Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 1 of 186 Implementation Plan M.D. v. Abbott, Civil Action No. 2:11-CV-84 Submitted by Special Master Kevin M. Ryan, December 4, 2017 The Court’s goal for this Implementation Plan is to provide children in the Permanent Managing Conservatorship (PMC) of Texas with the constitutional minimum standards of personal security and safe living conditions so that they are free from unreasonable risk of harm, both physical and emotional. In December 2015, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas concluded in the matter M.D. v. Abbott, Civil Action No. 2:11-CV-84, that Plaintiff foster children “have proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that DFPS’s policies and practices amount to structural deficiencies that cause an unreasonable risk of harm to all class and subclass members.” Although Texas on numerous occasions declined to recognize a constitutional right of these children to be free from an unreasonable risk of harm, the Court appointed the Special Masters to work with the parties to “present the Court with an Implementation Plan to reform Texas’s foster care system.” The Special Masters assembled a team and subsequently reviewed hundreds of thousands of pages of documents in this matter, including the entire trial record and exhibits (including more than 300,000 pages of children’s records). The Special Masters met with the parties on numerous occasions to discuss the Court’s goals and the parties’ perspectives for improving the Texas child welfare system, and in November 2016 the Special Masters submitted a set of recommendations to the Court. In January 2017, the Court issued an Interim Order, directing the Special Masters “to continue to work with DFPS to help DFPS create and implement plans” to address the deficiencies described in the December 2015 Memorandum Opinion and Verdict of the Court as well as the recommendations filed by the Special Masters in November 2016. In numerous instances noted in this Implementation Plan, Texas declined to implement policy changes or develop implementation 1 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 2 of 186 plans. The Special Masters retained experts at the University of Texas-Austin to conduct two workload studies (Appendices B and C). In addition, the Special Masters and team members conducted two case record reviews, as described in this Implementation Plan: one focused on the accuracy of PMC children’s placement move data, and a second focused on children’s photographs; the consistency of healthcare, dental and mental healthcare information in children’s records; and the characterization of sexual victimization and aggression in children’s electronic case records. As described later in this Implementation Plan, the Special Masters visited Foster Group Home caregivers in Texas counties to discuss the families’ awakenight supervision plans, and also visited congregate care facilities to understand the agency’s placement, visitation and medical consent protocols. The Special Masters requested numerous documents and information from DFPS, which informed this Implementation Plan. Those documents and information are listed in Appendix A. This Implementation Plan results from this work and represents the Special Masters’ final report to the Court. The numbered policies that follow are offered to ensure that PMC children are free from unreasonable risk of harm as stated in the Court’s goals of December 2015 and January 2017. These policies apply to all previously determined classes of PMC children in this matter. PMC Child-Caseworker Visitation 1. Effective immediately, DFPS shall ensure that monthly face-to-face visits between caseworkers and children in the PMC class occur as required. The caseworkers’ visits with children in the PMC class must include time with the child separate from the caregiver(s) and other children, if the child is verbal. Effective immediately, DFPS shall ensure that caseworkers document monthly, private meetings with each verbal, PMC child in their care unless the reason for noncompliance is fully documented in the child’s electronic case record. 2 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 3 of 186 2. Effective immediately, DFPS shall ensure adequate training on its child visitation policies to all caseworkers responsible for visiting children in the PMC class. 3. Effective immediately, DFPS shall track caseworker-child visits and report quarterly to the monitor(s) on the number of caseworker-child visits required and the percent and number that occurred. DFPS shall report for all referenced visits whether they involved face-to-face time with the child separate from the caregiver(s) and other children, if the child is verbal. 4. Effective immediately, DFPS shall ensure caseworkers who conduct visits with PMC children follow the agency’s contact guidelines, which they must document in the child’s electronic case record based on monthly visits with a child. The guidelines must require caseworkers, at least, including to complete an assessment of the child’s safety, an assessment of the placement; a confirmation that the child was interviewed individually, separately and privately from the caregiver and other children, if the child is verbal; a discussion of the form(s) of discipline being used in the placement; and a documented review of the child's medical, mental health, dental and educational progress and needs. Former PMC youth testified at trial that their visits with caseworkers often were not private. The Court wrote extensively in its December 2015 Opinion about children who infrequently, or never, saw some of their CVS caseworkers. The Special Masters reviewed the case files included in the record of this matter. Those records frequently did not indicate whether CVS caseworkers met with children monthly and privately. The Special Masters asked DFPS where and how the agency tracks whether visits with children are privately conducted. DFPS advised the Special Masters “there is no specific location in the IMPACT record where caseworkers must confirm that a child was interviewed in private or separately.” (See Appendix 3 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 4 of 186 D, Updated response document to Special Masters’ Request for Information, emailed from Audrey Carmical, Esq. on behalf of DFPS on March 24, 2017.) The study of I See You Workers1 undertaken by the University of Texas-Austin to inform the Special Masters’ recommendations to the Court (Appendix B), concluded that 22 percent of assigned secondary I See You workers missed the monthly visit with the child. DFPS’ aggregate visitation data does not indicate how many, if any, of these visits were privately conducted. Despite the Court’s December 2015 Opinion, DFPS still does not have a way to track how many caseworkers’ visits with children are private each month. PMC Children’s Records In the December 2015 Opinion, the Court included among its findings the following: The problems of inadequate and incomplete caseworker documentation are considerably magnified by the way in which DFPS maintains foster children’s case files. Children’s records are not kept in a single location nor are they consistently maintained in chronological order. (See D.E. 343 at 1; see generally DX 120 (filed under seal)). Some of the children’s files are kept electronically on DFPS’s IMPACT casework system. Other children’s files are maintained entirely in External paper files. (D.E. 343 at 1-2; supra p. 80-81 nn.25 & 26). Additionally, records relating to abuse and neglect investigations of children in foster care are kept separately by RCCL in the CLASS database. (See supra p. 141 n.43). Although CVS caseworkers have access to the CLASS database, CLASS files are not merged with IMPACT files and it is unclear whether CVS caseworkers are trained, let alone have the time, to check whether children newly transferred to their caseloads have CLASS files. (See D.E. 343 at 2). Thus, not only are foster children’s case files 1 DFPS recently renamed the position Local Permanency Specialist. This Implementation Plan retains the title used at trial. 4 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 5 of 186 shockingly long (358,102 pages of case files for the 20 children for whom the Court has records), they are incredibly disorganized. Further, inherent problems with DFPS’s outdated IMPACT system further impede caseworkers’ ability to review important electronic case file information. According to The Stephen Group, IMPACT “is not in sync with current versions of forms that are used [by caseworkers] and forces arbitrary workarounds and repetitive entry of data.” (PX 1993 at 15). This results in “delays and considerable frustration among caseworkers and can mean that those accessing the system might not have immediate availability to the most recent updates in a particular case.” Id. This creates opportunities for important safety-related tasks to “fall through the cracks,” especially when cases are transferred between workers. See id. It is unclear how easily CPS caseworkers can access their foster children’s RCCL files, and how often they do so when receiving new files. What is clear is that caseworkers’ continuously fail to maintain complete, timely, and accurate documentation. The resulting widespread neglect of important tasks relating to the safety and wellbeing of PMC children is indicative of a system where caseworkers’ workloads are unmanageable. And the Court further determined: DFPS paperwork and electronic filing system, including IMPACT, CLASS, and the External files, must become more efficient. Each child should have a readily accessible and organized case file, comprised of all records pertaining to that child. The Court was routinely frustrated at the disorganization, duplication, and inconsistency in the foster children’s case files. Caseworkers should be able to spend more than 26% of their time with foster children. As the Court found in the December 2015 Opinion, DFPS maintains PMC children’s records among numerous electronic and paper files, stored in 5 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 6 of 186 different locations and maintained by distinct custodians. As the Court determined, the trial record, including exhibits, revealed evidence of children’s records missing information, containing incomplete information and reflecting other among information that was files. The Special Masters’ the trial exhibits, and inconsistent examination other with of information these children’s records case as in records described below, confirmed that PMC children’s records are currently stored in different locations with different custodians. These records are: A. The STAR Health Passport is an electronic record maintained by DFPS’s healthcare vendor, Superior HealthPlan. The passport allows users to view service utilization for and mental health care. The medical, passport dental, behavioral includes information tabs, including a medical history tab. The passport can log health history, service dates, medical events, allergies, immunizations and diagnoses. The passport is not compatible with, or linked to, the IMPACT system, described below. The passport does not currently have the functionality for uploading most documents, such as birth certificates, medical, dental, developmental and psychological evaluations, or the capacity to store these documents. Superior HealthPlan staff and clinical providers can enter information into the passport, but not DFPS staff or caregivers. The passport is viewable by Superior HealthPlan staff, DFPS caseworkers, foster care agency providers, medical consenters (foster parents), health providers and Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs). B. IMPACT is the main electronic data system administered by DFPS. IMPACT is not compatible with, or linked to, the passport described above. IMPACT has the capacity to include, among other things, caseworkers’ notes, child abuse and neglect history, placement history, a child’s photograph, investigative history, service dates, court orders, medical event dates, dental event dates and assessments. As described below, the Special Masters observed 6 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 7 of 186 in a random sample audit of PMC children’s files that IMPACT frequently contained less health-related information than the passport. IMPACT does not currently have the functionality for uploading most documents, records, legal such documents, as birth certificates, school medical, dental, developmental and psychological evaluations or the capacity to store these documents. DFPS staff have access to relevant information in IMPACT; Attorneys ad litem do not. DFPS implemented Case Connection in September 2014, which is a web-based program that gives CASA staff and volunteers access to a child’s IMPACT-based information. case Through Case Connection, CASAs can view certain placement, healthcare, education, permanency and demographic information. C. CLASS (the Child Care Licensing Automation Support System) which tracks inspection and investigative work in PMC’s children’s licensed residential placements, among other settings. An allegation of child abuse or neglect involving a PMC child while in a licensed residential setting can be linked to the child’s history page in IMPACT. D. Because IMPACT and the STAR Health Passport cannot store most documents, PMC children’s medical, dental, developmental and psychological assessments, and children’s birth certificates, must be separately maintained in paper files when DFPS acquires them. These files are in different locations. Paper records may be housed by the caregiver (i.e. the foster parent) at the child’s placement or at the offices of the agency supervising the placement. The primary CVS worker also typically stores a child’s birth certificate, in her paper DFPS record, including the office. Medical/service providers may also keep children’s records at their places of business. E. Education records are located in at least two places. The name of the child’s school, the school year and the enrollment/discharge date(s), can be located in the IMPACT personal detail tab. 7 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 8 of 186 Information about the child’s educational needs can be tracked in the educational portfolio section of IMPACT. A separate paperbased system, often called the Green Binder, is intended to contain including the PMC report child’s cards, complete educational progress notes, information, classification for specialized services and school enrollment history, and is supposed to follow a child from placement to placement. When a Green Binder exists, it is maintained by the child’s placement provider. F. Foster and adoptive home screenings and evaluations for PMC children are frequently kept in paper files maintained by the community agency that supervises the child’s placement. On May 4, 2017, Special Master Kevin Ryan and John Ducoff, a member of the Special Master team, met with DFPS leadership to discuss DFPS’s child welfare record keeping systems and to test those record keeping systems by examining the electronic files of 21 children in the PMC class, selected randomly, by Mr. Ryan from among the 10,551 children identified by DFPS as being in the PMC class on March 31, 2017. The STAR Health Passport contained more information about children’s medical and mental health care, including procedure dates, types of procedures and diagnoses, but the information in the STAR Health Passport and IMPACT did not align nearly half the time. Of the 21 randomly selected PMC children whose electronic case records were reviewed by Mr. Ryan and Mr. Ducoff, the dates of the child’s last medical examination listed in IMPACT mirrored, or closely approximated, the dates of the child’s last medical examination in the Health Passport in 11 cases, and differed in 10 cases.2 Of the 21 PMC children whose electronic case records were reviewed by Mr. Ryan and Mr. Ducoff, 14 children had a current (within one year) photo in their IMPACT case record; two children had a photo that was slightly overdue for updating in 2 Mr. Ryan shared the results of the audit with DFPS through counsel and solicited feedback before finalizing and sharing the findings with the Court. 8 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 9 of 186 their IMPACT case record (by two and three weeks at the time of the review); and five children did not have a recent photo in their IMPACT case record. All of the children had a verified Social Security Number in their IMPACT case file. Of the 21 PMC children whose electronic case records were reviewed by Mr. Ryan and Mr. Ducoff, the IMPACT system contained no uploaded medical records, dental records, educational records or mental health records. DFPS said those records may be in the possession of the primary CVS worker, or may not be in DFPS’s possession, but instead held by the caregiver, or the providers. Of the 21 PMC children whose electronic case records were reviewed by Mr. Ryan and Mr. Ducoff, the IMPACT system recorded that 16 children had a recent (within 6 months) dental examination, two children appeared slightly overdue for a dental examination (by two weeks) and three children did not have a timely dental examination listed. The examinations were not included in the IMPACT system. Of the 21 PMC children whose electronic case records were reviewed by Mr. Ryan and Mr. Ducoff, the IMPACT system recorded that 17 children had a timely medical examination and four children did not have a timely medical examination listed. The examinations were not included in the IMPACT system. In addition to the IMPACT system, Mr. Ryan and Mr. Ducoff also reviewed children’s records in the Star Health Passport system. In general, Mr. Ryan and Mr. Ducoff observed that the STAR Health Passport often contained more information about children’s medical and mental health care, including procedure dates, procedure types and diagnoses. However, the 21 passports did not include copies of medical examinations, ER visit reports, hospitalization documents or dental examinations, even when those events were indicated. Of the 21 PMC children whose electronic case records were reviewed by Mr. Ryan and Mr. Ducoff, the STAR Health Passport recorded that 15 children had 9 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 10 of 186 a current dental examination, five children did not and one child appeared to be slightly overdue for a dental examination (within ten days). Of the 21 PMC children whose electronic case records were reviewed by Mr. Ryan and Mr. Ducoff, the Health Passport recorded that 20 children had a timely medical examination and one child was overdue for a medical examination. Of the 21 PMC children whose electronic case records were reviewed by Mr. Ryan and Mr. Ducoff, the Health Passport and/or the IMPACT system reflected that 11 children had a psychological assessment of some type within the past three years. The records were unclear or information was absent for seven children, and two children were infants. The psychological assessment documents were not included in IMPACT or the Health Passport. Of the 21 PMC children whose electronic case records were reviewed by Mr. Ryan and Mr. Ducoff, the dates of the child’s last medical examination listed in IMPACT mirrored, or closely approximated, the dates of the child’s last medical examination in the Health Passport in 11 cases, and differed in 10 cases. Of the 21 PMC children whose electronic case records were reviewed by Mr. Ryan and Mr. Ducoff, the dates of the child’s last dental examination listed in IMPACT mirrored, or closely approximated, the dates of the child’s last dental examination in the Health Passport in 11 cases, and differed in 10 cases. In February and March 2017, Mr. Ryan and Deborah Fowler, a member of the Special Master team, visited the residences of eight randomly selected Foster Group Home caregivers in Texas. The Foster Group Home caregivers each knew that the children’s education records were contained in a Green Binder, which followed the child from placement to placement. In two instances, caregivers said the Green Binder was housed in the offices of the community agency assigned to monitor the Foster Group Home and was not available for inspection during the visit. In six instances, the Green Binder was in the home of the Foster Group Home caregiver and contained the child’s educational records, including enrollment information, report cards 10 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 11 of 186 and information on learning disabilities and accommodations. Mr. Ryan visited a randomly selected Residential Treatment Center in Harris County in March 2017, and was advised that some of the children did have Green Binders on site, including their education information, and others did not. The Court’s Order of January 2017, included in Section V.B.: The Special Masters are ordered to work with DFPS to create and submit to the Court a plan for a comprehensive central databank for PMC children. The databank shall include: 1. Medical records; 2. Dental records; 3. Mental health records; 4. School records; 5. Court records; 6. Caseworker notes; and 7. Placement evaluations. In an effort to comply with the Court’s Order, the Special Masters asked DFPS to provide a draft plan to achieve the Court’s goals. DFPS declined to share a draft plan, replying “Not applicable. Texas is not developing such a plan.” (See Appendix D, Updated response document to Special Masters’ Request for Information, emailed from Audrey Carmical, Esq. on behalf of DFPS on March 24, 2017.) In an effort to comply with the Court’s Order, the Special Masters requested that DFPS assess and report the time needed to improve its IMPACT system so that all of a child’s medical records are included and available in an identified health section of a child’s case file in IMPACT. DFPS replied the request was “[n]ot applicable. DFPS is not making such changes to the IMPACT system.” (See Appendix D, Updated response document to Special Masters’ Request for Information, emailed from Audrey Carmical, Esq. on behalf of DFPS on March 24, 2017.) In an effort to comply with the Court’s Order, the Special Masters requested that DFPS assess and report the time needed to improve its IMPACT system so that all of a child’s dental records are included and available in an identified health section of a child’s case file in IMPACT. DFPS replied the request was “[n]ot applicable. DFPS is not making such changes to the 11 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 12 of 186 IMPACT system.” (See Appendix D, Updated response document to Special Masters’ Request for Information, emailed from Audrey Carmical, Esq. on behalf of DFPS on March 24, 2017.) In an effort to comply with the Court’s Order, the Special Masters requested that DFPS assess and report the time needed to improve its IMPACT system so that all of a child’s mental health records are included and available in an identified health section of a child’s case file in IMPACT. DFPS replied the request was “[n]ot applicable. DFPS is not making such changes to the IMPACT system.” (See Appendix D, Updated response document to Special Masters’ Request for Information, emailed from Audrey Carmical, Esq. on behalf of DFPS on March 24, 2017.) In an effort to comply with the Court’s Order, the Special Masters requested that DFPS assess and report the time needed to improve its IMPACT system so that all of a child’s educational records are included and available in an identified education section of a child’s case file in IMPACT. DFPS replied the request was “[n]ot applicable. DFPS is not making such changes to the IMPACT system.” (See Appendix D, Updated response document to Special Masters’ Request for Information, emailed from Audrey Carmical, Esq. on behalf of DFPS on March 24, 2017.) In an effort to comply with the Court’s Order, the Special Masters requested that DFPS assess and report the time needed to improve its IMPACT system so that all of the court records pertaining to a child’s case are included and available in an identified legal section of a child’s case file in IMPACT. DFPS replied the request was “[n]ot applicable. DFPS is not making such changes to the IMPACT system.” DFPS continues to maintain it is not developing such a plan. (See Appendix D, Updated response document to Special Masters’ Request for Information, emailed from Audrey Carmical, Esq. on behalf of DFPS on March 24, 2017.) 12 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 13 of 186 1. Within four months of the Court’s Final Order, DFPS shall submit to the Court a plan for an timeframes, that integrated contains computer each system, PMC child’s with specific complete records, including but not limited to a complete migration of all medical, dental, educational, placement recommendations, mental health and caseworker records. and medical detailed court records, The mental health, dental information shall include all visits to the provider with examinations, diagnoses, test results, immunizations, medications (including the reasons for each), history of abuse, treatment plans, and any other information necessary for the safety of the children. DFPS shall have this system fully functional within one year of the Final Order date. 2. The DFPS plan supervisors shall serving ensure that DFPS caseworkers and PMC children, as well as CASA staff and volunteers, and any public or private staff assigned to oversee PMC children’s care, have access to an integrated, current, complete and accurate case record for PMC children on their caseloads, consistent with prevailing state and federal law, including, for example, the child's current legal status and permanency goal; the child's Transition Plan (where applicable); the child's placement information and all safety-related and licensure/verification information about the child's placement, including investigation and inspection reports, enforcement actions and internal reviews conducted by CPAs; the child's historic and current caseworker(s) and supervisor(s), with corresponding contact information; the child's complete medical, dental, educational and mental health information and records. Current PMC Child Photograph Consistent with the Court’s goals in the December 2015 Order, DFPS improved its electronic case management system, IMPACT, to include a location for 13 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 14 of 186 a child’s photograph to be uploaded. As of the Special Masters’ case record review in May 2017, DFPS had not ensured that the electronic case record of each child in the PMC class included a child’s photograph that is not more than one year old. 1. Effective immediately, the electronic case record of each child in the PMC class must include the child’s photograph that is not more than one year old, except as provided in paragraph three, below. 2. Effective immediately, when a child enters the PMC class, DFPS shall ensure that a photograph is taken of the child within 48 hours and uploaded into the child’s electronic case record promptly. DFPS shall ensure the date of the photograph is recorded in the child’s case record. 3. Effective immediately, with respect to all PMC children under the age of three years, DFPS shall ensure that photographs are taken and uploaded to the child’s IMPACT case record at least semi-annually, and the date of the photograph must be recorded in the child’s case record. 4. Effective immediately, DFPS shall ensure adequate training to all caseworkers on how to use the appropriate technology to photograph a child and upload the photograph to the child’s electronic case record. Screening and Investigating Reports of Abuse/Neglect Regarding PMC Children 1. Effective immediately, DFPS shall ensure that it maintains a statewide, 24-hour hotline accessible by PMC children in DFPS custody system to report abuse and neglect. The hotline shall receive, screen and assign for investigation reports of maltreatment of children in the PMC class. 