committee further believes that if a child's natural parents, given
ample opportunity, cannot remedy the circumstances which led to the removal of
the child, the Department and the Courts should move quickly to establish
permanency for the child. In addition, the State should continue to explore policy
changes which will permit DES and the Court to expedite severance in
appropriate CPS cases and determine the amount of resources that may be
required in light of these policy changes.
15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
V. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
Note: The recommendations which appear in this section reflect the language that
was originally adopted by the Oversight Committee during public hearings. Some
of these recommendations were modified slightly during the legislative process.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
V. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE ON
CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES
April 6, 1990
ISSUE I. Improved communication between CPS and families
Objective: Improve communication and assistance to families both in the initial
phases of the CPS process and when conflicts arise between caseworkers and
families. Provide a means of advising parents involved in the CPS system of their
rights and responsibilities.
A. RECOMMENDATION: REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC
SECURITY TO REFINE CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES' POLICIES
GOVERNING THE REMOVAL OF A CHILD FROM SCHOOL OR CHILD CARE,
TO ENSURE IMMEDIATE NOTIFICATION AND INTERVIEW OF THE
CUSTODIAL PARENT IN ROUTINE NORMAL CASES REGARDING THE
REMOVAL OF A CHILD.
Implementation: Direct the DES to modify the Department's policies and rules in
accordance with this recommendation.. (In H.B. 2690)
B. RECOMMENDATION: ENCOURAGE THE DES TO SIMPLIFY THE
LANGUAGE, CONSTRUCTION AND FORMATOF THE 48·HOUR TEMPORARY
CUSTODY NOTICE THAT IS SERVED ON PARENTS WHEN THE CHILD IS
REMOVED FROM THE CUSTODY OF THE PARENTS.
REQUIRE THE CASEWORKER, AT INITIAL CONTACT TO FULLY EXPLAIN
THE CPS PROCESS, THE PARENT'S RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES IN
THAT PROCESS, THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PARENTS AND HOW
TO OBTAIN ASSISTANCE. A WRITTEN SUMMARY OF THE ABOVE
INFORMATION SHOULD ALSO BE PROVIDED TO THE PARENTS AT INITIAL
CONTACT.
Implementation: Direct the DES to modify the Department's policies and rules in
accordance with this recommendation.
C. RECOMMENDATION: ESTABLISH AN INDEPENDENT
MEDIATION/ARBITRATION SYSTEM TO MEDIATE PROBLEMS BETWEEN
FAMILIES AND CPS.
16
Implementation: Propose legislation which enables the Attorney General's
Mediation program to mediate disputed CPS cases. (In H.B. 2690)
D. RECOMMENDATION: PROPOSE LEGISLATION THAT ESTABLISHES A
IIPARENT ASSISTANCE- PROGRAM. THE PROGRAM SHALL CONSIST OF
IIOMBUDSMANII SERVICES AND A 24-HOUR TELEPHONE HOTLINE. SOME
OF THE INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED TO PARENTS OR GUARDIANS BY
THE ·PARENT ASSISTANCE- INCLUDES:
o THEIR RIGHTS TO COURT AND FOSTER CARE REVIEW BOARD
HEARINGS.
o INFORMATION ABUT THEIR CHILD'S WELL BEING
o COMMUNITY RESOURCES AVAILABLE
o PROCEDURES FOR REQUESTING AN ATTORNEY, A FIVE-DAY
HEARING OR OTHER NEEDED ACTIONS AND THE CONSEQUENCES
OF NOT MAKING SUCH REQUEST.
Implementation: Propose legislation which establishes the IIParent Assistance
Programll under the direction of the Supreme Court Administrative Office. (In H.B.
2690)
E. RECOMMENDATION: REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC
SECURITY TO ESTABLISH RULES SETTING CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING
WHETHER IN-HOME SERVICES WILL ALLEVIATE FAMILY CRISIS, OR
WHETHER THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR APPROPRIATE
REMOVAL OF A CHILD. THIS CRITERIA SHOULD INCLUDE THE
EVALUATION OF CIRCUMSTANCES BY A TEAM OF CPS WORKERS
BEFORE REMOVING A CHILD.
REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT TO ESTABLISH A POLICY AND PROCESS BY
WHICH EACH REMOVAL OF A CHILD FROM HIS/HER HOME IS REVIEWED
WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE REMOVAL EXCLUDING HOLIDAYS AND
WEEKENDS. THE REVIEW TEAM SHALL INCLUDE THE CASEWORKER,
HIS/HER SUPERVISOR, AVAILABLE CLINICAL SPECIALISTS AND OTHER
STAFF AS DEFINED IN POLICY. THE REVIEW TEAM SHALL REVIEW AND
ASSESS THE DECISION OF REMOVAL AND OPTIONS FOR PLACEMENT
AND POSSIBLE IN-HOME SERVICES TO THE FAMILY.
Implementation: Propose legislation to implement recommendation. (In H.B. 2690)
17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ISSUE II. Initial placement of a child
Objective: Expedite the placement of children into a safe and familiar environment
with known and trusted caretakers.
A. RECOMMENDATION: CODIFY THE STATE'S POLICY TO GIVE FIRST
PRIORITY TO AND FAVOR RELATIVE PLACEMENT WHENEVER
APPROPRIATE AND REQUIRE THE JUVENILE JUDGE TO CONSIDER AND
CERTIFY THAT PLACEMENT OF THE CHILD OUTSIDE HIS/HER HOME IS
APPROPRIATE AND THAT PLACEMENT WITH RELATIVES HAS BEEN
CONSIDERED.
PROPOSE LEGISLATION WHICH AUTHORIZES THE AGENCY TO PLACE
CHILDREN IN THE TEMPORARY CARE OF SPECIFIC RELATIVE(S) OR
FAMILY FRIENDS FOLLOWING AN APPROPRIATE RISK ASSESSMENT. THE
TEMPORARY PLACEMENT WOULD BE REVIEWED BY A JUDGE AT THE
INITIAL DEPENDENCY HEARING.
Implementation: Propose legislation to implement recommendation. (In H.B. 2690)
18
ISSUE III. Modification of Central Registry records
Objective: Expunge the records of individuals accused of unsubstantiated abuse.
A. RECOMMENDATION: REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC
SECURITY TO PURGE RECORDS IN THE CENTRAL REGISTRY, AFTER TWO
YEARS HAVE PASSED, IF AFTER AN INVESTIGATION, THE ALLEGED
NEGLECT, ABUSE OR ABANDONMENT IS DETERMINED TO BE INVALID
OR UNSUBSTANTIATED AND NO SUBSEQUENT REPORTS HAVE BEEN
RECEIVED. THIS PROVISION WOULD GO INTO EFFECT ON JUNE 30, 1990
AND WOULD IMMEDIATELY PERTAIN TO ALLEGATIONS OR COMPLAINTS
RECEIVED BY THE DES AFTER JUNE 30, 1988.
REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY TO ANNUALLY
PURGE RECORDS IN THE CENTRAL REGISTRY ON ALLEGED CASES OF
NEGLECT, ABUSE OR ABANDONMENT THAT HAVE NOT BEEN
INVESTIGATED OR HAVE BEEN DETERMINED TO BE INVALID, AND WERE
RECEIVED BY THE DES FIVE YEARS PRIOR, AND NO SUBSEQUENT
REPORTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THIS PROVISION
WOULD GO INTO EFFECT ON JUNE 30, 1992.
Implementation: Propose legislation to implement recommendation. (In H.B.
2690)
19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ISSUE IV. Video taping of children's interviews
Objective: Simplify process of interviewing the child and document contents of
interview.
A. RECOMMENDATION: REQUIRE THE CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES
AGENCY TO ESTABLISH RULES WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE
COORDINATION BETWEEN CPS, LAW ENFORCEMENT AND ANY OTHER
ENTITIES INVOLVED IN INVESTIGATIONS OF ALLEGED SEXUAL ABUSE.
STIPULATE THAT ANY INTERVIEWS WITH AGE-APPROPRIATE CHILDREN
ASSOCIATED WITH ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL ABUSE SHOULD BE
VIDEOTAPED AND BE CONDUCTED BY INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE TRAINED
TO COORDINATE AND CONDUCT INTERVIEWS AND INVESTIGATIONS OF
ALLEGED SEXUAL ABUSE. ENCOURAGE AND DIRECT THE DES TO
PROVIDE EQUIPMENT AND TRAINING REGARDING THE VIDEOTAPING OF
THESE INTERVIEWS. THESE INTERVIEWS ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE
USED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR COURT TESTIMONY BUT ARE DESIGNED TO
ELIMINATE MULTIPLE INTERVIEWS OF THE CHILD.
Implementation: Direct the DES to modify the Department's policies and rules in
accordance with this recommendation. (In H.B. 2690 as a DES pilot program)
20
ISSUE V. Defining -Neglect- and -Failure to ProvideD and redefining DAbuse"
Objective: Refine and improve definitions which permit CPS and law enforcement
personnel to remove a child in cases of alleged abuse or neglect.
A. RECOMMENDATION: DEFINE "NEGLECT- TO MEAN: FAILURE TO
PROVIDE ADEQUATE FOOD, CLOTHING, SHELTER OR ESSENTIAL
MEDICAL OR SURGICAL CARE BY THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CARE,
CUSTODY AND CONTROL OF A CHILD, ALTHOUGH FINANCIALLY ABLE TO
DO SO.
Implementation: Originally this proposal was included in H.B. 2690, but was
removed by a House committee amendment.
B. RECOMMENDATION: THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE ALONG WITH THE
DES SHOULD DEVELOP A STATUTORY DEFINITION FOR "FAILURE TO
PROVIDE".
Implementation: This proposal was not developed or included in H.B. 2690.
C. RECOMMENDATION: AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "ABUSE" TO
INCLUDE EXPOSURE TO CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES AS INDICATED BY
WITHDRAWAL SYMPTOMS OF A NEW BORN INFANT OR MEDICAL
EVIDENCE AS INDICATED BY A TOXICOLOGY TEST PERFORMED ON THE
CHILD OR MOTHER AT THE TIME OF DELIVERY, BY A LICENSED MEDICAL
PHYSICIAN.
Implementation: This proposal was originally included in H.B. 2690. but was
removed by a House committee amendment.
21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ISSUE VI. Continued legislative oversight
Objective: Ensure objective oversight of CPS functions and other state agencies
which provide services to Arizona's children and families.
A. RECOMMENDATION: CREATE A SIX-MEMBER JOINT STANDING
COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES WHICH SHALL:
1. MONITOR CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES
2. ENSURE THAT LEGISLATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCERNING CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES ARE
IMPLEMENTED AND EFFECTIVE.
