r",

f'

\

·'

'~~:

r "::'J f; ;

1 " I ~: :

.... ;

,:::.~

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

*********************************
WAN F., ET AL.
Plaintiffs,
v.

: i :Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) 6

JOHN G. ROWLAND

:OCTOBER 7, 2003

Defendants.
*********************************

STIPULATION 1. Defendants admit that they are in non-compliance with the outcome measures ofthe February 19,2002 TransitionlExit Plan. The provisions ofthis Stipulation are necessary and appropriate in order to achieve better outcomes for children and families. Therefore, the parties mutually agree as follows:

2. The Monitoring Order of December 1, 1992, shall be modified to
conform to the terms of this Stipulation, and to give the Court Monitor express
management authority as set forth below:
• There shall be established a Transition Task Force ("Task Force"), which shall be comprised of the current Court Monitor, D. Ray Sirry, the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families, and the Secretary of the Office of Policy Management. The Task Force shall assume all decision-making authority having a substantial impact on the safety and welfare of members ofthe Juan F. class, which authority

{N0706914}

Page 1 of5

".

/----.-,

(

..

\~~.

is otherwise reserved solely to the Commissioner ofDCF pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes Section 17a-6.
• The decisions ofthe Task Force shall be implemented by the Commissioner ofDCF, within the time frames and in the manner specified by the Task Force.
• If the members of the Task Force fail to reach a unanimous decision relating to an issue within its authority, the Monitor shall determine whether or not to certify the issue to the Governor. lithe issue is certified, the Governor shall render his decision on the matter within five (5) business days. The decision ofthe Governor shall be final, subject only to Court review as provided below.
• The Monitor may appeal the Governor's decision to the Court, which may review the decision to determine whether it is in the best interest of the members of the Juan F. class, and is consistent with the principles of the Consent Decree. If the Court determines that the Governor's decision is not in the best interest of the members ofthe Juan F. class, the Court may reverse or modify that decision. The District Court's decision shall be binding on the parties and not appealable.
• The Monitor, in consultation with the Task Force, shall develop proposed modifications to the outcome measures and standards in the February 19, 2002 TransitionlExit Plan within 60 days of the entry of this order, affording parties an opportunity for input. The Monitor shall develop a definitive Exit Plan and submit it to plaintiffs and defendants, affording them a meaningful opportunity for input. The Monitor's final decision on the outcome measures, standards and Exit Plan shall be binding on all the parties. The Consent Decree, Manuals, and the February 19,2002 TransitionlExit Plan, except for the Monitoring Order and the District Court's order of July 29,2003, shall be vacated and replaced by this Stipulation and Order and the Exit Plan described herein, unless the Monitor is unable or unwilling to continue in his capacity as further set forth in this stipulation. The Exit Plan shall terminate on November 1,2006, and the jurisdiction of the Court over this action shall terminate on that date, unless Defendants have not complied with the Exit Plan.

{N0706914}

Page 2 of5

.....--,...,.~

(

~

·~'J;~&l

3. Defendants agree to establish a discretionary funds pool of $1 million for meeting emergency needs of class members pending DCF's completion of a comprehensive needs assessment using a methodology approved by the Monitor.
4. The Monitor and the Governor agree that the Governor will not replace Commissioner Dunbar during the term of this order without prior consultation with the Monitor.
5. lfthe Monitor becomes unwilling or unable to continue as the monitor, this Stipulation and the Order entered thereon shall become null and void. The Exit Plan referred to above shall continue to be implemented and shall be in full force and effect unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

(N0706914}

Darlene Dunbar, Commissioner State of Connecticut Department of Children and Families
Page.3 of5

,
)

,.-

',».....1

Ann H. Rubin, Esq. Attorney for Defendants
arcia Robinson Lowry, Esq. Ira P. Lustbader, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Martha Stone, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiffs
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
/,7

{N0706914}

Page 4 of5

· ..>.. "

,

' .

.....~. :.:i~:<'~:

RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL Raymond Mancuso, Deputy Court Monitor

10 /7/03
DATE '

SO ORDERED
AL:NEVAS, V.S.D.J.

{N0706914}

Page 5 of5

 </s> Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 454 Filed 12/23/03 Page 1 of 29

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT I: :3 , ... / :J
*********************************
JUAN F., et al.

, :j: ?. b

Plaintiffs v.

CIVIL NO. H-89-859 (AHN)

JOHN G. ROWLAND, et al.

Defendants
**********************************
ORDER

December 23, 2003

Juan F. v Rowland Order No. 447 dated October 7, 2003 required the Monitor to develop a definitive exit plan with specific outcomes. I have shared two drafts ofthe plan with the Plaintiffs and the Defendants and sought the input of my Advisory Board, which consists of 20 members. In addition, I have discussed each measure with the Plaintiffs and Defendants at length. The October 7, 2003 Order provided that: "The Monitor's final decision on the outcome measures, standards and Exit Plan shall be binding on the parties." Many ofthe comments and suggestions offered were inconsistent with one another or in opposition to others. It was not possible or prudent to adopt all the comments of all the parties. However, the majority of the comments have been incorporated. There can be doubt that I have provided the parties a "meaningful opportunity for comment". The attached Exit Plan is my final decision, and I respectfully ask that you ADOPT AND SO ORDER it.
~;;(.,

ADOPTED AND SO ORDERED:
DATE:~/()3

cs

~

The Honorable Alan'fl. Nevas

Senior United States District Court Judge

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 454 Filed 12/23/03 Page 2 of 29
Juan F. v Rowland Exit Plan
Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN)
Submitted By: DCF Court Monitor's Office 300 Church Street- 4'h Floor
Wallingford, CT 06492 Tel: 203-741-0458 Fax: 203-741-0462
E-Mail: Ray.Sirry@po.state.ct.us

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 454
Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) January 5, 2004 Page 2 of28

Filed 12/23/03 Page 3 of 29

Table of Contents
Introduction
Outcome Measures 1. Commencement of Investigation 2. Completion ofinvestigation 3. Treatment Plans 4. Search for Relatives 5. Repeat Maltreatment ofin-Home Children 6. Maltreatment of Children in Out-of-Home Care 7. Reunification 8. Adoption 9. Transfer of Guardianship I 0. Sibling Placement 11. Re-Entry into DCF Custody 12. Multiple Placements 13. Foster Parent Training 14. Placement Within Licensed Capacity 15. Childrens' Needs Met 16. Worker-Child Visitation (Out-of-Home) 17. Worker-Child Visitation (In-Home) 18. Caseload Standards 19. Reduction in Number of Children Placed in Residential Care 20. Discharge Measures 21. Discharge of Mentally Ill or Retarded Children 22. Multi-Disciplinary Exams

Page 3
Page 5 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26
27
28

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 454
Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) January 5, 2004 Page 3 of28

Filed 12/23/03 Page 4 of 29

Introduction
1. The Monitor reserves the rights, authorities and responsibilities granted in the Monitoring Order of December 1, 1992 as modified, and all the rights, authorities and responsibilities granted in the October 7, 2003 Stipulation and Order (No. 447) all of which are incorporated in this Exit Plan by reference.
2. The Monitor reserves the right to modify the measurement procedures to be used to determine and sustain compliance with any outcome measure herein until July I, 2004 after which time, there shall be no changes except as may be ordered by the Court. LINK and other reporting options will be finalized during this period.
3. The Juan F. class is:
A. All children who are now, or will be, in the care, custody, or supervision of the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Youth Services as a result of being abused, neglected or abandoned or being found at risk of such maltreatment; and
B. All children about whom the Department knows, or should know by virtue of a report to the Department, who are now, or will be, abused, neglected or abandoned, or who are now, or will be, at serious risk of such maltreatment.
4. The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut retains continuing jurisdiction over this action until the Court terminates such jurisdiction.
5. The Defendants must be in compliance with all ofthe outcome measures, and in sustained compliance with all of the outcome measures for at least two quarters (six months) prior to asserting compliance and shall maintain compliance through any decision to terminate jurisdiction. The Court Monitor shall then conduct a review of a statistically significant valid sample of cases files at 96% confidence level, and such other measurements as are necessary, to determine whether Defendants are in compliance. The Court Monitor shall then present findings and recommendations to the District Court. The parties shall have a meaningful opportunity to be heard by the Court Monitor before rendering his findings and recommendations.
6. This Exit Plan delineates specific outcome measures whose achievement are a prerequisite for termination the Court's jurisdiction over this action. Specific definitions, guidelines, interpretations and measurement methodology are listed for each outcome measure. The only enforceable measurements are the actual outcome measure that are balded and placed in text boxes.

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 454
Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) January 5, 2004 Page 4 of28

Filed 12/23/03 Page 5 of 29

7. The Defendants shall provide funding and other resources necessary to fully implement the Exit Plan.

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 454
Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) January 5, 2004 Page 5 of28

Filed 12/23/03 Page 6 of 29

Outcome Measure 1: Commencement of Investigation
DCF shall assure that at least 90% of all reports of children alleged to be abused, or neglected, shall be prioritized, assigned and the investigation shall commence within the timeframes specified below.
If the report of child abuse or neglect is determined by the DCF Hotline to be••. A. A situation in which failure to respond immediately could result in the death of, or
serious injury to a child, then the response time for commencing an investigation is the same calendar day Hotline accepts the report.
B. A non-life threatening situation that is severe enough to warrant a 24 hour response to secure the safety of the child and to access the appropriate and available witnesses, then the response time for commencing an investigation is 24 hours.
C. A non-life threatening situation that, because of the age or condition of the child, the response time for commencing an investigation is 72 hours.
I. Definitions: The "commencement of an investigation" occurs when the DCF investigator attempts to make face-to-face contact with the parent or person responsible for the child's care, and/or with the child(ren).
A "report of alleged abuse, neglect, or a child in danger of abuse or neglect" comes into existence when the DCF hotline accepts a complaint for investigation and designates a response time for the commencement of the investigation.
A report is "prioritized" by the DCF Hotline when it designates a response time of the same calendar day, 24, or 72 hours for the commencement of the investigation.
A report is "assigned" when the DCF area office designates an investigator to commence the investigation within the time frames specified in this outcome measure.
The Hotline shall determine the primary language of the family, if possible, so the case is assigned to an investigator who speaks that language, or DCF shall secure an interpreter to accompany the investigator.
2. Measurement Procedure to be used by Monitor: A. The Monitor shall determine if this outcome has been achieved through LINK quarterly reports. The percentage will be determined by averaging the three (3) months in each quarter. DCF will report quarterly on the barriers to meeting this measure.

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 454 Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) January 5, 2004 Page 6 of28

Filed 12/23/03 Page 7 of 29

B. The Monitor shall find that DCF has complied with this outcome measure when DCF has documented this outcome measure in LINK for two consecutive quarters, maintains compliance through exit from this action, and the Monitor has verified compliance with this outcome measure.

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 454
Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No: H-89-859 (AHN) January 5, 2004 Page 7 of28

Filed 12/23/03 Page 8 of 29

Outcome Measure 2: Completion of the Investigation
At least 85% of all reports of alleged child maltreatment accepted by the DCF Hotline shall have their investigations completed within 45 calendar days of acceptance by the Hotline.
I. Definitions: The completion of the investigation occurs when the investigator has interviewed each family member, including the parents, other adults and all children in the home as well as necessary collateral contacts and the investigator's DCF supervisor verifies the investigator's determination of substantiation or non-substantiation and the determination is entered in LINK.
Investigations shall be conducted by workers who speak the primary language of the family or the investigators shall be accompanied by an interpreter.
2. Measurement Procedure to be used by Monitor: A. The Monitor shall determine if this outcome has been achieved through LINK quarterly reports. The percentage will be determined by averaging the three (3) months in each quarter. DCF will report quarterly on the barriers to meeting this measure.
B. The Monitor shall find that DCF has complied with this outcome measure when DCF has documented this outcome measure in LINK for two (2) consecutive quarters, maintains compliance through exit from this action, and the Monitor has verified compliance with this outcome measure.

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 454
Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) January 5, 2004 Page 8 of28

Filed 12/23/03 Page 9 of 29

Outcome Measure 3: Treatment Plans
In at least 90% of the cases, except probate, interstate, voluntary and subsidy only cases, clinically appropriate individualized family and child specific treatment plans shall be developed in conjunction with parents, children, providers and others involved with the case and approved by a DCF supervisor within 60 days of case opening in a treatment unit, or a child's placement out-of-home, whichever comes sooner, and for each six (6) month period thereafter.
"Approved by the DCF supervisor," means the DCF supervisor verifies and confirms that the functions of a written treatment plan are developed and used to:
A. Identify in a time limited and goal oriented format the problem areas, needs and proposed services to be provided to all children, parents, relatives and caretakers who are active participants in the case.
B. Document and describe reasonable efforts to prevent out-of-home placement of children.
C. Define mutual responsibilities and expectations of children, parents, caretakers and service providers toward reaching identified case goals.
D. Document and describe reasonable efforts to reunify children with their families in a timely manner.
E. Determine sibling and parental visitation schedule if siblings are not placed together.
The individualized family and child specific treatment plans are the written working agreement between the child, family, caretakers if any, service provider (s) and DCF. The agreement describes and documents the child and/or family's service needs as well as what DCF, the family, and/or the child is required to do to achieve the goals of the plan. This includes all in-home and out-of-home cases except probate, interstate, voluntary and subsidy only cases.
Treatment plans shall be written in the primary language of the family and/or child. Treatment planning conferences shall be conducted in the primary language of the family and/or child.
I. Measurement to be used by the Monitor: A. DCF will randomly select 25 cases quarterly for a qualitative review, including unannounced attendance at the treatment planning conferences, to determine if this outcome measure is being achieved and to report on the barriers to meeting this measure.

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 454
Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) January 5, 2004 Page 9 of28

Filed 12/23/03 Page 10 of 29

B. The Monitor's Office will randomly select 15 cases quarterly for a qualitative review, including unannounced attendance at the treatment planning conferences, to determine if this outcome measure is being achieved.
C. The Monitor shall find that DCF has complied with this outcome measure when DCF has documented this outcome measure for two (2) consecutive quarters, maintains compliance through exit from this action, and the Monitor has verified compliance with this outcome measure.

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 454
Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) January 5, 2004 Page 10 of28

Filed 12/23/03 Page 11 of 29

Outcome Measure 4: Search for Relatives
If a child(ren) must be removed from his/her home, DCF shall conduct and document a search for maternal and paternal relatives, extended formal or informal networks, friends of the child or family, former foster parents, or other persons known to the child. The search period shall extend through the first six (6) month administrative case review following removal from home. The search shall be conducted and documented in at least 85% of the cases.
1. Definitions: Temporary placement with relatives to whom the child is emotionally attached and who can ensure the child's safety may be the most desirable arrangement.
Placement with a relative or non-relative caretaker with whom the child is familiar requires the completion of an assessment for a relative certification or special study license.
2. Measurements to be used by the Monitor: A. The Monitor shall determine if this outcome has been achieved through DCF quarterly outcome reports. DCF will report quarterly on the barriers to meeting this measure.
B. The Monitor shall find that DCF has complied with this outcome measure when DCF has documented this outcome measure for two (2) consecutive quarters, maintains compliance through exit from this action, and the Monitor has verified compliance with this measure.

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 454 Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) January 5, 2004 Page II of28

Filed 12/23/03 Page 12 of 29

Outcome Measure 5: Repeat Maltreatment of In-Home Children
No more than 7% of the children who are victims of substantiated maltreatment during any six-month period shall be the substantiated victims of additional maltreatment during any subsequent six-month period. This outcome shall begin to be measured within the six-month period beginning March 1, 2004.
1. Measurements to be used by the Monitor: A. The Monitor shall determine if this outcome has been achieved through a LINK six-month outcome report. DCF will report every six (6) months on the barriers to meeting this measure.
B. The Monitor shall find that DCF has complied with this outcome measure when DCF has documented this outcome measure in LINK for one (I) six (6) month period and maintains compliance through exit from this action, and the Monitor has verified compliance with this measure.

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 454 Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) January 5, 2004 Page 12 of28

Filed 12/23/03 Page 13 of 29

Outcome Measure 6: Maltreatment of Children in Out-of-Home Care
No more than 2% of the children in out-of-home care on or after January 1, 2004 shall be the victims of substantiated maltreatment by substitute caregivers while in out-ofhome care.

1. Definitions: Maltreatment by parents or guardians while the child is in out-of-home care are not counted for the purpose of this measurement.
Regulatory violations are not considered substantiations, and shall be handled as specified in DCF policy.
2. Measurements to be used by the Monitor: A. The Monitor shall determine if this outcome has been achieved through LINK quarterly outcome reports. DCF will report quarterly on the barriers to meeting this measure.
B. The Monitor shall find that DCF has complied with this outcome measure when DCF has documented this outcome measure in LINK for two (2) consecutive quarters, maintains compliance through exit from this action, and the Monitor has verified compliance with this measure.

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 454
Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) January 5, 2004 Page 13 of28

Filed 12/23/03 Page 14 of 29

Outcome Measure 7: Reunification
At least 60% of all children who are reunified with their parents or guardians shall be reunified within 12 months of their most recent removal from the child's home.
I. Measurements to be used by the Monitor: A. DCF shall report quarterly on the number of children who are reunified, and what percentage of those were reunified within 12 months of the child's removal from his/her home. DCF will report quarterly on the barriers to meeting this measure.
B. The Monitor shall find that DCF has complied with this outcome measure when DCF has documented this outcome measure for two (2) consecutive quarters, maintains compliance through exit from this action, and the Monitor has verified compliance with this measure.

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 454
Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) January 5, 2004 Page 14 of28

Filed 12/23/03 Page 15 of 29

Outcome Measure 8: Adoption
At least 32% of the children who are adopted shall have their adoptions finalized within 24 months ofthe child's most recent removal from his/her home.
1. Measurements to be used by the Monitor: A. DCF shall report quarterly on the number of children who are adopted, and what percentage of those are adopted within 24 months of the child's removal from their home. DCF will report quarterly on the barriers to meeting this measure.
B. The Monitor shall find that DCF has complied with this outcome measure when DCF has documented this outcome measure for two (2) consecutive quarters, maintains compliance through exit from this action, and the Monitor has verified compliance with the measure.

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 454
Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) January 5, 2004 Page 15of28

Filed 12/23/03 Page 16 of 29

Outcome Measure 9: Transfer of Guardianship
At least 70% of all children, whose custody is legally transferred, shall have their guardianship transferred within 24 months ofthe child's most recent removal from their home.
I. Measurements to be used by the Monitor: A. DCF shall report quarterly on the number of children whose guardianship is legally transferred, and what percentage of those were legally transferred within 24 months of the child's removal from their home. DCF will report quarterly on the barriers to meeting this measure.
B. The Monitor shall find that DCF has complied with this outcome measure when DCF has documented this outcome measure for two (2) consecutive quarters, maintains compliance through exit from this action, and the Monitor has verified compliance with this measure.

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 454
Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) January 5, 2004 Page 16 of28

Filed 12/23/03 Page 17 of 29

Outcome Measure 10: Sibling Placement
At least 95% of the siblings entering out-of-home placement shall be placed together unless there are documented therapeutic reasons for separate placements.
I. Definitions: Therapeutic reasons include such things but are not limited to situations where siblings are placed with multiple relatives, one (1) sibling requires hospitalization and others do not, where siblings were abused by another sibling, etc. The therapeutic reason the siblings must be placed apart shall be documented in LINK by the DCF supervisor.
2. Measurements to be used by the Monitor: A. DCF shall report quarterly on this outcome measure. The percentage will be determined by averaging the three (3) months in each quarter. DCF will report quarterly on the barriers to meeting this measure.
B. The Monitor shall find that DCF has complied with this outcome measnre when DCF has documented this outcome measnre for two (2) consecutive quarters, maintains compliance through exit from this action, and the Monitor has verified compliance with this measnre

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 454
Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) January 5, 2004 Page 17 of28

Filed 12/23/03 Page 18 of 29

Outcome Measure 11: Re-Entry into DCF Custody
Of all children who enter DCF custody, seven (7)% or fewer shall have re-entered care within 12 months of the prior out-of-home placement.
I. Measurements to be used by the Monitor: A. The Monitor shall determine if this outcome has been achieved through LINK quarterly reports. The percentage will be determined by averaging the three (3) months in each quarter. DCF will report quarterly on the barriers to meeting this measure.
B. The Monitor shall find that DCF has complied with this outcome measure when DCF has documented this outcome measure in LINK for two (2) consecutive quarters, maintains compliance through exit from this action, and the Monitor has verified compliance with this measure.

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 454
Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) January 5, 2004 Page 18 of28

Filed 12/23/03 Page 19 of 29

Outcome Measure 12: Multiple Placements
Beginning on January 1, 2004, at least 85% of the children in DCF custody shall experience no more than three (3) placements during a 12 month period.
1. Definitions: This includes Safe Home placements but excludes respite, hospitalizations of less than seven (7) days, home visits, runaways or children sent to the Connecticut Juvenile Training School.
2. Measurements to be used by the Monitor: A. The Monitor shall determine if this outcome has been achieved through LINK quarterly reports. The percentage will be determined by averaging the three (3) months in each quarter. DCF will report quarterly on the barriers to meeting this measure.
B. The Monitor shall find that DCF has complied with this outcome measure when DCF has documented this outcome measure in LINK for two (2) consecutive quarters, maintains compliance through exit from this action, and the Monitor has verified compliance with this measure.

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 454
Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) January 5, 2004 Page 19of28

Filed 12/23/03 Page 20 of 29

Outcome Measure 13: Foster Parent Training
Licensed DCF foster or pre-adoptive parents shall be offered 45 hours of post-licensing training within 18 months of initial licensure and at least 9 hours each subsequent year. This measure does not apply to relative, special study or independently licensed foster parents for whom 8 hours of pre-service training is required.
1. Definitions: The Department will ensure that all modules requiring social worker attendance are attended by social workers. The Department will also hold training sessions near foster parents, offer daycare, night and weekend training sessions and other inducements to make it likely that foster parents can attend the training. Attendance at training will be a factor considered in licensure or re-licensure of foster parents.
Training shall be offered in the primary language of the foster parents.
2. Measurements to be used by the Monitor: A. The Monitor shall determine if this outcome has been achieved through LINK quarterly reports. The percentage will be determined by averaging the three (3) months in each quarter. DCF will report quarterly on the barriers to meeting this measure.
B. The Monitor shall find that DCF has complied with this outcome measure when DCF has documented this outcome measure in LINK for two (2) consecutive quarters, maintains compliance through exit from this action, and the Monitor has verified compliance with this measure.

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 454
Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) January 5, 2004 Page 20 of28

Filed 12/23/03 Page 21 of 29

Outcome Measure 14: Placement Within Licensed Capacity
At least 96% of all children placed in foster homes shall be in foster homes operating within their licensed capacity, except when necessary to accommodate sibling groups.

1. Definitions: The placement of the sibling group must be the cause of the overcapacity to allow the exception and this must be documented in LINK.
2. Measurements to be used by the Monitor: A. The Monitor shall determine if this outcome has been achieved through LINK quarterly reports. The percentage will be determined by averaging the three (3) months in each quarter. DCF will report quarterly on the barriers to meeting this measure.
B. The Monitor shall find that DCF has complied with this outcome measure when DCF has documented this outcome measure in LINK for two (2) consecutive quarters, maintains compliance through exit from this action, and the Monitor has verified compliance with this measure.

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 454
Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) January 5, 2004 Page 21 of28

Filed 12/23/03 Page 22 of 29

Outcome Measure 15: Childrens' Needs Met
At least 80% of all families and children shall have all their medical, dental, mental health and other service needs provided as specified in their most recently approved clinically appropriate treatment plan.
1. Definitions: If there are no timeframes specified in the most recent treatment plan, the timeframe used for measurement will be the six (6) months following the effective date of the treatment plan.
2. Measurements to be used by the Monitor: A. DCF will randomly select 25 cases quarterly for a qualitative review, including unannounced attendance at the treatment planning conferences, to determine if this outcome measure is being achieved and to report on the barriers to meeting this measure.
B. The Monitor's Office will randomly select 15 cases quarterly for a qualitative review, including unannounced attendance at the treatment planning conferences, to determine if this outcome measure is being achieved.
C. The Monitor shall find that DCF has complied with this outcome measure when DCF has documented this outcome measure for two (2) consecutive quarters, maintains compliance through exit from this action, and the Monitor has verified compliance with this measure.

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 454
Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) January 5, 2004 Page 22 of28

Filed 12/23/03 Page 23 of 29

Outcome Measure 16: Worker-Child Visitation (Out-of-Home)
DCF shall visit at least 85% of all out-of-home children at least once a month, except for probate, interstate or voluntary cases. All children must be seen by their DCF social worker at least quarterly.
1. Definitions: Children in out-of-home placement, pre-adoptive placements, and therapeutic foster home placements can be visited by other social workers (ICPC or private agency) if the visit is at least once a month and a report documenting the substantive content of the visit is sent to DCF and entered into LINK.
These requirements are minimal, especially for younger children who are most vulnerable to maltreatment. Such children shall be visited more frequently and this shall be documented in LINK.
2. Measurement to be used by the Monitor: A. DCF shall report quarterly on this outcome measure. The percentage will be determined by averaging the three (3) months in each quarter. DCF will report quarterly on the barriers to meeting this measure.
B. The Monitor shall find that DCF has complied with this outcome measure when DCF has documented this outcome measure for two (2) consecutive quarters, maintains compliance through exit from this action, and the Monitor has verified compliance with this measure.

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 454
Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) January 5, 2004 Page 23 of28

Filed 12/23/03 Page 24 of 29

Outcome Measure 17: Worker-Child Visitation (In-Home)
DCF shall visit at least 85% of all in-home family cases at least twice a month, except for probate, interstate or voluntary cases.

I. Measurement to be used by the Monitor: A. DCF shall report quarterly on this outcome measure. The percentage will be determined by averaging the three (3) months in each quarter. DCF will report quarterly on the barriers to meeting this measure.
B. The Monitor shall find that DCF has complied with this outcome measure when DCF has documented this outcome measure for two (2) consecutive quarters, maintains compliance through exit from this action, and the Monitor has verified compliance with this measure.

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 454
Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) January 5, 2004 Page 24 of28

Filed 12/23/03 Page 25 of 29

Outcome Measure 18: Caseload Standards
By July 1, 2004 the caseload of no DCF social worker shall exceed the following caseload standards, with exceptions for emergency reasons on caseloads, lasting no more than 30 days:
A. Investigators shall have no more than 17 investigative cases at any time. B. In-Home treatment workers shall have no more than 15 cases at any time. C. Out-of-Home treatment workers shall have no more than 20 individual
children assigned to them at any time. This includes voluntary placements. D. Adoption and adolescent specialty workers shall have no more than 20 cases
at any time. E. Probate workers shall have no more than 35 cases at any time. When the
probate or interstate worker is also assigned to provide services to the family, those families shall be counted as in home treatment cases with a ratio of 1:20 cases. F. Social workers with in-home voluntary and interstate compact cases shall have no more than 49 cases at any time. G. A worker with a mixed caseload shall not exceed the maximum weighted caseload derived from the caseload standards in A through F above. H. These standards supercede those of Order No. 441 dated July 29, 2003.
1. Measurements to be used by the Monitor: A. The Monitor shall determine if this outcome has been achieved through LINK daily reports. DCF will report quarterly on the barriers to meeting this measure.
B. The Monitor shall find that DCF has complied with this outcome measure when DCF has documented this outcome measure in LINK for two (2) consecutive quarters, maintains compliance through exit from this action, and the Monitor has verified compliance with this measure.

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 454
Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) January 5, 2004 Page 25 of28

Filed 12/23/03 Page 26 of 29

Outcome Measure 19: Reduction in the Number of Children Placed in Residential Care
The number of children placed in privately operated residential treatment care shall not exceed 11% of the total number of children in DCF out-of-home care.
The circumstances of all children in-state and out-of-state residential facilities shall be assessed after the Court's approval of this Exit Plan on a child specific basis to determine if their needs can be met in a less restrictive setting. The placement of any additional children out-of-state after the approval of this plan shall require the approval ofthe Transition Task Force.
1. Definitions: Residential treatment facilities are 24-hour mental health facilities, which operate for the purpose of effecting positive change and normal growth and development for emotionally disturbed, behavioral disordered and socially maladjusted youth. Children are referred through a holistic treatment plan involving DCF staff and mental health professionals. Target Population: seriously emotionally disturbed children up to age 18. State operated facilities, stand alone group homes, Safe Homes, and juvenile justice 24 hour facilities are not included in this measure.
2. Measurements to be used by the Monitor: A. DCF will report on the number of children in in-state and out-of-state residential facilities quarterly. DCF will report quarterly on the barriers to meeting this measure.
B. DCF will report on its aggregate assessments of the needs of all children placed residentially sorted by in-state and out-of-state.
C. The Monitor shall find that DCF has complied with this outcome measure when DCF has documented this outcome measure for two (2) consecutive quarters, maintains compliance through exit from this action, and the Monitor has verified compliance with this measure.

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 454
Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) January 5, 2004 Page 26 of28

Filed 12/23/03 Page 27 of 29

Outcome Measure 20: Discharge Measures
At least 85% of all children age 18 or older shall have achieved one or more of the following prior to discharge from DCF custody:
A. Graduation from High School B. Acquisition of a GED C. Enrollment in college or other post secondary training program full-time. D. Enrollment in college or other post secondary training program part-time
with part-time employment. E. Full-time Employment F. Enlistment fnll-time member of the military
1. Measurements to be used by the Monitor: A. The Monitor shall determine if this outcome has been achieved through quarterly outcome reports. DCF will report quarterly on the barriers to meeting this measure.
B. The Monitor shall find that DCF has complied with this outcome measure when DCF has documented this outcome measure in LINK for two (2) consecutive quarters, maintains compliance through exit from this action, and the Monitor has verified with this measure.

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 454
Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) January 5, 2004 Page 27 of28

Filed 12/23/03 Page 28 of 29

Outcome Measure 21: Discharge of Mentally Ill or Retarded Children
DCF shall submit a written discharge plan to either/or DMHAS or DMR for all children who are mentally ill or mentally retarded and require adult services.
1. Measurements to be used by the Monitor: A. The Monitor shall determine if this outcome has been achieved through quarterly outcome reports. DCF will report quarterly on the barriers to meeting this measure.
B. The Monitor shall find that DCF has complied with this outcome measure when DCF has documented this outcome measure in LINK for two (2) consecutive quarters, maintains compliance through exit from this action, and the Monitor has verified with this measure.

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 454 Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) January 5, 2004
Page 28 of28

Filed 12/23/03 Page 29 of 29

Outcome Measure 22: Multi-disciplinary Exams (MDE)
At least 85% of the children entering the custody of DCF for the first time shall have an MDE conducted within 30 days of placement.
All cases should have a multi-disciplinary exam completed even if one cannot be done within 30 days.
1. Definitions: A written report docwnenting the results ofthe MDE is due to DCF before treatment planning conference.
2. Measurements to be used by the Monitor: A. DCF will randomly select 25 cases quarterly for a qualitative review, including unannounced attendance at the treatment planning conferences, to determine if this outcome measure is being achieved.
B. The Monitor shall find that DCF has complied with this outcome measure when DCF has documented this outcome measure in LINK for two (2) consecutive quarters, maintains compliance through exit from this action, and the Monitor has verified with this measure.

 </s> Juan F. v Rell Revised Exit Plan
Modified as of July 11,2006
Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN)
DCF Court Monitor's Office 300 Church Street ~ 4th Floor
Wallingford, CT 06492 Tel: 203-741-0458 Fax: 203-741-0462
E-Mail: Raymond.Mancuso@po.state.ct.us

Revised Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) July 1,2004
Table of Contents
Introduction
Outcome Measures 1. Commencement of Investigation 2. Completion of Investigation 3. Treatment Plans 4. Search for Relatives 5. Repeat Maltreatment of In-Home Children 6. Maltreatment of Children in Out-of-Home Care 7. Reunification 8. Adoption 9. Transfer of Guardianship 10. Sibling Placement 11. Re-Entry into DCF Custody 12. Multiple Placements 13. Foster Parent Training 14. Placement Within Licensed Capacity 15. Childrens' Needs Met 16. Worker-Child Visitation (Out-of-Home) 17. Worker-Child Visitation (In-Home) 18. Caseload Standards 19. Reduction in Number of Children Placed in Residential Care 20. Discharge Measures 21. Discharge of Mentally III or Retarded Children 22. Multi-Disciplinary Exams
Appendix: Research Questions, Logic, Measurement Elements and Identified Variables for Revised Exit Plan of July 1,2004

Page 3
Page 5 7 8 12 14
15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 27 28
29
30 32 34 36
37

Page 2 of36

Revised Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) July I, 2004

Introduction

1. The Monitor reserves the rights, authorities and responsibilities granted in the Monitoring Order of December 1, 1992 as modified, and all the rights, authorities and responsibilities granted in the October 7,2003 Stipulation and Order (No. 447) all ofwhich are incorporated in this Exit Plan by reference.

2. The Monitor reserves the right to modify the measurement procedures to be used to determine and sustain compliance with any outcome measure herein until July 1, 2004 after which time, there shall be no changes except as may be ordered by the Court. LINK and other reporting options will be finalized during this period.

3. The Juan F. class is:

·i

A. All children who are now, or will be, in the care, custody, or supervision

of the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Youth Services as

a result of being abused, neglected or abandoned or being found at risk of

such maltreatment; and

B. All children about whom the Department knows, or should know by virtue of a report to the Department, who are now, or will be, abused, neglected or abandoned, or who are now, or will be, at serious risk of such maltreatment.

4. The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut retains continuing jurisdiction over this action until the Court terminates such jurisdiction.

5. The Defendants must be in compliance with all of the outcome measures, and in sustained compliance with all of the outcome measures for at least two quarters (six months) prior to asserting compliance and shall maintain compliance through any decision to terminate jurisdiction. The Court Monitor shall then conduct a review of a statistically significant valid sample of cases files at 96% confidence level, and such other measurements as are necessary, to determine whether Defendants are in compliance. The Court Monitor shall then present findings and recommendations to the District Court. The parties shall have a meaningful opportunity to be heard by the Court Monitor before rendering his findings and recommendations.

