Monitoring Report for Dwayne B. v. Snyder

MODIFIED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

ISSUED APRIL 13, 2015

JANUARY TO JUNE 2014

Michigan Department
of Human Services

MSA 6

Progress of the

 CONTENTS

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
Summary of Progress and Challenges ......................................................................................... 3
MSA 6 Summary of Commitments ............................................................................................ 10
Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 18
Demographics............................................................................................................................ 18
Organizational Capacity ................................................................................................................ 21
Caseloads and Supervision ........................................................................................................ 21
Child Safety ................................................................................................................................... 23
Freedom from Abuse and Neglect ............................................................................................ 23
Statewide Child Abuse Hotline .................................................................................................. 34
Responding to Reports of Abuse and Neglect .......................................................................... 37
Developing Safe Placements for Children ................................................................................. 40
Visitation ................................................................................................................................... 49
Well-Being ..................................................................................................................................... 51
Health and Mental Health ......................................................................................................... 51
Education................................................................................................................................... 59
Permanency .................................................................................................................................. 61
Permanency Outcomes ............................................................................................................. 61
Permanency Case Goals ............................................................................................................ 63
Adoption and Guardianship ...................................................................................................... 67
Case Planning and Practice ....................................................................................................... 70
Youth Transitioning to Adulthood ................................................................................................ 73
Extending Eligibility and Services .............................................................................................. 73
Immediate Actions for Youth Transitioning to Adulthood........................................................ 74
Staff Qualifications and Training ................................................................................................... 75
Appendices.................................................................................................................................... 80

i

 FIGURES
Figure 1. Age of Children in Custody on April 24, 2014 .............................................................................. 19
Figure 2. Placement Types of Children in Custody on April 24, 2014 ......................................................... 20
Figure 3. Length of Stay in Care on April 24, 2014 ...................................................................................... 20
Figure 4. Worker-Child Contacts at First Placement from January 1, 2014 to April 24, 2014 .................... 27
Figure 5. Worker-Child Contacts at Children’s Replacement ..................................................................... 28
Figure 6. Placement Type of Children in Care and Substantiated MIC Victims in MSA 6 .......................... 33
Figure 7. CPS Investigation Completion Timeliness from January 1, 2014 to April 24, 2014 ..................... 38
Figure 8. CPS Investigation Findings by Category from January 1, 2014 to April 24, 2014 ........................ 40
Figure 9. License Status of Relative Caregivers on April 24, 2014 .............................................................. 43
Figure 10. Number of Children by Age Placed in Shelters during MSA 6 ................................................... 48
Figure 11. Parent-Child Contacts from January 1, 2014 to April 24, 2014 ................................................. 50
Figure 12. Worker-Parent Contacts from January 1, 2014 to April 24, 2014 ............................................. 51
Figure 13. CY2013 Adoption Disruptions by County of Responsibility ....................................................... 68

TABLES
Table 1. Exits from Care by Exit Type, January 1, 2014 to April 24, 2014 ................................................... 21
Table 2. Michigan Performance on Safety Outcomes for CFSR 3 (10-10-2014) ......................................... 25
Table 3. CPS-MIC Complaints by Centralized Intake Action from January 1, 2014 – April 24, 2014 .......... 31
Table 4. CPS-MIC Complaints and MIC Victims by MSA Period .................................................................. 32
Table 5. March 1 to April 24, Year over Year Comparison of CPS-MIC Complaints and MIC Victims......... 33
Table 6. CPS Complaints by Centralized Intake Action from January 1, 2014 to April 24, 2014 ................ 35
Table 7. Foster Home Capacity Placement Information ............................................................................. 47
Table 8. Michigan Performance on Permanency Outcomes for CFSR 3 (10-10-2014) ............................... 63
Table 9. Children in Care by Permanency Goal on April 24, 2014 and January 1, 2014 ............................. 64
Table 10. Youth with APPLA Goal by Age on April 24, 2014 and January 1, 2014 ...................................... 67
Table 11. Training Caseload Progression .................................................................................................... 76
Table 12. Completion of Training Requirements by Licensing Staff ........................................................... 79

APPENDICES
Appendix A. Michigan DHS – Caseload Data 12/15/14 .............................................................................. 80
Appendix B. Age Range of Children in Care on April 24, 2014.................................................................... 81
Appendix C. Length of Stay of Children in Care on April 24, 2014 .............................................................. 84
Appendix D. CFSR 3 National Standards – Safety Outcomes ...................................................................... 87
Appendix E. Michigan DHS Policy PSM 712-7 Rejected Complaints ........................................................... 91
Appendix F. SFY 15 Non-relative Foster Home Targets .............................................................................. 94
Appendix G. Number of Children Placed in Shelters by Age and County during MSA 6 ............................ 96
Appendix H. CFSR 3 National Standards – Permanency Outcomes ............................................................ 97

ii

 Introduction
This document serves as the tenth report to the Honorable Nancy Edmunds of the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in the matter of Dwayne B. v. Snyder.
On July 18, 2011, the State of Michigan and the Michigan Department of Human Services (DHS)
and Children’s Rights, counsel for the plaintiffs, filed with the court a Modified Settlement
Agreement (MSA) that establishes a path for the improvement of Michigan’s child welfare
system. DHS is a statewide multi-service agency providing cash assistance, food stamps, and
child protection, prevention, and placement services for the State of Michigan. Children’s Rights
is a national advocacy organization with more than two decades of experience in class action
reform litigation on behalf of children in child welfare systems. The court formally approved an
initial Agreement among the parties on October 24, 2008, and accepted the parties’ MSA the
day it was filed.
In sum, the MSA:


Provides the plaintiff class relief by committing to specific improvements in DHS’ care
for vulnerable children, especially with respect to their safety, permanency, and wellbeing;



Requires the development and implementation of a comprehensive child welfare data
and tracking system, with the goal being to improve DHS’ ability to account for and
manage its work with vulnerable children;



Embeds a new case practice model designed by the current DHS management in
consultation with the monitors and counsel for the plaintiffs; and



Establishes benchmarks and performance targets that the administration has
committed to meet in order to realize sustainable reform.

Pursuant to the MSA, the court appointed Kevin Ryan and Eileen Crummy of Public Catalyst as
the monitors charged with reporting on DHS’ progress implementing its commitments. The
monitors and their team are responsible for assessing the state’s performance under the MSA.
The parties have agreed the monitors shall take into account timeliness, appropriateness, and
quality in reporting on DHS’ performance. Specifically, the MSA provides that:
“The Monitors’ reports shall set forth the steps taken by DHS, the
reasonableness of these efforts, and the adequacy of support for the
implementation of these steps; the quality of the work done by DHS in carrying
out those steps; and the extent to which that work is producing the intended
effects and/or the likelihood that the work will produce the intended effects.”

1

 This report to the court reflects the efforts of the DHS leadership team and the status of
Michigan’s reform efforts as of June 30, 2014, including progress for the first half of 2014,
defined as Period Six in the MSA (MSA 6), with two important exceptions. The first exception
involves a set of performance areas where DHS requested to submit data and information only
from January 1, 2014 through April 24, 2014, due to data limitations growing from the initiation
of its new statewide child welfare database (MiSACWIS). The court and the plaintiffs agreed to
permit DHS to adopt an abridged reporting period in instances where the rollout of the new
MiSACWIS system during MSA 6 prevented DHS from providing accurate data and information
for the entire period. The second exception involves three specific performance areas:
caseloads, safety outcomes for children, and implementation of the MiSACWIS system. The
court directed the monitoring team to assess performance and provide information through
January 31, 2015, where possible, following a motion by the State of Michigan and DHS to
dissolve or modify the MSA in December 2014. The state subsequently withdrew its motion to
dissolve or modify the MSA.
There is a wide range of commitments contained in the MSA that DHS could not track for
children in the class during MSA 6.1 These include:


A series of commitments regarding children’s immunizations, as well as their medical,
mental, and dental health care;



A series of commitments regarding children’s education, including timely enrollment,
limits on the number of school changes, and the familiarity of the school;



Commitments regarding the administration and oversight of psychotropic medication to
children;



Children’s visits with their brothers and sisters in care;



Children placed together with their brothers and sisters in care;



Children placed more than 75 miles from the child’s removal home;



DHS’ commitment regarding the placement of high risk youth;



A series of commitments regarding residential care placements; and

1

The DHS Division of Continuous Quality Improvement (DCQI) conducted limited case record reviews among some
children for select MSA commitments for which DHS had no other reliable data and information to measure its
performance. Internal agency staff conducted the reviews on small samples of randomly selected children. Several
of the reviews are described throughout this report.

2

 

Assessments, service plans, and provision of services, including supervisory oversight of
this work.

DHS hopes to be able to track many of the above commitments at some point in 2015. For the
purposes of this report, the monitoring team has relied on information and data for MSA 6 from
January 1, 2014 through June 30, 2014, unless otherwise noted as described above.

Summary of Progress and Challenges
As of the conclusion of MSA 6, the monitoring team highlights several significant
accomplishments DHS made for children:


Guardianship: DHS committed to finalize 165 juvenile guardianships during CY2014 and
exceeded the commitment early, as 179 juvenile guardianships were entered by the
court for children in DHS’ custody between January 1, 2014 and April 24, 2014.



Staff Qualifications and Training: From 2011 through 2014, DHS effectively reformed its
staff training program. Once a source of chronic difficulty, DHS’ training initiatives now
represent a continuum of public-private initiatives that are delivered timely and better
prepare staff and supervisors for the challenging work ahead. During MSA 6, all but one
of the 213 new caseworkers hired had a bachelor’s degree in social work or a related
human services field and nearly all of the 199 new workers scheduled for training in the
period completed pre-service training within 16 weeks of their hire date.



Federal Outcomes for Adoption, Youth with Long Stays in Care, and Placement Stability:
Based on DHS’ data, the United States Department of Health and Human Services
(USDHHS) reported that DHS exceeded the agreed upon standards for Permanency
Composites Two, Three, and Four – respectively, timeliness of adoptions, permanency
for children and youth in foster care for long periods of time, and placement stability.

The most pressing challenges confronting DHS are the imperatives: (1) to better protect
children from harm; and (2) to stabilize the new child welfare data system, known as
MiSACWIS. The first is an urgent problem of long-standing, and the second is an enormously
complex undertaking that will require many more technical software fixes, trainings, and
module redesigns over at least the next 12 months.
Children’s Freedom from Harm
DHS continues to expose hundreds more foster children to abuse and neglect in care than
permitted by the MSA, and continues to lag far behind the majority of the states in protecting
children from harm. DHS agreed in the MSA to perform at or above two national child safety
standards established by the federal government, which DHS has not met, even as of the most
3

 recently available data from the USDHHS Administration for Children and Families (ACF),
described in more detail within this report. The standards require Michigan – and all other
states – to reduce recurrent child abuse and neglect, and keep safe those children who are
placed in foster care. As detailed in this report, DHS should have protected at least 215 more
children from repeat harm and at least 81 more children from abuse and neglect in foster care
in order to meet the federal standards in the operative period.
DHS’ failure to achieve the minimum safety standards for children in foster care is a persistent
and dire problem, extending through all prior periods under the MSA. To meet the first child
safety standard as reported during these six periods, DHS should have protected at least 1,240
additional children from repeat maltreatment. To meet the second federal child safety
standard, DHS should have protected at least 434 additional children from abuse or neglect in
placement as reported since the start of the MSA.2
Many of the commitments in the MSA are designed to strengthen DHS’ system for protecting
children from harm. For example, the DHS Health Plan, required by the MSA, committed the
Department to develop and implement a robust system for overseeing the prescription and
administration of psychotropic medication to children in DHS’ custody. That system was largely
unimplemented for the 2,833 foster children prescribed psychotropic medication during MSA 6.
This included 150 children ages five and under who were prescribed psychotropic medications
during the period and 252 children who were prescribed four or more concomitant
psychotropic medications during the period.
Data and information supplied to the monitoring team in preparation for this report provide
additional clues to some of the causes of DHS’ failure to protect children adequately. DHS
appears to place at least some children in institutional settings that, to a significant extent,
continue to harm them, according to DHS’ own staff. Of the 207 special investigations
conducted by DHS’ licensure staff across more than 60 institutions during MSA 6, 74 (36
percent) investigations centered on the improper, unnecessary, or harmful use of restraints.
The documents indicate at least 34 children were injured as a result of the restraints. An
2

More recently, in October 2014, ACF published revised federal standards to measure child safety outcomes
th
related to maltreatment in foster care and recurrence of maltreatment. DHS ranked 45 of 48 measured states for
th
its relatively high daily rate of foster child victimization, and 46 of 48 measured states for the high recurrence of
child abuse and neglect. While negotiating the MSA in 2011, the parties were aware that the then-existing federal
indicators were under review by USDHHS. As such, the parties included the following language in the MSA: “In the
event that, during the term of this Agreement, HHS modifies these indicators or the methodologies underlying
these indicators, the parties and the monitors shall meet to determine whether to make corresponding changes in
DHS’ responsibilities under the Agreement.” The monitoring team will report on these discussions in future
monitoring periods.

4

 additional 32 investigations (16 percent) concerned allegations of physical abuse or discipline,
54 (26 percent) involved neglect or improper supervision of residents, and 14 (seven percent)
involved allegations of sexual abuse. The investigations substantiated 139 violations, including
the exposure of children to corporal punishment, and 32 separate violations involving the use
of improper, unnecessary, or injurious restraints. Under the MSA, DHS established specialized
Maltreatment in Care (MIC) Units to investigate abuse and neglect of children in custody. DHS
reported that during the period, MIC units investigated 50 complaints of child abuse and
neglect among children placed in Child Caring Institutions (CCIs). These investigations
substantiated only three findings of abuse or neglect to a child, a substantiation rate of six
percent as compared to a substantiation rate of 27 percent for all completed investigations
between January 1, 2014 and April 24, 2014. In light of the health and safety concerns
identified by BCAL staff in certain institutional settings, the small number of substantiations and
the relatively low substantiation rate raise concerns about the efficacy of MIC investigative
practice for CCIs, and will be a focus of the monitors’ future verification activities.
Another cause of DHS’ difficulty in preventing maltreatment in care appears to be a shortage of
safe family-like placements for children. Of 69 agencies reviewed by DHS’ own licensure staff
during MSA 6, 49 (71 percent) had at least one foster home, or unlicensed relative, with
identified health or safety risks to children. These issues included bedrooms and living spaces
without egress windows; children without appropriate cribs or beds to ensure safe sleeping
arrangements; and pools and ponds adjacent to homes without necessary safeguards such as
door alarms or fences.
A shortage of homes may explain, in part, why DHS continues to place so many children in
unlicensed relative homes even though a disproportionate number of foster children living in
unlicensed relative homes suffer from maltreatment. DHS promised in the MSA, with rare
exceptions, to place children in homes that are licensed, but many children continue to be
placed with unlicensed relatives. As of April 24, 2014, there were 898 relative providers with an
active license and 734 relatives with an approved active waiver of licensure, leaving 1,226
relative homes, where foster children lived, without an approved waiver or active license. In
MSA 6, 22 percent of the children in foster care lived in unlicensed relative homes, but 40
percent of the children whose abuse and neglect was substantiated lived in unlicensed relative
homes. The monitoring team remains concerned about the safety of children in unlicensed
relative homes, particularly given the disproportionate incidence of maltreatment among
children placed in these homes.
The MSA contains numerous provisions designed to help DHS better protect children. A clear,
transparent and robust embrace of these practices can help DHS prevent harm to children. For
example, one of the core protective strategies of strong child welfare systems is routine
5

 visitation by workers with children under their supervision. However, DHS has not been able to
demonstrate implementation of this practice and there is evidence contained in this report that
missed visitation between caseworkers and children is a source of concern for foster caregivers
and DHS licensing staff. Similarly, in an effort to protect children from abuse and neglect in
custody, DHS agreed to limit the number of children living together in a foster home, reducing a
stress factor for many caregivers, but DHS has not been able to consistently implement caps on
children’s placements consistent with the commitments in the MSA. This, too, may be
symptomatic of an inadequate supply of safe foster homes for children. In an effort to keep
children free from harm, DHS committed to ensure that children in custody receive timely
medical care, dental care, mental health care, and immunizations, but DHS has not been able to
demonstrate their performance in this regard and there is evidence contained in this report
that gaps in medical care, dental care, mental health care, and immunizations for children are a
concern for DHS’ licensing and quality improvement staff. In sum, there are many commitments
in the MSA that, if implemented, would enable DHS to eliminate many existing risks and better
support the agency’s mission to keep children free from harm.
The New Child Welfare Database: MiSACWIS
Michigan’s new child welfare data system, MiSACWIS, is intended by DHS to provide greater
transparency of its performance, and improve the agency’s ability to protect children. The new
child welfare data system was released in April 2014 after DHS postponed the initial
implementation scheduled for the previous fall because of design and testing immaturity. DHS
is allocating extensive staff time and resources to confront, troubleshoot, and continue to
resolve a wide spectrum of challenges that occasioned the MiSACWIS rollout. The vast majority
of MiSACWIS intended users had received most of their system training prior to the expected
fall rollout and, understandably, many had forgotten the information by April 2014. Their
experience with even a well-functioning system might have been arduous given the training
retention deficits across the state, but MiSACWIS was not functioning optimally at release, as
would be expected with a system of this magnitude.
As of January 31, 2015, the system remains relatively new and predictable implementation
problems continue to color key stakeholders’ perspectives. The system does not yet provide
accurate, comprehensive data for many commitments in the MSA. The difficulties that
occasioned the MiSACWIS rollout have now been well chronicled both internally by DHS and
more publicly by the media. The list includes data conversion errors, more than 1,000 technical
fixes over nine months, caseworkers’ and supervisors’ struggles with incorrectly assigned
children’s cases, payment failures to agencies and foster parents, dropped calls and excessive
wait times at the Centralized Intake hotline, deleted health insurance cards interfering with
children’s health care and necessary prescriptions, among many other problems that DHS has
6

 worked diligently to address. Private agencies reported to the monitoring team that they have
encountered significant and ongoing MiSACWIS system problems that have made it impossible
to use the system as intended, including entering all case management documentation as
required through the Purchase of Service (POS) Monitoring Model.
MiSACWIS continues to require numerous software repairs. Indeed, DHS has scheduled at least
12 software releases (or, more colloquially, updates) over the course of 2015, with each release
expected to include up to 180 separate software fixes. The system appears to be progressing in
certain respects, but is unstable in other respects and still does not reliably track all children’s
placements. In fact, as of January 2015, more than 1,300 children were listed as “unassigned”
within the system. That number is down, however, from 1,718 children’s cases in December
2014. Though DHS documents use the word “unassigned” to describe the problem,3 DHS
reported to the monitoring team in 2015 the correct rubric is “incorrectly assigned” since all of
the cases are in MiSACWIS but are not all properly assigned. According to DHS’ own data, as
well as hundreds of end users’ feedback, including senior executives from most of DHS’
community partner agencies, the system is not yet able to produce accurate reporting in many
areas covered by the MSA.
DHS confronts at least three major tasks in order to make MiSACWIS an effective tool for
workers, supervisors, and managers. First, MiSACWIS requires many additional technical fixes
including major repairs scheduled throughout 2015. DHS leadership believes the system can be
repaired and improved to achieve the required level of performance. Second, there is a broad
consensus that DHS must continue to provide ongoing training and support to the thousands of
users who are learning new, and in some instances, newly burdensome, business processes.
There are myriad examples of workers and supervisors describing an activity that once involved
a discrete step or two – perhaps the click of a button – which now involves multiple steps,
multiple authorizations, and numerous screens. This leads to the third activity DHS continues to
undertake: ensuring the business processes now required by MiSACWIS are as efficient, direct,
and in conformity with best practices as possible. In March 2015, for example, DHS expects to
release a major redesign of its new provider module that it believes will simplify the work of
opening a child’s case, paying the child’s caregiver, and tracking children’s care. This important
redesign work is a critical component to greater utilization of the system as a tool for
promoting children’s safety, permanency, and well-being.

3

See Appendix A. Michigan DHS – Caseload Data 12/15/14.

7

 Repairing, stabilizing, and improving MiSACWIS is an undertaking of great importance, in part
because the hybrid tracking and reporting systems in place prior to its implementation, many of
which supplied data and information for this report, were inadequate. The MSA requires DHS
“to provide accurate and timely data reports and information” and authorizes the monitors to
evaluate “the quality of the work done by DHS…”. As reflected in this report, the monitoring
team encountered numerous discrepancies and errors in the materials submitted by DHS,
including for example, errors in demographic, service, and oversight data. By way of example,
DHS cited three different census numbers in different memos for the Young Adult Voluntary
Foster Care program (YAVFC), and the underlying data, a YAVFC-only data set and cohort data
coding all youth active in YAVFC, did not match. In another example, DHS provided the
monitoring team with inconsistent data sets on relatives providing care to children, one on the
provider level and one on the child level. The providers of relative care listed in the two data
sets did not match; the child-focused data set listed 2,858 unique providers, while only 1,804
were listed in the provider data set. Other examples of poor data quality across a number of
the MSA 6 submissions include:


Special Investigations – While DHS initially reported that it conducted 197 special
investigations of CCIs during the period, and provided the monitoring team with copies
of these reports, DHS later discovered an additional ten investigations.



Failure to report violations – While DHS reported that four agencies were cited for a
“failure to report child abuse and neglect” violation during MSA 6, the monitoring team
independently discovered that a fifth agency also received a violation.



Unlicensed relative homes visited by BCAL field analysts – While DHS reported that 131
unlicensed relative homes were visited by BCAL field analysts during MSA 6, the
monitoring team determined, based on reading all of the individual analyst reports, that
141 homes were visited.



Foster care files reviewed by BCAL consultants – While DHS reported 339 foster care
files were reviewed by BCAL consultants during the period, the monitoring team
determined, based on reading all of the individual consultant reports, that 361 files
were reviewed.



Health and mental health screening – DHS reported in March 2015 it had provided the
monitoring team with incorrect information in October 2014 from its targeted case
record review of periodic well child exams for children under the age of 36 months.



Supervisory verification of staff training – DHS reported in March 2015 it had slightly
undercounted the percentage of private agency supervisors who verified that all their
staff received MiTEAM training.

8

 

Caseworker Visitation – DHS expressed concerns to the monitoring team that the
visitation data supplied from its InfoView system, as described in this report, is not
accurate because of system functionality.

9

 MSA 6 Summary of Commitments4
Section

MSA Commitment

III.C.1
III.C.2
III.D.1
III.D.2
III.D.3
III.D.4
IV.A.1-10
V.A

Safety – Recurrence of Maltreatment within 6 Months.
Safety – Maltreatment in Foster Care.
Permanency – Timely Reunification of Children.
Permanency – Timeliness of Adoption.
Permanency for the longest waiting children.
Permanency – Placement Stability.
Organizational Structure
DHS shall ensure that investigations of all reports are commenced as required by
state law. DHS shall monitor commencements through reviews of DHS datadriven reports.
DHS shall ensure that investigations of all reports are completed pursuant to
policy requirements.
Establish statewide centralized CPS hotline: adequately staffed for timely
commencement, adequate telecommunications equipment and information
technology.
Establish and implement a QA process to ensure CPS reports are competently
investigated and in cases where abuse/neglect is indicated, actions are taken and
services are provided appropriate to the circumstances.
In designated counties, DHS will maintain separate Maltreatment in Care (MIC)
units responsible for MIC investigations.
In non-designated counties, DHS will maintain 3 separate regional MIC units for
all investigations of abuse or neglect occurring in CCIs.
DHS Child Welfare Field Ops shall ensure dedicated supervision, oversight, and
coordination of all MIC investigations.
Entry level caseworkers have a bachelor's degree in social work or a related
human services field.
All caseworkers who do not have the University-Based Child Welfare Certificate
will complete pre-service training that includes a total of 270 hours of
competence based training which must be completed within 16 weeks from date
of hire; training must include minimum of 4 weeks of classroom instruction and 5
weeks of field instruction.
The University-Based Child Welfare Certificate program specific training
curriculum must be reviewed by the monitors.
Each trainee will shadow an experienced child welfare caseworker and build
practice knowledge from classroom and field training. Experienced caseworker
(mentor) will shadow each trainee for key activities in a case.
Mentor with a trainee must have a caseload within current caseload standards.
Caseload Progression for CPS workers.

V.A
V.B

V.C

V.D.1
V.D.2.a
V.D.4
VI.A.1
VI.A.2

VI.A.3
VI.A.4

VI.A.4
VI.A.5.a.
4

Achieved

Page

No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No

23
23
61
61
61
61
21
37

No

37

Yes

34

Yes

40

Yes

31

Yes

31

Yes

31

Yes

75

Yes

75

Yes

76

Yes

76

No
No

76
76

“Yes” indicates DHS provided the monitoring team with adequate and verifiable evidence of its performance
consistent with the standard articulated in the MSA. “No” indicates DHS did not.

10

 Section

MSA Commitment

VI.A.5.b
VI.B.1

Caseload Progression for FC workers.
Supervisor Qualifications: All staff promoted or hired to a child welfare
supervisory position shall possess either 1) master's degree and 3 years of
experience as a social service worker in a child welfare agency, CCI or in an
agency performing child welfare function or 2) bachelor's degree and 4 years as a
social service worker.
Implement a competency based supervisory training program at least 40 hours in
length and address specific skills and knowledge.
All supervisors promoted or hired must complete the training program and pass a
written competency based exam within 3 months of assuming the supervisory
position. Failure to achieve a passing grade on written portion within 2 sittings
requires additional training within 45 days of last failed exam. A third failure
renders an individual ineligible for supervisory position.
University-Based Training Opportunities: Develop and maintain relationships,
joint programs, and other programs with schools of social work to expand
training and education for DHS and private CPA caseworkers and supervisors.
Licensing Worker Qualifications and Training: Requirements include bachelor's
degree in social work or related human services field.
Licensing Worker Qualifications and Training: Requirements include training type
and amount provided as indicated in plan submitted to the monitors on 3/5/09.
Supervisors: 95% of child welfare supervisors will supervise no more than 5
caseworkers.
Foster Care Workers: 95% of foster care workers will have caseloads of no more
than 15 children.
Adoption Workers: 95% of adoption workers will have caseloads of no more than
15 children.
CPS Investigation Workers: 95% of CPS investigation workers will have caseloads
of no more than 12 open investigations.
CPS Ongoing Workers: 95% of CPS ongoing workers will have caseloads of no
more than 17 families.
POS Workers: 95% of POS workers will have a caseload of no more than 90
children.
POS Worker model will remove responsibilities for: review/approve case plans;
attend court hearings unless so ordered; enter social work contacts into SWSS;
attend quarterly visits with CPAs; attend PPCs.
Licensing Workers: 95% of licensing workers will have a caseload of no more than
30 licensed foster homes or homes pending licensure.
Assessments & Service Plans: Written assessments within 30 days of entry (ISP);
updates quarterly (USP); treatment plans signed by caseworker, supervisor,
parents and children if of age or a written explanation of no signature.
Supervisory Oversight: Supervisors will meet at least monthly with each assigned
worker to review status and progress of each case on the worker's caseload.
Supervisors will review and approve each service plan which can only be
approved after a face-to-face meeting with worker which can be the monthly
meeting.

VI.B.2
VI.B.3

VI.B.4

VI.C
VI.C
VI.E.2.b.iii
VI.E.3.c
VI.E.4.c
VI.E.5.c
VI.E.6.c
VI.E.7
VI.E.7.a

VI.E.8.c
VII.A

VII.B

11

Achieved

Page

No
Yes

76
77

Yes

78

Yes

78

Yes

77

No

78

Yes

78

No

21

No

21

No

21

No

21

No

21

No

21

No

7

No

21

No

71

No

72

 Section

MSA Commitment

VII.C

Provision of Services: Services in plans must be available in a timely and
appropriate manner, monitor for quality/intended effect; assist parents, children
and foster parents identify appropriate, accessible and compatible services; assist
with transportation, resolve barriers, intervene to review and amend service
plans when services are not provided or are not effective.
Family Engagement Model: DHS will develop policies, procedures, and structure
to implement a family engagement model which includes family engagement,
child and family team meetings, and concurrent planning.
Implementation of FTM model, including concurrent planning to Big 14
continuous counties.
Maintaining a permanency planning goal of reunification beyond 12 months
requires written approval from supervisor, justifying the goal, identifying the
additional services needed to occur to accomplish goal; no goal of reunification
longer than 15 months without documentation in the record, approved by
supervisor, of compelling reasons.
Change of Goal to Adoption: Within 30 days of goal change to adoption take
actions specified in MSA.
APPLA: This goal may not be assigned to a child unless specific requirements in
the MSA exist.
Immediate Action APPLA: Reduce the number of children with the goal of
APPLA/APPLA-E to 9% of the total foster care population, excluding youth over
18 years of age with a voluntary foster care agreement.
Immediate Action Adoption/Guardianship: Finalize 165 juvenile guardianships for
calendar year 2013.
Disrupted Pre-Adoptive Placements: DHS will monitor the number of cases in
pre-adoptive placement that disrupt before finalization; QA unit will sample
these cases annually.
Special Reviews: Provisions apply to children in DHS foster care from 10/1/11
that a) have been legally free for more than 365 days.
Special Reviews: Provisions apply to children in DHS foster care from 10/1/11
that b) have a goal of reunification for more than 365 days.
PRMs: DHS will maintain an adequate number of PRMs to review cases of
children in care more than 1 year as indicated in VII.F.1. PRMs will have
specialized training, raise awareness of establishing permanency, possess
expertise in community resources and collaborate with case managers and
supervisors to identify new strategies to focus permanency for these children.
Worker-Child Contacts: 2 face-to-face visits each month during the first 2 months
of initial placement and 1 visit per month thereafter. At least 1 visit each month
shall take place in the child's placement location.
Worker-Child Contacts: 2 face-to-face visits each month during the first 2 months
following a placement move and 1 visit per month thereafter. At least 1 visit each
month shall take place in the child's placement location.