3. PROVIDE A FORUM FOR FAMILIES TO EXPRESS THEIR
CONCERN
4. M A K E ADM I N 1STRATI V E AND LEG I S LAT I V E
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING CHILDREN AND FAMILY
SERVICES.
Implementation: Propose legislation which would establish a Joint Standing
Committee on Children and Family Services. (In H.B. 2690)
22
ISSUE VII. Court proceedings involving CPS cases
Objective: Ensure that child dependency cases do not languish in the court
system.
A. RECOMMENDATION: DIRECT THE SUPREME COURT TO DRAFT AND
ADOPT UNIFORM RULES WHICH STIPULATE THAT ALL JUVENILE COURTS
SHALL:
1) ALLOW ONLY ONE FIVE-DAY CONTINUANCE OF THE FIVEDAY
TEMPORARY CUSTODY HEARING FOR CAUSE UPON THE
MOTION OF EITHER PARTY.
2) MODIFY THE 5-DAY HEARING TO PROVIDE A FORUM TO
PARENTS OR GUARDIANS TO OFFER A REBUTTAL TO THE
ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE.
3) ALLOW EVIDENCE TO BE PRESENTED AT THE 5-DAY HEARING
TO ENABLE THE JUDGE TO RULE ON THE APPROPRIATE
TEMPORARY CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT. BOTH PARTIES
WOULD BE ALLOWED TO STATE WHAT THEIR PRELIMINARY
EVIDENCE WOULD SHOW IF A FULL EVIDENTIARY HEARING
WERE SCHEDULED.
4) REQUIRE A TIMELY DETERMINATION OF DEPENDENCY
ACTIONS, WITHIN OR NO LATER THAN 120 DAYS FROM THE
DATE THAT A CHILD WAS REMOVED FROM CUSTODY OF THE
CAREGIVER. A 30-DAY EXTENSION MAY BE GRANTED ONLY
FOR SPECIFIC CRITICAL CIRCUMSTANCES AS DEFINED BY
THE SUPREME COURT.
Implementation: Request the Supreme Court to modify juvenile court rules and
policies in accordance with the above recommendations. (Recommendation #
4 was included as session law in H.B. 2690)
B. RECOMMENDATION: ENCOURAGE THE JUVENILE COURTS TO GIVE
PRIORITY TO TEMPORARY CUSTODY AND DEPENDENCY ADJUDICATION
HEARINGS.
Implementation: Direct the Supreme Court to modify their juvenile court policies
and rules in accordance with this recommendation.
23
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ISSUE VIII. In-house training of CPS workers
Objective: Ensure that CPS workers are properly trained prior to assuming
casework.
A. RECOMMENDATION: REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC
SECURITY TO CREATE AND MAINTAIN A TRAINING PROGRAM COMPRISED
OF SELF STUDY, CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION AND ON THE JOB TRAINING
BEFORE THE EMPLOYEE IS ASSIGNED TO FULL-TIME DUTY STATUS BUT·
WHICH MAY ALLOW PART-TIME DUTY STATUS UNDER CLOSE, DIRECT
SUPERVISION. TRAINING MAY BE REQUIRED AND/OR EXTENDED ON AS
NEEDED BASIS.
THE ISSUE OF IN-HOUSE TRAINING OF CPS WORKERS SHOULD BE GIVEN
FIRST PRIORITY BY THE JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES.
Implementation: Direct the DES to modify the Department's policies and rules in
accordance with this recommendation.
24
ISSUE IX. Effectiveness and Timeliness of a Child's Case Plan.
Objective: Ensure that written agreements be developed and implemented in a
timely manner.
A. RECOMMENDATION: REQUIRE A PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE
CHILD'S RETURN TO HOME OR OTHER PERMANENT PLACEMENT, WITH
TIME LINES FOR ALL PARTIES, TO BE DEVELOPED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF
THE TIME THE CHILD IS INITIALLY REMOVED FROM THE HOME. ANY
CASE PLAN RECOMMENDED TO OR BY THE COURT SHALL CONTAIN THE
ABOVE TIME LINES AND CAN BE EXTENDED FOR THREE MONTHS IN
CASES WHERE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ARE NOT IMMEDIATELY
AVAILABLE.
Implementation: Direct the DES to modify the Department's policies and rules in
accordance with this recommendation.
B. RECOMMENDATION: REQUIRE THE DES TO PROVIDE THE JUVENILE
COURTS WITH A LIST OF PREVIOUSLY PRESCRIBED COUNSELING,
TESTING OR OTHER TREATMENT SERVICES AND THE SUCCESS OF
THESE SERVICES IN REMEDYING THE CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES
FOR WHICH THEY WERE PRESCRIBED. EXPAND AND MODIFY THE
INFORMATION THAT MUST BE INCLUDED IN THE CASE PLANS AND
REQUIRE THE COURT TO FIRST DETERMINE THAT SERVICES ARE
APPROPRIATE AND NECESSARY, BEFORE ORDERING ANY SERVICES.
Implementation: Propose legislation to implement this recommendation. (In H.B.
2690)
C. RECOMMENDATION: PROPOSE LEGISLATION WHICH GRANTS THE
JUVENILE COURTS THE AUTHORITY TO ASSIGN SELECTED CASES TO
THE LOCAL FOSTER CARE REVIEW BOARDS FOR EARLY REVIEW. THIS
LEGISLATION WOULD ALSO ALLOW A MEDIATOR FROM THE CHILD
WELFARE MEDIATION PROGRAM TO REQUEST THAT A DISPUTED CASE
BE ASSIGNED FOR EARLY REVIEW BY A LOCAL FOSTER CARE REVIEW
BOARD. EARLY REVIEW OF THE CASE PLAN BY THE LOCAL BOARDS
SHOULD TAKE PLACE WITHIN 60 DAY OF THE CHILD'S REMOVAL FROM
THE HOME.
Implementation: Propose legislation to implement this recommendation. (In H.B.
2690)
25
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ISSUE IX. Effectiveness and Timeliness of a Child's Case Plan (continued)
D. RECOMMENDATION: REQUIRE THE DES TO CONTRACT WITH AN
"OUTSIDE INDEPENDENT ENTIW TO EVALUATE AVAILABLE "IN-HOME"
SERVICES AND DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE THE
COORDINATION AND DELIVERY OF ·IN-HOME SERVICES TO FAMILIES.
THE CONTRACTED ·OUTSIDE INDEPENDENT ENTIW SHALL DELIVER A
REPORT WITH FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE JOINT
STANDING COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, THE
PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE, THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, AND THE GOVERNOR BY JANUARY 1,1991.
Implementation: Propose legislation to implement recommendation. (An
amendment was adopted which requires the State Foster Care Review Board
rather than the DES, to contract with an independent entity to conduct this
evaluation. The amendment also established a new report date of July 1,
1991)
E. RECOMMENDATION: DIRECT THE SUPREME COURT AND THE DES TO
REVISE THEIR RULES GOVERNING HREASONABLE EFFORTS· TO ENSURE
THAT PROPER ACTIONS ARE BEING TAKEN TO REUNITE THE FAMILY OR
EXPEDITE THE PERMANENT PLACEMENT OF THE CHILD. DIRECT THE
COURTS AND DES TO ESTABLISH MONITORING AND TRAINING
PROGRAMS FOR THEIR RESPECTIVE PERSONNEL TO ENSURE THAT
BOTH THE COURTS AND DES MAINTAIN COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL
REQUIREMENTS (P.L 96-272).
Implementation: (This recommendation was included in H.B. 2690)
26
ISSUE X. Initial professional evaluation
Objective: Ensure that each case is promptly evaluated by qualified professionals
and ensure that Child Protective Service Human Service Specialists meet
minimum education requirements.
A. RECOMMENDATIONS: REQUIRE THE DES TO ESTABLISH A POLICY
AND PROCESS BY WHICH EACH REMOVAL OF A CHILD FROM HIS/HER
HOME IS REVIEWED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE REMOVAL, EXCLUDING
HOLIDAYS AND WEEKENDS. THE REVIEW TEAM SHALL INCLUDE THE
CASEWORKER, HIS/HER SUPERVISOR, AVAILABLE CLINICAL SPECIALISTS
AND OTHER STAFF AS DEFINED IN POLICY. THE REVIEW TEAM SHALL
REVIEW AND ASSESS DECISIONS OF REMOVAL AND OPTIONS FOR
PLACEMENT AND POSSIBLE IN-HOME SERVICES TO THE FAMILY.
Implementation: Propose legislation to implement recommendation. (In H.B. 2690)
B. RECOMMENDATION: REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION (DOA) TO REVIEW THE MINIMUM EDUCATION
REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ENTRY LEVEL HUMAN SERVICES SPECIALIST.
THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT THE MINIMUM EDUCATION
REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS ENTRY LEVEL POSITION BE A BACHELOR
DEGREE IN SOCIAL WORK OR A RELATED FIELD OF STUDY.
REQUIRE THE DOA TO REVIEW THE MINIMAL EDUCATION
REQUIREMENTS FOR A CPS SUPERVISOR. THE COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDS THAT THE MINIMUM EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS FOR
THIS SUPERVISORY POSITION BE A MASTERS IN SOCIAL WORK OR A
MASTERS IN A RELATED FIELD OF STUDY.
Implementation Encourage the DOA to complete its current review of the
minimum education requirements for Human Service Specialists and CPS
supervisors.
C. RECOMMENDATION: REQUIRE THE DES TO ESTABLISH POLICIES
SETTING CRITERIA TO USE TO EVALUATE WHETHER IT IS APPROPRIATE
TO REMOVE A CHILD, INCLUDING AN EVALUATION OF THE
CIRCUMSTANCES BY A TEAM OF CPS WORKERS BEFORE REMOVING THE
CHILD.
Implementation: Propose legislation to implement recommendation. (In H.B. 2690)
27
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ISSUE XI. Staff retention, recruitment and morale
Objective: Improve staff retention. recruitment and morale of CPS personnel
A. RECOMMENDATION: REQUEST THE DOA TO COMPLETE A
MANAGEMENT AND PERSONNEL ANALYSIS OF THE CHILD PROTECTIVE
SYSTEM, WITH THE PURPOSE OF IMPROVING WORKING CONDITIONS,
EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT, WORKER RETENTION AND EMPLOYEE
MORALE. THE DOA SHALL DELIVER A REPORT WITH FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE, THE
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE AND THE GOVERNOR BY DECEMBER 1, 1990.
Implementation: Propose legislation to implement recommendation through
Session Law. (In H.B. 2690)
28
ISSUE XII, Budgeting for attorneys
Objective: Make attorneys hired to pursue DES cases more independent from
DES.
RECOMMENDATION: REMOVE THE APPROPRIATION FOR ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY GENERALS ASSIGNED TO DES FROM THE DES' BUDGET AND
ADD IT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S BUDGET. FEDERAL MONIES
GIVEN TO DES FOR LEGAL SERVICES CAN BE TRANSFERRED TO THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE BY INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT.