6. This Exit Plan delineates specific outcome measures whose achievement are a prerequisite for termination the Court's jurisdiction over this action. Specific definitions, guidelines, interpretations and measurement methodology are listed for each outcome measure. The only enforceable measurements are the actual outcome measure that are bolded and placed in text boxes.

Page 3 of36

Revised Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) July 1,2004 (as modified June 29, 2006)
7. The Defendants shall provide funding and other resources necessary to fully implement the Exit Plan.
8. Reporting is required on a quarterly basis unless otherwise stated within this document. Enhancements to LINK are underway to allow for fully automated reporting on Outcome Measures 1,2,4,9,10,16,17,20,21, and 22. Timeframes to implement and test the LINK system capabilities in regard to each measure will be staggered over the next several months. Currently the Department can report on measures 2,5,6,8,9, 12, 14, 18,22 and partial reporting for 19. Outcome measure 1, 16, and 17 cannot be reported until such time that the enhancements are completed in the summer of2004. Outcome measures 5, 7, 11 and 12 will officially be reported with a minimum six-month delay due to the logic required in capturing the forward performance measurement or discharge information. The Outcome Measure reporting requirements for Outcomes 3,4,10,15,20, and 21 will initially be met via case review conducted by the DCF Quality Improvement Division. Once measures 4, 10, 20 and 21 are automated, IS will assume LINK reporting responsibility and those elements will be eliminated from the case review protocol. Outcome measures 13 and 19 will require non-automated reporting.
9. The Court Monitor will conduct case reviews to produce annual reports documenting the Department of Children and Families' performance and progress toward achieving the outcome measures defined within this Exit Plan, except Outcome Measures 3 and 15, for which there will be separate quarterly case record reviews. The annual report concerning 2006 data will include a synopsis of the quantitative data provided by DCF in the third and fourth quarters of the calendar year of 2006, as well as the quantitative and qualitative findings from the research questions documented in the attached addendum document. This report will be filed with the Court in April of2007. Subsequent annual reports will include a synopsis of the quantitative data provided by DCF, as well as the quantitative and qualitative findings for those subsequent calendar years from the research questions documented in the attached addendum document.
10. Until jurisdiction over this matter is terminated by the Court, the parties agree that the DCF Court Monitor shall have discretion to conduct and provide for such additional reporting and case reviews that are consistent with the terms of the Revised Exit Plan of July 1,2004, as modified, and under any other applicable Court orders.
Page 4 of36

Revised Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) July 1,2004
Outcome Measure 1: Commencement of Investigation
DCF shall assure that at least 90% of all reports of children alleged to be abused, or neglected, shall be prioritized, assigned and the investigation shall commence within the timeframes specified below.
If the report of child abuse or neglect is determined by the DCF Hotline to be... A. A situation in which failure to respond immediately could result in the death of, or
serious injury to a child, then the response time for commencing an investigation is the same calendar day Hotline accepts the report.
B. A non-life threatening situation that is severe enough to warrant a 24-hour response to secure the safety of the child and to access the appropriate and available witnesses, then the response time for commencing an investigation is 24 hours.
c. A non-life threatening situation that, because of the age or condition of the child, the
response time for commencing an investigation is 72 hours.
Definitions and Clarifications: 1. "Investigation" is the fact-fmding process that gathers information beginning at the report-taking phase of allegations of child abuse or neglect at the Hotline and culminates in a documented determination of substantiation, non-substantiation, or regulatory violation. The assigned investigator must acquire and analyze information to determine whether a child has been abused or neglected and is in need ofprotective services or other services offered by the Department or the community to ameliorate identified risks. (See DCF Policy 34-4-2)
2. The "commencement of an investigation" occurs when the DCF investigator attempts to make face-to-face contact with the parent or person responsible for the child's care, and/or with the child (ren). An "attempt" at face-to-face contact is made when the investigator visits the home, school or other setting, in an effort to interview the child (ren) and family members regarding the allegations of abuse or neglect. (See DCF Policy 34-4)
3. A "report of alleged abuse, neglect, or a child in danger of abuse or neglect" comes into existence when the DCF hotline accepts a complaint for investigation and designates a response time for the commencement of the-investigation.
4. "Abuse" as defined by DCF Policy 34-2-7 is "a non-accidental injury to a child, which regardless of motive is inflicted or allowed to be inflicted by the person responsible for the child's health, welfare or care; by the person given access to the child/ or by the person entrusted with the child's care; or is any injury at variance with the given history; or is a condition which is the result of maltreatment such as, but not limited to, malnutrition, sexual molestation, deprivation of necessities, emotional maltreatment or cruel punishment."
Page 5 of36

Revised Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) July 1,2004
5. "Neglect" as defined by DCF Policy 34-2-7 is "a state of being denied proper care and attention physically, educationally, emotionally, or morally; or being permitted to live under conditions, circumstances or associations injurious to an individual's well being; being abused; and/or having been abandoned."
6. A report is "prioritized" by the DCF Hotline when it designates a response time of the same calendar day, 24, or 72 hours for the commencement of the investigation.
7. A report is "assigned" when the DCF area office designates an investigator to commence the investigation within the time frames specified in this outcome measure.
8. The Hotline shall determine the primary language of the family, if possible, so the case is assigned to an investigator who speaks that language, or DCF shall secure an interpreter to accompany the investigator.
Measurement Procedure to be used by Monitor: 1. The Monitor shall determine if this outcome has been achieved through LINK quarterly reports. The percentage will be determined by averaging the three (3) months in each quarter. a. The universe for Outcome Measure 1 is all reports of abuse or neglect accepted at the Hotline during each reporting quarter, beginning January 1, 2004. b. Quarterly reporting is due to the Monitor's Office no later than 45 days from the close of each quarter. Phase One LINK enhancements will not be in place for reporting on the first quarter, 2004. Initial reporting using the newly defined commencement requirements is expected August 15, 2004.
2. The Monitor shall find that DCF has complied with this outcome measure when DCF has documented achievement ofthis outcome measure in LINK, for two consecutive quarters, maintains compliance through exit from this action, and the Monitor has verified compliance with this outcome measure. The Department must achieve sustained compliance with all 22 Outcome Measures prior to requesting the verification process outlined in the introduction of this document (Bullet 5).
Page 60f36

Revised Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) July 1,2004
Outcome Measure 2: Completion of the Investigation
At least 85% of all reports of alleged child maltreatment accepted by the DCF Hotline shall have their investigations completed within 45 calendar days of acceptance by the Hotline.
Definitions and Clarifications: 1. The completion of the investigation occurs when the investigator has interviewed each family member, including the parents, other adults and all children in the home as well as necessary collateral contacts and the investigator's DCF supervisor verifies the investigator's determination of substantiation or nonsubstantiation and the determination is entered in LINK.
2. Workers who speak the primary language of the family shall conduct investigations or an interpreter shall accompany the investigators.
3. The "investigation universe" to be reported quarterly would be all investigations, including special investigations conducted by Hotline staff.
Measurement Procedure to be used by Monitor: 1. The Monitor shall determine if this outcome has been achieved through LINK quarterly reports. The percentage will be determined by averaging the three (3) months in each quarter. DCF will report quarterly on the barriers to meeting this measure. a. The universe for outcome measure two is all reports of abuse or neglect accepted at the Hotline during each reporting quarter, beginning January 1, 2004. b. Quarterly reporting is due to the Monitor's Office no later than 45 days from the close of each quarter. Initial reporting is expected May 15,2004.
2. The Monitor shall fmd that DCF has complied with this outcome measure when DCF has documented achievement of this outcome measure in LINK for two (2) consecutive quarters, maintains compliance through exit from this action, and the Monitor has verified compliance with this outcome measure. The Department must achieve sustained compliance with all 22 Outcome Measures prior to requesting the verification process outlined in the Introduction ofthis document (Bullet 5).
Page 7 of36

Revised Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) July 1,2004 (as modified June 29, 2006)
Outcome Measure 3: Treatment Plans In at least 90% of the cases, except probate, interstate, and subsidy only cases, appropriate treatment plans shall be developed as set forth in the "DCF Court Monitor's 2006 Protocol for Outcome Measures 3 and 15" dated June 29,2006, and the accompanying "Directional Guide for OM3 and OM15 Reviews" dated June 29, 2006.
I
°1
I
Page 80f36

Revised Juan F Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) July 1,2004 (as modified June 29, 2006)
This Page Has Been Intentionally Left Blank
Page 9 of36

Revised Juan F Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) July 1,2004 (as modified June 29,2006)

I

I

This Page Has Been

Intentionally Left Blank

-II Page 10 of36

Revised Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) July 1,2004 (as modified June 29, 2006)
This Page Has Been Intentionally Left Blank
• !
Page 11 of36

Revised Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) July 1,2004
Outcome Measure 4: Search for Relatives
If a child(ren) must be removed from hislher home, DCF shall conduct and document a search for maternal and paternal relatives, extended formal or informal networks, friends of the child or family, former foster parents, or other persons known to the child. The search period shall extend through the first six (6) months following removal from home. The search shall be conducted and documented in at least 85% of the cases.
Definitions and Clarifications: 1. Temporary placement with relatives to whom the child is emotionally attached and who can ensure the child's safety may be the most desirable arrangement.
2. Placement with a relative or non-relative caretaker with whom the child is familiar requires the completion of an assessment for a relative licensure, independent license or special study license.
3. "Search for Relative...." as it pertains to this outcome measure is primarily for the purpose ofplacement. It may also include a search for visiting resources, respite or other supportive purpose.
4. As indicated, "The search period shall extend through the first six (6) months following removal from home." However, case practice should be encouraged to initiate a search prior to removal, when the worker is initially assessing the family's strengths; upon determining removal may be eminent; and continuously from that point forward as changes in the family circumstances warrant.
5. The search should be documented and updated utilizing the new LINK capabilities at frequent intervals.
Measurements to be used by the Monitor: 1. The Monitor shall determine if this outcome has been achieved through DCF quarterly outcome reports. a. The universe includes all children entering out of home during each quarter of measurement from January 1,2004 forward, except for those children in out of home care under the voluntary services program. Until such time that the LINK system is available to produce reports on the full universe, the QID will incorporate this outcome measure into its quarterly case review process and report on those cases falling into this universe of clients. b. Quarterly reporting is due to the Monitor's Office no later than 45 days from the close of each quarter. Initial reporting is expected August 15, 2004.
Page 12 of36

Revised Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) July 1,2004
2. The Monitor shall find that DCF has complied with this outcome measure when DCF has documented this outcome measure for two (2) consecutive quarters, maintains compliance through exit from this action, and the Monitor has verified compliance with this measure. The Department must achieve sustained compliance with all 22 Outcome Measures prior to requesting the verification process outlined in the Introduction of this document (Bullet 5).
I
-)
I
I I
I
-I
Page 13 of36

Revised Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) July 1,2004
Outcome Measure 5: Repeat Maltreatment of Children No more than 7% of the children who are victims of substantiated maltreatment during any six-month period shall be the substantiated victims of additional maltreatment during any subsequent six-month period. This outcome shall begin to be measured within the six-month period beginning January 1,2004.
Measurements to be used by the Monitor: 1. The Monitor shall determine ifthis outcome has been achieved through a LINK six-month outcome report. a. The universe includes all children for which there is a substantiation of abuse or neglect in the biological, adoptive or guardian home during each six-month period4 beginning January 1,2004 forward. b. Semi-annual reporting is due to the Monitor's Office no later than 45 days from the close of each reporting period. Initial reporting is expected February 15,2005. 2. The Monitor shall find that DCF has complied with this outcome measure when DCF has documented this outcome measure in LINK for one (1) six (6) month period and maintains compliance through exit from this action, and the Monitor has verified compliance with this measure. The Department must achieve sustained compliance with all 22 Outcome Measures prior to requesting the verification process outlined in the Introduction of this document (Bullet 5).
4 Slight Deviation Noted: The DCF Information Systems Division has advised that the measurement will be consistent with the federal reporting requirements for repeat maltreatment, and will use a range of 8 to 183 day timeframe rather than 6 calendar months from the date ofthe 1st substantiation in the reporting period.
Page 14 of 36

Revised Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) July 1,2004

Outcome Measure 6: Maltreatment of Children in Out-of-Home Care
No more than 2% of the children in out-of-home care on or after January 1,2004 shall be the victims of substantiated maltreatment by substitute caregivers while in out-ofhome care.

Definitions and Clarifications: 1. Maltreatment by parents or guardians while the child is in out-of-home care is not counted for the purpose of this measurement.

!
I

2. Regulatory violations are not considered substantiations, and shall be handled as

I

specified in DCF policy.

Measurements to be used by the Monitor: 1. The Monitor shall determine if this outcome has been achieved through LINK quarterly outcome reports. a. The universe for this outcome measure includes all children in out of home care (including those in voluntary placement) during each reporting quarter from January 1,2004 forward. b. Quarterly reporting is due to the Monitor's Office no later than 45 days from the close of each quarter. Initial reporting is expected May 15, 2004.

2. The Monitor shall find that DCF has complied with this outcome measure when DCF has documented this outcome measure in LINK for two (2) consecutive quarters, maintains compliance through exit from this action, and the Monitor has verified compliance with this measure. The Department must achieve sustained compliance with all 22 Outcome Measures prior to requesting the verification process outlined in the Introduction of this document (Bullet 5).

Page 15 of36

Revised Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 eARN) July 1,2004
Outcome Measure 7: Reunification At least 60% of all children who are reunified with their parents or guardians shall be reunified within 12 months of their most recent removal from the child's home. Measurements to be used by the Monitor:
1. DCF shall report quarterly on the number of children who are reunified, and what percentage of those, were reunified within 12 months ofthe child's removal from hislher home. a. The universe for this population will consist of all children reunified (excluding voluntary service cases) during any given quarter beginning January 1,2004 onward. b. Quarterly reporting is due to the Monitor's Office no later than 45 days from the close of each quarter. Initial reporting is expected November 15,2004.
2. The Monitor shall fmd that DCF has complied with this outcome measure when DCF has documented this outcome measure for two (2) consecutive quarters, maintains compliance through exit from this action, and the Monitor has verified compliance with this measure. The Department must achieve sustained compliance with all 22 Outcome Measures prior to requesting the verification process outlined in the Introduction of this document (Bullet 5).
Page 16 of36

Revised Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) July 1,2004

I

Outcome Measure 8: Adoption

·1

At least 32% of the children who are adopted shall have their adoptions finalized within

.1

24 months ofthe child's most recent removal from hislher home.

I

Measurements to be used by the Monitor: 1. DCF shall report quarterly on the number of children who are adopted, and what percentage of those are adopted within 24 months of the child's removal from hislher home. a. The universe for this population will consist of all children adopted during any given quarter beginning January 1,2004 onward. b. Quarterly reporting is due to the Monitor's Office no later than 45 days from the close of each quarter. Initial reporting is expected May 15, 2004.

2. The Monitor shall fmd that DCF has complied with this outcome measure when DCF has documented this outcome measure for two (2) consecutive quarters, maintains compliance through exit from this action, and the Monitor has verified compliance with the measure. The Department must achieve sustained compliance with all 22 Outcome Measures prior to requesting the verification process outlined in the Introduction of this document (Bullet 5).

Page 17 of36

Revised Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) July 1,2004
Outcome Measure 9: Transfer of Guardianship At least 70% of all children, whose custody is legally transferred, shall have their guardianship transferred within 24 months of the child's most recent removal from their home.
Measurements to be used by the Monitor: 1. DCF shall report quarterly on the number of children whose guardianship is legally transferred, and what percentage of those was legally transferred within 24 months ofthe child's removal from their home. a. The universe for this population will consist of all children for which there was a transfer of guardianship during any given quarter beginning January 1, 2004 onward. b. Quarterly reporting is due to the Monitor's Office no later than 45 days from the close of each quarter. Initial reporting is expected May 15,2004. 2. The Monitor shall fmd that DCF has complied with this outcome measure when DCF has documented this outcome measure for two (2) consecutive quarters, maintains compliance through exit from this action, and the Monitor has verified compliance with this measure. The Department must achieve sustained compliance with all 22 Outcome Measures prior to requesting the verification process outlined in the Introduction of this document (Bullet 5).
Page 18 of36

Revised Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) July 1,2004
Outcome Measure 10: Sibling Placement
At least 95% of the siblings entering out-of-home placement shall be placed together unless there are documented therapeutic reasons for separate placements.
Definitions and Clarifications: 1. Therapeutic reasons include such things but are not limited to situations where siblings are placed with multiple relatives, one (1) sibling requires hospitalization and others do not, one (1) sibling requires detention, or where siblings were abused by another sibling, etc. The therapeutic reason the siblings must be placed apart shall be documented in LINK by the DCF supervisor.
2. "Siblings" are defmed as at least two children who share, at minimum, one biological or adoptive parent, or who reside in the home and have relationship through parents/guardians who have an adult legal relationship (i.e. step-siblings).
3. The universe of siblings is limited to children under the custody ofDCF with a legal status of "OTC", "committed" or "commitment-dual". TPR children are excluded from this universe of children.
4. "Placement" relates to the coinciding initial outof home placement and subsequent placement changes of sibling groups on or after January 1, 2004.
5. Partial compliance (i.e. two children together, with one in another resource without a documented therapeutic reason) does not achieve the standard. This is an all or nothing measurement.
6. The enhanced LINK monitoring system uses the term "clinical reasons". For our purpose, the defmition of clinical reasons is consistent with the term "therapeutic reasons" above. "Non-clinical reasons" would be those reasons related to lack of resource; time of placement (i.e. after hours), size of sibling group, or other reason not related to the clinical/therapeutic needs ofthe children.
Measurements to be used by the Monitor: 1. DCF shall report quarterly on this outcome measure. Once LINK enhancements are in place to report on this measure, the percentage will be determined by averaging the three (3) months in each quarter. Prior to that period, the Quality Improvement Division will include questions related to this measure in their quarterly review process. a. The universe for Outcome Measure 10 includes all siblings entering out of home care on or after January 1,2004. Voluntary placement cases, and children with a legal status of TPR will be excluded. Until such time that the LINK system is available to produce reports on the full universe, the QID will incorporate this outcome measure into its quarterly case review process and report on those cases falling into this universe of clients.
Page 190f36

Revised Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) July 1,2004

.1 i

Subsequent sibling placement changes occurring after January 1,2004 will

also be captured and reported.

b. Quarterly reporting is due to the Monitor's Office no later than 45 days

from the close of each quarter. Initial reporting is expected August 15,

2004.

2. The Monitor shall [md that DCF has complied with this outcome measure when DCF has documented this outcome measure for two (2) consecutive quarters, maintains compliance through exit from this action, and the Monitor has verified compliance with this measure. The Department must achieve sustained compliance with all 22 Outcome Measures prior to requesting the verification process outlined in the Introduction of this document (Bullet 5).

Page 20 of36

Revised Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (ARN) July 1,2004
Outcome Measure 11: Re-Entry into DCF Custody Of all children who enter DCF custody, seven (7)% or fewer shall have re-entered care within 12 months of the prior out-of-home placement. Measurements to be used by the Monitor:
1. The Monitor shall determine if this outcome has been achieved through LINK quarterly reports. The percentage will be determined by averaging the three (3) months in each quarter. a. The universe for Outcome Measure 11 includes all children entering out of home care (excluding voluntary services placements) during each quarter on or after January 1, 2004. b. Quarterly reporting is due to the Monitor's Office no later than 45 days from the close of each quarter. Due to the LINK logic required to report on this outcome measure a six-month lag time is required. Initial reporting is expected November 15,2004.
2. The Monitor shall fmd that DCF has complied with this outcome measure when DCF has documented this outcome measure in LINK for two (2) consecutive quarters, maintains compliance through exit from this action, and the Monitor has verified compliance with this measure. The Department must achieve sustained compliance with all 22 Outcome Measures prior to requesting the verification process outlined in the Introduction of this document (Bullet 5).
Page 21 of36

Revised Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) July 1,2004

Outcome Measure 12: Multiple Placements
Beginning on January 1, 2004, at least 85% of the children in DCF custody shall experience no more than three (3) placements during any 12-month period.

Definitions: 1. This includes Safe Home placements but excludes respite, hospitalizations of less than seven (7) days, home visits, runaways or children sent to the Connecticut Juvenile Training School.

Measurements to be used by the Monitor: 1. The Monitor shall determine if this outcome has been achieved through LINK quarterly reports. The percentage will be determined by averaging the three (3) months in each quarter. a. The universe for Outcome Measure 12 includes all children in out of home placement (excluding voluntary service placements) on or after January 1, 2004. b. Quarterly reporting is due to the Monitor's Office no later than 45 days from the close of each quarter. Initial reporting on the annual cycle indicated in the outcome measure above is expected May 15,2005.

2. The Monitor shall find that DCF has complied with this outcome measure when

DCF has documented this outcome measure in LINK for two (2) consecutive

quarters, maintains compliance through exit from this action, and the Monitor has

.,

verified compliance with this measure. The Department must achieve sustained

compliance with all 22 Outcome Measures prior to requesting the verification

process outlined in the Introduction of this document (Bullet 5).

Page 22 of36

Revised Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) July 1,2004
Outcome Measure 13: Foster Parent Training Licensed DCF foster or pre-adoptive parents shall be offered 45 hours of post-licensing training within 18 months of initial licensure and at least 9 hours each subsequent year. This measure does not apply to relative, special study or independently licensed foster parents for whom 9 hours of pre-service training are required.
Definitions: 1. The Department will ensure that all modules requiring social worker attendance are attended by social workers. The Department will also hold training sessions near foster parents, offer daycare, night and weekend training sessions and other inducements to make it likely that foster parents can attend the training. Attendance at training will be a factor considered in licensure or re-licensure of foster parents. 2. Training shall be offered in the primary language of the foster parents.
Measurements to be used by the Monitor: 1. The Department must report aggregate quarterly training schedules and sessions held for each of the modules, for each of the area offices. For those modules that require worker participation, the name and title of that individual should be identified. Language of training must also be indicated. 2. In addition to the aggregate reports, this outcome measure will also be monitored via FASU Support worker documentation of the training offered using the LINK Provider maintenance and narrative screens. This documentation will provide the necessary verification of course offerings, and language requirement via case review in 2005 and 2006. 3. The Monitor shall fmd that DCF has complied with this outcome measure when DCF has documented this outcome measure for two (2) consecutive quarters, maintains compliance through exit from this action, and the Monitor has verified compliance with this measure.
Page 23 of36

Revised Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (ARN) July 1,2004
Outcome Measure 14: Placement Within Licensed Capacity At least 96% of all children placed in foster homes shall be in foster homes operating within their licensed capacity, except when necessary to accommodate sibling groups.
Definitions and Clarifications: 1. The placement ofthe sibling group must be the cause of the overcapacity to allow the exception and this must be documented in LINK. Homes already overcapacity at the time of sibling placement will not be allowed an exception. 2. "Siblings" are defined as at least two children who share, at minimum, one biological or adoptive parent, or who reside in the home and have relationship through parents/guardians who have an adult legal relationship (i.e. step siblings).
Measurements to be used by the Monitor: 1. The Monitor shall determine ifthis outcome has been achieved through LINK quarterly reports. The percentage will be determined by averaging the three (3) months in each quarter. a. The universe for Outcome Measure 14 includes all children in foster home placement (both DCF and private provider) during each quarter beginning January 1, 2004 forward. b. Quarterly reporting is due to the Monitor's Office no later than 45 days from the close of each quarter. Initial reporting is expected May 15, 2004. 2. The Monitor shall fmd that DCF has complied with this outcome measure when DCF has documented this outcome measure in LINK for two (2) consecutive quarters, maintains compliance through exit from this action, and the Monitor has verified compliance with this measure. The Department must achieve sustained compliance with all 22 Outcome Measures prior to requesting the verification process outlined in the Introduction of this document (Bullet 5).
Page 24 of36

Revised Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) July 1,2004 (as modified June 29, 2006)
Outcome Measure 15: Children's Needs Met At least 80% of all families and children shall have all their medical, dental, mental heath and other service needs met as set forth in the "DCF Court Monitor's 2006 Protocol for Outcome Measures 3 and IS" dated June 29, 2006, and the accompanying "Directional Guide for OM3 and OM15 Reviews" dated June 29, 2006.
. 1
Page 25 of36

Revised Juan F Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) July 1,2004 (as modified June 29, 2006)

I

I

This Page Has Been

Intentionally Left Blank

I

Page 26 of36

Revised Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (ARN) July 1,2004
Outcome Measure 16: Worker-Child Visitation (Out-of-Home)
DCF shall visit at least 85% of all out-of-home children at least once a month, except for probate, interstate or voluntary cases. All children must be seen by their DCF social worker at least quarterly.
Definitions and Clarifications: 1. Children in out-of-home placement, pre-adoptive placements, and therapeutic foster home placements can be visited by other social workers (ICPC or private agency) if the visit is at least once a calendar month and a report documenting the substantive content of the visit is sent to DCF and entered into LINK.
2. These requirements are minimal, especially for younger children who are most vulnerable to maltreatment. Such children shall be visited more frequently and this shall be documented in LINK.
Measurement to be used by the Monitor: 1. DCF shall report quarterly on this outcome measure. The percentage will be determined by averaging the three (3) months in each quarter. a. The universe is all children in out of home care during each quarter beginning January 1,2004 (excluding probate, interstate and voluntary cases for the monthly measurement) b. Quarterly reporting is due to the Monitor's Office no later than 45 days from the close of each calendar quarter. Initial reporting is expected May 15,2004.
2. There are two LINK reporting formats in this outcome measure. The measure calls for all children in out of home care to be seen at least quarterly by DCF staff, and 85% to be seen monthly by either DCF staff or ICPC/private provider social workers. Therefore the logic would be applied independently: a. What percentage of children placed are seen on a monthly basis by DCF/ICPC/private agency social workers? b. What percentage of children in placement, regardless of where that placement is geographically, has been seen in the last quarter by his/her DCF worker?
3. The Monitor shall find that DCF has complied with this outcome measure when DCF has documented this outcome measure for two (2) consecutive quarters, maintains compliance through exit from this action, and the Monitor has verified compliance with this measure. The Department must achieve sustained compliance with all 22 Outcome Measures prior to requesting the verification process outlined in the Introduction of this document (Bullet 5).
Page 27 of36

Revised Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) July 1,2004
Outcome Measure 17: Worker-Child Visitation (In-Home) DCF shall visit at least 85% of all in-home family cases at least twice a month, except for probate, interstate or voluntary cases.
Definitions and Clarifications: 1. Twice monthly visitation must be documented with each active child participant in the case. Visitation occurring in the home, school or other community setting will be considered fot Outcome Measure 17.
Measurement to be used by the Monitor: 1. DCF shall report quarterly on this outcome measure. The percentage will be determined by averaging the three (3) months in each quarter. a. The universe for Outcome Measure 17 is all children active within inhome family cases (excluding probate, interstate and voluntary services cases) during each quarter beginning January 1,2004 onward. b. Quarterly reporting is due to the Monitor's Office no later than 45 days from the close of each calendar quarter. Initial reporting is expected May 15,2004. 2. The Monitor shall find that DCF has complied with this outcome measure when DCF has documented this outcome measure for two (2) consecutive quarters, maintains compliance through exit from this action, and the Monitor has verified compliance with this measure.
Page 28 of36

Revised Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) July 1,2004

Outcome Measure 18: Caseload Standards

By July 1, 2004 the caseload of no DCF social worker shall exceed the following

caseload standards, with exceptions for emergency reasons on caseloads, lasting no

more than 30 days:

A. Investigators shall have no more than 17 investigative cases at any time.

B. In-Home treatment workers shall have no more than 15 cases at any time.

C. Out-of-Home treatment workers shall have no more than 20 individual

children assigned to them at any time. This includes voluntary placements.

D. Adoption and adolescent specialty workers shall have no more than 20 cases

at any time.

E. Probate workers shall have no more than 35 cases at any time. When the

probate or interstate worker is also assigned to provide services to the

family, those families shall be counted as in home treatment cases with a

ratio of 1:20 cases.

F. Social workers with in-home voluntary and interstate compact cases shall

1
·1

have no more than 49 cases at any time.

I

G. A worker with a mixed caseload shall not exceed the maximum weighted

caseload derived from the caseload standards in A through F above.

H. These standards supercede those of Order No. 441 dated July 29, 2003.

Measurements to be used by the Monitor: 1. The Monitor shall determine if this outcome has been achieved through LINK daily reports. a. The universe for this outcome measure is all caseload carrying DCF social workers and social worker trainees during each quarter beginning January 1,2004 onward. b. Quarterly reporting is due to the Monitor's Office no later than 45 days from the close of each calendar quarter. Initial reporting is expected May 15,2004.
2. The Monitor shall fmd that DCF has complied with this outcome measure when DCF has documented this outcome measure in LINK for two (2) consecutive quarters, maintains compliance through exit from this action, and the Monitor has verified compliance with this measure. The Department must achieve sustained compliance with all 22 Outcome Measures prior to requesting the verification process outlined in the Introduction of this document (Bullet 5).

Page 29 of36

Revised Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN)
July 1,2004

Outcome Measure 19: Reduction in the Number of Children Placed in Residential Care

The number of children placed in privately operated residential treatment care shall not

I

exceed 11% of the total number of children in DCF out-of-home care.

. 1

The circumstances of all children in-state and out-of-state residential facilities shall be assessed after the Court's approval of this Exit Plan on a child specific basis to determine if their needs can be met in a less restrictive setting. The placement of any additional children out-of-state after the approval of this plan shall require the approval of the Transition Task Force.

Definitions and Clarifications: 1. Residential treatment facilities are 24-hour mental health facilities, which operate for the purpose of effecting positive change and normal growth and development for emotionally disturbed, behavioral disordered and socially maladjusted youth. Children are referred through a holistic treatment plan involving DCF staff and mental health professionals. Target Population: seriously emotionally disturbed children up to age 18. State operated facilities; stand-alone group homes, Safe Homes, and juvenile justice 24-hour facilities are not included in this measure.

Measurements to be used by the Monitor:

1. DCF will report on the number of children in in-state and out-of-state residential

facilities in addition to the number of new admissions and discharges from

residential facilities on a quarterly basis.

a. The universe for Outcome Measure 19 will be all children5 in in-state and

out-of-state residential facilities.

b. DCF should identify the following groups of children in residential care to

generate a more accurate portrayal of children who are eligible for less

restrictive settings:

1. Children for whom mental retardation levels require facility care

until child may pass into the adult DMR system,

11. Children in facilities via voluntary placement per the request of

parent,

111. Children for whom mental health levels require facility care until

child may pass into the adult DMHAS system, and

I

·1 !

IV. Children with medically complex status requiring intensive facility

settings through transition to adult facility care

The Monitor may take this additional information into account when

determining compliance with Outcome Measure 19.

c. Quarterly reporting is due to the Monitor's Office no later than 45 days

from the close of each calendar quarter. Initial reporting is expected July

15,2004.

5 The Court Monitor reserves the right to grant exceptions on an individual child basis when deemed appropriate.
Page 30 of36

Revised Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) July 1,2004
2. DCF will report on its aggregate assessments of the needs of all children placed residentially sorted by in state and out-of-state. a. The universe for Outcome Measure 19 will be all children in in-state and out-of-state residential facilities. b. DCF should identify the following groups of children in residential care to generate a more accurate portrayal of children who are eligible for less restrictive settings: 1. Children for whom mental retardation levels require facility care until child may pass into the adult DMR system, 11. Children in facilities via voluntary placement per the request of parent, lll. Children for whom mental health levels require facility care until child may pass into the adult DMHAS system, and IV. Children with medically complex status requiring intensive facility settings through transition to adult facility care c. Quarterly reporting is due to the Monitor's Office no later than 45 days from the close of each calendar quarter. Initial reporting is expected August 15, 2004.
3. The Monitor shall find that DCF has complied with this outcome measure when DCF has documented this outcome measure for two (2) consecutive quarters, maintains compliance through exit from this action, and the Monitor has verified compliance with this measure. The Department must achieve sustained compliance with all 22 Outcome Measures prior to requesting the verification process outlined in the Introduction of this document (Bullet 5).
Page310f36

Revised Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (ARN) July 1,2004

Outcome Measure 20: Discharge Measures
At least 85 % of all children age 18 or older shall have achieved one or more of the following prior to discharge from DCF custody:
A. Graduation from High School B. Acquisition of aGED C. Enrollment in or completion of college or other post secondary training
program full-time. D. Enrollment in college or other post secondary training program part-time
with part-time employment. E. Full-time Employment F. Enlistment full-time member of the military

·1

DefInitions and ClarifIcations:

1. "Adolescent Discharge Plan" is the written working document between the youth,

service providers and the DCF, developed at least 180 days prior to the youth's

anticipated discharge from the Department's care. Items to be documented should

include, but are not limited to: estimated date youth will leave DCF care; the

youth's anticipated living arrangement at that juncture, an estimated budget,

sources and amount of income/assets; assistance to be provided by DCF, schedule

for worker/youth visitation, any other plans or agencies' assistance to facilitate the

youth's discharge from DCF care, and to facilitate their ability to maintain

permanency post discharge.

2. Those youth, upon reaching the age of majority and who refuse continued DCF services against the advice and treatment plan goals of the Department, shall be documented and reported separately. Once the total ofthis subcategory is calculated, this population will be subtracted from the universe studied for Outcome Measure 20.
3. Those youth with signifIcant or profound developmental delays, or who have been diagnosed with signifIcant anomalies or mental retardation levels that preclude attainment of Outcome Measure 20 will be identified and excluded from this universe. Performance will be measured for this youth group via Outcome Measure 21.

Page 32 of36

Revised Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) July 1,2004

Measurements to be used by the Monitor:

1. The Monitor shall determine if this outcome has been achieved through quarterly

outcome reports. Initial reports will be provided via sample case review

conducted by the Quality Improvement Division. LINK reporting on the universe

population will be implemented by December 2004. DCF is required to report

quarterly on the barriers to meeting this measure.

a. The universe is all youth discharged from care each quarter beginning on

January 1,2004 forward (excluding Probate, Interstate and Voluntary

Services6 cases).

b. Subcategory populations indicated in bullets #2 and #3 above shall be

documented and reported separately from the remaining discharge

population when determining final performance percentage for Outcome

Measure 20.