VII.D

VII.D.6.b
VII.E.1

VII.E.3
VII.E.6
VII.E.6.e.iii

VII.E.7.b
VII.E.9

VII.F.1
VII.F.1
VII.F.2

VII.G.2

VII.G.2

12

Achieved

Page

No

72

Yes

72

No

72

No

64

No

65

Yes

66

Yes

67

Yes

69

Yes

67

No

73

Yes

72

No

73

No

27

No

28

 Section

MSA Commitment

VII.G.3

Worker-Parent Visits: For children with goal of reunification, (a) 2 face-to-face
caseworker-parent visits (with each parent) during the first month the child is in
care, 1 of which must be in their home; (b) for each subsequent month, 1 face-toface visit and phone contact as needed; (c) 1 contact in each 3-month period
must occur in parent's home.
Parent-Child Visits: For children with goal of reunification, at least twice monthly
visits with parents unless reasonable exceptions and documentation noted in
MSA apply.
Sibling Visits: Children in foster care with siblings in custody but in a different
placement will visit at least monthly unless reasonable exceptions and
documentation noted in MSA apply.
Access to Services: Ensure access to appropriate services including medical,
dental, mental health and education; assist parents, children, foster parents
connect, engage with and make use of services; monitor services to determine
appropriate quality and intended effects.
The state maintains at least 25 health liaison officer (HLO) positions in the
following counties: Barry, Berrien, Calhoun, Cass, Genesee (2), Ingham, Jackson,
Kalamazoo, Kent, Macomb (2), Muskegon, Oakland, Saginaw, St. Clair, Van Buren,
Washtenaw, Wayne (7). The state plans to allocate a health liaison officer
position in all remaining counties, dual counties, and tri counties by FY2014.
Ensure each child receives emergency medical, dental, and mental health care.
Ensure 95% of children entering care receive a full medical exam and screening
for potential mental health issues within 30 days of entry to placement and refer
for further assessment as necessary.
Ensure 95% of children have dental examination within 90 days of entry into
foster care.
Ensure children receive all required immunizations, as defined by the American
Academy of Pediatrics, at the appropriate age.
Ensure 95% of children have received periodic medical, dental, and mental health
exams.
Ensure any needed follow-up medical, dental, mental health care as identified.
Maintain an up-to-date medical file for each child in care, including medical
history information reasonably available to DHS.
Medical file/history: Consistent with the targets established by the monitors, by
12/31/13, DHS shall ensure 95% of foster care providers receive specific written
health information about the child entering their care.
Medical Passports: In maintaining medical records, DHS shall ensure that it is in
compliance with MCL 722.954c(2) by preparing, updating, and providing medical
passports to caregivers. In addition, DHS shall ensure that the medical passport,
or some other DHS document inserted in each child’s file, includes a complete
and regularly updated statement of all medications prescribed to and given to
the child.
All Medical Passport information shall be provided to all medical providers to
whom the child is referred and accepted for treatment.
All Medical Passport information shall be provided to all mental health
professionals to whom the child is referred and accepted for treatment.

VII.G.4

VII.G.5

VIII.A

VIII.B.1

VIII.B.2.a
VIII.B.2.b.iv

VIII.B.2.c.iv
VIII.B.2.d
VIII.B.2.e.iii
VIII.B.2.f
VIII.B.3
VIII.B.3.a.ii

VIII.B.3.b

VIII.B.3.b
VIII.B.3.b

13

Achieved

Page

No

50

No

50

No

50

No

72

No

52

No
No

53
53

No

53

No

54

No

53

No
No

54
54

No

55

No

55

No

55

No

55

 Section

MSA Commitment

VIII.B.3.b.ii

Medical Passport: Consistent with the targets established by the monitors, by
12/31/13, DHS shall ensure 95% of foster care providers receive specific written
health information about the child entering their care.
Medical Care & Coverage: DHS will ensure 95% of children have access to medical
coverage within 30 days of entry into foster care by way of a Medicaid card or an
alternative verification of the child's Medicaid status/number.
Medical Care & Coverage: DHS shall assure 95% of children have access to
medical coverage upon subsequent placement.
Psychotropic Medications: DHS will maintain processes to ensure documentation
of psychotropic medication approvals, documentation of all uses of psychotropic
medications, and review of such documentation by appropriate DHS staff,
including the medical consultant. The Health Unit Manager and medical
consultant will take immediate action to remedy any identified use of
psychotropic medications inconsistent with the policies and procedures
approved by the monitors.
SED Waiver Implementation in the 12 identified counties in the MSA. For all
remaining counties, DHS shall continue to engage the Michigan Department of
Community Health, Community Mental Health Service Providers, and Medicaid
Health Plans to ensure that all children with mental health needs are assessed
and served.
Immediate Action for Youth Transitioning to Adulthood: DHS shall ensure for
each youth age 16 and older, a Family Team Meeting shall be held to address
issues of support, housing, education, employment, transportation, financial
management and health. These meetings shall occur 90 days before planned
discharge from care or within 30 days after an unexpected discharge.
Immediate Action for Youth Transitioning to Adulthood: MYOI and youth
leadership boards will be implemented in Wayne, Clinton/Gratiot and Ingham
counties and be maintained to meet quarterly to provide information, training,
and supportive services to youth.
Immediate Action for Youth Transitioning to Adulthood: DHS will support higher
education for older foster youth through partnerships with Michigan colleges and
universities and through collaboration with community partners to create and
expand scholarships and onsite programs, supports, and mentorships.
Immediate Action for Youth Transitioning to Adulthood: DHS will support the
Seita Scholars program at Western Michigan University.
Youth Transitioning to Adulthood: DHS will continue to implement policy and
resources to extend all foster youths’ eligibility for foster care until age 20 and
make Independent Living services available through the age of 21.
Youth Transitioning to Adulthood: DHS will continue to implement a policy and
process by which all youth emancipating from foster care at age 18 or older are
enrolled for Medicaid managed care coverage so that their coverage continues
uninterrupted.
Education: DHS will take reasonable steps to ensure that school-aged foster
children receive an education appropriate to their needs.

VIII.B.4.a.ii

VIII.B.4.b.iii
VIII.B.5.c

VIII.B.6.a-d

VIII.C.1.a.i

VIII.C.1.a.ii

VIII.C.1.a.vii

VIII.C.1.a.viii
VIII.C.1.c.i

VIII.C.1.c.ii

VIII.C.2.a

14

Achieved

Page

No

56

No

56

No

56

No

57

Yes

58

No

74

Yes

74

Yes

59

Yes

60

No

73

No

56

No

59

 Section

MSA Commitment

VIII.C.2.b

Education: DHS will take reasonable steps to ensure that school-aged foster
children are registered for and attending school within 5 days of initial placement
or any placement change, including while placed in child care institutions or
emergency placements. No child shall be home schooled.
Education: DHS will make reasonable efforts to ensure the continuity of a child's
educational experience by keeping the child in a familiar or current school and
neighborhood when in the child's best interests and feasible, and by limiting the
number of school changes.
Foster Home Capacity: Ensure each county has a sufficient number and adequate
array of homes capable of serving the needs of those children coming into care
for who foster home placement is appropriate.
Foster Home Capacity: Ensure relatives of children in foster care and nonrelatives with whom a child has a family-like connection are identified and
considered as placements for children; when appropriate, ensure steps are taken
to license them.
Foster Home Placement Selection: Develop a placement process in each county
that ensures the best match for the child irrespective of whether the foster home
is a DHS or private CPA operated home.
Treatment Foster Homes: Maintain 200 treatment foster home beds.
DHS in consultation with the monitors will develop for each county, annual foster
home targets based on need and number of children in care. DHS will implement
and meet those targets.
State Oversight of Recruitment: A designated person or unit within DHS central
office will be responsible for monitoring the development and implementation of
the foster and adoptive foster home recruitment and retention plans by county
offices; providing or arranging for technical assistance; report to CSA Director on
progress and problems in achieving goals.
Immediate Action to Licensing Relatives: 85% of new relative foster parents will
be licensed within 180 days from the date of placement.
Relative Foster Parents: With documented, exceptional circumstances, relatives
that do not desire to be licensed may forego licensing. Approval for this waiver
for licensure must be approved by the Child Welfare Director in designated
counties and by the County Director in non-designated counties. (See MSA for
additional requirements for household to forego licensure and the review that
will occur by monitors if more than 10% of unlicensed relatives decline to be
licensed.)
Relative Foster Parents: DHS will use a form waiver letter which must be resigned annually for relatives who choose to forego licensure. The relative may
change their mind at any time and pursue licensure.
Relative Foster Home Licensing: DHS will maintain a position of Relative Licensing
Coordinator with overall responsibility for development of a combined family
home assessment for relative providers; monitoring and reporting on number of
unlicensed relative homes and children in those homes; ensure availability of
adequate training staff to develop curriculum and training for and to train
Relative Licensing staff.

VIII.C.2.c

VIII.D.2.a

VIII.D.2.b

VIII.D.2.c

VIII.D.3.b
VIII.D.3.c

VIII.D.4

VIII.D.6.a.i.4
VIII.D.6.f

VIII.D.6.g

VIII.D.6.j

15

Achieved

Page

No

59

No

59

No

41

No

42

No

49

No
No

58
41

Yes

41

No

43

No

43

No

43

Yes

44

 Section

MSA Commitment

VIII.D.8

Provision of Post-Adoption Services: DHS will develop, implement and maintain a
full range of post-adoption services to assist all eligible special needs children
adopted from state foster care and their permanent families.
Placement Outside 75-Mile Radius: DHS shall place all children within a 75-mile
radius of the home from which the child entered custody, unless one of the
exceptional situations noted applies and is approved.
Separation of Siblings: Siblings who enter placement at or near the same time
shall be placed together, unless doing so is harmful to one or more of the siblings
or other noted exceptions. In the case of separation, efforts must be made to
locate/recruit a family and efforts must be documented and reassessed
quarterly.
Number of Children in Foster Home: No child shall be placed in a foster home if
that placement will result in more than 3 foster children in that foster home, or a
total of 6 children. No placement shall result in more than 3 children under the
age of 3 residing in a foster home.
Time Limitations for Emergency or Temporary Facilities: Children shall not remain
in emergency or temporary facilities, including but not limited to shelter care, for
a period in excess of 30 days.
Number of Placements in an Emergency or Temporary Facility: Children shall not
be placed in an emergency or temporary facility, including but not limited to
shelter care, more than 1 time within a 12-month period.
Placement in Jail, Correctional, or Detention Facility: Unless pursuant to a
delinquency charge, no child in DHS foster care custody shall be placed by DHS in
a jail, correctional, or detention facility.
Placement of High Risk Youth: DHS shall not place any child determined to be at
high risk for perpetrating violence or sexual assault, in any foster care placement
with foster children not so determined without an appropriate assessment
concerning the safety of all children in the placement.
Residential Care Placements: No child shall be placed in a child caring institution
unless there are specific findings, documented in the child’s case file, that: (1) the
child’s needs cannot be met in any other type of placement; (2) the child’s needs
can be met in the specific facility requested; and (3) the facility is the least
restrictive placement to meet the child’s needs.
A DSM-IV TR psychiatric diagnosis is made for all children before prescribing
psychotropic medications.
Clearly defined target symptoms and treatment goals for the use of psychotropic
medications on children are identified and documented in the medical record at
the time or before beginning treatment with a psychotropic medication.
Except in the case of emergency, informed consent is always obtained from the
appropriate party(s) before beginning psychotropic medication on children.
Informed consent to treatment with psychotropic medication entails diagnosis,
expected benefits and risks of treatment, including common side effects,
discussion of laboratory findings, and uncommon but potentially severe adverse
events. Alternative treatments, the risks associated with no treatment, and the
overall potential benefit-to-risk ratio of treatment should be discussed.

X.B.1

X.B.2

X.B.3

X.B.4.a

X.B.4.b

X.B.5

X.B.6

X.B.7

XI.A.1.c
XI.A.1.c

XI.A.1.c

16

Achieved

Page

Yes

70

No

46

No

45

No

47

No

47

No

48

No

49

No

46

No

45

No

57

No

57

No

57

 Section

MSA Commitment

XI.B.1

Corporal Punishment & Seclusion/Isolation: DHS shall prohibit the use of Positive
Peer Culture, peer-on-peer restraint, and any other forms of corporal
punishment in all foster care placements. All uses of corporal punishment in any
placement, and all uses of seclusion/isolation in child caring institutions shall be
reported to the Quality Assurance (QA) unit. Such reports shall be made available
to the state’s licensing agency for appropriate action.
Contract Requirements: DHS’ contracts with private CPAs and CCIs will be
performance-based.
Substantiated Incidents of Abuse, Neglect, and Corporal Punishment: DHS will
give due consideration to any and all substantiated incidents of abuse, neglect,
and/or corporal punishment occurring in the placements licensed and supervised
by a contract agency at the time of processing its application for licensure
renewal.
Contract Evaluations: At least once a year, DHS will conduct contract evaluations
of all CCIs and private CPAs.
Contract Evaluations: DHS shall prepare written reports of all inspections and
visits, detailing findings. DHS shall require corrective actions and require private
CPAs and CCIs to report to DHS on the implementation of these corrective action
plans, and shall conduct follow-up visits when necessary. Such reports shall
routinely be furnished to the monitors.
DHS shall visit a random sample of each agency’s foster homes as part of the
annual inspection. Agencies with fewer than 50 foster homes shall have 3 foster
homes visited. Agencies with 50 foster homes or more shall have 5% of their
foster homes visited.
Resources: DHS will maintain sufficient resources to permit staff to conduct
contract enforcement activities.
DHS will generate from automated systems and other data collection methods
accurate and timely data reports and information until the full implementation of
SACWIS.

XII.A.
XII.B

XII.C
XII.C

XII.C.2

XII.D
XIII.A

17

Achieved

Page

No

29

Yes

34

Yes

30

Yes

30

Yes

30

Yes

25

Yes

25

No

6

 Methodology
To prepare this report, the monitoring team conducted a series of verification activities to
further evaluate DHS’ progress implementing its commitments in the MSA. These activities
included: regular meetings with DHS leadership as well as private agency leadership; focus
groups with former foster youth and youth enrolled in YAVFC; visits to local child welfare offices
and private agencies; joint record reviews with the Division of Continuous Quality Improvement
(DCQI) staff; and extensive reviews of individual case records and other documentation. The
monitoring team interviewed staff and supervisors and talked to public and private managers
about the pace, progress, and challenges of the reform work. The monitoring team also
reviewed and analyzed a wide range of aggregate and detail data produced by DHS, and
reviewed policies, memos, and other internal information relevant to DHS’ work during the
period.

Demographics
DHS produced demographic data from January 1, 2014 through April 24, 2014, rather than
through June 30, 2014. DHS data indicate that there were 13,277 children in custody as of April
24, 2014, a decrease of 146 children (one percent) from the end of MSA 5.5,6 Of the children
and youth in care on April 24, 2014, the monitoring team estimates 390 youth were enrolled in
the YAVFC program, even though the monitoring team’s verification activities surfaced data
quality issues with DHS’ tracking of this population.7 During the reporting period, 2,224 children
and youth were placed in foster care and 2,369 children and youth exited care.8 Though young
children aged zero to six years make up the largest portion (6,563 or 49 percent), Michigan
continues to have a large population of older youth in custody. Twenty-three percent (3,008)

5

The references in this report to children and youth placed in DHS’ supervision, custody, or care refer to the child
welfare responsibilities of the Department and do not include children and youth who are the responsibility of DHS
through the juvenile justice system unless those children and youth also have an open child welfare case.
6
DHS more recently submitted an updated file containing children in custody on January 1, 2014. The MSA 5
report, relying on DHS data, indicated that 13,412 children were in DHS’ custody on December 31, 2013. The
updated file indicates that 13,423 children were in custody on January 1, 2014. This report uses the updated figure
in describing changes in the custody population.
7
For purposes of this report, a youth is considered in YAVFC if they have a legal status of ‘56’. Some youth in
YAVFC transition to that status without leaving their current placement while others formally exit care and then
enter YAVFC status within six months. Entries and exits into and out of foster care only include youth who formally
exited care and reentered into YAVFC.
8
DHS reported two children listed as being in care and having exited care on December 31, 2013. Thus, the change
in the number of children in care is not equal to the number of exits minus the number of entries. The monitoring
team adjusted the data for several other data issues that impacted the number by less than ten children.

18

 are 12 to 17 years, and seven percent (908) are 18 years and over, as detailed in the following
figure:
Figure 1. Age of Children in Custody on April 24, 20149
n=13,277
Age 18+
908
7%

Age 12-17
3,008
23%

Age 0-6
6,563
49%

Age 7-11
2,798
21%

With regard to gender, the population was split equally — 50 percent male and 50 percent
female. With regard to race, the population of children was 35 percent African-American and
63 percent White. In addition, seven percent of children were identified with Hispanic ethnicity
(and can be of any race).
As the following figure demonstrates, 84 percent of children in DHS’ custody lived in family
settings, including with relatives (33 percent), foster families (36 percent), with their own
parents (11 percent), in homes that intend to adopt (two percent), and in homes of unrelated
caregivers (one percent).10 Of children in custody, 907 (seven percent) lived in institutional
settings, including residential treatment and other congregate care facilities. Another 847
children, or six percent, resided in independent living placements, which serve youth on the
cusp of aging-out of care. The remaining three percent resided in other settings, are AWOL, or
in unidentified placements.

9

For full detail by county, see Appendix B. Age Range of Children in Care on April 24, 2014.
Percentages sum to 83 instead of 84 due to rounding.

10

19

 Figure 2. Placement Types of Children in Custody on April 24, 201411
n=13,277
Relatives
Foster Care Families
In-Home
Independent Living
Institutions and Shelters
Adoptive Home
AWOL
Other
Unrelated Caregiver
Unidentified

4,459
4,850
1,498
847
907
277
76
116
113
134
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Of the children in care on April 24, 2014, 49 percent were in care for less than one year, while
13 percent were in care for more than three years:
Figure 3. Length of Stay in Care on April 24, 201412
n=13,277
3-6 Years
1,170
9%

6+ Years
598
4%

2-3 Years
1,464
11%

Less than 1
Year
6,510
49%

1-2 Years
3,535
27%

11

In-Home: In Michigan, when the state court places a child in the custody of DHS, DHS can elect to place the child
in the parents’ home. More commonly, the court permits the return of a child from placement to the home but
keeps custody with DHS for supervision. The child is in the legal custody of DHS but the physical custody of the
parents. The data above for In-Home, Relatives, and Foster Care Families include placements both in-state and outof-state. Institutions and Shelters include emergency shelters (25), out-of-state CPAs (17), and private CCIs (865).
Other includes detention (13), jail (13), community justice centers (4), court treatment (6), legal guardians (28),
mental health hospitals (6), boarding schools (37), and DHS training schools (9). 76 children were AWOL.
12
For full detail by county, see Appendix C. Length of Stay of Children in Care on April 24, 2014.

20

 Table 1. Exits from Care by Exit Type, January 1, 2014 to April 24, 2014
n=2,373
Exit Type
Reunification
Relatives
Guardianship
Adoption
Aged-out
Other

No.
1,203
66
179
508
321
96
2,373

Total

Percent
51%
3%
8%
21%
14%
4%
100%

From January 1, 2014 to April 24, 2014, 2,369 children accounted for 2,373 exits from Michigan
foster care (four children exited twice during the period). Of the 2,373 exits, 1,203 exits were
reunifications with parents and 66 exits were exits to relatives. One-hundred seventy-nine
children exited to guardianship and 508 children were adopted. In sum, 1,956 children exited to
permanency. Of the remaining exits, 317 youth aged-out, with four exiting twice for a total of
321 exits.13 Ninety-six exits fell into other categories.14

Organizational Capacity
DHS has established and maintained a Children’s Services Administration consistent with the
organizational structure requirements set forth in the MSA.

Caseloads and Supervision
The MSA sets forth caseload standards for staff and supervisors performing critical child welfare
functions. Unlike previous periods, the monitoring team was unable to verify the accuracy of
DHS’ April 2014 caseload count submission15 for POS staff, foster care staff, adoption staff, child

13

The recording of entries and exits to the YAVFC program account for the four youth who aged-out twice during
the period.
14
Other categories include death (7 exits), not applicable (17), married (1), out-of-town inquiry (OTI) activity
completed (66), and transfer to another agency (5). The monitoring team plans to learn more about the situations
of children in the OTI activity completed category in the coming months.
15
Using its hybrid methodology, DHS reported that as of April 16, 2014, the agency met or exceeded two of the
seven caseload standards in the MSA, and nearly met two others, though the monitoring team cannot confirm this.

21

 protection investigators, licensing staff, and supervisors.16 DHS’ postponement of MiSACWIS
implementation delayed the full automation of the agency’s caseload counting, which remained
at the conclusion of MSA 6 a hybrid of both electronic reporting and manual counts selfreported by local child welfare offices. That methodology requires extensive verification work
by the monitoring team because of its hybrid nature, particularly the integration of numerous,
local, and manual self-reports. 17 As the court has stressed, all work by staff must be taken
into account in assessing caseloads and workloads. Performance against the standards set
forth in the MSA, for both workers and supervisors, must be assessed based on the aggregate
data across both the public and private sector.
As previously indicated, DHS implemented its new MiSACWIS data system in late April 2014,
shortly after finalizing a caseload count based on the hybrid methodology. 18 Unfortunately,
MiSACWIS has been unable, as of January 31, 2015, to provide DHS with an accurate
assessment of its staff caseloads and supervisory workloads. DHS twice requested and received
from the monitoring team an extension for production of its first post-MiSACWIS quarterly
caseload count, pushing back the due date from September to November 2014. In December
2014, DHS reported that it continued to face numerous, recurrent problems in addition to some
new challenges that developed as MiSACWIS fixes were built, tested, and rolled out statewide.
Among the challenges DHS has confronted, numerous cases that had been closed prior to the
new system’s implementation were automatically re-opened. As of January 2015, there was no
accurate record in MiSACWIS for who is responsible for more than 1,300 children, down from

16

The monitoring team’s verification activities historically included field visits with randomly selected staff to
confirm caseload standards. Following the implementation of MiSACWIS, DHS requested that the monitoring team
forebear from visiting DHS field offices in order to give staff time to acclimate to the new system. The monitoring
team hoped quarterly caseload counts would become available in the fall of 2014, from which the monitoring
team would conduct verification activities for the purposes of this report. However, DHS has not yet been able to
produce a comprehensive and accurate count of workloads.
17
DHS began by electronically generating a list of staff and cases assigned to those staff, as well as a list of
supervisors and the staff assigned to those supervisors. That information was then sent to each local office and
private agency for corrections to staffing information and for additional information which cannot be collected
electronically. Central office staff instructed local offices to document any data discrepancies, like an inaccurate
number of cases indicated for a worker. Individual offices then sent the information back with any updates needed
for the DHS central office to compile the report to the monitoring team. DHS reported that central office continued
to work on improving the accuracy of the caseload reporting by implementing additional levels of review and
engaging in technical assistance with local offices.
18
DHS collected information from 44 public agency offices and 62 private agencies. Staff in both sectors can either
perform a single function (spending 100 percent of their time as foster care workers, for example) or multiple
functions (foster care and licensing, for example) which require applying the appropriate standards on a pro-rated
basis. Similarly, some supervisors, in addition to supervising, may also carry cases directly. Those hybrid
supervisors’ caseloads must also be assessed on a pro-rated basis against the applicable standards.

22

 1,718 children in December 2014.19 MiSACWIS excluded many licensing cases in the caseload
counts altogether. Moreover, new allegations of child abuse or neglect, which are received
during the pendency of related child protection investigations, are not consistently linked to
existing open investigations in MiSACWIS. The system does not yet have the capacity to report
supervisory workloads.
As of the writing of this report, it is unclear when fully electronic, accurate caseload and
workload reporting will be achieved, but DHS leadership and staff are hard at work to correct
the system problems that have prevented accurate caseload reporting since MiSACWIS
implementation.

Child Safety
Freedom from Abuse and Neglect
DHS agreed in the MSA to keep children free from harm by implementing a variety of structural
reforms, including commitments to meet federal outcome standards regarding safety for
children. The parties adopted in the MSA the outcome methodologies developed by the federal
government, including two safety measures and four permanency composite measures, with
the four permanency composite measures encompassing 15 sub-measures.20
Safety Outcomes
DHS did not meet either of the required child safety measures. The first standard selected by
the parties is designed to measure how well the system protects children from repeated
incidents of abuse or neglect. In particular, the measure focuses on reducing repeated incidents
in a short period of time and so looks at how often children and youth who were the subjects of
a substantiated incident of abuse or neglect during a defined six-month period of time were reabused or neglected during the following six-month period. To meet the agreed upon standard,
DHS would have needed to prevent repeat harm for at least 215 additional children.21 The
second safety standard selected by the parties focuses on keeping children placed in foster care
19

For the unverified, partial December caseload count, see Appendix A. Michigan DHS – Caseload Data 12/15/14.
For purposes of this report, the monitoring team utilized the updated FFY2013 data profile dated August 12,
2014 submitted by DHS, some of which was referenced in the MSA 5 report.
21
The parties agreed that as of September 30, 2010, DHS was to meet and then maintain a standard of 94.6
percent or higher. The data profile reflects that DHS reported there was no repeat maltreatment for 93.3 percent
of children, below the required 94.6 percent, representing 215 abused and neglected children over and above the
standard.
20

23

 safe from abuse and neglect by their caregivers.22 DHS would be required to protect at least 81
more of these children from abuse or neglect in placement in order to meet the federal
standard.
DHS’ failure to achieve the minimum safety standards for children in foster care is a persistent
and serious issue, extending for six successive periods under the MSA. To meet the first child
safety standard as reported during these six periods, DHS would have needed to protect more
than 1,240 children from repeat maltreatment since the inception of the MSA. To meet the
second federal child safety standard, DHS should have protected at least 434 more children
from abuse or neglect in placement as reported since the start of the MSA.
Statewide Data Indicators and National Standards for Child and Family Services Reviews
Shortly after the release of Michigan’s updated data profile referenced above, the USDHHS and
ACF published the Final Notice of Statewide Data Indicators and National Standards for Child
and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs) on October 10, 2014.23 The ACF Children’s Bureau will use
these modified indicators and standards going forward to determine Michigan’s conformity
with titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act through the CFSRs. The Children’s Bureau
plans to use two statewide data indicators to measure safety outcomes related to
maltreatment in foster care and recurrence of maltreatment. The safety concepts of the old
and new metrics are similar, but the methods used to calculate the metric differ markedly.24
As part of the issuance of the final indicators and standards, ACF provided its initial assessment
of each state’s performance on the national standards for CFSR 3 (See Appendix D). Michigan’s
performance on keeping children safe placed near the bottom of these national standards.

22

The parties agreed DHS would meet a standard of preventing abuse and neglect for 99.68 percent of children as
of September 30, 2009 and maintain that standard going forward. The most recent data profile reflects that DHS
reported it kept 99.31 percent of children in placement during the period safe from abuse or neglect in care,
representing 81 abused and neglected children over and above the standard.
23
While negotiating the MSA in 2011, the parties were aware that the then-existing federal indicators were under
review by HHS. As such, the parties included the following language in the MSA: “In the event that, during the term
of this Agreement, HHS modifies these indicators or the methodologies underlying these indicators, the parties
and the monitors shall meet to determine whether to make corresponding changes in DHS’ responsibilities under
the Agreement.” The monitoring team will report on these discussions in future monitoring periods.
24
The new metric for maltreatment in care, for example, includes maltreatment experienced while a child is in
foster care regardless of the perpetrator. The prior metric measured only maltreatment perpetrated by caregivers.

24

 Table 2. Michigan Performance on Safety Outcomes for CFSR 3 (10-10-2014)

Measure
Maltreatment in Foster Care: Of all children in
foster care during a 12-month period, what is the
rate of victimization per day of foster care?
Recurrence of Maltreatment: Of all children
who were victims of a substantiated or indicated
maltreatment report during a 12-month
reporting period, what percent were victims of
another substantiated or indicated maltreatment
report within 12 months of their initial report?