Implementation: This recommendation should be implemented through the annual
appropriation process.
29
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ISSUE XIII. Preventive programs
Objective: Support the maintenance of family unity.
A. RECOMMENDATION: DEVELOP POLICIES WHICH FOSTER AND
ESTABLISH PROGRAMS SUCH AS INTENSIVE FAMILY SERVICES AND
OTHER PROGRAMS WHICH OFFER FAMILY SUPPORT, EARLY
INTERVENTION AND PREVENTION SERVICES FOR FAMILIES AT RISK OF
ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR.
Implementation: Direct the DES to modify and develop the Department's policies
and rules in accordance with this recommendation.
B. RECOMMENDATION: REQUIRE THE DES TO IDENTIFY ALL AVAILABLE
CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION AND DOMESTIC RELATION REVENUE
SOURCES FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF FUNDING A PORTION OF THE
PROPOSED INTEGRATED CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM. THE DES SHALL
DELIVER A REPORT WITH FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE
JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, THE
PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE, THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE AND THE
GOVERNOR BY JANUARY 1, 1991. .
Implementation: Propose legislation to implement this recommendation through
Session law. (An amendment was adopted which requires the State Foster
Care Review Board rather than the DES, to contract with an independent
entity to conduct this study. The amendment also requires the Board to
create a proposal for an integrated child welfare system and submit a report
by JUly 1, 1991)
C. RECOMMENDATION: ALLOW THE PARENTS AND THE DES TO ENTER
INTO A VOLUNTARY 90-DAY PLACEMENT OF THE CHILD IN AN
ALTERNATIVE SETTING, PRIOR TO THE FORMAL REMOVAL OF THE CHILD
FROM THE CUSTODY OF THE PARENTS. SUCH 90-DAY VOLUNTARY
PLACEMENT MAY NOT BE RAISED OR USED TO PREJUDICE FUTURE DES
OR COURT ACTIONS.
Implementation: Propose legislation to implement recommendation. (In H.B. 2690)
30
ISSUE XIV. Complete assessment and investigation of referrals
Objective: Provide the CPS system with the resources necessary to investigate
100 % of appropriate referrals alleging abuse, neglect or exploitation of children.
A. RECOMMENDATION: DIRECT THE AUDITOR GENERAL TO CONDUCT
AN AUDIT OF CASELOAD SIZE, CASE PRIORITIZATION AND SUPERVISORY
SPAN OF CONTROL TO ENSURE THE AGENCY HAS SUFFICIENT STAFF TO
RESPOND TO APPROPRIATE REFERRALS, NOT WITHSTANDING THE
EVALUATION OF CURRENT BUDGETARY NEEDS BY THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEES. THE AUDITOR GENERAL SHALL DELIVER A REPORT WITH
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE JOINT STANDING
COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, THE PRESIDENT OF
THE SENATE, THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE AND THE GOVERNOR BY
JANUARY 1, 1991.
Implementation: Propose legislation to implement recommendation through
session law. (In H.B. 2690)
31
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ISSUE XV. Improve quality assurance and accountability
Objective: Ensure that investigations and ongoing casework within the CPS
system are subjected to a rigorous form of internal and external review.
A. RECOMMENDATION: DIRECT THE DES TO DEVELOP AN INTERNAL
INVESTIGATION UNIT WHICH SAMPLES, EVALUATES AND INVESTIGATES
THOSE CASE THAT ARE UNDER CPS SUPERVISION. THE INTERNAL
INVESTIGATION UNIT SHOULD REPORT DIRECTLY TO THE DIRECTOR OF
DES AND PERIODICALLY SUBMIT ITS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO THE DIRECTOR.
Implementation: Direct the DES to modify the Department's policies and rules in
accordance with this recommendation.
B. RECOMMENDATION: REQUIRE THAT DES MANAGEMENT
INFORMATION AND CLIENT TRACKING SYSTEMS BE ENHANCED AND
REDEVELOPED TO ENSURE AND QUANTIFY THE DELIVERY OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES. AN EMPHASIS SHOULD BE PLACED ON QUALITY
ASSURANCE REGARDING RESOURCE UTILIZATION, MANAGEMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY, STATUTORYAND POLICYCOMPLIANCE AND TRACKING
OF CLIENT OUTCOMES.
Implementation: Direct the DES to modify the Department's policies and rules in
accordance with this recommendation.
C. RECOMMENDATION: DIRECT THE DES TO IMPLEMENT
STANDARDIZED POLICIES AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING INTAKE,
INVESTIGATION, CHILD REMOVAL AND CASE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES.
Implementation: Direct the DES to modify the Department's policies and rules in
accordance with this recommendation.
32
ISSUE XVI. Expedite Severance
Objective: Reduce the time period for initiating a petition to terminate a
parent/child relationship in cases of where parents fail to rectify circumstances
which led a child to be removed, in order to facilitate the permanent placement
of the child.
A. RECOMMENDATION: PROPOSE LEGISLATION THAT WOULD ALLOW
THE DES TO PETITION FOR TERMINATION OF A PARENT/CHILD
RELATIONSHIP IN CASES WHERE THE AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
CARE OF THE CHILD HAS MADE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO PROVIDE
AVAILABLE REMEDIAL SERVICES AND THE PARENT(S) HAVE BEEN
UNABLE, AFTER A CUMULATIVE PERIOD OF 18 MONTHS, TO RECTIFY THE
CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH CAUSE THE CHILD TO BE IN AN OUT-OF-HOME
PLACEMENT. A DES PETITION FOR TERMINATION OF A PARENT/ CHILD
RELATIONSHIP IS NOT VALID IN CASES WHERE THERE HAS BEEN A LACK
OF AVAILABLE REMEDIAL SERVICES OR THERE HAS BEEN A DELAY IN
THE DES PROVIDING AVAILABLE REMEDIAL SERVICES.
Implementation: This proposal was originally included in H.B. 2690 but was
removed by a House committee amendment.
33
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
VI. SUMMARY OF THE MAJOR PROVISIONS OF HB 2690
OMNIBUS CHILD PROTECTION ACT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Omnibus child protection act (H.B. 2690) - Chapter 237
Provides for the following changes to statutes governing the Child
Protective Services (CPS) system:
1. Appropriates $2,559,000 in FY 1990-91 to various agencies involved in the
CPS process, including the Attorney General's Office, the Department of
Administration, the Department of Economic Security and the Supreme
Court.
2. Allows the Department of Economic Security (DES) to place a child with a
parent or relative as an alternative to foster care placement and expands
the ability of DES to take children into voluntary placement.
3. Requires the DES to establish new criteria governing the removal of a child
from home, school or child care and establish review teams to assess each
removal which is expected to result in a dependency petition.
4. Establishes a parent assistance program, a 24-hour telephone hotline and
a child welfare mediation program to assist individuals involved in the CPS
system. Effective November 1, 1990.
5. Initiates a two-tier process which requires the DES to purge (expunge)
appropriate reports in the Central Registry. Establishes a retroactive
effective date of July 1, 1992 for the 2 year expungemeht process and a
delayed effective date of July 1, 1992 for the 5 year expungement process.
6. Requires the DES to create a pilot program for videotaping child interviews
in cases of alleged sexual abuse as of April 1, 1991. The DES must submit
a report regarding the pilot program to the Governor and the Legislature
by April 1, 1992.
7. Creates a six-member Joint Legislative Committee on Children and Family
Services and prescribes the powers and duties of the committee.
8. Requires DES to provide the juvenile courts with specific information about
a child's case plan and requires the court to establish the necessity and
appropriateness of services before ordering any counseling, testing or
treatment services.
9. Requires the juvenile courts to complete dependency hearings within 120
days from the date that the dependency petition was served and allows the
courts to extend the 120 day deadline by 30 days in specific cases.
34
10. Requires local foster care review boards to evaluate case plans that have
been assigned by the courts for early review, within 60 days after the child
has been removed from home. Allows mediators from the Child Welfare
Mediation Program to request early review of appropriate cases involving
dependent children.
11. Requires the State Foster Care Review Board (SFCRB) to contract with
an independent entity to conduct a study to identify revenue sources to
implement an integrated child welfare system and evaluate in-home
services that are available to families involved with the CPS system. The
SFCRB must report its findings to the Governor and the Legislature by July
1, 1991.
12. Requires the Auditor General to conduct an audit on the caseload size,
caseload mix and staffing ratio of CPS personnel. The Auditor General
must submit a report to the Governor and the Legislature by January 1,
1991.
35
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Description

Rating
TITLE	39th Legislature, Second Regular Session, Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Child Protective Services: final report
CREATOR	Arizona. Legislature. Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Child Protective Services.
SUBJECT	Child abuse--Arizona--Prevention; Child welfare--Arizona;
Browse Topic	Government and politics Family and community
DESCRIPTION	43 pages (PDF version). File size: 1327734 Bytes.
Language	English
Publisher	Arizona Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Child Protective Services.
TYPE	Text
Material Collection	State Documents House Received Reports
Acquisition Note	Publication or link to publication sent to reports@lib.az.us
RIGHTS MANAGEMENT	Copyright to this resource is held by the creating agency and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be downloaded, reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the creating agency. Any attempt to circumvent the access controls placed on this file is a violation of United States and international copyright laws, and is subject to criminal prosecution.
DATE ORIGINAL	1990-09-25
Time Period	1990s (1990-1999)
ORIGINAL FORMAT	Paper
Source Identifier	LG 1.2:C 44/7
Location	ocn664393581
DIGITAL IDENTIFIER	39TH LEG OVERSIGHT CHILD PROT SEP 25 1990.pdf
DIGITAL FORMAT	PDF (Portable Document Format)
DIGITIZATION SPECIFICATIONS	Digitized into PDF form through scanning at the Records Management Division, Arizona State Library.
REPOSITORY	Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records--Law and Research Library.