I

c. The Department should report on those children who had not achieved any of the required measures at discharge, but who were in the active process

I

of doing so. Specifically: youth attending high school or GED classes

i

and/or holding part time employment at point of discharge.

d. Quarterly reporting is due to the Monitor's Office no later than 45 days

from the close of each calendar quarter. Initial reporting is expected May

15,2004.

2. The Monitor shall find that DCF has complied with this outcome measure when DCF has documented attainment ofthis outcome measure in LINK for two (2) consecutive quarters, maintains compliance through exit from this action, and the Monitor has verified with this measure. The Department must achieve sustained compliance with all 22 Outcome Measures prior to requesting the verification process outlined in the Introduction of this document (Bullet 5).
i
I

6 Clarification: Voluntary Services as indicated above refers to those cases in which a parenti guardian requests Departmental services and support for their child, usually as a result of the child being impaired by an emotional, behavioral, or mental health disturbance or disorder. It does not apply to youth over the age of 18 who are required to sign a service agreement form to continue services from the Department, and, therefore, are in effect "voluntary clients" as they may choose to terminate services at any point.
Page 33 of36

Revised Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) July 1,2004
Outcome Measure 21: Discharge of Mentally III or Retarded Children
DCF shall submit a written discharge plan to either/or DMHAS or DMR for all children who are mentally ill or mentally retarded and require adult services.
Definitions and Clarification: 1. The written discharge plan referenced above is the "Adolescent Discharge Plan". This is the written working document between the youth, service providers and the DCF, developed at least 180 days prior to the youth's anticipated discharge from the Department's care. Items to be documented should include, but are limited to: estimated date youth will leave DCF care; the youth's anticipated living arrangement at that juncture, an estimated budget, sources and amount of income/assets; assistance to be provided by DCF, schedule for worker/youth visitation, any other plans or agencies' assistance to facilitate the youth's discharge from DCF care, and to facilitate their ability to maintain permanency post discharge. • Adult Services should be continued within the community that the transitioning client is located at the point of discharge to minimize disruptions in treatment.
2. DCF Policy 42-20-35 states: Interagency coordination shall be requiredfor youth in the following situations: • DCF and the Department ofMental Health and Addiction Services shall coordinate for Department youth who are: o in residential care due to mental health issues and require further treatment o on psychotropic medication and are entering the community mental health system or o in need ofcontinuing clinical services. • DCF and the Department ofMental Retardation shall coordinate for Department youth who are: o in residential care due to mental retardation and require continued care after DCF discharge o leaving DCF care whose diagnostic assessment/evaluation meets DMR minimum eligibility criteria.
3. Additionally, referrals to DMHAS and/or DMR will be made only for those children or adolescents who are committed to DCF or who are dually committed, or who have been accepted into the DCF Voluntary Services Program and who meet the promulgated eligibility criteria to receive services from DMR or DMHAS as specified below: • For DMR, mental retardation is defined in the Connecticut General Statutes as significantly sub average general intellectual functioning
Page 34 of36

Revised Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (ARN) July 1,2004
existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior, which are manifested during the developmental period.
• For DMHAS, eligibility is limited to those individuals who have a severe and persistent major mental illness (such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder) of sufficient degree and duration that the provision of ongoing public-sector behavioral health services is necessitated. Individuals with a primary diagnosis of mental retardation andlor autistic spectrum disorder
anJor other developmental disorder do not meet the eligibility criteria of
DMHAS and it is expected that referrals to DMHAS will not be made for said individuals. Measurements to be used by the Monitor: 1. The Monitor shall determine if this outcome has been achieved through quarterly outcome reports. The Quality Improvement Division will provide initial reports via case review. DCF is required to report quarterly on the barriers to meeting this measure. a. The universe is all children discharged from care and requiring adult services on or after January 1,2004 (excluding probate, interstate and voluntary cases) b. Quarterly reporting is due to the Monitor's Office no later than 45 days from the close of each calendar quarter. Initial reporting is expected May 15,2004.
2. The Monitor shall find that DCF has complied with this outcome measure when DCF has documented this outcome measure in LINK for two (2) consecutive quarters, maintains compliance through exit from this action, and the Monitor has verified with this measure. The Department must achieve sustained compliance with all 22 Outcome Measures prior to requesting the verification process outlined in the Introduction ofthis document (Bullet 5).
Page 35 of36

Revised Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN) July 1,2004

Outcome Measure 22: Multi-disciplinary Exams (MDE)
At least 85% of the children entering the custody of DCF for the first time shall have an MDE conducted within 30 days of placement.

Definitions and Clarifications: 1. A written report documenting the results of the MDE is due toDCF before treatment planning conference.

2. The MDE is not required for children entering care from hospital settings of greater than 7 days, in which age appropriate medical and mental health evaluations have been documented in LINK.

3. All cases of children in care greater than 30 days should have a multi-disciplinary

.[

examination completed for use in case planning, even if one cannot be completed

and reported to DCF for inclusion in the initial treatment planning conference.

Specific to this requirement:

a. The requirement for MDE applies only in those cases in which a child or

youth has entered care for the first time, and that placement exceeds 30

days. Therefore, the universe for Outcome Measure 22 will exclude all

children in placement for less than 30 days on the date of measurement.

b. As a measure of good practice, if a prior placement episode ended in less

I

than 30 days with no documented MDE (or there is no evidence of an

I '1

MDE in a prior placement episode lasting greater than 30 days) the worker

may initiate the MDE process as ifthe most recent placement were an

initial placement.

Measurements to be used by the Monitor:

1. Until such time that LINK enhancements are realized, the quarterly reporting will be based upon current LINK capabilities.7

3. The Monitor shall find that DCF has complied with this outcome measure when DCF has documented this outcome measure in LINK for two (2) consecutive quarters, maintains compliance through exit from this action, and the Monitor has verified with this measure. The Department must achieve sustained compliance with all 22 Outcome Measures prior to requesting the verification process outlined in the Introduction of this document (Bullet 5).

7 The Monitor acknowledges that a slight over reporting ofthe number ofMDE's not completed in a timely manner may occur during this initial reporting period due to the additional exception codes that will not be present.
Page 36 of36

Appendix: Research Questions, Logic, Measurement Elements and Identified Variables for Revised Exit Plan of July 1,2004

Outcome Measure 1: Commencement of Investigation
DCF shall assure that at least 90% of all reports of children alleged to be abused, or neglected, shall be prioritized, assigned and the investigation shall commence within the timeframes specified below.
If the report of child abuse or neglect is determined by the DCF Hotline to be... A. A situation in which failure to respond immediately could result in the death of, or
serious injury to a child, then the response time for commencing an investigation is the same calendar day Hotline accepts the report.
B. A non-life threatening situation that is severe enough to warrant a 24 hour response to secure the safety of the child and to access the appropriate and available witnesses, then the response time for commencing an investigation is 24 hours.
c. A non-life threatening situation that, because of the age or condition of the child, the
response time for commencing an investigation is 72 hours.

Case Review is not required to verify compliance status with this measure. LINK Reporting will be used to capture compliance with the timing requirement for commencement of investigations. Initial quarterly reporting will be available August 15,2004. The logic established by the DCF to be used by the LINK system to capture this measurement is in the process of development based upon pending changes indicated belowI :

Commencement ofInvestigation:

I

Currently pending changes to existing LINKfunctions.

I . i

Modifications to be made in phase one (Summer 2004) are:

• Removal of "Extension" button andfunctionality

• Addition ofResponse time information button

• Change in layout ofthe LINK window to include Response

Time Compliance information, as well as the current

Commencement date, and the new Commencement Time

fields.

• LINK e-help to provide guidance and nuances related to

Compliance Time Frames.

1 Documentation taken directly from the LINK Modifications to Support Juan F. Exit Outcomes Presentation of April 13, 2004.
2

Outcome Measure 2: Completion of the Investigation
At least 85% of all reports of alleged child maltreatment accepted by the DCF Hotline shall have their investigations completed within 45 calendar days of acceptance by the Hotline.
Case Review is not required to verify compliance status with the quantitative requirement for this measure. LINK Reporting will be used to capture compliance with the timing requirement for completion of investigations within 45 days. The logic established by the DCF to be used by the LINK system to capture this measurement is provided below2:
Investigation Completion Data Source: LINK
A query ofthe LINK database will be conducted to determine all investigations completed during the period. For each investigation completed during the period, the CPS report accept date will be subtractedfrom the investigation completion date to determine the number ofdays the investigation was open. (Completion ofthe Investigation occurs when a Supervisor Approves the Investigation in LINK).
In addtion, a qualitative review shall be conducted by the Monitor's Office on the first two quarters of practice during 2005 (report produced September 2005) and 2006 (report produced September 2006). A review process will also be initiated at the point ofDCF assertion of compliance with the 22 outcomes. At these junctures, the following research questions will provide the basis for data collection and analysis:
1. Did the investigation commence within the stated time frame established at the Hotline?
2. Was an additional report accepted and merged with seven days of the initial accepted report?
3. Were any additional reports accepted after seven days from initial acceptance, but prior to the completion of that investigation?
4. Was the investigation completed in 45 days from acceptance at Hotline? 5. Was the initial investigation interview with the alleged perpetrator and
identified family members conducted in their primary language? 6. Was the investigation conducted per policy with adherence to the
required protocol DCF 2074: with all identified case participants interviewed, all required collateral contacts made, (or documentation provided for the social worker's inability to contact) and all safety factors, and needs assessed? 7. Were services identified to maintain a child in the home where applicable?
2 On-Line LINK reporting documentation taken directly from the DCF LINK Reports:Outcomes for Children "Report Source". May be subject to enhancement changes through December 2004.
3

8. If applicable, was the alleged perpetrator asked to leave the home so that the child (ren) could be maintained in the home during the course of investigation?
9. Did the investigator document hislher attempts to identifY relative resources through the course of interview with the family members in the event that removal would be required?
10. Were identified services provided to maintain a child in the home where applicable?
11. Did the SWS document hislher discussion with the investigator related .to the investigation assessment and subsequent findings of substantiated/non-substantiated abuse or neglect?
12. Was the lO-day treatment plan developed by the Social Worker to document any family service needs and identifY subsequent referrals to community providers in order to address those needslbuild upon strengths?
The case review tool will be developed by December 2004 to meet the data collection needs of the research questions above. This will allow the Department to make any desired changes to protocol and policy prior to measurement of qualitative performance.
4

Outcome Measure 3: Treatment Plans In at least 90% of the cases, except probate, interstate, and subsidy only cases, appropriate treatment plans shall be developed as set forth in the "DCF Court Monitor's 2006 Protocol for Outcome Measures 3 and 15" dated June 29, 2006, and the accompanying "Directional Guide for OM3 and OM15 Reviews" dated June 29, 2006.
5

This Page Has Been Intentionally Left Blank
-j
I
6

1
!
This Page Has Been Intentionally Left Blank
7

Outcome Measure 4: Search for Relatives
If a child(ren) must be removed from his/her home, DCF shall conduct and document a search for maternal and paternal relatives, extended formal or informal networks, friends of the child or family, former foster parents, or other persons known to the child. The search period shall extend through the first six (6) months following removal from home. The search shall be conducted and documented in at least 85% of the cases.
Upon completion of proposed LINK enhancements in late 2004, the LINK system will be able to generate a report indicating the percentage of children for whom a social worker has documented a search for relatives for the purpose of placement, respite, visiting resource, or other supportive resource. LINK enhancements3 include the following items:
• A new Placement Resource Search window will be createdfrom the Create/Caseworkfunctionality for each child in the case.
• Development ofa new icon to lead to the Resource Search window which will include: case name, child name, removal date, a resource search question "relative resource search" question, a "no resources found check box ", and a running narrative document.
Until such time that the enhancement is tested and verified, the following research questions will be the source of information related to Outcome Measure 4.
1. If a child was removed from home on or after January 1, 2004, did any of the following occur, which documents that DCF conducted an active search for relative and/or other resources (extended formal/informal networks, friends of the child or family, former foster parents or others known to the child): a. Did the worker document his discussions with the parent/guardian regarding possible resource? b. Did the worker document his discussion with the child (if age appropriate) regarding possible resource? c. Did the search include contact with the person(s) identified as possible resource? d. Did the search include background checks on the person(s) identified as possible resource? e. Did the record indicate the reasons for DCF determination of appropriateness or non-appropriateness of the person(s) identified as possible resource? f. Was a special study request made of FASU regarding any person identified as a possible resource? g. Did the worker document that they had exhausted all identified resources, or was he successful in achieving placement known to
3 Documentation is taken from the LINK Modifications to Support Juan F. Exit Outcomes Presentation of April 13, 2004.
8

child, respite resource, visiting resource or other supportive resource for the child? h. Was the child placed with a relative or special study foster home?

Methodological Notes: The Department's Quality Improvement Division will apply these questions to a quarterly sample of cases representing all area offices.
a. The universe includes all children coming into care during each quarter beginning January 1,2004 forward. Voluntary Services Cases will be excluded from this universe.
b. Quarterly reporting is due to the Monitor's Office no later than 45 days from the close of the calendar quarter. Initial reporting is expected August 15,2004.

These questions will also be included in the joint quarterly reviews conducted by

DCF and the Court Monitor's Office. The size of the quarterly samples will not be

statistically valid but rather, are intended to provide a snapshot/indicator until such

I

time that the LINK enhancements will be available to measure quantitative

J

compliance on the full population.

Additionally, the Monitor will include these elements in the qualitative reviews to be be conducted by the Monitor's Office on a sample of all open cases identified, except probate, interstate, and subsidy only cases for the first two quarters of practice during 2005 (report produced September 2005) and 2006 (report produced September 2006). This case review process will also be initiated at the point of DCF assertion of compliance with the 22 outcomes.

9

Outcome Measure 5: Repeat Maltreatment of Children
No more than 7% of the children who are victims of substantiated maltreatment during any six-month period shall be the substantiated victims of additional maltreatment during any subsequent six-month period. This outcome shall begin to be measured within the six-month period beginning January 1, 2004.

Case Review is not required to verify compliance status with the quantitative requirement for this measure. LINK Reporting will be used to capture compliance with the required percentage of repeat maltreatment for children in DCF involved families in the in-home caseload. The logic established by the DCF to be used by the LINK system to capture this measurement is provided below4:

Repeat Maltreatment Data Source: LINK

Every six months, the Department will determine ifthis outcome

has been achieved through applying the federal reporting logic to

· !

I

produce a six-month outcome report:

o Query the LINK database to retrieve all investigations completed during the 6-month period to then determine all associated, substantiated allegations (including type), substantiated victims and designated worker and office.
o For each substantiated victim, lookforward 8 to 183 days to
determine ifthe victim had another substantiated allegation during
the period using the CPS Report Incident Date or CPS Report
Received Date ifthere is no valid Incident Date.
o Compare the two datasets to determine the substantiated victims contained in both extracts.
o Divide the number ofrepeat victims by the number oftotal victims to determine percentage ofrepeat maltreatment.

Note: CPS Reports that contain the same child(ren) and are less than or equal to 7 days apart are considered as the same incident and would not be counted as Repeat Maltreatment should they fall into both periods of measure.

4 On-Line LINK reporting documentation taken directly from the DCF LINK Reports:Outcomes for Children "Data Mapping". May be subject to enhancement changes through December 2004.
10

Outcome Measure 6: Maltreatment of Children in Out-of-Home Care No more than 2% of the children in out-of-home care on or after January 1,2004 shall be the victims of substantiated maltreatment by substitute caregivers while in out-ofhome care.
Case Review is not required to verify compliance status with the quantitative requirement for this measure. LINK Reporting will be used to capture compliance with the percentage requirement for repeat maltreatment of children in out of home placement. The logic established by the DCF to be used by the LINK system to capture this measurement is provided below5: Neglect/Abuse in Custody
Data Source: LINK Query the LINK database to retrieve all investigations completed during the period to then determine all associated, substantiated allegations (including type), substantiated victims and the date ofthe associated reports. Query the LINK database to retrieve all Juan F Children in open placement during the period. Compare the two datasets to identify the children contained in both extracts to then compare the CPS Report date to the child's placement begin and end date. Divide the number ofchildren involved in instances where the CPS report date fell within the placement dates by the total number of Juan F Children in care during the period.
5 On-Line LINK reporting documentation taken directly from the DCF LINK Reports:Outcomes Data: "Data Mapping". May be subject to enllancement changes through December 2004.
11

Outcome Measure 7: Reunification At least 60% of all children who are reunified with their parents or guardians shall be reunified within 12 months of their most recent removal from the child's home.
Case Review is not required to verify compliance status with the quantitative requirement for this measure. LINK Reporting will be used to capture compliance with the timeliness of reunifications. The logic established by the DCF to be used by the LINK system to capture this measurement is provided below6: Reunification
Data Source: LINK Query the LINK database to retrieve all discharges from care during the period where the discharge reason is reunification (using AFCARS discharge methodology). Subtract the child's most recent removalform home date from the discharge date. Divide the number ofchildren whose length oftime to reunification was 12 months or less by the total number ofchildren reunified with their parents or primary caretakers during the period Note: There is a six-month lag beyond the end ofthe reporting period required to determine children discharged during the period. First quarter 2004 data will be available November 15, 2004.
6 On-Line LINK reporting documentation taken directly from the DCF LINK Reports:Outcomes Data "Data Mapping". May be subject to enhancement changes through December 2004.
12

Outcome Measure 8: Adoption

)

At least 32% of the children who are adopted shall have their adoptions finalized within

24 months of the child's most recent removal from his/her home.

Case Review is not required to verify compliance status with the quantitative requirement for this measure. LINK Reporting will be used to capture compliance with the timeliness ofreunifications. The logic established by the DCF to be used by the LINK system to capture this measurement is provided below7:

Adoption

Data Source: LINK Query LINK to retrieve all children who were adopted during the reporting period by determining the Effective Date ofthe Adoption Court Disposition.

I

Subtract each child's most recent removalfrom home date from the

. !

Effective date ofadoption to determine the months elapsed to

adoption.

Divide the number ofchildren adopted within 24 months ofentry into care by the total number ofchildren adopted during the reporting period

7 On-Line LINK reporting documentation taken directly from the DCF LINK Reports: Outcomes Data "Data Mapping". May be subject to enhancement changes through December 2004.
13

Outcome Measure 9: Transfer of Guardianship At least 70% of all children, whose custody is legally transferred, shall have their guardianship transferred within 24 months ofthe child's most recent removal from their home.
i
·i
Case Review is not required to verify compliance status with the quantitative requirement for this measure. LINK Reporting will be used to capture compliance with the timeliness of transfer of guardianship. The logic established by the DCF to be used by the LINK system to capture this measurement is provided below8: Transfer ofGuardianship
Data Source: LINK Query the LINK database to retrieve all instances ofa recorded Court Disposition where the effective date ofthe transfer oflegal guardianship falls within the reporting period Subtract each child's most recent removalfrom home date from the effective date ofthe transfer ofguardianship to determine the number ofmonths between removal and custody transfer. Divide the number ofchildren whose custody transfer occurred within 24 months oftheir entry in to care by the total number of children whose custody was transferred during the period
8 On-Line LINK reporting documentation taken directly from the DCF LINK Reports: Outcomes Data "Data Mapping". May be subject to enhancement changes through December 2004.
14

Outcome Measure 10: Sibling Placement
At least 95% of the siblings entering out-of-home placement shall be placed together unless there are documented therapeutic reasons for separate placements.
Upon completion of proposed LINK enhancements in late 2004, the LINK system will be able to generate a report indicating the percentage of siblings entering out of home placement who are placed together unless there are documented therapeutic reasons for separate placements. LINK enhancements9 include a new pop up window documenting sibling placement information and both therapeutic/clinical reasons and non-clinical reasons for separation where applicable.
Until such time that the enhancement is tested and verified, the following research questions will be the source of information related to Outcome Measure 10.
1. To what extent are siblings entering out of home placement placed together when there is no documented therapeutic reason (term used in LINK will be "clinical reason") for the separation ofthe sibling group? (Elements a-fbelow) a. Was the child a member of a sibling group in which one or more siblings were removed from the home and required DCF placement? b. Were all siblings removed during this incident, placed together? c. Were all siblings placed initially in a Safe Home setting together and then moved to other placements separately or together? d. If the siblings entered placements that did not accommodate all siblings in the group, was there a therapeutic reason for the separation of siblings? e. If initial placement did not maintain the sibling group, and barring any documented therapeutic reasons for separation, were siblings reunited into one placement location? f. As of the date of this review, is the sibling group placed together?
Methodological Notes: The QID will apply these questions to a quarterly sample of cases representing all area offices.
a. The universe from which the sample will be drawn will include all children entering care each quarter beginning January 1,2004 forward. Voluntary cases will be excluded, as will children with a legal status of TPR.
9 Documentation taken from the LINK Modifications to Support Juan F. Exit Outcomes Presentation of April 13, 2004.
15

b. Quarterly reporting is due to the Monitor's Office no later than 45 days from the close of each calendar quarter. Initial reporting is expected August 15, 2004.
The size of the quarterly samples will not be statistically valid but rather, are intended to provide a snapshot/indicator until such time that the LINK enhancements will be available to measure quantitative compliance on the full population. These questions will also be included in applicable cases sampled via the joint quarterly reviews conducted by DCF and the Court Monitor's Office. Additionally, the Monitor will include these elements in the qualitative reviews to be be conducted by the Monitor's Office on a sample of all open cases identified, except probate, interstate, and subsidy only cases for the first two quarters of practice during 2005 (report produced September 2005) and 2006 (report produced September 2006). This case review process will also be initiated at the point of DCF assertion of compliance with the 22 outcomes.
16

Outcome Measure 11: Re-Entry into DCF Custody
i -

I

Of all children who enter DCF custody, seven (7)% or fewer shall have re-entered care

within 12 months of the prior out-of-home placement.

Case Review is not required to verify compliance status with the quantitative requirement for this measure. LINK Reporting will be used to capture compliance with the required percentage for re-entry into out of home care. The logic established by the DCF to be used by the LINK system to capture this measurement is provided belowlO:
Re-entry in to DCF Custody

I

Data Source: LINK

DCF will query the LINK database to retrieve all children entering care

during the period ofmeasurement.

DCF will query the LINK database to retrieve the most recent discharge
date (prior to the date ofentry in step indicated above) ifthere is any.

DCF will subtract the most recent discharge date from the entry date to determine time between discharge and re-entry.

DCF will divide the number ofchildren re-entering care within twelve months by the number ofchildren entering care during the period.

There will be a six-month lag beyond the end ofthe reporting period required to determine children discharged during the period. The first quarter 2004 report will be available October 2004.

10 On-Line LINK reporting documentation taken directly from the DCF LINK Reports: Outcomes Data "Data Mapping". May be subject to enhancement changes through December 2004.
17

Outcome Measure 12: Multiple Placements Beginning on January 1,2004, at least 85% of the children in DCF custody shall experience no more than three (3) placements during any 12-month period.
Case Review is not required to verify compliance status with the quantitative requirement for this measure. LINK Reporting using AFCARS logic will be used to capture compliance with the percentage of multiple placements requirement. The logic established by the DCF to be used by the LINK system to capture this measurement is provided below!!: Multiple Placements
Data Source: LINK Number ofPlacements is calculated by determining all children in care during the reporting period and, including the current placement, counting the number ofplacements each child has experienced during the most recent twelve months using the following criteria:
• Count the number ofplacements with different Providers. Do not count the same Provider number twice.
• Ifthe service typefor aplacement is 174 (medical) or 323
(psychiatric), only count as a placement setting ifthe length of
that placement is greater than 7 days. • Ifservice type 603 appears with a placement, it represents a
CJTS placement and is not to be counted Note: Approximately 10% ofthe children currently in placement have no Removal From Home date in LINK and, therefore, number ofplacements cannot be calculatedfor these children.
lIOn-Line LINK reporting documentation taken directly from the DCF LINK Reports: Outcomes Data "Data Mapping". May be subject to enhancement changes through December 2004.
18

Outcome Measure 13: Foster Parent Training
Licensed DCF foster or pre-adoptive parents shall be offered 45 hours of post-licensing training within 18 months of initial licensure and at least 9 hours each subsequent year. This measure does not apply to relative, special study or independently licensed foster parents for whom 9 hours of pre-service training is required.

The Department will provide quarterly aggregate reports upon which the assertion

of compliance with the requirement to offerlhold post licensure training modules

in sufficient numbers to meet foster parent needs in each of the area offices will

. ·

be determined. Quarterly reporting will begin May 15,2004. However, compliance cannot be determined until one full year has transpired to allow for

inclusion of the full spectrum ofDCF approved trainings across the state.

At such time that the Department asserts compliance with Outcome Measure 13 based upon the aggregate area office information provided quarterly, the Monitor's Office will conduct a case review on the LINK provider records to answer the following qualitative research question:

1. To what extent did the DCF offer necessary training to meet the 45- hour post licensure training requirement or 9-hour subsequent year training requirement for the non-relative DCF foster parent? (Elements a-i below) a. What was the requirement for training for this foster parent during the period of review? b. Was there documentation in LINK of the offer of training modules available to the foster parent during the time period of the review? c. Did the number of hours offered each quarter meet the stated annual require~ent for this foster parent? d. How many hours of foster parent training were documented during the period? e. Was the need for training in a language other than English a barrier to the completion of training? f. Was childcare a barrier to the completion of training? g. Was location of the training a barrier to the completion of training? h. Was training schedule a barrier to the completion of training? 1. Was the foster parent relicensed during the period of January 1, 2005 - January 1, 2006 without having completed the required DCF post-licensure training requirement?

19

Outcome Measure 14: Placement Within Licensed Capacity At least 96% of all children placed in foster homes shall be in foster homes operating within their licensed capacity, except when necessary to accommodate sibling groups.
·1
Case Review is not required to verify compliance status with the quantitative requirement for this measure. LINK Reporting will be used to capture compliance with the percentage of children placed in foster homes operating within their licensed capacity. The logic established by the DCF to be used by the LINK system to capture this measurement is provided below12: Licensed Capacity (formerly Overcrowding)
Data Source: LINK DCF will query the LINK database to retrieve Provider data for all Juan
E children in foster care placement.
Subtract the Provider's licensed bed capacityfrom the number ofactual placements open with that provider. Exempt any overcapacity placements involving sibling groups placed together where the placement caused the overcapacity to be exceeded Divide the number ofchildren placed in overcapacity homes by the number ofJuan F. children in foster care placement.
12 On-Line LINK reporting documentation taken directly from the DCF LINK Reports: Outcomes Data "Data Mapping". Modification made per conversation with Jay Anderson on May 26,2004 to ensure only foster care placements were considered, and that this includes relatives, nonrelative, special study, independent, medically fragile, private provider, therapeutic, professional parent foster homes within the state of CT. May be subject to enhancement changes through December 2004.
20

Outcome Measure 15: Children's Needs Met At least 80% of all families and children shall have all their medical, dental, mental heath and other service needs met as set forth in the "DCF Court Monitor's 2006 Protocol for Outcome Measures 3 and 15" dated June 29, 2006, and the accompanying "Directional Guide for OM3 and OM15 Reviews" dated June 29, 2006. ·1
21

I
. i
This Page Has Been Intentionally Left Blank
22

Outcome Measure 16: Worker-Child Visitation (Out-of-Home)
DCF shall visit at least 85% of all out-of-home children at least once a month, except for probate, interstate or voluntary cases. All children must be seen by their DCF social worker at least quarterly.

Case Review is required to verify compliance status with the quantitative

requirement for this measure until such time that LINK enhancements are

completed. The logic established by the DCF will be established based upon

enhancements to the LINK system as indicated belowl4:

• Current Narrative Categories will be condensed and those that are

I

to be countedfor reporting purposes will be clearly delineated

I

• A new narrative category will be addedfor Service Provider

Contact with Child (counted toward the requirementfor out of

I

state placements.

. 1
• The logic that will be applied when enhancements are realized in

LINK will result in two reports averaging each quarter's

performance as follows:

1. What percentage of children placed are seen on a monthly basis

by the DCFIICPC or private provider social worker?

2. What percentage of children in placement, regardless of where

that placement is geographically, has been seen in the last

quarter by hislher DCF worker?

• This calculation is based upon:

1. The denominator is all Juan F. children in an open placement

for at least 30 days during the period, excluding Probate,

Voluntary and leO cases.

2. The numerator is all children from the denominator who have

been visited at least once in the calendar month or calendar

quarter.

The Quality Improvement Division will include the following questions in its quarterly review data collection instruments.
1. Does the case record contain documentation that a face-to-face visit with the child in placement occurred in each calendar month of the quarter under review?
2. Did the DCF Social Worker meet with this child in person at least once during the quarter of this review?

14 Documentation is taken from the LINK Modifications to Support Juan F. Exit Outcomes Presentation of April 13,2004.
23

Methodological Notes: The Department's QID will conduct a quarterly LINK case review until such time that the LINK system can report out on the full universe of children in out of home placement.
a. The universe includes all children in out of home placement during each quarter of review beginning January 1, 2004 forward. Probate cases will be excluded.
b. Quarterly reporting is due to the Monitor's Office no later than 45 days from the close of each calendar quarter. Initial reporting is expected August 15,2004.
The size of the quarterly samples will not be statistically valid but rather, are intended to provide a snapshot/indicator until such time that the LINK enhancements will be available to measure quantitative compliance on the full population.
Additionally, a qualitative review shall be conducted by the Monitor's Office on a sample of all open cases identified, except probate, interstate, and subsidy only cases for the first two quarters of practice during 2005 (report produced September 2005) and 2006 (report produced September 2006). This case review process will also be initiated at the point of DCF assertion of compliance with the 22 outcomes.
1. What is the quantity and quality of the visitation between worker and child in out of home placement? (Elements a-i below) a. In how many of the last six months did the DCF worker meet with the child in person? b. If child is out of state, did ICPC/private provider social worker document in-person visits with the child during each month in the six-month period ending with this review? c. Did the DCF worker see this child within the quarter preceding this review? d. Did the social worker meet with the child alone? e. During conversation, did the worker assess the placement's ability to meet the needs and well being of the child? f. Did the social worker discuss progress or regression in meeting the treatment plan goal? g. Did the social worker document any needs for FASU support to maintain the placement? h. Was the caretaker spoken to during the visit?
24

·1

I

Outcome Measure 17: Worker-Child Visitation (In-Home)

DCF shall visit at least 85% of all in-home family cases at least twice a month, except for probate, interstate or voluntary cases.

Case Review is required to verify compliance status with the quantitative requirement for this measure until such time that LINK enhancements are completed. Logic applied by the DCF will be established based upon enhancements to the LINK system as indicated below15:
• Current Narrative Categories will be condensed and those that are to be countedfor reporting purposes will be clearly delineated The following calculations will be applied in the LINK reporting 1. The denominator ofin-home children will be determined by querying the LINK database to determine all cases with a CPS In-Home assignment. 2. From these cases, determine all active case participants under age 19 who are NOT in an out-ofhome placement. 3. Determine all In-Home children visited during the period as the numerator by identifying in-home children visited at least twice during a calendar month or quarter.
Until such time that LINK system capabilities are available to report on the full universe of children in the in home caseload, the Department's Quality Improvement Division will collect data via case reviews. The QID case review will include the following questions in its data collection instrument:
1. What is the frequency ofDCF's visits? 2. Did DCF visit with the children active in the case on average two times
per month during the quarter ofthis review?
Methodological Notes: The Department's QID will conduct a quarterly LINK case review until such time that the LINK system can report out on visitation between child and worker for the full universe in-home cases.
c. The universe includes all children in-home during each quarter of review beginning January 1,2004 forward. Probate and Interstate and Adoption Subsidy cases will be excluded.
d. Quarterly reporting is due to the Monitor's Office no later than 45 days from the close of each calendar quarter. Initial reporting is expected August 15, 2004.
The size of the quarterly samples will not be statistically valid but rather, are intended to provide a snapshot/indicator until such time that the LINK

15 Documentation taken from the LINK Modifications to Support Juan F. Exit Outcomes Presentation of April 13,2004.
25

enhancements will be available to measure quantitative compliance on the full population. Additionally, a qualitative review shall be conducted by the Monitor's Office on a sample of all open cases identified, except probate, interstate, and subsidy only cases for the first two quarters of practice during 2005 (report produced September 2005) and 2006 (report produced September 2006). This case review process will also be initiated at the point ofDCF assertion of compliance with the 22 outcomes.
1. What is the quantity and quality of the visitation between worker and child in DCF's in-home caseloads? (elements a-i below) a. During each of the six months preceding this review, did the worker physically meet with the child in accordance to the mandate? b. How many times during the past six month period did the work did the DCF worker meet with the child in person? c. Did the social worker meet with the child alone? d. During conversation, did the worker assess the parent's ability to meet the needs and well being of the child? e. Did the social worker discuss progress or regression in meeting the treatment plan goal? f. Did the social worker document any needs for additional supports to maintain the child in the home? g. Was the primary caregiver (parent) spoken to during the visit?
26

Outcome Measure 18: Caseload Standards

By July 1, 2004 the caseload of no DCF social worker shall exceed the following

caseload standards, with exceptions for emergency reasons on caseloads, lasting no

more than 30 days:

A. Investigators shall have no more than 17 investigative cases at any time.

B. In-Home treatment workers shall have no more than 15 cases at any time.

C. Out-of-Home treatment workers shall have no more than 20 individual

children assigned to them at any time. This includes voluntary placements.

D. Adoption and adolescent specialty workers shall have no more than 20 cases

at any time.

E. Probate workers shall have no more than 35 cases at any time. When the

probate or interstate worker is also assigned to provide services to the

family, those families shall be counted as in home treatment cases with a

ratio of 1:20 cases.

F. Social workers with in-home voluntary and interstate compact cases shall

have no more than 49 cases at any time.

G. A worker with a mixed caseload shall not exceed the maximum weighted

caseload derived from the caseload standards in A through F above.