Risk Standardized
Performance/12Month Period

Additional
Performance
Needed

State
Performance

18.41/
October 2012September 2013

328 fewer child
victimizations

45 of 48

16.2%/
October 2011September 2012

1,753 fewer
recurrences of
child
maltreatment

46 of 48

Child Safety in Placement
DHS agreed to independently monitor and enforce private agency and CCI contracts with an eye
toward better protecting children from harm. DHS’ Bureau of Children and Adult Licensing
(BCAL) monitors all of DHS’ licensed programs at regular intervals. This process, known as
consolidated contract monitoring, includes BCAL inspections by 18 licensing consultants who
conduct on-site visits to program facilities, review agency records, and meet with staff,
residents, and clients. Additionally, eight BCAL field analysts visit foster and unlicensed relative
homes, interviewing the foster children and caregivers to advance children’s interests in safety,
permanency, and well-being. When available, birth parents are also interviewed. The findings of
the analysts are shared with the licensing consultants, who are expected to incorporate the
information into a consolidated licensing report.
The work of the BCAL consultants and analysts provides an informative window into DHS’ child
safety record. During this period, field analysts visited 246 licensed foster homes and 141
unlicensed relative homes25 supervised by 69 of 76 agencies.26 DHS reported that the visits
25

DHS had reported that the field analysts visited 131 unlicensed relative homes during MSA 6, but in reviewing
the analyst reports provided by DHS, the monitoring team found that 141 unlicensed relative homes were actually
visited.
26
In addition, during MSA 6, BCAL consultants conducted 76 interim and renewal CPA inspections for 26 DHS local
agencies and 50 private agencies. There were 19 Adoption Services violations, two Native American Affairs
violations, and one Supervised Independent Living violation. Two CPAs were issued provisional licenses due to rule
non-compliance. In addition, DHS reported that during MSA 6, BCAL conducted 45 unannounced renewal or
interim CCI inspections. Twenty-nine of these inspections resulted in a corrective action plan, 13 resulted in no
violations, and three were given provisional licenses. BCAL investigated 49 complaints in 41 different public and
private CPAs. There were 129 rule allegations, and 64 were substantiated as violations. Fifty-three required a
corrective action plan and one agency was issued a provisional license, with that agency having 11 violations.

25

 were scheduled to occur prior to the licensing consultants’ inspections so the analysts’
summary reports would be available for the consultant as an integral part of the agency review
process. As of MSA 6, BCAL was still developing written protocols for responding to child safety
concerns identified by the analysts.
The monitoring team reviewed all of the analyst reports for the agencies whose homes were
visited during MSA 6. Of the 69 agencies, 49 (71 percent) had at least one home where the DHS
BCAL analysts identified health or safety risks.27 These issues included bedrooms and living
spaces without egress windows; children without appropriate cribs or beds to ensure safe
sleeping arrangements; pools and ponds adjacent to homes without necessary safeguards such
as door alarms or fences; and stairs without railings. The majority of reports documented
follow-up and resolution to safety concerns,28 but reveal that children continue to be placed
with caregivers who do not have the capacity to safely care for them, suggesting an inadequate
supply of safe and ready homes for children.
Caseworker Visitation: Worker-Child
One of the primary strategies used by child welfare systems to keep children free from harm is
routine visitation between children and their caseworkers. However, DHS continues to struggle
to meet the MSA visitation standards despite impressive progress on caseloads as documented
in the MSA 5 report. Face-to-face time between the critical participants in a child welfare case is
a key element of child safety and there is a substantial body of data and research
demonstrating that more frequent visits with caseworkers, parents, and siblings improve safety,
permanency, and well-being for children in care.29 As such, DHS agreed:


Caseworkers shall visit all children in custody at least twice in each of the first two
months of a child’s placement, and at least once in each following month. Additionally,
at least one visit each month shall occur in the placement setting.



When children are subsequently moved to a new placement, caseworkers shall again
visit these children at least twice during each of the first two months of that new
placement, and shall continue to visit them monthly in the following months.

27

All of the homes were given prior notice and agreed to BCAL’s visit.
The monitoring team identified 13 agencies for which there was no documentation that the safety and health
risks documented by the analysts were pursued and resolved.
29
United States Children’s Bureau (2003). Relationship between caseworker visits with children and other indicator
ratings in 2002 cases; Child Welfare Information Gateway, Sibling Issues in Foster Care and Adoption (December
2006). The importance of caseworker visitation with children in foster care has also been recognized by Congress
in the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006, Pub. L. 109-288 (2006), which requires that child
welfare agencies ensure that caseworkers visit at least 90% of children in foster care monthly by 2011.
28

26

 DHS generated information from its InfoView reporting system regarding performance on
worker-child visits.30 For the fifth consecutive monitoring period,31 DHS did not meet the
worker-child visitation commitments set forth in the MSA. 32 The Department’s reported
performance in the abbreviated period is reflected in the following figures:
Figure 4. Worker-Child Contacts at First Placement from January 1, 2014 to April 24, 2014
100%
90%
80%

85.6%

85.5%
79.0%

72.5%

71.1%

70%
70.4%
60%

84.4%
81.6%

72.9%

63.6%
63.4%

62.8%

50%
40%
30%
Jan-14

Feb-14

Mar-14

Apr-14

% of children with at least 2 face-to-face contacts - first month
% of children with a least 1 face-to-face contact in placement setting - first month
% of children with a least 1 face-to-face contact - subsequent months

30

For this monitoring period, the reports from InfoView reflect data entered prior to the implementation of
MiSACWIS on April 24, 2014. Performance rates for the month of April do not include any visitation or data entry
that may have occurred in the four working days from April 25-30. The monitoring team notes that had data for
the entire month been available, April performance rates may have differed.
31
In MSA 1, DHS was not required to report on the visitation commitments. Therefore, MSA 6 is the fifth
monitoring period in which DHS was required to report this information.
32
DHS continues to believe its InfoView reporting system undercounts actual performance due to system
functionality limitations.

27

 Figure 5. Worker-Child Contacts at Children’s Replacement
from January 1, 2014 to April 24, 2014
100%
90%
80%

70.3%

70%

66.4%

64.5%

60%
50%

59.7%

59.0%

55.8%

41.3%

40%
35.5%

30%
Jan-14

Feb-14

Mar-14

Apr-14

% of children with a least 2 face-to-face contacts - first month
% of children with at least 1 face-to-face contact - subsequent months

The monitoring team read all of the BCAL documents connected with visits to foster care
providers in MSA 6 and determined that caregivers reported to BCAL a lack of caseworker visits
at 33 (48 percent) of the reviewed agencies and a lack of support from caseworkers at 26 (38
percent) of the agencies.
Special Investigations
The problems unearthed by DHS’ BCAL staff – many of which could provide a roadmap to DHS
for improving children’s safety – extend beyond gaps in caseworker visitation with children.
During MSA 6, BCAL conducted 207 special investigations33 in 64 CCIs. As of April 24, 2014, 886
children (seven percent of the total foster care population) were placed in a CCI, the largest
number of children since the establishment of the MSA. DHS reported the average length of
stay for children in their last residential placements increased to 231 days in MSA 6 from 222
days in MSA 5. Of the children in residential placements, DHS reported 159 were in those
settings in excess of 360 days. In reviewing the 207 BCAL reports, the monitoring team found
that 74 (36 percent) of the investigations involved complaints for the use of improper,
unnecessary, or injurious restraints. Of these 74 complaints, 34 involved children injured as a
33

Initially DHS submitted information and reports to the monitoring team indicating that there were 197 special
investigations conducted during MSA 6. Several months later, the monitoring team requested further information
from DHS regarding the special investigations and were advised that there were an additional ten investigations
not included in DHS’ original submission. DHS provided the additional reports, and all ten were reviewed by the
monitoring team.

28

 result of restraints. An additional 32 (16 percent) concerned allegations of physical abuse or
discipline, 54 (26 percent) involved neglect or improper supervision of residents, and 14 (seven
percent) involved allegations of sexual abuse. The 207 special investigations resulted in 139
established violations involving 39 agencies. Fifty-one of the allegations were related to
corporal punishment, five of which were established. Additionally, there were 32 established
violations involving the use of improper, unnecessary, or injurious restraints. Corrective action
plans were required in 79 of the investigations, 22 resulted in staff terminations, and one
provisional license was recommended.
The extent of child injuries, rule violations, terminated staff, and improper restraints against
children provides a ripe opportunity for DHS to focus on improving child safety by reforming the
culture and practices of children’s care in CCIs. Eight of the investigated facilities had patterns
of referrals and/or significant concerns pertaining to BCAL violations, including failure to
properly supervise children resulting in harm or risk of harm, and unjustified or inappropriate
physical restraint of children that resulted in harm. One agency had 17 BCAL investigations,
with seven investigations resulting in violations, most of which involved improper physical
restraints of residents. Concerns regarding this agency were identified by the monitoring team
during a review of maltreatment in care cases and those concerns were brought to the
attention of DHS.
Substantiated Abuse, Neglect, Corporal Punishment, and Seclusion in Contract Agencies
DHS made a series of commitments to prohibit the use of corporal punishment (the intentional
infliction of pain on children) and reduce the seclusion of children in its custody. The DCQI team
is responsible to review reports of corporal punishment and seclusion in order to identify
trends and to report their analysis to BCAL.34 DHS reported that during MSA 6, two CCIs and 30
foster parents were cited for the use of corporal punishment. Additionally, 26 licensed CCIs
reported the use of seclusion on children in 1,082 incidents, a 40 percent increase from the
previous period.35

34

The DCQI unit reviews all substantiated corporal punishment violations in CCIs and CPAs, including: a review of
licensing special investigations, the Central Registry and, if appropriate, the MIC investigation. BCAL, in turn, has
the responsibility to manage appropriate follow-up with the CPAs and CCIs, including but not limited to requiring
corrective action plans, offering technical assistance to the agency, and following up on identified issues during the
annual on-site licensing/contract reviews.
35
DHS reported that there may be a glitch in their Juvenile Justice Online Technology system for the contract
agencies to report their use of seclusion and believes that preliminarily it appears that the actual numbers may be
over-reported. DHS advises that a reporting form is being developed which will result in improved reporting for
MSA 7.

29

 BCAL conducts interim and renewal in-person inspections of programs and facilities, with a
license renewal inspection every two years. The onsite inspection consists of interviews with
staff, clients, and residents as well as record reviews. DHS agreed that during these inspections,
all incidents of abuse, neglect, and corporal punishment would be evaluated by BCAL and given
due consideration as part of the licensing renewal process. The monitoring team reviewed a
sample of the interim and renewal evaluations conducted by BCAL during MSA 6 and found that
the reports included the due consideration provision, and in most cases, the reports contained
information regarding the effectiveness of corrective action plans.
In addition to due consideration, DHS is required to conduct an investigation in the event a
contract agency fails to report an incident of abuse, neglect, or corporal punishment. During
MSA 6, DHS reported that there were six agencies referred for allegations of failure to report.
Four of these agencies were cited and received a violation for failure to report; two programs
were private CPAs and two programs were private CCIs. According to DHS, these four cited
agencies took appropriate corrective measures and no further action was necessary. During the
monitoring team’s review of MSA 6 materials, the monitoring team independently identified
that DHS had cited an additional agency for failure to report. This agency submitted a corrective
action plan which was accepted by DHS.

30

 Maltreatment in Care Investigative Units
DHS agreed to investigate all allegations of abuse or neglect relating to any child in the foster
care custody of DHS. The DHS MIC Units are responsible for conducting CPS investigations in
licensed and unlicensed foster homes, CCIs, juvenile detention centers, and licensed day care
centers or homes. The responsibility for conducting MIC investigations is shared among nine
DHS units statewide; five units are responsible for the designated counties and four units for
the remainder of the state.36 DHS reported that 1,407 complaints alleging maltreatment in care
were received at Centralized Intake between January 1, 2014 and April 24, 2014. The following
table documents the breakdown of these referrals:
Table 3. CPS-MIC Complaints by Centralized Intake Action from January 1, 2014 – April 24,
2014
Action

Number

Assigned

Percent

448

31.8%

312

22.2%

645

45.8%

Withdrawn

2

0.1%

Other

0

0.0%

1,407

99.99%*

37

Transferred
38

Rejected

Total MIC Complaints

*Percentage does not add to exactly 100% due to rounding.
Four hundred forty-eight complaints alleging maltreatment of children in care, involving 1,368
children, were assigned for investigation. Of the 448 investigations, DHS substantiated abuse or

36

The five designated county units are supervised locally through the county child welfare office. The four units
serving the remainder of the state are supervised by the central office child welfare field operations unit.
37
In the MSA, DHS committed to investigate all allegations of abuse or neglect relating to any child in the foster
care custody of DHS. The DHS MIC units investigate allegations of maltreatment regarding children in the custody
of DHS with one exception. The Michigan Child Protection Law requires that law enforcement personnel
investigate alleged maltreatment of children by teachers, teacher’s aides, or members of the clergy and DHS
transfers these complaints to law enforcement for investigation. When law enforcement investigations confirm
that abuse and/or neglect has been substantiated, confirmed perpetrators are not included on the DHS’ child
maltreatment registry. Further, DHS reported to the monitors that the agency does not have the capacity to track
and report the disposition of child abuse and neglect investigations transferred to law enforcement, including
those involving children who are members of the plaintiff class. These issues require discussion and resolution to
ensure that all members of the plaintiff class who are abused or neglected while in the state’s custody are included
in the DHS data.
38
For DHS policy, see Appendix E. Michigan DHS Policy PSM 712-7 Rejected Complaints.

31

 neglect in 44 investigations that included 78 child victims. Of these 78 child victims, DHS
identified 45 children as victims of maltreatment while in care.39, 40
Because DHS reported MIC data on an abridged basis (only through April 24, 2014) the
monitoring team conducted an analysis to project the number of complaints, referrals,
substantiations, and MIC victims over the full six-month period. Absent an atypical surge in
activity in May and June 2014, the monitoring team’s projections suggest a 30 percent decrease
in MIC victims during MSA 6 relative to any previous period measured under the MSA.
Table 4. CPS-MIC Complaints and MIC Victims41 by MSA Period
MSA Period
MSA 2
MSA 3
MSA 4
MSA 5
MSA 6 (projected)

Number of MIC Victims
Number of MIC Complaints
113
2,056
106
2,185
116
2,311
105
2,238
73
2,234

The size of the decrease in MIC victims during MSA 6, when compared with previous MSA
periods, suggests data quality issues, which the monitoring team is reviewing. The monitoring
team compared the MIC data on complaints opened from January 1 to April 24 for the years
2012, 2013, and 2014. While the number of complaints in 2013 and 2014 are almost identical—
1,466 and 1,407 respectively—the number of MIC victims drops by half from 82 to 45 victims in
2014. In particular, the number of MIC victims year over year drops precipitously during the
dates March 1 to April 24. That the majority of the decrease in MIC victims during MSA 6 comes
from March and April suggests that data quality issues related to the transition from SWSS to
MiSACWIS may be a cause.

39

DHS was unable to retrieve data that could specifically identify only foster children who have been victims of
abuse or neglect while in a foster care placement. The former data system did not distinguish between victims who
are foster children and victims who are the legal children of foster parents (and not in foster care). Thus, DHS
conducted a manual review of each child victim to determine the total number of children who were in foster care
custody and were therefore MIC victims. DHS did not provide detailed data on individual children excluded from
the MIC victims count through its manual review.
40
DHS identified 46 of the 78 child victims as victims of maltreatment while in care. However, in November 2014,
during a joint MIC review with DCQI staff, DHS informed the monitoring team that an error was made in their
manual review of child victims, as one child listed as a MIC victim was a juvenile justice ward and not in foster care
at the time the maltreatment occurred.
41
The annual totals represented in this table do not include children and youth abused and neglected by their
parent(s) on trial home reunification or during visitation.

32

 Table 5. March 1 to April 24, Year over Year Comparison of CPS-MIC Complaints and MIC
Victims
Year (MSA period)
2012 (MSA 2)
2013 (MSA 4)
2014 (MSA 6)

Number of MIC Victims
Number of MIC Complaints
42
623
35
734
12
648

As the figure below indicates, a disproportionate number of children in unlicensed relative
homes suffer maltreatment while in these placements. As discussed in this MSA 6 report and in
previous reports, the monitoring team is concerned about the safety of children in unlicensed
relative homes. The disproportionate incidence of maltreatment for the children who reside in
these homes raises questions about the quality of DHS’ screening of and support services
provided to unlicensed relative caregivers to ensure that children are safe while in their care.
Figure 6. Placement Type of Children in Care and Substantiated MIC Victims in January 1,
2014 – April 24, 2014
n=13,277 children in care on April 24, 2014; 45 MIC victims from January 1, 2014 – April 24, 2014
50%

47%
40%

40%

36%

30%
22%
20%
11%
10%

9%
7%

4%

0%
Non-relative Home Licensed Relative
Children in Care

Unlicensed
Relative

Child Caring
Institution

Substantiated MIC Victims

During MSA 6, the DHS DCQI unit conducted a review of MIC practice in the urban counties
focused on complaints assigned for investigation from December 1, 2013 through January 31,

33

 2014.42 Of the 136 complaints assigned to investigators during this period, the DHS DCQI unit
randomly selected 90 investigations to review. The reviewers found that MIC investigators
engage with children and caretakers but frequently not with the licensing workers, the BCAL
staff, or foster care workers. Further, the report states that engaging with these resources is
critical to ensuring that good decisions are made in assessing the risk and safety of children in
foster care.
Performance-Based Contracting
DHS agreed that contracts with CPAs and CCIs shall be performance-based and shall include
numerous provisions designed to keep children safe. As of MSA 6, DHS’ adoption contracts are
performance-based, and other child welfare services contracts contain some performance
elements from the MSA and DHS policies. Before adding additional performance-based
measures into the remaining DHS contracts, DHS believes it is “necessary to address the longstanding concerns regarding the underlying rate structures for child welfare contracts in
Michigan.” DHS reported that Kent County has been identified to pilot a performance-based
funding model. Implementation will continue through SFY2016 and potential expansion will be
determined in SFY2017-2018. DHS is not introducing further performance measures at this
time.

Statewide Child Abuse Hotline
The monitoring team and DHS leadership met at the conclusion of MSA 6 to discuss the impact
of the MiSACWIS rollout on Centralized Intake (CI) operations. DHS reported that call wait times
and abandoned calls increased considerably during the first week of MiSACWIS implementation
when 38 percent of calls to the hotline were abandoned and call wait times averaged 16
minutes. In comparison, during the first four months of MSA 6, prior to the MiSACWIS rollout,
nine percent of calls were abandoned and average call wait times were under four minutes.
Since week one, DHS reported that call wait times and abandoned call rates have decreased
significantly. DHS attributed the performance decline to design flaws in certain MiSACWIS CI
elements and to a steep learning curve for CI users. In order to address these issues, DHS
reported that it prioritized the redesign of the CI MiSACWIS application which was
implemented early in MSA 7. DHS also reported that ongoing assistance was provided to CI staff
regarding utilization of the new data system. Centralized Intake maintained its staffing
allocation of 121 workers, 26 supervisors, and two second-line managers and authorized the
42

The review consisted of an electronic review of SWSS, but did not include a review of the foster family’s record
nor any information available through the BCAL system (BITS).

34

 hiring of 12 limited-term intake specialists in response to increased call volume and to
MiSACWIS implementation.
During the period from January 1, 2014 to April 24, 2014, CI received 86,226 calls from the
public and staff handled 77,997 of those calls. The remaining 8,229 calls were abandoned by
the caller. Of the calls handled, 46,668 (60 percent), were related to CPS. Fifty-five percent of
the CPS calls resulted in 25,888 CPS complaint referrals sent to DHS field offices for
investigation.
Table 6. CPS Complaints by Centralized Intake Action from January 1, 2014 to April 24, 2014
Action
Number Percent
Assigned for DHS Investigation
25,888
55.5%
43
Transferred
2,860
6.1%
Rejected
17,912
38.4%
Withdrawn
7
0.0%
Other
1
0.0%
Total Complaints
46,668
100.0%

Assignments of CPS complaints to field offices are based on priority response designations as
outlined in the DHS Abuse and Neglect Procedures. Complaints assessed as Priority 1
designations, requiring immediate response, must be referred to the responsible investigating
unit within one hour of receipt of the call. Calls assessed to be Priority 2 or Priority 3, requiring
a 24-hour response, must be referred within three hours of the call.
DHS reported that during MSA 6 the median referral time for Priority 1 calls was 19 minutes
and 27 seconds, while the median referral time for Priority 2 and Priority 3 calls was 40 minutes
and 27 seconds.
DHS continued to use the lead worker model as part of the agency’s strategy to train and
mentor new CI staff. In MSA 5, DHS reported that CI maintained 17 lead worker positions.
During MSA 6, however, DHS eliminated 12 of these positions while maintaining a core group of
five lead workers. The 12 staff previously serving as lead workers remained as intake specialists.
DHS reported that newly hired staff attend program specific training through the Office of
Workforce Development and Training (OWDT) with two of the four weeks dedicated to “on the

43

See footnote 37.

35

 job training” at the hotline. DHS also reported that a new CI training curriculum has been
drafted and will be implemented in a future monitoring period.
Centralized Intake DCQI Review
In February 2014, DHS conducted a SWSS review of 100 CI complaints. The sample consisted of
CPS and MIC complaints referred to CI during the period under review (September – December
2013). DHS reviewers found that preliminary investigations were completed within timeframes
established by policy and that social work contacts were documented consistent with the
preliminary investigation protocols. Centralized Intake specialists were found to have elicited
sufficient information to ensure that the required information was documented in the
allegation narrative. Narratives provided detail regarding the nature of the alleged
abuse/neglect, the identification of the alleged perpetrator, the reporting source, and the
licensing status of the alleged perpetrator. Both household and non-household members were
properly identified, including their relationship to the primary caregiver. Decisions to assign,
transfer, withdraw, or reject complaints were supported by facts in the allegations and the
decisions were made within required timeframes. Centralized Intake staff made contact with
the MIC units, when appropriate. Centralized Intake documentation did not always reflect a
thorough review of current and previous CPS complaints made in the primary caregiver’s name.
The number of previous complaints was identified in only 69 percent of applicable cases.
Secondary caregivers were not consistently identified in the record. DHS found that the
secondary caregiver was identified correctly in only 26 percent of applicable cases. All required
priority response questions were answered in only 78 percent of the cases. DCQI reviewers
made a series of recommendations to CI, including implementing or enhancing staff training
and establishing protocol to review a random sample of intakes, in order to ensure historical
information regarding a family’s involvement with CPS is gathered and evaluated to properly
assess risk.

36

 Responding to Reports of Abuse and Neglect
DHS agreed to ensure that its system for receiving, screening, and investigating reports of child
abuse and neglect will be adequately staffed and that investigations will be commenced as
required by state law44 and completed pursuant to policy requirements. DHS committed to
monitor commencement of investigations through regular review of data-driven reports.
During previous monitoring periods, DHS identified and reported commencement timeliness for
Priority 1 investigations, requiring immediate commencement, separate from Priority 2 and 3
investigations, both requiring 24-hour commencement so that performance could be evaluated
against the applicable timeliness standard.
During MSA 4, DHS identified issues with the methodology utilized to report the timeliness of
Priority 1 commencements in prior reporting periods. The monitoring team met with DHS to
address this issue and agency leadership committed to evaluate the agency’s data capacity to
track the timeliness of Priority 1 investigations and to assess the changes that will need to be
incorporated into MiSACWIS. More than a year ago, DHS also agreed to undertake a review of
current policies regarding commencement timeliness to ensure that policies for interviewing
the child are clear. These data and policy issues remain unresolved as of the writing of this
report and DHS was unable to demonstrate timely commencement of Priority 1 investigations
for the third consecutive monitoring period.
DHS reported that between January 1, 2014 and April 24, 2014 there were 15,895 Priority 2 and
3 investigations. Of those investigations, DHS reported 13,972 investigations (88 percent) were
commenced timely. DHS reported that its Business Service Centers continue to work with field
staff to improve performance relative to the timely commencement of CPS investigations.
DHS also committed to complete CPS investigations pursuant to policy requirements. DHS
policy PSM 713-9 – Completion of Field Investigation states that:
“The standard of promptness (SOP) for completing an investigation is 30 days
from the department’s receipt of the complaint. This includes completion of the
safety assessment; risk assessment; family and child assessments of needs and

44

The Child Protection Law (MCL 722.628) compels the Department to commence an investigation no later than 24
hours after receipt of a complaint, although the seriousness of the alleged or threatened harm to the child may
dictate an immediate response. DHS policy PSM 712-4 states that commencing an investigation requires contact
with someone other than the reporting person within 24 hours of receipt of the complaint to assess the safety of
the alleged victim. Investigations designated as Priority 1 require immediate commencement. Priority 2 and
Priority 3 investigations require 24-hour commencement.

37

 strengths; CPS Investigation Report DHS-154; services agreement, as needed;
and case disposition in SWSS CPS.”
These documents are then populated into the Initial Service Plan (ISP) which encapsulates all
assessments and investigative actions taken on a complaint. The supervisor is required to
review the investigation and once approved, the investigation is considered completed.
In order to measure the timely completion of CPS investigations, DHS submits two data sets to
the monitoring team each period: 1) CPS worker completion of the ISP and 2) CPS supervisory
review and approval of the ISP. Both data sets are analyzed by the monitoring team to assess
DHS’ performance relative to this MSA commitment. The monitoring team may also conduct
periodic qualitative reviews to assess performance relative to investigation completion in future
periods.
DHS reported that between January 1, 2014 and April 24, 2014, 25,140 investigations were due,
and of those, 21,877 (87 percent) had ISPs completed timely by CPS workers. Statewide data
shows that 25,052 ISPs were due for approval, and of those, 21,849 (87 percent) were
approved timely by CPS supervisors.45 Performance improved throughout each month of the
period.
Figure 7. CPS Investigation Completion Timeliness from January 1, 2014 to April 24, 2014
100%
95%
91%

90%

88%

89%

Feb-14

Mar-14

93%
91%

85%
80%

80%

75%

76%

70%
65%
60%
Jan-14

Worker Completion

Apr-14

Supervisor Approval

In Michigan, a CPS investigation outcome is assigned a category based on whether a
preponderance of evidence that child abuse and/or neglect occurred was determined during
45

The difference between ISP and supervisory approvals is due to the 14 day variance between the two due dates.

38

 the investigation. Categories 1, 2 and 3 are investigation dispositions in which child abuse
and/or neglect was determined by a preponderance of evidence. Categories 4 and 5 are
dispositions in which there was not a preponderance of evidence to support a determination of
child abuse and/or neglect. The five CPS investigation outcome categories are described below:


Category 1 – The disposition of a case that was investigated where CPS found a
preponderance of evidence of child abuse and/or neglect and the Child Protection Law
or policy requires a petition for court action.



Category 2 – The disposition of a case that was investigated where CPS found a
preponderance of evidence of child abuse and/or neglect and the SDM risk level is high
or intensive. CPS must open a protective service case and provide services.



Category 3 – The disposition of a case that was investigated where CPS found there was
a preponderance of evidence of child abuse and/or neglect, and the SDM risk level is
low or moderate. CPS must assist the family in receiving community-based services
commensurate with the risk to the child.



Category 4 – The disposition of a case that was investigated where CPS found there was
not a preponderance of evidence of child abuse and/or neglect. CPS may assist the
family in accessing community-based services.



Category 5 – The disposition of a case that was investigated where CPS found no
evidence or child abuse and/or neglect, or was unable to locate the family. Further
intervention by CPS is not warranted.

Between January 1, 2014 and April 24, 2014, DHS reported that there were 27,503 CPS
investigations completed. Of those investigations, 7,552 (27 percent) were found to have a
preponderance of evidence that a child was abused and/or neglected. The remaining 19,951
investigations were determined not to have a preponderance of evidence that abuse and/or
neglect occurred. The following figure depicts the breakdown of investigation findings by
category:

39

 Figure 8. CPS Investigation Findings by Category from January 1, 2014 to April 24, 2014
n=27,503
Category 5
1,036
4%

Category 1
1,718
6%

Category 3
3,542
13%

Category 2
2,292
8%

Category 4
18,915
69%

CPS Investigation DCQI Review
In the MSA, DHS committed to implement a Quality Assurance process to ensure CPS reports
are competently investigated and in cases where abuse/neglect is indicated, actions are taken
and services are provided that are appropriate to the circumstances. The monitoring team has
determined that DHS is building such a system, and in future monitoring periods expect that
this system will be statewide. During MSA 6, the DHS DCQI unit conducted a review of CPS
investigation practice in Macomb County. Fourteen cases were identified for review; the review
period was November 1, 2013 to January 31, 2014. The review concluded that workers
demonstrated a strong knowledge of forensic interviewing and show skill at developing a strong
rapport with children. The review also noted that supervisors and workers are working together
as a team in making case decisions and providing services to families. The DCQI review noted
the following areas for improvement: obtaining pertinent information from all household
members, documentation, and reassessment.