File Size	1327734 Bytes
Full Text	COMMITTEE MEMBERS 39th LEGISLATURE, SECOND REGULAR SESSION Final Report September 25, 1990 JOINT LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE ON CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES Rep. Patricia Noland, Co-Chair Rep. Dave McCarroll Rep. Polly Rosenbaum Senator John Mawhinney, Co-Chair Senator John Hays Senator Pete Rlos I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. Formation of the CPS oversight Committee 1 II. Historical Perspective of Child Protection Policies and Laws • . . . .. 2 III. Activities of the Oversight Committee 5 IV. Findings 9 V. Recommendations 16 VI. Summary of the Major Provisions of H.B. 2690 34 Omnibus Child Protection Act ARIZONA STATE LIBRARY ARCHIVES &PUBLIC RECORDS FEB 1 7 2005 STATE DOCUMENTS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. FORMATION OF THE CPS OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. FORMATION OF THE CPS OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE The Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Child Protective Services (CPS) was formed on August 29, 1989. President Robert Usdane and Speaker Jane Hull both felt the formation of the Oversight Committee was necessary and appropriate in light of the rapid increase in child abuse and CPS investigations and the numerous concerns that had been voiced by the public, the Department of Economic Security (DES), the State Foster Care Review Board (SFCRB) and several state legislators regarding Arizona's child protective service system. Senate Majority Leader John Mawhinney (R-Tucson) and Representative Patricia Noland (R-Tucson) were selected to co-chair the six-member committee. Other members assigned to the committee were Senator John Hays (R-Yarnell), Senator Pete Rios, (D-Hayden), Assistant Minority Leader, Representative Dave McCarroll (R-Phoenix) and Representative Polly Rosenbaum (D-Globe). The charge of the Oversight Committee was three-fold: 1. To identify the responsibilities and scope of CPS, statutory mandates and DES policies and procedures. 2. To identify areas for improvement and strengths in the system, new initiatives within CPS, and suggest corrective action where necessary. 3. To recommend legislative action if needed. The reduction of child abuse and neglect, improved communication with parents, more training for case workers and supervisors, the maintenance of the family unit and the protection of individual freedoms were only a few of the complex issues that confronted the Oversight Committee while evaluating this system. 1 I I I I I I I I I I II. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF CHILD PROTECTION POLICIES AND LAWS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF CHILD PROTECTION POLICIES AND LAWS The following is a brief overview of our society's concern for the general well-being of children and the formation of public policy to continually improve child welfare services. The Victorian Era Community concern about the well-being of children and government intervention to protect children has been an evolving process. In 18th century England, the Elizabethan poor laws codified this public concern by imposing community responsibility for children and certain individuals. The English doctrine of parens patriae allows the community to intervene when a parent is not fulfilling his or her parental responsibilities. The English legal system served as the foundation for many of the early laws that were established in the United States for dealing with family relationships. The American Industrial Era Since the founding of our country, the focus of children's well-being within the family has evolved in response to numerous actions at the national, state or local level. In 1874, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children was founded in the United States in response to concerns about children who were imperiled by the care of their parents or caregivers. The 1960s In 1960, the "battered child syndrome" was identified by the American medical profession in order to bring to light and describe the condition of recurring fractures and bruising of children at the hands of their families. As a result, national attention began to focus on this serious issue. The 1970s The Arizona Legislature's passage of the Child Abuse Reporting Law in 1970 was a direct reflection of Arizona's concern for battered children. In addition, the Legislature created a statewide central registry for maintaining child abuse reports and investigation records at this time. In 1974, the federal government enacted the IIChiid Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act'l in response to the diversity of reporting laws that existed among the states. This federal legislation established national guidelines for reporting child abuse and neglect. Reportable behaviors under the federal law were expanded to include many forms of maltreatment, physical and sexual abuse, exploitation and emotional neglect. With this new legislation, the federal government made funding and technical assistance available to state and local governments. 2 By the mid-1970s, Arizona's concern was focused on the growing number of children in foster care and the lack of permanent planning for these children. The focus of the debate centered on the appropriateness of placement and the length of time that the child was placed in temporary custody of the state. The goal of the legislative effort was to provide permanency and stability for children. In 1978, now U.S. Congressman Jim Kolbe, introduced Foster Care Review Board legislation which requires citizen involvement and planning for foster care children. Arizona was one of the first states to implement a statewide foster care review board system, which has served as a national model. In its first year of operation, the foster care review board system reviewed 2,505 cases through 35 local review boards. A decade later, the system had expanded to 52 local boards and reviewed a total 5,072 cases in 1989. The 1980s The federal adoption of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, (PL-96-272) focused national attention on children in foster care. Arizona was prepared to effectively respond to the new federal mandates on case review due to the 1978 legislation establishing foster care review boards. The high cost of foster care coupled with the negative impact of children in prolonged and unnecessary foster care prompted federal intervention. The federal government again provided financial incentives to states to examine policies governing child welfare services. It was left to each state to find solutions to their problems. Most states, including Arizona, have established adoption subsidy programs to overcome financial barriers for adopting children with certain handicaps. Since 1980, numerous modifications have been made to Arizona's child abuse laws. The following is a summary of the major changes that have been made to these laws. In 1981, legislation was passed that specified the conditions and procedures for taking children into temporary custody, including that notice be given to parents and that social workers have the ability to interview certain children without providing notice to the parent. In 1982, in response to a mandate of PL-96-272, the Arizona Legislature established a goal that no more than fifty per cent of the total number of children in foster care shall be in care for more than twenty-four consecutive months. That same year, the Legislature imposed a two-dollar surcharge on marriage license fees and dissolution to finance the newly created Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Fund. Monies from the Fund are used by DES to fund community based prevention programs, an annual child abuse conference, and in 1989, monies from the Fund were used to operate four Family Preservation Teams throughout the state. 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The following year, the Legislature expanded the grounds for terminating a parent-child relationship to include a judicial finding that a parent refuses or is unable to remedy the circumstances which led to the removal of a child and is incapable of exercising proper parental care in the near future. Another legislative proposal was adopted which allowed the state to assess fees on parents whose children were in the custody of the Department of Economic Security, with ninety per cent of the funds to be earmarked for the training of CPS staff. In 1984, the Legislature modified Arizona's child abuse reporting law by replacing the term "evidence" with "reasonable grounds to believe". Changes were also made regarding criminal proceedings and the admissibility of statements by children under the age of ten in cases involving sexual abuse. Further, a provision was adopted which required Child Protective Service workers to notify local law enforcement officers about any abuse reports they had received in the past. Funding was also provided to the DES to identify children in foster care who would be eligible for adoption if parental rights were terminated. In 1987, the federal government expanded the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act to address the issues of child pornography and reform of child adoption laws. In 1989, the Arizona Legislature once again refined the state's definition of child abuse and authorized the limited release of confidential reports by Child Protective Services. The duty to report child abuse was expanded to include reporting if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the child has been a victim. These revisions also imposed a misdemeanor penalty for anyone who knowingly makes a false child abuse report. As the state of Arizona enters the 1990s, the protection of children and the preservation of families continues to be a paramount issue for policy makers and the citizens of this state. The Arizona Legislature will be continually challenged to set the direction for improving Arizona's child welfare system. The remainder of this report outlines the efforts and recommendations of the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Child Protection Services' in meeting this significant challenge. 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I III. ACTIVITIES OF THE CPS OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I III. ACTIVITIES OF THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE ON CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES The Committee held a series of 11 public meetings, one of which was held in Tucson. During the course of these meetings executive sessions (closed to the public) were held, as authorized by A.R.S. 38-431.03 Paragraph A, Subsection 2, in order to review and discuss confidential CPS files. The following is a summary of the activities of the Committee and the issues that were reviewed and discussed by the Oversight Committee over a nine month period. First CPS Meeting On September 14, 1989, the Oversight Committee heard testimony from several executive level officials within the DES and the Maricopa County Juvenile Court system regarding the current status of Arizona's CPS System. The primary purpose of the meeting was to provide the Committee with an overview of the CPS process including the emerging trends, staff qualifications and training, budgetary issues and court procedures associated with the removal of a child by CPS. In order to preserve public objectivity, prevent the disclosure of sensitive or confidential information and protect the innocent, all testimony before the Oversight Committee was given under oath. Speakers included: Linda Moore-Cannon, Director of DES, Tim Schmaltz, Assistant Director, Division of Social Services (DES), and Marsha Porter, Program Administrator, Administration for Children, Youth & Families (DES), and the Honorable James McDougall, Presiding Judge, Maricopa County Juvenile Court. Second CPS Meeting On October 5, 1989, the Oversight Committee heard testimony from representatives of the State Foster Care Review Board (SFCRB), the local foster care review boards, and the Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) program. The Oversight Committee was given a brief overview of the organization, functions and goals of these programs. Representatives from the SFCRB also reviewed some of the key recommendations that the State Board has mape to DES for improving Arizona's CPS and foster care programs. Speakers included: Judith Robertson, Chairperson, State Foster Care Review Board, Joseph S. Godal, Member, Past Chairperson, State Foster Care Review Board and Mary lou Dominguez, Division Director, Dependent Children's Services Division of the Arizona Supreme Court. At the conclusion of the public testimony portion, the Oversight Committee members recessed and convened in executive session to discuss confidential matters with the Senate's legal counsel. 