I

H. These standards supercede those of Order No. 441 dated July 29,2003.

Case Review is not required to verify compliance status with the quantitative requirement for this measure. LINKwill be used to capture compliance with the percentage of workers at or below established caseload utilization via the average of the daily reports during each quarter from January 1,2004 forward. LINK logic16 for the reporting is provided below:
Caseload Standards Report Source: LINK
Each night a batch program will run that will recognize any assignment changes and calculate caseload accordingly based on the point designations in figure 1.1. These point totals will be displayed next to each Worker's name on a Supervisor's Workers tab ofthe LINK desktop as well as in Worker Search.
Compliance can be measured through a utility that displays the number of workers over 100% on any given day and, ofthose, the number ofworkers that have been over 100%for 30 ofthe most recent 30 calendar days.

16 On-Line LINK reporting documentation taken directly from the DCF LINK Rep0l1s: Caseload Reports: "Percentage Utilization Calculation".
27

Adolescent Services N/A

Primary

0

20

Adolescent Services N/A

Lead Wkr

0

20

CPS In-Home

N/A

Primary

0

15

CPSOOH

N/A

Primary

20

CPS OOH

N/A

Lead Wkr

0

20

lCO

N/A

Primary

0

49

ICO

N/A

Lead Wkr

0

49

Investigation

Region

Primary

0

17

Investigation

Region

N/A

1

0

17

Permanency Services N/A

Primary

0

1

20

Permanency Services N/A

Lead

1

0

20

Probate

N/A

Primary

0

35

Probate

N/A

Lead

0

35

Voluntary

N/A

Primary

0

49

Last amended August, 2002

28

Percentage Utilization Calculation: For each ofthe 9 categories, the program computes % Utilizations follows:

Determine the % Uti!. for each assignment category for a worker by dividing the number ofcaseload points for that Worker by the Maximum number of points for that category. Then add all ofthe percentages to arrive at an overall percentage utilizationjigure.

Adolescent (#points in category 120)

+

CPS In-Home (#points in category 115)

+

CPS (#points in category 120)

+

CPS DOH (#points in category 120)

+

leO (#points in category 149)

\
.1

+

Investigation (#points in category 117)

+

Permanency (#points in category 120)

+

Probate (#points in category 135)

+

Voluntary (#points in category 149)

= % Utilization

29

Outcome Measure 19: Reduction in the Number of Children Placed in Residential Care
The number of children placed in privately operated residential treatment care shall not exceed 11% of the total number of children in DCF out-of-home care.
The circumstances of all children in-state and out-of-state residential facilities shall be assessed after the Court's approval of this Exit Plan on a child specific basis to determine if their needs can be met in a less restrictive setting. The placement of any additional children out-of-state after the approval of this plan shall require the approval of the Transition Task Force.
1. Case review will not be required to measure compliance with this mandate. The Department is responsible for implementing the child specific review process and quarterly reporting on all children in in-state and out-of-state residential facilities in addition to the number of new admissions and discharges from residential facilities on a quarterly basis. a. The universe for Outcome Measure 19 will be all childrenl7 in in-state and out-of-state residential facilities. b. DCF should identify the following groups of children in residential care to generate a more accurate portrayal of children who are eligible for less restrictive settings: 1. Children for whom mental retardation levels require facility care until child may pass into the adult DMR system, 11. Children in facilities via voluntary placement per the request of parent, lll. Children for whom mental health levels require facility care until child may pass into the adult DMHAS system, and IV. Children with medically complex status requiring intensive facility settings through transition to adult facility care The Monitor may take this additional information into account when determining compliance with Outcome Measure 19. c. Quarterly reporting is due to the Monitor's Office no later than 45 days from the close of each calendar quarter. Initial reporting is expected August 15, 2004.
2. DCF will report on its aggregate assessments of the needs of all children placed residentially sorted by in state and out-of-state. The Department has begun contracting for the services of Care Coordinators to assist in this regard. The focus will initially be on those children at the highest need level or awaiting discharge with no identified options to allow planful step down. a. The universe for Outcome Measure 19 will be all children in instate and out-of-state residential facilities.
17 The Court Monitor reserves the right to grant exceptions on an individual child basis when deemed appropriate.
30

b. DCF should identifY the following groups of children in residential care to generate a more accurate portrayal of children who are eligible for less restrictive settings: 1. Children for whom mental retardation levels require facility care until child may pass into the adult DMR system, 11. Children in facilities via voluntary placement per the request of parent, 111. Children for whom mental health levels require facility care until child may pass into the adult DMHAS system, and IV. Children with medically complex status requiring intensive facility settings through transition to adult facility care
c. Quarterly reporting is due to the Monitor's Office no later than 45 days from the close of each calendar quarter. Initial reporting is expected August 15,2004. i. Reporting on the number of children in in-state and out-ofstate residential facilities quarterly. LINK reporting logic includes the following calculation: 1. The denominator is all Juan F. children in care on the last day ofthe reporting period. 2. The numerator is all children in care on the last day ofthe reporting periodplaced in one ofthe designated residential service types identified below:

Service Service Type

Code

306

Residential School - CPS

307

Residential Tx - CPS

319

Residential Tx - JJ*

325

Residential School - Mental Health

328

Residential Tx - Mental Health

334

Residential Tx - Substance Abuse

514

Residential Tx - Mental Health/Sex Offender

515

Residential Tx - Mental Health Intensive

* Includes only Dually Committed Children

11. Reporting quarterly on the barriers to meeting this measure. 111. Reporting on its aggregate assessments ofthe needs of all
children placed residentially sorted by in state and out-ofstate. A review of these documents will be conducted as well as the LINK placement data analysis as a means to determine compliance.

31

Outcome Measure 20: Discharge Measures
At least 85 % of all children age 18 or older shall have achieved one or more of the following prior to discharge from DCF custody:
a. Graduation from High School b. Acquisition of aGED c. Enrollment in or completion of college or other post secondary
training program full-time. d. Enrollment in college or other post secondary training program
part-time with part-time employment. e. Full-time Employment f. Enlistment full-time member of the military
Outcome Measure 21: Discharge of Mentally III or Retarded Children
DCF shall submit a written discharge plan to either/or DMHAS or DMR for all children who are mentally iII or mentally retarded and require adult services.
Initial reports will be provided via sample case review conducted by the Quality Improvement Division Subsequently, upon LINK enhancement, the Monitor shall determine ifthese outcomes have been achieved through quarterly reports. LINK reporting on the universe population will be implemented by December 2004. DCF is required to report quarterly on the barriers to meeting this measure.
The Quality Improvement Division has developed a tool to capture the above information and report out following case review on Outcome Measures 20 and 21, until such time that LINK enhancements are tested and verified.
1. The universe is all youth discharged from care each quarter beginning on January 1,2004 forward (excluding probate, interstate and voluntary cases).
2. Subcategory populations indicated in bullets #2 and #3 of the Exit Plan shall be documented and reported separately from the remaining discharge population when determining [mal performance percentage for Outcome Measure 20.
3. The Department should report on those children who had not achieved any of the required measures at discharge, but who were in the active process of doing so. Specifically: youth attending high school or GED classes and/or holding part time employment at point of discharge.
4. Quarterly reporting is due to the Monitor's Office no later than 45 days from the close of each calendar quarter. Initial reporting is expected May 15,2004.
The QID Research Questions that have been approved by the Monitor are: 1. What is the total percentage of youth who have achieved one or more of the following prior to discharge from DCF custody? a. Graduation from High School b. Acquisition of aGED c. Enrollment in or completion of college or other post secondary training program full-time.
32

d. Enrollment in college or other post secondary training program part-time with part-time employment.
e. Full-time Employment f. Enlistment full-time member of the military 2. What is the total number of youth with signed refusal of services form in file at age 18? 3. What were the identifiable barriers to meeting these measures? 4. What is the extent to which LINK documentation indicates that a written discharge plan has been submitted to DMHAS and/or DMR for all children who are mentally ill or mentally retarded and require adult services?
Elements that need to be captured to respond to this measure include the following: I. What is the reason for the youth's discharge form DCF care? 2. Was there an Adolescent Discharge Plan (DCF2092) in LINK 3. Was there an Independent Living Plan (DCF 2091) in LINK? 4. Was there a written discharge plan submitted to either DMHAS or DMR for this youth to go on to adult services 5. Was the youth provided with Independent Living Services? 6. Did the youth participate in CHAPs programs? 7. At time of discharge was the youth working toward or earned GED? 8. At time of discharge was the youth attending High School, Graduated from High School, or dropped out from High School? 9. Was the youth eligible for special education services? 10. Did the youth have medically complex status? II. Was substance abuse identified as an issue for this child? 12. Does child have a clinically diagnosed psychiatric disorder? 13. Had child been hospitalized for psychiatric reasons during the last 12 months preceding discharge? 14. Is the youth on psychiatric medication? 15. Did the youth achieve one or more of the discharge measures prior to discharge during the period under review? 16. Was youth in residential placement during the 12-month period preceding discharge? 17. Is youth clinically diagnosed with mental retardation? 18. Is youth's Full Scale IQ score under 70? 19. At the time of discharge was the youth enrolled in college or other post secondary training program? 20. At the time of discharge was the youth employed 21. At the time of discharge was the youth enlisted full time in the military? 22. What are the documented barriers to achieving one or more of the discharge measures prior to discharge from DCF?
33

Outcome Measure 22: Multi-disciplinary Exams (MDE) At least 85% of the children entering the custody of DCF for the first time shall have an MDE conducted within 30 days of placement. All cases should have a multi-disciplinary exam completed even if one cannot be done within 30 days.
The LINK system can currently generate a report indicating the percentage of children entering out of home placement for the first time who have had an MDE conducted within 30 days. LINK logic for the reporting is as follows l8: Multidisciplinary Examinations
Report Source: LINK Query the LINK database to retrieve all children entering care (removal date) for the first time. Retrieve the MDE date for each child Filter out children with a valid Exception Code Subtract the removal date from the MDE date to determine number ofdays to examination. Divide the number ofchildren with and MDE completed within 30 days by the number ofchildren entering care for the first time. Currently the filter for exception codes requires a manual process - LINK Enhancements will improve process by automating exception code identification. Until such time that the enhancement is tested and verified, LINK reporting will be based on current system capabilities. 19
18 On-Line LINK reporting documentation taken directly from the DCF LINK Reports Unit: Exit Plan Outcome Measures: Summary Report 1Q 2004. 19 The Monitor acknowledges that a slight over reporting of the number ofMDE's not completed in a timely manner may occur during this initial reporting period due to the additional exception codes that will not be present.
34

 </s> Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 467 Filed 04/07/04 Page 1 of 1

F i t lED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT 7004 APR -7 Ala: 4q

********************************* JUAN F., et al.

~~igdf;~/RCT.T -•

CCOONUNRT

Plaintiffs v.

CIVIL NO. H-89-859 (AHN)

JOHN G. ROWLAND, et aI.

Defendants **********************************

March 29,2004

ORDER

In as much as the Federal Administration for Children and Families has accepted the Exit Plan approved and ordered (#454) on December 23, 2003 as Connecticut's Federal program improvement plan, the court order holding the program improvement plan in abeyance (#448) dated December 23, 2003, is vacated.

Approved and So Ordered:_

. Date:

The Honorable Alan H. Nevas

Senior United States District Court Judge

 </s> ---------.------.
Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 471 Filed 09/02/04 Page 1 of 6

lor'! ."
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

-;:> /\ II: l~1.j
. "',1,-, (",:''''

********************************* WAN F., etaL

Plaintiffs v.

CIVIL NO. H-89-859 (AHN)

M. JODI RELL, et aI.

Defendants **********************************

August 3, 2004

ORDER
The Juan F. Court Monitor's Office has completed the fifth review of the DCF adoption cohort that began in March of2002, It is respectfully requested that the Court accept this report and officially order it to be filed with the Clerk as a formal document related to this case,

ordered:~ <;/~ Approved and So

/ -

'_'

JJ:e:

t;-- , The Honorable Alan H, Nevas

D f.j,

Senior United States District Court Judge

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 471 Filed 09/02/04 Page 2 of 6
DCF Children Waiting for Adoption
The DCF Court Monitor's Report of the Fifth Review of a Cohort of Children in DCF Custody Whose Parental Rights Have Been Terminated, and Who Had a Goal of Adoption on March 31, 2002
August 2, 2004
Respectfully Submitted DCF Court Monitor's Office
300 Church Street Wallingford, CT 06492 Telephone: 203-741-0458 Facsimile: 203-741-0462 E-Mail: Ray.Sirry@po.state.ct.us

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 471 Filed 09/02/04 Page 3 of 6
In troduction This is the fifth review of a cohort of children whose parental rights have been terminated and who had a permanency goal of adoption on March 31, 2002. The first report, dated August 1,2002, described the methodology and the protocol for the review, so it will not be repeated here. This review covers the six-month period from January 2,2004 through July 1, 2004.
Current Status Substantial numbers of children are adopted in the Connecticut DCF system and this number has improved in recent years.
Of the 155 children in the cohort, 99 (63.9%) have been adopted as ofJuly 1, 2004. On July 1, 2004, twenty-three children in the cohort continued to have the goal of adoption. One medically complex child died during the prior reporting period. As of July 1, 2004, thirty-two children have had one or more goal changes since March 2002 resulting in a stated permanency goal ofLTFC (14), Other Permanent Living Arrangement (17) or LTD (1). In addition, at the point ofthis review, there were six cases open due to CPS or voluntary service issues.

Prior to 8/01/2002

56

36.1

36.1

1/02/2003 through 7/0112003

17

10.1

56.8

The conclusions of the August 1,2003 report and those of the May 20,2004 report remain valid and are incorporated here by reference.
• The overall time frame for the adoption to occur remains too long with more than 25% of the children waiting four years or more (See Table 2).
• Most of that time is consumed by DCF before filing TPR petitions and after TPR is granted. The court terminated parental rights on average in less than 2 months for the five cohort children adopted between January 2,2004 and July 1,2004. The average time for the court to terminate rights following the filing of petitions for all children in the study is 8.5 months.
• Only 9 of the 99 cohort children adopted met the federal standard of adoption within 24 months.
• The number of adoption disruptions is unacceptable high and suggests that additional or more effective adoptive parent support services, for a longer period of time, are necessary to ensure that adoptions are permanent. (See Table 3 and Table 4)
20f5

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 471 Filed 09/02/04 Page 4 of 6

• The role of the courts and the Attorney General's Office in the excessive time frame to find these children permanent homes cannot be determined from these data. Arguably, multiple continuances and inadequate coordination between the superior courts, probate courts, the Attorney General's Office, and DCF plays a role in the excessive time frames, the extent to which is unknown. This is an area for future study.

Monitor's Conclusions and Recommended Action Steps for Transition Task Force

I. The Teclmical Advisory Committee, National Resource Center for Adoptions,

American Bar Association, or other similar organizations should conduct an

expedited comprehensive study of the adoption process in Connecticut, to

determine what changes Connecticut must make to meet the 24 month federal and

Exit Plan schedule. Some changes are already known to be essential and are a

focus ofthe DCF Positive Outcomes for Children Plan.

2. Too much tim(: is consumed making the decision as to whether to seek

termination of parental rights. Concurrent planning seems to be more of a

concept that a reality. Clearly, too much time is consumed finalizing an adoption

after the children are free for adoption. The adoption process must be streamlined

to shorten the time between the child's entry into DCF custody and the

finalization of adoption.

.

3. The current practice of further delaying the adoption finalization process of

children who have passed the 24-month benchmark in favor of processing those

who have not must cease. To do otherwise belies the Department's expressed

desire to improve practice rather than "work merely to achieve the numbers in the

Exit Plan"

4. When DCF recognizes that a pre -adoptive placement is at risk of disruption, they

should immediately convene a family conference to determine what services and

supports are necessary to preserve the placement in the pre-adoptive home. Table

3 and Table 4 strongly suggest that adoptive parents need more support and

services for a longer period of time.

a. One obvious necessary improvement is the increased use of permanency

planning services programs (PPSP). Once the referral to PPSP is currently

made, and the adoption finalized, there is no follow up by DCF to see if

parents are getting a beneficial service or even if the contractor has

fulfilled the obligation.

b. An aftercare plan should be developed which explains DCF's future

service options available to both adoptees and adoptive parents during the

first year PPSP contract period and beyond. This would emphasize that

DCF is truly a partner in the adoption and that the adoptive parents and

child have the right to future support services.

5. DCF must end the informal practice of waiting at least 12 months after placement

in an adoptive home before seeking finalization of the adoption. This is most

clearly unnecessary in cases where the adoptive resource has been a long time

foster care resource but is not officially identified as an adoptive resource until the

TPR is finalized.

3 of 5

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 471 Filed 09/02/04 Page 5 of 6

6. DCF must adopt a user-friendly, culturally competent, adoptive family recruitment, training and retention model.
7. Initial and subsequent treatment planning is inadequate when 21 % ofthe children
who are wards ofDCF saw their pennanency goal changed from adoption to another goal as they waited for a pennanent resource. The fact that many of the goals were changed from adoption to long-tenn foster care or independent living emphasizes that children wait too long for adoption. 8. Adoptive children should have the same benefits as children in foster care to remove the disincentive for foster parents to adopt rather than opt for long tenn foster care. 9. In many of the disruptions, it was noted in the record that the DCF social worker had concerns about the "fit" of the child with the family prior to adoption. The adoptions proceeded with no identified services provided to address these concerns. 10. The frequency of visitation declines when a child is placed in a pre-adoptive setting and is nearing finalization and as a result, documentation is often poor during this period. This makes it difficult to know why some of the pre-adoption or post adoption disruptions occur and perhaps, minimizes the opportunities for the adoption to succeed via identification of appropriate supports. This also reduces DCF's chances ofmeeting the visitation outcome measure.

Table 2: Overall timeframe to ad(mt
I
Less than 12 months from time of latest r<;lJ)J.oval
II
At least 24 months but less than 36J)J.onihs
48 months or more from time .of latest removal

3

1.9

21

13.5

40

25.8

Table 3: If disruption (both pre and post adoption) occurred in the six months what was the stated reason?

Child's behavior beyondparental/caretakercontrol

19

90.4

Child maltreatment substantiated

1

4.8

40f5

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 471 Filed 09/02/04 Page 6 of 6

7/2/03 -1/1/04

19

2

Total

39

9**

* One adopted child disrupted in two periods of the review.

** Nine (9) or 9.1 % of children with finalized adoptions experienced post adoption

disruptions.

50f5

 </s> Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 574 Filed 01/27/09 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

JUAN F., ET AL.

v.

'"

M. JODI RELL, ET AL.

ORDER OF TRANSFER

The above-identified case is hereby transferred to the

docket of Hon. Christopher F. Droney, U.S.D.J., for all purposes.

All future pleadings or documents in this matter will still

be filed with the Clerk's Office in Bridgeport but should bear

the docket number 2:89CV859(CFD).

SO ORDERED this 23rd day of January, 2009, at Bridgeport,

Connecticut.

~
lsI Alan H. Nevas, SfJ~n-'
~H. Nev~
United States District Judge

 </s> Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 607 Filed 04/13/10 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

-----------------------------------------------------------x
JUAN F., et aI.,
Plaintiffs,

v.

CIVIL NO. H89-859 (CFD)

M. JODI RELL, et aI.,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------x

April 13, 2010

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO VACATE CONSENT DECREE AND EXIT PLAN PURSUANT TO RULE 60(b)(5)
In accordance with Rule 60(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the defendants hereby move this Court to Vacate the Consent Decree and Exit Plan. As more fully set forth in the Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Vacate submitted herewith, there have been widespread factual and legal changes since the entry of the Consent Decree and Exit Plan that make continued ongoing enforcement of the Consent Decree and Exit Plan no longer equitable. Moreover, because there are no ongoing violations of federal law, and because the objectives of the Consent Decree and Exit Plan have been achieved, and compliance with these objectives has been sustained over an extended period of time, continued enforcement of the Consent Decree and Exit Plan is no longer proper based on established precedent of the United States Supreme Court. Finally, because continued enforcement of the Consent Decree and Exit Plan improperly removes control over Connecticut's child welfare system from those State officials

CARMODY & TORRANCE LLP Attorneys at Law

50LeavenworthScreer Post Office Box III 0 Waterbury. CT 06721-1110 Telephone: 203 573-1200

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 607 Filed 04/13/10 Page 2 of 3
charged with its admillistration, and has a substantial impact on State budget priorities the
Motion to Vacate should be granted. WHEREFORE, the defendants respectfully move this Court for all Order granting
the defendants ' Motion to Vacate Consent Decree and Exit Plan pursuant to Rule
60(b)(5).
THE DEFENDANTS,
By__~ a~~/~J~ J~2~q~~___________
Am) H. Rubin (ct04486) arubill@carmodylaw.com Anne D. Peterson (ct20181) apeterson@ cru.modylaw.com Carmody & Torrance LLP 50 Leavenworth Street P. O. Box 1110 Waterbury, CT 06721-1110 Phone: (203) 573-1200 Fax: (203) 575-2600

C,\ RMOIlY & 'rO llllA c.: " .
(N&5'if4'f~)m Low

2 50 l.e:wcnwonh tre<!t
Pos~ OrJjceBox I H 0
WOtCJ;\>ucy, cr 0672t- l.l10
Telephone: 203 513-1200

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 607 Filed 04/13/10 Page 3 of 3
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the above date, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronicall y and served by mai l on anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Notice of this filing will be sent bye-mail to all parties by operation of the court's electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the court' s CMlECF System.
Aml H. Rubin

CA UM OIlY f,: TOfl IIANO: c•• { Not~'Y9'f It Law

)0 /.n.vonwon h S'ffi"

3

1'00;, Offi« 80. 1110

W.,,,,bury. CT 06121- 1L10

i"ltpOOn.; 201 ~n-l2oo

 </s> Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 585 Filed 12/08/09 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

---------------------------------------------------------------x

JUAN F., et al.,

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

)

M. JODI RELL, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

---------------------------------------------------------------x

CIVIL NO. H89-859 (CFD)

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION TO
ENJOIN DEFENDANTS FROM SUSPENDING NEW INTAKES TO THE VOLUNTARY SERVICES PROGRAM

Plaintiffs respectfully move this Court, pursuant to the Revised Exit Plan entered July 12,

2006, the Revised Monitoring Order entered October 12, 2005, and Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 65, for a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and a permanent

injunction enjoining Defendants from suspending new intakes to the Voluntary Services Program

(“VSP”) as set forth below.

This Motion is supported by an accompanying Memorandum of Law in Support of

Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary and Permanent Injunction

to Enjoin Defendants from Suspending New Intakes to the Voluntary Services Program (with

exhibits).

As explained more fully in Plaintiffs’ accompanying memorandum of law, an injunction

is necessary to prevent irreparable harm to “at risk” children in the Juan F. class who require

community-based or temporary out-of-home placement and whose treatment needs cannot be

met through services currently available to their parent or guardian and who might otherwise be

1

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 585 Filed 12/08/09 Page 2 of 4

committed to DCF custody. The requirements for injunctive relief are amply met by the evidence and arguments submitted with this motion.
Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter a temporary restraining order, pursuant to the terms of the Revised Exit Plan entered July 12, 2006, the Revised Monitoring Order entered October 12, 2005, and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, enjoining Defendants from suspending new intakes to the VSP until such time as: a) the parties can negotiate an alternative program to ensure that “at risk” class members will receive the benefits of the Consent Decree which was previously entered in this case; and/or b) the Court can conduct a hearing for a preliminary injunction and issue an order declaring unlawful, and permanently enjoining, the suspension of new intakes to the VSP, together with such other and further relief as may be necessary or appropriate.

Dated: December 8, 2009 Respectf

ully Submitted,
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS:
/s/ Marcia Robinson Lowry MARCIA ROBINSON LOWRY Federal Bar No. ct04688 IRA LUSTBADER Federal Bar No. ct23551 GENA E. WILTSEK Pro Hac Vice No. phv02243 CHILDREN’S RIGHTS, INC. 330 Seventh Avenue, 4th Fl. New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 683-2210 Facsimile: (212) 683-4015 Email: mlowry@childrensrights.org

2

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 585 Filed 12/08/09 Page 3 of 4 /s/ Steven M. Frederick
STEVEN M. FREDERICK Federal Bar No. ct08743 WOFSEY, ROSEN, KWESKIN & KURIANSKY, LLP 600 Summer Street Stamford, CT 06901-1490 Telephone: (203) 327-2300 Facsimile: (203) 967-9273 Email: sfrederick@wrkk.com FOR PLAINTIFFS
3

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 585 Filed 12/08/09 Page 4 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that, on December 8, 2009, I electronically transmitted the foregoing document to the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system for filing and transmittal of Notice of Electronic Filing to the following ECF registrant:
ANN RUBIN Carmody & Torrance, LLP 50 Leavenworth Street Waterbury, CT 06721 arubin@carmodylaw.com
DATED: December 8, 2009

/s/

Steven M. Frederick

4

 </s> Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 633 Filed 08/17/10 Page 1 of 21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

JUAN F., et al., Plaintiffs,
v. M. JODI RELL, et al.,
Defendants.

:

:

:

:

CIVIL NO. 3:89CV859 (CFD)

:

:

RULING AND ORDER INTERPRETING CONSENT DECREE

Summary This ruling arises from a 1989 class action lawsuit brought by the plaintiffs, on behalf of
numerous children against the Governor of Connecticut, the Connecticut Department of Children and Families (“DCF” or “Department”) and the Commissioner of DCF (“Commissioner”), which is now the subject of a settlement supervised by this Court. The plaintiffs brought a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent the defendants from suspending new intakes of children into the Voluntary Services Program operated through DCF and the Connecticut Department of Developmental Services (“DDS”). In response, the defendants have argued that the children receiving treatment or assistance in those programs are not members of the class. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds that those children are members of the class, as described below.

I. Background This suit raised a broad challenge to DCF’s management, policies, operations, funding
and protocols concerning abused and neglected children. In 1991, the action was resolved and the Court entered a consent decree (“Consent Decree”) that restructured a large part of DCF and

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 633 Filed 08/17/10 Page 2 of 21
set forth a detailed plan to improve the Department’s operation and delivery of services. The Consent Decree also provided for extensive court oversight and monitoring of DCF
to ensure compliance with its mandates. Now, eighteen years later, DCF has raised a question as to membership in the Juan F. class and asserts that “at risk” children who receive services through the Voluntary Services Program offered by DCF, as well as those provided by DDS (by virtue of an interagency agreement with DCF), are not and have never been members of the class. This issue arose in connection with the defendants’ recent announcement that they were planning to suspend all new intakes into DCF’s and DDS’s Voluntary Services Programs as part of the Connecticut Governor’s efforts to address state budget issues. After the announcement, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary and permanent injunction asserting that if the defendants were allowed to proceed with their plan to suspend new intakes, they would unilaterally cut off the service lifeline for vulnerable, at-risk children in the Juan F. class, which would leave those class members at imminent risk of irreparable harm and place defendants in contempt of their obligations under the Consent Decree.1 In response to that motion, the defendants asserted that the plan to suspend new admissions to the Voluntary Services Programs does not implicate their obligations under the Consent Decree because DCF provides voluntary services to children with behavioral, emotional or mental health needs pursuant to its statutory
1During a hearing before this Court on December 16, 2009, the defendants stated that Governor M. Jodi Rell had rescinded the planned cuts to DCF’s voluntary services budget, that the DDS voluntary services process was proceeding according to the usual procedures, and that the defendants would provide seven days notice of any material change in the DDS process. See Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Brief, Civil Action No. 2:89-cv-859, Dkt. 596, p. 7. Notwithstanding the recision of the planned budget reductions, all parties agree that the class definition issues need to be resolved by the Court and are not moot.
2

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 633 Filed 08/17/10 Page 3 of 21
mandate2 and not because it is obligated to do so by the Consent Decree. They further asserted that because the children who receive voluntary services are not members of the Juan F. class, the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the plaintiffs’ motion.
A. The Consent Decree and Manuals The Consent Decree was the product of lengthy and extensive negotiations between the parties. This 120-page document that the court entered in 1991 effectuated and memorialized the parties’ comprehensive, multi-faceted agreement and set forth the obligations and mandates that the defendants agreed to assume and perform in order to resolve the plaintiffs’ claims. Each section of the Consent Decree was implemented by a policy and procedure manual (“Manual”) that the parties and a mediation panel negotiated and developed to provide binding, detailed directives and guidelines to govern the defendants’ performance of those obligations and monitor their compliance with Consent Decree’s mandates. The Manuals were adopted as court orders and were incorporated into the Consent Decree on September 1, 1992.3 “Because of the difficult issues involved, as well as the importance to the plaintiff class of enforcing the
2In addition to the obligations the defendants assumed in the Consent Decree to provide services to children in the Juan F. class, there are also statutes and regulations that govern DCF’s broad mandate to plan, create, develop, operate, arrange for, administer and evaluate a comprehensive and integrated state-wide program of services, including preventive services, for children and youth who are mentally ill, emotionally disturbed, substance abusers, delinquent, abused, neglected or uncared for. DCF clients broadly include all children and youth who are or may be committed to it by any court and all children and youth who are voluntarily admitted for services of any kind. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-3(a).
3The Manuals provide that the Commissioner shall not issue any policy or take any action that conflicts with the Manuals and that information and directives contained in them supersede any conflicting pre-existing Department policy or training directive.
3

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 633 Filed 08/17/10 Page 4 of 21
[Consent Decree], the [Consent Decree] called for extensive monitoring . . . and provided that the district court shall have continuing jurisdiction of this action to ensure compliance with the [Consent Decree].” Juan F. v. Weicker, 37 F.3d 874, 876-77 (2d Cir. 1994). Accordingly, the court entered a monitoring order and appointed a monitoring panel, later replaced by a full-time court monitor (“Monitor”) akin to a special master, to oversee DCF’s compliance with the mandates of the Consent Decree and Manuals and to investigate, mediate and resolve disputes and allegations of non-compliance. Id.
B. Provisions in the Consent Decree and Manual Regarding Voluntary Services The Consent Decree established a Voluntary Services Program to provide information, advice, limited case management and access to services to, inter alia, “[f]amilies with minor children who are at risk of abuse or neglect because of substance abuse, mental health, domestic violence or other serious problems with the families’ environment.” Consent Decree § XIII, § (B)(3). It required the promulgation of a voluntary services manual detailing the issues of eligibility and the extent of services that would be provided. The resulting voluntary services manual created voluntary service units to provide “a means whereby an eligible family or youth could receive assistance from DCF without a presumption of abuse or neglect.” The Voluntary Services Program was initially established as a pilot program, but the Manual provided for periodic review by the Monitor to determine its effectiveness and potential as a permanent program.4 The pilot program, with various modifications, ultimately became permanent.
4As provided in the Manual, within twelve months after the pilot program began providing services, the Commissioner and the Monitoring Panel would decide whether to “(a) Continue the Pilot Program as a pilot program; (b) Discontinue the pilot program and expand
4

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 633 Filed 08/17/10 Page 5 of 21
The Manual provided that the Commissioner would develop a plan for operating the Voluntary Services Program and establish procedures for, inter alia, responding to requests for assistance, determining client eligibility, providing services, monitoring and evaluating the program and mounting a public information and education campaign. The purpose of the campaign was to inform the DCF staff, other professionals, consumer groups and community organizations such as church groups, community centers, child guidance centers and youth service bureaus, of the availability of voluntary services and describe the services the program would offer, and the procedures for applying for services and eligibility. The campaign was to “stress the voluntary nature of the services and the distinctions between the voluntary services and services for abused and neglected children and their families.” The Manual also provided that requests for voluntary assistance could only be made directly by a member of the household needing assistance and that DCF staff would be trained to distinguish between calls that should be referred to the DCF Hotline to report abuse or neglect from calls that were appropriate requests for voluntary services. This was important because children who were reported and found to be abused or neglected or found to be at risk of abuse or neglect were not eligible for the Voluntary Services Program.
C. DCF’s Voluntary Services Program Pursuant to the directives and mandates of the Consent Decree and Manual, as well as Connecticut statutes, see Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-11, DCF regulations, see Conn. Agencies Regs. §§ 17a-11-4 to 17a-11-27, and DCF’s voluntary services policy manual, see Policy Manual,
voluntary services statewide; or (c) Disband the Voluntary Services Program.” Manual § XI(4). 5

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 633 Filed 08/17/10 Page 6 of 21
Voluntary Services, §§ 37-1 to 37-9, DCF has, since the time the Voluntary Services Program was created, provided voluntary services to eligible children and youth who are not committed to the Department5 and do not require protective services6 intervention. According to those directives and mandates, the Voluntary Services Program serves children whose needs cannot be met through existing services available to the parent or guardian -- children who require community based treatment who might otherwise be committed as neglected, uncared for, or dependent in order to secure DCF services. Children are voluntarily admitted to the program upon application by the parent, guardian or child, if older than fourteen, and a determination by DCF that the child meets the program’s eligibility requirements. Children who are the subject of a pending petition alleging abuse or neglect and children who have protective services involvement by virtue of a finding of abuse or neglect are not eligible for the program. In addition, if a child or youth is the subject of a report of abuse or neglect that is made either before or after the request for voluntary services is made and the report is substantiated, the child is transferred to protective services and voluntary services are terminated.
The Commissioner has the discretion to admit children to the Voluntary Services
5Indeed, under the Connecticut statute governing voluntary services, commitment to or protective supervision or protection by the Department shall not be a condition for receipt of services and benefits. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-129.
6DCF’s policy manual describes “protective services”as “a specialized twenty-four (24) hours, seven (7) days a week program intended to protect children from birth to eighteen (18) years of age who have been abused or neglected.” DCF Policy Manual §§ 30-3, 30-4. Protective services are different from other DCF services in that they are involuntary in the sense that the child’s parent or guardian has not asked for help and it is not up to them to decide whether they want help. Id. Protective services are defined by statute as “public welfare services provided after complaints of abuse, neglect or abandonment, but in the absence of an adjudication or assumption of jurisdiction.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-93(k).
6