2. DFPS shall ensure that child abuse and neglect investigations involving children in the PMC class are commenced and completed on time consistent with the Court’s Final Order, and conducted thoroughly and appropriately pursuant to current policy and regulation. The 14 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 15 of 186 monitor(s) shall appropriately periodically receiving, review screening the and statewide investigating system reports for of abuse and neglect involving children in the PMC class to ensure those investigations of all reports are commenced and completed on time consistent with the Court’s Final Order and conducted thoroughly and appropriately pursuant to current policy and regulation. 3. In order to ensure that PMC children have access to the 24-hour hotline to report abuse and neglect, within 30 days of the Court’s Final Order, DFPS shall either require all foster homes homes housing PMC children to and maintain therapeutic a foster landline phone accessible to the child in the home, with the toll-free hotline number appended to the landline or, in the alternative, DFPS shall present an alternative plan to the Court within 30 days of the Court’s Final Order to ensure PMC children have access to the hotline to report abuse and neglect. 4. Effective May 2018, DFPS shall ensure that all caseworkers and caregivers are trained to recognize and report sexual abuse, including child on child sexual abuse. 5. Effective immediately, DFPS shall ensure that investigations of abuse and neglect of PMC children while they are in licensed placements are conducted by staff whose caseload is exclusively focused on child maltreatment investigations. 6. Effective March 2018, and ongoing thereafter, DFPS shall ensure the central case record of every child in the PMC class includes documentation confirming the method(s) discussed with the child for notifying DFPS if the child needs to report abuse or neglect. For children who are verbal, the documentation must include the date the reporting methods were discussed with the child and confirmation of their level of understanding. The discussion with the child must occur within 48 hours of entering any new placement. 7. Within 60 days of the Court’s Final Order, all calls to the DFPS 24-hour hotline shall be recorded. All recorded calls shall be stored for at least 15 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 16 of 186 two years using a call recording system. Recordings shall be made available to the monitor(s) for monitoring and verification purposes. 8. Effective March 2018, and ongoing thereafter, DFPS shall ensure that a well-trained, experienced and qualified supervisor reviews and approves all screening decisions at the 24-hour hotline involving children in the PMC class. The monitors will conduct routine audits of screened-out reports involving children in the PMC class to confirm that DFPS conducted a complete review of the available record (including past intake reports involving the child and the placement) and due consideration was given to the risks to children when determining whether to assign a matter for investigation. 9. Effective March 2018, DFPS shall ensure that all abuse and neglect referrals to the 24-hour hotline regarding a foster home where any PMC child is placed, which are not referred for a child abuse and neglect investigation, are shared with the PMC child’s caseworker and the caseworker’s supervisor within 48 hours of DFPS receiving the referral. Upon receipt of the information, the PMC child’s caseworker will review the referral history of the home and assess if there are any concerns for the child’s safety or well-being, and document the same in the child’s electronic case record. 10. Effective March 2018 and ongoing thereafter, DFPS shall, in accordance with existing DFPS policies and administrative rules, initiate Priority One child abuse and neglect investigations involving children in the PMC class within 24 hours of intake. (A Priority One is by current policy assigned to an intake in which the children appear to face a safety threat of abuse or neglect that could result in death or serious harm.) 11. Effective March 2018 and ongoing thereafter, DFPS shall, in accordance with existing DFPS policies and administrative rules, initiate Priority Two child abuse and neglect investigations involving children in the PMC class within 72 hours of intake. (A Priority Two is assigned by current policy to any CPS intake in which the children appear to face a safety threat that could result in substantial harm.) 16 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 17 of 186 12. Effective March accordance with 2018 and ongoing thereafter, DFPS shall, in DFPS policies and administrative rules, complete required initial face-to-face contact with the alleged child victim(s) in Priority One child abuse and neglect investigations involving PMC children as soon as possible but no later than 24 hours after intake. 13. Effective March accordance with 2018 and ongoing thereafter, DFPS shall, in DFPS policies and administrative rules, complete required initial face-to-face contact with the alleged child victim(s) in Priority Two child abuse and neglect investigations involving PMC children as soon as possible but no later than 72 hours after intake. 14. Effective March 2018 and ongoing thereafter, DFPS must track and report all child abuse and neglect investigations that are not initiated on time with face-to-face contacts with children in the PMC class, factoring in and reporting to the monitors quarterly on all authorized and approved extensions to the deadline required for initial face-to-face contacts for child abuse and neglect investigations. 15. Effective March 2018, DFPS shall, in accordance with DFPS policies and administrative rules, complete Priority One and Priority Two child abuse and neglect investigations that involve children in the PMC class within 30 days of intake, unless an extension has been approved for good cause and documented in the investigative record. If an investigation has been extended more than once, all extensions for good cause must be documented in the investigative record. 16. Effective March 2018 and ongoing thereafter, DFPS must track and report monthly all child abuse and neglect investigations involving children in the PMC class that are not completed on time according to this Final Order. Approved extensions to the standard closure timeframe, and the reason for the extension, must be documented and tracked. If an investigation has been extended more than once, all extensions for good cause must be documented in the investigative record. 17 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 18 of 186 The trial record includes multiple pieces of testimonial evidence describing children’s inability to reach out for help. The former foster children testified that they were unable to tell a caseworker about abuse because the abuser (often the caregiver) was present. (D.E. 324, Page 64 Lines 3-16, Page 64 Line 22-Page 65 Line 15; D.E. 325, Page 169 Lines 14-25). PV testified she did not know who to trust, so she stayed quiet. (D.E. 324, Page 200 Lines 3-17). When PV did try to report abuse to a caseworker, nothing ever came of it. (D.E. 324, Page 200 Lines 3-17). KS (“KS”) testified that at one of his placements he could not make a phone call without getting permission. (D.E. 325, Page 169 Lines 14-24). KS testified he never had the opportunity to report his sexual abuse because someone was constantly monitoring his access to the outside world. (D.E. 325, Page 169 Lines 14-25). KS also testified that he did not know there was a number he could call and that if there was such a number, he would not have had access to it. 176 Lines 8-17). (D.E. 325, Page Additionally, the next friends of named plaintiffs described those children’s frustrations with not having a way to reach out. See (D.E. 324, Page 224 Line 22-Page 226 Line 21 and D.E. 327, Page 188 Line 22Page 189 Line 11). The Court’s December 2015 Opinion required that “[f]oster children must be allowed telephone access to reach out to” the 24-hour, toll-free child abuse and neglect hotline. The Court’s January 2017 Order concluded that “[a]ll foster homes, foster group homes, and therapeutic foster homes housing PMC children should be required to maintain a landline phone accessible to the child in the home, with the toll-free hotline number appended to the landline.” The Court’s goals grew from findings, detailed in the December 2015 Opinion that children were subject to serious physical and sexual abuse that was not reported to the DFPS toll-free, 24-hour child abuse and neglect hotline, known as Statewide Intake. Consistent with the Court’s orders in this matter, the Special Masters requested that DFPS provide a draft policy and/or regulation to require that Child Placement Agency (CPA) residential providers maintain a landline 18 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 19 of 186 phone that connects directly to the DFPS toll-free, 24-hour screening hotline. DFPS originally responded on March 8, 2017 that the request from the Special Masters was “Not applicable. DFPS neither has nor will be developing such a policy or regulation.” (See Appendix E, DFPS Responses to Special Masters’ Questions, emailed from Audrey Carmical, Esq., on behalf of DFPS on March 8, 2017.) During a status hearing before the Court in March 2017, DFPS stated and the Court recorded in its March 17, 2017 Order, “DFPS agreed to examine the possibility of requiring a landline phone accessible to the children in each foster home.” DFPS subsequently advised the Special Masters in April 2017 that DFPS was still “considering the feasibility and utility of requiring a landline phone in each foster home.” (See Appendix H, DFPS Responses to Special Masters’ Questions, emailed from Audrey Carmical, Esq., on behalf of DFPS on May 12, 2017.) Despite the Court’s orders in this matter, DFPS also reports “it does not have a means of tracking which PMC children are placed in care with access to a phone to report abuse and neglect.” (See Appendix F, DFPS Responses to Special Master Questions, emailed from Audrey Carmical, Esq. on behalf of DFPS on September 21, 2017.) PMC Youths’ Preparation for Independence 1. Effective immediately, DFPS shall ensure and document that all youth in the PMC class, aged 16 or older, receive copies of their birth certificate, social security card, and all other documents that law or policy entitles them to receive upon turning 16. 2. Effective immediately, DFPS shall ensure and document that all youth in the PMC class, prior to aging out of care, receive copies of their birth certificate, social security card, and all other documents that law or policy entitles them to receive. DFPS must document an acknowledgment of receipt, along with a short description of the youth’s plan for safekeeping the documents, signed by the youth and 19 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 20 of 186 their caseworker in the electronic case record prior to the youth aging out of care. 3. Effective within three months of the Court’s Final Order and ongoing thereafter, DFPS shall identify all PMC youth aged 14 and older who have not yet received the following DFPS preparation services: the life skills independent assessment, a living Circles of Support (COS) or Transition Plan Meeting (TPM), and a recently updated (within six months for youth 16 and older and one year for youth 14 and older) transition plan. DFPS shall ensure that all PMC youth who have been identified immediately above, receive these services and that the PMC youth’s transition plan is developed. 4. Effective June 2018, DFPS shall ensure all 14 and 15 year-old youth in the PMC class receive DFPS’ Preparation for Adult Living (PAL) services. 5. Effective June 2018, DFPS shall ensure that if a PMC youth’s disability is a barrier to participation in PAL services or supports, appropriate accommodations meaningfully shall be identified that allow the youth to participate, and DFPS shall document any accommodations in the child’s electronic case record. 6. Effective June 2018, DFPS shall ensure PMC youth receive a life-skills assessment within 45 annually, and that days the of turning results of 14, and are reassessed these assessments are documented and available in the child’s electronic case record. 7. Effective June 2018, DFPS shall ensure that PMC youth receive DFPS’s Circles of Support (COS) or Transition Planning Meeting (TPM) within 45 days of turning 14 years old, and then receive either COS or TPM in conjunction with the child’s permanency planning meeting every four months, until the youth ages out or attains permanency. The purpose of such meetings is to develop a youth’s transition plan with an eye toward building skills to support a youth’s specific strengths and address needs in preparation for independence. 20 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 21 of 186 8. Effective March 2018, DFPS shall ensure that primary caseworkers assigned to PMC children develop a plan, in consultation with the child’s Attorney ad litem, to facilitate the sealing or expungement of any eligible criminal or juvenile records for offenses for which the youth was adjudicated or convicted prior to the youth aging out of care. DFPS shall ensure the efforts to do so are documented in the child’s electronic case record. 9. Effective March 2018, DFPS shall ensure that the caseworker puts a plan in place prior to a PMC youth turning 18 years of age, documented in the case record, detailing how the youth will access benefits the youth is eligible to receive once they leave DFPS care, including the DFPS transitional living allowance, Social Security Disability Insurance benefits, the DFPS aftercare room and board assistance, and DFPS’s Education and Training Vouchers. 10. Effective June 2018, DFPS shall ensure driver’s education classes are provided to all PMC youth who are old enough to receive a learner’s permit and choose to take driver’s education. 11. Effective immediately, DFPS shall ensure that a plan is in place, and documented in the case record, to provide all PMC youth age 16 and older with safe, stable housing upon exit from care. 12. Effective immediately, DFPS shall ensure that prior to exiting care, each PMC youth age 14 and older is assisted in creating e-mail accounts so that they may receive encrypted copies of personal documents and records, in addition to receiving copies of originals. In the December 2015 Opinion, the Court found: Specia also acknowledged that the “longer children stay in the custody of the state the harder it is for them to achieve a permanent home.” (D.E. 299 at 63, 83; see also PX 1988 at 9). Thus, another consequence of rotating overburdened caseworkers, which disrupts 21 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 22 of 186 permanency planning, is that 1300-1400 foster children age out of the system each year. It is widely recognized that foster youths who age out generally experience poorer life outcomes. These youths leave the system with few life skills and little, if any, support. As Burstain wrote before joining DFPS, aging out of care is an outcome DFPS tries to avoid as aged-out youths “have no permanent place to call home and often have a difficult time.” (PX 1877 at 36). Burstain reaffirmed this sentiment at trial, saying that children for whom DFPS has failed to find a permanent home and who age out are “likely . . . to be harmed.” (D.E. 310 at 55). This is especially true for children who age out while living far from their home communities and support networks, often lacking the resources or ability to return. As of August 2014, approximately 60% of all foster children were placed outside their home county. (DX 183 at 4). Thus, aging out in a foreign community is commonplace. As a result, these children frequently end up homeless, participating in “criminal activities in order to survive, trespassing in vacant homes or stealing or human trafficking, prostitution, those kind of things in order to have a place to stay.” (D.E. 307 at 15; see also PX 1872 at 4). Aged out foster youths often experience “serious, and in some cases disabling, physical and mental health care issues” and are likely to suffer from posttraumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) due to “the traumas and frequent moves and transitions experienced in foster care.” (PX 1988 at 10). According to Casey Family Programs, former foster youths suffer from PTSD at nearly five times the rate of the general population and nearly twice the rate of United States combat veterans. Id. at 57, 71. In addition, aged out foster youths often have significantly lower educational attainment than their peers. Id. at 53-55, 58-59. Foster youth in general are “much more likely to be held back than their peers.” Id. at 54. This is due in part to the frequent school changes, which means they are “often absent for large parts of the school year, lose academic credits due to mid-semester moves, and often have incomplete school records due to missing transcripts.” Id. at 53-54. Foster children are also 22 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 23 of 186 significantly overrepresented in special education classes—at a rate of over four times that of the general population—which may be an underestimate. See id. at 55. Many do not finish high school. Id. at 58. Fewer than 2% of former foster children complete college. Id. at 56. Talley, who previously worked at DFPS as a Preparation for Adult Living coordinator, testified that the 800 former foster youths for whom she provided services, the majority of which were in PMC, were simply being “maintain[ed] in foster care until they aged out.” (D.E. 323 at 84-85). Carpenter testified that aged-out children lack independent living skills. (See D.E. 307 at 8, 13, 29-30). They do not know how to answer a phone, take or leave a message, cook a meal for themselves, or load a dishwasher. Id. They do not know how to fill out a job application, let alone drive a car to get to work. Id. at 29-30. According to Carter, none of the Named Plaintiffs who are on the cusp of aging out, or have by now aged out, “have sufficient adaptive living skills that are necessary for even a minimally reasonable chance at a decent” life. (D.E. 326 at 129). None of them were involved in any extracurricular activities at school or had any vocational training or employment experience. Id. DFPS reported that 1,246 youth aged out of care in 2014; 1,180 youth aged out of care in 2015; and 1,250 youth aged out of care in 2016. Earlier in the Opinion, the Court summarized the testimony of the State expert who oversaw extended foster care for children who age out: Jenny Hinson (“Hinson”) is the Division Administrator for Permanency at CPS. (D.E. 314 at 4). She supervises a team of seven subject matter experts and with them is responsible for developing and administering policies and programs for children in DFPS conservatorship. (See id. at 221; DX 259 at 1). She has been in her current position since 2010, but has been at DFPS since 1998. Hinson has worked as a statewide intake specialist, caseworker, supervisor, program director, 23 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 24 of 186 program administrator, and program specialist. (D.E. 327 at 222-23; DX 259 at 1-2). While Hinson focuses on CPS policies that relate to permanence, she seems to know little about how her policies actually affect permanency. Id. at 6-9. For example, she oversees extended foster care for children who age out, but does not know how many children benefit from that program, or the effectiveness of that program. Id. at 8-9. Similarly, while she said that independent living classes are offered to all foster children age 16 and up, Hinson does not know how many children attend those classes. She believes that number is fewer than 50 out of the 1300-1400 children who age out annually. (Id. at 21-22; see also DX 24 at 14 (showing that 1410 youths aged out in 2011); DX 119 at 221 (showing that 1328 youths aged out in 2013)). Attorneys ad Litem for PMC Children 1. Effective immediately, DFPS shall request the appointment of an Attorney ad litem for all PMC children from each court in which a suit is pending in which a PMC child does not have Attorney ad litem representation, citing the Court’s Final Order. 2. Within 30 days of the Court’s Final Order, DFPS shall present a plan to the Court to ensure reimbursement to Attorneys ad litem in those courts that do not currently provide Attorneys ad litem for PMC children. If DFPS fails to present a plan, DFPS shall reimburse those fees necessary to provide Attorneys ad litem in those courts that do not currently provide Attorneys ad litem for PMC children. The Court’s January 2017 Order refers to the “loss of liberty” each PMC child experiences by virtue of their removal from home and their assignment to placements. In the Court’s original December 2015 Opinion, Judge Jack observed that “when a child enters PMC, courts often dismiss the child’s Attorney ad litem and CASA, leaving the child with fewer stable relationships and advocates. (PX 1988 at 15; see also supra pp. 7-8).” January 2017 Order that “[m]ost PMC children also do Noting in the not have an 24 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 25 of 186 attorney ad litem,” the Court analyzed the vulnerability of children in the PMC class, the liberty interests at stake, and concluded: PMC children are entitled to counsel at every step of their legal journey through the Texas foster care system … The Court can order, at a minimum, that DFPS request ad litem appointment from each court in which a suit is pending, citing this Order. Additionally, the Court will consider ordering DFPS to reimburse the ad litem attorney’s fees to the appointing court. The Special Masters are ordered to work with DFPS to evaluate the efficacy of these options and propose a procedure for the appointment of an attorney ad litem for each PMC child within 3 months from the date of this order. When the Special Masters asked DFPS about these options, the agency replied, “Not applicable. DFPS declines to speculate on a process that is and should be governed by counties and individual judges.” (See Appendix E, Updated response document to Special Masters’ Request for Information, emailed from Audrey Carmical, Esq. on behalf of DFPS on March 8, 2017.) The Special Masters asked DFPS to identify how many PMC children did not have an attorney as of September 2017. DFPS responded that it “does not track this information.” (See Appendix F, DFPS Responses to Special Masters’ Questions, emailed from Audrey Carmical, Esq. on behalf of DFPS on September 21, 2017.) PMC Children’s Health 1. Within 30 days of the Court’s Final Order, DFPS shall present the Court with a plan to address and remediate missing and nonexistent medical and mental health care records, consistent with the American Academy of Pediatrics “Fostering Health: Healthcare for Children and Adolescent in Foster Care.” 25 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 26 of 186 2. DFPS shall institute and incorporate caseworker training (minimally into the Conservatorship Specialty Track) about child health that describes: a. The health vulnerabilities of foster youth (pages 1 and 2 of the American Academy of Pediatrics “Fostering Health: Healthcare for Children and Adolescent in Foster Care”); b. Specifically, how to use child and family visits to obtain and update healthcare information; c. The utility of children’s electronic case record, for improving the health of foster youth. 3. Effective immediately, DFPS shall make every effort to obtain and make available a child’s medical records within 24 hours of the child entering the custody of DFPS. Caseworkers shall document their efforts to obtain and make available children’s medical records within 48 hours of children entering DFPS custody; 4. Effective June 2018, DFPS will ensure that every PMC child has a medical home. The medical home is a health care delivery model led by a health care provider to provide comprehensive and continuous medical care and care management to patients with a goal to obtain positive health outcomes. The medical home shall be obliged (by policy and contract): a. To maintain and update all medical fields of the child’s central electronic record; b. To coordinate care for routine and emergency healthcare needs; c. To ensure timely evaluations and assessments for all health needs, including behavioral health (including psychotropic oversight), dental care, and chronic health conditions. 5. Effective June 2018, DFPS shall ensure children in the PMC class receive a specific developmental assessment of at least one of the following screenings within 90 days of each child’s birthday: • Birth to 10 years: Ages and Stages Questionnaire, Ages and Stages Questionnaire: Second 26 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 27 of 186 Edition, or the PEDS developmental screening and assessment; • 11 years to 21 years: the Pediatric Symptom Checklist (PSC)-35, the Youth Pediatric Symptom Checklist (Y-PSC), the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), or the CRAFFT screening test). Screening results from the developmental assessment, including follow-up/red flag items, shall be inputted into the child’s electronic case record within 72 hours; 6. Effective June 2018, DFPS shall ensure the child’s central electronic case record has functional internal (red flag) alerts notifying caseworkers of: a. Follow up needed; b. Assessments/screening required or indicated; c. Evaluations required or indicated; d. Immunizations required or indicated; and e. Appointments missed or cancelled. 7. Effective May 2018, DFPS shall institute a policy that uses the caseworker visits to verify and report on health status by answering and documenting in the PMC child’s electronic case record these questions: a. Are there outstanding red flag items for this child? i. Greater than 20 days? ii. Greater than 90 days? b. Has this child visited a healthcare practitioner in the last 90 days? c. Can this child (over 11) name his/her health care needs? The Court observed in its December 2015 Opinion that “rape, abuse, psychotropic medication and instability are the norm” for PMC children, and many children’s records, included as exhibits to the trial, were missing important health information. The children’s records include serious concerns of sexual and physical abuse but the records indicate the children were not timely 27 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 28 of 186 (or ever) examined by doctors to determine if they had been assaulted. Injuries went untreated. Necessary medical follow-up did not occur. Incomplete and missing healthcare information was a common feature of the records. In its January 2017 Order, the Court directed “the Special Masters to work with DFPS to develop a healthcare plan to address missing or nonexistent healthcare records. The recommended guideline shall be the American Academy of Pediatrics’ ‘Fostering Health: Healthcare for Children and Adolescents in Foster Care.” Caseworker Workload The Court’s December 2015 Opinion discussed at length the harm PMC children faced because of caseworkers. overburdened and frequently replaced As the Special Masters reported in November 2016, DFPS produced to the Special Masters an Executive Summary of a Work Measurement Study conducted from August 1, 2015, through March 31, 2016, which concluded that CVS caseworkers expended an average of 9.7 hours per month on case profiles most often associated with PMC children, and that these workers had an average of 137.9 hours per month to spend on their casework. The study’s author reported that the study’s findings mean that CVS workers have time to serve an average of 14 children each. The DFPS Workload Study blended “I See You” secondary workers with CVS caseworkers even though “I See You” workers are expected to spend less time on children’s cases. As the Court observed in its January 2017 Order: Removing “I See You Workers” from the calculation decreases the number of PMC cases a CVS caseworker can physically handle. (D.E. 471 at 11.1) Nevertheless, the Court accepts the Work Study as providing the definitive number of PMC children that a CVS caseworker can physically handle. After reviewing the study and discussing its conclusions with the DFPS author, the Special Masters asked DFPS to determine how many 28 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 29 of 186 additional CVS workers would be required to achieve CVS workloads of no more than 14 children per worker. DFPS declined to do so, replying it was “not feasible” to provide the information. 