5 Third CPS Meeting The Oversight Committee took seven hours of testimony from the general public on October 18, 1989, concerning problems with the current CPS system. In total, the Oversight Committee heard testimony from 32 individuals representing the general public, the legal community, various advocacy groups and social service providers regarding problems with the current CPS system and recommendations for improving Arizona's CPS system. Fourth CPS Meeting November 7, 1989, the Oversight Committee held a public meeting at the Tucson Convention Center in order to give residents of Pima County and southern Arizona an opportunity to testify before the Oversight Committee. In total, the Oversight Committee heard nearly nine hours of testimony from 58 individuals on various aspects of the CPS system. Fifth CPS Meeting Another meeting was held in Phoenix on November 27, 1989, because the Oversight Committee was unable to hear testimony from 35 individuals who had originally signed up to testify at the October 18th meeting. During this meeting the Committee heard over four hours of testimony from 18 individuals who returned to testify. Two physicians also testified before the Committee about various forms of child abuse including sexual and emotional abuse and the different techniques that are used by health professionals to identify and verify allegations. Principle speakers were: Dr. Paul Bergeson, Director, Out-Patient Clinic, Phoenix Children's Hospital, and Dr. Eric Benjamin, Medical Director Child/Adolescent Psychiatry, Phoenix Children's Hospital. Sixth CPS Meeting On December 20, 1989, the Oversight Committee held a meeting to discuss several issues and recommendations which had surfaced as a result of prior Committee hearings and specific findings as a result of independent analysis by members of the Committee. Some of the primary subjects discussed during this meeting included: CPS intake procedures, ongoing caseload management practices, current training requirements for CPS personnel, quality assurance issues and the development of a mediator/arbitrator concept to assist families involved with the CPS process. 6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Seventh CPS Meeting The Oversight Committee met on January 17, 1990 to discuss and review in Executive Session confidential material concerning specific CPS case files. The Co-Chairmen also informed the public about future activities of the Oversight Committee regarding CPS, which would include: 1) discussing with concerned parties specific proposals developed by the Oversight Committee; 2) submitting a final report to the Legislature regarding the Oversight Committee's findings and recommendations; and 3) drafting legislation to refine and improve the system. Remaining CPS Meetings From February 14th to March 14th, the Committee held several public meetings to discuss 50 different House and Senate draft proposals for improving and refining Arizona's CPS system. In all, 16 major policy issue categories were identified, organized and discussed by the Oversight Committee. By the end of the last public meeting, the Committee had formally adopted 35 of the draft proposals. Eventually, 19 of these proposals were incorporated into House Bill 2690, the Omnibus Child Protection Act. Other activities of the Oversight Committee Since the formation of the Committee, the members have participated in a wide range of investigative activities in order to gather relevant information and improve the Committee's overall understanding of the complex issues surrounding Arizona's CPS system. These activities included: 1) Reviewing confidential CPS case files with CPS caseworkers and supervisors at the DES district offices and discussing the problems and issues related to these cases with DES administrators and Oversight Committee members in Executive Session. 2) Reviewing several videotaped interviews of children involved in alleged sexual abuse cases in order to observe techniques used by the interviewers and the results of these interviewers. 3) Requesting and receiving information and recommendations from numerous individuals and institutions, including: o The Department of Economic Security o Judges and private attorneys from Arizona's Juvenile Court System o State and Local Foster Care Review Boards o Volunteers from Court Appointed Special Advocates Program o Representatives from VOCAL (Victims of Child Abuse Laws) and various foster parent associations o The Attorney General's Office 7 4) 5) 6) o The Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) o The Auditor General's Office o The Department of Administration o The Governor's Council on Children o Various health, social service and law enforcement professionals throughout Arizona o The National Conference of State Legislatures Interviewing CPS personnel at several district offices about various aspects of the CPS process, including workloads, staffing ratios and worker morale. Reviewing what other states have recently done in the area of Child Welfare and Child Protective Services. Attending Juvenile Court proceedings in both Maricopa and Pima Counties. 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IV. FINDINGS OF THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IV. FINDINGS OF THE CPS OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE The following are the key findings of the Oversight Committee regarding Arizona's present CPS system. These findings have been consolidated under sixteen various issue statements that were developed as a result of the Committee's investigations and hearings. A. Improved communication between CPS and families Once a child is taken into custOdy, parents and other family members are often confused and uninformed regarding CPS policies and procedures, their legal rights and responsibilities, the judicial process and availability of support services. Moreover, the CPS system lacks an effective mechanism for resolving disputes that may arise between CPS and families. Even though the DES maintains a Client Advocate Office that does provide some assistance to families, there is a basic mistrust by the general public of this office due to its close affiliation with CPS. Therefore, there is a need to enhance the CPS administrative review and appeals process through which complaints and grievances can be objectively addressed in a timely and responsive manner. Testimony presented to the Committee suggested that parents do not always receive prompt notification when CPS takes a child into temporary custody. A significant number of these complaints involved the removal of a child from a school or child care facility. Following the removal of the child, it has been alleged that DES does not always provide parents with any written literature regarding the CPS process, even though the Department has published material available, such as the "Parent's Guide to Child Protective Services". The Committee concluded that in addition to improving communications between CPS and families there is a need to enhance communication between CPS staff and court-appointed advocates and other judicial personnel. B. Initial placement of a child Arizona statute allows DES to place a child in temporary custody in a licensed foster care facility, but only authorizes the juvenile courts to place a child in a non-licensed home, such as the home of an extended family member. As a result, when DES takes a child into temporary custody and a dependency petition is filed, the child cannot be placed with a relative without a court order. These statutory requirements significantly limit the Department's ability to place a child in a setting other than foster care. Current statute limits DES by allowing them to take a child into voluntary placement only if the child is in immediate danger. The Committee felt some statutory changes were needed to provide DES with greater flexibility in determining a child's out-of-home placement. The Oversight Committee concluded that more consideration should be given for relative placement by DES and eventually the Courts. The Committee believes that such placement with a trusted relative can provide a child with a safe 9 environment while at the same time reduce the trauma and stress to the child (and extended-family members) that is often associated with out-of-home placements. C. Modification of Central Registry system Reports of alleged abuse, neglect or abandonment are maintained in a centralized data repository (the Central Registry) until a child reaches the age of eighteen. False allegations are possible. Unsubstantiated reports of child abuse have the potential to be retained in the Central Registry. As a result of these two possibilities, the Oversight Committee concluded that a system should be implemented whereby certain reports can be safely expunged from the Central Registry without limiting the ability of the Department or law enforcement agencies to use the Central Registry as an effective management and investigative tool. D. Videotaping of children's interviews Alleged victims of sexual abuse may be subjected to a multitude of interviews by different jurisdictions which may cause needless stress or trauma to the child. The Oversight Committee concluded that the current CPS system lacks a mechanism to coordinate interviews in order to minimize the trauma to the child. The Committee agrees that a system should be implemented to ensure that videotaped interviews are conducted by properly trained personnel and that a standard but flexible format for these type of interviews be developed and coordinated by CPS and law enforcement personnel to reduce multiple interviews. The Committee concluded that the videotaping of child interviews should be limited to cases involving alleged sexual abuse and studied through a pilot project before this practice is implemented on a statewide basis. E. Definitions of IIAbusell and IINeglecr In 1989, legislation was enacted (H.B. 2484) which brought Arizona's statutory definitions of "abuse" and "neglect" into compliance with Federal law. Nonetheless, the Oversight Committee reviewed and considered the possibility of ~xpanding these definitions as well as Arizona's mandatory reporting laws in light of the significant increase in the number of newborn infants who have suffered harm due to exposure to a controlled substance during pregnancy. Currently, Arizona's statutes do not require health care providers to mandatorily report cases of newborn infants who have been exposed to a controlled substance during the mother's pregnancy. Although proposals for changing these statutes were not adopted by the Committee, this unresolved issue will likely require further study in Mure legislative sessions. 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I F. Continued legislative oversight in light of the alarming rise in reports of child abuse and neglect in Arizona over the last decade, as well as the increased demand for children and family services, the Oversight Committee recommends that a permanent standing legislative committee be created in order to provide continuous and objective oversight of state agencies which provide services to Arizona's families and children. A permanent standing committee would allow the Legislature to intensify its efforts to develop effective policy in the area of family and children services, continue the work which has been initiated by the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Child Protective Services and oversee the implementation of H.B. 2690. It is recommended by the Committee that the new standing committee continue to study and review the CPS system especially in the areas of employee training, expanding the definitions of lIabusell and IIneglectll and identifying new ways for funding an lIintegrated child welfare systemll. G. Court proceedings involving CPS cases No specific time frames for completing a dependency trial or determining final adjudication of a dependency petition currently exists, even though the law requires a dependency petition be filed within 48 hours after a child is taken into temporary custody and an initial dependency hearing must be set no later than 21 days from the filing of the petition. In addition, the current juvenile court system is plagued with numerous court delays and continuances, which hampers case planning and delays the establishment of permanency for the children. The Committee's investigations found parents were often misinformed about the purpose of the various CPS-related court proceedings and some parents do not always receive proper legal counsel prior to the 5-day temporary custody hearing or the initial 21-day dependency hearing. Testimony before the Oversight Committee indicated that it is often unrealistic to expect legal counsel and their clients to be adequately prepared for a dependency hearing within 21 days from the filing of a petition. However, since the issue involves the longterm welfare and placement of a child, the Oversight Committee decided that a maximum time frame must be established for the courts to complete the dependency adjUdication process. The Oversight Committee found that the 5-day temporary custody hearing seldom provides parents with a meaningful opportunity to present a rebuttal to the allegations of abuse or neglect that are presented by the Department and the Attorney General's Office. In some instances, parents are not adequately prepared or informed about the purpose of the temporary custody hearing. The Oversight Committee determined that both parties should be allowed to state what their preliminary evidence would indicate if a full evidentiary hearing were scheduled. 