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 633 Filed 08/17/10 Page 7 of 21
Program if, in her opinion, the child could benefit from any of the services offered by or available to DCF. To be eligible for admission, the child or youth must have an emotional, behavioral or substance abuse disorder diagnosable under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, DSM-IV, that results in the functional impairment of the child or youth and substantially interferes with or limits his or her functioning in family, school or community activities. The substance abuse disorder must disrupt the child or youth’s academic developmental progress, family or interpersonal relationships or be associated with present distress or disability or a risk of suffering death, pain or disability. A child with a developmental disorder or mental retardation, as defined in the DSM-IV, is only eligible if he or she also has an emotional, behavioral or substance abuse disorder and the alleviation of that disorder is the primary purpose of the request for voluntary services and the child or youth’s treatment needs cannot be met through services currently available to the parent or guardian.
As a matter of DCF policy and practice, the Voluntary Services Program encourages the preservation and enhancement of family relationships and the continuing rights and responsibilities of parents whose financial resources prevent them from providing, despite their best efforts, the required care and treatment for children at serious risk of maltreatment because of behavioral or mental health disorders.
D. The Exit Plan and Outcome Measures Until 2003, DCF’s programs and services for members of the Juan F. class were operated and monitored under the provisions of the Consent Decree and Manuals. But then, to avoid possible court-ordered receivership of the Department, the parties, with the assistance of
7

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 633 Filed 08/17/10 Page 8 of 21
the Monitor, engaged in lengthy negotiations to find a solution to remedy the Department’s significant, undisputed and repeated failures to comply with the Consent Decree and Manuals, and lead to termination of court oversight. See Juan F. v. Rowland, No. H-89-859, 2004 WL 288804 (D. Conn. Feb. 10, 2004). Their efforts were fruitful and produced an agreement and stipulation, which was entered as an order of the court, providing that the Consent Decree and Manuals would be subsumed by an Exit Plan and detailed outcome measures (“Outcome Measures” or “OM”) covering twenty-two areas of operation, including, inter alia, treatment plans (OM 3), caseload standards (OM 18), worker-child visitation (OM 16 & 17) and meeting childrens’ needs (OM 15). Under the Exit Plan, the Monitor is required to measure and determine DCF’s compliance with the Outcome Measures by conducting quarterly reviews of a statistically significant valid sample of cases and report his findings to the court. DCF is required to achieve compliance with all Outcome Measures in order to terminate the court’s oversight and jurisdiction. At the present time, the governing document is the 2006 Revised Exit Plan (“Exit Plan”).
E. The 2005 Interagency Agreement and Reallocation Option In 2005, DCF entered an interagency agreement with DDS (formerly called the Department of Mental Retardation or DMR) which they referred to as the “Reallocation Option.” The purpose of the agreement was to facilitate the coordination of voluntary services between the two departments for children who were involved with both agencies or DCF children who might be eligible for voluntary services through DDS. Pursuant to the agreement, DCF transferred children with developmental, intellectual or cognitive disabilities who were
8

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 633 Filed 08/17/10 Page 9 of 21
eligible for or served by its Voluntary Services Program7 to DDS’s Voluntary Services Program. Prior to entering the agreement, the Commissioner wrote to the Monitor on December
31, 2004 advising that the Reallocation Option, which would involve the “transfer of responsibility for voluntary services children who are also clients of [DDS],” had been submitted to the Office of Policy Management for approval. The Commissioner said she was seeking the Monitor’s “guidance on assuring that this Option will permit these children to be served by DDS be exempt from the Juan F. class for purposes of compliance with the Consent Decree and Exit Plan Outcome Measures.” She noted that the Option would go beyond the current practice “and actually transfer responsibility for the care of specifically identified voluntary services children from DCF to [DDS]” and that the Option made sense because it was fiscally responsible, would provide a clearer and more stable provision of supports and services to clients and their families, would allow for more clinically appropriate placements and the promise of better outcomes for those being served and DCF was involved for reasons other than abuse and neglect. She then asked “is it appropriate to view this [O]ption as not having any Juan F. legal accouterments and therefore all who fall under this [O]ption exempt from the Juan F. class and Exit Plan measurement?” The letter does not indicate that copies were sent to the plaintiffs or the court.
In response, the (then) Monitor answered “[h]aving carefully considered your request regarding the Reallocation Option of [DDS] involved children and the improved services it
7Pursuant to DCF’s policy manual, “a child/youth with a developmental disorder or mental retardation, as defined in the DSM-IV, shall only be eligible [for the voluntary services program] if the child/youth also has an emotional, behavioral or substance abuse disorder and the alleviation of such is the primary purpose of the request for voluntary services.” DCF Policy Manual, Voluntary Services § 37-3.
9

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 633 Filed 08/17/10 Page 10 of 21
would provide these children, the answer to your question is yes. This is merely tacit recognition of the historic fact that these children and others so situated are already clients of DMR, which is best approved to meet their needs.” The Monitor apparently did not consult the court or the plaintiffs before answering the Commissioner’s letter. His letter does, however, contain a notation indicating that the court and plaintiffs’ counsel were copied.
Three weeks before this exchange of letters, the Reallocation Option was apparently discussed at a DCF task force8 meeting. A summary of that meeting indicates that “it was agreed that the legal issues [posed by the Option] need to be resolved with [the court] through [the Monitor].” The issue, however, apparently was never presented to the court by either the defendants or the Monitor.
At that time, the Monitor was operating under the terms of the Revised Monitoring Order dated December 31, 2003. That order provided that “[t]he parties shall have an opportunity to be heard by the Trial Judge concerning any modification request.” In addition, the 2004 Revised Exit Plan, which was then in effect, provided that after July 1, 2004, the Monitor would have no right to modify procedures to be used to determine compliance with any Outcome Measure and that “there shall be no changes except as may be ordered by the court.”
After the Reallocation Option took effect, children and youth between the ages of eight and eighteen with emotional, behavioral or mental health needs as well as intellectual disorders or a DSM-IV diagnosis of mental retardation who had been receiving voluntary services from
8In October 2003, by stipulation of the parties, a transition task force was established to assume all decision-making authority for issues that substantially affect the safety and welfare of the Juan F. class. It was comprised of the Commissioner, the Secretary of the Office of Policy & Management and the Monitor.
10

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 633 Filed 08/17/10 Page 11 of 21
DCF were transferred to DDS’s Voluntary Services Program. All such children and youth who thereafter sought voluntary services from DCF would receive them from DDS.9
II. Discussion As a threshold matter, this Court has jurisdiction to interpret the Consent Decree.
Normally, when a case has concluded, courts no longer may intervene or supervise the parties unless “[e]nforcement of the settlement . . . is more than just a continuation or renewal of the dismissed suit, and hence requires its own basis for jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 378 (1994). Since a consent decree was entered at the conclusion of the original lawsuit, this Court retained jurisdiction over the Consent Decree. Therefore, at the request of both parties, this Court can properly examine and interpret the Consent Decree in this instance.
The defendants maintain that the children who receive voluntary services under either DCF’s Voluntary Services Program or DDS’s Voluntary Services Program are not, and were never intended to be members of the Juan F. class, primarily because such children have never been found to be “at-risk” of abuse, neglect or abandonment and because DDS is not a party to this action and is not subject to the Consent Decree. These claims, as well as the other arguments they advance in support of their position, are based on an incorrect and impermissibly narrow interpretation of the Consent Decree. To the contrary, the scope and plain, unambiguous
9For these children to receive voluntary services, the parent or guardian must make a request by calling DCF’s hotline and advising that the child or youth is a DDS client and providing his or her DDS number and the name of his or her case manager. After the application is completed and returned to DCF and the child or youth is accepted into the voluntary services program, DCF transfers the child to DDS for such services.
11

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 633 Filed 08/17/10 Page 12 of 21
language of the Consent Decree, Manual, and Exit Plan establish that the parties intended to include at-risk children who receive voluntary services from DCF as members of the class of children who are covered and protected by the Consent Decree. This conclusion is informed by well-established principles of contract construction. See Berger v. Heckler 771 F.2d 1566, 1567-68 (2d Cir. 1985) (noting that consent decrees are a hybrid in the sense that they are construed as contracts, but are enforced as court orders).
Specifically, the scope and intent of the Consent Decree is discerned within its four corners and not by reference to what might satisfy the purposes of one of the parties to it. It is construed as written and not as it might have been written. United States v. Armour & Co., 402 U.S. 673, 681-82 (1977) (“Consent decrees are entered into by parties to a case after careful negotiation has produced agreement of their precise terms.”); United States v. ITT Cont’l Baking Co., 420 U.S. 223 (1975). Extrinsic evidence, including the subsequent conduct of the parties that purports to show their practical construction of the agreement, cannot be considered in determining the parties’ intent unless the court finds the language to be ambiguous. SEC v. Levine, 881 F.2d 1165, 1179 (2d Cir. 1989); Portsmouth Baseball Corp. v. Frick, 278 F.2d 395, 400 (2d Cir. 1960). An ambiguity does not exist merely because the parties argue different interpretations. Ward Co. v. Stamford Ridgeway Ass’n, 761 F.2d 117, 120 (2d Cir. 1985).
Adherence to the so-called four corners rule is important so that defendants can sign consent decrees with the confidence that they will not be extended beyond their terms. United States v. ASCAP, 331 F.2d 117, 123-24 (2d Cir. 1964). Nonetheless, application of the four corners rule does not prevent the court from using certain aids to construction when necessary. Those aids include the circumstances surrounding the formation of the consent decree, any
12

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 633 Filed 08/17/10 Page 13 of 21
technical or specialized meaning that the words used may have had to the parties and any documents expressly incorporated in the decree. ITT Cont’l Baking Co., 420 U.S. at 238.
Great deference is given to the explicit language used. Berger v. Heckler, 771 F.2d at 1568. Specific and exact terms are given greater weight than general language. Id. If the words are clear and unambiguous, they are given their plain and ordinary meaning without resort to extrinsic evidence. Ward Co., 761 F.2d at 120. The plain meaning of a term is the “meaning derived from [it] by a reasonably intelligent person acquainted with the contemporary circumstances.” Travelers Cas. & Sur. of Am. v. United States, 74 Fed. Cl. 75, 88 (Fed. Cl. 2006).
Further, a consent decree is construed as a whole and in such manner as to give effect to every provision, if reasonably possible. Peter-Michael, Inc. v. Sea Shell Assoc., 244 Conn. 269, 275, 709 A.2d 558 (1998). An interpretation that gives a reasonable meaning to all of its parts is preferred to one that leaves a portion of it useless, inexplicable, inoperative, void, insignificant, meaningless, superfluous or achieves a “weird and whimsical” result. United Aluminum Corp. .v. Boc Group, Inc., No. 08cv977(JCH), 2009 WL 2589486 (D. Conn. Aug. 21, 2009). When the intent of the parties is clear a contract cannot be modified, enlarged or narrowed in the guise of clarification or construction. Crumpton v. Bridgeport Educ. Ass’n, 993 F.2d 1023, 1028-29 (2d Cir. 1993); Wilder v. Bernstein, 153 F.R.D. 524, 534 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).
With this interpretive guidance, the court begins the task of construing the Consent Decree by examining the actual words used by the parties as the manifestation of their intent with regard to the children who are included as members of the Juan F. class. See Tallmadge Bros., Inc. v. Iroquois Gas Transmission Sys., L.P., 252 Conn. 479, 499-500 (2000).
13

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 633 Filed 08/17/10 Page 14 of 21
The actual words used in the Consent Decree to define the members of the certified class show that recipients of voluntary services through DCF are within the class definition. The Consent Decree defines the class to consist of:
“(a) All children who are now, or will be, in the care, custody, or supervision of the Commissioner of [DCF] as a result of being abused, neglected or abandoned or being found at risk of such maltreatment; and (b) All children about whom the Department knows, or should know by virtue of a report to the Department, who are now, or will be abused, neglected or abandoned, or who are now, or will be at serious risk of such maltreatment.”
Consent Decree, § II(13). The Exit Plan contains the identical class definition.
A. Recipients of Voluntary Services through DCF are Members of Class The plain language of these two paragraphs identify different subclasses of children
whom the parties intended to include in the class. Specifically, paragraph (a) describes a class of children who are or will be “in the care, custody, or supervision” of DCF because they are (1) “abused, neglected or abandoned” or (2) “found at risk of such maltreatment” (emphasis added).
The parties do not dispute that children identified in this paragraph are those who are the subject of a substantiated report of actual or imminent abuse or neglect and those who, after a report of abuse or neglect and an investigation, are found to be at moderate to high risk of maltreatment and that such children are members of the Juan F. class. In practice, the “care, custody, or supervision” of these children can be either mandatory or voluntary. Children who are found to be abused or neglected are placed in the custody of DCF’s child protective services for intervention. In that event, protective services custody is mandatory in that the parent must
14

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 633 Filed 08/17/10 Page 15 of 21
accept services from DCF or it will initiate proceedings to have the child committed to the custody of DCF. For children found to be at moderate to high risk of maltreatment, DCF seeks to have them voluntarily placed in the custody of its child protective services for intervention.
Children receiving voluntary services administered through DCF also clearly fall within the plain language of paragraph (a). DCF’s Voluntary Services Program is specifically tailored to children who are “at risk of” maltreatment, not just those who require protective services involvement. DCF’s Agency Regulations describe the program as a service to children requiring community or residential treatment or placement “who might otherwise be committed as neglected, uncared for, or dependent.” DCF Agency Regulations § 17a-11-4, Civil Action No. 89cv859, Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Request for Injunction, Dkt. # 596, Ex. A. Furthermore, the settlement appears to have specifically contemplated that class members would receive voluntary services through DCF. The Consent Decree established a Voluntary Services Unit Manual, which noted that the voluntary services were to allow “an eligible family or youth [to] receive assistance from DCYS.”10 DCYS Voluntary Services Unit Manual § I.A , Civil Action No. 89cv859, Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Request for Injunction, Dkt. # 596, Ex. C.
Furthermore, this conclusion is also supported by the Consent Decree’s definition of the term “case.” The settlement defines “case” in reference to “a family under protective services
10 DCF was originally established as the Department of Children and Youth Services (DCYS), before adopting its current name on July 1, 1993. See Connecticut State Library, Department of Children and Families, Agency History, online source available http://www.cslib.org/agencies/ChildrenandFamilies.htm.
15

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 633 Filed 08/17/10 Page 16 of 21
investigation; a child and his family receiving services at home or a child out-of-home under a court order; or a child or family receiving services provided on a voluntary basis.” Consent Decree, § III(2). If the parties did not intend to include in the class the children or families who receive voluntary services, then the last portion in this definition of the word “case” would be superfluous. This definition is further evidence that voluntary services, specifically those provided through DCF, were intended by the parties to be within the class definition in the Consent Decree.
Finally, many of the agreed-upon Outcome Measures indicate that the parties intended that children receiving voluntary services through DCF would be members of the Juan F. class. For example, OM 16 provides that “DCF shall visit at least 85% of all out-home children at least once a month, except for probate, interstate, or voluntary cases” (emphasis added) and OM 17 requires that “DCF shall visit at least 85% of all in-home family cases at least twice a month, except for probate, interstate, or voluntary cases” (emphasis added). See Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Permanent Injunction, Civil Action No. 2:89-cv-859, Dkt. 585, Ex. E, p. 29-30. Though not included in these specific benchmark calculation, OM 16 and OM 17 show that the parties referenced DCF voluntary service cases within the exit plan in such a way that the recipients of those services were intended to be members of the class. Furthermore, OM 18 requires that DCF social workers have no more than 20 individual children assigned to their supervision at any given time, a number which “includes voluntary placements” (emphasis added). See Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Permanent Injunction, Civil Action No. 2:89-cv-859, Dkt. 585, Ex. E, p. 31. The specific references to DCF voluntary cases show that the parties intended children who receive voluntary
16

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 633 Filed 08/17/10 Page 17 of 21
services through DCF to be included within the Juan F. class.
B. Some Recipients of Voluntary Services through DDS are Members of Class In contrast to paragraph (a) of the class definition, paragraph (b) does not contain the
requirement that children be in the “care, custody, or supervision” of DCF, nor does it contain the requirement that children be “found at risk of such maltreatment.” However, unlike paragraph (a), paragraph (b) includes a knowledge element. It describes class members as children about whom the Department (1) knows, or (2) “should know by virtue of a report to the Department,”11 are abused, neglected or abandoned. Further, unlike paragraph (a), the last clause of paragraph (b) includes children “at serious risk of such maltreatment” without requiring them to be found at risk. The word “found” connotes a determination or ascertainment of fact by a judge, jury or administrative agency after a trial or a hearing. Black’s Law Dictionary (9th Ed. 1999). “Risk” means a possibility of or exposure to injury, harm, danger or loss. Id.
As discussed above, since voluntary services through DCF are specifically tailored to children who are at risk of abuse, neglect or abandonment, children receiving those services are within the definition of the Juan F. class under section (a). In addition, the fact that DCF knows that children receiving its voluntary services are at risk of such maltreatment means that children receiving voluntary services through DCF would also be included within the class under section
11The only reasonable construction of the independent clause “or should know by virtue of a report,” which is set off by commas and introduced by the word “or,” is to read “by virtue of a report” as referring only to “should know.” This is consistent with general rules of grammar and punctuation, which albeit not controlling, are permissible aids to construction.
17

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 633 Filed 08/17/10 Page 18 of 21
(b). However, the issue of whether children receiving voluntary services through DDS are within the class is not as clear. As a preliminary matter, this class of children has not been subject to DCF conclusions as to risk of “abuse, neglect, or abandonment,” and are not necessarily within the “care, custody, or supervision” of the Department. Therefore, the children receiving DDS services are not categorically within the definition of section (a) of the Juan F. class definition. Similarly, not all children receiving voluntary services through DDS are known by DCF to be “abused, neglected or abandoned, or . . . at serious risk of such maltreatment.” Therefore, this undivided group of children does not meet the knowledge requirement of section (b) of the class definition. Accordingly, the question of whether these children are within the class must be made on a case-by-case basis.
Since section (a) of the Juan F. class definition requires a finding on the part of DCF, children receiving voluntary services only through DDS would not necessarily qualify as members of the class under that section. The plain language of section (b) purports to include all children that DCF either knows or should know are being abused, neglected, abandoned, or at serious risk of such maltreatment. In fact, some children receiving voluntary services through DDS might be the subject of a DCF report or other form of notice that indicates actual or potential mistreatment. Any such child would fall within the Juan F. class definition under section (b). However, based on the class as it is defined in the consent decree, the entire class of children receiving voluntary services from DDS cannot be said to satisfy the requirements of the Juan F. class definition. As such, a factual determination as to whether DCF knows or should know about actual or potential mistreatment of a child receiving voluntary services through DDS is necessary to determine whether that child is a member of the Juan F. class.
18

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 633 Filed 08/17/10 Page 19 of 21
Although the Outcome Measures set forth in the Revised Exit Plan contain repeated and express references to “voluntary services,” these references do not support an interpretation that includes both DCF and DDS voluntary service participants in the Juan F. class definition. For example, OM 18 required that “[o]ut-of-[h]ome treatment workers shall have no more than 20 individual children assigned to them . . . includ[ing] voluntary placements.” 2006 Revised Exit Plan, Civil Action No. 89cv859, Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Request for Injunction, Dkt. # 596, Ex. M. Likewise, OM 3 and OM 15 both refer to a directional guide which states that voluntary cases are to be included in the benchmark calculations. See id. By using “voluntary services” without reference to both DCF and DDS, the parties to these subsequent agreements did not clarify their intentions as to whether DDS voluntary service participants were included within the original Juan F. class. Furthermore, the Revised Exit Plan was formulated in the aftermath of the Consent Decree. As a result, the language employed by the parties in structuring a plan for terminating class oversight can not form the basis for including a group of children who were not intended to be within the original class definition.
Finally, it is inevitable that devoted and well-intentioned parents of a child with a developmental disability may call the DCF hotline seeking advice and assistance. The above analysis should not imply that the simple act of inquiring with DCF, on its own, would bring a child receiving voluntary services through DDS within the definition of the Juan F. class. Instead, that child might come within the class definition if an overall assessment of the child’s disabilities and family situation indicated that he or she was at risk of potential abuse or neglect. As such, a DDS voluntary service recipient will be included in the Juan F. class definition if a
19

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 633 Filed 08/17/10 Page 20 of 21
call, report, or other type of notice, indicates that the child is being abused, neglected, abandoned, or is seriously at risk of such mistreatment. While the category of DCF voluntary service recipients was included within the Juan F. class, children receiving voluntary services through DDS must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine whether they fall within the definition of section (b) of the class definition in the Consent Decree.
C. Sirry Letter Did Not Alter or Modify the Consent Decree The Consent Decree expressly provides that it may be modified, amended or changed by
the court only upon appropriate motion filed by a party or the Monitor. As a legal matter, a consent decree cannot be validly modified by consent unless the parties mutually assent to the meaning and conditions of the modification. Lar-Rob Bus Corp. v. Town of Fairfield, 170 Conn. 397 (1976). A court may only modify a consent decree on motion of one party if that party establishes that a modification is warranted by a significant change in circumstances that was not anticipated at the time it entered into the decree. If the moving party meets its heavy burden of proof, the court must consider whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstances. Crumpton v. Bridgeport Educ. Ass’n, 993 F.2d 1023, 1029 (2d Cir. 1993).
Moreover, the court finds no merit to the defendants’ argument that the plaintiffs’ failure to object to the Commissioner’s request to exempt children receiving voluntary services from the DDS and the Monitor’s purported assent to exempt them for purposes of compliance with the Consent Decree and Exit Plan Outcome Measures is evidence that they never considered or intended those children to be in the Juan F. class. First, it is far from clear that the plaintiffs
20

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 633 Filed 08/17/10 Page 21 of 21 received one or both letters or that they even knew of the Commissioner’s desire to exempt children from or otherwise modify the Juan F. class by exempting these children. Second, such a practical construction argument constitutes extrinsic evidence that may only be considered by the court if it finds ambiguity in the parties manifestation of intent. Portsmouth Baseball Corp., 278 F.2d at 400. III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, this court has jurisdiction to hear the plaintiffs’ motion for injunctive relief. The motion for temporary injunction and permanent injunction [Dkt. # 585] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, in accordance with this opinion.
So ordered this 17th day of August 2010 at Hartford, Connecticut. /s/ Christopher F. Droney CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
21

 </s> Case 2:89-cv-00859-CFD Document 640 Filed 09/22/10 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

JUAN F., et al., Plaintiffs,
v. M. JODI RELL, et al.,
Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action No. 3:89-CV-859 (CFD)

:

:

RULING ON MOTION TO VACATE The defendants, the Governor of Connecticut and the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families (“DCF”), bring this motion to vacate the Consent Decree and Exit Plan under Rule 60(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Background This class action was filed in 1989 on behalf of all children in the care, custody, or
supervision of the defendants. The suit raised a broad challenge to DCF’s management, policies, operations, funding and protocols concerning abused and neglected children. For example, the complaints alleged defendants’ failure to place children with their siblings, their failure to recruit an adequate number of foster homes, their failure to provide children with medical, dental and mental health services, and their failure to meet these basic needs because of inadequate staffing and case management systems.
In 1991, the Court entered a consent decree that restructured a large part of DCF and set forth a detailed plan to improve the Department’s operation and delivery of services. The Consent Decree was the product of lengthy and extensive negotiations between the parties. Until 2003, DCF’s programs and services for members of the Juan F. class were operated and

Case 2:89-cv-00859-CFD Document 640 Filed 09/22/10 Page 2 of 7
monitored under the provisions of the Consent Decree. But then, to avoid possible courtordered receivership of the Department, the parties, with the assistance of the Monitor, engaged in lengthy negotiations to find a solution to remedy the Department’s failures to comply with the Consent Decree, and to sketch a path toward termination of court oversight. Their efforts were fruitful and produced an agreement and stipulation, which was entered as an order of the court, providing that the Consent Decree would be subsumed by an Exit Plan and detailed outcome measures (“Outcome Measures” or “OM”) covering twenty-two areas of operation. In 2006, after six months of negotiations between the parties, the Court approved modifications to the Exit Plan on Outcome Measure 3, which covers treatment plans for children in DCF’s custody, and on Outcome Measure 15, which covers the provision of services to those children such as medical and mental health care. The Revised Exit Plan clarified the scope of those Outcome Measures, and changed the methodology by which they are calculated. Again in 2008, the parties entered into negotiations to address the Department’s performance on these two outcome measures. They agreed to a Stipulation, approved by the Court, which detailed steps the Department would take to remedy noncompliance with Outcome Measures 3 and 15.
The Exit Plan specifies how and when the Department can assert full compliance and seek to end the Court’s supervision. Once the Defendants have been in sustained compliance with all of the outcome measures for at least two quarters (six months), the Court Monitor will conduct a review of a statistically significant valid sample of cases files. The Court Monitor shall then present findings and recommendations to the District Court. Since 2006, the Defendants have never been in compliance with all 22 Outcome Measures. In the second
2

Case 2:89-cv-00859-CFD Document 640 Filed 09/22/10 Page 3 of 7
quarter of 2010, April to June, the Defendants were in compliance with 16 out of 22.1
Discussion The defendants now bring this motion under Rule 60(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Rule 60(b)(5) provides in relevant part the following: (b) On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order or proceeding for the following reasons . . . (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable . . .
The test for motions under Rule 60(b)(5) articulated by the Supreme Court says that a party may move for modification or termination of a judgment if factual or legal circumstances have changed to such an extent that compliance has become “substantially more onerous,” when a decree “proves to be unworkable because of unforeseen obstacles,” or “when enforcement of the decree without modification would be detrimental to the public interest.” Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 384 (1992). These changed circumstance must have been unforeseen. In conducting this analysis, court must apply “a flexible standard that seeks to return control to state and local officials as soon as a violation of federal law has been remedied.” Horne v. Flores, 129 S.Ct. 2579, 2595 (2009).
1The Court Monitor’s published Quarterly Report for the second quarter of 2010 reports the defendants were in compliance with 16 out of the 22 Outcome Measures. The Court Monitor has informed the Court that a revision to his report is forthcoming, and the revised Quarterly Report will show the Department was in fact in compliance with 17 out of 22 Outcome Measures in the last quarter.
3

Case 2:89-cv-00859-CFD Document 640 Filed 09/22/10 Page 4 of 7
The defendants have failed to show any factual or legal circumstances that meet these standards. First, the defendants argue that the progress the state has made over the last two decade constitutes changed factual circumstances that render continuing enforcement of the Consent Decree and Exit Plan inequitable. They argue that although they have yet to satisfy the plain terms of the Exit Plan, which requires compliance in all 22 categories before court oversight may come to an end, they have achieved substantial compliance which meets the basic objectives of the original consent decree. This argument fails for several reasons. The Consent Decree and Exit Plan are negotiated settlements drafted with extensive participation by the defendants. The Exit Plan is not a rigid, prescriptive mandate, but rather a set of targets. The methods of accomplishing them are left up to the state. The parties have a long history of negotiating changes to the original consent decree to make oversight of DCF more productive, and to make the path towards the end of that oversight more clear. As recently as 2008, the defendants agreed to a Stipulation which outlined steps the defendants needed to take to improve their compliance with Outcome Measures 3 and 15. Therefore, the monitoring regime has not suddenly become “substantially more onerous” or “unworkable.” Second, the Supreme Court has required that if changed circumstances are to form the basis for a court’s decision to vacate an order or decree, those changes must have been unforeseen. That is not the case here. The changes on which the defendants rely were not unforeseen, indeed these changes are the very objective of the entire history of this litigation. The substantial progress the state has made to better fund, staff and operate DCF is to be commended, but it does not make continuing enforcement by this Court of the Exit Plan unworkable or inequitable.
Second, the defendants argue that passage of several federal child welfare laws since the
4

Case 2:89-cv-00859-CFD Document 640 Filed 09/22/10 Page 5 of 7
Consent Decree was entered constitute changed legal circumstances which make continuing enforcement of the Exit Plan inequitable. This argument fails as well. These laws, including the Family Preservation and Support Services Program Act of 1993, the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003, and the Fair Access to Foster Care Act of 2005, set out the requirements for states to receive federal funding under various programs. Because these federal statutes generally promote, rather than hinder, the objectives of the Exit Plan, they do not constitute change legal circumstances which make the continuing enforcement of the Exit Plan more onerous or inequitable. Indeed, the Department has received federal funds and grants often because of the reforms the Department has made pursuant to the Consent Decree and Exit Plan. The regime of federal child welfare laws to which the defendants refer makes the continued enforcement of the Exit Plan a better idea, not a worse one.
The defendants also argue the Exit Plan should be vacated because of federalism concerns, citing the Supreme Court’s instruction to lower courts to make sure “responsibility for discharging the State’s obligations is returned promptly to the State and its officials when the circumstances warrant.” Horne, 129 S.Ct. at 2595 (internal citations omitted). In this case, the defendants argue that the Exit Plan should be vacated because of the impact the Plan has on state budget priorities. While the state has spent millions of dollars over the course of this litigation to reform DCF’s practices, doing so was required by the state’s constitutional and statutory obligations to the children in its care. Also, because the Exit Plan is the product of negotiations between the parties, and because the parties may revise the plan to make compliance more achievable, as they did in 2006, the kind of federalism concerns that may warrant a court’s early vacatur of a consent decree are not present in this case.
5

Case 2:89-cv-00859-CFD Document 640 Filed 09/22/10 Page 6 of 7
Finally, the defendants argue that Horne has significantly altered the 60(b)(5) standard, requiring courts to vacate consent decrees if “they are aimed at eliminating a condition that does not violate federal law or does not flow from such a violation.” Id., citing Milliken v. Bradely, 433 U.S. 267, 282 (1977). But the defendants overstate the impact of Horne. That case involved a declaratory judgment ordering the State of Arizona to increasing funding for nonEnglish speaking students in its public schools in order to comply with a federal statute, and the subsequent passage of a law by the Arizona state legislature creating a durable funding formula that met the federal requirements. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s denial of the motion to vacate, holding that the “critical question” is whether the objective of the original declaratory judgment order has been achieved, and suggesting that the Arizona state statute did achieve that objective. Horne did not call into question a district court’s authority to enforce a validly entered Consent Decree negotiated by the parties. Horne also did not turn 60(b)(5) motions into vehicles to relitigate the original claims of the underlying litigation, in an effort to determine whether ongoing violations of federal law exist. Even after Horne, a court “may not rewrite [or vacate] the existing consent orders so as to reduce defendants’ promise to some illdefined constitutional floor.” Evans v. Fenty, 701 F.Supp.2d 126, 165 (D.D.C. 2010).
For the reasons discussed above, the defendants’ motion is denied. Because the Department has not yet met all the targets laid out in the Exit Plan, children in the state’s care face unneeded delay and disruption, and continue to go without important services.
It is also important to note, though, that the state has made considerable progress in achieving the goals of the consent decree, and it is to be commended for that effort. The end may very well be in sight. The return of control of services to the State of Connecticut for our
6

Case 2:89-cv-00859-CFD Document 640 Filed 09/22/10 Page 7 of 7
most vulnerable children is within our grasp. The Court is also mindful that the Supreme Court has indicated that federal oversight of state services, such as those provided by the Connecticut Department of Children and Families, should be temporary, and that state officials are better equipped to provide the leadership in these areas. On the other hand, this case will not end until the state has fully met its responsibilities in addressing the needs of these children. All the parties need to provide an additional measure of effort to bring this federal oversight to a final conclusion.
Finally, over the course of this litigation, the Defendants have provided helpful insight and suggestions on the methods of evaluating the state’s performance in meeting the outcome measures in the Exit Plan. Accordingly, although the Court will deny the Defendants’ Motion to Vacate, it directs the parties to meet immediately with the Court Monitor to determine whether adjustments should be made to the methods of evaluating the performance of DCF.
So ordered this 22nd day of September, 2010 at Hartford, Connecticut.
/s/ Christopher F. Droney CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
7

 </s> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

JUAN F., et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
M. JODI RELL, et al., Defendants.

:

:

:

:

Civil Action No. 3:89-CV-859 (CFD)

:

:

:

RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION On August 17, 2010, the Court issued an order interpreting the consent decree, and granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs’ motion for temporary and permanent injunctions. The Court ruled that children in the Department of Children and Families (“DCF”) Voluntary Services Program (“VSP”) are members of the Juan F. class, and granted temporary and permanent injunctions to prevent the defendants from suspending new intakes of children into the program. The defendants now move for reconsideration of the Court’s ruling. “The standard for granting [a motion for reconsideration] is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked—matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court.” Shrader v. CSX Transp., Inc., 70 F.3d 255, 257 (2d Cir. 1995). The Court should not grant a motion for reconsideration where the moving party seeks merely to re-litigate matters already addressed by the Court. Id. The defendants have not pointed to any controlling decisions or data that the Court overlooked or which might reasonably be expected to alter the Court’s previous conclusions. Instead, the defendants repeat arguments that they made in their opposition to the motion,
-1-

which the Court considered and rejected in its Order. For example, the defendants contend that children in the VSP are not members of the Juan F. class because DCF has made no finding that those children are “at-risk.” See Defs.’ Mot. for Recons. 2, August 31, 2010, ECF No. 636. The Court concluded based on the record before it that DCF’s VSP is “specifically tailored to children who are ‘at risk of’ maltreatment” and thus, children enrolled in VSP are within the first paragraph of the class definition in the Consent Decree. See Ruling 15, Aug. 16, 2010, ECF No. 633. The Court fully explained how it reached that holding. In part, it was based upon DCF’s own agency regulations that defined the VSP as servicing children who “might otherwise be committed as neglected, uncared for, or dependent.” Ruling at 15, quoting Conn. Agencies Regs. §§ 17a-11-4. Importantly, the parties should understand that the Court’s decision was not a function of what label DCF may use to offer services to children. It does not matter whether services are provided under the VSP or under some other program, or whether they are provided by DDS. What matters is whether the children “are now, or will be in the care, custody, or supervision of the Commissioner of [DCF] as a result of being abused, neglected or abandoned or being found at risk of such maltreatment” or where DCF “knows, or should know” of their existence. Ruling at 14, citing Consent Decree, § II(13). There may well be children serviced by DCF who are outside this class definition who are not members of the class. Some may even be part of the VSP, but the Court has no basis to conclude that based on the record before it. In this motion for reconsideration, the defendants do not present new facts or controlling decisions which change this conclusion.
Defendants’ other arguments for reconsideration similarly do not present controlling decisions or data previously overlooked by the Court.
-2-

Thus, defendants’ motion for reconsideration of ruling [Dkt. # 636] is DENIED. SO ORDERED this 22nd day of December, 2010 at Hartford, Connecticut.
/s/ Christopher F. Droney CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-3-

 </s> Case 2:89­cv­00859­SRU Document 636 Filed 08/31/10 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

-- -------- ----- --------.----------------------------------------x
mAN F., et aI.,
Plaintiffs,

v.