3 (See Appendix H, Updated response document to Special Masters’ Request for Information of 2-1017, emailed from Audrey Carmical, Esq. on behalf of DFPS on May 12, 2017.) There was evidence presented in the case of supervisors carrying a caseload, which detracts from supervise. Judy their Bowman ability Pitts, to oversee the caseworkers they Regional Director of Regions 4 and 5, testified that supervisors occasionally have their own caseload and stated a supervisor will help when a caseworker leaves. (D.E. 327, Page 14 Line 23Page 16 Lines 17). A CPS Field Operations Division Briefing also noted that newly promoted supervisors are managing their own remaining cases as well as their new supervisor responsibilities. (DX 25, Page 2). The same briefing stated in Lubbock County, when a caseworker leaves and a case only requires documentation to close, the supervisor will be responsible. (DX 25, Page 3). Further, DFPS supplied data to the Special Masters indicating that on July 31, 2016, 89 supervisors served as the primary caseworker for PMC and TMC children. Of those 89 supervisors, 83 carried fewer than 14 cases with the highest caseload being between 24 and 27 cases. For the reasons stated in the Court’s January 2017 order: 1. Effective June 2018, DFPS shall ensure that the full-time staff, including supervisors,4 who provide case management services to children in the PMC class, whether employed by a public or private entity, have a caseload within or below the range of 14 to 17 children. Caseloads for 3 DFPS responded, “DFPS has reviewed, and it is not feasible to provide this information. In addition, DFPS reiterates that there is no evidentiary basis for the caseload limit utilized in this question.” (See Appendix H, Updated response document to Special Masters’ Request for Information, emailed from Audrey Carmical, Esq. on behalf of DFPS on May 12, 2017.) 29 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 30 of 186 staff must be pro-rated for those who are less than full-time. Caseloads for staff who spend part-time in caseload carrying work and parttime in other functions must be pro-rated accordingly. The caseload range for staff with mixed caseloads, for example caseworkers serving both PMC and TMC children, will also be 14 to 17 children’s cases, and each TMC child’s case will be afforded the same weight in the caseload calculation as a PMC child. 2. Effective immediately, DFPS shall track caseloads on a child-only basis, as ordered by the Court in December 2015. Effective immediately, DFPS shall report to the monitor(s), on a quarterly basis, caseloads for all staff, including supervisors, who provide primary case management services to children in the PMC class, whether employed by a public or private entity, and whether full-time or part-time. Data reports shall show all staff who provide case management services to children in the PMC class and their caseloads. In addition, DFPS’s quarterly reporting shall include the number and percent of staff with caseloads within, below and over the range of 14 to 17 children, by office, by county, by agency (if private) and statewide. Reports will include the identification number and location of individual staff and the number of PMC children and, if any, TMC children to whom they provide case management. Caseloads for staff, as defined above, who spend part-time in caseload carrying functions and part-time in other functions must be pro-rated accordingly. The caseload range for staff with mixed caseloads, for example caseworkers serving both PMC and TMC children, shall be 14 to 17 children’s cases, and each TMC child is to be afforded the same weight as a PMC child. Reporting will be by office, by county, by agency (if private) and statewide. 3. Effective immediately, DFPS shall commence recruiting, hiring and training staff, and ensuring any private entities that are charged by 4 As stated in the Section on Supervisors below, supervisors who oversee caseworkers serving PMC children shall not directly carry a caseload unless there is a documented emergency requiring the supervisor to do so. 30 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 31 of 186 DFPS to provide case management services to children in the PMC class, do the same, to ensure that staff who provide case management services to children in the PMC class, whether employed by a public or private entity, have a caseload within or below the range of 14 to 17 children. Supervisors Generally, it appears DFPS supervisors play an important role managing caseworkers, assigning cases, and approving actions in cases. (D.E. 327, Page 14 Lines 8-14). Supervisors participate in permanency roundtables and are responsible for follow-up. (D.E. 328, Page 41 Lines 6-25 and D.E. 328, Page 52 Lines 15-25). Supervisors, along with the caseworker, make the decision of selecting or rejecting placements based on how they feel the placement can meet the needs of the child. (D.E. 328, Page 140 Lines 5-18). According to the CPS Handbook, supervisors have various oversight or monitoring functions, including but not limited to approving billing for a service level lower than the authorized service level, determining a permanency plan in the best interest of the child, approving the initial plan of service and subsequent review, approving less than monthly face to face sibling contact, approving travel, and reviewing home studies for potential adoptive families. (PX 50, Pages 86, 99, 130 and PX 52, Pages 49, 59, 88, 95, 162). The CPS Handbook also outlines when caseworkers must turn to their supervisors to make decisions in various situations such as when problems need to be resolved with a placement, when the caseworker does not agree with the placement choice made by the Centralized Placement Team, when a mother in an open conservatorship case is pregnant, and when information is received regarding the possible location of a missing child. (DX 108, Pages 1486, 1492, 1854, 1946). 31 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 32 of 186 The trial included testimony regarding the ratio of supervisors to caseworkers. Colleen McCall (“McCall”), Director of Field Operations, testified that typically a supervisor has six or seven caseworkers. (D.E. 322, Page 59 Lines 24-25 and Page 60 Lines 16-18). Judy Bowman Pitts Regional Director of Regions 4 and 5, testified that a unit is one to seven caseworkers but generally in conservatorship there are about seven caseworkers in a unit. (D.E. 327, Page 14 Lines 16-17). Camille Gilliam, Regional Director of Regions One and Nine, testified she oversees 18 supervisors in Region 1 who were responsible for 114 conservatorship workers, which is a ratio of one supervisor to six and a third (6.333) workers. (D.E. 327, Page 63 Lines 3-10). Mrs. Gilliam also testified in Region Nine there were 12 supervisors who were responsible for 75 conservatorship workers, which is a ratio of one supervisor to six and a quarter (6.25) workers. (D.E. 327, Page 63 Lines 3-10). Some exhibits also contained evidence relating to the ratio of supervisors to caseworkers. DFPS’s presentations and requests to the Texas Legislature discussed the supervisor to caseworker ratio. DFPS’s legislative appropriation requests contained requests to reduce the supervisor span of control. The legislative appropriations request for fiscal years 2014 and 2015 indicated the supervisor span of control in conservatorship was seven workers and the requested funding would reduce it to six workers. (PX 885, Page 20; DX 32, Page 20 and DX 33, Page 192). This same ratio is repeated in the exceptional item requests for the same fiscal years. (PX 889, Page 6 and PX 894, Pages 11-12). DFPS’s various presentations also contained indications caseworkers. of DFPS’s the July ratio 1, of conservatorship supervisors to 2014 presentation to the House Select Committee on Child Protection indicated there were seven caseworkers per supervisor. (DX 200, Page 31). DFPS’s January 30, 2013 presentation to the Senate Finance supervisors to Committee workers also indicated the current ratio of for conservatorship was one to seven. (DX 215, Page 24). 32 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 33 of 186 Various reports contained documentation of the average supervisor ratio. The Title IV-B 2015-2019 Child and Family Services Plan reported the average supervisor to worker ratio at any point in time is one to six. (DX 77, Page 207). A memorandum from Ms. McCall to Commissioner Specia described units in Region Nine that had between eight and ten caseworkers. (PX 1837, Pages 3-4). Ms. McCall’s memorandum also contained a request to bring the supervisor span of control down to six or seven caseworkers per supervisor. (PX 1837, Pages 3-4). The Stephen Group’s operational review of CPS found that as of January 2014, there were 2,015 conservatorship workers and 279 conservatorship supervisors, which is a ratio of just over seven workers per supervisor. (PX 1993, Page 47). The information DFPS provided in response to a request by Representative Dukes and the House Select Committee on Child Protection contained direct counts supervisors in each region. of caseworkers assigned to conservatorship According to this information, conservatorship supervisors in Region One had between five and nine caseworkers assigned to them. (DX 110, Page 87). Region Two had a range of seven to nine caseworkers per supervisor. (DX 110, Page 89). Region Three had a range of five to ten caseworkers per supervisor. (DX 110, Pages 95-97). Regions Four and Five had a range of five to nine caseworkers per supervisor. (DX 110, Page 101). Region Six had a range of six to eight caseworkers per supervisor with the majority having seven caseworkers assigned to them. Page 106). (DX 110, In the outlying areas of Region 6, the supervisors also had a range of six to eight caseworkers assigned to them with the majority having seven. (DX 110, Page 111). In Region Seven, conservatorship supervisors had eight caseworkers assigned to them except one supervisor who only had five caseworkers. (DX 110, Page 113). Region Eight supervisors had a range of six to eight conservatorship caseworkers assigned to them. (DX 110, Pages 122-123). In Region Nine, conservatorship supervisors were in charge of a range of six to eight caseworkers. (DX 110, Page 125). 33 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 34 of 186 Region Ten conservatorship supervisors had a range of five to seven caseworkers. (DX 110, Page 127). In Region 11, conservatorship supervisors were in charge of a range of six to eight caseworkers. (DX 110, Page 131). In summary, the typical supervisor to caseworker ratio in conservatorship appears to be one to seven. Based on the statistics provided to Representative Dukes, the fewest caseworkers a supervisor oversaw was five and the maximum was ten. For comparison purposes, the Child Welfare League of America’s standards state one full-time supervisor should supervise no more than five social workers. (PX 18, Page 28; PX 2114, Page 152 and DX 235, Page 131). 1. DFPS shall ensure that supervisors who oversee caseworkers managing the cases of children in the PMC class have no more than seven workers assigned to them. Supervisory workloads must be pro-rated for supervisors who are less than full-time. Workloads for supervisors who spend part-time in supervisory work and part-time in other functions, which includes carrying a case, must be pro-rated accordingly. 2. Supervisors who oversee caseworkers serving PMC children shall not directly carry a caseload unless there is a documented emergency requiring the supervisor to do so. Worker Retention The Court determined in its December 2015 Opinion (pp. 176-178): Besides harming foster children in and of itself, DFPS admits, “High caseloads lead to high worker turnover, further exacerbating high caseloads.” (PX 877 at 8; see also D.E. 300 at 34, 42; D.E. 305 at 3637, 56; PX 2037 at 12). Dr. Miller calls this the “cycle of crisis.” (D.E. 303 at 22-23). Specia admits that the “appropriate workload spread out among the workers . . . will help me keep workers.” (D.E. 299 at 82). It is no surprise then that “DFPS has an extraordinary amount of turnover.” (D.E. 305 at 55). 34 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 35 of 186 The Stephen Group reported that yearly CVS caseworker turnover is 26.7%, and “a major organizational burden.” (PX 1993 at 16-17, 76). To compare, turnover for workers comparable to Texas’s CVS caseworkers was 14% to 15% in Kentucky and 10% to 12% in Tennessee. (D.E. 303 at 2829). The Stephen Group also noted that turnover is especially high for new CPS workers, with approximately 28% leaving within the first year, and approximately 43% within the first two years. (PX 1993 at 17-18). Likewise, Black testified that turnover is approximately 38% for first-year caseworkers. (D.E. 300 at 38-39). The Sunset Commission reported, “One out of every six new caseworkers leaves CPS within six months.” (DX 119 at 20). Unmanageable caseloads are the main reason that CVS caseworkers leave. In a survey, 70% of the caseworkers that left listed “Workload” as the first or second reason. (PX 1993 at 306). In a 2009 article, Burstain wrote, “With respect to CVS, historically, a fairly direct relationship exists between caseloads and voluntary turnover.” (PX 1871 at 11). In support of that statement, Burstain cited data showing that when “caseloads declined 16 percent from 2006 to 2008 . . . CVS voluntary turnover declined 10 percent.” Id. Another report found that heavy caseloads “contribute[] to high turnover rates.” (PX 1964 at 9). This finding has “remained consistent from year to year.” (PX 844 at 5). This high turnover rate means that one out of every 11 CVS caseworker positions is vacant. (DX 119 at 19). Even when those vacancies are filled, it takes “two years” for a caseworker “to fully be up to speed.” (PX 1995 at 159). During their first three months, caseworkers are in training and do not have any cases. (DX 119 at 19). Consequently, while CPS has 1980 primary caseworkers, it needs to hire more than 500 primary caseworkers per year to retain an experienced workforce of only about 1000 who actually close most of the cases. (See D.E. 305 at 41; PX 1993 at 16-17). This puts a tremendous strain on the 1000 veteran CVS caseworkers, who are the front line workers for over 29,000 foster children captured in DFPS’s figures. 35 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 36 of 186 Caseworker turnover has many negative impacts beyond higher caseloads. Black admitted that turnover causes delayed investigations, a lack of continuity in providing services to families and children, a lack of consistent timely visits by caseworkers to children in State custody, and significant costs to the State in terms of recruiting, training, and lost productivity. (D.E. 300 at 34, 42; see also DX 119 at 17; PX 1995 at 159). Caseworker turnover also “delays or disrupts services and the case plan” of foster children, (PX 1871 at 2), and hinders permanency planning. (D.E. 312 at 20). Moreover, as the Stephen Group explained, “workplace turnover is endemic and institutional knowledge is stripped from across the agency.” (PX 1993 at 17). The high level of turnover at CPS “represents an extraordinary organizational challenge to replace these workers and maintain a consistent level of performance.” (PX 1993 at 16). As one audit of DFPS explained, “Numerous transitions in caseworker assignments disrupt momentum toward permanency by forcing children/youth and their families to ‘start over’ repeatedly with new caseworkers.” (PX 1880 at 5). DFPS provided and the Special Masters reviewed the “CFRP Evaluation, Final Report” from December 2016, an evaluation of DFPS training and turnover from the University of Texas. The report found that DFPS’s CPS Professional Development (CPD) training model was having an early, positive impact on new CVS worker attrition. 1. Effective May 2018, DFPS shall ensure statewide implementation of the CPS Professional Development (CPD) training model, which DFPS began to implement in November 2015. 2. Effective May 2018, DFPS shall ensure statewide implementation of graduated caseloads for newly hired CVS caseworkers, and all other newly hired staff with the responsibility for primary case management services to children in the PMC class, whether employed by a public or private entity. 36 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 37 of 186 3. Effective May 2018, DFPS shall ensure that before any new CVS (or private agency) caseworker assumes primary case management responsibility for a full caseload range of 14 to 17 children, they successfully complete a comprehensive training program for new workers and pass a competency examination. Secondary Workers The Court’s December 2015 Opinion found (pages 222-223): McCall acknowledged that I See You workers’ main responsibility, as indicated in the position title, is “seeing the child” in her placement every month to confirm that she “is still there.” (D.E. 305 at 61-63). Although I See You workers are supposed to have “meaningful discussions” with the children they visit, they often just show up at the child’s placement, ask “five questions and leave.” (D.E. 305 at 65; D.E. 324 at 186). For example, A.M.’s I See You worker, who visited her regularly for more than two years, asked the same 10-12 questions at every visit, and A.M. answered the same way. (See DX 120 at DFPS #828-997 (filed under seal)). According to the I See You worker’s notes, A.M. was almost always “fine” and “stable in her current placement” and the worker often noted that “things are going well for [A.M.] at this time.” Id. In reality, during much of this time, A.M’s level of care was Intense and she was repeatedly restrained by RTC staff. Secondary workers are also “not required to follow up on any needs identified during the visit beyond communicating those needs to the primary caseworker.” (PX 2037 at 57). Nor are they responsible for children’s case planning or permanency planning. (D.E. 322 at 127). A foster child’s relationship with their secondary worker “is never quality.” (D.E. 326 at 88). Their existence— intended as a stopgap—is itself evidence of an understaffed CVS caseworker workforce, as well as DFPS’s inadequate placement array. See infra p. 222-23. 37 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 38 of 186 Moreover, replacing contact from primary caseworkers with contact from secondary workers inhibits primary caseworkers’ ability to form relationships with their foster children. As Burstain explained, a CVS caseworker is often a foster child’s “only continuous and stable relationship.” (PX 1871 at 1). Given that PMC children have been removed from their home and likely shuttled between placements, CVS caseworkers are one of the few people that foster children look to for support and guidance. (D.E. 326 at 85). Trust is “highly important” between a foster child and their primary caseworker because children need to feel comfortable telling them their problems. Id. As McCall testified, “especially with emotional harm[,] you need to know . . . the child before you can tell something is wrong.” (D.E. 305 at 62). Using secondary workers to shoulder excessive workloads thus hinders primary caseworkers’ ability to protect their children. Further, foster children often do not share their problems with secondary workers who they view as “not the real thing,” akin to substitute teachers. (D.E. 326 at 88). Dr. Miller explained that workers who have no permanent relationship with a child, such as I See You workers, cannot “win a child’s trust in a sufficient way to have the child actually reveal what is happening in the child’s life, particularly if the child is being subjected to maltreatment.” (PX 2037 at 58). Carter testified that foster children “very rarely” see I See You workers “as somebody that is there to support them” because children “intuitively know that this person is just fulfilling a service or a requirement by looking in on them.” Id. And the Court further observed: Cross-state moves also impede primary caseworkers’ ability to visit their foster children. As discussed supra, primary caseworkers are foster children’s lifelines. See Section IV.A. Yet, due to a lack of funding and a lack of time, primary caseworkers ‘can’t go and meet with [children] face to face’ when they are placed out of county or out of region. (D.E. 324 at 22). Thus, foster children are forced to rely on secondary I See You 38 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 39 of 186 workers. McCall acknowledged at trial that I See You workers were created by DFPS ten years ago at least in part because children were too often being sent far from their home communities and primary caseworkers. (See D.E. 305 at 62). Although secondary workers do not protect foster children from an unreasonable risk of harm, they undoubtedly help Texas represent to the federal government that caseworkers visit children in foster care at least once per month. The Court ordered the Special Masters in its January 2017 Order “to retain an expert as part of their team to create a workload study of “I See You Workers” to aid the Court in determining whether the “I See You Worker” program should be continued and, if so, in what capacity.” The Special Masters retained the Child and Research Partnership at the University of Texas-Austin, the LBJ School of Public Affairs, in part because of their existing consultancy, familiarity and collaboration with DFPS in assessing the agency’s training programs. In its CPS Handbook, DFPS identifies the responsibilities of I See You Workers primarily as visitation with the child; assessment of the child’s needs and well-being; discussion of the child’s permanency plan; communication of the child’s service needs with the primary caseworker; collaboration with the primary caseworker on the child’s permanency plan; and, where necessary, serving as the child’s medical consenter. Although DFPS has charged I See You Workers with assessing PMC children’s needs (CPS Handbook, Section 6414) and indicated to the Special Masters that “many of a child’s dental records,” “mental health records,” and “medical records,” “are already included, and available to caseworkers, in the Health Passport,” DFPS reported to the Special Masters, “I See You workers are not specifically required to access/review a child’s Health Passport, and such a review is not necessary for every child,” even for the PMC children they are assigned to serve. (See Appendix I, Email from Tara Olah, Esq. on behalf of DFPS on April 3, 2017.) Most I See You Workers told the University of Texas workload study team they did 39 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 40 of 186 not think it was essential to read a child’s psychological assessments, or other assessments, to come up to speed on a child’s case. (See Appendix B.) The workload study, attached as Appendix B, contains a number of findings: • The typical ISY caseworker had a caseload of nearly 44 children each day of the month. • In June 2017, 98 ISY caseworkers were required to complete, at the median, 21.5 visits with PMC children. visits completed was actually 16. The median number of This reflects a completion rate of 74.4 percent of the monthly face-to-face visits for ISY workers’ cases. ISY caseworkers missed visits altogether with slightly more than one-quarter of the PMC children they were responsible to visit. The caseworker with the lowest visit rate completed 23.1 percent of her required visits and the caseworker with the highest visit rate completed 100 percent of her required visits. • The typical ISY caseworker completed 50 percent of initial face-to-face visits with new children in June. Overall, ISY caseworkers completed between zero and 100 percent of their initial face-to-face visits. Of the 46 ISY caseworkers who had at least 15 days with a new PMC case in June 2017, 41 percent met with 100 percent of the children on their new cases within 15 days. However, 35 percent of ISY caseworkers with a new case did not complete a single initial face-to-face with those children in June. • ISY’s familiarity with the children they were assigned, with their service needs, including medical care, was often lacking. • Over 82 percent of ISY caseworkers reported that primary caseworkers do not set a regular schedule for communication. ISY caseworkers also report that CVS caseworkers often do not communicate regularly with the child or the child’s caregiver. 40 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 41 of 186 1. Within 30 days of the Court’s Final Order date, DFPS shall eliminate the use of I See You secondary workers and designate all secondary workers as primary caseworkers. Residential Child Care Licensing In December 2015, the Court ordered, “DFPS must complete a Workload Study to determine the time required for investigators and inspectors to adequately perform their tasks.” In January 2017, the Court found “that DFPS has not commenced, as previously ordered, a workload study of RCCL investigators and inspectors. Therefore, the Court orders the Special Masters to formulate and institute such a study…” which the Special Masters did by retaining the University of Texas-Austin to undertake an analysis of Residential Child Care Licensing (“RCCL”) workloads.5 (See Appendix C.) The University of Texas-Austin researchers determined the extent to which RCCL workers met five investigative casework practice standards during a sixmonth period from January to June 2017, including: initiating the investigation on time, observing or interviewing the alleged victim(s) on time, completing the investigation on time, completing documentation on time, and notifying relevant parties within the required timeframes. For each casework practice standard, an RCCL worker is expected to complete the relevant activity within the timeframes determined by each investigation’s priority level and type, as described by DFPS policy. For example, RCCL investigators were, at the time of the study, expected to observe or interview the alleged child victim in Priority One child abuse or neglect investigations within five days of intake, and within seven days of intake in a Priority Two child abuse or neglect investigation. To measure the 5 Due to recent legislation, the Residential Child Care Licensing (RCCL), including licensing inspectors and the Centralized Background Check Unit (CBCU) were moved under a new Regulatory division within the Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC). Investigators who conduct investigations of alleged abuse and neglect in childcare operations remained at DFPS. The Workload Study was undertaken before these structural changes were implemented. 