Developing Safe Placements for Children
Resource Home Capacity and Development
When it becomes necessary for children to be removed from their homes due to abuse and
neglect, DHS has the responsibility to ensure that these children are placed in the most
appropriate, least restrictive and safe placement settings. DHS committed to develop an array

40

 of licensed foster homes which are “capable of serving the needs of children coming into
care.”46 The MSA requires DHS to recruit and license new foster families, to ensure each county
has a sufficient pool of foster homes, to match children appropriately to foster families who can
meet their needs and to increase and develop strategies to support foster families. DHS agreed
to maintain state oversight of all these recruitment functions, and has dedicated a full-time
position for this function. DHS also agreed that relative resources will always be explored as the
first placement option and that when children are placed with relatives, those homes will
become licensed in a timely matter, unless limited circumstances exist.
Newly Licensed Resource Homes
As of April 24, 2014, there were 13,277 children in the custody of DHS. Of these children,
11,799 children were placed in out-of-home care, while the remaining children were living in
their parental home. DHS reported that during MSA 6, 404 new relative homes were licensed
and 578 new non-relative foster homes were licensed.
DHS agreed to establish annual targets, in consultation with the monitors, to license new
unrelated foster homes. The targets are to be developed each year by county, based on the
need for an available pool of foster homes for the number of children in DHS’ custody. To
determine county needs, in SFY2014, DHS utilized a tool referred to as the “foster home
calculator.” The tool requires staff to input various data including: the current number of
available foster homes, the number of homes closed during the year, the number of children in
placement, etc. The tool also allows staff to make certain assumptions regarding the need for
new foster homes.
For SFY2014, DHS established an initial goal to license 1,298 non-relative homes statewide. DHS
later reduced the target to 1,174 homes but not in consultation with the monitoring team. The
Department reported that DHS leadership approved the reduction in the annual target “due to
changes in fluctuations inherent with foster care populations.” As of June 30, 2014, DHS
reported that it had licensed 799 non-relative homes through the first nine months of SFY2014.
For SFY2015, the monitoring team met with DHS leadership regarding the use of its foster home
calculator methodology in determining annual targets. The monitoring team had several
questions regarding the assumptions DHS used when calculating those targets. For example, for
24 jurisdictions, when staff entered data based on DHS’ assumptions, negative numbers for
new homes needed were calculated. These results were inconsistent with the county
46

Modified Settlement Agreement, VIII.D.2.

41

 recruitment plans developed by staff, in which the need for more homes for children in DHS’
custody was identified. 47 In instances where negative need was calculated, the county
established a target independent of the calculator, based on their day-to-day experience in
placing children. Thirty-six (69 percent) of Michigan’s 52 jurisdictions48 did not use the target
produced by the calculator. Instead, 29 of the jurisdictions increased their target and seven of
the jurisdictions decreased their target. DHS established a goal to license 1,050 homes
statewide for SFY2015.49
Relative Placements
Placing children with relatives is often good social work practice; it reduces trauma and
increases the likelihood of placement stability for these children. DHS continues to utilize
relative placements for children in care. At the conclusion of MSA 6, of the 13,277 children in
care, 4,459 were placed in relative care,50 with 2,858 relative care providers. Of the 4,459
children placed in relative care, one third were placed with licensed relatives while the
majority, two thirds, were placed with unlicensed relatives.
In analyzing the relative care data from DHS for both MSA 5 and MSA 6, the monitoring team
encountered data discrepancies. The monitoring team received two types of data from DHS,
one on the provider level and one on the child level. Issues were found on the provider list,
including: providers on the provider list were not listed on the child data set, providers on the
child data set were not listed in the provider data set, and overall the number of providers in
the provider data was much smaller than the providers listed in the child data sets. For MSA 6,
the monitoring team restructured the child level data and adjusted for duplicates, as a result
2,858 providers of relative care were identified, compared to the 1,804 providers listed in the
DHS provider spreadsheets.51
DHS committed that for all children placed with relatives, the relative home would be licensed
or in a limited number of circumstances, a waiver of licensure would be obtained. The licensing
47

When questioned by the monitoring team, DHS could not explain the divergence of the calculations and
identified need.
48
While there are 83 counties in Michigan, DHS combines some groups of smaller counties resulting in 52
jurisdictions with foster home target plans.
49
For full detail by county, see Appendix F. SFY15 Non-relative Foster Home Targets.
50
DHS reported that there were 4,453 children in relative placements during MSA 6 and the monitoring team
verified there were 4,459 children. This minor difference could be due to data lag.
51
The monitoring team shared with DHS the discrepancies in the data and held a conference call with DHS
leadership to provide an explanation of how the monitoring team arrived at the analysis. DHS was asked if they
wanted to submit new data and DHS advised that the Department would accept the monitoring team’s analysis.

42

 of relatives allows the relative caretaker to receive the same benefits as unrelated foster
parents, including financial support. In every reporting period since the MSA was adopted, DHS
has not met its commitment to ensure that relatives are licensed unless circumstances exist in
which an approved waiver of licensure is authorized by DHS leadership. As of April 24, 2014,
there were 898 relative providers with an active license and 734 relatives with an approved
active waiver of licensure leaving 1,226 homes that do not have an approved waiver or active
license.
Figure 9. License Status of Relative Caregivers on April 24, 2014
n = 2,858
New
caregiver
221
8%
Unresolved
774
27%

Waiver
pending on
time
12
0%

Waived
734
26%

Licensed
898
31%

License
pending on
time
219
8%

To ensure timely licensure, DHS agreed to license relative caregivers within 180 days of the
child’s placement in the relative home. DHS reported that 160 relative caregivers were due to
receive their foster home license between January 1, 2014 and April 24, 2014 to be considered
timely, and of these providers, 90 (56 percent) obtained licensure within 180 days. However,
the data provided by Michigan do not support these numbers. Through further analysis, the
monitoring team found that 412 relative caregivers were due to receive their foster home
license within the abbreviated MSA 6, and of these providers, 100 (24 percent) obtained
licensure within 180 days.
During MSA 6, DHS’ DCQI unit conducted a review of the Relative Licensing Waiver process. The
review consisted of a sample of 215 children from the ten counties with the highest number of
approved waivers. A total of 198 unique relative provider homes were associated with the
sample of 215 children. The selected children were in homes that had waivers approved during
MSA 5. The DHS DCQI review issued the following findings:

43

 

Over half of the children had a safety screen completed after or during the child’s
placement. Policy requires the safety screen to be completed prior to the child’s
placement in the home.



Nineteen children were placed in homes with documented concerns (i.e., did not have
sufficient beds, had a criminal history, had past CPS history, etc.).



The Relative Placement Home Study (DHS 3130-A) was completed late for 126 of 211
children (60 percent), with DHS unable to locate four home studies.52



Of the 211 completed home studies,53 81 (38 percent) indicated the family was in need
of financial assistance. For an additional 55 studies (26 percent) the DCQI reviewer could
not find documentation that financial issues were discussed and there was no
documentation of income and monthly expenses.



The reviewers found that 49 children (23 percent) were in homes in which the family
was unable to become licensed. In these cases, there was no documentation indicating
that BCAL had been consulted to obtain a variance.

The findings issued by the DHS DCQI unit are concerning and are consistent with the findings of
the monitoring team. While placing children with relatives is best social work practice, doing so
is only appropriate when relatives can safely provide care for children and can meet children’s
needs. The commitments DHS made to children and relatives are of critical importance to
ensure the child’s safety and well-being. However, for the fifth consecutive monitoring period,
DHS has not implemented the relative care commitments envisioned by the Agreement.
Relative Care Infrastructure
Since hiring the Relative Licensing Coordinator on September 30, 2013, DHS advised the
monitoring team that additional attention and focus is being given to the relative care program.
DHS reported that during MSA 6 the coordinator continued efforts to:


increase the percentage of licensed relative placements;



increase the timely licensure of relative homes;



decrease the number of unresolved relative placements;

52

The DHS DCQI Relative Licensing Waiver Review dated July 16, 2014 regarding MSA 5 indicated that 126 of the
211 home studies were completed late. However, in March 2015 DHS notified the monitoring team that 124 of the
211 home studies were completed late.
53
DHS noted that they could not locate four of the home studies.

44

 

decrease the number of waivers granted; and



develop clear and concise relative placement policy incorporating MiTEAM concepts.

Placement Protections
The MSA contains a number of placement protections for children, but DHS could not
demonstrate it implemented any of them. This includes commitments to routinely review the
placement of children in residential and institutional settings; to ensure children at risk of
violence or sexual assault are not placed with other children without an appropriate safety
plan; to place siblings together; to place children near to their families’ homes; to regulate the
number of children in a foster home; and to minimize the placement of children in temporary
and emergency facilities such as shelters.
Reviewing Long-Term Institutional Placements
The MSA requires that when DHS places children in residential care, their placements must be
reviewed and approved by the local DHS county director every 90 days to ensure children do
not languish in non-family settings. When any of these placements exceed 12 months, the
child’s case and placement must be reviewed and approved by DHS’ Child Welfare Field
Operations. The system, agreed to by DHS in the MSA, puts in place an internal set of checks to
ensure children are placed in the least restrictive and most family-like settings when in their
best interests. However, DHS has not demonstrated its implementation of these checks and
balances within its system. As of April 24, 2014, 886 children (seven percent of the total foster
care population) were placed in a CCI, the largest number of children since the establishment of
the MSA. DHS reported the average length of stay for children in their last residential
placements increased to 231 days in MSA 6 from 222 days in MSA 5. Of the children in
residential placements, DHS reported 159 were in those settings in excess of 360 days. Despite
the increase of children in CCIs, and their growing lengths of stay, DHS had not put in place by
MSA 6 a verifiable system for tracking and reporting the ongoing review and approval of
children’s placements in residential settings.
Placing Siblings Together
DHS promised in the MSA that siblings who enter placement at or near the same time would be
placed together unless doing so would harm one or more of the siblings, one of the siblings has
exceptional needs that can only be met in a specialized program or facility, or the size of the
sibling group makes such placement impractical. DHS did not provide evidence of its

45

 implementation of this commitment for siblings in care on April 24, 2014, but reported it
undertook a limited case record review involving 114 foster children randomly54 selected by
DHS staff during MSA 7. DHS’ DCQI staff determined half of the children were not placed with
their siblings and that each separation was justified. Because of the deficiencies of its child
welfare data systems in MSA 6, DHS reported that it was unable to determine and show that it
had implemented this provision for all, or even substantially most, of the children in care in
MSA 6, and requested additional time from the monitoring team to operationalize its new child
welfare database which it hopes will provide reliable data sometime in 2015.
High Risk Youth
DHS committed that it would not place any child deemed in a clinical assessment to be at high
risk of perpetrating violence or sexual assault in any foster care placement with other children
not so determined without an appropriate assessment concerning the safety of all children in
the placement. DHS did not provide evidence of its implementation of this commitment for the
children in care on April 24, 2014, but reported it undertook a limited case record review
involving 14 foster children randomly selected by DHS staff during MSA 7. DHS’ DCQI staff
determined 11 children’s placements included a safety plan, and three did not. Because of the
deficiencies of its child welfare data systems in MSA 6, DHS reported that it was unable to
determine and show that it had implemented this provision for all, or even substantially most,
of the children in care in MSA 6, and requested additional time from the monitoring team to
operationalize its new child welfare database which it hopes will provide reliable data
sometime in 2015.
Placement Proximity from Removal Home
DHS did not implement its commitment to place all children within a 75-mile radius of the
home from which the child was removed, unless one of the exceptional circumstances included
in the MSA applies and is approved in writing by DHS leadership. Of the 13,277 children in care
on April 24, 2014, DHS reported that due to data system and reporting deficiencies, DHS was
unable in MSA 6 to determine the distance from home for 2,810 children (21 percent). Of the
remaining children, DHS reported that 608 children (five percent) were in placements more
than 75 miles from their removal home and the agency recorded permissible exceptions for
only 428 of those children, a sharp decline proportionately from MSA 5.

54

For this and all other DCQI targeted case record reviews described in this report, the monitors did not participate
in the case selection process; DHS established the process and criteria for random selection.

46

 Number of Children Residing in a Foster Home
Although DHS committed in the MSA that no child would be placed in a foster home if that
placement resulted in more than three foster children in the home, or a total of six children,
including the foster family’s birth and adopted children, DHS has never implemented the
commitment for all foster children, and has lost ground in the last year. DHS also agreed that no
placement would result in more than three children under the age of three residing in a foster
home, but as with the balance of the placement provisions in the MSA, DHS has not
implemented the commitment.
As of April 24, 2014, DHS reported that 879 children were placed in 147 foster homes that
exceeded three foster children. In addition, according to DHS, 40 children were placed in 16
homes where there were more than three foster children under the age of three. According to
DHS, both the overall number of children placed in excess of capacity (879) and the number of
children placed in homes with too many very young children (40) represent the highest
reported levels in each category since adoption of the MSA, and evidence DHS’ ongoing
struggle to find placements for children. Moreover, DHS was unable in MSA 6 to report the
number of birth children who resided in a foster home. Thus, some of the homes with three or
fewer foster children may nevertheless be over capacity, depending on the number of birth
children who also reside there.
Table 7. Foster Home Capacity Placement Information

More than 3 Foster Children in a Home
Number of Foster Homes with More
than 3 Foster Children
More than 3 Foster Children under Age
of 3 in a Home
Number of Foster Homes with More
than 3 Foster Children under Age of 3
Average Length of Placement
Number of New Placements that
Exceeded the Capacity Requirement

MSA 1

MSA 2

MSA 3

MSA 4

MSA 5

MSA 6

811

798

807

829

836

879

244

176

189

191

190

147

28

10

9

10

23

40

7

2

2

2

7

16

N/A

265

268

281

248

299

292

390

386

373

416

260

Emergency and Temporary Facilities
DHS did not meet its placement commitments for children with respect to emergency and
temporary facilities. The MSA requires that children not be placed in an emergency or
temporary facility more than one time within a 12-month period, with limited exceptions, and
those children should not remain in an emergency or temporary facility for more than 30 days
unless one of a limited number of exceptional circumstances exists. DHS reported it placed 194
47

 children in an emergency or temporary facility at some point during the truncated MSA 6. Of
these 194 children, DHS reported 71 (37 percent) experienced placements that exceeded 30
days.
In addition, 45 children in MSA 6 were placed in an emergency or temporary facility more than
once within a 12-month period, and 16 children experienced three or more placements within
that same period. According to DHS, 14 children experienced subsequent placements in an
emergency or temporary facility that lasted longer than seven days, half of them in Kent
County.
Of the 194 children placed in emergency shelter care during MSA 6, 15 were six years and
younger while 151 were adolescents age 12 and over. Youth age 15 (12 percent), 16 (20
percent), and 17 (16 percent) were more frequently placed than children and youth of other
ages.
Figure 10. Number of Children by Age Placed in Shelters during MSA 6
n=194

Age 18+
6
3%

Age 0-2
Age 3-6
4
11
2%
6%

Age 7-11
28
14%

Age 16-17
71
37%

Age 12-15
74
38%

Wayne County accounted for 34 percent of the children in emergency shelters, while Kent and
Oakland Counties followed with responsibility for 21 percent and 19 percent, respectively, of
children placed in shelters during the period.55 Sixteen other counties accounted for the
remaining 26 percent of children placed in emergency shelters during the period.
55

See Appendix G. Number of Children Placed in Shelters by Age and County during MSA 6.

48

 Jail, Correctional, or Detention Facilities
The MSA requires that "no child in DHS foster care custody shall be placed by DHS or with
knowledge of DHS, in a jail, correctional, or detention facility unless such child is being placed
pursuant to a delinquency charge" or, obviously, an adult criminal charge. In MSA 6, according
to DHS, 129 youth were confined in a jail or detention facility. DHS reported the majority of
placements (63 percent) continued to be in detention facilities. Forty-eight youth were placed
in jail. The number of detained and incarcerated youth whose restriction of liberty exceeded
100 days was 33. According to DHS, four youth in the child welfare custody of DHS were
detained without any underlying charge and one of those youth remained in confinement for
more than the five days agreed upon in the MSA. DHS reported that its staff did not object on
the record to confinements in three instances where there was no associated charge. Though
these lapses do not comport with the commitments DHS made as part of the court’s order in
this matter, DHS’ overall performance is an improvement from MSA 5.
Placement Process
DHS agreed to develop a placement process in each county that ensures the best possible
available match for a child entering foster care, irrespective of whether the foster home is
supervised by DHS or a private child placing agency. However, DHS reported that in some
counties children are still placed in homes based on an agency rotational basis. The selection
process in those counties continues to be one that is not inclusive of all available homes.

Visitation
Face-to-face time between the critical participants in a child welfare case is a key element of
good social work practice.56 As discussed earlier, DHS agreed to a schedule of caseworker-child
visits in the MSA, but also to the following visitation schedules for all open cases with children
in the state’s custody:


Caseworkers shall visit parents of children with a goal of reunification at least twice
during the first month of placement with at least one visit in the parent’s home. For

56

DHS generates information from its InfoView reporting system regarding performance on worker-child visits,
worker-parent visits, and parent-child visits. For this monitoring period, the reports from InfoView only reflect data
entered into SWSS prior to the implementation of MiSACWIS on April 24, 2014. Therefore, the performance data
provided by DHS captured each month in an abbreviated monitoring period of January 1, 2014 to April 24, 2014.
Performance rates for the month of April do not include any visitation or data entry that may have occurred in the
four working days from April 25-30. The monitoring team notes that had data for the entire month been available,
April performance rates may have differed.

49

 subsequent months, visits must occur at least once per month, with at least one
contact in each three month period occurring in the parent’s place of residence.


All children with a goal of reunification shall visit their parents at least twice monthly
unless specified exceptions exist.



Siblings in custody who are not placed together shall visit each other at least monthly
unless specified exceptions exist.57

Parent-Child Visitation
DHS agreed that when reunification is a child’s permanency goal, parents and children will visit
at least twice each month. For the fifth consecutive monitoring period, DHS did not meet its
commitment to assure two face-to-face contacts between parents and their children in any
month during the abbreviated monitoring period as represented in the following figure:
Figure 11. Parent-Child Contacts from January 1, 2014 to April 24, 2014
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%

47.8%

44.8%

46.6%

31.2%

31.3%

32.8%

Feb-14

Mar-14

39.1%

40%
30%
20%

25.9%

10%
0%
Jan-14

Apr-14

% of cases with at least 2 face-to-face mother-child contacts
% of cases with at least 2 face-to-face father-child contacts

Worker-Parent Visitation
Caseworkers must visit parents of children with a reunification goal at least twice during the
first month of placement with at least one visit in the parental home. For subsequent months,
visits must occur at least once per month. For the fifth consecutive monitoring period, DHS did
57

DHS was unable to produce comprehensive and accurate data for the class from its data systems in MSA 6
regarding sibling visits.

50

 not meet its commitment regarding worker-parent contacts. The following figures represent
the percentage of performance by month for each of the worker-parent visitations:
Figure 12. Worker-Parent Contacts from January 1, 2014 to April 24, 201458
Worker-Mother Contacts

Worker-Father Contacts

100%

100%

90%

90%

80%
70%
60%

70.4%
68.5%

73.2%
70.2%

80%
70.9%

70%

66.0%
61.5%

60%

50%

50%

40%

40%

30%

34.1%

36.9%

31.9%

34.0%

30%

20%

20%

10%

10%

13.5%

0%

56.5%
54.0%
54.3%

50.1%

53.9%
49.2%
44.9%

32.2%
26.6%

24.5%

9.3%

0%
Jan-14

Feb-14

Mar-14

Apr-14

21.1%

Jan-14

Feb-14

Mar-14

Apr-14

–– % of cases with at least 2 face-to-face contacts – first month
–– % of cases with at least 1 in-home contact – first month
–– % of cases with at least 1 face-to-face contact – subsequent months

Well-Being
Health and Mental Health
Despite putting forward a detailed Health Services Plan in 2011 to ensure that foster children
have access to essential health, mental health, and dental care, DHS has been unable to
demonstrate it has ensured these services for foster children consistent with its commitments
in the MSA.
Implementing the Health Services Plan: Health Liaison Officers
DHS committed to protect and safeguard the health of children in foster care by constructing
and submitting to the monitors a Health Services Plan articulating the vision, strategies, and
58

See footnote 56.

51

 policies for an improved health care delivery system for foster children. Within the plan, DHS
described as one of its central strategies the establishment of Health Liaison Officers (HLOs) in
each county to “promote and facilitate improved health outcomes for foster children.” The
HLOs are charged, among other responsibilities, to help county-based foster care staff preserve
continuity of health care; to ensure documentation of psychotropic medication approvals and
documentation of all uses of psychotropic medications for foster children; and to assure that
children’s health needs are identified, assessed, and reassessed with provision
of appropriate
treatment services. Because foster children in Michigan are enrolled in Medicaid managed care
plans, which limit coverage for children with mild to moderate mental health disorders to 20
mental health services visits per year (outpatient), HLOs also play an important role to assist in
resolving barriers to Medicaid enrollment and to extend any needed mental health services
once the cap is reached.
Based on several health care case record reviews over the past two years, the monitoring team
noted to DHS leadership the value that HLOs appear to bring to protecting children and
advancing their safety and well-being. In the Health Services Plan, DHS established 25 HLO
positions and indicated it planned to allocate HLO positions in all remaining counties, dual
counties, and tri-counties by FY2014. The monitoring team approved the Health Services Plan
on this basis, but DHS has not done so, and children in most counties still do not benefit from
the care and expertise of HLOs. The absence of HLOs in much of the state has hindered the
state’s progress implementing its commitments to provide immunizations, medical care, mental
health care, and dental care to children, and contributes to DHS’ inadequate oversight of
psychotropic medications to children in foster care, as discussed below.59
As of January 31, 2015, DHS has not allocated a single HLO position to any additional counties
across Michigan, despite evidence of the positive impact HLOs make in protecting children and
safeguarding their health and well-being. DHS reported it did not request that the Michigan
Legislature provide additional Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) to fill the HLO positions, and did not
convert existing positions to HLOs. In FY2014 and again in FY2015, DHS reported it was required
to reduce its staff allocation. In FY2014 DHS reported it absorbed 75 of 76 targeted FTE
reductions through DHS central office manager positions; one position was a second-line
manager in the field. DHS reported “in the face of significant cuts last year [FY 14] and even
greater cuts this year [FY 15] (about double that of last year), [DHS was] not in a position to
request additional FTE’s.” DHS reported it hopes to allocate additional HLO positions above the
59

During MSA 6, there were 837 children prescribed psychotropic medication who resided in 61 counties that did
not have an allocated HLO.

52

 original 25 staff at some point in FY2015.
Emergency Care
DHS committed to ensure each child receives emergency medical, dental, and mental health
care. DHS did not track emergency care for children in foster care and did not provide evidence
of its implementation of this commitment. DHS reported it undertook a limited case record
review involving 11 foster children, a number representing 0.08 percent of the 13,277 children
in care on April 24, 2014, all of whom were randomly selected by DHS staff and reviewed during
MSA 7. DHS staff concluded that each of the 11 children received adequate care. Because of the
deficiencies of its child welfare data systems, DHS reported that it was unable to determine and
show that it had implemented this provision for all, or even substantially most, of the children
in care who had emergency medical, dental, and mental health needs.
Medical Exams and Mental Health Screenings for Children
In order to protect children’s health and well-being, DHS committed to ensure that 95 percent
of children in foster care receive periodic/yearly medical and mental health examinations. DHS
did not track nor provide evidence of its implementation of these commitments for the 13,277
children in care on April 24, 2014. DHS reported it undertook a limited case record review
involving 80 foster children, a number representing 0.6 percent of children in care on April 24,
2014, all of whom were randomly selected by DHS staff and reviewed during MSA 7. DHS staff
determined that 55 medical exams were completed timely and 38 mental health screenings
were completed timely.
Children under the age of 36 months require more frequent physical examinations and
mental/developmental screenings consistent with the periodic schedule for Well Child Exams
outlined by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which DHS agreed should govern the
timeframes for children’s health care under the MSA. DHS did not track health care for the
youngest foster children nor provide evidence of its implementation of this commitment for the
children in care on April 24, 2014. DHS reported it undertook a limited case record review
involving 23 foster children, all of whom were randomly selected by DHS staff and reviewed
during MSA 7. Twelve of those children, according to DHS, received the well child exams and
nine children received mental health/developmental screenings.
Dental Care for Children
DHS promised that 95 percent of children would have a dental examination within 90 days of
entry into foster care. DHS did not track dental care for foster children nor provide evidence of
its implementation of this commitment. DHS reported it undertook a limited case record review
involving 77 foster children, all of whom were randomly selected and reviewed by DHS staff
53

 during MSA 7. DHS staff determined 36 of the 77 children received a dental exam timely.
Because of the deficiencies of its child welfare data systems in MSA 6, DHS reported that it was
unable to determine and show that it had implemented this provision for all, or even
substantially most, of the children in care.
Children’s Immunizations
DHS pledged to ensure that foster children would receive all required immunizations as defined
by the American Academy of Pediatrics at the appropriate age. DHS cannot provide
comprehensive and accurate information for immunizations of children in the class. DHS
reported it undertook a limited case record review involving 77 foster children, all of whom
were randomly selected and reviewed by DHS staff during MSA 7. DHS staff determined 67 of
the 77 children received required immunizations timely. Because of the deficiencies of its child
welfare data systems in MSA 6, DHS reported that it was unable to determine and show that it
had implemented this provision for all, or even substantially most, of the children in care.
Follow-Up Care for Children
DHS committed to ensure foster children would receive any needed follow-up medical, dental,
and mental health care as identified. DHS did not provide evidence of its implementation of this
commitment for the children in care on April 24, 2014, but reported it undertook a limited case
record review involving 77 foster children, all of whom were randomly selected by DHS staff
and reviewed during MSA 7. DHS staff determined 15 of the children were relevant for
assessing the provision of medical follow-up care, and then resolved that ten of the children
received adequate care. DHS staff determined 25 of the children were relevant for assessing
the provision of mental health follow-up care, and then determined 24 of the children received
adequate care. DHS staff determined 14 of the children were relevant for assessing the
provision of dental follow-up care, and then resolved that 11 of the children received adequate
care. Because of the deficiencies of its child welfare data systems in MSA 6, DHS reported that it
was unable to determine and show whether it had implemented these commitments to followup care occurred for all, or even substantially most, of the children in care.
Coordination of Care: Children’s Medical Records
In order to safeguard children’s health and better coordinate their health care, DHS promised
to maintain current medical files for children in foster care. The commitment requires DHS to
maintain an up-to-date medical file for each child in care, which DHS did not do and did not
track. Because DHS does not track whether children’s files contain current medical information,
DHS instead undertook a limited case record review involving 80 foster children, a number
representing 0.6 percent of the 13,277 children in care on April 24, 2014, all of whom were
54

 randomly selected by DHS staff and reviewed during MSA 7. DHS’ staff determined that 47 of
the 80 children’s records included current medical history reasonably available to DHS.
DHS committed to ensure that 95 percent of foster care providers receive specific written
information regarding the health status of children in their care. This provision is designed to
ensure better coordination of children’s health care and recognizes the important role foster
care providers play in scheduling and attending children’s health appointments, and tracking
their unique needs, which in some instances are serious. DHS does not track whether children’s
caregivers receive specific written information regarding the health status of children in their
care. Instead, DHS undertook a limited case record review involving 80 foster children, all of
whom were randomly selected by DHS staff and reviewed during MSA 7. DHS staff, relying on
children’s case records and the child welfare database, including the new MiSACWIS system,
determined that 34 of the 80 children’s records contained documentation that the caregiver
was provided written health care information.
DHS committed to maintain a medical passport for children in care. The medical passport
serves as one document to record all medical related information. Additionally, the medical
passport should also contain a complete and regularly updated statement of all medications
prescribed to and given to the child. DHS did not track whether children in foster care have
medical passports and did not provide evidence of its implementation of this commitment for
the 13,277 children in care on April 24, 2014. DHS reported it undertook a limited case record
review involving 80 foster children, a number representing 0.6 percent of children in care on
April 24, 2014, all of whom were randomly selected and reviewed by DHS staff during MSA 7.
DHS staff determined that 35 of the 80 children’s records included a completed medical
passport. In a separate review supplied to the monitoring team, BCAL analysts found that 43
(62 percent) of the 69 private agencies they reviewed during MSA 6 had at least one home
where the caregivers did not receive medical passports for the children in care.
DHS committed to ensure that children’s medical and mental health care information is shared
with children’s treating providers, such as doctors and mental health professionals. DHS did not
track whether physicians treating children in foster care receive medical passports or written
health information. DHS reported it undertook a limited case record review involving 80 foster
children, a number representing 0.6 percent of children in care on April 24, 2014, all of whom
were randomly selected and reviewed by DHS staff during MSA 7. Using children’s case files,
the former SWSS child welfare database and the new MiSACWIS child welfare database, DHS
staff concluded that in four of 80 instances, physicians received a medical passport or specific
written health information for children accepted for treatment.
DHS committed to ensure that children’s mental health care information is shared with their
treating providers, such as doctors and therapists, understanding the importance of medical
55

 and mental health histories in protecting children from harm and safeguarding their well-being.
DHS did not track whether mental health professionals treating children in foster care receive
medical passports or written health information. DHS reported it undertook a limited case
record review involving 53 foster children, all of whom were randomly selected and reviewed
by DHS staff during MSA 7. Using children’s case files, the former SWSS child welfare database
and the new MiSACWIS child welfare database, DHS staff concluded that in 15 of 53 instances,
providers received a medical passport or specific written health information for children
accepted for mental health treatment.
In order to better coordinate care for children in foster care, DHS promised to provide all
medical passport information to each foster care provider with whom the child is placed. DHS
did not track whether caregivers for the children in foster care received medical passports or
written health information. DHS reported it undertook a limited case record review involving 80
foster children, all of whom were randomly selected and reviewed by DHS staff during MSA 7.
Using children’s case files, the former SWSS child welfare database and the new MiSACWIS
child welfare database, DHS staff concluded that in 20 of 80 instances, caregivers received an
updated medical passport for children being replaced in their homes.
Access to Health Insurance
DHS promised that 95 percent of children would have access to medical coverage within 30
days of entry into foster care. DHS did not track nor provide evidence of its implementation of
this commitment for the children in care. Instead, DHS reported it undertook a limited case
record review involving 77 foster children, all of whom were randomly selected and reviewed
by DHS staff during MSA 7. DHS staff determined 61 of the 77 children had access to medical
coverage within 30 days of entry into foster care. Because of the deficiencies of its child welfare
data systems in MSA 6, DHS reported that it was unable to determine and show whether it had
implemented this provision for all, or even substantially most, of the children in care.
DHS also pledged to ensure that 95 percent of children would have access to medical coverage
upon subsequent placement. DHS did not track nor provide evidence of its implementation of
this commitment for children in care. Instead, DHS reported it undertook a limited case record
review involving 25 foster children, all of whom were randomly selected and reviewed by DHS
staff during MSA 7. DHS staff determined that 11 of the 25 children had access to medical
coverage within 30 days of a placement change. Because of the deficiencies of its child welfare
data systems in MSA 6, DHS reported that it was unable to determine and show whether it had
implemented this provision for all, or even substantially most, of the children replaced in care.
DHS pledged to ensure all youth emancipating from foster care at age 18 or older are enrolled
for Medicaid managed care coverage so that their health insurance continues uninterrupted.
56

 During MSA 6, 317 youth aged-out of foster care. 60 Of these youth, DHS reported all but 23 had
an identified source of Medicaid. Of these 23 youth, 11 were ineligible due to their residence or
prior existing private coverage.61
Oversight of Psychotropic Medications
The MSA and associated documents required by the MSA set forth certain requirements
designed to protect children and improve the state’s oversight of the prescription and
administration of psychotropic medication to children. Of all the individual children in the
custody of the Michigan child welfare system from January 1, 2014 to April 24, 2014, 2,833
children were prescribed at least one psychotropic medication during the period. This
represents 18 percent of the 15,605 children in foster care during MSA 6, compared to 17
percent (2,930 children) of the 17,272 total children in foster care during MSA 5. Of the 2,833
foster children prescribed psychotropic medications in MSA 6, 243 children entered foster care
sometime during the period. Of those 243 children, DHS reported 85 percent (207) of the
children had a claim for a psychotropic medication in the year prior to entering foster care.
Applicable to each of these 2,833 children, DHS committed to maintain critical safeguards prior
to the prescribing and administering of psychotropic medication to foster children. First,
prescriptions for psychotropic medication by a physician must come only after a thorough
diagnostic assessment occurs, involving a review of medical examination and laboratory data
and consideration of the need for medication as one part of treatment. Second, there will be
documentation of clearly defined target symptoms and treatment goals by the prescribing
physician. And third, DHS will ensure documentation of the informed consent process, including
the signature of the consenting adult.
DHS indicated that it cannot provide evidence it implemented these safeguards for the 2,833
medicated children in the truncated MSA 6 cohort. The difficulty stems in part from DHS’
inability to ensure its own staff provides the DHS Centralized Health Unit with access to
informed consent forms supporting each prescription. Fewer than one in five of the required
informed consent forms were obtained by the Health Unit, a persistent, years-long problem
exacerbated by DHS’ failure to expand its HLO staffing as planned in the 2011 Health Services
60

The DHS medical unit reported that 324 youth aged-out of foster care during the period, a number at odds with
the cohort data provided by DHS. For the purposes of this analysis, the monitoring team relied on the cohort data.
61
Of the remaining 12 youth, DHS reported: five applied for Medicaid and were denied due to a lack of information
from the youth; four were reportedly provided an application they did not complete; one was incarcerated; one
did not provide a forwarding address upon exit from care; and one youth was never located throughout the
duration of the foster care case.