CIVIL NO. H89-859 (CFD)

M. JODI RELL, et aI.,
Defendants.
----- --- --- --- --- ----------------------------------------------x

August 31, 2010

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Pursuant to Rule 7(c) of the Rules of this Court, the defendants hereby move for reconsideration of that portion of this Court's Ruling and Order Interpreting Consent Decree (Document 633) ("Order") that holds that children receiving services through DCF's Voluntary Services Program are members of the Juan F. class. Defendants respectfully submit that the Court overlooked certain matters in reaching its conclusion. The Court held that children receiving services through DCF's Voluntary Services Program are members of the Juan F. class because those children are "at risk of maltreatment." In fact, as fully briefed in defendants' accompanying Memorandum of Law, no such finding has been made.

CAR M 0 DY & TO RRA NeE LLP Attorneys at Law

50 Leavenworth Street Post Office Box 1110 Waterbury, CT 06721-1110 Telepbone: 203 573-1200

Case 2:89­cv­00859­SRU Document 636 Filed 08/31/10 Page 2 of 2
THE DEFENDANTS,
~-
By--!..:/!~-J--=.M....a..!~.-.=---_- _ _ _
Ann H. Rubin (ct04486) arubin@cannodylaw.com Carmody & Torrance LLP 50 Leavenworth Street P. O. Box 1110 Waterbury, CT 06721-1110 Phone: (203) 573-1200 Fax: (203) 575-2600
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the above date, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically and served by mail on anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Notice of this filing will be sent bye-mail to all parties by operation of the court's electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the court's CMlECF System.
AnnH. Rubin

CARMODY & TORRANCE LIP {w4!f~rt Law

50 Leavenworth Street

2

Post Office Box III0

Waterbury, CT 06721-1110

Telephone: 203 573-1200

Case 2:89­cv­00859­SRU Document 636­1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

----------------------------------------- ---------------------x
JUAN F., et aI.,
Plaintiffs,

v.

CIVIL NO. H89-859 (CFD)

M. JODI RELL, et aI.,
Defendants.
------.--- ----- --- ----- ------ -- ---- -- ---- ------ -------------- ---x

August 31,2010

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Pursuant to Rule 7(c) of the Rules of this Court, defendants respectfully move the

Court for reconsideration of its Ruling and Order Interpreting Consent Decree filed on

August 17,2010 (Document 633). DCF has never asserted that "at-risk children who

receive services through the Voluntary Services Program ... are not and never have been

members of the class." Order at 2. In fact, DCF has consistently maintained that the

children who receive services through the Voluntary Services Program ("VSP") are not

"at-risk", and therefore are not members ofthe class. See, e.g., DCF Brief, Document

589, at 3-7. Conversely, as discussed more fully below, DCF has always agreed that at

risk children whose families are receiving voluntary protective services from DCF, are

members of the Juan F. class. These are two distinct categories of children that the Court

has mistakenly concluded are one and the same.! In concluding that children receiving

behavioral health services through the VSP are members of the Juan F. class, defendants

I More specifically, families receiving voluntary protective services from DCF are those who have NOT been substantiated for abuse or neglect but whose children have been found "at risk" of abuse or neglect using an evidenced-based Structured Decision-Making (SDM) tool at the close of an unsubstantiated investigation. In 2009, over 3000 families with "at risk" children received voluntary protective services from the Department. By contrast, there are currently 774 children with behavioral health disorders participating in the DCF VSP program. These children have not been found "at risk" of being abused, neglected or abandoned by their parents.

CARMODY & TORRANCE LLP Attorneys at Law

50 Leavenworth Street Post Office Box 1110 Waterbury, CT 06721-1110 Telephone: 203 573-1200

Case 2:89­cv­00859­SRU Document 636­1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 2 of 6
respectfully submit that the Court overlooked certain matters, as set forth in detail in this memorandum.
Children Receiving Services Through the DCF Voluntary Services Program Are Not "At-Risk"
This Court held that a finding by DCF that a child was "at risk of abuse, neglect or abandonment" was required to make such a child a member of the Juan F. class. Order at 17-18. However, in holding that children who receive services through DCF's VSP are members of the Juan F. class, this Court overlooked that no such required finding has been made with respect to such children. In contrast to the required "at-risk" finding, as outlined by this Court, the criteria for admission to the current VSP include, inter alia:
The child must have an emotional, behavioral or substance abuse disorder diagnosable under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual ofMental Disorders, DSM-IV, that results in the functional impairment of the child or youth and substantially interferes with or limits his or her functioning in family, school or community activities. rd. at 6-7. None of the criteria for the VSP refer to or include any finding that the child is "at risk" of abuse, neglect or abandonment. As such, DCF does not and has not made such required finding with respect to children receiving services through the DCF VSP. Accordingly, while children receiving services through DCF's VSP may be under the supervision ofDCF for that purpose, they receive services because they meet the statutory program admission criteria, and not because they are or have been found to be "at-risk" as set forth in the Juan F. class definition, and as articulated by this Court. No language in the Consent Decree, Manuals, or DCF Regulations or Policy provides otherwise, or supports the Court's conclusion.

CAR M ODY & TO RRANCE LLP {w11f)'Wft)'s;¥}Law

50 Leavenworth Street

2

Post Office Box 1110

Waterbury. CT 06721-1110

Telephone: 203 573-1200

Case 2:89­cv­00859­SRU Document 636­1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 3 of 6

Moreover, the only difference between children participating in the DCF VSP program and those participating in the DDS VSP is that the DDS children have a developmental disability in addition to the above eligibility criteria. There is no "at risk" determination for either program, but the Court appears to have erroneously drawn a distinction between the "devoted and well-intentioned parents of a child with a developmental disability... " who contact the DCF Hotline for a VSP application and those parents of a non-developmentally disabled child who contact the DCF Hotline for the same purpose. See Order at 19. DCF asserts that ALL parents who contact DCF to seek assistance for a child with one of the above disorders, regardless of whether the child is also developmentally disabled, are "devoted and well-intentioned" and neither group of parents should be presumed likely to abuse or neglect their child simply because they are seeking help.

The Voluntary Services Program The Voluntary Services Program was created by the Legislature in 2002, more than
10 years after the entry of the Consent Decree. The Consent Decree established a pilot voluntary services program. The Consent Decree states that the pilot VSP was to provide services voluntarily to families. Order at 4 (emphasis added). The VSP Manual stated that services would be provided "without a presumption of abuse or neglect." Id. In 2002, the Legislature enacted Connecticut General Statutes Section 17a-II, establishing the Voluntary Services Program ("VSP") at issue before the Court, which provided the Commissioner with the discretion to provide services to children with specific behavioral health disorders. Indeed, as this Court found, "children who were ... found to be at risk of abuse or neglect were not eligible for the Voluntary Services Program." Id. at 5.

CARMODY & TORRANCE LlP {wt31j'f5~;:1~ Law

50 Leavenworth Street

3

Post Office Box 1110

Waterbury, CT 06721-1110

Telephone: 203 573-1200

Case 2:89­cv­00859­SRU Document 636­1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 4 of 6
Services Provided On a Voluntary Basis Are Different From Services Provided Through the Voluntary Services Program
The Consent Decree defines a "case" as, inter alia, "a child or family receiving services provided on a voluntary basis." Consent Decree, § 111(2); Order at 15-16. Defendants submit that the Court in its Order overlooked that the phrase "receiving services provided on a voluntary basis" does not mean "receiving services through the Voluntary Services Program." At the time ofthe Consent Decree and now, DCF provides protective services on a voluntary basis; these services are separate and distinct from the services provided through the statutory Voluntary Services Program. It is only the class membership of the recipients of services through the VSP that are at issue before the Court. Because DCF provides services on a voluntary basis (separate and apart from the services provided through the VSP), the term "case" contained in the Consent Decree (see Order at 15-16) is not superfluous. "Case" refers to the voluntary receipt of protective services, not the VSP.
Children Receiving Services Through the VSP Are Not Members of the Class By Virtue of the Fact That the Exit Plan Makes Reference to "Voluntary" Cases
The fact that certain Exit Plan outcome measures refer to "voluntary" cases (see Order at 16-17) does not convert children receiving services through the VSP into members of the Juan F. class. Exit Plan outcome measures also refer to probate cases (Outcome Measures 16 and 17, for example), but it is undisputed that children who are the subject of probate cases are not part of the JuanL class.

CARMODY & TORRANCE LLP {W~!f'mfJf!';!1 Law

50 Leavenworrh Street

4

POS[ Office Box 1110

Waterbury, CT 06721-1110

Telephone: 203 573-1200

Case 2:89­cv­00859­SRU Document 636­1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 5 of 6
Conclusion
For all of the foregoing reasons, defendants respectfully request that the Court
reconsider its Ruling and Order Interpreting Consent Decree.
THE DEFENDANTS,
By ?JttrLu~ Ann H. Rubin (ct04486) a ntb in@ca:rmodylaw .c o m Carmody & TOlTance LLP 50 Leavenworth Street P.O. Box 1110 Waterbury, CT 06721 -1 110 Phone: (203) 573-1200 Fax: (203) 575-2600

CA fI MOD Y & TOR [{ ACE n,
.!w41i'"9YWQS ;~J.,,,"

~o L.ea,'cnworl" 5, .... ,

5

POla Offic~ Box 1110
cr Wn'~rbury. 06721 - 1110

lclcphone: 20, 57 ·1200

Case 2:89­cv­00859­SRU Document 636­1 Filed 08/31/10 Page 6 of 6
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the above date, a copy ofthe foregoing was filed electronically and served by mail on anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Notice of this filing will be sent bye-mail to all parties by operation of the court's electronic flling system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notic.e of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the court's CMlECF System.
Arm H. Rubin

C lUI 00 Y < TO II K A N C £ 1.1.1' {W1~lYtl ;~~J."IV

50 LcC""'tlWDfC h tree,

6

Po" omce [lox I I 10

cr W.rorbury. 0(\721·1 I 10

T.I.phooo: 20 573·1200

 </s> Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-3 Filed 12/13/17 Page 1 of 41
Appendix C: Directional Guide for DCF Court Monitor's OM3 and OM4 Blind
Reviews
Updated April 14,2017 For Use in 2017-2018
85

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-3 Filed 12/13/17 Page 2 of 41
Directional Guide for DCF Court Monitor's OM3 and OM4 Blind
Reviews
Updated Aprit 14,2017
For Use ín 2017-2018
Juan F. Court Monitor's Office 300 Church Street - 4th Floor
Wallingford, CT 06492
203-741-0458
86

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-3 Filed 12/13/17 Page 3 of 41
Overview of the Process:
This original revised blind case review process was developed and agreed upon in conjunction with the parties of the Juan F. v Rell case to measure the improvements the quality and validity of data collected and reported for
Outcome Measure 3 - Treatment Planningr (OM3) and Outcome Measure l5 - Needs Met (originally identified
as OMl5 now designated as OM4)). The Revised 2017 Exit Plan continues reviews of Outcome Measure 3 and Outcome Measure 4 (Formerly OMl5) on a quarterly basis, with 50-55 cases randomly selected from the ACR schedule by the Monitor's Office for blind case review. Distribution of the blind cases will be determined by the LINK caseload report from the month immediately proceeding each quarter being reviewed, so that area offices will be represented within the sample in accordance with percentage of overall caseload. No prior notification will be sent to the ACR Social Work Supervisor or Area Office staff for selected cases.
Each case will be assigned to a Court Monitor (CM) reviewer who, at approximately 25 days after the scheduled CPC, ACR review or potential family conference date, shall print off the case plan document and ACRI documentation as well as complete a review of the LINK record, with a concentration on the last six-month period of time and the prior case planning documentation - collecting necessary data elements per the tool required responses. CM Reviewers will prescreen cases to ensure that the case is in fact not in need of replacement before proceeding with the full review - ensuring that the timeframes for case planning are within the sample period and that probate, interstate compact, subsidy only, and committed delinquent only children in placement cases will be excluded from the sample. If there is no case plan approved at the 25th day from the ACR date scheduled or identified, or the case plan is not approved timely, no more than 205 days from the prior approval for ongoing cases; or approved at 85 days from the date ofdisposition for newly opened cases, the OM3 measures is to be given absent scores across all domains for official scoring. Feedback on the draft plan will be provided as a couftesy to the Department. (Factors will be considered on a case by case basis should there be a need in relation to scheduling delays related to family request or extenuating circumstances.)
Using the approved Case Plan documentation, record documentation and ACRI notes, and the reviewer shall complete the review of the approved case plan and conduct an assessment of the Department's efforts in meeting the child and family's needs throughout the prior six month period. A list of questions will be generated to clarify any outstanding issues2. The area office responses will be given consideration in addition to the documentation available through record review and attendance at the ACR or Family Conference as the protocol is applied.
All cases will undergo a secondary screening. If agreement is not present that senior reviewer will seek out the initial CM reviewer to present their opinions and findings and the senior reviewer will arrive at a determination of the appropriate score to reflect the level of performance for the specific item(s). If there is not consensus between the senior reviewer and the initial reviewer at the time of this determination, this write up, as well as the original score will be presented to the Assistant Court Monitor or the Court Monitor for determination of compliance for OM3 and OM4 (Formerly OM I 5) as needed. If there are areas that do not attain the "very good" or'ooptimal" level, yet consensus is the overall score should be "an appropriate Case Plan" the review team will need to clearly outline their reasoning for such a determination. These cases will be reviewed by the Court Monitor for approval of an "override" exception of the appropriate of the case plan. Individual domains are not subject to override. The Monitor will produce a report of findings on these two measures (OM3 and OM4 (Formerly OMl5)) within 45 - 60 days of the close of each calendar quarter.
Reminders: Please be sure to include the Case ID number at the bottom ofeach page to ensure that it can be identified and relocated to the proper tool in the event of separation during any stage of this process.
lf any response requires a skip response, please use the following format:
. For numeric responses use "99" . For dated responses use "11/1119999"
I In September 2009 DCF revised its' Treatment Planning process and implemented a new strategy that engages a more family engaged case planning focus at 90 day intervals. As such the term Treatment Plan is now replaced in DCF vernacular with the term Case Plan. 2 In situations where multiple reviewers are conducting a joint review, one reviewer will be identified as a lead and will be responsible for facilitating the communication to avoid multiple contacts and confusion with area office staff.
87

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-3 Filed 12/13/17 Page 4 of 41

For string or alphanumeric responses use "skip"

If in doubt, talk it over with your co-reviewer or senior reviewer.

Assessment of Risk - Each tool has a cover page to quickly identi$ any cases that require the attention of the Ombudsman. This question must be answered for each tool submitted. If you find any clear risk factors present in the case you are reviewing that are not being appropriately addressed by the assigned social worker or social
work supervisor please personally hand the tool to a senior reviewer with a brief written synopsis of the concerns and identi$ing information on the case. This will be used to provide the background to the Ombudsman
assigned to review the matter. If you are in the LINK review portion of the protocol and feel that the matter is of such nature that it cannot wait until the completion of the full protocol process, please notiff the senior reviewer
immediately.

Administrative and Descriptive Data Elements

Ouestion Safety Assessment Override Questions
Check List 41.
A.2.
43.
A4.
45. 46.
47.

Directions and Data Sources
Please respond to the question regarding your assessment ofthe level ofrisk/safety concerns present for this case. Refer to Senior reviewer with a write up of your concerns if "yes" is
selected.
Each of the Measures can be subject to override request. Please indicate for OM3 and OM4 (Formerly OMl5) if you are requesting an overide exception to pass the measure even though one or more sections are scored at the marginal or lower level. You must write up the
reason/rationale for your request on page 20 (OM3) and/or page 3I (OM4 (Formerly OM 1 5)
or the tool will be returned to you. The Court Monitor will select the appropriate response to your request and his briefrationale and signature. You do not need to fill in that section
Use at your discretion
Reviewer Name: Select the name or names of the reviewer(s) completing the form flom the menu of names provided. Date of LINK Extraction: Enter the date of the LINK record review/extraction as
month/date/year.
Date of TPC/ACR or Family Conference Attended: Enter the date of the TPC/ACR or family conference attended as month/dat e I y ear.
A3.l: Dqte of ACRI Completion qnd A3.2 Date of Approved Cqse Plan are new requirements as of lil Quarter 20 I 3. These dates are locqted on the completed forms. The ACRI date is
located on the completedform in the upper left-hand. The date of the completed case plan, the
lower right-hand. You no longer need to ask the question regarding date qfreceiot qfthe ACN
as this is no:w clcs!:Jy idenJifìable in LINK. Date of Case Plan Review post TPC/ACR or Family Conference: Enter the date you reviewed LINK Case Planning documentation (approximately 25 days) post TPC/ACR or Family conference to obtain the final approved Case Plan document and completed ACRI and family conference documentation.
Quarter of Review for OM3: Quarter of the review should be entered as calendar quarter
7 ,2,3,4 and year should be entered as a two digit number, the two separated by a dash. For example, the first quafier of 2014 would be 1-14. Period of Review for OM4 (Formerly OM15): Period of Review is the six month period
ending with the current approved treatment plan unless the case has been open less than six months. It would be entered as the month and year of the prior approved plan through the month and year of the current approved plan if the case plans were timely. Note: If this is an initial plan comingfrom intake use the date of investigation determination qs the start datefor the PUR. If there is no approved case plan use the month in which the case plan should have been approved for the second date (25 davs from the dqte ofthe meetins). Supervisory Approval: Supervisory Approval will be the initials of the senior reviewer or Court Monitor that reviewed the tool prior to acceptance for data entry.

88

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-3 Filed 12/13/17 Page 5 of 41

DI D2.
D3.
D3a. D3b to D3f. D3g-i D4. D5. D6.a-b
Ð7
D8. D9 Dt0.
Dl0a.
D.10b.
Dl1.

Information
LINK Case ID: Enter the LINK Case ID number of the case assigned to you. Verify the
information via the LINK case number located in parenthesis at the top of the desktop outliner
Date the case was most recently opened: Enter the date shown next to the Status on the
desktop outliner. Causes for DCF's Involvement on the date case was most recently opened: Check all that
apply in the menu based upon your review of the LINK Investigation Icon data or VSR protocol information that corresponds to the date entered in D2. Indicate if there was a substantiation of each of the allegations a through k. Be certain to include DV and substance abuse ifthey are included as subcategories underneath emotional or physical neglect CAN
codes.
Primary Reason cited for D3: Enter the primary finding of the Investigation or VSR protocol document. Only one reason may be selected. If no primary reason is identifrable
from the documentation, enter UTD.
SDM Investigations paperworVassessment scores. Please identif the investigation SDM
neglect and abuse scores, overall risk level and subsequent overrides, safety assessments, reassessment level and scores. Respond accordingly to each question. A-f relate to the
investieation assessment.
D.g-D.i relate to the re-assessment of risk at no more than 180 day intervals from the first assessment. Use the information provided on-line related to SDM to assist you with
identifuine these elements on the SDM tools.
Assigned Social \ilorker Name: Double click on the Assignment lcon. Look for the worker
listed as "primary" at the time of the TPC/ACR or Family Conference during the period being
reviewed. Enter as Last Name, First Name. Social Work Supervisor: In LINK select worker search and enter name of individual identifîed in D4. The Social Work Supervisor's name and ID will be located as the last information on the desktop. Enter as Last Name, First Name.
Area OffÏce and Region: This information is located in both the case assignment icon used for D4 and the Vy'orker search desktop opened for D5. Either location is acceptable for verification of the Area Office Assignment. The region can be determined by designation
assignment found on the tool. (Note: As of 9/2014 Stamford is no longer an ffice designation) Case Assignment Type: This information is determined after your review of the LINK Case
Planning information corresponding to the individual name provided to you by the supervisor Only one response can be selected. Ifyou have any question related to the case type, please
contact the supervisor.
Case Name: Enter the child or parent's name provided to you by the supervisor after confirming the spelling via the case maintenance participant section of the LINK record. Last
Name, First Name
Child's Date of Birth: Enter the date of birth for the identified child as shown in the case maintenance section of LINK. If the case is identified an in-home assignment of any type enter I 1/ll/9999.
Current Legal Status: Using the Legal Icon, review the legal status of the CIP or child(ren) active in the home. If it is an in-home case, and any child active in the home is under orotective suoervision. please select that response. as only one response mav be selected to this question. Likewise, if petitions have been filed and pending you may select that response rather than in-home with no legal to provide a greater level of detail. Juvenile Justice System Involvement: Review LINK narratives with a focus on legal narratives to determine if there is juvenile justice involvement. Identification of a probation or
parole officer as case participant invited to the TPC/ACR can also be used to determine
criminal court involvement. Educational Status: Review educational icon and information within the LINK narratives and Case Plannins document to determine if child is special education eligible.
Race: Go to the Person Management screen for the selected individual and click on the up arrow next to race (Do not accept at face value that the option shown is the only option selected). Select the appropriate response ffom the list provided. In a CIP case you are looking at the identifred child. In a family case, you are looking at the race of the named case participant. If more than one race is selected in LINK, use option 9 on the tool, "Multiracial"

89

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-3 Filed 12/13/17 Page 6 of 41

Dll.a. Dt2
D13.
D13a. D13b. D13c.
Dt4.
Dl4a Dl5
D15a. D16.
D16.a
Dl6.b Dt7.

"Unknown" and "UTD" are actual selections on the LINK menu - use only that as shown in
the Person Management screen. Use Option 7 on the tool, "Blank", only if nothing is selected in LINK. Sex of Child: Indicate sex of child through person management identification. Ethnicity: Similar to race, you are finding the information for either the child or case named individual based upon the assignment type. Go to the Person Management screen as described
for Race. Click on the up arrow next to ethnicity. Ethnicity should be identified as Hispanic if
Hispanic Latino, Other Spanish or Hispanic or Cuban, Dominican or Puefto Rican category is checked. You may also select Hispanic if the checkbox on the case management screen next to Hispanic/Latino Origin is checked, but the additional ethnicity screen is not filled out. Select "Blank" if neither section is filled out. Select'ounknown" only if the LINK entry
indicates this is the ethnicity.
TPR Filing: Use the Legal Icon to review the legal status of the child and determine if TPR has been filed, or if there is documentation that an Exception to TPR is documented in LINK. Important: If child's goal does not require TPR, or child has not been in care long enough to trigger legal fìling of TPR select option 4. If this is an in-home case, select option 5. "No" should be selected only if the circumstances of the case require such legal filing or the child has been in care for 1 5 months, and has a goal of adoption with no legal filings recorded. Date of Filing: Review Legal Icon for Petition Filing Date. In most cases the dates will be identical for both parents. Ifthere are two dates shown for the parents, select the earlier ofthe two dates to enter in the space provided. If TPR has not been filed, enter 1 1111/9999. TPR Granted: Review Legal Icon for details related to status of the petition filed in Dl3. Select "yes" if there is a record of TPR granted. Select the appropriate N/A response if TPR does not apply to the circumstance of the case. Select "no" only if there is evidence that TPR
petition was filed for one or both parents and it has not yet been granted for one or both. Date of TPR: Enter the date that TPR was granted. If TPR was granted on different days for the parents, select the later date. IfTPR is still pending on one ofthe parents, or it is not applicable to the case. you will enter I 1/1119999. Date of most recent removal episode: This is the result of legal action (CPS) or date of voluntary placement (VSR). It does not include family arrangements. Review Placement Icon data against Legal Icon data to determine the date of the 96 hour hold or OTC and date of placement. If the two differ, use the legal icon data as your response. For an in-home case, enter 1 1/1119999. If the initial removal date is blank or incorrect given the data reviewed in LINK, please email the case id and information related to the incorrect information to Joni Beth Roderick so that this data can be provided to the Department for clean up purposes.
Identify the current placement at the point of the ACR or FC. V/hat is the date upon which the child entered this placement settins? Enter as mm/dd/yyw. Time in Out-of-home Care: Calculate the time span in months from the date entered in D14 to the date upon which you are reviewing the LINK record. Round to the nearest whole
month.
ASFA Timeframe: Using the information located for D14, determine whether the child has been in care for I 5 consecutive or I 5 of the last 22 months and respond accordingly. What is the child or family's stated goal on the most recent approved Case Plan? This is the goal as stated on the Case Plan resulting from the TPC/ACR or family conference. If that plan is not approved, select option 6. Ifthe goal stated does not comply with those approved by the federal government and DCF as provided for in the menu options select option 7. As of Iuly 2007 all OPPLA goals are subsumed under one generic goal: OPPLA. There is no longer
a designation of Permanent Non-Relative Foster Care or OPPLA: Other.
The SDM Family Reunification Assessment/Reassessment Form identifres the preferred perrnanency plan for the child. Does this section "Section E" of the SDM tool correspond with the goal identified in the approved Case Plan? Respond accordingly. SDM Family Reunification Assessment/Reassessment Form: Does the form indicate that there was an override to the data based determined permanency plan? Respond accordingly. Concurrent Plan: Select the stated concurrent plan from the approved Case Plan. If no concurrent plan is in place select option 6, "none". Ifplan is not approved or is missing Treatment Goal information select option 7.

90

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-3 Filed 12/13/17 Page 7 of 41

D18a-2.

ACR Participation: Consider those at the meeting, via review of the ACR documentation, LINK narratives leading up to the TPC/ACR or family conference to determine the level of
participation/engagement effort with identified case participants in the table on page L If there

are no active service providers, in the space provided for identification indicate "skip" and select N/A in each column. If there are no "other" identified, in the space provided indicate

Dl9.

"skip" and select N/A in each column.
Current Residence of ldentified Child: Double click on the Placement/Services Icon and
find the current residence of the child-in-placement. This should be the placement with an open end date. If there is no placement indicated, and the child is not in an in-home case, review the narratives to establish current residence. This may be the case for children

hospitalized, in detention, or in and emergency temporary placement setting that has not been
entered into LINK. Select option 10 only for situations in which the Department still has
commitment and the child is living with the biological parent prior to revocation, or in cases where the adoption or TOG has recently occuted, but the case has not yet been closed. Ifthe case is the associated CIP family case, select option 19. If it is an in-home family case select

option 20

D19a and

If you were advised that the identified CIP was on the ASO or children awaiting placement list, please indicate that in 19a and respond to I 9b by entering the number of days the child has

D19b

been in delayed status.

D20.

tf child was reunified: If the child was in care during the six-month period, but commitment

has been revoked and child has since been reunifìed, enter the date ofreunification to the

home. This would be the date of the revocation of commitment - not the trial return period

Read through this dìrectíonal guÍde and protocol document carefully before you begín your Jírst revìew, and

subsequently skim both documentsfor each review thatyou conduct to refresh the scope and guidelÍnes upon

which you are making your determinatìons relsted Ío Outcome Messures 3 snd 15.

Methodology: The Monitor's Office is responsible to review at least 50 cases per calendar quarter. At the close of the month
prior to the start of each calendar quarter, we identify the caseload for the regional offices using the DCF LINK Caseload Detail Report. The case sample is stratified based upon the distribution of area office caseload. Since caseload shifts from period to period this process reflects changes that may occur over time. The sample also
incorporates both in-home and out of home cases based on overall statewide percentages reflected in that point in
time report.
The initial process required the pairing of DCF QID staff with Monitor's Review staff, during the first several quarters. This changed in the second quarter 2007 when reviews began to be completed by one individual as a result offiscal and staffing considerations. In 201 I the process largely became a blind review process so that the Department was not provided with the advantage of forewarning of the review for the identiflred cases.

Please keep in mind that although the criterion for scoring requires consistency in definition and process to
ensure validity, no two Case Plans will look alike. Each case has unique circumstances that must be factored into your decision making process as you conduct each component ofthe process. There is no one correct way
tq meet all casç,needs. You must evaluate the-facts o{thg rqqe in relationship to the standards and considerations
and have a solid basis for justifing the scoring derived from your review. Vy'e estimate each review will take from approximately 7 hours to 12 hours depending upon the circumstances and complexity of the case assigned. Those selected for interrater or our consensus reviews may take an additional l-2 hours depending upon the
length and depth of discussion held among the group participants'
1. Within 25 days after the ACR or family conference, the treatment plan should be approved by the SWS
Review the full Case LINK Record documentation with a concentration on the most recent six months information. This includes narratives, Case Planning documentation, investigation protocols, and the províder nørrativesfor ønyfoster care provider during the last síx-monlh períod. Take notes, questions and concerns related to case practice, assessment and Case Planning. This will give you a sense ofhistory, needs, and strengths ofthe active case participants and DCF. (3-5 hours)

9I

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-3 Filed 12/13/17 Page 8 of 41

2. Gather any outstanding questions and email the SWS to request clarifÏcation necessary to proceed with
scoring (if this is a consensus case the lead reviewer will be the point person of contact and issue the email) (l-2 hours)
.3 Upon response flom the region, fnalize your individual assessment(s) of the Case Plan and Needs Met
Outcome Measures and fill out the scoring forms for each. Arrive at the scores for each section and
overall scoring for OM3 and OM4 (Formerly OMl5)

Assignment Example:

As an example of our process, the January 3, 2013 Caseload is shown below, with the corresponding sample size

and review Area Office

Total Caseload Juun F, In Home '% of State C¿rseload Sample OOH ln-l'lome

Bridgeport

1,317

234

9.lYo

5.0

4

I

Danbury

372

46

2.4%

2.0

I

Hartford

2,0t1

391

l6.3Yo

8.0

6

2

Manchester Meriden

1,133

203

7.6Yo

4.0

3

I

554

lt0

4.UYo

2.0

I

I

Middletown

478

66

3.3o/"

2.0

I

Milford

980

222

6.6Yo

4.0

2

2

New Britain

1,398

327

10.2o/o

5.0

J

2

New Haven

I,t39

302

9.5o/o

5.0

J

2

Stamford

305

l7

1.0%

1.0

1

0

Norwalk

213

70

2.3Y"

2.0

I

1

Norwich

I,ls I

274

8.gYo

5.0

3

2

Special Invest. Unit

79

0

0.0%

0.0

0

0

Torrington

505

9t

3.9o/o

2.0

I

I

Waterbury

1,t92

177

8.7o/o

5.0

4

I

Willimantic

849

145

6.2Yo

3.0

2

I

13,676

2,675

100.00%

55.0

36

l9

Comparatively on September 3,2014 the caseload report showed a distribution of:

Alea Office Bridgeport Danbury Hartford Manchester Meriden Middletown Milford New Britain New Haven Norwalk3 Norwich Special Invest. Unit Torrington Waterbury Willimantic Grand'l'ot¡l

l-otal Caseloacl Juuu F, In flome (%¡ of State C¿rselo:rd

1202

284

8.7%

521

149

3.8o/o

r847
tt43

410

13.4%

314

8.3o/o

525

123

3.8o/o

424

tt7

3.1%

1094

278

7.9%

t297

371

9.4%

l2s9

339

9.t%

5ll

108

3.7%

1226

JJJ

8.9o/o

77

0

0.0o/o

487

9l

3.5o/o

1403

294

10.2%

783

133

5.',70/o

13,800

3,344

100.0%

The sample, as indicated above, incorporates both out of home and in-home cases as close as possible to the statewide rate ofdistribution on or near the last date ofthe prior quarter or first date ofthe quarter being

3 Norwalk and Stamford offices consolidated and are now located in one location in Norwalk. 92

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-3 Filed 12/13/17 Page 9 of 41
measured. It is our belief at this juncture that we will have l0-12 CM reviewers and two senior reviewers (who will also be conducting secondary reviews during this period).
Assignment: Blind reviews Cases will be assigned for review as deemed appropriate each quarter based upon reviewers availability and Court Monitor's discretion. Any conflicts with case assignment must be raised to Joni Beth ASAP so that replacements can be provided.
Outcome Measure 3 - Case Planning
This review for Outcome Measure 3 requires the reviewers to consider one primary principle based upon a series of standards and considerations outlined within the following eight sections of measurement that have been
crafted in consultation with the parties and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to arrive at a determination of
performance as it relates to Case Planning for the children and families of DCF's caseload.
This principle is: Is DCF's Case Plunning praclíce ødequale to meet the children andfamilíes' needs to resolve the presenting issues (CPS/Voluntary Servìces/Fl(SN) and udvance fhe case lo safe and approprìate closure?
The eight sections of measurement that are incorporated under this principle are:
General Family Assessment:
I.1 Reason for DCF Involvement L2 Identifoing Information I.3 Engagement of Child and Family (Formerly Identified as Strengths/l'{eeds/Other Issues) I.4. Assessment at the Date of the Review (Formerly Present Situation and Assessment ....)
Development of Goals and Steps:
II. I Determining the Goals/Objectives
II.2 Progress ll.3 Action Steps to Achieving Goals/Objectives Identified For the Upcoming Six Month Period II.4 Planning for Permanency
While the 2017 Revised Exit Plan has identified that some of these domains have been achieved for two consecutive quarters to date and therefore are in the pre-certified status at the time ofrevision, this process continues to measure all domains for consistency in data collection and reporting obligations. Each of these eight sections will be detailed following the overview of the scoring system used for Outcome Measure 3.
Sectional Scoring Reviewers will score each of the eight sections based upon a 5 point scoring system. These scores are:
Optimal Score - 5
The reviewer finds evidence of all essential Case Planning efforts for both the standard of
compliance and all relevant consideration items.
Very Good Score - 4
The reviewer finds evidence that essential elements for the standard of compliance are substantially present given the review ofrelevant consideration items.
Marginal Score - 3
There is an attempt to include the essential elements for compliance but the review finds that substantial elements for compliance as detailed by the Department's protocol are not present. Some relevant considerations have not been incorporated into the process.
Poor Score - 2
The reviewer finds a failure to incorporate the most essential elements for the standard of
compliance detailed in the Department's protocol. The process does not take into account the
93