41 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 42 of 186 extent to which the RCCL worker met the casework practice standards, CFRP calculated a rate for each RCCL worker. Performance rates were lower for child abuse and neglect investigations than standards investigations. RCCL Investigators observed or interviewed the alleged child victim in required time frames just slightly over half of the time. On average, investigators sent notification letters to the reporters and providers of the investigation outcomes on time for approximately nine percent of Priority One and 13 percent of Priority Two abuse and neglect investigations. Investigators completed the required investigative documentation on time 57 percent of the time for Priority One investigations and 59 percent of the time for Priority Two investigations. They initiated, on average, over 90 percent of Priority One and Priority Two abuse and neglect investigations within the required time frames. They completed investigations within required timeframes 44 percent of the time for Priority One investigations and 45 percent of the time for Priority Two investigations. RCCL inspectors met the casework practice standards at fairly high rates. These rates ranged from notifying the reporter of the investigation outcome on time for an average of 74 percent of Priority Two standards investigations, to notifying the provider of the outcome for an average of 95 percent of Priority Five standards investigations. The Workload Study found that, statewide, RCCL investigators had a median average daily caseload of 14 abuse and neglect investigations in the month of June 2017. The median average daily caseload for inspectors was seven standards investigations and 11 operations, and the median average daily caseload for generalists was four abuse and neglect investigations, two standards investigations, and nine operations. However, the study found the allocation of work very uneven: RCCL abuse and neglect investigative caseloads varied considerably. The northeast district had half as many RCCL investigators and a much higher median average daily caseload than the 42 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 43 of 186 other districts. Investigators in the northeast district had median caseloads of 28.4 child abuse and neglect investigations, with a maximum investigative caseload of 48.3 investigations at one time. In contrast, investigators in the northwest district had median caseloads of seven child abuse and neglect investigations, with a maximum investigative caseload of 22 investigations at one time. (See Appendix C.) There was caseloads little for variation across in the the state, inspectors’ with each standards district investigation showing median caseloads between six and seven standards investigations, and maximum caseloads ranging between nine and 14 matters. Inspectors in the northeast district were responsible for approximately three times as many operations as in the southeast and southwest districts. The northwest average daily caseload of operations was not as high as it was in the northeast, but the median average daily caseload of operations for inspectors in the northwest was approximately double that of the inspectors in the southeast and southwest districts. (See Appendix C.) Given how RCCL workers of each type reported they spent their time during the study period, the authors at the University of Texas-Austin determined a reasonable investigative caseload for RCCL investigators to be no more than seven investigations. Given how RCCL workers of each type reported they spent their time during the study period, the authors at the University of Texas-Austin determined a reasonable investigative caseload for RCCL inspectors to be no more than five investigations. Given how RCCL workers of each type reported they spent their time during the study period, the authors at the University of Texas-Austin determined a reasonable investigative caseload for RCCL generalists (a small group of staff who perform both investigations and inspections) of five investigations. 43 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 44 of 186 The Special Masters recommended in November 2016 that DFPS identify a discrete cohort of staff exclusively assigned to conduct child maltreatment investigations in licensed placements. The Special Masters understand that DFPS has done so pursuant to recent Texas statutory change. 1. Effective May 2018, DFPS shall ensure the staff who investigate allegations of abuse and neglect of children in the PMC class have caseloads of no more than 14 investigations, consistent with the median caseload of investigations found in the Workload Study. Although this is twice the number of investigations the Workload Study concluded was reasonable for child abuse and neglect investigators in light of the amount of time they expend on their cases, 14 investigations shall serve as the top of their workload range. 2. Effective May 2018, DFPS shall ensure that the staff who conduct licensing standards investigations for alleged violations involving children in the PMC class have caseloads of no more than 14 standards investigations, consistent with the maximum caseload of standards investigations found in the Workload Study. Although this is nearly three times the number of standards investigations the Workload Study concluded was reasonable for inspectors in light of the amount of time they expend on their cases, 14 standards investigations shall serve as the top of their workload range. Caseloads for staff shall be pro-rated for those who are less than fulltime. Caseloads for staff who spend part-time in investigative work and part-time in other functions must be pro-rated accordingly. 3. By March 2018 and ongoing thereafter, RCCL and any successor entity charged with inspections of child care placements shall confirm that the staff employed at residential treatment centers, group homes and other congregate care settings where PMC children are placed do not have a negative child welfare history, including any investigative findings that they have perpetrated child abuse or neglect. 44 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 45 of 186 4. Effective immediately, DFPS shall ensure RCCL investigators, and any successor staff, observe or interview the alleged child victims in Priority One child abuse or neglect investigations within 24 hours of intake. 5. Effective immediately, DFPS shall ensure RCCL investigators, and any successor staff, observe or interview the alleged child victims in Priority Two child abuse or neglect investigations within 72 hours of intake. 6. Effective immediately, DFPS shall ensure RCCL investigators, and any successor staff, complete Priority One and Priority Two child abuse and neglect investigations within 30 days of intake, consistent with DFPS policy. 7. Effective immediately, DFPS shall ensure RCCL investigators, and any successor staff, complete Priority Three, Priority Four and Priority Five investigations within 60 days of intake, consistent with DFPS policy. 8. Effective immediately, DFPS shall ensure RCCL investigators, and any successor staff, complete and submit documentation in Priority One and Priority Two investigations on the same day the investigation is completed. 9. Effective immediately, DFPS shall ensure RCCL investigators, and any successor staff, complete and submit documentation in Priority Three, Priority Four and Priority Five investigations within 60 days of intake. 10. Effective immediately, DFPS shall ensure RCCL investigators, and any successor staff, finalize and mail notification letters to the referent and provider(s) in Priority One and Priority Two investigations within five days of closing a child abuse and neglect investigation or completing a standards investigation. 11. Effective immediately, DFPS shall ensure RCCL investigators, and any successor staff, finalize and mail notification letters to the referent(s) and provider(s) in Priority Three, Priority Four and Priority Five investigations within 60 days of intake. 45 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 46 of 186 12. Effective March 2018 and ongoing thereafter, DFPS shall publicly post on its website all licensing inspections by RCCL, and/or its successor entity, redacting child identifying information and other information deemed confidential under state and federal law and regulation. The posted information shall include the full narrative inspection report, the outcome of the inspection, inspection violations and whether RCCL, and/or its successor entity, implemented corrective or adverse action as a result of the violations. The posted information shall also include all corrective action plans required by RCCL and/or other successive entities and the dates RCCL and/or other successive entities accepted corrective action plans submitted by violating agencies and the status of those corrective action plans. 13. By July 2018, RCCL, and/or any successor entity charged with inspections of child care placements, will identify, track and address concerns at facilities that show a pattern of contract or policy violations. Such facilities must be subject to heightened monitoring by DFPS and any successor entity charged with inspections of child care placements and subject to more frequent inspections, corrective actions and, as appropriate, other remedial actions under DFPS’ enforcement framework. 14. Effective immediately, RCCL and/or its successor entity, shall have the right to directly suspend or revoke the license of a placement in order to protect children in the PMC class. 15. Effective immediately, DFPS, and any successor entity charged with inspections of child care placements, must consider during the placement inspection all referrals of, and in addition all confirmed findings of, child abuse/neglect and all confirmed findings of corporal punishment occurring in the placements. During inspections, DFPS, and any successor entity charged with inspections of child care placements, must monitor placement agencies’ adherence to obligations to report suspected child abuse/neglect. When DFPS, and 46 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 47 of 186 any successor entity charged with inspections of child care placements, discovers a lapse in reporting, DFPS, and any successor entity charged with inspections of child care placements, shall immediately investigate to determine appropriate corrective action, up to and including termination or modification of a contract. Sexual Abuse In January 2017, the Court directed, “the Special Masters are also ordered to work with DFPS to ensure that a child’s case record prominently identifies sexually abused PMC youth. Both the term ‘sexually abused’ and ‘sexually aggressive’ should be word searchable in the child’s records.” DFPS has not created a profile characteristic for child “sexual abuse” in the electronic case record. DFPS replied to questions from the Special Masters indicating the identification of all PMC children who have been sexually abused “can be pulled and aggregated via a manual process that requires a case read.” (See Appendix L, Email from Audrey Carmical, Esq., on behalf of DFPS on December 1, 2017.) Responding that, “labeling of victims is inappropriate, stigmatizing, and ultimately unhelpful,” DFPS indicated they do not intend to proceed with a profile characteristic for sexual abuse in the child’s electronic record. (See Appendix L, Email from Audrey Carmical, Esq., on behalf of DFPS on December 1, 2017.) Absent a manual reading of all its PMC children’s cases, which number in the many thousands, DFPS leadership cannot track all of the PMC children who have suffered sexual abuse to ensure system-wide those children are receiving appropriate services, including an appropriate placement. 1. Effective March 2018, DFPS shall implement within the child’s electronic case record a profile characteristic option for supervisors to designate a PMC child as “sexually caseworkers abused” in or the 47 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 48 of 186 record if the PMC child has been confirmed to be sexually abused by an adult or another youth. 2. Effective March 2018, DFPS shall document in each PMC child’s records all confirmed allegations of sexual abuse in which the PMC child is the victim. 3. Effective immediately, all of a PMC child’s caregivers must be apprised of confirmed allegations at each present and subsequent placement. 4. Effective immediately, if a PMC child has been sexually abused by an adult or another youth, DFPS must ensure all information about sexual abuse is reflected in the child’s placement summary form, and common application for placement. 5. Effective immediately, all of the PMC child’s caregivers must be apprised of confirmed allegations of sexual abuse of the PMC child at each present and subsequent placement. The Special Masters conducted a PMC child case record review in May 2017 and verified that DFPS electronic data system has implemented (IMPACT) a within the child profile characteristic welfare option to designate “child sexual aggression” and “sexual behavior problem” when a youth has sexually abused another child or is at high risk for perpetrating sexual assault. 6. Effective immediately, DFPS shall ensure a PMC child’s electronic case record documents “child sexual aggression” and “sexual behavior problem” through the profile characteristic option when a youth has sexually abused another child or is at high risk for perpetrating sexual assault. 7. Effective immediately, if sexually aggressive behavior is identified from a child, DFPS shall also ensure the information is reflected in the child’s placement summary form, and common application for placement. 8. Effective immediately, DFPS must also document in each PMC child’s records all 48 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 49 of 186 confirmed allegations of sexual abuse involving the PMC child as the aggressor. 9. Effective immediately, all of the PMC child’s caregivers must be apprised at each present and subsequent placement of confirmed allegations of sexual abuse involving the PMC child as the aggressor. 10. Within 90 days of the Court’s Final Order, DFPS shall create a clear policy on what constitutes child on child sexual abuse. Within 6 months of the Court’s Final Order, DFPS shall ensure that all staff who are responsible for making the determinations on what constitutes child on child sexual abuse are trained on the policy. In December 2015, the Court directed DFPS to “track child-on-child abuse, and categorize it as such.” 11. Effective immediately, DFPS shall ensure foster caregivers and other placement providers immediately report all allegations of sexual abuse by a child against another child to the 24-hour hotline established by DFPS to screen referrals of abuse and neglect. 12. Effective March 2018, DFPS shall document, track and report quarterly to the monitor(s) all referrals of child-on-child sexual abuse involving children in the PMC class made to the 24-hour hotline established by DFPS to screen referrals of abuse and neglect. This report shall include all instances when a PMC child is the alleged perpetrator or victim, and all instances where a PMC child resides in the same placement where the reported incident or abuse/neglect occurred. 13. Effective immediately and ongoing thereafter, DFPS shall report quarterly to the monitor(s) and confirm that all reports of child on child sexual abuse involving children in the PMC class that have been referred to the 24-hour hotline have been assigned for investigation for, at minimum, neglectful supervision by the placement caregiver(s). PMC Children’s Placements Based on the Court’s extensive findings of fact at trial, the Court included in its December 2015 Opinion a directive for “[t]he Special Master [to] 49 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 50 of 186 recommend what age ranges of unrelated children are appropriate to be placed in the same room in any residential facility.” The Special Masters asked DFPS to share a draft or final policy and/or regulation that prohibits the placement of unrelated children who are more than three years apart in the same room. DFPS responded that the agency “has no plans to adopt policy or regulation that prohibits the placement of unrelated children who are more than three years apart in the same room.” DFPS has still not developed a policy or regulation that prohibits the placement of unrelated children who are more than three years apart in the same room. (See Appendix H, Updated response document to Special Masters’ Request for Information, emailed from Audrey Carmical, Esq. on behalf of DFPS on May 12, 2017.) 1. Effective March 2018, DFPS shall implement a policy that requires that no unrelated children more than three years apart in age be placed in the same room. The policy may also establish exceptions, including a thorough and documented assessment that certifies it is in the child’s best interest or that no risk of harm would result from placing any unrelated children more than three years apart in the same room. Any exceptions applied under this policy must be approved and documented in the child’s electronic record by the DFPS county director. Based on the Court’s extensive findings of fact at trial, the Court in January 2017 ordered “the Special Masters to work with DFPS to ensure that unrelated PMC children with different service levels not be placed in the same room unless a thorough an documented assessment is conducted by DFPS staff certifying that such placement is safe and appropriate for each PMC child.” The Special Masters asked DFPS to share a draft or final policy and/or regulation that prohibits the placement of unrelated PMC children with different service levels in the same room unless a thorough and documented assessment is conducted by DFPS staff certifying that such placement is safe and appropriate for each PMC child. DFPS responded that “[a]gency rules 50 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 51 of 186 (minimum standards) … allow children receiving different types of service to reside in the same room if the provider evaluates the living quarters for each child and ensures there is no conflict of care with the child’s best interests; the arrangement will not adversely impact other children in the room; the number of children in the room is appropriate at all times; caregivers can appropriately supervise all children and the provider can meet the needs of all children in the room.” (See Appendix H, Updated response document to Special Masters’ Request for Information, emailed from Audrey Carmical, Esq. on behalf of DFPS on May 12, 2017.) 2. Effective March 2018, DFPS shall implement a policy that requires that no unrelated children with different service levels be placed in the same room. The policy may also establish exceptions, including a thorough and documented assessment by DFPS that certifies it is in the child’s best interest or that no risk of harm would result from placing any unrelated children of different service levels in the same room. Any exceptions applied under this policy must be approved and documented in the child’s electronic case record by the county director. The Special Masters requested DFPS report the number of children in the PMC class who spent a night in a DFPS office, waiting for a placement. DFPS reported it does not track the number of PMC children who experience a first night sleeping in an office. DFPS begins its tracking on the child’s second night. (See Appendix J, Email from Audrey Carmical, Esq. on behalf of DFPS on August 8, 2017.) The Special Masters asked how many foster children spent a night in an unlicensed facility, such as a hotel or a caseworker’s office in 2016. DFPS reported that from September 2016 through August 2017, 554 children did not have a placement. DFPS reported this information showing the total number of children without a placement broken down by each of these 12 months, with a high of 84 children during May 2017 and a low of 17 children during August 51 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 52 of 186 2017. (See Appendix G, Email from Audrey Carmical, Esq. on behalf of DFPS on September 21, 2017.) 3. Effective immediately, DFPS may not place a child in the PMC class in an office overnight, and must track all instances if it does so, and report the same to the monitor(s) monthly. If, under any circumstance, a child in the PMC class spends the night in an office, DFPS staff must document that fact, and the reason, in an electronically available log maintained by DFPS in each county. These logs shall be submitted on the first day of every month to a designated monitor(s). senior manager in DFPS’ central office and to the The designated DFPS senior manager shall review these logs monthly and take immediate follow up action to identify and address problems encountered at the county level with respect to securing minimally adequate, safe placements for children in the PMC class. Based on the Court’s extensive findings of fact at trial, the Court in January 2017 ordered this final Implementation plan “should include a provision that, within 6 months from the date of the final order, all PMC children under two years of age shall be placed in a family-like setting.” The Special Masters asked DFPS to share a draft or final policy and/or regulation that all PMC children under two years of age shall be placed in a family-like setting. The Special Masters invited DFPS to identify exceptions, such as sibling groups of four or more children who cannot otherwise be placed together, treatment and/or medical care, or young children who are placed with a minor parent. DFPS declined to provide a draft policy and/or regulation, pointing to its existing policies and minimum standards, which do not require that children under two years of age be placed in family-like settings. (See Appendix H, Updated response document to Special Masters’ Request for Information, emailed from Audrey Carmical, Esq. on behalf of DFPS on May 12, 2017.) 52 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 53 of 186 4. Within six months of the Court’s Final Order, all PMC children under two years of age shall be placed in a family-like setting, including nonrelative foster care, tribal foster care, therapeutic foster care. DFPS may kinship make foster exceptions care and to family- based placements for sibling groups of four or more children who cannot otherwise be placed together, children whose individual needs require hospitalization, treatment and/or medical care or young children who are placed with their minor parent in the PMC class and who may require services provided in a non-family-like placement. All exceptions must be approved by a supervisor and documented in the child’s electronic case record. Based on the Court’s extensive findings of fact at trial, the Court in January 2017 ordered this final Implementation Plan should include a provision that, “within 12 months from the date of the final order, all PMC children under six years of age shall be placed in a family-like setting.” 5. Within 12 months of the Court’s Final Order, all PMC children under six years of age shall be placed in a family-like setting, including nonrelative foster care, tribal foster care, therapeutic foster care. DFPS may kinship make foster exceptions care and to family- based placements for sibling groups of four or more children who cannot otherwise be placed together, children whose individual needs require hospitalization, treatment and/or medical care or young children who are placed with their minor parent in the PMC class and who may require services provided in a non-family-like placement. All exceptions must be approved by a supervisor and documented in the child’s electronic case record. Based on the Court’s extensive findings of fact at trial, the Court in January 2017 ordered this final Implementation plan must include a provision that, “[w]ithin 24 months from the date of the final order, all PMC children under thirteen shall be placed in a family-like setting.” 53 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 54 of 186 6. Within 24 months of the Court’s Final Order, all PMC children under the age of 13 shall be placed in a family-like setting, including non-relative foster care, tribal foster care, kinship foster care and therapeutic foster care. DFPS may make exceptions to family-based placements for sibling groups of four or more children who cannot otherwise be placed together, children whose individual needs require inpatient psychiatric hospitalization, treatment and/or medical care or young children who are placed with their minor parent in the PMC class and who may require services provided in a non-family-like placement. All exceptions must be approved by a supervisor and documented in the child’s electronic case record. DFPS Placement Array The trial transcript includes testimony from two defense witnesses (D.E. 328, p. 161, and D.E. 329, p. 161) indicating that DFPS should look to place sexualized children in placements or in homes where the child is the only one in the home. children due There is testimony in the record of the sexualization to sexual abuse, causing sexually abused children of to become aggressors or perform sexual acts. (D.E. 326, pp. 15-16) In its December 2015 Opinion, the Court included among its goals for this Implementation Plan a directive for DFPS to “track how many placements in its array are designated as single-child homes (including biological and adopted children), and track how many foster children need single child homes. DFPS shall explain its criteria for determining which children need single-child homes. DFPS shall ensure that all children who need single-child homes are placed in such homes.” The Special Masters asked DFPS to report the soonest date DFPS could begin to track single child homes. DFPS replied that it “has no plans to track single child homes.” (See Appendix E, Updated response document to Special Masters’ Request for Information, emailed from Audrey Carmical, Esq. on behalf of DFPS on March 8, 2017.) 54 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 55 of 186 The Special Masters asked DFPS what processes it administers to match specific placements to PMC children who, assessment, to a are determined need through single documented child home. DFPS responded that it “has no such processes” and referred the Special Masters back to its earlier response that it “has no plans to track single child homes.” (See Appendix E, Updated response document to Special Masters’ Request for Information, emailed from Audrey Carmical, Esq. on behalf of DFPS on March 8, 2017.) 1. DFPS shall immediately implement a policy that establishes singlechild homes as the presumptive placement for all sexualized children, either as the aggressor or the victim. The policy also will allow for exceptions, including: placement in a therapeutic setting for treatment; placement with siblings when the safety of all children involved can be closely monitored and secured; a thorough and documented assessment certifies that it is in the child’s best interest to be placed in a home with other children and the safety of all children involved can be closely monitored and secured. Any exceptions applied under this policy must be approved and documented by a senior DFPS manager. DFPS completed and filed with the Court a Foster Care Needs Assessment, dated January 2017. The Assessment includes on page 43 in Table 5, Column 1, a forecast for the agency’s FY17-18 need for foster homes by catchment area. The Special Masters asked DFPS, based on its Foster Care Needs Assessment, to provide a draft plan or plan outline for a 12-month period to develop the placement array needed to address the specific geographic, demographic and service level placement deficits identified in the Assessment. DPFS responded that while they are “continually working to address placement capacity within the agency” they are “declining to develop such a 12-month plan.” (See Appendix E, Updated response document to Special Masters’ Request for Information, emailed from Audrey Carmical, Esq. on behalf of DFPS on March 8, 2017.) 55 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 56 of 186 2. DFPS shall ensure it has at least as many foster home placements for children, by catchment area, by the end of FY 18 as the agency found it requires to meet the needs of children in its January 2017 Foster Care Needs Assessment, Table 5. DFPS shall report quarterly to the monitor(s) on the available supply of foster homes for children by catchment area as of the last date of the quarter. 3. By June 2018, DFPS shall complete and submit to the Court an update of its January 2017 Foster Care Needs Assessment, and include: o A review and assessment of the placement needs of sibling groups that are separated into different placements and children who have been identified as sexually aggressive or whose IMPACT records document their having been sexually abused. o Data on the number of foster homes in each county that could be readily designated as single-child homes. o Data on the number of homes in each county available for the placement of sibling groups of various sizes. o An analysis of the number of homes in each county and region that have a deficit or surplus of single-child homes to meet the needs of children from the same counties and regions who are sexually aggressive or have been sexually abused. o An analysis of the number of homes in each county and region that have a deficit or surplus of homes that can meet the placement needs of sibling groups from the same counties and regions or catchment areas. The Special Masters asked DFPS if the agency can report aggregate data on how many children are placed in foster homes with non-foster or adoptive children. DFPS responded, “DFPS does not have the capability to report aggregate data on how many PMC children are placed in foster homes that contain non-foster or adoptive children, and the [Provider] Portal is not moving forward at this time. DFPS does possess the capability to report the number of foster children placed 56 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 57 of 186 in homes with other DFPS foster children at a certain time and date.” (See Appendix F, Responses to Special Master Questions, sent by email from Audrey Carmical, Esq. on behalf of DFPS on September 21, 2017.) DFPS subsequently reaffirmed, “no additional information will be provided. Agency staff have determined that the aggregate data that can be produced are those referenced in the original response (DFPS foster children placed with other foster children).” (See Appendix K, Email from Audrey Carmical, Esq. on behalf of DFPS on November 4, 2017.) 