57

 Plan.62 The lack of a working, statewide database in MSA 6 made meaningful, comprehensive
oversight of children’s psychotropic medications by the Foster Care Psychotropic Medication
Oversight Unit elusive, at best.
DHS established a set of criteria, which should trigger a heightened review by the Medical
Consultant. Based on the triggering criteria, DHS reported of the 2,833 foster children
prescribed psychotropic medication, 150 children who are ages five and under were prescribed
psychotropic medications; 252 children were prescribed four or more concomitant
psychotropic medications; 71 children were prescribed two or more concomitant
antidepressants; and 89 children were prescribed two or more concomitant anti-psychotics.
Fewer than half of these children (46.9 percent according to DHS) received a heightened review
by the Medical Consultant.
SED Waiver Services
DHS committed in the MSA to reconfigure mental health spending to expand services for
children with special needs pursuant to the federal SED (Serious Emotional Disturbance) Waiver
by October 2011 in Muskegon, Washtenaw, Eaton, and Clinton counties. DHS implemented the
SED Waiver Project in 37 counties in MSA 6. Services available to children participating in the
SED Waiver include: speech therapy, speech and hearing assessment and treatment,
occupational therapy, treatment for chronic diseases or health problems, intensive home-based
therapy, psychiatric services, and wraparound services. DHS was appropriated $3,275,800 for
FY2014, which maintained Michigan’s ongoing appropriation.
Treatment Homes
DHS committed in the MSA to “maintain” 200 treatment home beds for youth in foster care
with special needs. During the truncated MSA 6 period, DHS maintained only 185 treatment
home beds,63 which included 178 licensed placements and seven unlicensed relative homes
serving children with severe emotional disorders who are receiving enhanced behavioral health
services pursuant to the SED Waiver. Most, but not all, of the 178 licensed placements were
used during the period. Because DHS did not at any time in MSA 6 maintain 200 treatment
beds, the Department did not meet its commitment.
62

See footnote 59.
In March 2015, DHS for the first time represented to the monitoring team that “During the last two months of
the regular MSA 6 period, 25 children were enrolled in the SED Waiver and most likely would be counted as an
active TFC bed for the full MSA 6 period. If these 25 beds were added to the 185 beds that can be verified for the
truncated MSA 6 period, the total number of beds would be 210.” DHS did not provide any information about
these additional beds and the monitoring team is unable at this late date to verify this representation.
63

58

 Education
DHS pledged to take reasonable steps to ensure that school aged foster children receive an
education appropriate to their needs. DHS does not track this commitment for all children in
care and did not offer evidence of having taken such steps for the children in care during the
period. Instead, DHS undertook a case record review involving 90 foster children, all of whom
entered care in MSA 4 or MSA 6 and the period under review was MSA 6. DHS staff determined
that in 85 of the 90 cases, the agency made concerted efforts to assess children’s educational
needs during the period. DHS believes, however, that the absence of any identified educational
service needs in the records staff reviewed indicates an underlying data gap and is not
necessarily reflective of performance for the sample.
Understanding the importance of education to children in foster care, DHS pledged to take
reasonable steps to ensure that foster children are registered for and attending school within
five days of initial placement or any placement change. DHS does not track this commitment for
all children in care and did not offer evidence of having taken reasonable steps to ensure timely
school enrollment for the children in care during the period. Instead, DHS undertook a case
record review involving 90 foster children, all of whom entered care in MSA 4 or MSA 6 and the
period under review was MSA 6. DHS staff determined that in 87 of the 90 cases, the agency
made concerted efforts to timely enroll children in school.
DHS pledged to ensure the continuity of a child’s educational experience when in the child’s
best interests and feasible, in order to minimize the trauma of removal from a child’s family and
home. Continuity of education is characterized by keeping the child in a familiar or current
school and neighborhood and by limiting the number of school changes for the child. DHS does
not track continuity of education for children and did not offer evidence of having taken
reasonable steps to maintain children in their schools. Instead, DHS undertook a case record
review involving 90 foster children, all of whom entered care in MSA 4 or MSA 6. DHS staff
determined that in 87 of the 90 cases, the agency ensured the continuity of the child’s
educational experience.
Higher Education Collaborations
In the MSA, DHS pledged to support higher education for older foster youth through
partnerships with Michigan colleges and universities and through collaboration with community
partners to create and expand scholarships and onsite programs, supports, and mentorships.
DHS has embraced and implemented this commitment, first by awarding seven post-secondary
institutions Independent Living (IL) Skills Coach contracts in 2012. In total, the seven contracts
award approximately $818,000 per year to supporting foster youth.
The IL Skills Coach contract includes a requirement that the institutions recruit, train, and
59

 monitor mentors for students. Mentors are volunteers from the school or community and, if
possible, educated or employed in the area of study of the youth. Mentors are required to
receive a minimum of eight hours of training.
There were 175 students served in these college programs in MSA 6, 81 of whom were under
the age of 21.
In August 2013, DHS allocated a position to the University of Michigan’s (Ann Arbor) Blavin
Scholars Program to recruit foster students to attend the University of Michigan. The Blavin
program, which was established in 2009 by private donors, supports students who were in
foster care at any time in their lives. In the fall 2013 semester, 11 students were enrolled in the
program. The DHS liaison is responsible for recruiting students from across the state to come to
the University of Michigan.
During MSA 6, 240 youth received federal Education and Training Voucher (ETV) funding of
$735,000. ETV is college funding for youth currently or previously in foster care. Of those
awarded funds, 44 percent were attending a community college, 43 percent were attending a
university, eight percent were attending a private institution, and five percent were attending a
vocational/training program.
In March 2014, Michigan’s supplemental budget allocated $750,000 to DHS to provide college
scholarships for students who have been in foster care. An Interagency Agreement was
developed with the Michigan Department of Treasury’s Education Trust office to support the
Fostering Futures Scholarship. Scholarship funding may be used toward tuition/fees, books,
supplies required for enrollment, and equipment required for enrollment. Of the $750,000, 20
percent can be directed toward room and board.
Education Planners
DHS agreed to maintain 14 Education Planners to confer with and support youth ages 14 years
and older in accessing educational services and developing individualized education plans. In
MSA 6, DHS reported it maintained 16 Education Planners to work with older youth in 51
counties across the
state. Their work has evolved to include inter-agency liaison work between
DHS county offices and local education-focused stakeholders.
Seita Scholars Program
DHS agreed in the MSA to support the Seita Scholars program at Western Michigan University
(WMU). DHS reported that during the spring semester of 2014 (which fell under MSA 6), 149
Seita Scholars were enrolled and attending WMU.
DHS continued to provide two liaisons onsite at the WMU campus. The liaisons are foster care
60

 workers who facilitate Seita Scholars’ access to DHS services, such as Youth in Transition funds
and the ETV program, which offers grants to support post-secondary education. During MSA 6,
87 Seita Scholars were among the 240 youth awarded ETV funding, totaling $173,000. The
liaisons also provide courtesy supervision for students who continue to have open foster care
cases in other counties.
During MSA 6, Fostering Success Michigan – a network composed of post-secondary
institutions, DHS offices, and others convened to improve educational outcomes for children in
foster care – continued utilizing the last of the $750,000 State Grant that was received by DHS
from the Michigan Legislature. Funding was used to maintain two Seita Scholar Campus
Coaches, and student scholarships.

Permanency
Permanency Outcomes
Pursuant to the MSA, DHS agreed to meet key outcome performance standards regarding
safety, permanency, and well-being for the children they serve. The parties agreed to use the
outcome methodologies developed by the federal government as a proxy for assessing those
outcomes, including two safety measures and four permanency composite measures, with the
four permanency composite measures encompassing 15 sub-measures. For purposes of this
report, the monitoring team utilized the updated FFY2013 data profile dated August 12, 2014,
some of which was referenced in the MSA 5 report.64
DHS reported failing to meet one permanency composite standard related to reunification, but
reported it exceeded the remaining three composite standards for adoption, youth with long
stays in care, and placement stability.65 The August 2014 updated data profile also included the
expanded federal outcomes standards that took effect at the end of MSA 5. Specifically, by
December 2013, DHS agreed to meet the federal median standard for each of the 15 measures
64

See pages 26-31 and 73 in the MSA 5 report.
The inclusion of children from the juvenile justice only population in AFCARS is permitted by the federal
government, subject to certain restrictions, including the requirement that those children are placed by court
order with the title IV-E agency, which Michigan DHS is. For DHS, the inclusion of these juvenile justice only
children in their placement stability metrics makes a significant difference with regard to outcomes, particularly in
Wayne County. And as Wayne County accounts for one in five children in placement statewide, what impacts
Wayne County impacts the statewide aggregate data. Children from the juvenile justice only population are not
members of the Dwayne B. v Snyder class and as such the monitoring team could not verify their placement
stability. Therefore, as referenced in the MSA 3 report appendix, the monitoring team cannot affirm the reported
rates of placement stability.
65

61

 encompassed within the federal permanency composites, changing that obligation from one of
reporting to the substantive requirement that children receive care that meets each of those
standards. Applying those additional standards, Michigan reported that it did not achieve the
median performance with respect to the three permanency composite measures related to
timeliness of reunification, but exceeded the median performance for the remaining
permanency composite measures.
Statewide Data Indicators and National Standards for Child and Family Services Reviews
As previously noted, the federal government published the Final Notice of Statewide Data
Indicators and National Standards for CFSRs on October 10, 2014. The ACF Children’s Bureau
will use these modified indicators and standards going forward to determine Michigan’s
conformity with titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act through the CFSRs. The Children’s
Bureau plans to use five statewide data indicators to measure permanency outcomes.
Specifically, they are: achievement of permanency in 12 months for children entering foster
care, permanency in 12 months for children in foster care for 12 months to 23 months,
permanency in 12 months for children in foster care for 24 months or more, reentry to foster
care in 12 months, and placement stability.
As part of the issuance of the final indicators and standards, ACF provided its initial assessment
of each state’s performance on the national standards for CFSR 3 (See Appendix H). The
reported permanency outcomes reflect primarily good news.

62

 Table 8. Michigan Performance on Permanency Outcomes for CFSR 3 (10-10-2014)
Measure

Risk Standardized
Performance/12Month Period

Additional
Performance
Needed

State
Performance

33.8%/
April 2011March 2012

380 additional
child exits

38 of 49

N/A

10 of 51

N/A

6 of 51

4.0%/
April 2011March 2012

N/A

1 of 48

3.29/
April 2013March 2014

N/A

11 of 46

Permanency in 12 Months: Of all children who
enter foster care in a 12-month period, what
percent are discharged to permanency within 12
months of entering foster care?
Permanency in 12 Months: Of all children in
foster care on the first day of a 12-month period
who had been in foster care (in that episode)
between 12 and 23 months, what percent
discharged from foster care to permanency within
12 months of the first day of the period?
Permanency in 12 Months: Of all children in
foster care on the first day of a 12-month period
who had been in foster care (in that episode) for
24 months or more, what percent discharged to
permanency within 12 months of the first day?
Re-entry in 12 Months: Of all children who enter
foster care in a 12-month period who were
discharged within 12 months to reunification,
living with a relative, or guardianship, what
percent re-enter foster care within 12 months of
their discharge?
Placement Stability: Of all children who enter
foster care in a 12-month period, what is the rate
of placement moves per day of foster care?

50.7%/
April 2013March 2014

37.5%/
April 2013March 2014

Permanency Case Goals
The following table documents the permanency case goals for the 13,277 children in DHS’
custody on April 24, 2014, using federal reporting definitions, and shows the change in the
distribution of goals between the two reporting periods. On April 24, 2014, 8,358 children had a
goal of reunification, a decrease of 115 children or one percent from the prior reporting period.
Adoption permanency goals were assigned to 3,002 children, an 11 percent increase. The
number of children with a goal of either reunification or adoption increased by 193 children, or
two percent, from the prior reporting period to 11,360 children. On April 24, 2014, 86 percent
of all children had a permanency case goal of either reunification or adoption.
Over the reporting period, the number of children with a goal of guardianship decreased by 33
children, or seven percent. The number of children with a goal of permanent placement with a
relative decreased by 33 children, or 16 percent. Ninety fewer children had a goal of another
planned living arrangement (APPLA), a decline of seven percent. The number of children with a
missing goal decreased by 183, or 63 percent.

63

 Table 9. Children in Care by Permanency Goal on April 24, 2014 and January 1, 201466
Permanency Goal
Reunification
Adoption
Guardianship
Permanent Placement with Relative
Placement in Another Planned Living
Arrangement
Missing Goal Code
Total

24-Apr-14
No.
Column %
8,358
63%
3,002
23%
436
3%
171
1%

1-Jan-14
No.
Column %
8,473
63%
2,694
20%
469
3%
204
2%

Change
No.
%
-115
-1%
308
11%
-33
-7%
-33 -16%

1,204

9%

1,294

10%

-90

-7%

106
13,277

1%
100%

289
13,423

2%
100%

-183
-146

-63%
-1%

Reunification
DHS must establish a permanency case goal for every child who enters out-of-home placement.
For most children, reunification with their families is the preferred goal and on April 24, 2014,
63 percent of children in DHS’ custody had reunification case goals. As discussed in the
Permanency Outcomes section above, DHS has been unable to achieve timely reunification for
these children in the state’s custody. There are time limitations to achieving reunification and
DHS agreed that in order to track and monitor case progress, there must be supervisory
approval and written justification documented in the case record for every child with a
reunification goal longer than 12 months. For children with reunification goals longer than 15
months, the supervisor must approve, and the case record must include compelling reasons
why and how the child can be returned home within a specified and reasonable time in order to
continue the reunification goal. DHS does not track its performance regarding this commitment
for all relevant cases.
Rather, DHS established a permanency case goal review process through its annual
consolidated contract monitoring, conducted by BCAL. BCAL staff read a sample of case records
to determine compliance with licensing rules and with private agency foster care contract
requirements. The BCAL tool assesses, in part, timely completion and supervisory approval of
case plans for children in care more than 12 months with a goal of reunification. BCAL also
reviews the written justification for continuing the case goal, including circumstances and
services necessary to achieve the child’s permanency goal. If non-compliance is determined,
BCAL requires the assigned DHS office or CPA to complete a corrective action plan outlining
action steps to obtain and maintain compliance.
66

For MSA 6, DHS updated the data for January 1, 2014 compared to what they had previously reported in MSA 5.
The monitoring team utilized the updated data here.

64

 DHS reported that during MSA 6, BCAL reviewed 339 open foster care files 67 for children placed
in licensed foster homes, as well as 116 open foster care files for children placed in unlicensed
relative homes. Children in the reviewed homes had various permanency case goals. DHS was
unable to produce data regarding the number of children in the 455 foster homes who had a
permanency goal of reunification for more than 12 months, as BCAL does not track that
information. DHS was able to report that one agency was cited in two cases for violating the
MSA provision that requires no child have a permanency goal for more than 15 months without
documentation in the child’s case record and approval by the supervisor that compelling
reasons exist to believe that the child can be returned home within a specified and reasonable
time. The agency was required to submit a corrective action plan as a result of the violation.
The monitoring team reviewed the corrective action plan submitted by the agency and found
that it adequately addressed the issues cited by BCAL.
Change of Goal to Adoption
In negotiating the MSA, the parties agreed that children who have experienced the loss of their
families through termination of parental rights must have permanent families identified timely
and that DHS must take specific actions to ensure children without an identified family have
child specific recruitment plans developed within a short period of time. DHS agreed that in the
event a child’s permanency goal is changed to adoption, DHS or the assigned CPA shall within
30 days of the goal change:


Assign a worker with adoption expertise to the case;



Determine whether the child’s foster parent or relative is prepared to adopt the child
and, if so, take appropriate steps to secure their consent to adoption;



If no adoptive family is identified, register the child on adoption exchanges and
implement a child-specific plan to recruit an adoptive family for the child; and



Review the recruitment plan in a face-to-face case review meeting at least quarterly
until the child is placed in the home of a family that plans to permanently care for the
child.

Through data verification activities the monitoring team identified 888 children whose
permanency goal changed to adoption between January 1, 2014 and April 24, 2014 and for
whom the above provisions are applicable. DHS advised the monitoring team that it could not
67

While DHS reported 339 files were reviewed, individual consultant reports counted that 361 files were actually
reviewed.

65

 track or produce data reports that document its performance relative to the adoption case goal
provisions of the Agreement for these children. Rather, DHS reported that it conducted a
limited DCQI review for 13 children, less than two percent of the 888 children whose goal
changed to adoption during the period. DHS reported that the review was different than
previous targeted case reviews in the following ways:
1. The review did not include interviews with caseworkers or caregivers.
2. Case reviews were conducted in two systems (SWSS and MiSACWIS) based on the
period under review.
3. Service plans in the MiSACWIS system were not available to the reviewer if still in the
approval process at the time of review.
DHS reported the following as a result of the limited case review:


An adoption worker was assigned within 30 days in nine of ten applicable cases.



The identified adoptive family indicated their intent to adopt within required
timeframes in 11 cases.



Two cases did not have an identified family for the child. In one case the goal had been
changed to adoption prior to termination of parental rights, contrary to DHS policy, and
the requirements that follow were not applicable. In one case in which no adoptive
family was identified, the child was registered on the Michigan Adoption Resource
Exchange. However, a specific adoption recruitment plan was not completed for the
child within specified timeframes and a child-specific recruitment plan was not found in
the child’s record at all.

In summary, DHS was unable to track or report on the adoption case goal change provisions of
the Agreement during MSA 6. DHS conducted a small and limited case review that determined
not all MSA provisions of the adoption case goal process had been achieved.
APPLA
DHS agreed that APPLA permanency goals may only be assigned when children are at least 14
years old and after every reasonable effort has been made and documented to return the child
home, to place the child with relatives, or to place the child for adoption or guardianship. The
foster parent must agree in writing to continue to care for the child until they are emancipated,
and the permanency goal must receive the documented approval of the CSA designee. APPLA-E
may only be assigned for youth age 16 or older for whom there is not a goal for placement with
a legal, permanent family and the youth must be preparing to live independently upon his or
her exit from foster care.
66

 The following table documents the age of youth with an APPLA goal, using federal reporting
definitions, and shows the change in the age distribution between January 1, 2014 and April 24,
2014. The number of children with an APPLA goal decreased by 90 (seven percent) during the
abbreviated monitoring period.
Table 10. Youth with APPLA Goal by Age on April 24, 2014 and January 1, 2014
24-Apr-14
1-Jan-14
Change
No. Column % No. Column % No.
%
Age (Years)
14
10
1%
10
1%
0
0%
15
43
4%
39
3%
4 10%
16
104
9%
91
7% 13 14%
17
261
22%
269
21%
-8 -3%
18
314
26%
353
27% -39 -11%
19
263
22%
290
22% -27 -9%
20
204
17%
225
17% -21 -9%
21
5
0%
17
1% -12 -71%
Total 1,204
100% 1,294
100% -90 -7%

DHS committed to reduce the number of youth with APPLA case goals to nine percent of the
foster care population, excluding youth over 18 years of age who remained in foster care with a
voluntary placement agreement. Beginning in MSA 4 and continuing through the abbreviated
MSA 6 period, DHS reduced the APPLA population below nine percent of the foster care
population. On April 24, 2014, there were 760 youth aged 14 to 18, less than six percent of
youth in foster care, with APPLA case goals.68
During MSA 6, DHS continued to meet its commitments to both ensure that no child under the
age of 14 will be assigned an APPLA case goal and to reduce the APPLA population to fewer
than nine percent of children in DHS’ custody.

Adoption and Guardianship
Reviewing Disrupted Pre-Adoptive Placements
DHS agreed to monitor the number of pre-adoptive placements that disrupt before adoption
finalization and to conduct an annual quality assurance review of a sample of these cases. DHS
has defined a disrupted adoption placement as “any adoption in which the child has been

68

DHS excludes youth in the Young Adult Voluntary Foster Care Program, the Youth in Transition Program, and
youth aged 18 or older in non-ward/voluntary foster care.

67

 legally placed for adoption, as indicated by an Order Placing the Child for Adoption, and the
adoption never reached legal finalization, as indicated by a Final Order of Adoption.” 69
DHS committed to review every disrupted adoption that occurs during a calendar year and to
provide a summary report regarding findings with recommendations for improving services and
permanency outcomes. DHS submitted the first such report for CY2012 and the agency’s
findings were discussed in the MSA 4 report. Thirteen cases were identified for review in
CY2012.
For the period from January 2013 to December 2013, DHS identified 17 cases that met the
review criteria. In each case DHS conducted file reviews and interviewed foster care and
adoption workers and supervisors. DHS interviewed 11 adoptive parents who agreed to
participate in the review and nine children were also interviewed.
The 17 cases involved nine private agencies and eight DHS county offices responsible for
providing adoption services. The breakdown by county is represented in the following figure:
Figure 13. CY2013 Adoption Disruptions by County of Responsibility
n=17
6
4
2
1

1

1

1

1

DHS reported that of the 17 children who had placement disruptions: one child was placed
with relatives, seven were placed with recruited families, and nine were placed with foster
parents. DHS reported that only one child and none of the families reviewed had a prior
adoption disruption. Based on the case file reviews and interviews, DHS found that
adoption workers had completed the required weekly home visits with the recruited

69

“Disrupted Adoption Protocol.” DHS Division of Continuous Quality Improvement.

68

 families when the Order Placing Child after Consent had been signed. Monthly home visits
were conducted with foster parents as required by policy.
DHS reported that it identified the following challenges:


All 11 families interviewed stated that they needed additional training regarding the
adoption of children from the child welfare system as well as training specific to the
needs of the child placed for adoption.



Agencies reported that recommendations for services were made but that not all
families participated in service provision.



All nine agencies reported sharing information with families regarding postplacement services and file reviews contained documentation that families were
provided information regarding services.



Workers reported that at the time of adoption placement there is a transition when
the foster care case closes and the adoption subsidy is initiated and during this
period gaps in service may exist.



Only four of the 11 families interviewed reported that they were informed of the
availability of post-adoption services.



Four families identified that service delivery was problematic and services were not
sufficient to support the child’s continued placement.



Caseworker instability was identified as a challenge. In 15 of the 17 cases, several
foster care worker changes occurred throughout the child’s foster care experience.
Foster care instability was also noted as a concern in the CY2012 adoption disruption
review and DHS reported that it can reasonably be found to have a negative impact
on the child’s placement.

DCQI recommended policy and practice changes that should occur as a result of the challenges
identified. The monitoring team will report on the implementation of those recommendations
in future reports.
Guardianship
DHS committed to finalize 165 juvenile guardianships during CY2014. The monitoring team
analyzed DHS’ data and verified that DHS exceeded the CY2014 target early, as 179 juvenile
guardianships were entered by the court for children in DHS’ custody between January 1, 2014
and April 24, 2014. Of these children, 82 were enrolled in the Guardianship Assistance Program
(GAP), a post-permanency support program that affords eligible families financial assistance
and services.
69

 Providing Support to Adoptive Families
DHS committed to develop and implement a full range of post-adoption services to assist all
eligible special needs children adopted from state foster care and their permanent families.
DHS also committed to maintain sufficient resources to deliver such post-adoption services to
all qualifying children in the plaintiff class along with their permanent families.
DHS reported that the adoption medical subsidy budget allocation for SFY2014 was in excess of
five million dollars. From January 1, 2014 to April 30, 2014, DHS reported that there were 1,279
children who received services reimbursable through the medical subsidy program totaling
$2,401,121 in expenditures.
DHS continued to fund eight Post-Adoption Resource Centers (PARC) throughout Michigan.
Children and youth who were adopted from Michigan’s foster care system and their families
are eligible for services through the PARC. Funding levels remained steady during SFY2014 with
$1,585,503 allocated for PARC services. DHS reported that 1,442 adoptive families throughout
Michigan received services through the eight PARC during MSA 6.
DHS continues to provide post-adoption services through both the medical subsidy program
and post-adoption resource centers, meeting its MSA commitment to develop and implement
post-permanency services for children who have been adopted and their permanent families.

Case Planning and Practice
Assessments, Service Plans, Supervisory Oversight, and the Provision of Services
DHS committed to develop a comprehensive written assessment of a family’s strengths and
needs, designed to inform decision making about services and permanency planning, within 30
days after a child’s entry into foster care. Assessments and service plans must be updated at
least quarterly thereafter. The plans must be signed by the child’s caseworker, the caseworker’s
supervisor, the parents, and the children, if age appropriate. If a parent or child is unavailable
or declines to sign the service plan, DHS must identify steps to secure their participation in
accepting services.
The written service plans must include:


The child’s assigned permanency goal;



Steps that DHS, CPAs when applicable, other service providers, parents, and foster
parents will take together to address the issues that resulted in the child’s placement
and that must be resolved to achieve the permanency goal;

70

 

Services that will be provided to children, parents, and foster parents, who will provide
the services and when they will be initiated;



Actions that caseworkers will take to help children, parents, and foster parents, connect
to, engage with, and make good use of services; and



Objectives that are attainable and measurable, with expected timeframes for
achievement.