11 Presently, the Maricopa County Juvenile Court System is revising Court rules and procedures to expedite the dependency adjudication process. The Committee supports these efforts and recommends that these changes be implemented on a statewide basis. H. In-house training of CPS workers The Federal government has sanctioned the Department in the recent past for not complying with P.L. 96-272 "reasonable efforts" requirements. According to DES officials, as well as some juvenile court judges, the Federal government has failed to provide sufficient gUidelines or interpretation of what constitutes "reasonable efforts". The Oversight Committee has recommended that both DES and the Courts should revise their rules and implement appropriate in-house training programs to ensure that the state maintain compliance with federal "reasonable efforts" requirements. The existent DES training program for CPS caseworkers appears to be sparse and inconsistent. In addition, supervisory training appears to be insufficient. The DES administration has been over-reliant upon contracted professionals to train staff, which appears to have created inconsistency in the development and implementation of CPS internal policies and procedures. In some instances, new CPS caseworkers are being trained on the job and making critical decisions without receiving sufficient in-house training as required under current DES rules. According to DES officials, this situation occurs because the Department currently lacks sufficient "line" staff and backup personnel to properly investigate all appropriate referrals. According to a Department of Administration (DOA) 1989 assessment study of CPS workers, many former employees indicated that "...their jobs were not social work but that the investigatory role was primary and that many going into the position were not prepared for investigations and court workups and presentations." The DOA report concluded that improved training of CPS personnel regarding court case preparation and presentation would make an early contribution to worker job satisfaction. I. Effectiveness and timeliness of a child's case plan The Committee determined that case plans are not always focused on specific family problems or needs and as a result the case plan may be extended indefinitely. Evidence presented to the Committee indicated that CPS personnel may order services that have been attempted before or are not relevant to the circumstances which led to the out-of home placement of the child. The Oversight Committee recognized that the development and implementation of case plans is an evolving and continuous process. The Committee, however, believes that families should be reunited once the goals and requirements of the case plan are achieved and that no additional prerequisites be added to the 12 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I social contract unless absolutely necessary to protect the welfare of the child. As a result of public testimony and other investigative activities the Oversight Committee has reached the following conclusions: 1) There is an obvious need to revise the required information that is included in the case plans as well as the information that DES must submit to the courts in conjunction with dependency actions. 2) The local foster care review boards should be given greater opportunity to review case plans earlier than the current six month after placement review requirement. The Oversight Committee further concluded that these earlier reviews are in the best interest of the child and may lead to earlier reunification of the family. 3) There is a shortage of available remedial services that parents must receive before the family can be reunited. 4) There is a shortage of in-home services which could assist families in crisis and possibly diminish the need to take children into temporary custody. 5) The extent of these shortages in children and family services is uncertain, therefore the Oversight Committee recommends that a study be conducted to identify what services are currently available to families in crisis. J. Initial professional evaluation According to the Department, every decision to remove a child from a home is reviewed by caseworkers, their supervisors, and ultimately juvenile court judges. Nonetheless, the Oversight Committee found that this was not always the case and concluded that specific review teams should be established to assess a caseworker's decision to remove a child within a specific time period. The review teams should also determine whether or not appropriate in-home services and alternative child placements were properly considered by CPS personnel prior to the removal of the child. K. Staff retention, recruitment and morale On December 12, 1989 the Department of Administration (DOA) provided the Oversight Committee with its initial findings regarding a classification maintenance review of CPS workers that was originally requested by the Department. The DOA's maintenance review focused on the issues of CPS personnel turnover, recruitment, job qualifications and salary compensation rates. 13 The DOA study indicated that individuals with degrees are predominately getting hired as CPS workers. The study also indicated that monthly salaries for the CPS Human Services Specialist II classification is somewhat lower than other Western States. Salaries for Human Services Specialist III positions were found to be slightly higher in Arizona in comparison to other Western states. Overall, the DOA estimates that it would cost $1.5 million to bring CPS specialist and supervisor salaries to a level which is competitive to social work positions in Arizona and other Western states. The DOA's Class Maintenance Review of CPS revealed that the turnover rates for CPS Human Services Specialists II and III are somewhat lower compared to the average State Service turnover rate of 13 per cent. A DOA survey of former CPS employees revealed that the two primary reasons why employees left their jobs were 1) to accept a better job and, 2) for family reasons. L. Budgeting for attorneys Currently, attorneys in the Attorney General's Office who are assigned to DES cases are paid from the DES budget rather than the Attorney General's Office. The Oversight Committee believes that this legal function may be performed in a more objective and impartial manner if these attorneys were compensated through the Attorney General's Office rather than the DES budget. Ultimately, the Oversight Committee determined that this funding issue should be resolved in the legislative appropriation process. M. Preventive Programs At the present time Arizona lacks an integrated child welfare system which can provide both child protective services as well as in-home services to families and children which may prevent the need to remove children in the first place. The Committee concluded that the state agencies providing services to families and children do not adequately interface or communicate with each other, thereby diminishing the effective distribution and use of these limited resources. The Oversight Committee also determined that the funding and development of an lIintegrated child welfare systemll should be studied by the Joint Standing Committee on Children and Family Services. N. Complete assessment and investigation of referrals Over the last few years, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of reports received by CPS on cases of alleged abuse and neglect. According to DES figures, CPS received a total of 35,980 reports in 1989 compared to 26,100 reports in 1987. The agency has experienced a 36% increase in the total number of reports from FY 1988 to FY 1989 and the Department predicts that it will be receiving 55,000 reports per year by 1993. This tremendous influx of reports, coupled with current CPS staffing levels has created a situation where the agency is unable to investigate 100% of those reports which are appropriate for 14 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I investigation and has forced the agency to develop a case priority system for investigating reports. The Department has proposed a plan which requests more funding for additional caseworkers to achieve a 100% investigation rate within three years. The Oversight Committee concluded that CPS should receive sufficient resources to investigate 100% of appropriate referrals. However, the Committee further concluded, that since the Department could not supply the Committee with caseload and other vital statistical information, the Legislature could not accurately appropriate sufficient funds to accomplish this objective. To this end, the Oversight Committee has recommended that the Auditor General conduct an audit of the CPS worker's caseload size and submit a report with its recommendations and findings to the Governor and the Legislature by January 1, 1991. Q. Improved quality assurance and accountability The Oversight Committee has determined that the DES Division of Children, Youth and Families lacks a comprehensive and systematic program for monitoring and evaluating the CPS process. The DES has requested funds to develop and implement an automated client information system is designed to enable CPS to properly track its clients, caseloads, caseload mix and staffing ratios. According to DES, this system will enable the Department to better monitor and evaluate the performance of contract providers that are involved in the CPS system and ensure that CPS personnel in the various district offices are adhering to Departmental policies and procedures. P. Expedited Severance The Oversight Committee believes that higher priority should be given to meeting a child's basic need for a permanent and stable home environment and to ensure that decisions associated with the involuntary termination of parental rights and permanency planning should be handled in a careful yet expeditious fashion. The Committee further believes that if a child's natural parents, given ample opportunity, cannot remedy the circumstances which led to the removal of the child, the Department and the Courts should move quickly to establish permanency for the child. In addition, the State should continue to explore policy changes which will permit DES and the Court to expedite severance in appropriate CPS cases and determine the amount of resources that may be required in light of these policy changes. 15 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I V. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE Note: The recommendations which appear in this section reflect the language that was originally adopted by the Oversight Committee during public hearings. Some of these recommendations were modified slightly during the legislative process. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I V. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE ON CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES April 6, 1990 ISSUE I. Improved communication between CPS and families Objective: Improve communication and assistance to families both in the initial phases of the CPS process and when conflicts arise between caseworkers and families. Provide a means of advising parents involved in the CPS system of their rights and responsibilities. A. RECOMMENDATION: REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY TO REFINE CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES' POLICIES GOVERNING THE REMOVAL OF A CHILD FROM SCHOOL OR CHILD CARE, TO ENSURE IMMEDIATE NOTIFICATION AND INTERVIEW OF THE CUSTODIAL PARENT IN ROUTINE NORMAL CASES REGARDING THE REMOVAL OF A CHILD. Implementation: Direct the DES to modify the Department's policies and rules in accordance with this recommendation.. (In H.B. 2690) B. RECOMMENDATION: ENCOURAGE THE DES TO SIMPLIFY THE LANGUAGE, CONSTRUCTION AND FORMATOF THE 48·HOUR TEMPORARY CUSTODY NOTICE THAT IS SERVED ON PARENTS WHEN THE CHILD IS REMOVED FROM THE CUSTODY OF THE PARENTS. REQUIRE THE CASEWORKER, AT INITIAL CONTACT TO FULLY EXPLAIN THE CPS PROCESS, THE PARENT'S RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES IN THAT PROCESS, THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE PARENTS AND HOW TO OBTAIN ASSISTANCE. A WRITTEN SUMMARY OF THE ABOVE INFORMATION SHOULD ALSO BE PROVIDED TO THE PARENTS AT INITIAL CONTACT. Implementation: Direct the DES to modify the Department's policies and rules in accordance with this recommendation. C. RECOMMENDATION: ESTABLISH AN INDEPENDENT MEDIATION/ARBITRATION SYSTEM TO MEDIATE PROBLEMS BETWEEN FAMILIES AND CPS. 16 Implementation: Propose legislation which enables the Attorney General's Mediation program to mediate disputed CPS cases. (In H.B. 2690) D. RECOMMENDATION: PROPOSE LEGISLATION THAT ESTABLISHES A IIPARENT ASSISTANCE- PROGRAM. THE PROGRAM SHALL CONSIST OF IIOMBUDSMANII SERVICES AND A 24-HOUR TELEPHONE HOTLINE. SOME OF THE INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED TO PARENTS OR GUARDIANS BY THE ·PARENT ASSISTANCE- INCLUDES: o THEIR RIGHTS TO COURT AND FOSTER CARE REVIEW BOARD HEARINGS. o INFORMATION ABUT THEIR CHILD'S WELL BEING o COMMUNITY RESOURCES AVAILABLE o PROCEDURES FOR REQUESTING AN ATTORNEY, A FIVE-DAY HEARING OR OTHER NEEDED ACTIONS AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT MAKING SUCH REQUEST. Implementation: Propose legislation which establishes the IIParent Assistance Programll under the direction of the Supreme Court Administrative Office. (In H.B. 2690) E. RECOMMENDATION: REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY TO ESTABLISH RULES SETTING CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING WHETHER IN-HOME SERVICES WILL ALLEVIATE FAMILY CRISIS, OR WHETHER THERE ARE REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR APPROPRIATE REMOVAL OF A CHILD. THIS CRITERIA SHOULD INCLUDE THE EVALUATION OF CIRCUMSTANCES BY A TEAM OF CPS WORKERS BEFORE REMOVING A CHILD. REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT TO ESTABLISH A POLICY AND PROCESS BY WHICH EACH REMOVAL OF A CHILD FROM HIS/HER HOME IS REVIEWED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE REMOVAL EXCLUDING HOLIDAYS AND WEEKENDS. THE REVIEW TEAM SHALL INCLUDE THE CASEWORKER, HIS/HER SUPERVISOR, AVAILABLE CLINICAL SPECIALISTS AND OTHER STAFF AS DEFINED IN POLICY. THE REVIEW TEAM SHALL REVIEW AND ASSESS THE DECISION OF REMOVAL AND OPTIONS FOR PLACEMENT AND POSSIBLE IN-HOME SERVICES TO THE FAMILY. Implementation: Propose legislation to implement recommendation. (In H.B. 2690) 17 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ISSUE II. Initial placement of a child Objective: Expedite the placement of children into a safe and familiar environment with known and trusted caretakers. A. RECOMMENDATION: CODIFY THE STATE'S POLICY TO GIVE FIRST PRIORITY TO AND FAVOR RELATIVE PLACEMENT WHENEVER APPROPRIATE AND REQUIRE THE JUVENILE JUDGE TO CONSIDER AND CERTIFY THAT PLACEMENT OF THE CHILD OUTSIDE HIS/HER HOME IS APPROPRIATE AND THAT PLACEMENT WITH RELATIVES HAS BEEN CONSIDERED. PROPOSE LEGISLATION WHICH AUTHORIZES THE AGENCY TO PLACE CHILDREN IN THE TEMPORARY CARE OF SPECIFIC RELATIVE(S) OR FAMILY FRIENDS FOLLOWING AN APPROPRIATE RISK ASSESSMENT. THE TEMPORARY PLACEMENT WOULD BE REVIEWED BY A JUDGE AT THE INITIAL DEPENDENCY HEARING. Implementation: Propose legislation to implement recommendation. (In H.B. 2690) 18 ISSUE III. Modification of Central Registry records Objective: Expunge the records of individuals accused of unsubstantiated abuse. A. RECOMMENDATION: REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY TO PURGE RECORDS IN THE CENTRAL REGISTRY, AFTER TWO YEARS HAVE PASSED, IF AFTER AN INVESTIGATION, THE ALLEGED NEGLECT, ABUSE OR ABANDONMENT IS DETERMINED TO BE INVALID OR UNSUBSTANTIATED AND NO SUBSEQUENT REPORTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED. THIS PROVISION WOULD GO INTO EFFECT ON JUNE 30, 1990 AND WOULD IMMEDIATELY PERTAIN TO ALLEGATIONS OR COMPLAINTS RECEIVED BY THE DES AFTER JUNE 30, 1988. REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY TO ANNUALLY PURGE RECORDS IN THE CENTRAL REGISTRY ON ALLEGED CASES OF NEGLECT, ABUSE OR ABANDONMENT THAT HAVE NOT BEEN INVESTIGATED OR HAVE BEEN DETERMINED TO BE INVALID, AND WERE RECEIVED BY THE DES FIVE YEARS PRIOR, AND NO SUBSEQUENT REPORTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THIS PROVISION WOULD GO INTO EFFECT ON JUNE 30, 1992. Implementation: Propose legislation to implement recommendation. (In H.B. 2690) 19 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ISSUE IV. Video taping of children's interviews Objective: Simplify process of interviewing the child and document contents of interview. A. RECOMMENDATION: REQUIRE THE CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES AGENCY TO ESTABLISH RULES WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE COORDINATION BETWEEN CPS, LAW ENFORCEMENT AND ANY OTHER ENTITIES INVOLVED IN INVESTIGATIONS OF ALLEGED SEXUAL ABUSE. STIPULATE THAT ANY INTERVIEWS WITH AGE-APPROPRIATE CHILDREN ASSOCIATED WITH ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL ABUSE SHOULD BE VIDEOTAPED AND BE CONDUCTED BY INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE TRAINED TO COORDINATE AND CONDUCT INTERVIEWS AND INVESTIGATIONS OF ALLEGED SEXUAL ABUSE. ENCOURAGE AND DIRECT THE DES TO PROVIDE EQUIPMENT AND TRAINING REGARDING THE VIDEOTAPING OF THESE INTERVIEWS. THESE INTERVIEWS ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE USED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR COURT TESTIMONY BUT ARE DESIGNED TO ELIMINATE MULTIPLE INTERVIEWS OF THE CHILD. Implementation: Direct the DES to modify the Department's policies and rules in accordance with this recommendation. (In H.B. 2690 as a DES pilot program) 20 ISSUE V. Defining -Neglect- and -Failure to ProvideD and redefining DAbuse" Objective: Refine and improve definitions which permit CPS and law enforcement personnel to remove a child in cases of alleged abuse or neglect. A. RECOMMENDATION: DEFINE "NEGLECT- TO MEAN: FAILURE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE FOOD, CLOTHING, SHELTER OR ESSENTIAL MEDICAL OR SURGICAL CARE BY THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CARE, CUSTODY AND CONTROL OF A CHILD, ALTHOUGH FINANCIALLY ABLE TO DO SO. Implementation: Originally this proposal was included in H.B. 2690, but was removed by a House committee amendment. B. RECOMMENDATION: THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE ALONG WITH THE DES SHOULD DEVELOP A STATUTORY DEFINITION FOR "FAILURE TO PROVIDE". Implementation: This proposal was not developed or included in H.B. 2690. C. RECOMMENDATION: AMEND THE DEFINITION OF "ABUSE" TO INCLUDE EXPOSURE TO CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES AS INDICATED BY WITHDRAWAL SYMPTOMS OF A NEW BORN INFANT OR MEDICAL EVIDENCE AS INDICATED BY A TOXICOLOGY TEST PERFORMED ON THE CHILD OR MOTHER AT THE TIME OF DELIVERY, BY A LICENSED MEDICAL PHYSICIAN. Implementation: This proposal was originally included in H.B. 2690. but was removed by a House committee amendment. 21 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ISSUE VI. Continued legislative oversight Objective: Ensure objective oversight of CPS functions and other state agencies which provide services to Arizona's children and families. A. RECOMMENDATION: CREATE A SIX-MEMBER JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES WHICH SHALL: 1. MONITOR CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES 2. ENSURE THAT LEGISLATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES ARE IMPLEMENTED AND EFFECTIVE. 3. PROVIDE A FORUM FOR FAMILIES TO EXPRESS THEIR CONCERN 4. M A K E ADM I N 1STRATI V E AND LEG I S LAT I V E RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES. Implementation: Propose legislation which would establish a Joint Standing Committee on Children and Family Services. (In H.B. 2690) 22 ISSUE VII. Court proceedings involving CPS cases Objective: Ensure that child dependency cases do not languish in the court system. A. RECOMMENDATION: DIRECT THE SUPREME COURT TO DRAFT AND ADOPT UNIFORM RULES WHICH STIPULATE THAT ALL JUVENILE COURTS SHALL: 1) ALLOW ONLY ONE FIVE-DAY CONTINUANCE OF THE FIVEDAY TEMPORARY CUSTODY HEARING FOR CAUSE UPON THE MOTION OF EITHER PARTY. 2) MODIFY THE 5-DAY HEARING TO PROVIDE A FORUM TO PARENTS OR GUARDIANS TO OFFER A REBUTTAL TO THE ALLEGATIONS OF ABUSE. 3) ALLOW EVIDENCE TO BE PRESENTED AT THE 5-DAY HEARING TO ENABLE THE JUDGE TO RULE ON THE APPROPRIATE TEMPORARY CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT. BOTH PARTIES WOULD BE ALLOWED TO STATE WHAT THEIR PRELIMINARY EVIDENCE WOULD SHOW IF A FULL EVIDENTIARY HEARING WERE SCHEDULED. 4) REQUIRE A TIMELY DETERMINATION OF DEPENDENCY ACTIONS, WITHIN OR NO LATER THAN 120 DAYS FROM THE DATE THAT A CHILD WAS REMOVED FROM CUSTODY OF THE CAREGIVER. A 30-DAY EXTENSION MAY BE GRANTED ONLY FOR SPECIFIC CRITICAL CIRCUMSTANCES AS DEFINED BY THE SUPREME COURT. Implementation: Request the Supreme Court to modify juvenile court rules and policies in accordance with the above recommendations. (Recommendation # 4 was included as session law in H.B. 2690) B. RECOMMENDATION: ENCOURAGE THE JUVENILE COURTS TO GIVE PRIORITY TO TEMPORARY CUSTODY AND DEPENDENCY ADJUDICATION HEARINGS. Implementation: Direct the Supreme Court to modify their juvenile court policies and rules in accordance with this recommendation. 23 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ISSUE VIII. In-house training of CPS workers Objective: Ensure that CPS workers are properly trained prior to assuming casework. A. RECOMMENDATION: REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY TO CREATE AND MAINTAIN A TRAINING PROGRAM COMPRISED OF SELF STUDY, CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION AND ON THE JOB TRAINING BEFORE THE EMPLOYEE IS ASSIGNED TO FULL-TIME DUTY STATUS BUT· WHICH MAY ALLOW PART-TIME DUTY STATUS UNDER CLOSE, DIRECT SUPERVISION. TRAINING MAY BE REQUIRED AND/OR EXTENDED ON AS NEEDED BASIS. THE ISSUE OF IN-HOUSE TRAINING OF CPS WORKERS SHOULD BE GIVEN FIRST PRIORITY BY THE JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES. Implementation: Direct the DES to modify the Department's policies and rules in accordance with this recommendation. 24 ISSUE IX. Effectiveness and Timeliness of a Child's Case Plan. Objective: Ensure that written agreements be developed and implemented in a timely manner. A. RECOMMENDATION: REQUIRE A PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE CHILD'S RETURN TO HOME OR OTHER PERMANENT PLACEMENT, WITH TIME LINES FOR ALL PARTIES, TO BE DEVELOPED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE TIME THE CHILD IS INITIALLY REMOVED FROM THE HOME. ANY CASE PLAN RECOMMENDED TO OR BY THE COURT SHALL CONTAIN THE ABOVE TIME LINES AND CAN BE EXTENDED FOR THREE MONTHS IN CASES WHERE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ARE NOT IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE. Implementation: Direct the DES to modify the Department's policies and rules in accordance with this recommendation. B. RECOMMENDATION: REQUIRE THE DES TO PROVIDE THE JUVENILE COURTS WITH A LIST OF PREVIOUSLY PRESCRIBED COUNSELING, TESTING OR OTHER TREATMENT SERVICES AND THE SUCCESS OF THESE SERVICES IN REMEDYING THE CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES FOR WHICH THEY WERE PRESCRIBED. EXPAND AND MODIFY THE INFORMATION THAT MUST BE INCLUDED IN THE CASE PLANS AND REQUIRE THE COURT TO FIRST DETERMINE THAT SERVICES ARE APPROPRIATE AND NECESSARY, BEFORE ORDERING ANY SERVICES. Implementation: Propose legislation to implement this recommendation. (In H.B. 2690) C. RECOMMENDATION: PROPOSE LEGISLATION WHICH GRANTS THE JUVENILE COURTS THE AUTHORITY TO ASSIGN SELECTED CASES TO THE LOCAL FOSTER CARE REVIEW BOARDS FOR EARLY REVIEW. THIS LEGISLATION WOULD ALSO ALLOW A MEDIATOR FROM THE CHILD WELFARE MEDIATION PROGRAM TO REQUEST THAT A DISPUTED CASE BE ASSIGNED FOR EARLY REVIEW BY A LOCAL FOSTER CARE REVIEW BOARD. EARLY REVIEW OF THE CASE PLAN BY THE LOCAL BOARDS SHOULD TAKE PLACE WITHIN 60 DAY OF THE CHILD'S REMOVAL FROM THE HOME. Implementation: Propose legislation to implement this recommendation. (In H.B. 2690) 25 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ISSUE IX. Effectiveness and Timeliness of a Child's Case Plan (continued) D. RECOMMENDATION: REQUIRE THE DES TO CONTRACT WITH AN "OUTSIDE INDEPENDENT ENTIW TO EVALUATE AVAILABLE "IN-HOME" SERVICES AND DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE THE COORDINATION AND DELIVERY OF ·IN-HOME SERVICES TO FAMILIES. THE CONTRACTED ·OUTSIDE INDEPENDENT ENTIW SHALL DELIVER A REPORT WITH FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE, THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND THE GOVERNOR BY JANUARY 1,1991. Implementation: Propose legislation to implement recommendation. (An amendment was adopted which requires the State Foster Care Review Board rather than the DES, to contract with an independent entity to conduct this evaluation. The amendment also established a new report date of July 1, 