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-3 Filed 12/13/17 Page 10 of 41
relevant considerations deemed essential, and the resulting document is in conflict with record review findings and observations during attendance at the ACR.
Absent/Adverse Score - 1
The reviewer finds no attempt to incorporate the standard for compliance or relevant considerations identified by the Department's protocol. As a result there is no Case Plan less than 7 months old at the point of review or the process has been so poorly performed that it has had an adverse affect on case planning efforts.
Each section of the tool details the standard that is to be strived for, and a list of possible considerations that may be applicable to determining if DCF has conducted its practice in accordance with that standard. These considerations will not apply to every situation or every case. In fact, there may be an additional consideration(s) that are of equal or more importance in a specific situation. This is why your record review is critical in obtaining the most complete picture of the situation and case practice prior to scoring the tool. You need to become familiar with or refresh your understanding of the Case Plan, TPC/ACR invitation requirements, and the family conferencing process. Please seek assistance from Court Monitor senior review staffif you have any questions related to these areas ofthe work.
Use the open white space to take notes (or attach additional sheets as needed.) You will be required to support your scoring if asked by a senior reviewer, the Assistant Court Monitor or Court Monitor. Each score is based upon reviewer judgment, but it must be supported by the facts of the case, and expectations of the DCF Policy and Outcome Measure 3 requirements. Scoring reflects what is in the actual final approved Case Plan document and the quality of the process that led up to that point. Howeveq if a section requires a specific identifiable item, and the document fails to incorporate that item, it should not be scored with the higher rankings of 4 or 5. If a case plan is still in draft form at the point ofyour review, you can still review the individual sections, but the final designation for overall scoring should reflect as not an "appropriate case plan" unless you feel that the Area Office in its six months worth of narrative and in reply to your query has sufüciently demonstrated consistent case planning oversight and that the failure to approve the case plan has been identified as a minor lapse in a clerical function (the click off in LINK) versus ongoing casework/supervisory deficit.
Overall Scoring The final designation for Outcome Measure 3 is located at the bottom of the scoring sheet on page 21 of the protocol document. There are two options to choose from
Appropríate Cuse Plan
and
Not øn Appropriute Cuse Plsn.
Compliance with Outcome Measure 3 will be based upon the Department's ability to achieve the designation of "Appropriate Case Plan" in the sample cases reviewed. If in the overall determination you find that a score of
less than 4 on any one section did not hinder the Case Planning process overall, you have the ability to determine that that plan is appropriate and enact an override to the overall score assigned. Likewise, ifthe Case Plan document has many of the correct elements, but overall fails to reflect the core issues present within the case, you may override by downgrading the overall score. There is not a strict mathematical equation to arrive at the overall determination. As stated on the original protocol document,
"lVhile ratings of 5 and 4 reflecting high standørds qnd best case practices will generally be considered necessaryfor afinding of "Appropriqte Case Plan", instructions to the reviewers
þr and senior reviewers this process will stress that a reviewer's determination is not tied to a
numericql scoring system but rather will based on their overall review of øll domains and elements of the case. This will allow reviewers to make informed decisions qnd over-ride the rare cese in which one domain with a lower score does not substantially impact the overall quality of performance. To ensure the validity of this process, the tool will provide space in which all scoring must be justified or defended by the reviewers. All cases will initially be reviewed in pairs and then screened by Monitoring Senior reviewers prior to dqta entry. Any case whichfalls into the category of over-ride utilization will not only be reviewed by the
94

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-3 Filed 12/13/17 Page 11 of 41
Monitoring Senior reviewers and the Court Monitor, but will also be forwarded to the TAC for
their review. "a
Non-negotiable Requirements There are three elements that are required under the Outcome Measure Requirements for any plan to be scored as an "Appropriate Case Plan". These can not be overridden. If they are not answered affirmatively, you will still measure the eight sections to establish performance levels for informational purposes, but regardless of your findings, the plan must be ranked as o'not an appropriate Case Plan." These non-negotiable elements are located at the top of the Scoring Sheet on page 21. They are:
: Currency of Case Plan: "There must be an approved Case Plan less than seven months old at the point of your
review." For our current purposes we look at the 205 days as the outside time frame. 181 +25 days 206 days. Ifthere is not, the plan 205 days old or less, it is "not an appropriate Case Plan"'
Language Requirement: Using the information located under "Primary Language" and "Translator Required" in the LINK person management screens as well as your attendance at the ACR, you will be asked to answer two questions "Was the family or child's language needs accommodated?" and "Check the reasons that apply to your determination of the response to L.1 below (the prior question)? If the former question is answered "no" or "IJTD" and the reason stated is either "Case Plan document not written in the primary language" or "both Case Plan and meeting language requirements were not met". The plan must be ranked as "not an appropriate Case Plan". (If there is no case plan initialized be sure to use the appropriate response identifying that rather than UTD response.)
Workers and supervisors have been instructed to indicate in narrative if the plan has been translated - if you do
not see this documentation, you cannot respond affirmatively to this question.
SWS Approval: In general, the federal requirement states that all children in placement cases should have an ACR at 45 days with a case plan approved within 60 days of the child entering placement and from that point
forward, an ACR approximately every l8l days from the prior ACR. DCF policy required that a case plan be
approved within l0 days of that ACR. The new ACRI process has lengthened the timeframe for approval by an additional I 5 days as the ACR staff has been granted a graçe period to 1 5 days post ACR to complete their paperwork. This gives the AO staff 25 days from the date of the ACR to approve the case plan. You must review the Case Planning icon documentation to determine if SWS approval has been granted to the
Case Plan developed during the meeting attended. This is not a determination of whether the Case Plan was corrected or edited as per the meeting notes, it is specifically the approval status of the SWS we are capturing for this element. The quality of the Case Plan is captured under the eight sections detailed below. In-Home family cases should be approved within 60 days of the case plan opening in Ongoing Services and from that point forward, approximately every 1 8 I -201 days from the prior case plan approval. (Per Department practice these
dates would be end dates of 85 and 205 at this juncture * allowing for the extension of approval due to the ACRI
approval/SWS approval process which grants a total of 25 days)
Hold on to all materials. At the completion of your review for the Case Plan post attendance at the TPC/ACR or family conference, please indicate all of your sectional ratings on page 23 of the tool, and indicate whether the three non-negotiable items were present. Select your overall-score. Document your rationale for OM3 and OM4 (Formerly OMl5). If a consensus vote between the initial and senior reviewer cannot be reached, the Assistant Court Monitor or Court Monitor will act as a third voice. If this cannot be done immediately, a time will be arranged for a three-way conversation at the next available time.
4 Not., There have been some adjustments to the original protocolo but the majority of practices remain in place. It is a three tier system of review. No longer do we require a paired review process' and the TAC oversight has been reserved for very isolated instances and has not been utilized in some time. The third review is conducted by the Court Monitor or Assistant Court Monitor prior to data entry on every case to
enhance quality and validity.
95

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-3 Filed 12/13/17 Page 12 of 41
Section I.1: Reason for DCF Involvement (page 12)
The standard requires that,"The plan provides a description ofthe current assessed risk and safety factors for the child/family and/ or provides brief details ofthe assessed bqrriers to achieving the stqted case planning goal. For the Voluntary Services client, the section would identify the primary and acute behaviors necessitating intervention and/or the necessary mental or behaviorql heqlth services thqt were not qvqilable without Department intervention and which is requestedfor the upcoming period.
The purpose for such a standard is to ensure that family members, as appropriate to age and role, should understand the reasons for DCF involvement. Acknowledging the individual nature of cases, we cannot determine all critical considerations that may surface. You are to use your judgment in determining the weight of considerations in light of the case circumstance. Basic considerations which are likely to factor into the majority of cases are provided below to guide the reviewer in establishing if the standard has been met and might include:
o Is the statement reflective of SDM, narrative entry, and other assessments conducted and
available for review in the 6 month period leading up to and including the TPC/ACR or Family Conference
o If participants were present at the ACR, did the discussion provide adequate explanation at an
appropriate level to facilitate an understanding for the continued reasons for DCF involvement in the child/family's life?
Ifyou find other considerations ofequal or greater weight or feel that one or more ofthe basic considerations do not apply it is your responsibility to document these issues and relate how they factor into your final determination of scoring for the section. The considerations include not only the written explanation within the
plan document, but the documentation and verbal information that you locate during your record review process and attendance at the TPC/ACR or family conference if this is an attended review. If the client or providers did not participate in the TPC/ACfuor family conference, the record review and follow up questions to the area office can help determine if there is evidence of discussion or understanding ofthe reason for DCF involvement. If there is some justified reason for the plan document to deviate from a full disclosure of the reason for involvement, but communication reflects a clear understanding, this should be given appropriate weight when factoring your score.
You will score this section based upon the 5 point scale mentioned prior and provided below for ease of use. Remember, that your professional judgment is critical in assigning the designation and your notes and process
should reflect how you arrived at any score.
Optimal Score - 5 The reviewer finds evidence ofall essential Case Planning efforts for both the standard of
compliance and all relevant consideration items.
Very Good Score - 4
The reviewer finds evidence that essential elements for the standard of compliance are substantially present given the review ofrelevant consideration items.
Marginal Score - 3
There is an attempt to include the essential elements for compliance but the review finds that substantial elements for compliance as detailed by the Deparlment's protocol are not present. Some relevant considerations have not been incorporated into the process.
Poor Score - 2 The reviewer finds a failure to incorporate the most essential elements for the standard of
compliance detailed in the Department's protocol. The process does not take into account the relevant considerations deemed essential, and the resulting document is in conflict with record review findings and observations during attendance at the ACR.
Absent/Adverse Score - 1
The reviewer finds no attempt to incorporate the standard for compliance or relevant considerations identifìed by the Department's protocol. As a result there is no Case Plan less
96

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-3 Filed 12/13/17 Page 13 of 41

than 7 months old at the point of review or the process has been so poorly performed that it has had an adverse affect on case planning efforts.

Section

I.2.
.

Identifying Information (Page l3)
The standard requires that "The worker

has

identified

case participønts

and significant

int er-r e I at i ons hips. "

The purposefor the standard is to ensure thøt all case participants and their interrelationships are correctly identified to best inform the assessment of risks, supports, and strengths upon which the plan is to be developed.

Acknowledging the individual nature of cases, we cannot determine all critical considerations that may surface. You are to use your judgment in determining the weight of considerations in light of the case circumstance. Basic considerations which are likely to factor into the majority of cases are provided below to guide the reviewer in establishing if the standard has been met might include:
. Is the date of birth, sex, and primary language information provided on all active family
members living in the home?
r Has the worker identified the relationship between each adult to the children living within
the home?
r Does the worker identifo the non-custodial birth/adoptive parent and provide a brief
statement as to their relationship to his/her child residing in the home? (lf whereabouts unknown, or if there is no ongoing relationship, this should be documented in a very brief
statement.)
¡ Does this section include pertinent religious, medical, mental health, employment,
criminal activity or educational information if important to setting the baseline for goal
establishment2
. Are cultural connections and the positive/negative nature ofthe relationships or experiences
that the family has experienced included?
I Have family and community support networks been explored/identified?

Ifyou find other considerations ofequal or greater weight or feel that one or more ofthe basic considerations do not apply it is your responsibility to document these issues and relate how they factor into your final determination of scoring for the section. The considerations include not only the written explanation within the
plan document, but the documentation and verbal information that you locate during your record review process and attendance at the TPC/ACR or family conference if this is an attended review. If the client or providers did not participate in the TPC/ACR/or family conference, the record review and follow up questions to the area offrce can help to determine if there is evidence of discussion or understanding of the reason for DCF
involvement.

You will score this section based upon the 5 point scale mentioned prior and provided below for ease of use. Remember, that your professional judgment is critical in assigning the designation and your notes and process

should reflect how you arrived at any score.

Optimal Score - 5
The reviewer finds evidence

of

all

essential

Case

Planning

efforts

for

both

the

standard

of

compliance and all relevant consideration items.

Very Good Score - 4
The reviewer finds evidence that essential elements for the standard of compliance are substantially present given the review of relevant consideration items.

Marginal Score - 3
There is an attempt to include the essential elements for compliance but the review finds that substantial elements for compliance as detailed by the Department's protocol are not present. Some relevant considerations have not been incorporated into the process.

97

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-3 Filed 12/13/17 Page 14 of 41

Poor Score - 2 The reviewer finds a failure to incorporate the most essential elements for the standard of
compliance detailed in the Department's protocol. The process does not take into account the relevant considerations deemed essential, and the resulting document is in conflict with record review findings and observations during attendance at the ACR.
Absent/Adverse Score - I
The reviewer finds no attempt to incorporate the standard for compliance or relevant considerations identified by the Department's protocol. As a result there is no Case Plan less than 7 months old at the point of review or the process has been so poorly performed that it has had an adverse affect on case planning efforts.

Secti.on

I.3.
The

Engagement of Child and Family (Formerly StrengthsÆ'rleeds/Other Issues (Page 14) standard requires thatKThe input of thefamily/child is considered/addressed in the Cqse

t Planning process".5
The Cqse Plan emphasizes individual child and/or family strengths.

The purpose of this section is to ensure that the child and orfamily's perception, as well as that of providers

involved in the cøse are provided along with that of DCF. This family engagement is needed to approøch Case Planning as a team, qnd assists in developing the strength based assessment required in Section L4.

Acknowledging the individual nature of cases, we cannot determine all critical considerations that may surface. You are to use your judgment in determining the weight of considerations in light of the case

circumstance. Basic considerations which are likely to factor into the majority of cases are provided

below to guide the reviewer in establishing if the standard has been met might include:

. Is DCF using effective outreach and engagement strategies to build a working partnership with

the child and family? r What was the cualifv of the Familv Feedhack

ve or Child's Perceotion included within

the plan document?

Are current needs and strengths evident from both the worker/DCF perspective and the

perspective of the client(s)?

Is the Case Plan reflective of the SDM@ Family Strengths and Needs

A s s e s s m ent/Re qs s es s m ent and SD M@ F øm ily ReuniJì c at i on As s es s ment/ Re as s es s ment or ongoing SII assessment through cqse management and provider input in cases where SDM is

not required? ¡ Were the required visitation plan and medical screens included in the process and provided to

the family during the meeting? ¡ Was there evidence that the S'W had engaged the child and/or family in the development of the

case plan prior to the meeting attended?

I Was the TPC, ACR or Family Conference facilitation successful in engaging the child or family

in discussion oftheir case plan?

I Is there evidence that the family been informed of the consequences of not taking the necessary action to meet the prior plan's requirements?

Is there evidence that the family/child has been involved in identification of barriers and the

development of the action steps?

Has the family been informed of the consequences of not taking the necessary action in the

upcoming six-month period?

Ifyou find other considerations ofequal or greater weight or feel that one or more ofthe basic considerations do not apply it is your responsibility to document these issues and relate how they factor into your final determination of scoring for the section. The considerations include not only the written explanation within the

5 Notes: The client statement of issue s needs and strengths should be the result of a discussion with the client in which the client is given the opportunity to indicate how they view the issues. Items to consider are: the client's perspective on what led to/required DCF involvement, how they feel they are progressing toward case closure, their selfidentified strengths, and any barriers they feel are preventing them from their goals. This may be a discussion at the ACR or one documented in LINK narrative preceding the finalization of the Case Plan in LINK.

98

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-3 Filed 12/13/17 Page 15 of 41
plan document, but the documentation and verbal information that you locate during your record review process and aftendance at the TPC/ACR or family conference if this is an attended review. If the client or providers did not participate in the TPC/ACR/or family conference, the record review and follow up questions to the area office can help determine if there is evidence of discussion or understanding of the reason for DCF involvement. The perceptions provided can include direct comments fiom the participants, or can be a summary of the comments provided during the TPC/ACR or family conference. They should not be carried over from prior Case Planning period engagement and outreach, and need to reflect the current status and issues prevalent in the case.
You will score this section based upon the 5 point scale mentioned prior and provided below for ease of use. Remember, that your professional judgment is critical in assigning the designation and your notes and process
should reflect how you arrived at any score.
Optimal Score - 5
The reviewer finds evidence of all essential Case Planning efforts for both the standard of compliance and all relevant consideration items.
Very Good Score - 4
The reviewer finds evidence that essential elements for the standard of compliance are substantially present given the review ofrelevant consideration items.
Marginal Score - 3
There is an attempt to include the essential elements for compliance but the review finds that substantial elements for compliance as detailed by the Department's protocol are not present. Some relevant considerations have not been incorporated into the process.
Poor Score - 2
The reviewer finds a failure to incorporate the most essential elements for the standard of compliance detailed in the Department's protocol. The process does not take into account the relevant considerations deemed essential, and the resulting document is in conflict with record review findings and observations during attendance at the ACR.
Absent/Adverse Score - 1
The reviewer finds no attempt to incorporate the standard for compliance or relevant considerations identified by the Department's protocol. As a result there is no Case Plan less than 7 months old at the point of review or the process has been so poorly performed that it has had an adverse affect on case planning efforts.
Section I.4. Assessment at the Date of the Review (Page 15)
. The standard for compliance requires "The risks, safely concerns, and needsfor the child and
.family are identified within the worker's assessment of thefamily/child's current level of
functioning." The purpose ofthis section is to synthesize all availqble informationfrom all sources to set the stagefor the development of goals, objectives and the permqnency goal for the next six-month period.
Acknowledging the individual nature of cases, we cannot determine all critical considerations that may surface. You are to use your judgment in determining the weight of considerations in light of the case circumstance. Basic considerations which are likely to factor into the majority of cases are provided below to guide the reviewer in establishing if the standard has been met might include: Are the identified risks, safety concems, and needs documented in the LINK record within the six-month period leading up to the TPC/ACR meeting and any risks or needs identifred at that meeting6 included into the planning document as appropriate?
6 As the Technical Advisory Committee indicates, "In order to be best informed about recent practice, reviewers must also generally review (skim) the entire case record to better understand the family and the child's history and the needs so that the actions taken by the Department can be viewed in the context of a complete understanding of the child and family."
99

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-3 Filed 12/13/17 Page 16 of 41
Were the Priority and Other identified needs of the primary and secondary caretaker, as well as the all needs for each child and strengths of the family members as identified by SDM@ incorporated into the discussion at the TPC/ACR/FC and as appropriate, included into the domains within the assessment section of the Case Plan document?7
Are the identified risks, safety concerns, and needs documented in the LINK record within the six-month period leading up to the TPC/ACR meeting and any risks or needs identified at that meetings included into the planning document as appropriate?
I Does the assessment accurately take into account the history ofreferrals, substantiations, and services provided to assist the client to reduce the risks identified to the date ofthe most recent ACR?
Does the section incorporate the current visitation evaluation from the most recent SDM@ F amily Reunifi cation Ass es sm ent/Reas s essment form?
I Has the social worker considered all available information including the provider's written and verbal comments, formal summary assessments, past history and recent progress; and included those that are pertinent?e
Ifyou find other considerations ofequal or greater weight or feel that one or more ofthe basic considerations do not apply it is your responsibility to document these issues and relate how they factor into your final determination of scoring for the section. The considerations include not only the written explanation within the
plan document, but the documentation and verbal information that you locate during your record review process and attendance at the TPC/ACR or family conference if this is an attended review. If the client or providers did not participate in the TPC/ACR/or family conference, the record review and follow up questions to the area offtce can help determine if there is evidence of discussion or understanding of the priority needs of the family, and its strengths. The reviewer must consider the quality and scope of the section, and the accuracy of the
identified risks, safety concerns and needs in relation to the case events documented in LINK in the six months leading up to the TPC/ACR or family conference and finalization of the case plan reviewed. If goal is Transfer of Guardianship (TOG, STOG or Permanent TOG - with or without subsidy) or child is adolescent, a special
focus on those areas must be included per policy.
You will score this section based upon the 5 point scale mentioned prior and provided below for ease of use. Remember, that your professional judgment is critical in assigning the designation and your notes and process
should reflect how you arrived at any score.
Optimal Score - 5 The reviewer finds evidence of all essential Case Planning efforts for both the standard of
compliance and all relevant consideration items.
Very Good Score - 4
The reviewer finds evidence that essential elements for the standard of compliance are substantially present given the review ofrelevant consideration items.
Marginal Score - 3
There is an attempt to include the essential elements for compliance but the review finds that substantial elements for compliance as detailed by the Department's protocol are not present. Some relevant considerations have not been incorporated into the process.
7 SDM@ requires the assessment of all active case participant children in the home as well as the primary and secondary caregivers in the home. The present situation and current assessment as well as the goals and objectives for the period should be reflective of the SDM@ documentation. 8 As the Technical Advisory Committee indicates, "ln order to be best informed about recent practice, reviewers must also generally review (skim) the entire case record to better understand the family and the child's history and the needs so that the actions taken by the Department can be viewed in the context of a complete understanding of the child and family." e As the Technical Advisory Committee indicates, "ln order to be best informed about recent practice, reviewers must also generally review (skim) the entire case record to better understand the family and the child's history and the needs so that the actions taken by the Department can be viewed in the context of a complete understanding of the child and family."
100

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-3 Filed 12/13/17 Page 17 of 41
Poor Score - 2
The reviewer finds a failure to incorporate the most essential elements for the standard of compliance detailed in the Department's protocol. The process does not take into account the relevant considerations deemed essential, and the resulting document is in conflict with record review findings and observations during attendance at the ACR.
Absent/Adverse Score - 1
The reviewer finds no attempt to incorporate the standard for compliance or relevant considerations identified by the Department's protocol. As a result there is no Case Plan less than 7 months old at the point of review or the process has been so poorly performed that it has had an adverse affect on case planning efforts.
Section II.l. Determining the Goals/Objectives (page l6)
The standards for compliance require that the process result in a document that has:
. Clear, prioritized goals/objectives are stated within the case objective section of the Case Plan for the child, and where applicable þr the parent or guardian which are consistent with the
. .family qssessment.
The social worker shall address and document those issues which are specific to the needs of the
. adolescent population (childrenfourteen yeqrs of age who will not return home).t0
Adolescent Discharge Plan is completed during period if required by case circumstqncestt.
. There is evidencet2 that thefamilylchild has been involved in development of the
goals/obj ectives.
The purposefor this section is to clearly establish the goals and objectives (not to be confusedwith the overarching permanency goal which is measured in 11.4.) qnd connect these efforts to the reasonfor DCF's involvement and strengthening the child andfamily's ability to achieve the overall permanency goal. Further, ifconcurrent plønning efforts are indicqted, these are retlected as well so that all parties have a common understanding of what is expected of each pørticipant in the six-month period ahead.
Acknowledging the individual nature of cases, we cannot determine all critical considerations that may surface. You are to use your judgment in determining the weight of considerations in light of the case circumstance. Basic considerations which are likely to factor into the majority of cases are provided below to guide the reviewer in establishing if the standard has been met might include:
. Are stated goals/objectives connected to child and the reason for DCF's continued involvement?
Are they supported by the SDM@ Family Strengths and Needs Reassessment, SDM@ Family Reunification Assessment/Reassessment and/or the most current SDM@ Risk Reassessment and
r Safety Plan (when present) at the point of Case Planning?13
Do the goals/objectives reflect concurrent planning efforts where there is a stated concurrent plan?
r Form 2250 is no longer being completed. As such for the Adolescent Population specific focus . on engagement related to their issues must be monitored.
Was there discussion with the child/family and providers for any adolescent (ages 14-21) in out of home care with a goal other than reunification regarding applicable issues such as:
o need to develop Life Skills and/or knowledge to enable self-sufficiently o development and support of family members and significant adults willing and able to make a
lifelong commitment
- r0 See April 2015 Policy release 42-3 and 42-7.
I I A conference shall be held to finalize an Adolescent Discharge Plan for all youth eighteen ( I 8) years of age or older in outof-home placement at least one hundred and eighty ( I 80) days (six months) prior to the anticipated discharge from Depafiment care. 12 Either observed via attendance at the ACR or as documented LINK narrative to that effect. t3 SDM@ requires the assessment of all active case participant children in the home as well as the primary and secondary caregivers in the home. The present situation and current assessment as well as the goals and objectives for the period should be reflective of the SDM@ documentation.
101

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-3 Filed 12/13/17 Page 18 of 41

o the need for an assessment to determine educational and/or vocational interests and level of

o o o o o o o o

ability, and/or post high school educational interests whether the youth has taken a career interest assessment whether the youth has taken a learning-style inventory the need to achieve timely permanency whether the youth has been referred to a Life-Long Family Ties Program issues ofsexual orientation, cultural awareness the need for future referral to Adult Services whether the case should be transferred to a specialty unit mental and medical health status (including identi$ing future needs)

o housing

o finances (including any sources ofincome and any survivor benefits)

o substance abuse

o legal issues

o parenting issues

o Independent Living Passport and essential documents.

Ifyou find other considerations ofequal or greater weight or feel that one or more ofthe basic considerations do not apply it is your responsibility to document these issues and relate how they factor into your final determination of scoring for the section. The considerations include not only the written explanation within the plan document, but the documentation and verbal information that you locate during your record review process and attendance at the TPC/ACR or family conference. If the client or providers did not participate in the TPC/ACR/or family conference, the record review can be used to determine if there is evidence of discussion or understanding of the reason for DCF involvement.

You will score this section based upon the 5 point scale mentioned prior and provided below for ease of use. Remembeq that your professional judgment is critical in assigning the designation and your notes and process
should reflect how you arrived at any score.

Optimal Score - 5 The reviewer finds evidence of all essential Case Planning efforts for both the standard of
compliance and all relevant consideration items.

Very Good Score - 4
The reviewer finds evidence that essential elements for the standard of compliance are substantially present given the review ofrelevant consideration items.

Marginal Score - 3
There is an attempt to include the essential elements for compliance but the review finds that substantial elements for compliance as detailed by the Department's protocol are not present. Some relevant considerations have not been incorporated into the process.

Poor Score - 2 The reviewer finds a failure to incorporate the most essential elements for the standard of
compliance detailed in the Department's protocol. The process does not take into account the relevant considerations deemed essential, and the resulting document is in conflict with record review findings and observations during attendance at the ACR.
Absent/Adverse Score - I
The reviewer finds no attempt to incorporate the standard for compliance or relevant considerations identified by the Department's protocol. As a result there is no Case Plan less than 7 months old at the point of review or the process has been so poorly performed that it has had an adverse affect on case planning efforts.

102

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-3 Filed 12/13/17 Page 19 of 41

Secti.on

II.2. Progress
The standard

(page 18) for compliance

requires

that

the

"The

Case

Objective

section

within

the

plan

reflects the progresstt towards goals/objectives in the last six month period as evaluated by

DCF with input from the family and providers.

The purpose of this section is fo ensure that the child and/orfamily is qdvised of the progress/regress and
ffict (both positive and consequential) of their actions during the prior six-month period as it relates to
goal achievement, qnd to inform the plan and the upcoming process through the identiJìcation of barriers
that need to be addressed.

Acknowledging the individual nature of cases, we cannot determine all critical considerations that may surface. You are to use your judgment in determining the weight of considerations in light of the case circumstance. Basic considerations which are likely to factor into the majority of cases are provided below to guide the reviewer in establishing if the standard has been met might include:
. Has the social worker focused on the strengths of the client, and incorporated input from r involved professionals during the 6 month period?
Does section accurately reflect the level of family's compliance with the SDM@ Safety Plan in place, or agency, provider and/or court expectations at the point ofthis current Case Planning
process?
. Does SDM@ Risk Reassessment correspond with the progress noted within the case narratives,
that discussed at the ACR or family conference and that identified within the Case Planning
document?
. Have barriers been identified to progress as a result ofthis case planning effort so that future
efforts have been informed by this Case Planning process?

Ifyou fìnd other considerations ofequal or greater weight or feel that one or more ofthe basic considerations do not apply it is your responsibility to document these issues and relate how they factor into your final determination of scoring for the section. The considerations include not only the written explanation within the plan document, but the documentation and verbal information that you locate during your record review process and attendance at the TPC/ACR or family conference if this is an attended review. If the client or providers did not participate in the TPC/ACR/or family conference, the record review can be used to determine ifthere is evidence ofdiscussion or understanding ofthe reason
for DCF's continued involvement.

You will score this section based upon the 5 point scale mentioned prior and provided below for ease of use. Remembeq that your professional judgment is critical in assigning the designation and your notes and process
should reflect how you arrived at any score.

Optimal Score - 5
The reviewer finds evidence of all essential Case Planning efforts for both the standard of
compliance and all relevant consideration items.

Very Good Score - 4
The reviewer finds evidence that essential elements for the standard of compliance are substantially present given the review ofrelevant consideration items'

Marginal Score - 3
There is an attempt to include the essential elements for compliance but the review finds that substantial elements for compliance as detailed by the Department's protocol are not present. Some relevant considerations have not been incorporated into the process.

Poor Score - 2
The reviewer finds a failure to incorporate the most essential elements for the standard of
compliance detailed in the Department's protocol. The process does not take into account the

ra "Progress" can actually be regress or stability over the period. This section is measuring the accuracy ofthe worker's synopsis of what has transpired over the last Case Planning period. It may not be a positive movement and could still be a five ranking if it is accurate depiction of what is documented in LINK, and discussed at the ACR/TPC or Family Conference.
103

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-3 Filed 12/13/17 Page 20 of 41
relevant considerations deemed essential, and the resulting document is in conflict with record review findings and observations during attendance at the ACR.
Absent/Adverse Score - I
The reviewer finds no attempt to incorporate the standard for compliance or relevant considerations identified by the Department's protocol. As a result there is no Case Plan less than 7 months old at the point of review or the process has been so poorly performed that it has had an adverse affect on case planning efforts.
Section II.3. Action Steps to Achieving Goals Identified for the Upcoming Six Month Period (p. 19)
The standard for compliance requires that there "There are clearly stqted qction stepsfor each
goal/objective and the responsible parties (DCF, providers, and all active family membersls) for
each goal are identified."
The purposefor this section is to ensure that the actions required ofthe case participants during the upcoming Case Planning cycle are broken down into time specific, measurable, meaningful incremental sleps to progress toward goal achievement. This requires that efforts to engage the participant in the development are present and at a minimum it is clear that they haye been informed and understand what is expected and the possible consequences for failing to take the action required. Acknowledging the individual nature of cases, we cannot determine all critical considerations that may surface. You are to use your judgment in determining the weight of considerations in light of the case circumstance. Basic considerations which are likely to factor into the majority of cases are provided below to guide the reviewer in establishing if the standard has been met might include:
' Are the stated goals/objectives and action steps consistent with the case documentation for each
active family member given the assessment information available to you from your review of
the case information and attendance at the ACR or family conference?r6
o Are the stated steps and goals/objectives consistent with the ACRI documentation? o Are the stated steps and goals/objectives reflective of the permanency goal? o Are the stated steps consistent with the SDM@ Safety Plan and SDM@ Family
Strengths and Needs Reassessment documentation at the time of this Case Planning cycle?
' Are action steps for goals/objeclrves Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time
limited?
Notes: This is the section that informs the families of all expectations within the next six-month planning cycle and is therefore deemed the most critical. Although not required in detail as in the past, each goal should adopt the SMART elements as detailed in the directional guide above. If certain action steps are legally mandated, these shouldbe identiflred as such.
You will score this section based upon the 5 point scale mentioned prior and provided below for ease of use. Remember, that your professional judgment is critical in assigning the designation and your notes and process
should reflect how you arrived at any score.
Optimal Score - 5
The reviewer finds evidence of all essential Case Planning efforts for both the standard of
compliance and all relevant consideration items.
15 Review will include the completed family Case Plan document for additional details to capture all information related to the parents' action steps as they relate to the child's goals as workers often do not include this information on the child's Case Plan document. 16 SDM allows for 3 priority needs for each active family case participant. Other needs may be pulled in as required by the case circumstances. In cases where SDM is not indicated, the social worker shall use alternate means of assessment, provider and family feedback, and supervision to determine the priority needs for the
period.
r04

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-3 Filed 12/13/17 Page 21 of 41

Very Good Score - 4
The reviewer finds evidence that essential elements for the standard of compliance are substantially present given the review of relevant consideration items.

Marginal Score - 3
There is an attempt to include the essential elements for compliance but the review finds that substantial elements for compliance as detailed by the Department's protocol are not present. Some relevant considerations have not been incorporated into the process.

Poor Score -
The reviewer

2 finds

a

failure

to

incorporate

the

most

essential

elements

for

the

standard

of

compliance detailed in the Department's protocol. The process does not take into account the

relevant considerations deemed essential, and the resulting document is in conflict with record

review findings and observations during attendance at the ACR.

Absent/Adverse Score - I
The reviewer finds no attempt to incorporate the standard for compliance or relevant considerations identiflred by the Department's protocol. As a result there is no Case Plan less than 7 months old at the point of review or the process has been so poorly performed that it has
had an adverse affect on case planning efforts.

Section II.4. Planning for Permanency (page 20)

The standard for compliance requires that:
. fh" pto, contains the identification of an øppropriate cqse permanency goø117 (based on the

circumstances ofthe case) using one ofthe current approved terms:

o Reunification

o Adoption

o Transfer of GuørdianshiP

o Long Term Foster Care with a licensed RelaÍive

o OPPLA

.

o In-Home Goals - Safety/lüell Being Issues
There is an identification of a concurrent goal qry!plan if the case permanency goal is

reuniJìcation.
t There is a visitqtion pløn for parents qnd siblings for cases involving a child in placement. It
should describe thefrequency, duration and type ofvisitation permitted behveen parents and

their children, between siblings, and between other relatives as necessary.
. In cases with court involvement, the Case Plqn goal or concurrent plan goal as stated in the
document coincides with the court qpproved permanency goal for the child.