DHS agreed that supervisors will meet at least monthly with each assigned caseworker to
review the status and progress of each case on the worker’s caseload. Supervisors must review
and approve each service plan after having a face-to-face meeting with the worker, which can
be at the monthly supervisory meeting.
DHS agreed that the services identified in the service plan will be made available in a timely and
appropriate manner and to monitor services to ensure that they are having the intended effect.
DHS also agreed to identify appropriate, accessible, and individually compatible services; to
assist with transportation; and to identify and resolve barriers that may impede children,
parents, and foster parents from making effective use of services. Finally, DHS agreed to amend
the service plan when services are not provided or do not appear to be effective.
DHS reported that for MSA 6 it could not provide information from MiSACWIS regarding the
timeliness of service plans and provision of services for the 13,277 children in care on April 24,
2014, nor their associated birth and foster families. As an alternative, DHS conducted a targeted
case review to assess performance. Reviews were conducted in two data systems (SWSS and
MiSACWIS), and service plans in the MiSACWIS system were not available to the reviewer if the
plan had not yet received supervisory approval.
DHS reported that it selected a stratified sample of 157 cases supervised by both DHS local
offices and CPAs. Of the 77 cases that had an ISP due, 54 cases, (70 percent) had an ISP
completed within 30 days of a child’s entry into foster care. In the additional 23 cases, (30
percent) the ISP was completed late.
DHS reported that timely Updated Service Plans (USP) were completed in 114 cases, (69
percent) at least every 90 days after the ISP, or more frequently. Forty cases (24 percent) had a
late USP or the reviewer was unable to review the USP in the case file, SWSS or MiSACWIS.
Reviewers could not locate USPs for the remaining 12 cases.
DHS reported that of the 243 ISPs and USPs reviewed, 200 (82 percent) had both the worker
and supervisor’s signature. When parents and children were required to sign the service plans,
the mother’s signature was obtained 21 percent of the time, the father’s signature was
obtained 16 percent of the time and youth signed service plans in only 12 percent of the cases.
71

 Overall, DCQI staff found that service plans were not consistently completed timely, a
significant percentage of the plans were completed late and some could not be located in the
data system at all.
From the group of 157 children, DHS’ DCQI staff determined 120 of the cases were relevant to
the question of children’s service needs; 137 of the cases were relevant to mothers’ service
needs; 98 of the cases were relevant to the question of fathers’ service needs; and 96 of the
cases were relevant to the question of foster parents’ service needs. DHS reported that service
needs were identified and services provided:


For children in 90 percent of the cases;



For mothers in 82 percent of the cases;



For fathers in 72 percent of the cases; and



For foster parents in only 41 percent of the cases.

For MSA 6, DHS reported that it was unable to report on the MSA provision that requires
supervisors to meet with their workers at least monthly and to discuss the case plan with the
worker in a face-to-face meeting.
Family Engagement Model – MiTEAM
DHS agreed that the Family Team Meeting (FTM) model, including concurrent planning, would
be initiated in phases, with implementation in the Big 14 counties occurring by March 2013,
and in the Big 14 contiguous counties by February 2014. DHS reported that DHS and private
agency supervisors ascertained that all of their staff were trained. DHS also reported that
MiTEAM was fully implemented in all counties. As of the writing of this report, DHS reported
there is no MiSACWIS capability to monitor and track whether FTMs are occurring, as per the
agreed upon provisions and schedule in the MSA. DHS reported that FTM data reports will be
available in the future for proactive monitoring, but there is not yet a release date when this
will occur.
Special Reviews for Children Awaiting Permanency – Reunification and Adoption
In order to maintain focus on children in placement for long periods of time, DHS agreed to
conduct special case reviews for children who have been in foster care for more than one year
and who have a goal of reunification or are legally free for adoption.
DHS submitted data files to the monitoring team listing all children in DHS’ custody between
January 1, 2014 and April 24, 2014 who were subject to the special review provisions. DHS
reported there were 2,759 children who met the Temporary Court Ward (TCW) special review
72

 criteria. The monitoring team’s analysis of DHS’ data verified the number of children subject to
TCW special review. DHS identified and the monitoring team verified that 578 children in the
TCW cohort achieved permanency and 1,572 children continued to have reunification goals on
April 24, 2014.
The TPR cohort of children subject to special reviews is comprised of children for whom
parental rights have been terminated for more than 365 days and who are legally available for
adoption. DHS identified 756 legally free children with adoption case goals but excluded legally
free children with all other case goals. The monitoring team identified all children legally free
for more than 365 days and found 1,499 children in the cohort, including 743 children that DHS
had excluded. DHS reported that special reviews were not conducted on those 743 children, as
it is only conducting TPR special reviews on legally free children with adoption case goals. This is
contrary to the MSA provision that requires special reviews for all children who are legally free
for adoption for more than 365 days. Therefore, DHS did not meet its commitment to conduct
special reviews for children in the TPR cohort.
DHS agreed to maintain an adequate number of Permanency Resource Managers (PRM) to
conduct both TCW and TPR special reviews. DHS provided a list of 28 PRM staff, both workers
and supervisors, who are responsible to conduct special reviews. DHS also provided a list of the
training these staff received to equip them to conduct the reviews. DHS has not met its
commitment to conduct special reviews for all children legally free for adoption for more than
365 days. Since the 28 PRM staff available in MSA 6 would be unable to conduct reviews for the
additional 743 cases that DHS excluded from the review process, DHS has not maintained an
adequate number of PRM staff during MSA 6.

Youth Transitioning to Adulthood
Extending Eligibility and Services
DHS agreed in the MSA to implement policy and the necessary resources to extend all foster
youths’ eligibility for child foster care custody until age 20 and to make available independent
living services to youth through age 21. DHS championed the Michigan Fostering Connections
Act, as it promised to do in the MSA, and has implemented the law in the form of the YAVFC
program since April 2012. With this program, youth who are in state-supervised foster care at
the age of 18 or older may continue to receive foster care services until age 21. The program is
only available to all youth, as required in the MSA, if they meet certain educational or labor
requirements, or are exempt. Young people who are not enrolled in school and cannot find
employment are not eligible to remain involved in the YAVFC program. As of April 24, 2014,
approximately 390 youth were probably enrolled in the YAVFC program, as described earlier.
73

 DHS reported an additional group of young people are eligible for voluntary foster care without
employment or education requirements, but only through age 19, not age 21 as required in the
MSA.
The extension of foster care offers a safety net of supportive services and financial benefits
during the transition to adulthood for youth who do not have families to help them. DHS policy
requires that staff discuss the option of YAVFC with youth during a semi-annual transition
meeting, a 90-Day discharge planning meeting, and at least 30 calendar days prior to the
youth’s 18th birthday. DHS data shows that many youth aged-out of foster care in MSA 5 and
MSA 6 without enrolling in the YAVFC program. The data might represent informed, volitional
conduct on the part of the youth, but because of the high number of youth not enrolled in the
YAVFC program, the monitoring team will continue to investigate the extent to which DHS has
implemented policy and the necessary resources to extend all foster youths’ eligibility for child
foster care custody until age 20 and made available independent living services to youth
through age 21.

Immediate Actions for Youth Transitioning to Adulthood
Family Team Meetings
In order to better prepare older foster youth, many without strong family connections, for life
after they leave state care, DHS pledged to ensure it will convene a FTM for each youth age 16
and older to “address issues of support, housing, education, employment, transportation,
financial management and health.” The FTMs, a best practice embraced by DHS in the MSA, are
to occur 90 days before a youth’s planned discharge or within 30 days after an unexpected
discharge. DHS could not track FTMs in MSA 6.
Michigan Youth Opportunities Initiative and Individual Development Accounts
DHS agreed to expand the Michigan Youth Opportunities Initiative (MYOI) in 2012 and to
enable youth participants to open Individual Development Accounts. MYOI provides support
and services to youth aging out of foster care, focusing on education, employment, housing,
physical and mental health, permanency, and social and community engagement. A key
component of the MYOI program includes financial literacy and asset trainings.
During MSA 6, the MYOI program remained active in 64 counties. MYOI has enrolled 2,035
youth participants since it began, with 767 active participants in MSA 6 and 141 in sites that
have been developed since MSA 3. Of the enrolled participants in expansion counties, 128
opened Individual Development Accounts. In some instances, youth were not able to establish
an Individual Development Account as a result of debt or bad credit issues. Youth without open
Individual Development Accounts, regardless of the reason that those accounts are not yet
74

 open, were paid stipends for participation in meetings, trainings, and events, to develop
financial competency.

Staff Qualifications and Training
DHS committed to ensuring that public and private agency staff serving Michigan’s at-risk
children and families have appropriate qualifications and receive adequate training.
Specifically, caseworkers must have a bachelor’s degree in a designated field and receive preservice and in-service training; supervisors must have a master’s or bachelor’s degree in a
designated field, possess child welfare experience, and receive supervisory training; and staff
performing licensing functions must have a bachelor’s degree in a designated field and receive
training targeted to those tasks.
Caseworker Qualifications
DHS reported 213 new caseworkers were hired during MSA 6 – 107 in the public agency and
106 in private agencies. All were required to have a bachelor’s degree in social work or a
related human services field. DHS reported all new caseworkers hired during the period had an
approved degree except one private agency worker who is no longer employed by that agency.
Pre-Service Training
All new child welfare caseworkers, both in DHS and in private agencies, must complete a total
of 270 hours of competence-based training. The pre-service training program offered by DHS
for child welfare workers exceeds 270 hours of training using a combination of classroom
instruction, field instruction, and e-Learning that is expected to occur within 16 weeks of the
new worker’s hire date.
As noted, there were 213 new caseworkers hired during the period. DHS reported that 192 of
the 199 new workers scheduled for training in the period completed pre-service training within
16 weeks of their hire date. Fourteen workers were hired into their positions late in the period
and enrolled in training that ended during MSA 7. There were seven new workers who did not
meet the training commitments — two staff had extenuating circumstances necessitating
military and bereavement leaves, respectively, and five staff either did not enroll in training
timely or did not complete their training assignments timely. The median number of days to
complete training during the period was 67, or 9.6 weeks, well within the 16 weeks agreed
upon in the MSA.
As part of pre-service training, DHS also committed to team new workers with experienced
workers who serve as mentors to trainees as they learn to complete key activities in a case and
75

 progressively build case practice knowledge. DHS reported that every new trainee had a mentor
assigned during the period except one trainee who withdrew from training and one trainee
who had military leave during training. In addition to the commitment to assign mentors to new
staff, DHS also agreed that mentors would maintain the current caseload standards. The
monitoring team was unable to verify DHS’ April 2014 caseload count.70
The MSA allows a trainee to be assigned responsibility for a “training caseload,” under
appropriate supervision, that gradually increases as the trainee successfully completes a series
of competence-based examinations, as depicted in the following table:
Table 11. Training Caseload Progression
Worker Function

Children’s
Protective
Services

Foster Care &
Adoption

Training
Week(s)

Maximum
Caseload

Conditions to be Met

1-4

0

N/A

5-9

5

10+

12 investigations
17 ongoing

1-3

3

4-9

5

10+

15

Pass competency test one and
supervisor approval
Pass competency test two and satisfactory review
by trainer and supervisor
Supervisor discretion using assignment guidelines
(may be assigned on first day of training)
Pass competency test one and
supervisor approval
Pass competency test two and satisfactory review
by trainer and supervisor

Workers in pre-service training are evaluated against caseload standards separately from other
caseload carrying staff due to the nature of the caseload progression calculations. The
monitoring team was unable to verify DHS’ point-in-time caseload count on April 16, 2014 and
could not verify the implementation of trainee caseload progression standards for the 90 new
child welfare caseworkers said to be in pre-service training on that date.
Child Welfare Certificate Program
DHS partnered with Michigan universities that offer a Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) program
to create the Michigan Social Work Child Welfare Certificate program. Embedded in Michigan
schools of social work curricula, the program is designed to prepare social work students to
provide effective child welfare services. The curricula are aligned with DHS’ pre-service training
70

See footnote 16.

76

 competencies and include a 400-hour structured field placement in a DHS office, private agency
or tribal child welfare agency, providing students with a foundation of child welfare experience
and knowledge. Graduation from the program enables new staff to enter pre-service training at
a later phase than new hires that do not possess a Child Welfare Certificate. Thirteen
universities have received endorsement for their Child Welfare Certificate programs and DHS
reported that 32 individuals have graduated from endorsed universities with a Child Welfare
Certificate.
During MSA 6, nine Child Welfare Certificate holders completed pre-service training. In
accordance with the program, these staff were only required to complete the latter five of nine
weeks of pre-service training.
University-Based Child Welfare Training
DHS’ partnership with the seven accredited Michigan graduate schools of social work continued
to be fruitful in MSA 6. The partnership universities offered an extensive array of knowledge
and skill-based in-service training opportunities at no cost to public and private child welfare
staff.71
Michigan State University (MSU), the coordinating university of this training partnership, issued
university in-service usage data for MSA 6. The report indicates that from January through June
2014, 492 DHS and private agency caseworkers and supervisors attended training in 28
different topics. MSU also offered five online courses to supplement the classroom trainings.
Additionally, in March 2014, Wayne State University School of Social Work combined
BSW/MSW program, in partnership with DHS’ Children’s Services Administration, was selected
to receive a five-year grant aimed at strengthening child welfare practice through training
programs, local agency engagement strategies, and specialized child welfare curricula at the
university level.
Supervisory Qualifications
In the MSA, DHS agreed that new child welfare supervisors will possess either a master’s degree
in a human behavioral science and three years of child welfare experience or a similar
bachelor’s degree with three or four years of child welfare experience as a social service
worker. DHS provided information that 38 supervisors were newly appointed during MSA 6.
71

The seven participating schools of social work are: Andrews University, Eastern Michigan University, Grand
Valley State University, Michigan State University, University of Michigan, Wayne State University, and Western
Michigan University.

77

 DHS certified that all of the newly appointed supervisors had the appropriate degrees and the
necessary years of experience.
Supervisor Training
DHS committed in the MSA to implement a competency based training program of at least 40
hours in length, and agreed that child welfare supervisors must complete training and pass a
written competency exam within three months of assuming a supervisory position. In addition,
DHS requires its new supervisors to attend a New Supervisor Institute within six months of hire
or promotion. Currently these supervisory training programs are conducted separately and
contain overlapping materials. DHS reported that it has begun work to redesign child welfare
supervisor training by combining the two programs and will submit the revised curriculum to
the monitoring team for approval in the coming months.
DHS provided information regarding training of new supervisors in MSA 6. Of the 38 newly
appointed supervisors in MSA 6, 31 met the three-month requirement for training completion
and seven supervisors pending training at the end of the period would meet the requirement
upon completion of their training early in MSA 7.
Licensing Worker Training
DHS agreed that licensing workers will have a bachelor’s degree in social work or a related
human services field and will receive training targeted to licensing functions and tasks. DHS
reported there were 369 staff identified as licensing workers in MSA 6 and provided the degree
held and the training completed by each worker. The monitoring team noted that the
information submitted by DHS contained 23 licensing staff who did not appear to have
qualifying degrees. The monitoring team requested clarification and DHS provided updated
information and the transcripts for 22 of the 23 staff at issue (one worker is now retired). Upon
further review, DHS acknowledged and the monitoring team verified that the previously
reported degree for at least nine of these staff was reported incorrectly. Seven of the nine
turned out to have a different degree, but one that is among those accepted by DHS for its
casework and licensing staff. Two staff did not in fact have qualifying degrees and are either no
longer employed or have been removed from performing licensing work. DHS did not provide
an explanation for the erroneous reporting. The monitoring team is unable to conclude that the
remaining degree information is accurately reported.

78

 Table 12. Completion of Training Requirements by Licensing Staff
Type of Training Completed

Number of Staff

Certification and Complaint
Complaint only
Certification only
None

363
0
3
3
369

Total

Percentage
98.4%
0.0%
0.8%
0.8%
100%

BCAL reported that of the three staff who had not completed training, one is no longer
employed at the agency and the other two are no longer performing licensing duties. Of the
three workers requiring certification training, one is no longer employed at the agency and
another is no longer performing licensing duties.

79

 Appendices
Appendix A. Michigan DHS – Caseload Data 12/15/14
STATEWIDE
Agency
Type
DHS
PAFC
MI

CASE COUNTS

Agency Name
County Office
Private Agencies
State

CPSI

CPSO

13,642
0
13,642

4,898
0
4,898

CFC
DIR
6,775
5,586
12,361

ADPT
DIR
4
2,349
2,353

BUSINESS SERVICE
CENTERS
Agency
Type
DHS
DHS
DHS
DHS
DHS
PAFC

BSC
No
1
2
3
4
5
10

CPSI

CPSO

1,031
2,116
2,956
1,044
6,495
0

610
710
1,378
365
1,835
0

ADPT
POS
549
0
549

POS
TOTAL
6,598
0
6,598

Unassgnd
Cases
1,248
470
1,718

CFC
DIR
664
1,289
2,051
641
2,130
5,586

ADPT
DIR
3
1
0
0
0
2,349

LIC
486
1,040
1,116
651
4,611
5,185

Agency Name

OVERALL

CPSI

CPSO

County Office
Private Agencies
State

71%
88%
77%

51%

52%

51%

52%

BUSINESS SERVICE
CENTERS
BSC
No
1
2
3
4
5
10

CFC
POS
390
707
1,019
439
3,494
0

ADPT
POS
48
103
197
23
178
0

POS
TOTAL
438
810
1,216
462
3,672
0

Unassgnd
Cases
75
130
176
114
753
470

OVERALL COMPLIANCE AND PROGRAM
COMPLIANCE

STATEWIDE

Agency
Type
DHS
DHS
DHS
DHS
DHS
PAFC

7,904
5,185
13,089

CFC
POS
6,049
0
6,049

CASE COUNTS

Agency
Name
BSC 1
BSC 2
BSC 3
BSC 4
BSC 5
PAFC

Agency
Type
DHS
PAFC
MI

LIC

Agency
Name
BSC 1
BSC 2
BSC 3
BSC 4
BSC 5
PAFC

CFC
DIR
84%
83%
84%

ADPT
DIR
100%
74%
75%

LIC

POS

87%
94%
91%

84%

LIC

POS

97%
85%
89%
85%
85%
94%

100%
90%
78%
79%
81%

84%

OVERALL COMPLIANCE AND PROGRAM
COMPLIANCE
OVERALL

CPSI

CPSO

86%
74%
72%
69%
64%
88%

70%
53%
51%
53%
44%

70%
51%
52%
53%
47%

80

CFC
DIR
99%
87%
85%
74%
79%
83%

ADPT
DIR
100%
100%

74%

 Appendix B. Age Range of Children in Care on April 24, 2014

County
ALCONA
ALGER
ALLEGAN
ALPENA
ANTRIM
ARENAC
BARAGA
BARRY
BAY
BENZIE
BERRIEN
BRANCH
CALHOUN
CASS
CENTRAL OFFICE
CHARLEVOIX
CHEBOYGAN
CHIPPEWA
CLARE
CLINTON
CRAWFORD
DELTA
DICKINSON
EATON
EMMET
GENESEE
GLADWIN
GOGEBIC
GRAND TRAVERSE
GRATIOT
HILLSDALE
HOUGHTON
HURON
INGHAM
IONIA

Age Range of Children in Care, MIDHS, April 24, 2014
0 to 6 years
7 to 11 years
12 to 17 years
18 and older
Children
%
Children
%
Children
%
Children
%
9
53%
4
24%
4
24%
0
0%
6
60%
2
20%
2
20%
0
0%
76
52%
33
23%
32
22%
4
3%
25
56%
7
16%
9
20%
4
9%
20
38%
21
40%
11
21%
1
2%
23
52%
15
34%
6
14%
0
0%
3
23%
5
38%
3
23%
2
15%
33
58%
11
19%
12
21%
1
2%
67
50%
37
28%
25
19%
5
4%
2
18%
5
45%
4
36%
0
0%
186
49%
83
22%
93
25%
17
4%
46
54%
19
22%
18
21%
2
2%
144
51%
74
26%
55
20%
7
3%
72
50%
26
18%
40
28%
6
4%
9
82%
1
9%
0
0%
1
9%
17
38%
8
18%
14
31%
6
13%
18
43%
8
19%
11
26%
5
12%
21
51%
6
15%
12
29%
2
5%
30
45%
17
25%
14
21%
6
9%
34
54%
14
22%
13
21%
2
3%
24
45%
6
11%
20
38%
3
6%
24
60%
8
20%
6
15%
2
5%
42
64%
11
17%
13
20%
0
0%
52
49%
26
24%
22
21%
7
7%
23
43%
9
17%
16
30%
6
11%
315
50%
121
19%
122
19%
70
11%
12
36%
4
12%
16
48%
1
3%
13
48%
4
15%
6
22%
4
15%
50
66%
13
17%
11
14%
2
3%
26
54%
11
23%
5
10%
6
13%
39
44%
33
38%
15
17%
1
1%
12
48%
7
28%
6
24%
0
0%
17
49%
6
17%
11
31%
1
3%
282
54%
83
16%
123
23%
36
7%
23
47%
8
16%
11
22%
7
14%

81

Total
Children
17
10
145
45
53
44
13
57
134
11
379
85
280
144
11
45
42
41
67
63
53
40
66
107
54
628
33
27
76
48
88
25
35
524
49

 County
IOSCO
IRON
ISABELLA
JACKSON
KALAMAZOO
KALKASKA
KENT
LAKE
LAPEER
LEELANAU
LENAWEE
LIVINGSTON
LUCE
MACKINAC
MACOMB
MANISTEE
MARQUETTE
MASON
MECOSTA
MENOMINEE
MIDLAND
MISSAUKEE
MONROE
MONTCALM
MONTMORENCY
MUSKEGON
NEWAYGO
OAKLAND
OCEANA
OGEMAW
ONTONAGON
OSCEOLA
OSCODA
OTSEGO
OTTAWA
PRESQUE ISLE
ROSCOMMON
SAGINAW
SANILAC

Age Range of Children in Care, MIDHS, April 24, 2014
0 to 6 years
7 to 11 years
12 to 17 years
18 and Older
Children
%
Children
%
Children
%
Children
%
12
32%
13
34%
13
34%
0
0%
3
50%
1
17%
2
33%
0
0%
50
54%
23
25%
18
20%
1
1%
170
53%
71
22%
62
19%
17
5%
314
51%
130
21%
138
22%
39
6%
13
41%
8
25%
9
28%
2
6%
506
51%
209
21%
224
23%
54
5%
28
45%
19
31%
14
23%
1
2%
32
46%
16
23%
20
29%
1
1%
6
30%
9
45%
5
25%
0
0%
54
50%
26
24%
24
22%
3
3%
84
50%
34
20%
45
27%
4
2%
44
67%
14
21%
8
12%
0
0%
10
43%
8
35%
5
22%
0
0%
372
49%
151
20%
168
22%
61
8%
7
30%
5
22%
11
48%
0
0%
46
49%
19
20%
27
29%
2
2%
28
55%
12
24%
10
20%
1
2%
39
57%
17
25%
10
15%
2
3%
16
53%
8
27%
6
20%
0
0%
37
57%
15
23%
12
18%
1
2%
3
33%
0
0%
4
44%
2
22%
103
54%
43
23%
36
19%
8
4%
35
42%
12
14%
34
40%
3
4%
14
44%
10
31%
7
22%
1
3%
220
49%
95
21%
107
24%
25
6%
48
38%
36
28%
40
31%
4
3%
374
50%
144
19%
171
23%
61
8%
11
55%
8
40%
0
0%
1
5%
13
48%
6
22%
7
26%
1
4%
1
20%
2
40%
2
40%
0
0%
26
55%
16
34%
5
11%
0
0%
2
50%
1
25%
1
25%
0
0%
22
43%
7
14%
21
41%
1
2%
103
46%
51
23%
60
27%
8
4%
11
44%
11
44%
3
12%
0
0%
13
39%
7
21%
13
39%
0
0%
74
49%
31
21%
35
23%
10
7%
35
47%
20
27%
16
22%
3
4%

82

Total
Children
38
6
92
320
621
32
993
62
69
20
107
167
66
23
752
23
94
51
68
30
65
9
190
84
32
447
128
750
20
27
5
47
4
51
222
25
33
150
74

 County
SCHOOLCRAFT
SHIAWASSEE
ST CLAIR
ST JOSEPH
TUSCOLA
VAN BUREN
WASHTENAW
WAYNE
WEXFORD
TOTAL

Age Range of Children in Care, MIDHS, April 24, 2014
0 to 6 years
7 to 11 years
12 to 17 years
18 and older
Children
%
Children
%
Children
%
Children
%
10
48%
5
24%
4
19%
2
10%
48
58%
19
23%
12
14%
4
5%
169
59%
52
18%
44
15%
23
8%
81
54%
39
26%
28
19%
3
2%
51
46%
26
23%
28
25%
7
6%
84
58%
32
22%
24
17%
4
3%
124
53%
50
21%
45
19%
16
7%
1,190
45%
504
19%
637
24%
312
12%
32
50%
17
27%
12
19%
3
5%
6,563
49%
2,798
21%
3,008
23%
908
7%

Note: Some row percentage totals may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

83

Total
Children
21
83
288
151
112
144
235
2,643
64
13,277

 Appendix C. Length of Stay of Children in Care on April 24, 2014
Length of Stay of Children in Care on April 24, 2014
County
ALCONA
ALGER
ALLEGAN
ALPENA
ANTRIM
ARENAC
BARAGA
BARRY
BAY
BENZIE
BERRIEN
BRANCH
CALHOUN
CASS
CENTRAL OFFICE
CHARLEVOIX
CHEBOYGAN
CHIPPEWA
CLARE
CLINTON
CRAWFORD
DELTA
DICKINSON
EATON
EMMET
GENESEE
GLADWIN
GOGEBIC
GRAND TRAVERSE
GRATIOT
HILLSDALE
HOUGHTON
HURON
INGHAM
IONIA
IOSCO
IRON

Less than 1 year
1 to 2 years
Children
%
Children
%

0
6
84
19
25
30
7
34
75
6
196
42
172
69
0
20
21
25
45
30
32
32
33
49
23
284
18
11
48
20
63
11
22
255
19
22
5

0%
60%
58%
42%
47%
68%
54%
60%
56%
55%
52%
49%
61%
48%
0%
44%
50%
61%
67%
48%
60%
80%
50%
46%
43%
45%
55%
41%
63%
42%
72%
44%
63%
49%
39%
58%
83%

17
2
31
10
14
12
4
18
28
5
112
31
55
47
4
16
14
13
11
25
4
7
22
29
16
166
9
7
16
8
21
7
7
150
12
10
1

100%
20%
21%
22%
26%
27%
31%
32%
21%
45%
30%
36%
20%
33%
36%
36%
33%
32%
16%
40%
8%
18%
33%
27%
30%
26%
27%
26%
21%
17%
24%
28%
20%
29%
24%
26%
17%

2 to 3 years
Children
%

0
1
16
7
6
2
1
4
21
0
42
7
34
18
5
3
3
2
6
7
6
0
7
16
5
71
2
3
10
11
4
2
1
53
6
2
0
84

0%
10%
11%
16%
11%
5%
8%
7%
16%
0%
11%
8%
12%
13%
45%
7%
7%
5%
9%
11%
11%
0%
11%
15%
9%
11%
6%
11%
13%
23%
5%
8%
3%
10%
12%
5%
0%

3 to 6 years
Children %

0
1
11
8
8
0
0
1
9
0
19
5
14
8
1
4
3
1
5
0
10
0
2
13
10
45
0
5
1
7
0
5
3
45
9
3
0

0%
10%
8%
18%
15%
0%
0%
2%
7%
0%
5%
6%
5%
6%
9%
9%
7%
2%
7%
0%
19%
0%
3%
12%
19%
7%
0%
19%
1%
15%
0%
20%
9%
9%
18%
8%
0%

Over 6 years
Children
%

0
0
3
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
10
0
5
2
1
2
1
0
0
1
1
1
2
0
0
62
4
1
1
2
0
0
2
21
3
1
0

0%
0%
2%
2%
0%
0%
8%
0%
1%
0%
3%
0%
2%
1%
9%
4%
2%
0%
0%
2%
2%
3%
3%
0%
0%
10%
12%
4%
1%
4%
0%
0%
6%
4%
6%
3%
0%

Total
Children

17
10
145
45
53
44
13
57
134
11
379
85
280
144
11
45
42
41
67
63
53
40
66
107
54
628
33
27
76
48
88
25
35
524
49
38
6

 Length of Stay of Children in Care on April 24, 2014
County
ISABELLA
JACKSON
KALAMAZOO
KALKASKA
KENT
LAKE
LAPEER
LEELANAU
LENAWEE
LIVINGSTON
LUCE
MACKINAC
MACOMB
MANISTEE
MARQUETTE
MASON
MECOSTA
MENOMINEE
MIDLAND
MISSAUKEE
MONROE
MONTCALM
MONTMORENCY
MUSKEGON
NEWAYGO
OAKLAND
OCEANA
OGEMAW
ONTONAGON
OSCEOLA
OSCODA
OTSEGO
OTTAWA
PRESQUE ISLE
ROSCOMMON
SAGINAW
SANILAC
SCHOOLCRAFT
SHIAWASSEE

Less than 1 year
1 to 2 years
Children
%
Children
%

57
146
343
20
452
23
34
0
59
101
27
7
317
3
50
22
37
10
31
4
89
37
22
244
85
377
11
20
4
23
3
31
148
9
7
75
45
3
42

62%
46%
55%
63%
46%
37%
49%
0%
55%
60%
41%
30%
42%
13%
53%
43%
54%
33%
48%
44%
47%
44%
69%
55%
66%
50%
55%
74%
80%
49%
75%
61%
67%
36%
21%
50%
61%
14%
51%

20
113
164
7
338
29
19
9
31
45
28
5
197
9
20
16
18
6
23
4
86
27
9
114
21
191
4
3
1
17
1
14
47
15
11
35
12
11
24

22%
35%
26%
22%
34%
47%
28%
45%
29%
27%
42%
22%
26%
39%
21%
31%
26%
20%
35%
44%
45%
32%
28%
26%
16%
25%
20%
11%
20%
36%
25%
27%
21%
60%
33%
23%
16%
52%
29%

2 to 3 years
Children
%

10
37
59
2
115
4
12
0
10
5
10
9
129
6
16
8
9
5
7
0
9
11
0
39
12
73
5
1
0
4
0
4
10
0
6
22
13
1
5
85

11%
12%
10%
6%
12%
6%
17%
0%
9%
3%
15%
39%
17%
26%
17%
16%
13%
17%
11%
0%
5%
13%
0%
9%
9%
10%
25%
4%
0%
9%
0%
8%
5%
0%
18%
15%
18%
5%
6%

3 to 6 years
Children %

4
14
38
0
66
5
3
9
4
12
1
1
85
5
5
2
3
8
3
1
2
6
1
28
9
70
0
1
0
1
0
2
14
1
6
14
1
5
10

4%
4%
6%
0%
7%
8%
4%
45%
4%
7%
2%
4%
11%
22%
5%
4%
4%
27%
5%
11%
1%
7%
3%
6%
7%
9%
0%
4%
0%
2%
0%
4%
6%
4%
18%
9%
1%
24%
12%

Over 6 years
Children
%

1
10
17
3
22
1
1
2
3
4
0
1
24
0
3
3
1
1
1
0
4
3
0
22
1
39
0
2
0
2
0
0
3
0
3
4
3
1
2

1%
3%
3%
9%
2%
2%
1%
10%
3%
2%
0%
4%
3%
0%
3%
6%
1%
3%
2%
0%
2%
4%
0%
5%
1%
5%
0%
7%
0%
4%
0%
0%
1%
0%
9%
3%
4%
5%
2%

Total
Children

92
320
621
32
993
62
69
20
107
167
66
23
752
23
94
51
68
30
65
9
190
84
32
447
128
750
20
27
5
47
4
51
222
25
33
150
74
21
83

 Length of Stay of Children in Care on April 24, 2014
County
ST CLAIR
ST JOSEPH
TUSCOLA
VAN BUREN
WASHTENAW
WAYNE
WEXFORD
TOTAL

Less than 1 year
1 to 2 years
Children
%
Children
%

141
93
57
79
85
1,143
41
6,510

49%
62%
51%
55%
36%
43%
64%
49%

78
32
38
38
89
538
17
3,535

27%
21%
34%
26%
38%
20%
27%
27%

2 to 3 years
Children
%

41
11
14
18
34
291
3
1,464

14%
7%
13%
13%
14%
11%
5%
11%

3 to 6 years
Children %

21
10
3
6
22
411
1
1,170

7%
7%
3%
4%
9%
16%
2%
9%

Note: Some row percentage totals may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

86

Over 6 years
Children
%

7
5
0
3
5
260
2
598

2%
3%
0%
2%
2%
10%
3%
5%

Total
Children

288
151
112
144
235
2,643
64
13,277

 Appendix D. CFSR 3 National Standards – Safety Outcomes
Maltreatment in Foster Care FFY 2013
Cohort: Children in foster care during a 12-month period
12-month period: FFY 2013
Observed Performance

Risk Standardized
Performance (RSP)

RSP Relative to
National Standard
(NS)

Served

Denom

Num

Obs.
Perf.