4. Effective immediately, DFPS shall immediately establish a tracking mechanism to identify how many children are in all placements where a PMC child resides, including foster, biological, non-foster and adoptive children, as well as each placement’s licensed capacity. By May 2018, DFPS shall publish this information on its website and update the information quarterly. 5. Effective June 2018, DFPS shall establish and implement a policy that requires a transition plan of no less than two weeks to change a PMC child’s placement if the disruption is due to a change in the child’s level of care. The policy shall require a documented assessment to determine if the child should remain in the same placement for an extended period if the assessment determines the child’s behavioral or emotional challenges are likely to re-escalate if the placement is changed. The Special randomly Masters’ selected team conducted PMC children’s a case cases to record confirm review that of 50 children’s individualized files accurately reflected the information contained in the agency’s placement moves report. the aggregate report did The Special Masters’ team confirmed accurately reflect the information on placement moves found in PMC children’s files. 6. Beginning in June 2018, DFPS shall report to the monitor(s) semi-annually on PMC children's placement moves, and ensure that all such moves, and the reasons for the placement moves, are documented in the child’s electronic case record. 57 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 58 of 186 Foster Care Group Homes The Court’s December 2015 Opinion enjoined DFPS to “immediately stop placing PMC foster children in unsafe placements, which include Foster Group Homes that lack 24-hour awake-night supervision. Foster Group Homes that immediately require 24-hour awake-night supervision may continue to operate while the Special Masters and the State craft and enforce the Implementation Plan.” To verify the overnight supervision plans submitted to the Special Masters by DFPS with respect to the State’s Foster Group Homes, Special Master Ryan and a member of the Special Masters’ team, Deborah Fowler, conducted visits with randomly selected Foster Group Home caregivers in their homes. DFPS counsel and staff accompanied Mr. Ryan and Ms. Fowler. All of the visits except one were announced in advance. The visits occurred at staggered times throughout the day. In the first Foster Group Home visited by Mr. Ryan, on March 1, 2017, eight children resided in the home: three children in the custody of DFPS, ages 10, 9 and 2, and five birth/adopted children, ages 17, 14, 11, 8 and 2. The caregivers had installed a camera system throughout the home, featuring a motion detection system. When there was activity in the home at night, the camera system recorded the movement(s) that it recorded in a log. In addition, the caregivers hired a night nanny to stay in the home overnight while the family slept. In the second Foster Group Home visited by Mr. Ryan, on March 1, 2017, seven children resided in the home: two boys in the custody of DFPS, ages 4 and 5, and five of the couple’s birth children, all girls, ages 13, 9, 7, 5 and 1. The caregivers, a married couple, reported they provided supervision by alternating shifts overnight. The couple described the arrangement as difficult 58 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 59 of 186 and looked forward to adopting the boys and closing their home to future placements. In the first Foster Group Home visited by Ms. Fowler on February 28, 2017, eight boys, ages 18 and under, resided in the home. Four children were in the custody of DFPS and four were adopted. The foster children were 18, 15, 13 and 11 years old. The 15-year-old reportedly had behavioral challenges, and the caregiver indicated that those challenges had led him to ask for the boy to be moved. A live-in, adult female supported the caregiver in oversight of the home. The family’s awake-night supervision plan included an individual who lived in back of the house in a shed just a few feet from the back door. There was also an old RV behind the house, and the caregiver indicated someone else occasionally stayed in the RV. The awake-night supervisor’s home appeared to be a gardening shed. It was new, and it had a light mounted over the door of the type that one can buy at stores like Home Depot. The caregiver indicated the awake-night supervisor typically came home from work around 10:30 pm or 11:00 pm. The caregiver said he and the adult female went to bed around 11:30 pm or midnight, and the awake-night supervisor was said to then stay awake for the rest of the night, performing occasional walk-throughs of the home, until the caregiver rose the next morning. In the second Foster Group Home visited by Ms. Fowler, on February 28, 2017, nine children resided in the home: three girls in the custody of DFPS, ages 11, 7 and 5, and six adopted children, two boys who were 16 and 10, and four girls who were 10, 7, 6 and 4 years old. The caregivers installed an alarm in the boys’ bedroom that beeped if the boys opened their door. The caregivers, a married couple, reported they provided overnight supervision by alternating shifts overnight. In the third Foster Group Home visited by Ms. Fowler, on March 6, 2017, seven children under the age of 18 resided in the home. One child, a 16 year-old daughter, is adopted. Six of these children were foster youth: 3 girls who were 59 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 60 of 186 14, 11 and 9 years old, and 3 boys who were 17, 15 and 10 years old. Of the foster youth in the home, one had a specialized Level of Care designation, and three had moderate Levels of Care designations, indicating heightened needs. The doors to the bedrooms were connected to an alarm and made a loud noise when opened. The caregivers, a married couple, reported they provided overnight supervision by alternating shifts overnight. The caregivers also had two adult sons who were members of the household, ages 47 and 18. The caregiver said her live-in 47-year-old adopted son, who is disabled, helped his parents with the awake-night supervision. It appeared he has an intellectual or developmental disability. The caregiver pointed out that his role in overnight supervision was limited to getting up if anything happened or required intervention. In the fourth Foster Group Home visited by Ms. Fowler, on March 7, 2017, seven children under the age of 18 resided in their home. Four were foster youth: two boys ages 8 and 3 years old, and two girls 6 and 5 years old. The couple’s three biological children were 16, 14 and 12 years old. married couple, reported they provided The caregivers, a overnight supervision by alternating shifts overnight. The caregiver’s mother was reportedly able to help on occasion when someone was sick or work called away the husband. In the fifth Foster Group Home visited by Ms. Fowler, on March 7, 2017, three foster children resided in the home, one boy age 1 year old, and two girls, ages 5 and 2 years old. The caregivers, a married couple, also had four birth children who lived in the home: daughters, ages 15, 12, 9 and 6 years old. In order to avoid an awake-night supervision requirement, the caregivers reported that every night one of the foster parents’ biological children left the home with an older, adult sibling who maintained a separate residence, and stayed at her house. 60 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 61 of 186 In the sixth Foster Group Home visited by Ms. Fowler, on March 8, 2017, seven children resided in the home, only one of whom was a foster child: a 2 year old girl. The caregivers have six young children who they have adopted, and one adult biological son (22 years old) who also lives with them. The caregivers, a married couple, reported they alternated shifts for awake-night supervision. The plan allowed the caregivers approximately 5 to 6 hours of sleep per night, which the wife said was enough for her. Her great grandmother was also reportedly available to help when needed, and their adult son who lived with them also helped when needed. The Court’s January 2017 Opinion requires this Implementation Plan include the elimination of Foster Group Homes as placements for children in the PMC class. In May 2017, Texas House Bill 7 amended the Human Resources Code (HRC), Chapter 42, and prohibited Licensing from issuing any new permits to Foster Group Homes after August 31, 2017. House Bill 7 allows any Foster Group Home licensed or verified before September 1, 2017, to continue to operate under the law in effect prior to that date, until Licensing develops and implements procedures for conversion to a traditional foster home and relinquishment of the Foster Group Home License. House Bill 7 also lowered the minimum capacity for General Residential Operations (GRO), a form of congregate care with heightened licensure requirements, from 13 children to 7 children. 1. Effective immediately and ongoing thereafter, no PMC child may reside in a Foster Group Home placement. 2. Effective immediately and ongoing thereafter, no PMC child may reside in any family-like placement that houses more than six children, inclusive of biological, adoptive, non-foster and foster children. Familylike placements include non-relative foster care, tribal foster care, kinship foster care and therapeutic foster care. 61 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 62 of 186 Foster Care Redesign The Court’s January 2017 Order held that “as to foster care redesign, the Court orders the Special Masters to work with DFPS to address the capacity of providers across Texas to serve as Single Source Continuum Contractors (“SSCC”); the service array, including the development of foster homes that meet the individualized needs of PMC children; and proposed timelines for staged implementation through the end of fiscal year 2021.” The Special Masters asked DFPS how it assessed the capacity of providers across Texas to serve as SSCC for Foster Care Redesign, including the development of a placement array in each anticipated catchment area. DFPS responded that it relied on an analysis from the University of Chicago determining that an SSCC could only be viable if it had at least 500 child entries annually. “This analysis,” DFPS replied, “along with information gathered through a Request for Information, a stakeholder survey and information from the Public Private Partnership helped inform the state’s division into the current 17 catchment areas.” (See Appendix E, Updated response document to Special Masters’ Request for Information, emailed from Audrey Carmical, Esq. on behalf of DFPS on March 8, 2017.) DFPS most recently reported the Texas Legislature “approved the rollout of a staged Community Based Care model in a total of five catchment areas (includes current 3b) over the 2018-2019 biennium.” (See Appendix F, DFPS Responses to Special Master Questions, emailed from Carmical, Esq. on behalf informed the Special of Masters, DFPS on September “Community Based 21, Audrey 2017.) Care DFPS (CBC) is replacing and expanding on Foster Care Redesign. Senate Bill 11 of the 85th Legislature requires DFPS to purchase case management and substitute care services from a Single Source Continuum Contractor (SSCC) in a model known as Community Based Care. Substitute care includes both foster care and kinship placements.” (See Appendix F, DFPS Responses to Special Master Questions, emailed from 62 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 63 of 186 Audrey Carmical, Esq. on behalf of DFPS on September 21, 2017.) On September 19, 2017, DFPS announced the next two catchment areas for Community Based Care will be all of Region Two and Bexar County in Region Eight. DFPS advised, We expect to release the Request for Proposals for Region Two this month (September), followed by the Request for Proposals for Bexar County in November. In Region Two and Bexar County, DFPS plans to make this transition in two in stages. In Stage 1, DFPS will transfer paid foster care placement services to the SSCC. DFPS will refer children who are new to care to the SSCC as well as transition children already in paid foster care to the SSCC. Like Foster Care Redesign, CPS and the SSCC will continue to share decision- making. CPS will provide case management services to children and families while partnering with the SSCC to provide paid foster care placement services to children from the catchment area. We anticipated Stage I will last between 12 and 18 months. In Stage Two, the SSCC will begin providing all substitute care placement and case management services. In addition to the responsibilities outlined in Stage I, the SSCC will receive referrals for all children who are new to care and their families. DFPS will phase-in the transfer of other children from the legacy system to CBC. We anticipate it will take 12 years to fully shift case management for all children and their families in these catchment areas to the SSCC. Region 3b is estimated to transition into Stage II in April 2018. (See Appendix F, DFPS Responses to Special Master Questions, emailed from Audrey Carmical, Esq. on behalf of DFPS on September 21, 2017.) The Special Masters do not have enough information or data from the implementation of Community Based Care to make a recommendation to the Court. 63 Case 2:11?cv?00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 64 of 186 64 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 65 of 186 Appendix A List of Documents and Resources Provided to the Special Masters by Texas DFPS, as Titled by DFPS Document/Resource Title 1 (Item 06) 86505 Count of Workers Assigned to Children entering PMC 2 1. Casa Portal 3 11. and 12. Job Description CPS CVS Supervisor I 4 13. Caseworker Ratio 5 17. Job Description I See You Workers Spec II-IV 6 18. Children Assigned to I See You Workers on June 30 2016 DRIT 80252 7 19. RCCL Workload Study 8 1CSA_CategoriesofSexualAggressionStoryboard.pdf 9 2. Portal 10 20. and 22. Job Description RCCL Investigator 11 2015 CPS Substitute Care Exec Summary 12 2015 CPS Substitute Care Exec Summary Attachment B 13 2016-10 SDM FSNA for CVS FBSS FAQs 14 21. and 23. Job Description RCCL Inspector 15 2282cx.2016 Contract 16 24 hour plan White 2-23-17 17 24. RCCL Worker Assignments 80128 18 25. Investigations of Maltreatment in Care 19 26. Overview of RCL BSD 20 26. RCCL Training Narrative Response 21 2613 PAL Programmatic Quality Monitoring Tool Life Skills Training Satisfaction Surveys 65 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 66 of 186 22 27. RCCL Investigation Details 23 28. RCCL Regulatory Action 24 29. RCCL Investigations QA 25 2CSA_CSAinCVSStoryboard.pdf 26 30. Child-on-Child Sexual Contact Referral 27 31. Placement Needs Assessment 28 32. DFPS Service Levels 29 33. 35 Single Child Homes 30 36. Residential Facilities and Placements 31 37. FCR Helps Grow Capacity 32 39. and 40. Amended-Children in Foster Group Homes on 2016-7-31 All Group Homes ID Only 33 4. SSCC Access to IMPACT 34 41. PAL 35 43. CSA 36 44. Emancipating Youth 37 45. Avg Daily Child Count FY16 38 47. Tablet Computers 39 49. Establish an Equivalent Work Experience Qualification Option for CPS 40 4CSA_CSAwithRCCL_Storyboard.pdf 41 5. FCR 42 50. Mentor Handbook 43 51. ESS 44 52. Training 45 53. PMU Rule Out Casereading Plan 66 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 67 of 186 46 53. RC Rule Out Casereading 2016 Survey 47 54. Section 7000 EF Revisions 07 25 16 Draft 48 55. FY16 Standard Amendment 49 57. (RCCL proposed rule change) 50 58. Survey 51 59. Placement Portal Best-Case Training 52 5CSA_CSAinKin.pdf 53 60. RCCL Transition Timeframe 54 6CSA_PlacementProtocols.pdf 55 7. CVS Workers with Mixed Caseloads 2016-7-31 DRIT 80253 56 8. CVS Worker Caseload 2016-7-31 DRIT 80254 57 86214 CY2016 PMC Children Call SWI 58 9. and 10. Job Description CPS Conservatorship Worker 59 9010 PAL AC Monitoring Tool Fee for Service 60 9010 PAL Monitoring Tool Fee for Service 61 9040 Fiscal Monitoring Tool 62 ADO ITP Nov 16 63 Adolescent Immunization Schedule 7 through 18 years old 2014.pdf 64 Adult Immunization Schedule Adults 2014.pdf 65 Aging Out Seminar Curriculum Outline.pdf 66 Aging Out Seminar Evaluation.pdf 67 Aging Out Seminar List of Handouts for Youth.pdf 68 Almost 18 2558.pdf 69 American Academy of Pediatrics “Fostering Health: Children and Adolescents in Foster Care” 70 April 2017 FGH List Healthcare for 67 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 68 of 186 71 Attachment A 72 Attachment B 73 Attachment to DFPS Memorandum Victimization In Foster Care 07.01.13.pdf 74 Attachment to DFPS Memorandum re Aging Out Seminar Revisions 11.18.13.pdf 75 August 2017 FGH List 76 CANS Resource Guide 77 Caseload Manageability 78 Casey Life Skills Assessment 79 Catch-up Immunization Schedule Ages 4 months to 18 years old.pdf 80 CCL BGC 81 CFRP Evaluation_Final Report_121616.pdf 82 CFSR Item 14 guide instructions.pdf 83 Child Immunization Schedule Birth to 6 years old 2014.pdf 84 Child Sexual Aggression Resource Guide 85 Children and Foster Group Homes as of 2017-03-23 86 Children in Homes 87 Children Without Placement FY17 through July 2017 2 88 Childrens Case Files 89 Circles of Support and Transition Planning 90 College Tuition and Fee Waiver 91 Common App Blank 92 Common Application for Placement of Children in Residential Care 93 Complaints Incidents Involving Child 68 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 69 of 186 94 Computer Based Training Part II re Serious Incidents Involving Foster Children.pdf 95 Context for 6 and 11 96 Copy of 83120 Data about Children in Subcare January 31 2017 Releasable 97 Copy of 83298 Data about Children in Subcare January 31 2017 (004) 98 Copy of d84414 PMC Children Items 32-35 99 Copy of d84421 PMC INVs CPS Final 053117 (002) 100 Copy of d84422 PMC Kids alleged child child SXAB Items 26 27 101 Copy of Fatalities Children in CVS 2015 (From ft_02cslx) 102 Copy of Fatalities Children in CVS 2016 (From ft_02cslx) 103 Corrective Actions 104 Court Appointed Special Advocates to SSCC Access to IMPACT Information 105 CPA MS for Religious Practice 106 CPAs religious affirmation 107 CPD CVS Competencies Training Day 1 108 CPD CVS Competencies Training Day 2 109 CPD CVS Competencies Training Day 2 Feb 17.pdf 110 CPD CVS Competencies Training Day 3 111 CPD CVS Competencies Training Day 4 112 CPS Fiscal Year 2017 Business Plan 113 CPS History the Search is On 114 CPS Nurse Scope of Work.pdf 115 CPS Overview & Transformation 116 CPS Placement Process Resource Guide 69 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 70 of 186 117 CPS Professional Development Core Competencies Training Week 1 Day 1 118 CPS Professional Development Core Competencies Training Week 1 Day 2 119 CPS Professional Development Core Competencies Training Week 1 Day 3 120 CPS Professional Development Core Competencies Training Week 1 Day 4 121 CPS Professional Development Core Competencies Training Week 1 Day 5 122 CPS Professional Development Core Competencies Training Week 2 Day 1 123 CPS Professional Development Core Competencies Training Week 2 Day 2 124 CPS Professional Development Core Competencies Training Week 2 Day 3 125 CPS Professional Development Core Competencies Training Week 2 Day 4 126 CPS Professional Development Core Competencies Training Week 2 Day 5 127 CPS Rights of Children and Youth in Foster Care 128 CPS_Intake_Guidelines.pdf 129 CSA screenshot 130 CVS Caseworker Caseloads 131 CVS Contact Narrative.pdf 132 CVS CW vacancies as of 1_31_17_for Dist.pdf 70 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 71 of 186 133 CVS ITP Nov 16 134 CVS required FTE.pdf 135 CVS Required Monthly Contact.pdf 136 CVS Worker Turnover 137 d84421 PMC INVs LIC Final 053117 138 DFPS Accessing Personal Documents for Youth Resource Guide 139 DFPS CCL Website 140 DFPS Child Adolescent Needs and Strengths Assessment (CANS) Web Page 141 DFPS Compensation Assessment and Employee Incentive ReviewAppendices-H.L. Whitman 02-23-17 142 DFPS Compensation Assessment and Employee Incentive Review-Cover Letter-H.L. Whitman 02-23-17 143 DFPS Compensation Assessment and Employee Incentive ReviewExecutive SummaryH.L. Whitman 02-23-17 144 DFPS Compensation Assessment and Employee Incentive ReviewFormal Report-H.L. Whitman 02-23-17 145 DFPS Continuous Self Improvement Plan February 2017— CLEAN COPY.pdf 146 DFPS Foster and Licensed Facility Placements Resource Guide 147 DFPS FY2016 human trafficking annual report 148 DFPS Health Passport – A Guide to Medical Services at CPS 149 DFPS HT efforts 150 DFPS Improvement Plan Cover Letter 6 22 16.pdf 151 DFPS Memorandum Incidents Involving Child Victimization in Foster Care 07.01.13.pdf 152 DFPS Memorandum re Aging Out Seminar Revisions 11.18.13.pdf 153 DFPS Placement Process Resource Guide 71 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 72 of 186 154 DFPS Requests 155 DFPS Response 10 156 DFPS Response 12 157 DFPS Response 5 158 DFPS Rider 36 Parental Child Safety Placements Study-Final-12-21-16 159 DFPS Rider 9-Human Resources Management Plan-(Final)-Whitmore 061-17 160 DFPS Rider 9-Human Resources Management Plan-Memo-Blackmore 0531-17 161 DFPS Senate Bill 769 Foster Parent Pilot Program Report 2016-Final-1201-16 162 DFPS Services to Children in Substitute Care Resource Guide 163 DFPS Supporting Kinship Families Report -Final 12-29-16 164 DFPSDatabook2015.pdf 165 Duranstorie Health Care Service Plans.pdf 166 Education and Training Voucher 167 EF Facilitator Guide – FINAL 2016 0729.pdf 168 EF PG Enforcement Frame Final 2016 0727.pdf 169 Employment Preference for Former Foster Youth 170 Enforcement Framework PPT – FINAL.pdf 171 Enforcement Framework RC ACTIVITY.pdf 172 Enforcement Implementation Dates.pdf 173 FACN CPS Memo 10-2016.pdf 174 FACN DFPS Delivers Article.pdf 175 FACN Provider Scope of Work.pdf 176 FACN Resource Guide June2016.pdf 177 FAD ITP Nov 16 72 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 73 of 186 178 Family Strengths Photo Activity PV-FSW Core 6 8 16 179 FC231b_CSA Flow Chart.pdf 180 FCCOE_transformation_impact_fn.pdf 181 Field Communication.pdf 182 Field II Service Level Placement Referrals and Pre-placement Visits 183 Field III Locating Families and Cooperation with LE 184 Final 2016 Alliance Conference.pdf 185 Final ISY CVS Safety Summit.pdf 186 Follow-up from 5 3 demo 187 Form 2279 188 Foster Care Center of Excellence Handout.pdf 189 Foster Care Redesign 190 Foster Group Homes 191 FSNA CVS Child Priorities 192 FSNA CVS Family FSNA 193 FSNA CVS Job Aid (1) 194 FSNA FBSS Family 195 FY16 Buckner 9010PAL 196 Grid Items 1 to 4 Kevin Ryan 6.27.16 197 GRO MS for Religious Practice 198 Handling DCL and RCCL Situations Chart.pdf 199 Handling_DCL_and_RCCL_Situations.pdf 200 HB 2725 201 HB 6 Introduced Bill.pdf 202 Health Passport 203 Health Passport Quarterly Reporting 73 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 74 of 186 204 HHSC Item 4.pdf 205 Higher Education Information & Resources for Current and Former Foster Youth 206 Home_Tracking.pdf 207 HT All Staff Training 208 Human Trafficking 209 IMPACT Phase 2 – Current Scope – 20170306.pdf 210 Intro to IMPACT and Technology Skills Lab Version 1.2 211 ISY and CPU-Special Master Presentation 212 ISY ITP Nov 16 213 Item 10.docx 214 Item 11 215 Item 12.docx 216 Item 13 217 Item 13.docx 218 Item 14.docx 219 Item 15.pdf 220 Item 16.pdf 221 Item 17 222 Item 17.docx 223 Item 8--Policy sections.docx 224 Item 9.docx 225 J.V. Placement Log 226 July 2017 FGH List 227 June 2017 FGH List 228 K-908-2602 Life Skills Training Observation Template 74 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 75 of 186 229 K-908-2614 PAL Programmatic Quality Monitoring Tool Case Mgt and Aftercare 230 K-908-2615 PAL Programmatic Quality Monitoring Tool Life Skills Training 231 K-908-2616 PAL Programmatic Quality Monitoring Tool Case Mgt and Aftercare 232 KIN ITP Nov 16 233 Legal Representation 234 Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Excerpts.pdf 235 List of Placement Moves 3-31-17 236 LPPH Safety Plans 237 ManagersOnboardingforNewHireandRehireChecklist.pdf 238 Manual Para Jóvenes Sobre El Cuidado Temporal En Texas 239 Manual_Assignment_Charts.pdf 240 May 2017 FGH List 241 Medicaid Benefits Handout 242 Medical Benefits Section 243 Minimum Standards for SWI hotline and ANE reporting.pdf 244 Module 5 CCL Investigation Workflow.pdf 245 MS for Trafficking 246 Number 6 Blue Phones 247 Nurse Job description FT.pdf 248 NYTD Supporting Info 249 October 2017 FGH List 250 Ombudsman Brochure for Foster Care Youth 251 Ombudsman-for-Children-and-Youth-in-Foster-Care 252 PAL Contract Monitoring Fees 75 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 76 of 186 253 PDF of 2016 RC Title IV-E Casereading Survey 3.10.16 254 Person Characteristics 255 Personal Documents 256 Personal Documents Checklist Age 16.pdf 257 Personal Documents Checklist Age 18.pdf 258 Placement Array 259 Placement Listings Report 7-25-17 260 Placement Listings Report 7-27-17 261 Placement Moves SAMPLE (50) 262 Placement Process Resource Guide 263 Placement Service Levels and Sleep Space 264 Plaintiff Children Placement Moves 3-31-17 265 PMU Reads 266 PMU Review of RCCL Investigations March 2016‐updated 6.20.16 267 PMU Review of RCCL Investigations March 2016‐updated 6.20.16 for CCL Staff 268 PMU Review of Ruled Out Investigations in the Residential Care Program….pdf 269 Policy Changes Highlighted.pdf 270 Preparation for Adult Living 271 Preparing_Youth_for_Life_after_High_School.pdf 272 Primary_Medical_Needs_Resource_Guide.pdf 273 Purpose Field for Med Assessment Tab.pdf 274 Q1-14 CVS All Region Item Outcome 275 Q1-15 CVS All Region Item Outcome 276 Q1-16 CVS All Region Item Outcome 277 Q2-14 CVS All Region Item Outcome 76 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 77 of 186 278 Q2-15 CVS All Region Item Outcome 279 Q2-16 CVS All Region Item Outcome Summary 280 Q3-14 CVS All Region Item Outcome 281 Q3-15 CVS All Region Item Outcome 282 Q4-14 CVS All Region Item Outcome 283 Q4-15 CVS All Region Item Outcome 284 Question 13 - DFPS Accessing Personal Documents for Youth Resource Guide.pdf 285 Question 13 - DFPS Residential Child Care Contracting Guide.pdf 286 Question 13 01062015.pdf 287 Question 13 ‐ SHP_2014785B‐Non‐Clinical‐Health‐Passport‐User‐Guide‐ P‐01062015‐ 3.pdf 288 Question 43 Notes.pdf 289 Question 43.pdf 290 RC Rule Out Casereading 2016 Survey 291 RCCL CSA Training_FINAL.pdf 292 RCCL Training Information.pdf 293 RCCL_Intake_Guidelines.pdf 294 Req1_2 Fatalities Children in CVS 2017 Preliminary 295 Residential Child notifications.pdf 296 Residential Child Care Contract.pdf SHP_2014785A‐Clinical‐Health‐Passport‐User‐Guide‐P‐ Care Contract excerpt re discipline and 77 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 78 of 186 297 Response 8 Summary 298 Rider 15 Minority Child Removal Report-Final-DFPS 10-12-16 299 Rider 37 Collaborative Family Engagement Report-12-01-16 300 Safety Card.pdf 301 Safety_Visit_Resource_Guide.pdf 302 SB 11 Engrossed Bill.pdf 303 SB 206 Youth Parents and Pregnant Youth in DFPS Conservatorship FY16 Report (Final) 01-30‐17 (002) 304 sb368 permanency planning family based alternatives-july 2017 (002) 305 SDM TX FSNA Manual 306 sdm-fsna-CPD Training 307 September 2017 FGH List 308 Serious Incidents Involving Foster Children Part 2 Participant Guide.pdf 309 Serious Incidents Involving Foster Children Part 2 Training.pdf 310 Serious Incidents Involving Foster Children Part 2.pdf 311 Serious_Incidents_Involving_Foster_Children_032017.pdf 312 Services for Youth and Young Adults 313 Services to Children in Substitute Care Resource Guide 314 Short Common Application 2087ex.pdf 315 SHP_20163827_THSteps-Informational-Flyer-P-01102017.pdf 