1991) E. RECOMMENDATION: DIRECT THE SUPREME COURT AND THE DES TO REVISE THEIR RULES GOVERNING HREASONABLE EFFORTS· TO ENSURE THAT PROPER ACTIONS ARE BEING TAKEN TO REUNITE THE FAMILY OR EXPEDITE THE PERMANENT PLACEMENT OF THE CHILD. DIRECT THE COURTS AND DES TO ESTABLISH MONITORING AND TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR THEIR RESPECTIVE PERSONNEL TO ENSURE THAT BOTH THE COURTS AND DES MAINTAIN COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS (P.L 96-272). Implementation: (This recommendation was included in H.B. 2690) 26 ISSUE X. Initial professional evaluation Objective: Ensure that each case is promptly evaluated by qualified professionals and ensure that Child Protective Service Human Service Specialists meet minimum education requirements. A. RECOMMENDATIONS: REQUIRE THE DES TO ESTABLISH A POLICY AND PROCESS BY WHICH EACH REMOVAL OF A CHILD FROM HIS/HER HOME IS REVIEWED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE REMOVAL, EXCLUDING HOLIDAYS AND WEEKENDS. THE REVIEW TEAM SHALL INCLUDE THE CASEWORKER, HIS/HER SUPERVISOR, AVAILABLE CLINICAL SPECIALISTS AND OTHER STAFF AS DEFINED IN POLICY. THE REVIEW TEAM SHALL REVIEW AND ASSESS DECISIONS OF REMOVAL AND OPTIONS FOR PLACEMENT AND POSSIBLE IN-HOME SERVICES TO THE FAMILY. Implementation: Propose legislation to implement recommendation. (In H.B. 2690) B. RECOMMENDATION: REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION (DOA) TO REVIEW THE MINIMUM EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ENTRY LEVEL HUMAN SERVICES SPECIALIST. THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT THE MINIMUM EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS ENTRY LEVEL POSITION BE A BACHELOR DEGREE IN SOCIAL WORK OR A RELATED FIELD OF STUDY. REQUIRE THE DOA TO REVIEW THE MINIMAL EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS FOR A CPS SUPERVISOR. THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT THE MINIMUM EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS SUPERVISORY POSITION BE A MASTERS IN SOCIAL WORK OR A MASTERS IN A RELATED FIELD OF STUDY. Implementation Encourage the DOA to complete its current review of the minimum education requirements for Human Service Specialists and CPS supervisors. C. RECOMMENDATION: REQUIRE THE DES TO ESTABLISH POLICIES SETTING CRITERIA TO USE TO EVALUATE WHETHER IT IS APPROPRIATE TO REMOVE A CHILD, INCLUDING AN EVALUATION OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES BY A TEAM OF CPS WORKERS BEFORE REMOVING THE CHILD. Implementation: Propose legislation to implement recommendation. (In H.B. 2690) 27 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ISSUE XI. Staff retention, recruitment and morale Objective: Improve staff retention. recruitment and morale of CPS personnel A. RECOMMENDATION: REQUEST THE DOA TO COMPLETE A MANAGEMENT AND PERSONNEL ANALYSIS OF THE CHILD PROTECTIVE SYSTEM, WITH THE PURPOSE OF IMPROVING WORKING CONDITIONS, EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT, WORKER RETENTION AND EMPLOYEE MORALE. THE DOA SHALL DELIVER A REPORT WITH FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE, THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE AND THE GOVERNOR BY DECEMBER 1, 1990. Implementation: Propose legislation to implement recommendation through Session Law. (In H.B. 2690) 28 ISSUE XII, Budgeting for attorneys Objective: Make attorneys hired to pursue DES cases more independent from DES. RECOMMENDATION: REMOVE THE APPROPRIATION FOR ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERALS ASSIGNED TO DES FROM THE DES' BUDGET AND ADD IT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S BUDGET. FEDERAL MONIES GIVEN TO DES FOR LEGAL SERVICES CAN BE TRANSFERRED TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE BY INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT. Implementation: This recommendation should be implemented through the annual appropriation process. 29 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ISSUE XIII. Preventive programs Objective: Support the maintenance of family unity. A. RECOMMENDATION: DEVELOP POLICIES WHICH FOSTER AND ESTABLISH PROGRAMS SUCH AS INTENSIVE FAMILY SERVICES AND OTHER PROGRAMS WHICH OFFER FAMILY SUPPORT, EARLY INTERVENTION AND PREVENTION SERVICES FOR FAMILIES AT RISK OF ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR. Implementation: Direct the DES to modify and develop the Department's policies and rules in accordance with this recommendation. B. RECOMMENDATION: REQUIRE THE DES TO IDENTIFY ALL AVAILABLE CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION AND DOMESTIC RELATION REVENUE SOURCES FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF FUNDING A PORTION OF THE PROPOSED INTEGRATED CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM. THE DES SHALL DELIVER A REPORT WITH FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE, THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE AND THE GOVERNOR BY JANUARY 1, 1991. . Implementation: Propose legislation to implement this recommendation through Session law. (An amendment was adopted which requires the State Foster Care Review Board rather than the DES, to contract with an independent entity to conduct this study. The amendment also requires the Board to create a proposal for an integrated child welfare system and submit a report by JUly 1, 1991) C. RECOMMENDATION: ALLOW THE PARENTS AND THE DES TO ENTER INTO A VOLUNTARY 90-DAY PLACEMENT OF THE CHILD IN AN ALTERNATIVE SETTING, PRIOR TO THE FORMAL REMOVAL OF THE CHILD FROM THE CUSTODY OF THE PARENTS. SUCH 90-DAY VOLUNTARY PLACEMENT MAY NOT BE RAISED OR USED TO PREJUDICE FUTURE DES OR COURT ACTIONS. Implementation: Propose legislation to implement recommendation. (In H.B. 2690) 30 ISSUE XIV. Complete assessment and investigation of referrals Objective: Provide the CPS system with the resources necessary to investigate 100 % of appropriate referrals alleging abuse, neglect or exploitation of children. A. RECOMMENDATION: DIRECT THE AUDITOR GENERAL TO CONDUCT AN AUDIT OF CASELOAD SIZE, CASE PRIORITIZATION AND SUPERVISORY SPAN OF CONTROL TO ENSURE THE AGENCY HAS SUFFICIENT STAFF TO RESPOND TO APPROPRIATE REFERRALS, NOT WITHSTANDING THE EVALUATION OF CURRENT BUDGETARY NEEDS BY THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEES. THE AUDITOR GENERAL SHALL DELIVER A REPORT WITH FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE, THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE AND THE GOVERNOR BY JANUARY 1, 1991. Implementation: Propose legislation to implement recommendation through session law. (In H.B. 2690) 31 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ISSUE XV. Improve quality assurance and accountability Objective: Ensure that investigations and ongoing casework within the CPS system are subjected to a rigorous form of internal and external review. A. RECOMMENDATION: DIRECT THE DES TO DEVELOP AN INTERNAL INVESTIGATION UNIT WHICH SAMPLES, EVALUATES AND INVESTIGATES THOSE CASE THAT ARE UNDER CPS SUPERVISION. THE INTERNAL INVESTIGATION UNIT SHOULD REPORT DIRECTLY TO THE DIRECTOR OF DES AND PERIODICALLY SUBMIT ITS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE DIRECTOR. Implementation: Direct the DES to modify the Department's policies and rules in accordance with this recommendation. B. RECOMMENDATION: REQUIRE THAT DES MANAGEMENT INFORMATION AND CLIENT TRACKING SYSTEMS BE ENHANCED AND REDEVELOPED TO ENSURE AND QUANTIFY THE DELIVERY OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES. AN EMPHASIS SHOULD BE PLACED ON QUALITY ASSURANCE REGARDING RESOURCE UTILIZATION, MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY, STATUTORYAND POLICYCOMPLIANCE AND TRACKING OF CLIENT OUTCOMES. Implementation: Direct the DES to modify the Department's policies and rules in accordance with this recommendation. C. RECOMMENDATION: DIRECT THE DES TO IMPLEMENT STANDARDIZED POLICIES AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING INTAKE, INVESTIGATION, CHILD REMOVAL AND CASE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. Implementation: Direct the DES to modify the Department's policies and rules in accordance with this recommendation. 32 ISSUE XVI. Expedite Severance Objective: Reduce the time period for initiating a petition to terminate a parent/child relationship in cases of where parents fail to rectify circumstances which led a child to be removed, in order to facilitate the permanent placement of the child. A. RECOMMENDATION: PROPOSE LEGISLATION THAT WOULD ALLOW THE DES TO PETITION FOR TERMINATION OF A PARENT/CHILD RELATIONSHIP IN CASES WHERE THE AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CARE OF THE CHILD HAS MADE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO PROVIDE AVAILABLE REMEDIAL SERVICES AND THE PARENT(S) HAVE BEEN UNABLE, AFTER A CUMULATIVE PERIOD OF 18 MONTHS, TO RECTIFY THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH CAUSE THE CHILD TO BE IN AN OUT-OF-HOME PLACEMENT. A DES PETITION FOR TERMINATION OF A PARENT/ CHILD RELATIONSHIP IS NOT VALID IN CASES WHERE THERE HAS BEEN A LACK OF AVAILABLE REMEDIAL SERVICES OR THERE HAS BEEN A DELAY IN THE DES PROVIDING AVAILABLE REMEDIAL SERVICES. Implementation: This proposal was originally included in H.B. 2690 but was removed by a House committee amendment. 33 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I VI. SUMMARY OF THE MAJOR PROVISIONS OF HB 2690 OMNIBUS CHILD PROTECTION ACT I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Omnibus child protection act (H.B. 2690) - Chapter 237 Provides for the following changes to statutes governing the Child Protective Services (CPS) system: 1. Appropriates $2,559,000 in FY 1990-91 to various agencies involved in the CPS process, including the Attorney General's Office, the Department of Administration, the Department of Economic Security and the Supreme Court. 2. Allows the Department of Economic Security (DES) to place a child with a parent or relative as an alternative to foster care placement and expands the ability of DES to take children into voluntary placement. 3. Requires the DES to establish new criteria governing the removal of a child from home, school or child care and establish review teams to assess each removal which is expected to result in a dependency petition. 4. Establishes a parent assistance program, a 24-hour telephone hotline and a child welfare mediation program to assist individuals involved in the CPS system. Effective November 1, 1990. 5. Initiates a two-tier process which requires the DES to purge (expunge) appropriate reports in the Central Registry. Establishes a retroactive effective date of July 1, 1992 for the 2 year expungemeht process and a delayed effective date of July 1, 1992 for the 5 year expungement process. 6. Requires the DES to create a pilot program for videotaping child interviews in cases of alleged sexual abuse as of April 1, 1991. The DES must submit a report regarding the pilot program to the Governor and the Legislature by April 1, 1992. 7. Creates a six-member Joint Legislative Committee on Children and Family Services and prescribes the powers and duties of the committee. 8. Requires DES to provide the juvenile courts with specific information about a child's case plan and requires the court to establish the necessity and appropriateness of services before ordering any counseling, testing or treatment services. 9. Requires the juvenile courts to complete dependency hearings within 120 days from the date that the dependency petition was served and allows the courts to extend the 120 day deadline by 30 days in specific cases. 34 10. Requires local foster care review boards to evaluate case plans that have been assigned by the courts for early review, within 60 days after the child has been removed from home. Allows mediators from the Child Welfare Mediation Program to request early review of appropriate cases involving dependent children. 11. Requires the State Foster Care Review Board (SFCRB) to contract with an independent entity to conduct a study to identify revenue sources to implement an integrated child welfare system and evaluate in-home services that are available to families involved with the CPS system. The SFCRB must report its findings to the Governor and the Legislature by July 1, 1991. 12. Requires the Auditor General to conduct an audit on the caseload size, caseload mix and staffing ratio of CPS personnel. The Auditor General must submit a report to the Governor and the Legislature by January 1, 1991. 35 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

you wish to report:

Your comment:

Your Name:

Submit

Cancel

...

Find results with:

Searching collections:

Home 39th Legislature, Second Regular Session, Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Child...

39th Legislature, Second Regular Session, Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Child Protective Services: final report

Description