Median
Age

Lower
CI

RSP

Upper
CI

NS

NS Met?

PIP?

15901
6882
1818
22475
1521
2150
7617
10412
1119
2317
10018
7151
1815
2447
1917
1517
11299
3280
12904
9691
5688
45861
2999
6962
1125
13838
7635

3746853
1621333
349494
5023711
404168
493527
1631236
2306186
263150
475403
2020773
1623410
401008
601062
424074
344925
2533926
781636
2789518
2264064
1126048
10586646
714804
1478716
265539
2917513
1744969

53
27
4
99
6
9
39
63
6
14
65
54
13
20
14
12
107
35
141
116
59
592
44
91
16
188
129

1.41
1.67
1.14
1.97
1.48
1.82
2.39
2.73
2.28
2.94
3.22
3.33
3.24
3.33
3.30
3.48
4.22
4.48
5.05
5.12
5.24
5.59
6.16
6.15
6.03
6.44
7.39

7
10
10
6
9
6
9
7
8
6
9
7
6
5
9
11
5
5
7
7
8
5
6
6
9
9
5

1.62
1.86
1.37
2.36
1.61
1.83
2.69
3.13
2.21
2.83
3.79
3.77
3.06
3.32
3.18
3.35
5.04
4.56
6.09
6.06
5.83
7.23
6.28
7.02
5.6
8.21
8.74

2.10
2.64
2.66
2.86
2.95
3.12
3.62
3.97
4.14
4.51
4.81
4.89
4.97
4.98
5.10
5.56
6.08
6.27
7.18
7.25
7.49
7.83
8.38
8.60
8.88
9.47
10.37

2.71
3.73
5.17
3.46
5.41
5.34
4.89
5.05
7.76
7.2
6.09
6.33
8.07
7.48
8.18
9.21
7.33
8.62
8.45
8.68
9.62
8.49
11.19
10.54
14.09
10.91
12.31

8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04

Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
No dif
Met
No dif
No dif
Met
No dif
No dif
No dif
No dif
No dif
No dif
No dif
No dif
Not met
Not met

No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
PIP
PIP

State
MO
VA
WY
AZ
DC
SD
WV
WI
NH
ID
MN
AL
HI
ME
ND
VT
NJ
MT
GA
KS
SC
TX
NM
LA
DE
TN
NV

Risk
Adj.

87

Observed Performance
needed to have avoided
a PIP (an estimate)

PIP

Obs.
perf.
needed

% point
needed

Fewer
victims
needed

Yr. 1
FFY
2011

Yr. 2
FFY
2012

Yr. 3
FFY
2013

Goal

6.29
6.77

-0.15
-0.62

-4
-11

-7.71

-8.85

6.44
7.39

-6.54

 Observed Performance
Served

Denom

Num

State
WA
NE
IL
AR
CT
CA
CO
OR
UT
FL
KY
IN
OH
RI
MD
OK
AK
MI
NY
IA
MA
MS
NC
PA
PR

14303
3531853
260
7301
1679222
124
19201
5459564
418
7021
1337738
107
5321
1401753
105
80936
19438659 1549
9136
1897595
157
11702
2980017
271
4580
950650
84
32801
6733299
648
11761
2532123
266
18206
4130817
470
20602
4394109
485
2674
603452
66
6762
1657491
192
14710
3584399
442
2821
682789
88
20684
4937722
620
29407
7744844
1183
10258
2279899
351
13422
3036301
540
Excluded due to data quality
Excluded due to data quality
Excluded due to data quality
Excluded due to data quality

Risk
Adj.

Risk Standardized
Performance (RSP)

RSP Relative to
National Standard
(NS)

Obs.
Perf.

Median
Age

Lower
CI

RSP

Upper
CI

NS

NS Met?

PIP?

7.36
7.38
7.66
8.00
7.49
7.97
8.27
9.09
8.84
9.62
10.51
11.38
11.04
10.94
11.58
12.33
12.89
12.56
15.27
15.40
17.78

5
9
6
6
9
7
10
6
9
5
8
6
7
9
9
5
6
7
8
8
10

9.25
8.96
9.82
9.34
9.35
11.1
10.71
11.26
10.38
12.59
13.38
14.57
14.65
12.62
14.55
15.49
14.13
17.02
20.74
19.93
23.72

10.44
10.68
10.81
11.27
11.31
11.66
12.52
12.69
12.83
13.60
15.08
15.95
16.01
16.05
16.76
17.00
17.40
18.41
21.96
22.13
25.81

11.79
12.72
11.89
13.61
13.68
12.26
14.63
14.29
15.87
14.69
17.01
17.46
17.5
20.4
19.31
18.67
21.43
19.92
23.25
24.57
28.08

8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04
8.04

Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met

PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP

88

Observed Performance
needed to have avoided
a PIP (an estimate)
Obs.
perf.
Needed
6.38
6.59
6.26
6.83
6.39
5.77
6.17
6.46
6.76
6.13
6.28
6.25
6.04
6.80
6.34
6.37
7.19
5.91
5.91
6.17
6.00

% point
needed
-0.98
-0.80
-1.40
-1.16
-1.10
-2.20
-2.10
-2.63
-2.08
-3.49
-4.23
-5.12
-5.00
-4.14
-5.24
-5.96
-5.70
-6.64
-9.37
-9.23
-11.79

Fewer
victims
needed
-35
-13
-76
-16
-15
-428
-40
-78
-20
-235
-107
-212
-220
-25
-87
-214
-39
-328
-726
-210
-358

PIP
Yr. 1
FFY
2011
4.36
6.30
6.94
7.98
6.93
8.11
6.11
-10.28
9.91
6.44
9.77
9.35
5.74
9.13
7.86
5.72
13.57
16.60
15.73
14.54

Yr. 2
FFY
2012
5.61
6.64
7.48
9.91
6.63
7.86
5.61
-10.16
10.37
9.64
11.69
11.87
9.13
12.36
9.47
11.48
12.28
15.34
14.15
16.54

Yr. 3
FFY
2013
7.36
7.38
7.66
8.00
7.49
7.97
8.27
9.09
8.84
9.62
10.51
11.38
11.04
10.94
11.58
12.33
12.89
12.56
15.27
15.40
17.78

Goal
6.25
6.66
7.06
6.79
6.91
7.35
7.02
-7.96
8.87
8.92
10.11
9.47
9.29
9.83
10.47
10.94
11.58
14.08
14.20
15.65

 Recurrence of Maltreatment
Cohort: Victims of a substantiated or indicated maltreatment report in a 12-month period
12-month period: FFY 2012
Observed
Performance

Risk Standardized
Performance (RSP)

RSP Relative to
National Standard (NS)

Denom

Num

Obs.
Perf.

Median
Age

Lower
CI

RSP

Upper
CI

NS

NS Met?

PIP?

5788
774
11276
8821
1366
4418
2249
1965
10357
901
8817
4389
1458
10915
62295
1416
5599
1357
15957
19206
11112
4296
7931
13251
1215
9052
52050
6473
658
10727

176
21
370
319
47
163
81
76
438
37
426
211
76
580
3538
78
337
84
994
1200
707
283
546
940
90
660
3898
502
52
885

3.0%
2.7%
3.3%
3.6%
3.4%
3.7%
3.6%
3.9%
4.2%
4.1%
4.8%
4.8%
5.2%
5.3%
5.7%
5.5%
6.0%
6.2%
6.2%
6.2%
6.4%
6.6%
6.9%
7.1%
7.4%
7.3%
7.5%
7.8%
7.9%
8.3%

6
6
6
7
6
6
7
7
6
6
7
6
6
5
5
6
5
5
5
6
7
6
7
6
5
6
5
6
9
6

3.5%
2.9%
3.9%
4.3%
3.7%
4.2%
4.0%
4.2%
5.0%
4.3%
5.7%
5.5%
5.6%
6.4%
7.0%
5.9%
7.0%
6.5%
7.6%
7.7%
7.8%
7.7%
8.3%
8.7%
7.7%
8.8%
9.4%
9.2%
8.1%
10.0%

4.1%
4.1%
4.3%
4.8%
4.8%
4.9%
4.9%
5.2%
5.5%
5.7%
6.3%
6.3%
6.9%
7.0%
7.3%
7.3%
7.8%
8.0%
8.0%
8.1%
8.4%
8.6%
9.0%
9.3%
9.4%
9.5%
9.7%
10.0%
10.4%
10.7%

4.7%
5.8%
4.7%
5.3%
6.2%
5.6%
6.0%
6.5%
6.0%
7.6%
6.9%
7.2%
8.5%
7.5%
7.5%
9.0%
8.6%
9.7%
8.5%
8.6%
9.0%
9.6%
9.7%
9.9%
11.4%
10.2%
10.0%
10.9%
13.4%
11.4%

9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%

Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
No dif
Met
No dif
Met
Met
No dif
No dif
No dif
No dif
No dif
No dif
Not met
Not met
No dif
Not met

No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
PIP
PIP
No PIP
PIP

State
VA
WY
SC
AL
HI
WV
DE
KS
CO
NH
NC
WI
ND
AZ
TX
ID
NV
MT
KY
GA
AR
MN
CT
MD
SD
NJ
FL
WA
VT
OR

Risk
Adj.

89

Observed Performance
needed to have avoided
a PIP (an estimate)

PIP

Obs.
perf.
Needed

% point
needed

Fewer
victims
Needed

Yr. 1
FFY
2011

Yr. 2
FFY
2012

Yr. 3
FFY
2013

Goal

7.2%
7.6%

-0.3%
-0.1%

-143
-8

8.1%
6.3%

8.0%
6.5%

7.5%
7.8%

7.1%
7.1%

7.4%

-0.8%

-86

--

--

8.3%

--

 Observed
Performance
Denom

State
MS
LA
IN
CA
OK
UT
IL
OH
NE
RI
DC
ME
IA
MA
NM
MI
AK
NY
MO
PA
PR
TN

Num

Obs.
Perf.

7140
588
8.2%
7630
636
8.3%
21231
1870
8.8%
76312
6996
9.2%
9941
935
9.4%
9473
873
9.2%
27238
2759
10.1%
28974
2953
10.2%
3709
399
10.8%
3208
350
10.9%
2111
229
10.8%
3852
432
11.2%
10707
1208
11.3%
2145
19350
11.1%
6192
772
12.5%
33152
4116
12.4%
2420
390
16.1%
68293
12143
17.8%
Excluded due to data quality
Excluded due to data quality
Excluded due to data quality

Risk
Adj.

Risk Standardized
Performance (RSP)

RSP Relative to
National Standard (NS)

Median
Age

Lower
CI

RSP

Upper
CI

NS

NS Met?

PIP?

7
5
6
6
5
7
6
6
6
5
7
6
5
6
6
6
5
7

10.0%
10.1%
11.0%
11.8%
11.3%
11.4%
12.6%
12.9%
12.6%
12.7%
12.5%
13.1%
13.7%
13.9%
15.0%
15.8%
18.7%
23.1%

10.8%
10.8%
11.4%
12.0%
12.1%
12.1%
13.0%
13.4%
13.8%
14.0%
14.2%
14.3%
14.4%
14.4%
16.1%
16.2%
20.5%
23.5%

11.6%
11.7%
11.9%
12.3%
12.8%
12.9%
13.5%
13.8%
15.1%
15.4%
16.0%
15.6%
15.2%
15.0%
17.1%
16.7%
22.4%
23.9%

9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%
9.0%

Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met

PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP

90

Observed Performance
needed to have avoided
a PIP (an estimate)
Obs.
perf.
Needed
7.5%
7.5%
7.3%
7.1%
7.5%
7.3%
7.3%
7.1%
7.7%
7.8%
7.8%
7.7%
7.5%
7.2%
7.5%
7.1%
7.8%
7.0%

% point
needed
-0.8%
-0.8%
-1.5%
-2.1%
-1.9%
-1.9%
-2.8%
-3.0%
-3.0%
-3.2%
-3.1%
-3.5%
-3.8%
-3.8%
-5.0%
-5.3%
-8.3%
-10.8%

Fewer
victims
Needed
-55
-64
-327
-1611
-190
-181
-774
-882
-113
-101
-65
-134
-407
-744
-307
-1753
-201
-7380

PIP
Yr. 1
FFY
2011
7.4%
8.4%
9.1%
9.2%
9.0%
8.2%
8.6%
10.0%
10.2%
12.2%
9.6%
11.9%
13.1%
7.5%
11.8%
12.5%
12.8%
18.3%

Yr. 2
FFY
2012
8.5%
8.9%
-9.1%
8.9%
8.0%
10.1%
10.5%
9.6%
12.7%
8.8%
10.8%
12.2%
7.8%
12.3%
12.4%
15.0%
17.9%

Yr. 3
FFY
2013
8.2%
8.3%
8.8%
9.2%
9.4%
9.2%
10.1%
10.2%
10.8%
10.9%
10.8%
11.2%
11.3%
11.1%
12.5%
12.4%
16.1%
17.8%

Goal
7.5%
7.9%
-8.8%
9.0%
8.4%
9.2%
9.7%
10.1%
9.9%
9.8%
10.5%
10.3%
10.1%
11.9%
11.8%
14.7%
17.0%

 Appendix E. Michigan DHS Policy PSM 712-7 Rejected Complaints

 

 

Pee 2014?002
PSM REJECTED COMPLAINTS
6?1?2014
DECISION TO
REJECT

Reasons To Reject
a Complaint

If, after intake andfor preliminary investigation, neither CPS inter-
vention nor a transfer to an agency is determined appropriate, the
reasons for rejecting the complaint must be documented in
MISACWIS CPS by using one of the rejection reasons below and
approved by supervision. Comments to clarify the selection may be
entered into MISACWIS CPS: see PSM CPS Intake
Completion.

Already Investigated - The allegation is essentially the same
instance of child abuse andfor neglect (CNN) already reported
and investigated. If the complaint is being investigated or was
rejected. add the second reporting person on the initial com-
plaint; see PSM 712-8, CPS Intake Completion, Multiple
Reporting Persons section.

Discounted After Preliminary Investigation - Allegations are
proven unfounded after contact with a reliable source with
current, accurate, and first-hand information.

Complaint Does Not Meet Child Protection Law 
Definition of Child AbusefNeglect - The allegations reported
do not amount to child abusefneglect as defined by the CPL
(for example, allegations are attributable solely to poverty,
etc}.

If the complaint is appropriate for handling by another agency,
refer the reporting person to the appropriate agency (for exam-
ple. the friend of the court (FCC) for child support complaints or
other custody issues not related to CAN, community mental
health for mental health services, the school district for truancy
issues, etc).

Note: If the complaint does not meet the CPL de?nition of
child abuselneglect but will be transferred to another agency
for investigation (for example, law enforcement for complaints
when the alleged perpetrator is not a person responsible for
the child?s health and welfare, DHS or private agency
certi?cation staff for an alleged licensing violation, etc}, the
complaint must be documented as ?Transferred for
Investigation? not as a rejection. See the Complaint

 

PROTECTIVE SERVICES MANUAL

STATE OF MICHIGAN

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
91

 

PSB 
PSM 712-?r 2 of 3 REJECTED COMPLAINTS
6?1?2014

 

Documentation section of PSM T1243, CPS Intake Completion
for more information.

No Reasonable Cause - Allegations are from second- or third-
hand sources, information is vague or insuf?cient, andfor CPS
is unable to establish any basis in fact for the suspicion.
Examples are:

a. Reporting person cannot give information that leads to the
identity or whereabouts of the family.

b. Complaint amounts to speculation {versus suspicion) of
CAIN (a bruise, injury, mental or physical condition that is
more likely the result of something other than CNN).

c. Reporting person reports observing child exhibiting nor-
mal, exploratory sexual behavior and speculates the child
must have been sexually abused.

Reporting Person Unreliable or Not Credible - Although this
reason is occasionally appropriate. it should only be used in
extreme and well-documented situations. Examples are:

a. Similar complaints have been investigated and repeatedly
denied. or the reporting person is known to repeatedly
make false or questionable reports.

b. Complaint lacks substance andfor definition and is seem-
ingly colored by suspected self-interest of the reporting
person, for example, revenge, neighborhoodlfamily squab-
ble, custody battles, etc.

A person who knowingly makes a false complaint of CAIN is
guilty of a misdemeanor if the false complaint was about an
alleged misdemeanor offense. If the false complaint was about
an alleged felony offense of CNN, the person is guilty of a fel-
ony.

Out-of?State History Notification - A notification was received
from another state, tribal agency, etc., that children are at risk
of harm if in the care of a particular parent andfor person
responsible, and there is no indication that the family is
residing in Michigan. The noti?cation should be entered into
CPS to document CPS history in the other
staterjurisdiction in case a future complaint is received on the
family in Michigan.

 

PROTECTIVE SERVICES MANUAL STATE OF MICHIGAN

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

92

 

PSB 2014?1302
PSM 3 of 3 REJECTED COMPLAINTS
6?1?2014

 

Reversals

When Centralized Intake {Cl} reviews a rejected complaint and
makes the decision to assign the case. CI will use the date and
time of the review to create another complaint, which will reference
the original reporting source and log number.

 

PROTECTIVE SERVICES MANUAL STATE OF MICHIGAN

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

93

Appendix F. SFY 15 Non-relative Foster Home Targets

94

Homes for
children with
disabilities

Other

BSC 3

BSC 2

BSC 1

Alpena / Alcona / Montmorency
Alger / Marquette / Schoolcraft
Antrim
Baraga / Houghton / Keweenaw
Benzie / Manistee
Charlevoix / Emmet
Cheboygan / Presque Isle
Chippewa / Luce / Mackinac
Crawford / Oscoda / Otsego
Delta / Dickinson / Menominee
Gogebic / Iron / Ontonagon
Grand Traverse / Leelanau / Kalkaska
Iosco / Ogemaw / Roscommon
Wexford / Missaukee
BSC 1 Total
Arenac / Gladwin
Bay
Clare / Isabella
Ingham / Clinton / Eaton
Midland
Saginaw
Shiawassee
Gratiot
St. Clair / Sanilac
Huron
Tuscola
Lapeer
BSC 2 Total
Allegan
Barry
Branch
Berrien
Calhoun
Cass
Muskegon
Ionia / Montcalm

Homes for
siblings

County

Homes for
adolescents

BSC

Total

Number of Non-relative Foster Homes to
be Licensed in FY15

4
4
5
3
4
5
2
5
7
6
5
8
8
9
75
6
18
11
31
2
12
3
1
19
1
5
8
117
15
10
2
30
14
20
29
8

2
5
1
1
2
2
1
2
3
0
2
2
4
4
31
3
8
0
5
0
2
0
8
7
0
2
2
37
2
5
2
6
2
2
8
4

2
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
1
3
4
3
31
4
12
11
5
2
4
3
1
10
1
2
3
58
4
0
2
28
10
9
15
8

2
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
3
2
0
0
1
13
3
11
0
5
0
4
0
1
2
0
1
0
27
2
5
2
9
2
6
5
8

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
3
1
1
7
0
0
0
16
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
3
21
7
0
0
6
0
3
1
6

 95

Other

Statewide Totals

Homes for
children with
disabilities

BSC 5

BSC 4

BSC 3

Kalamazoo
Ottawa
St. Joseph
Lake / Newaygo
Mason / Oceana
Mecosta / Osceola
Van Buren
BSC 3 Total
Hillsdale
Livingston
Lenawee
Monroe
Jackson
Washtenaw
BSC 4 Total
Genesee
Kent
Macomb
Oakland
Wayne
BSC 5 Total

Homes for
siblings

County

Homes for
adolescents

BSC

Total

Number of Non-relative Foster Homes to
be Licensed in FY15

68
35
13
13
11
7
10
285
5
20
7
12
28
15
87
55
113
76
70
172
486

34
14
2
2
2
6
3
94
1
8
4
2
24
2
41
33
32
25
55
35
180

23
14
5
8
7
6
5
144
3
8
3
5
8
13
40
50
20
38
15
56
179

9
5
2
2
1
6
2
66
1
4
2
4
8
2
21
10
10
38
12
28
98

19
2
12
1
1
0
0
58
0
0
0
1
8
0
9
0
0
0
0
53
53

1,050

383

452

225

148

 Appendix G. Number of Children Placed in Shelters by Age and County during MSA 6
Age
County

0

BAY

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1

1

1

1

GENESEE

1

1

1

2

GOGEBIC

2

9
1

1

IONA

1
1

JACKSON

1

KALAMAZOO

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

3

2

7

4

4
1

1
3

2

7

6

1

3

LIVINGSTON
MACOMB

1

1

MONTCALM

1

1

2

1

1

1

MUSKEGON

1
1

1

1

1

2

1

2

5

1

3

1

1

1

KENT

OAKLAND

1

1

OTTAWA

4
1

41

1

1

2

12
3

1

1

1

4

4

9

3

36

1

2

1
2

1

SAINT CLAIR

3

1

1

WASHTENAW

1

WAYNE
3

County
Total
2

1

INGHAM

Age Total

19

1

BERRIEN

SAGINAW

18

1

0

2

1

4

4

3

2

1

2

1

1

1

6

6

10

8

14

16

2

1

66

6

12

5

20

12

19

23

39

32

5

1

194

96

 Appendix H. CFSR 3 National Standards – Permanency Outcomes
Permanency in 12 Months FFY13
Cohort: Children entering care in a 12-month period
12-month period: 11B & 12A
Observed
Performance

RSP Relative to
National Standard (NS)

Denom

Num

Obs.
Perf.

Entry
Rate

Median
Age

Lower
CI

RSP

Upper
CI

NS

NS Met?

PIP?

2522
3251
4863
4522
2007
3052
2727
2351
5828
15163
4877
8799
1055
4318
832
4822
829
6435
4505
2539
1169
7162
512
2605
16881
4214
4094

1595
2097
2795
2395
921
1506
1274
1127
2658
7400
2283
4032
476
1957
370
2303
445
2916
1813
1010
557
3225
194
1107
6464
1834
1798

63.2%
64.5%
57.5%
53.0%
45.9%
49.3%
46.7%
47.9%
45.6%
48.8%
46.8%
45.8%
45.1%
45.3%
44.5%
47.8%
53.7%
45.3%
40.2%
39.8%
47.6%
45.0%
37.9%
42.5%
38.3%
43.5%
43.9%

2.73
5.42
4.65
4.32
2.31
3.34
2.88
3.16
2.58
3.96
3.81
3.69
2.88
3.35
3.37
5.01
7.30
4.40
2.22
2.08
5.54
4.70
2.62
4.20
2.44
4.93
6.10

6
5
10
9
7
6
6
6
6
5
10
6
6
7
5
8
12
10
5
7
11
5
6
4
4
5
7

64.5%
57.4%
54.6%
51.5%
48.2%
48.6%
47.8%
47.5%
47.5%
47.5%
46.2%
46.3%
44.2%
45.2%
42.7%
44.5%
42.9%
44.3%
43.6%
42.8%
42.2%
41.6%
37.9%
39.9%
40.4%
39.4%
37.9%

66.5%
58.9%
56.0%
52.9%
50.6%
50.4%
49.8%
49.6%
48.8%
48.3%
47.6%
47.4%
47.3%
46.7%
46.1%
45.9%
45.7%
45.5%
45.1%
44.9%
44.8%
42.7%
42.4%
41.8%
41.2%
40.7%
39.2%

68.4%
60.4%
57.3%
54.4%
53.0%
52.2%
51.7%
51.7%
50.2%
49.1%
49.0%
48.4%
50.4%
48.2%
49.5%
47.2%
48.5%
46.7%
46.8%
47.1%
47.5%
43.8%
47.0%
43.6%
42.0%
42.1%
40.6%

40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%

Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
No dif
No dif
Met
No dif
No dif

No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP

State
SC
AR
MN
CO
UT
LA
AL
MS
GA
FL
MA
OH
ID
WI
HI
KY
WY
TN
NJ
MD
RI
IN
DE
NV
TX
OR
IA

Risk Adj.

Risk Standardized
Performance (RSP)

97

Observed Performance
needed to have avoided
a PIP (an estimate)
Obs.
perf.
Needed

% point
needed

Add.
exits
needed

PIP
Yr. 1
FFY
2011

Yr. 2
FFY
2012

Yr. 3
FFY
2013

Goal

 Observed
Performance
Denom

State
KS
SD
PA
ND
CA
NH
MO
NY
MT
VT
MI
WA
NM
NE
VA
OK
AZ
AK
ME
DC
CT
IL
NC
PR
WV

Num

Risk Adj.
Obs.
Perf.

3556
1445
40.6%
1082
492
45.5%
9596
3479
36.3%
778
310
39.8%
29600
10766
36.4%
524
165
31.5%
5766
2111
36.6%
10016
3258
32.5%
1084
393
36.3%
586
214
36.5%
7246
2345
32.4%
4506
1468
32.6%
1053
342
32.5%
3148
1174
37.3%
2631
721
27.4%
4818
1468
30.5%
8432
2552
30.3%
860
254
29.5%
738
182
24.7%
490
144
29.4%
1969
419
21.3%
4621
737
15.9%
Excluded due to data quality
Excluded due to data quality
Excluded due to data quality

Risk Standardized
Performance (RSP)

RSP Relative to
National Standard (NS)

Entry
Rate

Median
Age

Lower
CI

RSP

Upper
CI

NS

NS Met?

PIP?