316 SHP_20163862-THSteps-New-Member-Flyer-M-EN-ES-01122017.pdf 317 SHP_20173907-Foster-Care-Center-of-ExcellenceTemplate01172017.pdf 318 Single Child Foster Homes 319 SM Demo Follow Up_narrative_5.11.17.pdf 320 SM Demo Follow-up Narrative 5-11-17 321 SM Demo Follow-up Narrative 5-12-17 STCPC 78 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 79 of 186 322 SM Demo Follow-up Narrative 5-15-17 323 snagit1.png 324 snagit2.png 325 snagit3.png 326 snagit4.png 327 STAR Health – A Guide to Medical Services at CPS 328 STAR Health Member Handbook 329 Statewide Intake Hotline Reports and Investigations 04.10.17.pdf 330 Statewide Needs Assessment 331 Supervision Plans 2-2-17 332 Temporary Housing Assistance 333 Texas Foster Care Handbook for Youth 334 Texas Health Steps Periodicity.pdf 335 Texas Youth Connection (Website and Facebook Page) 336 Texas_Health_Steps_Information_Kinship.pdf 337 THSteps 1 Page Caring for Children in Foster Care in the First 30 Days.pdf 338 Tracking Inappropriate Sexual Behavior 339 Transitional Living 340 Transitional Living Services Handout 341 TX Foster Care Needs Assessment.pdf 342 TX NYTD FY11-15 Data Snapshot 2.8.16 343 What assessments does a child receive CHART 2017.pdf 344 Wilson Medical Assessment Log IMPACT.pdf 345 Wilson Medical Visits Health Passport.pdf 346 wilson placement narrative.pdf 79 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 80 of 186 347 WMS Overview 348 Workload Study Questions 349 zuniga PMUR.pdf 80 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 81 of 186 Appendix A Continued List of Policies Provided by Texas DFPS Policy Source Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families Act of 2014 (H.R. 4980) Texas Administrative Code Texas Administrative Code Texas Administrative Code Texas Administrative Code Texas Administrative Code Texas Administrative Code Policy Reference 113th Congress Public Law 113-183, Title I, Subtitle B, Section 114 Title 40, Part 19, Chapter 700, Subchapter M, Division 1, Rule 700.1307 Title 40, Part 19, Chapter 700, Subchapter M, Division 1, Rule 700.1309 Title 40, Part 19, Chapter 700, Subchapter M, Division 1, Rule 700.1329 Title 40, Part 19, Chapter 700, Subchapter M, Division 1, Rule 700.1331 Title 40, Part 19, Chapter 700, Subchapter E, Division 1, Rule 700.479 Title 40, Part 19, Chapter 700, Subchapter E, Division 1, Rule 700.505 Policy Title In what kinds of settings may a child in DFPS conservatorship be placed? What factors does DFPS consider when selecting the most appropriate living arrangement for a child? What are DFPS's responsibilities for ensuring appropriate medical care for children in DFPS conservatorship? What are DFPS’s responsibilities relating to discipline of a child in DFPS conservatorship? What are the responsibilities of the DFPS in receiving reports of child abuse or neglect? Priorities for Reports of Abuse and Neglect 81 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 82 of 186 Texas Administrative Code Texas Administrative Code Title 40, Part 19, Chapter 700, Subchapter E, Division 1, Rule 700.507 Title 40, Part 19, Chapter 700, Subchapter E, Division 1, Rule 700.511 Response to Allegations of Abuse or Neglect Disposition of the Allegations of Abuse or Neglect 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 82 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 83 of 186 Policy Source Texas Administrative Code Texas Administrative Code Texas Administrative Code Texas Administrative Code Texas Administrative Code Texas Administrative Code Texas Administrative Code Texas Administrative Code Policy Reference Title 40, Part 19, Chapter 700, Subchapter E, Division 1, Rule 700.519 Title 40, Part 19, Chapter 745, Subchapter D, Division 9, Rule 745.403 Title 40, Part 19, Chapter 745, Subchapter G, Rule 745.911 Title 40, Part 19, Chapter 748, Subchapter C, Division 1, Rule 748.105 Title 40, Part 19, Chapter 748, Subchapter I, Division 1, Rule 748.1201 Title 40, Part 19, Chapter 748, Subchapter I, Division 1, Rule 748.1205 Title 40, Part 19, Chapter 748, Subchapter C, Division 1, Rule 748.121 Title 40, Part 19, Chapter 749, Subchapter E, Division 1, Rule 748.507 Policy Title Standards for Investigators of Child Abuse Can I apply for another permit after Licensing denies or revokes my permit? In what other circumstances may a person not serve as a controlling person at my operation? What are the requirements for my personnel policies and procedures? May children receiving different types of service live in the same living quarters? What information must I document in the child's record at admission? What abuse and neglect policies must I develop? What general responsibilities do all employees have? 83 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 84 of 186 Texas Administrative Code Texas Administrative Code Title 40, Part 19, Chapter 748, Subchapter F, Division 4, Rule 748.881 Title 40, Part 19, Chapter 749, Subchapter H, Division 1, Rule 749.1101 What curriculum components must be included in the general pre-service training? Who may I admit? 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 84 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 85 of 186 18 19 Policy Source Texas Administrative Code Texas Administrative Code Texas Administrative Code Texas Administrative Code Texas Administrative Code Texas Administrative Code Texas Administrative Code Policy Reference Title 40, Part 19, Chapter 749, Subchapter H, Division 1, Rule 749.1107 Title 40, Part 19, Chapter 749, Subchapter H, Division 3, Rule 749.1151 Title 40, Part 19, Chapter 749, Subchapter H, Division 3, Rule 749.1153 Title 40, Part 19, Chapter 749, Subchapter I, Division 1, Rule 749.1301 Title 40, Part 19, Chapter 749, Subchapter I, Division 1, Rule 749.1307 Title 40, Part 19, Chapter 749, Subchapter I, Division 1, Rule 749.1309 Title 40, Part 19, Chapter 749, Subchapter I, Division 1, Rule 749.1323 Policy Title What information must I document in the child's record at the time of admission? What are the medical requirements when I admit a child into care? What are the dental requirements when I admit a child into care? What are the requirements for a preliminary service plan? When must I complete an initial service plan? What must a child’s initial service plan include? When must I implement a service plan? 85 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 86 of 186 Texas Administrative Code Texas Administrative Code Texas Administrative Code Title 40, Part 19, Chapter 749, Subchapter I, Division 2, Rule 749.1331 Title 40, Part 19, Chapter 749, Subchapter I, Division 2, Rule 749.1335 Title 40, Part 19, Chapter 749, Subchapter C, Division 1, Rule 749.135 How often must I review and update a service plan? How do I review and update a service plan? What abuse and neglect policies must I develop? 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 86 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 87 of 186 27 28 29 Policy Source Texas Administrative Code Texas Administrative Code Texas Administrative Code Texas Administrative Code Texas Administrative Code Texas Administrative Code Policy Reference Title 40, Part 19, Chapter 749, Subchapter M, Division 2, Rule 749.2447 Title 40, Part 19, Chapter 749, Subchapter M, Division 2, Rule 749.2449 Title 40, Part 19, Chapter 749, Subchapter M, Division 3, Rule 749.2471 Title 40, Part 19, Chapter 749, Subchapter M, Division 3, Rule 749.2489 Title 40, Part 19, Chapter 749, Subchapter M, Division 5, Rule 749.2557 Title 40, Part 19, Chapter 749, Subchapter N, Rule 749.2801 Policy Title What information must I obtain for the foster home screening? Whom must I interview when conducting a foster home screening? What must I do to verify a foster home? What information must I submit to Licensing about a foster home's verification status? May a foster home exceed its verified capacity? When must I evaluate a foster home for compliance with Licensing rules? 87 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 88 of 186 Texas Administrative Code Texas Administrative Code Texas Administrative Code Texas Administrative Code Title 40, Part 19, Chapter 749, Subchapter Division 1, Rule 749.43 Title 40, Part 19, Chapter 749, Subchapter Division 1, Rule 749.503 Title 40, Part 19, Chapter 749, Subchapter Division 1, Rule 749.607 Title 40, Part 19, Chapter 749, Subchapter Division 4, Rule 749.881 B, What do certain words and terms mean in this chapter? D, When must I report and document a serious incident? E, What general responsibilities do all employees and caregivers have? F, What curriculum components must be included in the general pre-service training? 30 31 32 33 34 35 88 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 89 of 186 36 37 38 39 Policy Source Texas Administrative Code Texas Administrative Code Texas Administrative Code Texas Administrative Code Policy Reference Title 40, Part 19, Chapter 749, Subchapter F, Division 6, Rule 749.944 Title 40, Part 19, Chapter 748, Subchapter H, Rule 748.1101(b)(7) Title 40, Part 19, Chapter 749, Subchapter G, Rule 749.1103(b)(7). Title 40, Part 19, Chapter 745, Subchapter K Policy Title What curriculum components must be included in the annual training related to prevention, recognition, and reporting on child abuse and neglect? What rights does a child in care have? What rights does a child in care have? Inspections and Investigations Texas Administrative Code Title 40, Part 19, Chapter 700, Subchapter P Services and Benefits for Transition Planning to a Successful Adulthood Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Section 4430 Random-Sample Monitoring of CPA Foster Homes 89 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 90 of 186 Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Section 6361 Time Frames for Initiation Section 4131 Minimum Requirements for Licensed Operations Section 4131.2 Residential Child Care: Team Inspections Section 4150.4 Additional Requirements for Investigation Inspections Section 4159 Handling Resistance or Refusal to allow Inspection Section 6000 Investigations Section 6100 Overview of Investigations 40 41 42 43 44 45 90 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 91 of 186 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 Policy Source Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Policy Reference Policy Title Section 6120 The Roles of the Investigator and the Monitoring Inspector Section 6131 The Role of the Supervisor in All Investigations Section 6132 The Role of the Supervisor in an Abuse or Neglect Investigation Section 6200 Assessing and Processing Intake Reports Section 6220 Assessing an Intake Report for Type of Investigation and Priority Section 6221 Assessing an Intake Report for Type of Investigation Section 6221.1 Intake Reports to Be Investigated as Abuse and Neglect 91 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 92 of 186 Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Section 6222 Assessing an Intake Report for Priority Section 6222.1 Classifying an Intake Report as a Priority 1 Investigation Section 6222.2 Classifying an Intake Report as a Priority 2 Investigation Section 6222.6 Choosing the Priority of an Intake Report in CLASS Section 6222.7 Changing the Priority of an Investigation in CLASS Section 6230 Assessing an Intake Report for Allegation Types Section 6231 IMPACT Allegation Types 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 92 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 93 of 186 61 62 63 64 65 66 Policy Source Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Policy Reference Policy Title Section 6231.1 Selecting Allegations of Abuse or Neglect in IMPACT Section 6232 CLASS Allegation Types Section 6232.1 Selecting Allegations of Violations in CLASS Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Section 6232.2 Allegation Involving a Child Under the Age of 6 (ChildPlacing Agency Only) Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Section 6240 Processing Intake Reports in IMPACT and CLASS Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Section 6241 Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Section 6242 Upgrading a Non Abuse or Neglect Intake Report to an Abuse or Neglect Intake Report Investigate, Downgrade, or Close an Abuse or Neglect Intake Report 93 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 94 of 186 Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Section 6242.1 Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Section 6242.2 Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Changing the Priority of an Abuse or Neglect Intake Report Downgrading an Abuse or Neglect Intake Report to a Non Abuse or Neglect Intake Report Section 6243.3 Closing an Intake Report of Abuse or Neglect Section 6250 Reports Received by Licensing Offices Section 6251.1 Information to Obtain When Receiving a Report at a Local Licensing Office Section 6251.4 Processing the Intake Report Section 6252 Referring Reports to Statewide Intake 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 94 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 95 of 186 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 Policy Source Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Policy Reference Policy Title Section 6261 Identifying New Reporters During an Investigation Section 6270 Types of Intake Reports Section 6271 Anonymous Intake Reports Section 6272 Section 6272.1 Section 6275 Section 6280 Multiple Intake Reports Received for the Same Operation Merging and Linking Investigations in IMPACT and CLASS Incidents Reported by an Operation, Known as SelfReports Referring a Report of Abuse or Neglect for Investigation When New 95 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 96 of 186 Allegations Are Received During an Investigation Texas DFPS Child Care Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Policy and Procedures Handbook Licensing Section 6300 Preparing for the Investigation Section 6310 Preparing the Investigation in IMPACT and CLASS Section 6311 Progressing an Intake Report to an Investigation Section 6311.1 Progressing an Intake Report to an Investigation in IMPACT Section 6311.2 Progressing an Intake Report to an Investigation in CLASS Section 6312.1 Writing the Allegation Section 6312.2 Determining Which Minimum Standards to Evaluate Licensing Licensing Licensing Licensing Licensing Licensing 81 82 83 84 85 86 96 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 97 of 186 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 Policy Source Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Policy Reference Policy Title Section 6320 Contacting the Reporter Section 6330 Assessing the Immediate Safety of Children Section 6331 Evaluating the Need for a Safety Plan Section 6331.1 Defining Child Safety Section 6331.2 Determining Safety Section 6332 Requesting a Safety Plan 97 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 98 of 186 Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Section 6332.1 Requesting a Safety Plan Outside of an Inspection Section 6332.2 Requesting a Safety Plan During an Inspection Section 6332.3 Requesting That an Alleged Perpetrator Not Have Contact With Children Section 6332.5 Operation Refuses to Develop a Safety Plan Section 6333 Approving the Safety Plan Section 6334 Notifying the Supervisor and Monitoring Inspector of the Safety Plan (Abuse or Neglect Only) Section 6335 Documenting the Safety Plan in CLASS Section 6336 Ongoing Evaluation of the Safety Plan 95 96 97 98 99 100 98 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 99 of 186 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 Policy Source Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Policy Reference Policy Title Section 6336.1 Plan Does Not Minimize Safety Threat Section 6336.2 Operation Does Not Comply With Safety Plan Section 6337 Ending the Safety Plan Section 6340 Assessment of Risk During Abuse or Neglect Investigation Section 6341 Requesting a Risk Assessment Section 6342 Information to Discuss During a Risk Assessment 99 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 100 of 186 Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Section 6342.1 Section 6342.2 Reviewing the Operation’s Compliance and Investigation History Reviewing the Alleged Perpetrator’s Investigation History Section 6342.3 Reviewing the Alleged Victim’s Investigation History Section 6342.4 Recommending Action Section 6343 Documenting the Risk Assessment Section 6343.1 Documenting the Recommended Actions Section 6350 Notifications Made at Beginning of Investigation Section 6351 Notifying and Working With Law Enforcement 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 100 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 101 of 186 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 Policy Source Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Policy Reference Policy Title Section 6351.1 Procedures for Notifying Law Enforcement Section 6351.2 Conducting a Joint Investigation Section 6351.3 Documenting Contact With Law Enforcement Section 6352.1 Methods of Notifying the Operation Section 6352.2 Exceptions to Notifying the Operation Section 6353.2 Maintaining Contact With the CPS Caseworker of Alleged Victims Section 6353.3 Documenting Contact With the CPS Caseworker 101 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 102 of 186 Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Section 6355 Requesting Assistance from CPS Special Investigators (Residential Care Only) Section 6360 Preparing for the Initiation Section 6361.2 Time Frame for Initiating a Priority 2 (P2) Investigation Section 6400 Conducting the Investigation Section 6410 Initiating the Investigation Section 6411 Defining What Constitutes an Initiation Section 6412 Methods of Initiation 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 102 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 103 of 186 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 Policy Source Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Policy Reference Policy Title Section 6412.1 Initiating an Investigation Involving Abuse or Neglect Section 6412.11 Exceptions to Initiating by Contact With Alleged Victim Section 6412.2 Initiating an Investigation Not Involving Abuse or Neglect Section 6413 Documenting the Initiation Section 6420 Conducting Interviews Section 6421.1 Observing and Interviewing Alleged Victims (Abuse or Neglect Only) Section 6421.11 Interview Takes Place Before Receipt of Intake Report 103 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 104 of 186 Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Section 6421.12 Section 6421.2 Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Section 6421.3 Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Section 6421.31 Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Section 6421.32 Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Section 6421.4 Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Section 6422 When to Refer an Interview to a Children’s Advocacy Center Observing and Interviewing a Child Related to a Child Care Provider Notifying Parents, Guardians, or Managing Conservators of Interview With Child Notifying a Parent of an Alleged Victim Notifying a Parent of a Child Interviewed as a Collateral Source During an Abuse or Neglect Investigation Age and Ability Requirements for Observing and Interviewing Children Interviewing Adults 137 138 139 140 141 142 104 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 105 of 186 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 Policy Source Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Policy Reference Policy Title Section 6422.1 Interviewing Alleged Perpetrators Section 6422.2 Interviewing Principal and Collateral Sources Section 6430 Conducting Inspections Section 6431 Requirements for Conducting Unannounced Inspections Section 6431.1 Section 6432 Inspection Time Frame Priority 1 or Priority 2 Investigations Documenting the Observations Made During the Inspection 105 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 106 of 186 Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Section 6440 Collecting Evidence Section 6441 Collecting Evidence Related to Interviews Section 6441.1 Conducting and Recording Interviews Section 6441.2 Obtaining Written Statements Section 6441.3 Maintaining Investigation Notes Section 6442 Taking Photographs as Evidence Section 6443 Obtaining Written Documents as Evidence Section 6443.1 Obtaining Medical Records 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 106 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 107 of 186 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 Policy Source Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Policy Reference Policy Title Section 6443.2 Obtaining Reports From Law Enforcement Section 6443.3 Reviewing Documents From CPS Section 6443.4 Obtaining Documents From the Operation Section 6444 Maintaining Records of Correspondence Section 6460 Interim Staffing With Supervisor Section 6540 Investigations Involving Homes Regulated by a Private ChildPlacing Agency (CPA) 107 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 108 of 186 Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Section 6541 Section 6541.1 Section 6541.2 Investigations of Abuse or Neglect and Minimum Standards Violations in CPA and CPS Homes Conducted by Licensing Allegations and Incidents That Must Be Investigated by Licensing Allegations and Incidents That May Be Investigated by Licensing Section 6542.1 Receiving and Assigning the Report Section 6542.2 CPA Responsibilities Section 6542.3 Licensing Responsibilities Section 6542.5 Section 6543 Documentation of Investigations by ChildPlacing Agencies Agencies Responsible for Investigations in CPA and CPS Homes 165 166 167 168 169 170 108 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 109 of 186 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 Policy Source Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Policy Reference Policy Title Section 6600 Completing the Investigation Section 6611 Extending Time Frames for Completing an Investigation Section 6611.1 Criteria for Requesting Additional Time to Complete the Investigation Section 6611.2 Documenting an Extension Section 6611.3 Obtaining an Additional Extension Section 6620 Determining the Findings 109 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 110 of 186 Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Section 6622 Investigations of Possible Abuse or Neglect Section 6622.1 Types of Abuse or Neglect Section 6622.2 Issuing a Finding of Abuse or Neglect When the Perpetrator Cannot Be Determined Section 6622.3 Possible Dispositions Section 6622.4 Assigning the Severity to a Reason to Believe Disposition Section 6622.6 Section 6630 Section 6631 Allegations Involving Child Sexual Aggression or Child-on-Child Physical Abuse Notifying Relevant Parties of the Results of an Investigation Notifying the Operation of the Results of an Investigation 179 180 181 182 183 184 110 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 111 of 186 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 Policy Source Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Policy Reference Section 6631.1 Section 6631.2 Policy Title Completing the Findings Letter or Compliance Evaluation Form Additional Notification for Abuse or Neglect Investigations Notification to the Alleged Perpetrator for an Abuse or Neglect Investigation Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Section 6632 Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Section 6634 Notification to Monitoring Unit Section 6635 Special Notifications for Investigations Involving Children in DFPS Conservatorship Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook 111 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 112 of 186 Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Section 6636 Notification to Parent of an Alleged Victim of the Results of an Abuse or Neglect Investigation Section 6700 Documenting the Investigation Section 6710 Documentation in the CLASS and IMPACT Systems Section 6711 Documentation of All Investigations Section 6712 Section 6720 Additional Documentation for Abuse or Neglect Investigations Documentation on the Investigation Conclusion Page in CLASS Section 6721 Initiation of Investigation Field Section 6722 Observation Made During Inspection Field Section 6723 Contact List 193 194 195 196 197 112 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 113 of 186 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 Policy Source Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Policy Reference Policy Title Section 6724 Investigation Findings Section 6724.1 Findings Involving Child Sexual Aggression Section 6724.2 Findings Involving Child-onChild Physical Abuse Section 6724.3 Explanation of Disposition Based on Preponderance Section 6724.4 Final Disposition and Summary of Due Process 113 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 114 of 186 Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Section 6725 Notification Dates Section 6725.1 Extension Approval Section 6730 Updating the Person Detail Page Section 6740 Documentation of Case Notes Section 6750 Maintaining an Investigation File Section 6752 Investigations Involving Allegations of Abuse or Neglect Section 6810 Submitting an Abuse or Neglect Investigation Section 6820 Reviewing an Abuse or Neglect Investigation Section 6830 Rejecting and Resubmitting an Abuse or Neglect Investigation 207 208 209 210 211 212 114 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 115 of 186 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 Policy Source Policy Reference Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Section 6831 Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Section 6832 Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Section 6840 Section 6900 Section 6910 Policy Title Rejecting and Resubmitting the Investigation for Minor Documentation Errors Rejecting and Resubmitting the Investigation For Significant Documentation Errors Or Incomplete Investigation Activities After an Abuse or Neglect Investigation Is Approved Recommending Action as a Result of Investigation Findings Conducting a Case Review Before Recommending an Action 115 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 116 of 186 Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Section 6920 Issues to Consider Before Recommending an Action Section 6930 Actions to Take Following the Investigation of a Regulated Operation Section 6950 Documentation in CLASS Section Appendix 6000-1 Time Frames for Investigations Section 3222 How to Determine Whether the Applicant Is Eligible to Apply Section 4141 Preparing for Application, Initial, and Monitoring Inspections Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Section 4441 Enforcement Team Conferences for Child-Placing Agencies, General Residential Operations, and Residential Treatment Centers Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Section 4500 Evaluating Risk to Children 221 222 223 224 116 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 117 of 186 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 Policy Source Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Policy Reference Policy Title Section 6210 Reports Received From Statewide Intake (SWI) Section 6221.5 Intake Reports to Be Closed Without an Investigation Section 6243 Investigate or Close a Report of Non Abuse or Neglect Section 6243.1 Closing a Non Abuse or Neglect Intake Report 117 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 118 of 186 Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Section 6244 Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Section 6244.1 Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures IMPACT and CLASS Options for Changing the Priority, Downgrading, or Closing an Intake Report IMPACT Options for Changing the Priority, Downgrading, or Closing an Intake Report Section 6244.2 CLASS Options for Closing an Intake Report Section 6271.1 Evaluating the Factual Basis of an Anonymous Intake Report Section 6273 Repeated Reports With No New Allegations Section 6274 Report of Incidents That Occurred in the Past Section 6275.1 Incidents Self-Reported by Operations That May Not Require an Investigation Section 6312 Reviewing the Intake Report Narrative and Determining the Allegations Section 6352 Notifying the