4.74
6.92
3.64
5.20
3.47
1.77
4.18
2.59
4.68
5.25
3.21
3.57
3.44
6.83
1.41
5.18
5.25
4.84
2.05
5.36
2.88
1.57

7
5
10
10
6
10
6
8
5
9
6
4
4
9
8
4
5
4
3
7
6
4

37.2%
35.7%
36.9%
34.6%
37.1%
31.6%
34.5%
34.6%
31.9%
30.8%
32.7%
32.1%
30.3%
31.1%
30.2%
27.1%
27.4%
25.5%
24.6%
24.0%
21.5%
17.5%

38.7%
38.1%
37.9%
37.7%
37.7%
35.8%
35.7%
35.6%
34.6%
34.3%
33.8%
33.5%
33.1%
32.6%
32.2%
28.3%
28.3%
28.2%
27.9%
27.5%
23.3%
18.7%

40.2%
40.6%
38.9%
40.9%
38.2%
40.3%
36.9%
36.6%
37.3%
37.9%
34.9%
34.9%
36.0%
34.0%
34.2%
29.5%
29.2%
31.1%
31.4%
31.2%
25.3%
19.9%

40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%

Not met
No dif
Not met
No dif
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met

PIP
No PIP
PIP
No PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP

98

Observed Performance
needed to have avoided
a PIP (an estimate)
Obs.
perf.
Needed
40.8%

PIP

0.2%

Add.
exits
needed
7

Yr. 1
FFY
2011
39.7%

Yr. 2
FFY
2012
39.1%

Yr. 3
FFY
2013
40.6%

42.0%

37.7%

1.4%

139

25.6%

--

36.3%

--

38.5%
31.8%
40.2%
36.0%
39.7%
39.5%
37.6%
37.9%
36.9%
44.6%
32.7%
42.1%
42.2%
39.4%
32.7%
39.9%
34.8%
33.1%

2.1%
0.3%
3.6%
3.5%
3.4%
2.9%
5.2%
5.3%
4.4%
7.3%
5.2%
11.7%
12.0%
9.9%
8.1%
10.5%
13.6%
17.1%

626
1
206
348
37
17
380
239
47
230
138
561
1010
85
60
51
267
792

39.2%
38.0%
39.9%
37.0%
35.2%
33.4%
29.7%
40.2%
39.7%
40.5%
29.1%
37.2%
32.9%
32.1%
32.7%
26.1%
36.0%
15.5%

37.9%
32.2%
41.2%
37.1%
40.4%
32.0%
31.9%
36.7%
38.6%
37.3%
28.8%
34.4%
30.8%
29.2%
32.0%
34.1%
28.3%
16.0%

36.4%
31.5%
36.6%
32.5%
36.3%
36.5%
32.4%
32.6%
32.5%
37.3%
27.4%
30.5%
30.3%
29.5%
24.7%
29.4%
21.3%
15.9%

38.0%
33.3%
38.7%
34.4%
38.4%
38.6%
34.1%
34.5%
34.4%
39.4%
28.4%
32.2%
31.9%
31.2%
26.1%
31.1%
22.5%
16.5%

% point
needed

Goal

 Permanency in 12 Months FFY13
Cohort: Children in care 12-23 months as of the 1st day of a 12-month period
12-month period: 13B & 14A
Observed
Performance

Risk Standardized
Performance (RSP)

RSP Relative to
National Standard (NS)

Denom

Num

Obs.
Perf.

Median
Age

Lower
CI

RSP

Upper
CI

NS

NS Met?

PIP?

372
1502
1156
519
2074
6936
943
1320
3827
3546
776
1214
155
5163
258
1033
329
2108
2790
1019
2645
604
493
351
3466
2673
1178
251
1545

233
857
682
265
1068
3953
514
639
2024
1787
407
651
76
2608
116
454
159
955
1244
441
1168
256
224
147
1486
1166
470
105
651

62.6%
57.1%
59.0%
51.1%
51.5%
57.0%
54.5%
48.4%
52.9%
50.4%
52.4%
53.6%
49.0%
50.5%
45.0%
43.9%
48.3%
45.3%
44.6%
43.3%
44.2%
42.4%
45.4%
41.9%
42.9%
43.6%
39.9%
41.8%
42.1%

7
9
7
11
8
5
6
8
6
7
6
5
8
6
10
9
6
7
6
7
7
8
6
7
7
6
9
7
7

56.0%
57.8%
56.0%
52.0%
51.5%
52.4%
49.5%
48.6%
49.5%
49.1%
47.2%
47.3%
42.7%
47.3%
42.6%
44.5%
41.1%
42.4%
42.6%
41.4%
42.4%
40.0%
39.3%
38.4%
41.4%
40.6%
39.5%
36.8%
39.9%

60.7%
60.3%
58.7%
56.5%
53.6%
53.5%
52.4%
51.3%
51.0%
50.7%
50.4%
49.8%
49.7%
48.6%
48.5%
47.6%
45.9%
44.4%
44.3%
44.3%
44.2%
43.7%
43.2%
43.2%
43.0%
42.3%
42.3%
42.3%
42.2%

65.1%
62.8%
61.4%
61.0%
55.7%
54.6%
55.3%
54.0%
52.5%
52.3%
53.7%
52.3%
56.8%
49.9%
54.6%
50.7%
50.7%
46.4%
46.1%
47.3%
46.0%
47.6%
47.2%
48.1%
44.6%
44.1%
45.2%
47.9%
44.6%

43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%

Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
No dif
Met
No dif
Met
No dif
No dif
No dif
No dif
No dif
No dif
No dif
No dif
No dif
No dif
No dif
No dif
No dif

No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP

State
ID
IA
WV
UT
TN
TX
LA
NE
AZ
MI
AR
NV
WY
FL
VT
CO
HI
GA
OH
MD
MO
SC
AK
RI
PA
IN
VA
DC
KS

Risk
Adj.

99

Observed Performance
needed to have avoided
a PIP (an estimate)
Obs.
perf.
needed

% point
needed

Add.
exits
needed

PIP
Yr. 1
FFY
2011

Yr. 2
FFY
2012

Yr. 3
FFY
2013

Goal

 Observed
Performance
Denom

State
WI
NM
SD
MN
ND
NC
DE
MA
WA
NJ
CA
NH
OR
AL
MS
MT
ME
OK
KY
CT
NY
IL
PR

Num

Risk
Adj.
Obs.
Perf.

1527
641
42.0%
561
248
44.2%
282
121
42.9%
1101
439
39.9%
308
119
38.6%
2191
918
41.9%
210
85
40.5%
1811
700
38.7%
2687
1143
42.5%
1815
768
42.3%
11778
4685
39.8%
233
82
35.2%
2002
805
40.2%
852
323
37.9%
863
330
38.2%
558
226
40.5%
480
193
40.2%
2790
1117
40.0%
1609
542
33.7%
864
264
30.6%
4611
1191
25.8%
3526
840
23.8%
Excluded due to data quality

Risk Standardized
Performance (RSP)

RSP Relative to
National Standard (NS)

Median
Age

Lower
CI

RSP

Upper
CI

NS

NS Met?

PIP?

7
6
6
8
8
6
6.5
8
5
5
6
10
6
7
7
6
5
5
8
7
7
5

39.8%
37.9%
36.2%
38.1%
35.8%
38.8%
35.0%
38.1%
37.9%
37.5%
38.6%
33.1%
36.6%
35.5%
35.0%
34.4%
33.4%
35.2%
33.3%
28.9%
25.1%
21.3%

42.2%
41.5%
41.2%
40.9%
40.8%
40.8%
40.7%
40.3%
39.6%
39.6%
39.5%
38.9%
38.6%
38.6%
38.1%
37.9%
37.1%
36.9%
35.5%
31.8%
26.3%
22.6%

44.6%
45.2%
46.3%
43.7%
46.1%
42.7%
46.7%
42.5%
41.3%
41.7%
40.3%
45.0%
40.6%
41.8%
41.2%
41.6%
41.0%
38.5%
37.9%
34.8%
27.6%
23.9%

43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%
43.7%

No dif
No dif
No dif
No dif
No dif
Not met
No dif
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
No dif
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met

No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
PIP
No PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
No PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP

100

Observed Performance
needed to have avoided
a PIP (an estimate)

PIP

Obs.
perf.
needed

% point
needed

Add.
exits
needed

Yr. 1
FFY
2011

Yr. 2
FFY
2012

Yr. 3
FFY
2013

Goal

42.9%

1.0%

22

45.2%

47.5%

41.9%

45.0%

39.8%
45.1%
44.6%
43.2%

1.2%
2.6%
2.2%
3.4%

21
69
41
400

38.3%
45.4%
45.2%
41.7%

39.2%
42.9%
37.5%
42.8%

38.7%
42.5%
42.3%
39.8%

40.2%
44.3%
45.4%
41.6%

43.4%
40.0%
41.0%
43.1%
43.7%
45.7%
39.3%
39.5%
41.6%
44.7%

3.2%
2.1%
2.7%
2.6%
3.5%
5.7%
5.6%
8.9%
15.8%
20.8%

65
18
24
15
17
158
90
77
727
735

35.2%
38.4%
47.3%
40.6%
48.7%
47.0%
39.6%
28.7%
28.0%
23.8%

36.4%
40.3%
43.8%
41.0%
46.8%
45.8%
35.4%
33.9%
23.7%
24.9%

40.2%
37.9%
38.2%
40.5%
40.2%
40.0%
33.7%
30.6%
25.8%
23.8%

43.2%
39.4%
41.0%
42.1%
43.2%
43.0%
36.2%
32.9%
27.7%
24.8%

 Permanency in 12 Months FFY13
Cohort: Children in care 24 months or more as of the 1st day of a 12-month period
12-month period: 13B & 14A
Observed
Performance

Risk Standardized
Performance (RSP)

RSP Relative to
National Standard (NS)

Denom

Num

Obs.
Perf.

Median
Age

Lower
CI

RSP

Upper
CI

NS

NS Met?

PIP?

750
1069
188
1208
1888
3123
922
1062
262
1013
1193
2834
159
428
3560
496
526
217
1679
177
1280
1549
1061
2765
209
1740
1701
1455
2450

331
332
76
517
764
1198
328
470
109
430
463
1073
55
97
1285
176
206
53
628
59
368
531
279
1025
55
696
564
464
787

44.1%
31.1%
40.4%
42.8%
40.5%
38.4%
35.6%
44.3%
41.6%
42.4%
38.8%
37.9%
34.6%
22.7%
36.1%
35.5%
39.2%
24.4%
37.4%
33.3%
28.8%
34.3%
26.3%
37.1%
26.3%
40.0%
33.2%
31.9%
32.1%

12
15
13
11
12
13
13
10
11
10
11
11
12
15
11
12
10
15
10
13
14
12
14
10
15
8
11
12
12

37.6%
36.3%
33.5%
36.0%
35.9%
36.1%
34.7%
35.1%
32.8%
33.9%
33.7%
32.9%
28.0%
28.7%
31.7%
29.5%
29.6%
26.8%
30.3%
26.7%
29.3%
29.5%
28.7%
29.8%
25.7%
29.4%
28.8%
28.2%
28.3%

40.4%
39.4%
39.1%
38.2%
37.8%
37.5%
37.5%
37.4%
37.3%
36.2%
35.9%
34.3%
33.7%
33.6%
33.0%
32.8%
32.7%
32.6%
32.1%
31.8%
31.7%
31.4%
31.4%
31.1%
31.1%
31.0%
30.7%
30.2%
29.8%

43.4%
42.7%
45.0%
40.4%
39.6%
39.0%
40.5%
39.7%
41.9%
38.5%
38.2%
35.8%
39.9%
39.1%
34.3%
36.3%
35.8%
39.1%
33.9%
37.4%
34.2%
33.4%
34.3%
32.5%
37.0%
32.6%
32.6%
32.3%
31.4%

30.3%
30.3%
30.3%
30.3%
30.3%
30.3%
30.3%
30.3%
30.3%
30.3%
30.3%
30.3%
30.3%
30.3%
30.3%
30.3%
30.3%
30.3%
30.3%
30.3%
30.3%
30.3%
30.3%
30.3%
30.3%
30.3%
30.3%
30.3%
30.3%

Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
No dif
No dif
Met
No dif
No dif
No dif
Met
No dif
No dif
No dif
No dif
No dif
No dif
No dif
No dif
No dif
No dif

No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP

State
WV
IA
ID
TN
AZ
MI
SC
NV
HI
LA
NE
PA
WY
UT
FL
DC
AK
VT
WI
NH
VA
GA
CO
WA
DE
NJ
KY
AL
MO

Risk
Adj.

101

Observed Performance
needed to have avoided
a PIP (an estimate)
Obs.
perf.
needed

% point
needed

Add.
exits
needed

PIP
Yr. 1
FFY
2011

Yr. 2
FFY
2012

Yr. 3
FFY
2013

Goal

 Observed
Performance
Denom

State
AR
NM
MS
TX
IN
RI
MD
OH
NC
ME
KS
OK
OR
SD
MA
MT
MN
CA
NY
ND
CT
IL
PR

Num

Risk
Adj.
Obs.
Perf.

767
235
30.6%
496
182
36.7%
773
264
34.2%
7117
2170
30.5%
2263
748
33.1%
397
111
28.0%
1713
417
24.3%
2842
793
27.9%
1972
557
28.2%
340
91
26.8%
1395
401
28.7%
2258
745
33.0%
2781
817
29.4%
418
115
27.5%
598
2468
24.2%
524
161
30.7%
1022
200
19.6%
14555
3225
22.2%
8846
2415
27.3%
226
43
19.0%
1243
236
19.0%
7007
1859
26.5%
Excluded due to data quality

Risk Standardized
Performance (RSP)

RSP Relative to
National Standard (NS)

Median
Age

Lower
CI

RSP

Upper
CI

NS

NS Met?

PIP?

12
9
10
12
10
12
14
12
12
12
11
9
11
11
13
9
14
13
9
13
14
8

27.0%
26.6%
26.9%
27.8%
26.7%
23.7%
25.2%
25.4%
25.2%
22.8%
24.4%
24.8%
24.5%
22.4%
23.3%
21.8%
20.9%
21.7%
21.6%
17.6%
18.7%
19.9%

29.8%
29.6%
29.4%
28.7%
28.2%
27.2%
27.2%
26.9%
26.8%
26.5%
26.4%
26.2%
25.8%
25.7%
24.8%
24.5%
23.4%
22.4%
22.3%
21.7%
20.7%
20.6%

32.7%
32.7%
32.0%
29.6%
29.7%
31.0%
29.3%
28.3%
28.6%
30.6%
28.4%
27.7%
27.2%
29.3%
26.4%
27.3%
26.1%
23.0%
23.0%
26.4%
22.9%
21.4%

30.3%
30.3%
30.3%
30.3%
30.3%
30.3%
30.3%
30.3%
30.3%
30.3%
30.3%
30.3%
30.3%
30.3%
30.3%
30.3%
30.3%
30.3%
30.3%
30.3%
30.3%
30.3%

No dif
No dif
No dif
Not met
Not met
No dif
Not met
Not met
Not met
No dif
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met

No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
PIP
PIP
No PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
No PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP

102

Observed Performance
needed to have avoided
a PIP (an estimate)

PIP

Obs.
perf.
needed

% point
needed

Add.
exits
needed

Yr. 1
FFY
2011

Yr. 2
FFY
2012

Yr. 3
FFY
2013

Goal

31.2%
33.8%

0.7%
0.7%

50
16

26.7%
38.3%

29.1%
32.2%

30.5%
33.1%

32.9%
35.7%

25.3%
30.0%
30.1%

0.9%
2.1%
1.8%

16
59
36

27.3%
28.9%
32.1%

23.9%
27.8%
32.7%

24.3%
27.9%
28.2%

26.2%
28.8%
30.5%

31.0%
36.4%
32.9%
29.3%
28.0%
35.1%
23.3%
29.3%
36.2%
24.8%
26.0%
38.0%

2.2%
3.4%
3.6%
1.8%
3.8%
4.4%
3.7%
7.2%
8.9%
5.8%
7.0%
11.4%

31
76
99
7
94
23
38
1044
787
13
88
802

35.9%
39.0%
23.6%
23.0%
26.2%
39.6%
20.2%
22.6%
26.0%
30.4%
19.2%
26.6%

29.6%
36.4%
29.6%
22.2%
26.5%
33.4%
21.6%
22.7%
26.0%
28.2%
20.0%
27.6%

28.7%
33.0%
29.4%
27.5%
24.2%
30.7%
19.6%
22.2%
27.3%
19.0%
19.0%
26.5%

31.0%
35.6%
31.8%
29.7%
25.6%
33.2%
20.8%
23.0%
28.2%
20.5%
19.6%
27.4%

 Re-entry in 12 Months FFY13
Cohort: Children entering care in a 12-month period & exiting within 12 months
12-month period: 11B & 12A
Observed
Performance

Risk Standardized
Performance (RSP)

RSP Relative to
National Standard (NS)

Denom

Num

Obs.
Perf.

Entry
Rate

Median
Age

Lower
CI

RSP

Upper
CI

NS

NS Met?

PIP?

2174
192
3185
6270
249
1155
333
1428
1443
467
1118
2054
1256
160
1395
705
305
182
1564
2026
1093
441
2607
389
1497
2418
142
755

65
4
139
210
9
73
12
75
64
18
49
124
60
6
86
30
20
8
88
134
72
45
149
28
96
194
11
45

3.0%
2.1%
4.4%
3.3%
3.6%
6.3%
3.6%
5.3%
4.4%
3.9%
4.4%
6.0%
4.8%
3.8%
6.2%
4.3%
6.6%
4.4%
5.6%
6.6%
6.6%
10.2%
5.7%
7.2%
6.4%
8.0%
7.7%
6.0%

3.21
2.62
4.70
2.44
4.84
6.83
3.44
4.74
3.57
2.88
3.16
5.42
2.88
1.77
5.18
1.41
5.20
2.05
2.73
4.18
4.20
7.30
2.58
4.68
3.34
5.25
5.36
2.31

8
7
6
5
5
10
6
8
5
6
7
6
6
8
6
7
10
4
6
7
6
13
6
6
6
7
7
6

3.2%
2.8%
4.1%
4.3%
3.3%
4.4%
3.6%
4.6%
4.5%
3.9%
4.4%
5.2%
5.1%
3.8%
5.3%
5.0%
4.7%
4.2%
6.1%
6.4%
6.1%
5.9%
6.6%
5.6%
6.5%
6.9%
5.1%
6.4%

4.0%
4.8%
4.8%
4.9%
5.2%
5.4%
5.5%
5.6%
5.6%
5.7%
5.7%
6.1%
6.5%
6.5%
6.5%
6.8%
6.8%
7.0%
7.5%
7.5%
7.6%
7.7%
7.8%
7.8%
7.8%
7.9%
8.0%
8.3%

5.0%
8.1%
5.7%
5.5%
8.2%
6.7%
8.5%
6.9%
7.1%
8.3%
7.4%
7.2%
8.2%
10.9%
7.9%
9.3%
9.8%
11.4%
9.1%
8.8%
9.3%
9.9%
9.0%
10.7%
9.5%
9.0%
12.5%
10.8%

8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%

Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
No dif
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
No dif
Met
No dif
No dif
No dif
No dif
No dif
No dif
No dif
No dif
No dif
No dif
No dif
No dif
No dif

No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP

State
MI
DE
IN
TX
AK
NE
NM
KS
WA
ID
MS
AR
AL
NH
OK
VA
ND
ME
SC
MO
NV
WY
GA
MT
LA
AZ
DC
UT

Risk Adj.

103

Observed Performance
needed to have avoided
a PIP (an estimate)
Obs.
perf.
Needed

% point
needed

Fewer
reentries
needed

PIP
Yr. 1
FFY
2011

Yr. 2
FFY
2012

Yr. 3
FFY
2013

Goal

 Observed
Performance
Denom

State
OR
IL
IA
SD
TN
KY
HI
CA
CT
OH
CO
NY
VT
WI
MA
MN
NJ
MD
PA
RI
FL
NC
PR
WV

Num

Risk Adj.
Obs.
Perf.

1829
151
8.3%
719
41
5.7%
1733
178
10.3%
490
53
10.8%
2845
259
9.1%
2295
226
9.8%
357
37
10.4%
10485
989
9.4%
403
41
10.2%
3955
412
10.4%
2327
267
11.5%
3225
329
10.2%
201
32
15.9%
1891
222
11.7%
2276
306
13.4%
2747
412
15.0%
1778
192
10.8%
999
116
11.6%
3400
493
14.5%
538
100
18.6%
Excluded due to data quality
Excluded due to data quality
Excluded due to data quality
Excluded due to data quality

Risk Standardized
Performance (RSP)

Entry
Rate

Median
Age

Lower
CI

4.93
1.57
6.10
6.92
4.40
5.01
3.37
3.47
2.88
3.69
4.32
2.59
5.25
3.35
3.81
4.65
2.22
2.08
3.64
5.54

6
5
8
5
11
8
6
6
5
7
8
9
9
8
13
11
6
7
12
12

7.5%
6.6%
8.0%
7.2%
8.7%
8.7%
8.5%
10.8%
8.9%
10.8%
10.9%
11.4%
9.7%
12.1%
12.6%
13.6%
13.0%
13.1%
14.5%
13.4%

RSP Relative to
National Standard (NS)

RSP

Upper
CI

NS

NS Met?

PIP?

8.7%
8.8%
9.2%
9.3%
9.7%
9.9%
11.5%
11.5%
11.8%
11.9%
12.2%
12.6%
13.2%
13.7%
13.9%
14.9%
14.9%
15.5%
15.8%
15.9%

10.1%
11.6%
10.5%
11.7%
10.9%
11.1%
15.2%
12.2%
15.5%
13.0%
13.6%
13.9%
17.8%
15.4%
15.4%
16.2%
17.0%
18.4%
17.1%
18.9%

8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%
8.3%

No dif
No dif
No dif
No dif
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met

No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP

104

Observed Performance
needed to have avoided
a PIP (an estimate)

PIP

Obs.
perf.
Needed

% point
needed

Fewer
reentries
needed

Yr. 1
FFY
2011

Yr. 2
FFY
2012

Yr. 3
FFY
2013

Goal

8.7%
9.3%
9.6%
7.2%
9.0%
8.0%
8.7%
7.4%
12.5%
8.0%
8.8%
9.1%
6.8%
7.2%
8.3%
11.2%

-0.4%
-0.5%
-0.8%
-2.2%
-1.2%
-2.4%
-2.8%
-2.8%
-3.5%
-3.7%
-4.6%
-5.9%
-4.0%
-4.4%
-6.2%
-7.3%

-12
-12
-3
-231
-5
-97
-64
-90
-7
-71
-105
-161
-71
-44
-212
-40

9.3%
7.1%
6.9%
7.7%
5.6%
9.9%
12.1%
10.2%
11.6%
13.2%
10.9%
16.3%
8.4%
10.3%
-12.1%

9.7%
8.2%
9.8%
8.6%
4.6%
10.3%
13.4%
10.5%
12.2%
12.2%
12.7%
16.2%
8.4%
9.5%
-13.4%

9.0%
9.8%
10.4%
9.4%
10.2%
10.5%
11.5%
10.2%
15.9%
11.7%
13.4%
15.0%
10.8%
11.6%
14.5%
18.6%

8.2%
8.5%
9.0%
8.2%
8.8%
9.6%
10.4%
9.3%
13.8%
10.7%
11.7%
13.7%
9.4%
10.2%
-16.1%

 Placement Stability FFY13
Cohort: Children entering foster care in a 12-month period
12-month period: 13B & 14A
Risk
Adj.

Observed Performance

RSP Relative to
National Standard
(NS)

Entries

Denom

Num

Obs.
Perf.

Median
Age

Lower
CI

RSP

Upper
CI

NS

NS Met?

PIP?

1223
1861
8412
2455
540
935
4066
3453
918
7885
7226
2033
9301
9177
9766
3356
1067
4542
2560
31516
1320
5055
4494
16742
5330
4607
308

193645
315865
1382459
412620
92271
157297
723390
549952
130243
1272688
1288703
325287
1406696
1364874
1605615
568033
166715
825400
405602
5247228
197004
730755
692991
2998354
766039
694140
52713

506
877
4054
1182
295
417
2343
1851
451
4013
4205
1139
5224
4808
5496
1953
596
2951
1613
19975
716
3038
2828
11431
3249
2813
230

2.61
2.78
2.93
2.86
3.20
2.65
3.24
3.37
3.46
3.15
3.26
3.50
3.71
3.52
3.42
3.44
3.57
3.58
3.98
3.81
3.63
4.16
4.08
3.81
4.24
4.05
4.36

9
7
8
7
13
3
7
9
10
5
5
6
9
6
5
5
6
5
7
6
5
8
6
4
8
5
7

2.29
2.48
2.66
2.6
2.54
2.66
2.99
3
2.88
3.11
3.19
3.23
3.33
3.34
3.4
3.4
3.32
3.56
3.58
3.73
3.56
3.81
3.84
3.91
3.86
3.99
3.67

2.49
2.65
2.74
2.75
2.84
2.92
3.11
3.14
3.16
3.21
3.29
3.42
3.43
3.44
3.49
3.56
3.60
3.69
3.76
3.78
3.82
3.95
3.98
3.98
4.00
4.14
4.16

2.72
2.83
2.83
2.91
3.17
3.21
3.24
3.29
3.46
3.31
3.39
3.63
3.52
3.54
3.58
3.72
3.9
3.83
3.94
3.84
4.11
4.09
4.13
4.06
4.14
4.3
4.72

4.12
4.12
4.12
4.12
4.12
4.12
4.12
4.12
4.12
4.12
4.12
4.12
4.12
4.12
4.12
4.12
4.12
4.12
4.12
4.12
4.12
4.12
4.12
4.12
4.12
4.12
4.12

Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
Met
No dif
Met
No dif
No dif
No dif

No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP
No PIP

State
RI
CT
NY
NE
NH
ME
IA
WV
WY
IN
MI
MD
PA
OH
AZ
OR
ID
IL
VA
CA
MT
MN
WI
TX
KY
NJ
DE

Risk Standardized
Performance (RSP)

105

Observed Performance
needed to have avoided
a PIP (an estimate)
Obs.
perf.
Needed

% point
needed

Fewer
moves
Needed

PIP
Yr. 1
FFY
2011

Yr. 2
FFY
2012

Yr. 3
FFY
2013

Goal

 Risk
Adj.

Observed Performance
Entries

Denom

Num

State
AK
MO
SD
DC
MS
TN
HI
WA
ND
SC
KS
MA
GA
LA
VT
NV
NM
OK
AR
AL
CO
FL
NC
PR
UT

1014
181303
810
6305
1065220
5030
729
88535
398
359
63580
311
2621
395464
1933
5687
948953
5036
765
107126
508
5240
834412
3880
943
141956
775
2892
364349
1937
3792
655058
3511
6012
923868
5277
5823
815573
4778
3210
464302
2733
600
97837
634
2771
426165
2554
1251
187944
1170
5644
968573
6250
3313
446355
3236
Excluded due to data quality
Excluded due to data quality
Excluded due to data quality
Excluded due to data quality
Excluded due to data quality
Excluded due to data quality

Risk Standardized
Performance (RSP)

RSP Relative to
National Standard
(NS)

Obs.
Perf.

Median
Age

Lower
CI

RSP

Upper
CI

NS

NS Met?

PIP?

4.47
4.72
4.50
4.89
4.89
5.31
4.74
4.65
5.46
5.32
5.36
5.71
5.86
5.89
6.48
5.99
6.23
6.45
7.25

5
6
5
6
6
9
5
4
8
6
6
8
6
5
8
4
5
4
5

4.32
4.59
4.3
4.29
4.62
4.76
4.5
4.82
4.78
5.02
5.1
5.25
5.66
5.69
5.52
6.11
6.12
6.68
7.17

4.63
4.71
4.74
4.79
4.83
4.89
4.91
4.97
5.12
5.25
5.27
5.39
5.83
5.90
5.96
6.35
6.48
6.85
7.42

4.96
4.85
5.22
5.34
5.05
5.03
5.35
5.13
5.49
5.48
5.44
5.54
5.99
6.13
6.44
6.6
6.86
7.02
7.68

4.12
4.12
4.12
4.12
4.12
4.12
4.12
4.12
4.12
4.12
4.12
4.12
4.12
4.12
4.12
4.12
4.12
4.12
4.12

Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met
Not met

PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP
PIP

106

Observed Performance
needed to have avoided
a PIP (an estimate)
Obs.
perf.
Needed
4.25
4.24
4.28
4.66
4.35
4.59
4.32
3.97
4.69
4.36
4.33
4.48
4.26
4.26
4.80
4.03
4.17
3.98
4.16

% point
needed
-0.22
-0.48
-0.21
-0.23
-0.54
-0.71
-0.43
-0.68
-0.77
-0.96
-1.03
-1.23
-1.60
-1.63
-1.68
-1.96
-2.06
-2.48
-3.09

Fewer
moves
Needed
-40
-513
-19
-15
-213
-678
-46
-564
-109
-349
-675
-1136
-1306
-757
-164
-835
-387
-2399
-1380

PIP
Yr. 1
FFY
2011
5.36
7.35
5.45
5.29
5.26
5.31
3.72
4.31
6.06
5.65
4.19
5.39
5.42
5.68
7.70
5.35
5.13
7.99
7.01

Yr. 2
FFY
2012
4.48
5.12
4.45
5.68
4.87
5.09
4.06
4.33
5.77
4.68
4.49
5.26
5.87
4.82
7.12
5.12
6.05
6.88
7.10

Yr. 3
FFY
2013
4.47
4.72
4.50
4.89
4.89
5.31
4.74
4.65
5.46
5.32
5.36
5.71
5.87
6.02
6.48
5.99
6.23
6.45
7.25

Goal
4.07
4.31
4.10
4.46
4.63
5.06
4.32
4.41
5.12
4.85
4.89
5.43
5.54
5.49
5.91
5.47
5.68
5.88
6.91