Operation of an Investigation Section 6353 Notifications Involving a Child in the Conservatorship of DFPS 118 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 119 of 186 Handbook (Abuse or Neglect Only) 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 119 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 120 of 186 Policy Source Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Child Care Licensing Policy and Procedures Handbook Policy Reference Policy Title Section 6353.1 How to Notify the CPS Caseworker Section 6361.1 Time Frame for Initiating a Priority 1 (P1) Investigation Section 6610 Time Frames for Completion of the Investigation Section 7110 Circumstances That May Call for Enforcement Action Provide the Service Plan and Discuss Services Provide Additional Documentation Providing Records to the Attorney ad litem and Guardian ad litem Court Orders for CASAs Seeking Access to a Child or a Child’s Records Documentation and Communication Documenting Contacts in Substitute Care Documenting Contacts Using the Contact Details Page Documenting Monthly Contacts and Visits Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 4135 Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 4136 Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 5231.6 Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 5232.21 Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 6133.1 Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 6133.2 Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 6133.21 Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 6133.22 Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 6133.23 Required Narrative Content Section 6133.24 Contacts and Visits with the Child, Parent, Kinship, Relatives, and Caregiver Texas DFPS CPS Handbook 120 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 121 of 186 Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 6133.4 Documenting Health Information Section 6133.5 Maintaining the Health, Social, Educational, and Genetic History (HSEGH) Report 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 121 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 122 of 186 263 Policy Source Policy Reference Policy Title Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 6133.51 Education Information Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 6134 External Documentation Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 6411.1 Federal Requirements Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 6411.2 Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 6412 Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 6413 Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 6414 I See You Supervision Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 6414.1 I See You Eligibility Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 6414.2 Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 6414.3 Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 6414.4 Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 6414.5 Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 6414.6 I See You Waiver Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 6414.7 Conducting the Monthly Visit Frequency of Face-to-Face Visits Responsibility for Contact Across Regional Lines Services to Children and Caregivers Across Regional Lines Coordination Between I See You and Primary Caseworker Responsibilities of I See You Caseworker Responsibilities of the Primary Caseworker When An I See You Caseworker is Assigned to a Child Transitioning from an I See You Caseworker to a Courtesy Caseworker When the Out of Region Placement is Identified as the Adoptive Home 122 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 123 of 186 Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 6414.71 Assessing the Monthly Visit Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 6414.72 Documenting the Monthly Visit Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 6414.73 Following Up on Identified Needs 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 123 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 124 of 186 279 280 Policy Source Policy Reference Policy Title Visits Conducted by an Alternate Caseworker Alternate Caseworker Follow Up Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths (CANS) Assessment and Family Strengths and Needs Assessment (FSNA) Documenting in IMPACT (for identification of medical consenter) Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 6414.74 Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 6414.75 Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 6431.1 Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 11115.2 Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 11131 Being Knowledgeable of Child’s Medical Condition Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 11410 Arranging for Special Health Care Management Services Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 11411 Referring a Child to Medical Professionals and Health Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 11412 Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 1520 Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 2132 Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 2140 Working With Children in DFPS Conservatorship Who Have Special Health Care Needs Obtaining Certified Birth Certificates and ScreenPrinting Birth Records Reporting Requirements for DFPS Staff Screening an Intake for Investigation 124 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 125 of 186 Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 4113 Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 4113.6 Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 4114 Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 4114.22 Gather Information and Recommendations to Select a Placement Review Additional Information About the Child’s Needs Required Factors to Consider When Evaluating a Child’s Possible Placement Separating Siblings for Safety Purposes 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 125 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 126 of 186 293 294 295 Policy Source Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Policy Reference Section 4121.2 Policy Title Prepare the Current and New Caregivers for the Move Complete the Placement Summary Form Actions Required During a Placement Change Provide and Discuss the Placement Summary (Form 2279) Court-Ordered Placements in Unapproved Facilities Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 4121.3 Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 4130 Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 4133 Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 4151 Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 4154 Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 4155 Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 4221 Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 4221.1 RCCL Notifying CPS of Alleged Abuse or Neglect Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 4221.2 Using Intermittent Alternate Care and Respite During an Abuse and Neglect Investigation by the Child-Placing Agency Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 4221.3 CPS Responsibility and Procedure Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 4221.4 Placements and Child Safety Safety and Related Concerns for Placements Abuse and Neglect Investigations of DFPSRegulated Placements CPS Protocol During an RCCL Investigation Involving a Child in 126 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 127 of 186 Conservatorship Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 4221.5 Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 4221.6 Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 4231 Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 4231.1 How CPS Conducts Safety Checks or Other Safety Measures CPS Actions When Abuse or Neglect Is Alleged to Have Occurred in a Foster Home Facilities Under the Authority of Other State Agencies in General DFPS’s Continuing Responsibilities When a Child in Conservatorship is Placed in a Facility Regulated by Another State Agency 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 127 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 128 of 186 306 307 308 309 310 311 Policy Source Policy Reference Policy Title Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 4231.2 Additional Responsibilities Before Placement Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 4231.3 Reporting Problems to Other State Agencies Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 4232 TJJD and JPD Facilities Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 4310 Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 6252 Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 6341.26 Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 6420 Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 6421 Texas Foster Care Handbook Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 6431.11 Timeline for CANS and FSNA Unauthorized Arrangements By Youth in DFPS Conservatorship Permanency Planning Meetings for Youth 14 and Over Working with Children Who are Sexually Aggressive and Victims of Sexual Aggression Rights of Children and Youth in Foster Care 128 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 129 of 186 Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 6431.12 Using the CANS Assessment for Service Planning Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 6431.14 Annually Updating CANS Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 10000 Services to Older Youth in Care Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 10131 Personal Documents Provided to Youth at Age 16 Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 11200 Medical and Dental Services Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 11211 Initial Texas Health Steps Medical Checkup Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 11212 Initial Texas Health Steps Dental Checkup 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 129 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 130 of 186 322 323 324 325 326 327 Policy Source Policy Reference Policy Title Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 11213 Subsequent, Ongoing Texas Health Steps Checkups Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 11214 Immunizations Documenting Medical and Dental Issues in the Case File Documenting Checkups (Medical and Dental) in IMPACT and the Case File Documenting Other HealthRelated Visits in IMPACT and the Case File Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 11260 Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 11261 Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 11262 Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section 11263 Completing a Medical History in IMPACT Section 11264 Documenting Additional HealthRelated Details for the Record Texas DFPS CPS Handbook 130 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 131 of 186 Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section Appendix 11211-A Texas DFPS CPS Handbook Section Appendix 4623 Texas DFPS Office Consumer Affairs Handbook Texas DFPS Office Consumer Affairs Handbook Texas DFPS Office Consumer Affairs Handbook Texas DFPS Office Consumer Affairs Handbook Texas DFPS Office Consumer Affairs Handbook of Texas Health Steps – Obtained Through STAR Health or Traditional Medicaid Protocol for RCCL or CPS Investigations Involving Child-on Child Victimization in Foster Care Section 2300 Complaints That OCA Accepts for Review Section 2500 Complaint Intake Section 2510 Complaints Made Over the Telephone Section 2520 Written Complaints Section 2530 Notifying Program Staff of of of of 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 131 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 132 of 186 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 Policy Source Texas DFPS Office of Consumer Affairs Handbook Texas DFPS Office of Consumer Affairs Handbook Texas DFPS Records Management Group Handbook Texas DFPS Records Management Group Handbook Texas DFPS Statewide Intake Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Statewide Intake Policy and Procedures Handbook Policy Reference Policy Title Section 2540 Determining the Finding Section 2550 Closing and Responding to Complaints Section 1200 Definition of a DFPS Record Section 1221 Contents of a Physical File Section 1100 Legal Basis Section 1110 Legal Requirement to Report 132 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 133 of 186 Texas DFPS Statewide Intake Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Statewide Intake Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Statewide Intake Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Statewide Intake Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Statewide Intake Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Statewide Intake Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Statewide Intake Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Statewide Intake Policy and Procedures Handbook Section 1111 Abuse or Neglect of a Child Section 1130 Notification to Law Enforcement Section 1260 Call Recording Section 2120 Assessing Reports Section 2135 SWI Feedback to Reporter Section 2324 Subsequent Information Regarding an Existing DFPS Case Section 2332.1 Notifying the Local CPS Office of the Death of a Child Section 2332.2 A Child’s Death Report for CPS 342 343 344 345 133 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 134 of 186 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 Policy Source Texas DFPS Statewide Intake Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Statewide Intake Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Statewide Intake Policy and Procedures Handbook Policy Reference Policy Title Section 2332.3 A Child’s Death Report for RCCL Section 2332.4 A Child’s Death Report for DCL Section 2332.5 A Child’s Death in a Facility Under the Jurisdiction of APS Facility Investigations 134 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 135 of 186 Texas DFPS Statewide Intake Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Statewide Intake Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Statewide Intake Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Statewide Intake Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Statewide Intake Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Statewide Intake Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Statewide Intake Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Statewide Intake Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Statewide Intake Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Statewide Intake Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Statewide Intake Policy and Procedures Handbook Section 2332.6 A Child’s Death in a TYC Placement Section 2332.7 A Child’s Death in a Nursing Home Section 2400 Law Enforcement "Welfare Checks" Section 2760 Reports Concerning Law Enforcement Section 2761 Reports of Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, or Death Investigated by Law Enforcement Section 2762 Reports of Abuse or Neglect Perpetrated by Law Enforcement Section 3243 Finding the Current Caseworker on an Open Case Section 4100 Definitions Section 4200 CPS Intake Assessment Guidelines Section 4300 CPS Assessment of Priority and Risk Section 4400 Specialized CPS Reports 135 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 136 of 186 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 Policy Source Policy Reference Policy Title 136 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 137 of 186 Texas DFPS Statewide Intake Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Statewide Intake Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Statewide Intake Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Statewide Intake Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Statewide Intake Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Statewide Intake Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Statewide Intake Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Statewide Intake Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Statewide Intake Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Statewide Intake Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Statewide Intake Policy and Procedures Section 4481 Situations That Always Require an “I&R Call Regarding Existing CPS Case” Section 4482 Youth in DFPS Conservatorship Has a Baby Section 4500 CPS Investigational Jurisdiction Section 4600 Incidents, Victims, or Perpetrators Outside Texas Section 4800 Casework Related Special Requests Section 4930 Open Service Delivery Stages Section 5000 Child Care Licensing (CCL) Division Section 5220 CCL Assessment of Priority Section 5221 CCL Assessment of Priority 1 Section 5222 CCL Assessment of Priority 2 Section 5230 CCL Possible Standards Violations: Incidents Not Involving 137 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 138 of 186 Abuse, Neglect, or Exploitation Handbook Texas DFPS Statewide Intake Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Statewide Intake Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Statewide Intake Policy and Procedures Handbook Section 5240 Reports Involving Children in DFPS Conservatorship in a CCL Operation Section 5400 Residential Child Care Licensing (RCCL) Section 5410 Residential Child-Care Operations That Are Regulated by RCCL 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 138 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 139 of 186 380 381 382 383 Policy Source Texas DFPS Statewide Intake Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Statewide Intake Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Statewide Intake Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Statewide Intake Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Statewide Intake Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Statewide Intake Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas DFPS Statewide Intake Policy and Procedures Handbook Policy Reference Section 5430 Policy Title The Department or Agency which Licenses a Residential Facility Is Unclear Section 5440 RCCL Illegal Operations Section 5450 Special Situations Involving RCCL Operations Section 5451 When the Victim Is 18 or Older Section 5452 Assessing Reports of Alleged Sex Offenders in a Foster Home (Active Vs Inactive) Section 5456 Law Enforcement Reports Family Violence in RCCL Foster Homes Section 5464 RCCL Assignment and Call Out 139 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 140 of 186 Texas DFPS Statewide Intake Policy and Procedures Handbook Texas Human Resources Code Texas Human Resources Code Texas Human Resources Code Texas Human Resources Code Texas Human Resources Code Section 7330 Title 2, Subtitle D, Chapter 42, Subchapter A, Section 42.053 Title 2, Subtitle D, Chapter 42, Subchapter A, Section 42.0535 Title 2, Subtitle D, Chapter 42, Subchapter A, Section 42.002(10) Title 2, Subtitle D, Chapter 42, Subchapter C, Section 42.041(b)(2) Title 2, Subtitle D, Chapter 42, Subchapter C, Section 42.044 Reports Involving Children in DFPS Conservatorship in a Facility Under the Jurisdiction of Adult Protective Services Facility Investigations Agency Foster Homes and Agency Foster Group Homes Required Information for Verification Definitions Required License Inspections 384 385 386 387 140 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 141 of 186 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 Policy Source Texas Human Resources Code Texas Statutes - Family Code Texas Statutes - Family Code Policy Reference Title 2, Subtitle D, Chapter 42, Subchapter D, Section 42.072 Title 5, Subtitle E, Chapter 261, Subchapter D, Section 261.3016 Title 5, Subtitle E, Chapter 261, Subchapter D, Section 261.310 Policy Title License, Listing, or Registration Denial, Suspension, or Revocation Training of Personnel Receiving Reports of Abuse and Neglect Investigation Standards 141 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 142 of 186 Texas Statutes - Family Code Texas Statutes - Family Code Texas Statutes - Family Code Texas Statutes - Family Code Texas Statutes - Family Code Texas Statutes - Family Code Texas Statutes - Family Code Texas Statutes - Texas Government Code Title 5, Subtitle E, Chapter 263, Subchapter A, Section 263.008 Title 5, Subtitle E, Chapter 266, Section 266.003 Title 5, Subtitle E, Chapter 266, Section 266.006 Title 5, Subtitle B, Chapter 153, Subchapter G, Section 153.371(4) Title 5, Subtitle E, Chapter 261, Subchapter D, Section 261.301(a) Title 5, Subtitle E, Chapter 261, Subchapter D, Section 261.401(b) Title 5, Subtitle E, Chapter 264, Subchapter B, Section 264.121 Title 4, Subtitle I, Chapter 531, Subchapter W Foster Children’s Bill Of Rights Medical Services for Child Abuse and Neglect Victims Health Passport Rights and Duties of Nonparent Appointed as Sole Managing Conservator Investigation of Report Agency Investigation Transitional Living Services Program Adverse Licensing, Listing, or Registration Decisions 397 398 399 400 401 142 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 143 of 186 402 403 404 405 406 407 143 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 144 of 186 APPENDIX B Key Findings: Texas Child Protective Services I See You Workload Study Submitted by: Cynthia Osborne, Ph.D. Director, Child and Family Research Partnership December 4, 2017 144 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 145 of 186 Authors Cynthia Osborne, Ph.D. Director, Child and Family Research Partnership Associate Professor Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs The University of Texas at Austin Anna Lipton Galbraith, MPAff Senior Research Associate Child and Family Research Partnership Jennifer Huffman, MPAff Research Associate Child and Family Research Partnership Hilary Warner, Ph.D. Postdoctoral Fellow Child and Family Research Partnership Research Support Holly Sexton, M.A. Senior Research Associate Child and Family Research Partnership Daniel Tihanyi, MPSA Research Associate Child and Family Research Partnership Katherine Mercer Research Assistant Child and Family Research Partnership Erika Parks Graduate Research Assistant Child and Family Research Partnership 145 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 146 of 186 KEY FINDINGS The Special Masters appointed by the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas retained the Child and Family Research Partnership (CFRP) at the University of Texas at Austin to implement a workload study of I See You (“ISY”). ISY caseworkers serve as a liaison between children placed outside their home jurisdiction and their primary conservatorship (CVS) caseworker. The ISY caseworker position was created over a decade ago by DFPS, in part because children were too often being sent far from their home communities. The main responsibilities of the ISY caseworker are to visit the child at least once each month, which is a requirement per federal funding guidelines, and communicate service needs and other information back to the primary caseworker. Per the Child Protective Services (CPS) Handbook, “ISY caseworkers are secondary caseworkers for children and youth placed outside the region that has legal jurisdiction. The ISY caseworker acts as an extension of the primary caseworker and aids the primary caseworker in ensuring that the child or youth’s needs for safety and well-being are being met. The ISY caseworker also works to ensure that the child or youth achieves permanency.”6 In both a December 2015 Opinion and January 2017 Interim Order, Judge Janis Graham Jack concluded evidence at trial raised substantial concerns about the casework quality of ISY caseworkers and tasked the Special Masters to conduct a study of ISY caseworkers. The three primary research aims of the study are to determine the current caseload of ISY caseworkers and how they spend their time; the extent to which the caseworkers are familiar with the children they visit and are meeting their job responsibilities; and the factors that affect how ISY caseworkers spend their time. CFRP used a variety of data sources in this study, including administrative data from the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, surveys of ISY workers, and interviews and focus groups with caseworkers. I. I SEE YOU WORKER CASELOADS Using DFPS IMPACT data, CFRP found that in June 2017, on average, 48 percent of each ISY caseworker’s caseload was comprised of children in PMC and 52 percent was comprised of children in TMC. Consistent with the proportion of children in TMC and PMC identified in the IMPACT data, caseworkers reported on the ISY Survey that in June 2017, 50 percent of the children on their caseload were in TMC and 50 percent of the children on their caseload were in PMC. CFRP found that, 6 Child Protective Services Handbook. Section 6414, ISY Supervision. Updated February 2017. https://www.dfps.state.tx.us/handbooks/CPS/Files/CPS_pg_6400.asp#CPS_6414. 146 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 147 of 186 for the sampled children on whom ISY caseworkers reported in the time study, children in PMC were more likely to be placed in RTCs (43%) and children in TMC were more likely to be placed with kin (43%). To assess ISY caseworkers’ average caseload, CFRP measured caseloads using two different methods and found very similar results. First, CFRP measured the average daily caseload using IMPACT records. Average daily caseload refers to the average of the number of cases assigned to an ISY caseworker during each calendar day of June 2017. Measuring caseload as an average of each daily caseload is useful because it accounts for the fact that a caseworker may be assigned and unassigned to cases throughout the month. CFRP also used the median of all of the ISY caseworkers’ average daily caseloads. The median is a better indicator of the typical ISY caseload than the average because the median is less sensitive to outliers and zero values. Table 1: Median Caseload of ISY Caseworkers, June 2017 Median of the Median Average Daily Point-in-Time Caseload Caseload Recorded Self-Reported in Caseworker in IMPACT Survey I See You 43.9 43.0 Source: IMPACT and ISY Survey, N=98 ISY caseworkers. The reported median of the caseloads is very consistent across the ISY Survey and IMPACT data sources (shown in Table 1). According to IMPACT records, the median average daily caseload for an ISY caseworker in June 2017 was 43.9 children. According to the survey data, the median point-in-time caseload for ISY caseworkers was 43 during the month of June. The consistency between the average caseload calculated from IMPACT and the self-reported point-in-time study suggests that 43.9 is a reliable estimate of the typical caseload for an ISY caseworker in June 2017. The average daily caseload for ISY caseworkers ranged from a low of 20 children to a high of 87 children in June 2017. However, 80 percent of ISY caseworkers had an average daily caseload between 32 and 64 children. As an additional point of reference, the number of children with a secondary caseworker assigned to them on June 15, 2017, was 4645 and fluctuated modestly in June, from a high of 4668 to a low of 4596, as assignments began and ended. This includes all children for whom ISY caseworkers were assigned as secondary caseworkers for the child’s substitute care stage. With respect to only PMC children, there were 2442 PMC children on June 15 who were assigned an ISY worker, fluctuating during the month from a high of 2511 to a low of 2378. The median ISY caseload differs considerably by region. For example, Table 2 shows that the typical 147 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 148 of 186 ISY caseworker in Region 4 has a caseload of nearly 66 children, whereas ISY caseworkers in Region 1 have a caseload of approximately 32 children. Table 2: Average Daily Caseload of ISY Caseworkers by Region, June 2017 Region s 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Statewi de Number of Casework ers 5 4 17 6 6 22 19 14 98 Media n 31.9 38.2 39.1 65.9 55.6 52.6 39.2 40.3 43.9 Minimu m 20.0 33.9 25.8 49.4 40.9 35.9 24.1 32.1 20.0 Maximu m 54.8 46.0 53.1 74.4 75.8 63.6 57.7 45.3 86.7 Source: DFPS IMPACT data, N=98 ISY caseworkers. Note: Regions 9 and 11 are included in the calculations, but are not displayed in the table because of small sample sizes in the regions. II. I SEE YOU WORKERS’ TIME STUDY: MORE TIME NEEDED CFRP conducted a time study of all current ISY caseworkers. In the time study, each caseworker was asked to report on three randomly selected cases every week, for four consecutive weeks. The selected cases were of children currently in the substitute care stage (SUB) in which the ISY caseworker was assigned as secondary on the stage. For most caseworkers, the three cases were randomly selected from all of the cases assigned to the caseworker during the prior six months (between December 2016 and May 2017) and still assigned as of June 1, 2017. In other words, children in the ISY time study sample had been assigned to the ISY caseworker for no more than six months at the time of the survey. The sampling goal was to have at least 10 cases per caseworker available in case any of the three randomly selected cases were unassigned before the start of the time study (June 1st). 83 of the 98 caseworkers had at least 10 cases available that had been assigned between December 2016 and May 2017. In order to identify an adequate number of cases for the remaining 15 caseworkers, CFRP selected some cases that were assigned as early as August 2016. This selection criteria resulted in a possible pool of 1,467 cases (approximately 15 cases per caseworker). Available cases ranged from as few as 5 to as many as 48 per caseworker. The ISY caseworkers also reported on the first new case assigned to them during the month of June. If multiple children in a sibling group were assigned at the same time, the ISY worker was asked to respond regarding the oldest child in the sibling group. Nineteen of the 92 available newly assigned cases were part of a sibling group (20.7%). 148 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 149 of 186 Each week, ISY caseworkers were asked to report a full retrospective on the actual time they spent that week on the casework activities for each selected case, along with time they spent on general (non-case-specific) activities. All available ISY caseworkers participated in the time study. In total, 98 ISY caseworkers reported case-specific activities for 381 cases. One individual did not complete one of the weekly time reports. Several individuals were on leave for an entire week and had no time to report other than leave time. These individuals were not required to submit the time report for the week that they were on leave.7 The overall response rate for those who were not reported as being on leave for a reported week was 99.7 percent. Approximately half of the children on an ISY caseworker’s caseload are PMC children as compared to children in TMC. The study determined that ISY caseworkers typically spend approximately 93 hours each month on general activities that are not associated with any particular case (e.g., travel or training) and approximately 2.75 hours on each case on their caseload. The amount of time ISY caseworkers spend on a case does not vary based on whether the child is in PMC or TMC, but may vary based on the child’s placement and age. Table 3 presents the median time spent on each case-specific activity for PMC cases that were assigned to ISY caseworkers in June 2017. Table 3 also describes the percentage of PMC cases in the time study for which at least some time was spent on the activity. CFRP examined whether the time spent on TMC and PMC cases varied and found that the typical overall time spent on each case did not vary significantly (2.75 hours for both TMC and PMC cases). Table 3: Time on PMC Case-Specific Activities Percent of Selected PMC Cases with at Least Some Time Reported for Activity Activity Documentation 91.2% Face-to-Face with Child 90.6% Face-to-Face with Caregiver 85.5% Follow-up on Case 70.4% Reviewing Case Documents 51.6% Meetings 34.0% Outings 3.8% Court 3.1% Other 2.5% Median of NonZero Time on Activity (Minutes) 40.0 Minutes 30.0 Minutes 30.0 Minutes 30.0 Minutes 30.0 Minutes 30.0 Minutes 30.0 Minutes 110.0 Minutes 45.0 Minutes Source: ISY Time Study, N=159 PMC cases. 7 Three individuals were on leave for the entirety of week 1 of the study, two were on leave for the entirety of week 2, two were on leave for week the entirety of week 3, and none were on leave for the entirety of week 4. Leave was taken in these instances pursuant to the federal Family and Medical Leave Act. 149 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 150 of 186 Notes: Median times reported for each activity exclude ISY cases for which no time was listed. Only PMC cases are included Table 3. At their current caseloads, to spend the typical (median) amount of time that ISY workers reported spending on their secondary assignments, caseworkers would need to be working between 20 and 190 hours of overtime each month. Again, this finding is based on self-reported information from ISY caseworkers and was not otherwise independently validated. For approximately 40 percent of the sampled PMC cases, ISY caseworkers indicated they wished they had more time to spend with children and caregivers in face-to-face visits with the children. ISY caseworkers indicated that they would like additional time to follow-up on children’s needs for almost one-third of the sampled PMC cases. For the cases for which ISY caseworkers desired more time for face-to-face meeting activities, the median additional time desired was approximately 30 minutes more per child. III. MONTHLY FACE-TO-FACE VISIT RATE To measure the extent to which the ISY caseworkers conducted a monthly face-to-face visit with each child on their caseload, CFRP calculated a monthly visit rate for each ISY caseworker. CFRP divided the number of face-to-face visits documented in IMPACT for each caseworker by the total number of monthly face-to-face visits required of that caseworker (i.e., the total number of children who were on the ISY caseworker’s caseload for the entire month of June 2017). In June 2017, 98 ISY caseworkers were required to complete, at the median, 21.5 visits each with PMC children. The median number of visits completed was actually 16 per worker. This reflects a completion rate of 74.4 percent of the monthly faceto-face visits for ISY workers’ cases. ISY caseworkers missed visits altogether with slightly more than one-quarter of the PMC children they were responsible to visit. The median visit rate was slightly higher at 77.8 percent, which was created by calculating the average of each individual ISY caseworker’s visit rate and taking the median of that value, not by using the average number of required visits divided by the average number of visits conducted. The analysis was limited to children in PMC. The caseworker with the lowest visit rate completed 23.1 percent of her required visits and the caseworker with the highest visit rate completed 100 percent of her required visits. IV. INITIAL FACE-TO-FACE VISIT RATE An ISY caseworker must also conduct an initial face-to-face visit with each new child assigned to her caseload within 15 days of being assigned as secondary caseworker on the case.8 To assess the extent to which ISY caseworkers met this casework practice 8 Child Protective Services Handbook. Section 6414, ISY Supervision. Updated February 2017. https://www.dfps.state.tx.us/handbooks/CPS/Files/CPS_pg_6400.asp#CPS_6414. 150 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 151 of 186 standard, CFRP divided the number of face-to-face visits on new cases by the number of expected initial face-to-face visits in June 2017. Forty-six ISY caseworkers had a new PMC case assigned to them for at least 15 calendar days in June 2017 (providing the worker sufficient time to meet this standard). Of those caseworkers, the typical caseworker completed 50 percent of initial face-to-face visits with new children. Overall, ISY caseworkers completed between zero and 100 percent of their initial face-to-face visits. Of the 46 ISY caseworkers who had at least 15 days with a new PMC case in June 2017, 41 percent met with 100 percent of the children on their new cases within 15 days. However, 35 percent of ISY caseworkers with a new case did not complete a single initial face-to-face in June. At their given caseload level, approximately three-fourths of ISY caseworkers are meeting monthly with each child on their caseload, and half made the prescribed initial contact in June with new children assigned to their care. Completion rates for monthly and initial face-to-face visits are based on DFPS administrative data, which do not provide any information about the quality of the visits, or whether the visits are conducted privately. DFPS advised the Special Masters that there is no specific location in the IMPACT record where caseworkers must confirm that a child was interviewed in private or separately. V. KNOWLEDGE OF CHILDREN’S CASES CFRP gathered data on two randomly selected children assigned to 22 ISY caseworkers through a series of interviews conducted in the CPS offices in Lubbock, Austin, Corpus Christi, and San Antonio. The cases were identified to the ISY workers in advance of the meetings to allow the ISY caseworkers time to review their files completely. ISY caseworkers were asked to bring any paper documentation or files pertaining to the children to the interview with them. In each location, the interviews took place over the course of one day, except in Austin where interviews took place over two days. Attorneys were not present for ISY interviews in Lubbock or Austin and were present in Corpus Christi and San Antonio. The questions were shared with DFPS attorneys in advance at their request. CFRP does not know if they shared the questions with the workers since the interviews were approached not as deposition, but as an interview for research. For 59 percent of children, ISY caseworkers could provide details about the child’s education, including grade level, school, subjects that the child enjoys, and the child’s specialized educational needs, if applicable. For another 34 percent of children, ISY caseworkers provided incomplete or undetailed information about the child’s education. For six percent of children, the ISY caseworkers could not describe anything about the child’s education. 151 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 152 of 186 CFRP asked ISY caseworkers whether children had contact with their siblings or parents and found that for 81 percent of children, the ISY caseworker could describe the child’s contact with family in detail. For another 17 percent of children, the ISY caseworker provided some incomplete information about the child’s contact with siblings or parents and for 2 percent of children, the ISY caseworker could not provide any information on this topic. CFRP asked ISY caseworkers about their knowledge of children’s most recent medical visits and medication. ISY caseworkers provided detailed information about the last medical visit, such as the date of the visit, type of provider and name of provider, for 28 percent of children. ISY caseworkers provided limited information, such as whether the child is up-to-date on medical and dental visits, for 54 percent of children. ISY caseworkers were not able to provide any information whatsoever about the most recent medical visit for 18 percent of the children. With regard to medication, ISY caseworkers could describe the medication details, such as type of medication and dosage, for only 24 percent of children and could describe only general medical needs or basic medication types (i.e. describing a medication as an antidepressant but not knowing more) for 35 percent of children. ISY caseworkers reported that 38 percent of the children who they were asked about do not take any medications and for 3 percent of children, the ISY caseworkers were not able to provide any information on the child’s medications. CFRP surveyed all ISY caseworkers to learn what documents they rely upon to come up to speed on a new case, as shown in Figure 1 below. The documents that nearly half of ISY caseworkers reported were essential include psychological assessments and the removal affidavit. The survey results show that ISY caseworkers are less likely to consider educational records, court reports, visitation plans, and home studies when they are coming up to speed on a new case. Figure 1: Usefulness of Documents for Coming Up to Speed on a Case Percent of ISY Caseworkers Who Find Document "Essen Subject: Information requested during March 29, 2017 teleconference Kevin, During a teleconference on March 29, 2017 between DFPS, 0A6 staff and the Special Masters, you requested the following information. Please see the agency?s responses, noted below in Landline telephones 0 Current policies re: Iandline telephones, PMC children's ability to report maltreatment, and any proposed alternatives to landline telephones - 0 Single-Child Homes 2 Current policies rezsingle-child homes? in: t; - :c ?irt-- it?ll? ix: 11:1 Ll?) 'l i: 'l 3::v?v?i 0 Health Passport 0 Current policies requiring STAR Health providers to upload documents, as appropriate, to the child's Health Passport - m7 Ui-?w: l? ~73- ?wt if? Klifl?. 180 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 181 of 186 . Section 8.1.12.3 states: ?Quarterly Forms Review-The MCO must submit this deliverable on a quarterly basis. The report is utilized to Show the extent to which Providers are submitting contractually required documents for Texas Health Steps and BH visits." - Foster Group Homes Report 0 A foster group home report will be available on the first of every month, with the exception of the April 2017 report, which is delayed as a result of multiple staff being out of the office due to illness. The April report should be available by the end of this week. 0 Private Caseworker Visits Enforcement Policies 0 In addition to information provided during the March 29m teleconference between DFPS, 0A6 staff and the Special Masters, please see the agency?s response to Question 1 of the document titled "Request to the Texas DFPS from the Special Masters for Information February 10," provided to Special Masters on March 17, 2017. I See You Workers Quality Monitoring 0 In addition to information provided during the March 29?h teleconference between DFPS, OAG staff and the Special Masters, please see below: . HHSC Legal Division staff confirmed HHSC can pull data concerning who has accessed a child's Health Passport. However, i See You workers are not specifically required to access/review a child's Health Passport, and such a review is not necessary for every child. Most information contained in the Health Passport can be obtained directly from the Child's caregiver, health care provider(s) (when the I See You worker acts as the child?s medical consenter) and/or primary caseworker. However, the I See You worker may at times review the Health Passport for information concerning compliance with medical and dental exams, to review child's prescription medications, for immunization records to assist with enrolling the child in school). - IMPACT does not track who accessed the child?s case file. However, I See You workers are already expected to review the case file. The I See You worker could enter a narrative that they reviewed the file. However, this exercise would merely add a documentation expectation and such documentation would be in the MS Word document narrative. Absent a manual case read, this information would not be easily tracked/reported on. RCCI. Enforcement Actions 0 In addition to information provided during teleconferences on March 29, 2017 and April 3, 2017 between DFPS, OAG staff and the Special Masters, please see the agency's response to Question 54 of the document titled "Request to the Texas DFPS from the Special Masters for Information February 10," provided to Special Masters on March 31, 2017. Agency?s ability to revoke individual foster home licenses - DFPS regulates the ability of individual foster family homes to care for foster children in two ways: Child Care Licensing (CCL) regulates the ChildePlacing Agency, which oversees the majority of foster family homes, and (2) Child Protective Services (CPS) approves which foster homes to place foster children. CCL does not need the ability to directly license individual foster family homes to ensure safety of foster family homes nor can it do so by statute. CCL has authority to license Child-Placing Agencies (CPAs), which in turn regulate all foster family homes verified by the CPA. Chapter 42 of the Texas Human Resources Code provides CCL its statutory authority to regulate child care. Section 42.002(10) defines an "Agency foster group home" as "a facility that provides care for seven to 12 children for 24 hours a clay, is used only by a licensed child?placing agency, and meets department standards." Section specifically exempts agency foster homes and agency foster group homes from the requirement of a license issued by DFPS. This section requires licenses for child-care facilities and CPAs to operate. Section 42.053(a) states that "An agency foster home or agency foster group home is considered part of the child?placing agency that operates the agency foster home or agency foster group home for purposes of licensing." Subsection of Section 42.053 then provides: "The department shall revoke or suspend the license of a child?placing agency if an agency foster home or agency foster group home operated by the licensed agency fails to comply with [all provisions of Chapter 42 and all department rules and standards that apply)" Sec. 42.0535 lays out the requirements for a CPA to verify a foster family home. DFPS incorporated this statutory framework into agency rule (below), which discusses types of child care operations DFPS regulates. (Figure: 40 TAC ?745.37(3) (D) Child?Placing A person, agency, or organization other than a License Agency (CPA) parent who places or plans for the placement of a child in an adoptive home or other residential care setting. (E) Child-Placing An operation that provides care for six or fewer Verification (The Agency Foster Family childrenyears, under the CPA issues this. Home regulation of a child-placing agency. A CPA regulates 2 181 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 182 of 186 its own foster family homes.) 0 Child-On-Child Abuse 0 Current policies requiring prOviders to immediately report allegations of child?on-child sexual abuse - State law, agency rules (minimum standards) and a recent provider notification (see attached email titled Child Safety") require all facilities and contracted CPAs to immediately report all allegations/incidents of child onchild sexual abuse, 0 See Texas Family Code Annotated which states: person having cause to believe that a child?s physical or mental health or welfare has been adversely affected by abuse or neglect by any person shall immediately make a report as prowded by this subchapter." Likewise, ?261.103(a) states: report shall be made to: (1) any local or state law enforcement agency, (2) the department; or the state agency that operates, licenses, certifies, or registers the facility in which the alleged abuse or neglect occurred.? 0 See Texas Family Code Annotated which states: "An agency that operates, licenses, certifies, or registers a facility shall require a residential child-care faCIlity to report each incident of physical or sexual abuse committed by a child against another child." 0 See 40 Texas Administrative Code ?748.303(a] (minimum standards for GROs) and 749.503(al (minimum standards for CPAs), which direct GROs and CPAs, respectively, to report and document allegations of abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a child; or any inczdent where there are indications that a child in care may have been abused, neglected, or exploited, as well as physical or sexual abuse committed by a child against another child. Reports must be made to DFPS Child Care Licensmg and to the child?s parents as soon as the becomes aware of the allegation/incident, Placement Moves Are we capable of producing management reports on placement moves/stability? - Yes Tara 182 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 183 of 186 From: Carmical,Audrey (DFPS) Sent: Tuesday, August 08. 2017 10:34 PM To: Mary Helen Cervantes Subject: RE: Request for information Hi Mary Helen, Thank you (and Kevin) for your patience. Here is what we have at this point (our input in red): Would you identify how many and the names of the PMC and TMC children who died while in the custody of DFPS in the 2017 fiscal year? And also in the 2016 ?scal year? And also in the 2015 fiscal year? How many deaths from each of those years is still under investigation for possible maltreatment? Please include the names of the children whose deaths are still under investigation. We are able to do this for FY15 and FY16. See folder in Sharepoint. Our FY 17 ends 8/31/17. MRS (reporting team) estimates that they can get preliminary data for all of FY 17 out ar0und mid-to?late September 2017. There are yearly cut-offs for when this data is finalized/frozen in our current reporting processes, and the soonest they will get the full/final data produced to internal reviewers would be at the end of January 2018. Generally the numbers are produced externally in February of the year following the FY. The cut-offs the agency established in the past reflect the need for additional time for the fatality investigations due to waiting on autopsies and ME reports/ arrests/etc. I think from your request related to open investigations you may already have a sense of the duration of some of these investigations but if we need to provide more information on that aspect please do let us know. Speaking of which, we are still going back and forth regarding whether the exiting reports could be modified to show which if any investigations are still open (as opposed to going Generally for CPS cases if there is a death reason that should mean they have been finalized but I understand you and the Court would need something more definitive. Also note that the blanks for CPS death reason should correspond to those investigations that were conducted by CCL, which would not have a CPS death reason. I think other blanks relate to waiting for but we can confirm as needed. In the meantime, I?ll keep working on the open investigations question and update you as soon as possible. The New Yorker article includes, ?Hundreds of children have been sleeping in hotels or emergency shelters, or on air mattresses in government offices, because the state has nowhere else to put them.? The article also says, ?In the first seven months of the state?s fiscal year, the number of foster children spending two or more consecutive nights in hotels or government office buildings had risen to 314.? Would you identify the number of children in the 2017 fiscal year who spent one night in a hotel or a government of?ce building? 183 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 184 of 186 CPS does not track all or part of the first night given that the amount of time varies considerably. CPS begins tracking the second full night. Would you identify the number of children in the 2017 fiscal year who spent two or more consecutive nights in hotels or government office buildings. See chart in the folder on Sharepoint. Also note that you asked specifically about hotels or government office buildings. However, children without placement stay overnight in CPS offices, child advocacy center offices, CASA offices, hotels, provider cottages or other child care facilities (they are under our supervision and not admitted to the provider's care), and churches. At this time we do not think we have a reliable count specific to hotels and government office buildings alone but can conduct additional research if needed. Would you report the number of CVS caseworkers who voluntarily ended their employment with DFPS in the 2017 fiscal year. Voluntary Terminations so far in FY17 (as of today in our HR system CAPPS) is 266. MRS (the reporting team) estimates that if needed they could produce preliminary totals for the FY in mid-September and final numbers around the end of November/beginning of December after the year-end refresh of data. Would you report the number of PMC children and TMC children as of the first and last date of the 2017 fiscal year? I know we may need additional discussion but we wanted to inquire into whether we can provide Children in on last day of FY16 instead of first day of FY17. MRS indicates they have the numbers for the last day of FY16 already available in the data book and/or in data warehouse reports but they would have to do special coding to get the number on the day of FY17. Here's what they have: Last Day of FY16: TMC 19,558 PMC 10,969 Last Day of FY17 not yet available. Last Day of June 2017: TMC 20,786 PMC 10,553 ll II We could produce July totals in approximately one week, or if you would rather try to reach the end of the FY the team estimates they could get the numbers run approximately mid-September with the full and final numbers being available after late November and the year-end data refresh (in my layperson's mind this is when they re? run data for any updates that have come in subsequent to the end of the FY). Please let me know your preferences. Other than the outstanding items noted I think that should cover it but if we have overlooked something please just say the word! 2 184 Case 2:11?cv?00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 185 of 186 APPENDIX From: Carmical,Audrey (DFPS) Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2017 4:39 PM To: Mary Helen Cervantes; Cc: Albright, Thomas; Woodruff,Trevor A OIah,Tara Ge,Brian Fescenmeyer.Megan OIah,Tara (DFPS) Subject: RE: Request for Information Okay, here is an update for those pieces that remain outstanding. The number references are from the original email below. The time estimates are for when the materials would be sent to you or uploaded in Sharepoint. 1. ETA 11/10-11/15. 2. No additional information will be provided. Agency staff have determined that the aggregate data that can be produced are those referenced in the original response (DFPS foster children placed with other foster children). 6. ETA 11/6-11/8. 7. ETA 11/10-11/15. 11. ETA 11/6-11/8. Let us know if you show anything else outstanding or if you have questions about what I?ve provided above. Thanks so much--Audrey 185 Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document 546 Filed in TXSD on 12/04/17 Page 186 of 186 APPENDIX L From: Kevin Ryan Date: December 2, 2017 at 10:13:04 AM EST To: "Carmical,Audrey (DFPS)" Cc: Mary Helen Cervantes , "Albright, Thomas" , "Woodruff,Trevor A (DFPS)" , "Olah,Tara (DFPS)" , "Ge,Brian (DFPS)" , "Fescenmeyer,Megan C (DFPS)" Subject: Re: Request for Information Thank you Audrey Sent from my iPhone On Dec 1, 2017, at 5:50 PM, Carmical,Audrey (DFPS) wrote: Dear Kevin, Please see below for the agency’s revised response to Question #1. 1. In the attached spreadsheet (3rd tab - PMC Listing Kids SXAB Indicator), it appears that DFPS is reporting that during CY16, 150 PMC children were involved in an intake as a victim or perpetrator where child on child sex abuse was investigated. Please confirm, that with similar data, DFPS is able to identify, track and report data on child on child sex abuse investigations involving PMC children. Yes, DFPS is able to identify, track, and report data on child on child sex abuse investigations involving PMC children. Aggregate data concerning all PMC children identified as sexual aggressors can be pulled using Structured Query Language (“SQL code”). However, data concerning PMC children who are victims of child sexual aggression is not collected in a manner which can be pulled using code. Instead, DFPS records information regarding victimization of child sexual aggression in the special handling section of a child’s record, or in other documentation such as the Common Application or case narratives, as appropriate. This data can be pulled and aggregated via a manual process that requires a case read. DFPS and state child welfare stakeholders continue to believe labeling of victims is inappropriate, stigmatizing, and ultimately unhelpful because, as you know, caseworkers and staff make decisions based on each child’s individual needs and history, and not on aggregate data concerning the at large population of PMC children. Thanks, Audrey 186