The purposefor this section is to ensure that an appropriatets Case Plan goal, and if required concurrent goql, has been identi/ìed and is understood by the child and/orfamily as appropriate to qge qnd role.
Acknowledging the individual nature of cases, we cannot determine all critical considerations that may surface. You are to use your judgment in determining the weight of considerations in light of the case circumstance. Basic considerations which are likely to factor into the majority of cases are provided below to guide the reviewer in establishing if the standard has been met might include:
. Is the permanency goal(s) consistent with the stated goals and action steps?

r7 TPR is not a permanency goal; it is an action step toward achieving permanency. The concurrent goal must be clearly stated in this section with a brief statement of the timing and activities that DCF is going to take toward achieving the concurrent Plan.
rs Defined as: realistic based on the age of the child(ren), length of time in care, and consistency with the facts of
the case. Also must be supported by the action steps and short term goals set forth in 11.3.
105

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-3 Filed 12/13/17 Page 22 of 41
Ifappropriate given the circumstances ofthe case has a concurrent plan been developed where the goal is other than reunification? For in-home cases, did the worker and family develop a plan that could be followed in the event that circumstances require the removal of their children or inability to reuni|l? (This plan would identifu relative or other persons known to child as a potential resource for placement. If no resources have been identified, this should be indicated.) Does the goal coincide with the SDM Family Reunification Assessment/Reassessment Permanency
Recommendation?
I If the goal is OPPLA, has the area office followed the appropriate referral process to the Permanency Planning Team and received their approval to proceed with this non-preferred goal?
You will score this section based upon the 5 point scale mentioned prior and provided below for ease of use. Remember, that your professional judgment is critical in assigning the designation and your notes and process
should reflect how you arrived at any score.
Optimal Score - 5
The reviewer finds evidence of all essential Case Planning efforts for both the standard of
compliance and all relevant consideration items.
Very Good Score - 4
The reviewer finds evidence that essential elements for the standard of compliance are substantially present given the review ofrelevant consideration items.
Marginal Score - 3
There is an attempt to include the essential elements for compliance but the review frnds that substantial elements for compliance as detailed by the Department's protocol are not present. Some relevant considerations have not been incorporated into the process.
Poor Score - 2
The reviewer finds a failure to incorporate the most essential elements for the standard of compliance detailed in the Department's protocol. The process does not take into account the relevant considerations deemed essential, and the resulting document is in conflict with record
review findings and observations during attendance at the ACR.
Absent/Adverse Score - I
The reviewer finds no attempt to incorporate the standard for compliance or relevant considerations identified by the Department's protocol. As a result there is no Case Plan less than 7 months old at the point of review or the process has been so poorly performed that it has had an adverse affect on case planning efforts.
The OM3 Scoring Sheet: Answer the areas related to non-negotiable requirements: Timing,Language, and Approval. Follow that up with the questions related to the ACR process and proceed to the overall scoring page in which you will bring your scores from the individual sections and enter them for ease ofdata entry.
In all cases. the SWS must be contacted via email and provided the opportunit), to clarif' areas of contradiction or provide additional input/information regardins the case planningand supervision of the case during the prior six month period. This conversation or email response is voluntary. If the SWS does not respond to your offer,
the case is to be scored with the information available within the record.
After reviewing the full picture presented by the scores that you have entered, Rank the overall quality of the Case Planning process and plan document as Appropriate or Not Appropriate give the scoring methodology and facts ofthe case before you. Provide a brief rationale for overall scoring ofthe case as having met needs or not met needs during the period. Space is provided on the page following the overall scoring section for this purpose.
106

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-3 Filed 12/13/17 Page 23 of 41
Outcome Measure 4 (Formerly Outcome Measure 15) - Needs Met
This review for Outcome Measure 4 (Formerly Outcome Measure l5) requires reviewers to consider one primary principle based upon a series of standards and considerations outlined within eleven sections of measurement that have been crafted in consultation with the parties and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to arrive at a determination of perforrnance as it relates to the Department's ability to meet the needs of the clients it serves.
This principle is: Is DCF's Case Plsnning practìce, referral and provìsÍon of seruice adequate to meet the chíldren und famìlies' needs, resolve presenting issues snd advance the case to safe ønd appropriate closure?
The eleven sections of measurement that are incorporated under this principle are:
Safety Ratings (you will respond to one or both of the sections based on the status of the case assigned during the
six-month period):
I. l. In Home Cases
L2. Children in Placement Cases
Permanency Ratings:
II.1 Securing the Permanent Placement - Action Plan for the Next Six Months II.2 DCF Case Management - Legal Action to Achieve the Permanency Goal
During the Prior Six Months
II.3 DCF Case Management - Recruitment for Placement Providers to Achieve
The Permanency Goal during the Prior Six Month Period
II.4. DCF Case Management - Contracting or Providing Services to achieve the
Permanency Goal during the Prior Six Months
Well Being (Medical" Dental. Mental Health) Ratings:
III.l. Medical Needs
III.2. Dental Needs IIl.3. Mental Health, Behavioral and Substance Abuse Services
Well Being (Other Considerationsl Ratings:
IV.l. Child's Cunent Placement
IV.2. Education
As part of this process you are examining at the impact of the prior Case Plan and actions/steps and services implemented up to through the current Case Planning process including the attendance at the TPC/ACR or family conference and finally the new Case Plan. This measure is no longer subject to the restriction of "passing" OM3. It is also not limited to needs identified in the Case Planning document, but includes those needs identified within the plan document and those identified via the case review and attendance at the TPC/ACR or family conference. Even if you deem Outcome Measure 3 as "Not an Appropriate Case Plan" you could find that through the full review process and attendance, needs were adequately assessed and provided for (or vice versa).
While the focus is on the six-month period leading up to the TPC/ACR or family conference, you will find it necessary to revisit the LINK record for background information to best understand the client's needs, prior
service intervention history, placement and investigative history, etc as you make your determination related to the quality of the Department's practice.
107

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-3 Filed 12/13/17 Page 24 of 41
Sections will be measured on a five part scale which includes:
Optimal Score - 5
The reviewer finds evidence that DCF has met all elements identified for the standards of compliance, and that DCF's assessment and service provision has incorporated all relevant consideration items.
Very Good Score - 4
The reviewer finds evidence that the essential elements for the standards of compliance are substantially present via DCF's assessment and service provision as it relates to the relevant considerations items.
Marginal Score - 3
There is an attempt to include the essential elements for the standards of compliance. However, the reviewer frnds substantial elements for compliance are not present. Some relevant considerations have not been incorporated into the process.
Poor Score - 2
The reviewer finds a failure to incorporate the most essential elements for the standards of compliance. The process does not take into account the relevant considerations deemed essential in assessment and service provision. The resulting document is in conflict with record review frndings and observations during attendance at the ACR.
Absent/Adverse Score - I
The reviewer finds no attempt or a total disregard of the standards for compliance and relevant considerations in the case documentation. As a result there is no Case Plan less than 7 months old at the point of review or the needs assessment and service provision process has been so poorly performed that it has had an adverse affect on case planning efforts.
Each section ofthe tool lays out the standard that is to be strived for, and a list ofpossible considerations that may be applicable to determining if DCF has conducted its practice in accordance with that standard. These considerations will not apply to every situation or every case. In facto there may also be an additional consideration(s) that are of equal or more import in a specific situation. This is why your record reviews and in some situations attendance at the TPC/ACR or family conference is critical in obtaining the fullest picture ofthe situation and case practice prior to scoring the tool.
Use the open white space to take notes (or attach additional sheets as needed.) You will be required to support your scoring if asked by a senior reviewer. Each score is based upon reviewer judgment, but it must be supported by the facts of the case, and expectations of the DCF policy and Outcome Measure 4 (Formerly Outcome Measure l5) requirements. Scoring reflects the compilation of data regarding needs met from your review of case documentation, attendance at the TPC/ACR or family conference, and the final approved Case
Plan.
Overall Scoring The final designation for Outcome Measure 4 (Formerly Outcome Measure 15) is located at the bottom of the scoring sheet on page (47ofthe protocol document. There are two options to choose from
Needs Met
and Needs Not Met.
While ratings of 5 and 4 reflecting high standards and best case practices will generally be considered necessary for a frnding of "Needs Met", instructions to the reviewers and senior reviewers for this process will stress that a reviewer's determination is not tied to a numerical scoring system but rather will based on their overall review of all domains and elements of the case. This will allow reviewers to make informed decisions and over-ride the rare case in which one domain with a lower score does not substantially impact the overall quality of performance. To ensure the validity of this process, the tool will provide space in which all scoring must be justified or defended by the reviewers. All cases will initially be reviewed by a CM reviewer(s) then screened by Monitoring Senior reviewers prior to data entry. Any case which falls into the category of over-ride utilization will not only be reviewed by the Monitoring Senior reviewers, but will also be forwarded to the Court Monitor or Assistant Court Monitor for review prior to data entry.
108

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-3 Filed 12/13/17 Page 25 of 41

Additional lnformational Data Related to Systemic Service Issues
Vy'e are capturing data related to needs not met, the barriers to meeting those needs during the last six months, and needs not identified on the current approved Case Plan that were evident from your review ofthe case and
attendance at the ACR or FC. You will find the listing of barriers on page 36 of the tool document (pages approximate based upon printer). Unmet needs for the prior six months are to be filled in on pages 37-39. Needs not identifîed going forward with the current approved Case Plan are to be identified on pages 4l-43

The First Grid: Unmet Needs - Last Six Months On pages 39-42 of the tool, you will find the crosswalk of services for each of the l4 category of needs deemed essential. Additionally you will flrnd a listing of subcategories for each of those needs types. In rare situations
where there is an identified need, but the subcategory does not fìt appropriately, you would enter 99 as the
subcategory and write in the appropriate service/program. Please keep in mind that placement and permanency must be included in your determination of needs. The majority of related services for these will be located under
Need Types 9 and 1 l, but due to the individual nature of all cases, it could result in a service or program outside
of these areas. You are to circle the subcategory number associated with any unmet need you have identified in your review of the last six months of service. On the blank line following the identified subcategory of service, enter the barrier to the need using the listing of barriers on page 36. Most baniers should fit into the selections on the menu; however, there is an "other" response in the event you cannot designate one ofthe already identified barriers. Be sure to write and indicate what the "other" is for data entry purposes.

On or around page 43 you will answer the following three questions. These are:

15.15 15.16
15.26

Were all needs and services unmet during the prior six months discussed at the ACR' and as appropriate incorporated as action steps on the current Case Plan? Were any of these identified unmet needs indicated as a need for the identified person in the SDM Family Strengths and Needs Assessment Tool' SDM Risk Reassessment Tool, or SDM Safety Assessment Tool or through attendance at
the ACR? Are there service needs not identified in the current Case Plan but that are
clearly identified within the six months of LINK documentation reviewedo DCFACRI, SDM Family Strengths and Needs Assessment Tool' SDM Risk Reassessment Tool, or SDM Safety Assessment Tool or through attendance at
the ACR ?

The presence of an unmet need does not indicate an automatic "needs not met" on the overall scoring of the case.
You will need to determine the relationship/impact on OM 4 (Formerly OMl5) Meeting the needs of children and families is central, but there are prioritized needs, sequential needs, and individual circumstances that have to be considered in their totality when making a determination of needs met. For instance, in the example provided, there could have been a need for alternate hours due to the parent attending another service at that same time, that would increase the likelihood of success overall. If the case participants deemed it best to pursue
the other service (i.e. mental health or substance abuse in-patient or intensive outpatient) and posþone the domestic violence until such time that the service was completed, you would need to give that decision weight as you factor the sectional scoring. There is no one right answer for all cases.

The Second Grid: Needs Not ldentified for Prioritization or Action in the Next Six Months
Pages 44-46 of our tool are seeking to capture your findings related to services needed on the current Case Plan, based upon your review of the LINK record and attendance at the TPC/ACR or family conference, but which have NOT been incorporated. These are to be identifred using the same crosswalk, and include a section for you to write a very brief comment related to what barrier you see that led to the failure of the Department to include the need in the current plan. If you find the occasion to enter information in this section on unidentified needs going forward, this information should be considered in your assessment of sections in both OM3 and OM I 5
where applicable.

OM 4 (Formerly OM15) Scoring Reviewers are to score each section identifîed below indicating in the spaces provided on the identifred page the
rationale for each section's findings. These scores are then to be brought over to the scoring sheet on page 47 where you will review the sectional scores as a composite and arrive at the overall determination of "needs met"

109

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-3 Filed 12/13/17 Page 26 of 41

or "needs not met'r for the prior six month period. Sectional directions are provided on the tool, but are stated
below for reference as well.

Section I.1: In-Home Risk/Safety (p.27)

The standards for the section are clearly delineated as:

' The child(ren) is/are currently in an environment that is safe from known and manageable risks
of harm.

' Risko such as but not limited to: domestic violence, substance abuseo mental health or parenting,
and participants strengths have been adequately assessed with input from service providers,

family, and DCF staff involved in this case and the necessary support services to address safety

and risk related to the reason for initial or ongoing DCF involvement have been identified and

.

provided in a timely manner. Services to address assessed needs newly identified during the Case Planning period or that have

been carried over from the prior planning period have been identifÏed and incorporated into the

action steps for the current Case Plan cycle in accordance with SMART guidelines.

' Legal action required to ensure the child(ren)'s safety have been taken in a timely and informed
manner.

The purpose of this section is to ensure ihat the Department has conducted the appropriqte assessments to identify the riskfactors that are detrimental to the safety of the child residing in the biologicø\, adoptiste or guardian home. And through appropriate service provision and legal qction qmeliorated and/or managed those risks so that the child(ren) are reasonably safefromfurther harm.

Acknowledging the individual nature of cases, we cannot determine all critical considerations that may surface. You are to use your judgment in determining the weight of considerations in light of the case circumstance. Basic considerations which are likely to factor into the majority of cases are provided below to guide the reviewer in establishing if the standard has been met might include:

' Were servicesre identifïed by the court or through DCF's Case Planning process provided appropriate in

. relation to the identified needs?
Does the review indicate that the service providers have a clear understanding of what it will take to

achieve successful results and outcomes? Is this reflected in their discussior/reporting ofparent/child

progress?
. During the Case Planning process were providers and family given the opportunity to take part in the

discussion related to the progress in the last six-month period and in developing the plan of action and

¡ .

goals for the upcoming period? Is the resulting Case Plan reflective of the input and information within the case record? Is child's safety discussed at the ACR? Have realistic expectations been set for the family in regard to

. ¡

improving the level of risk within the home setting? Has there been any repeat maltreatment of the child during the six-month period? Have there been episodes of domestic violence reported within the home during the past six-month

period?
I Have informal supports within the community been identified at the ACR or within the Case Plan

document?

This applies to in-home cases for both CPS and Voluntary situations and the full spectrum of service array identified within the crosswalk as they relate to safety matters. You must first look at the prior Case Plan to assess if identified needs were addressed, secondly, as needs arose in the case during the six-month period, in what manner and timeframe were they attended to, and lastly, for those needs identified but not fully resolved, is the cunent planning preparing to address the barriers and provide for those needs?

You will score this section based upon the 5 point scale mentioned prior and provided below for ease of use. Remembeq that your professional judgment is critical in assigning the designation and your notes and process
should reflect how you arrived at any score.

te This includes the full array of services as they relate to safety 110

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-3 Filed 12/13/17 Page 27 of 41
Optimal Score - 5
The reviewer finds evidence that DCF has met all elements identified for the standards of compliance, and that DCF's assessment and service provision has incorporated all relevant consideration items.
Very Good Score - 4
The reviewer finds evidence that the essential elements for the standards of compliance are substantially present via DCF's assessment and service provision as it relates to the relevant considerations items.
Marginal Score - 3
There is an attempt to include the essential elements for the standards of compliance. However, the reviewer finds substantial elements for compliance are not present. Some relevant considerations have not been incorporated into DCF's assessment and service provision.
Poor Score - 2
The reviewer finds a failure to incorporate the most essential elements for the standards of compliance. The process does not take into account the relevant considerations deemed essential in assessment and service provision. The resulting document is in conflict with record review findings and observations during attendance at the ACR.
Absent/Adverse Score - I
The reviewer fînds no attempt or a total disregard of the standards for compliance and relevant considerations in the case documentation. As a result there is no Case Plan less than 7 months old at the point of review or the needs assessment and service provision process has been so poorly performed that it has had an adverse affect on case planning efforts.
Not Applicable to This Case - 99
To be selected ifthe case is not indicated as an applicable case type below the considerations listed.
Section I.2: Child in Placement Risk/Safety (p.29)
The standards for the section are clearly delineated as:
. Risk, such as but not limited to: domestic violence, substance abuse, parentingo or the child's
behaviors have been adequately assessed with input from service providers, family, and DCF staff involved in this case and the appropriate support services to address safety and risk related to the reason for initial or ongoing DCF involvement have been identified and provided in a timely manner.
. The child is currently in an environment that is safe from known and manageable risks of harm. . Services to address assessed needs newly identified during the Case Planning period or that have
been carried over from the prior planning period, have been identified and incorporated into the action steps for the current Case Plan cycle.
The purpose of this section is to ensure that the Department has conducted the appropriate assessments to identify the riskfactors thqt are detrimentql to the safety of the childresiding in out of home
' placement. And, through appropriate placement, service provision and legal action, the Department is
adequqtely man:agtng known risks ta-the child's physical-safety'andto the safety of others-in-the placement setting. Acknowledging the individual nature of cases, we cannot determine all critical considerations that may surface. You are to use your judgment in determining the weight of considerations in light of the case circumstance. Basic considerations which are likely to factor into the majority of cases are provided below to guide the reviewer in establishing if the standard has been met might include:
. Were services2o identifred by the court or through DCF's Case Planning process provided appropriate in
relation to the identified needs?
r Have child's high risk behaviors been reduced through provision ofservices? . Have there been any substantiated reports while in care during the last six-month period?
20 This includes the full spectrum of services as they relate to safety - see Crosswalk of Services for listing.
111

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-3 Filed 12/13/17 Page 28 of 41
r Are provider and family input considered regarding the family's ability to achieve the safety goals set r during the prior six-month period?
During the Case Planning process were providers and family given the opportunity to take part in
¡ developing the plan of action and goals for the upcoming period? Is the Case Plan reflective of the input at the ACR and information within the case record?
' Is child's safety within the foster or residential care placement discussed at the ACR? . Is child's safety during visits with family discussed at the ACR?
This applies to children in placement for both CPS and Voluntary situations and the full spectrum of service
if array identified within the crosswalk as they relate to safety matters. First look at the prior Case Plan to assess
identified needs were addressed, secondly, as needs arose in the case during the six-month period, in what manner and timeframe were they attended to, and lastly, for those needs identified but not fully resolved, is the current planning preparing to address the barriers and provide for those needs?
You will score this section based upon the 5 point scale mentioned prior and provided below for ease of use. Remember, that your professional judgment is critical in assigning the designation and your notes and process
should reflect how you arrived at any score.
Optimal Score - 5
The reviewer finds evidence that DCF has met all elements identified for the standards of compliance, and that DCF's assessment and service provision has incorporated all relevant consideration items.
Very Good Score - 4
The reviewer finds evidence that the essential elements for the standards of compliance are substantially present via DCF's assessment and service provision as it relates to the relevant considerations items.
Marginal Score - 3
There is an attempt to include the essential elements for the standards of compliance. However, the reviewer finds substantial elements for compliance are not present. Some relevant considerations have not been incorporated into DCF's assessment and service provision.
Poor Score - 2
The reviewer finds a failure to incorporate the most essential elements for the standards of compliance. The process does not take into account the relevant considerations deemed essential in assessment and service provision. The resulting document is in conflict with record review findings and observations during attendance at the ACR.
Absent/Adverse Score - I
The reviewer fìnds no attempt or a total disregard of the standards for compliance and relevant considerations in the case documentation. As a result there is no Case Plan less than 7 months old at the point of review or the needs assessment and service provision process has been so poorly performed that it has had an adverse affect on case planning efforts.
Not Applicable to This Case - 99
To be selected ifthe case is not indicated as an applicable case type below the considerations listed.
l12

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-3 Filed 12/13/17 Page 29 of 41
Section II.1 Securing the Permanent Placement - Action Plan for the Next Six Months (p.30)
The standard is delineated as follows;
. As warranted by the tength of time in care and specific to the childos needs, action steps are
underway, or are identified in the most recent Case Plan to secure (or maintain) the permanent placement that is most appropriate to the child's needs given DCF's assessment and the information and feedback of the family and providers.
The purpose for this section is to ensure that the Department in collaboration with the child, family and providers has identified and begun implementing the necessary steps to ensure that the child will find a
permanent placement most qppropriqte to his or her needs.
Acknowledging the individual nature of cases, we cannot determine all critical considerations that may surface. You are to use your judgment in determining the weight of considerations in light of the case circumstance. Basic considerations which are likely to factor into the majority of cases are provided below to guide the reviewer in establishing if the standard has been met might include:
. Is the goal realistic given the current status of the child and family - specifically, has the child been
in care for 15 of the 1ast22 months with little or no movement toward a permanent resource (biological family through reunification or with permanency placement resources via adoption, TOG, LTFC)?
. Is the Department's action plan for the next six month period consistent with the SDM Family
Reunifrcation Risk Reassessment score? Has visitation evaluation been undertaken and considered?
. If OPPLA has been identifred as the permanency goal, has there been identification of the resource
selected to provide this long term placement resource?
¡ Does the child in placement, for which the courts have ruled no further reunification efforts, have an
identified caregiver that will endure through the child's independence, either through Adoption,
Transfer of Guardianship, or Relative Long Term Foster Care or OPPLA?
. Where indicated, are PPSP contracts or other services in place or identified to begin to support the
current placement in the next six-month period?
. Are appropriate recruitment efforts by DCF and/or private providers being utilized to recruit an
appropriate placement resource to meet the individualized needs of this child?
. Are barriers to achieving reunification or the permanent placement addressed?
This section applies only to Children in Placement (CPS and Voluntary) cases. Is the Department's planning active and likely to result in movement to the most appropriate placement in the next six months? Is the child moving toward permanency?
You will score this section based upon the 5 point scale mentioned prior and provided below for ease of use. Remember, that your professional judgment is critical in assigning the designation and your notes and process
should reflect how you arrived at any score.
Optimal Score - 5
The reviewer finds evidence that DCF has met all elements identified for the standards of compliance, and that DCF's assessment and service provision has incorporated all relevant consideration items.
Very Good Score - 4
The reviewer fînds evidence that the essential elements for the standards of compliance are substantially present via DCF's assessment and service provision as it relates to the relevant considerations items.
Marginal Score - 3
There is an attempt to include the essential elements for the standards of compliance. However, the reviewer finds substantial elements for compliance are not present. Some relevant considerations have not been incorporated into DCF's assessment and service provision.
Poor Score - 2
The reviewer finds a failure to incorporate the most essential elements for the standards of compliance. The process does not take into account the relevant considerations deemed essential in assessment and service provision. The resulting document is in conflict with record review findings and observations during attendance at the ACR.
113

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-3 Filed 12/13/17 Page 30 of 41
Absent/Adverse Score - I
The reviewer finds no attempt or a total disregard of the standards for compliance and relevant considerations in the case documentation. As a result there is no Case Plan less than 7 months old at the point of review or the needs assessment and service provision process has been so poorly performed that it has had an adverse affect on case planning efforts.
Not Applicable to This Case - 99
To be selected ifthe case is not indicated as an applicable case type below the considerations listed
Section 11.2. Legal Action to Achieve the Permanency Goal During the Prior Six Months (p.31) The standards are delineated as follows:
' The Department has taken the necessary steps during the previous six months to move toward
achieving a permanent resource.for the child through prompt legal action.
' The family has been advised of the permanency goal, and the implications of a failure to abide by
the required action steps set forth by the courts order or within the Case Plan.
The purpose of this section is to determine the level with which the Department has assessed the need for, and effectively used the legal system oplions available to move a cqse towqrd its permanency goøl in the prior sixmonth period. And, also to determine if they did so in a manner thqt was informative to family and inclusive of
bothfømily and provider feedback. Acknowledging the individual nature of cases, we cannot determine all critical considerations that may surface. You are to use your judgment in determining the weight of considerations in light of the case circumstance. Basic considerations which are likely to factor into the majority of cases are provided below to guide the reviewer in establishing if the standard has been met might include:
. Is the stated permanency goal (or concurrent plan) consistent with the federally approved goals and the
court approved goal where there is court involvement?
' In cases with a stated goal ofreunification were all court ordered preservation services provided
(reasonable efforts) in a timely manner?
' Did the feedback from family and providers indicate that the stated goal remained an appropriate . permanency plan for this child?
Were the prior plan's action steps to achieve adoption, transfer of guardianship, independent living or long term foster care implemented over the course of six months leading up to the ACR attended?
' Were case management efforts during the past six-month period consistent with Multi-Disciplinary
Assessment for Permanency (MAP) determinations (where present)?
' Were legal actins during the prior six months consistent with the SDM Family Reunification
Assessment/Reassessment tools where these were completed?
' For an in-home case, did the worker file petitions or seek protective supervision when warranted by
the facts ofthe case?
This could apply to both in-home and child in placement cases, both CPS and Voluntary Services. (When reviewing in-home cases, you must consider the need for timely neglect petitions as a means to ensure safety and permanency, case management during protective supervision status, etc.)
You will score this section based upon the 5 point scale mentioned prior and provided below for ease of use. Remember, that your professional judgment is critical in assigning the designation and your notes and process
should reflect how you arrived at any score.
Optimal Score - 5
The reviewer finds evidence that DCF has met all elements identifred for the standards of compliance, and that DCF's assessment and service provision has incorporated all relevant consideration items.
rt4

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-3 Filed 12/13/17 Page 31 of 41
Very Good Score - 4
The reviewer fînds evidence that the essential elements for the standards of compliance are substantially present via DCF's assessment and service provision as it relates to the relevant considerations items.
Marginal Score - 3
There is an attempt to include the essential elements for the standards of compliance. However, the reviewer finds substantial elements for compliance are not present. Some relevant considerations have not been incorporated into DCF's assessment and service provision.
Poor Score - 2
The reviewer finds a failure to incorporate the most essential elements for the standards of compliance. The process does not take into account the relevant considerations deemed essential in assessment and service provision. The resulting document is in conflict with record review findings and observations during attendance at the ACR.
AbsentiAdverse Score - I
The reviewer finds no attempt or a total disregard of the standards for compliance and relevant considerations in the case documentation. As a result there is no Case Plan less than 7 months old at the point of review or the needs assessment and service provision process has been so poorly performed that it has had an adverse affect on case planning efforts.
Rem.indeKrse:ep in mind the length of time for which the stated goal is in place, and whether it is realistic given the . circumstances ofthe case, and the level ofshared perception and cooperation ofthe case participants.
Look for the use of supervision and consultation with the ARG or AAG, documentation of the MAP determination.
. Review the Case Plan documents and legal narratives to establish what services or action steps were
court-ordered. DCF is required to ensure that the court ordered services are made accessible to its clients in a timely manner. V/as this accomplished in the prior six-month period?
. DCF Policy 46-3-10 Gives you information on Neglect Petitions - should this option have been utilized
in the last six-month period?
. MAP guidelines2l are included in the addendum documents along with the tool used during the process. . The first permanency plan must be frled in court no later than nine months after the child's out-of-home
placement. The permanency plan must be filed in and approved by the juvenile court on a yearly basis
or whenever there is a change to the plan. Was this done in accordance with the timeframe?
. ASFA timelines, l5 consecutive or l5 of the last 22 months in care, are an important factor to consider
when determining the adequacy of the Case Plan goal. Is the current goal realistic? Has TPR been determined not to be in the best interest of the child? Has a TPR been filed?
. Legal Risk Homes should be considered for situations that are appropriate given the goal and facts of
the case.
r See internal DCF memo of April I 8, 2005 from Barbara J. Clair Esquire, Assistant Director, Legal
Division regarding Post-TPR Permanency. Page two sets forth some timelines and expectations regarding timeliness that should be considered, and refers you to DCF Policy Chapter 48 for additional reference. This memo is no longer avqilable on-line outlined the need to put aside the lengthy timeline
forfiting in cqses in whichthe child was to be adopted by ø resource in which they had been plaeedfor a considerable period of time - negating the need to "start the clock" at the time of teaming approval for
the adoption, so that permqnency could proceed more expeditiously.
2r Policy has not yet been promulgated in relation to MAP expectations. Guidelines that have been shared with legal and area office staffare addended for reference.
115

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-3 Filed 12/13/17 Page 32 of 41
Section II.3. Recruitment for Placement Providers to achieve the Permanency Goal during the Prior Six
Months (p.32)
. The standard is delineated as:
The Department has taken the necessary steps during the previous six months to move toward achieving a permanent resource for the child through its recruitment efforts.
The purpose of this section is to determine if the action steps required in relqtion to securing a placement for the child on the prior Case Plan were taken and successful, or if unsuccessful, that those results were adequately assessed in consultation withfamily ønd providers so that barriers have been identified and subsequent planning/øction steps have been enøcted or proposedfor the current planning cycle? Acknowledging the individual nature of cases, we cannot determine all critical considerations that may surface. You are to use your judgment in determining the weight of considerations in light of the case circumstance. Basic considerations which are likely to factor into the majority of cases are provided below to guide the reviewer in establishing if the standard has been met might include:
. Were the prior plan's action steps to achieve adoption, transfer of guardianship, or OPPLA implemented I over the course of six months leading up to the ACR attended?
For TPR'd children in placement, was the child registered on the Adoption Resource Exchange
. (unless a documented exception applied)?
Where indicated, were PPSP contracts or other services in place or identified to begin to support the
. current placement in the next six-month period?
Is there evidence of appropriate recruitment efforts by DCF and/or private providers being utilized to recruit an appropriate placement resource to meet the individualized needs of this child? (May
. include relative search where appropriate)
If OPPLA is the goal did DCF attempt to provide kinship connections for the child via contracts with Life Long Family Ties or other resources?
This applies to children in placement. both CPS and Voluntary Services. While II.1 looks at the upcoming planning related to securing a placement. II.3 looks at the prior six month's efforts. Were recruitment efforts (both internal and external) appropriate given the facts ofthe case?
You will score this section based upon the 5 point scale mentioned prior and provided below for ease of use. Remember, that your professional judgment is critical in assigning the designation and your notes and process
should reflect how you arrived at any score.
Optimal Score - 5
The reviewer finds evidence that DCF has met all elements identified for the standards of compliance, and that DCF's assessment and service provision has incorporated all relevant consideration items.
Very Good Score - 4
The reviewer finds evidence that the essential elements for the standards of compliance are substantially present via DCF's assessment and service provision as it relates to the relevant considerations items.
Marginal Score - 3
There is an attempt to include the essential elements for the standards of compliance. However, the reviewer finds substantial elements for compliance are not present. Some relevant considerations have not been incorporated into DCF's assessment and service provision.
Poor Score - 2
The reviewer finds a failure to incorporate the most essential elements for the standards of compliance. The process does not take into account the relevant considerations deemed essential in assessment and service provision. The resulting document is in conflict with record review findings and observations during attendance at the ACR.
116

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-3 Filed 12/13/17 Page 33 of 41
Absent/Adverse Score - I
The reviewer finds no attempt or a total disregard of the standards for compliance and relevant considerations in the case documentation. As a result there is no Case Plan less than 7 months old at the point of review or the needs assessment and service provision process has been so poorly performed that it has had an adverse affect on case planning efforts.
Not Applicable to This Case - 99
To be selected ifthe case is not indicated as an applicable case type below the considerations listed.
Reminder: See DCF Policy Regarding Foster and Adoptive Services and Adoption: Chapters 41 and 48 for reference.
Section II.4. Contracting or Providing Services to Achieve the Permanency Goal during the Prior Six
Months (p.33) The standards are delineated as:
. The Department has taken the necessary steps during the previous six months to move toward
achieving a permanent resource for the child through internal case management and contracting for services.
. The current Atlolescent Policy has been adhered to for all children in care ages 14 or older as
indicated.
The purpose of this section is to determine the level with which the Depørtment, in consultation with the
chilã and/or family and providers hqs met the expectations for movement toward the permanency goal within the prior six-month planning cycle.
Acknowledging the individual nature of cases, we cannot determine all critical considerations that may surface. You are to use your judgment in determining the weight of considerations in light of the case circumstance. Basic considerations (outlined on the tool for reference) which are likely to factor into the majority of cases are provided below to guide the reviewer in establishing if the standard has been met might include:
r In cases with a stated goal ofreunification have all court ordered preservation services been provided
(reasonable efforts) in a timely manner?
' Were the prior plan's action steps to achieve adoption, transfer of guardianship, independent living or
long term foster care implemented over the course of six months leading up to the ACR attended?
. Was the child been in care with a permanency goal that remained unmet for greater than 12 months? If
child had been in care for 15 or the last22 months, were ASFA guidelines appropriately considered in the development of the permanency goal, and where applicable was an exception to ASFA
documented?
r In cases where OPPLA is cited as a goal, were more permanent goals considered and ruled out? ' What is the level of emphasis put on the child's ILP during the period? Did child receive independent
living, life skills, or transitional living services deemed appropriate?
' If housing is a barrier to reunif,rcation, has the Depaftment assisted parent with Section 8 process,
considered flex funding, or identified other means to address this banier(s)?
. If other barriers were identifîed, dìd DCF attempt to address those barriers during the prior six-month
period?
. For ln-home cases, consider the case management of DCF and provider services to maintain the
child(ren) in their home and move toward achieving the level of safety/wellbeing required to move toward case closure.
While considerations are most heavily weighted for children in placement cases, this section applies to both inhome and children in placement cases under CPS or Voluntary Services.
You will score this section based upon the 5 point scale mentioned prior and provided below for ease of use. Remember, that your professional judgment is critical in assigning the designation and your notes and process
should reflect how you arrived at any score.
lt7

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-3 Filed 12/13/17 Page 34 of 41
Optimal Score - 5
The reviewer finds evidence that DCF has met all elements identified for the standards of compliance, and that DCF's assessment and service provision has incorporated all relevant consideration items.
Very Good Score - 4
The reviewer finds evidence that the essential elements for the standards of compliance are substantially present via DCF's assessment and service provision as it relates to the relevant considerations items.
Marginal Score - 3
There is an attempt to include the essential elements for the standards of compliance. However, the reviewer finds substantial elements for compliance are not present. Some relevant considerations have not been incorporated into DCF's assessment and service provision.
Poor Score - 2
The reviewer finds a failure to incorporate the most essential elements for the standards of compliance. The process does not take into account the relevant considerations deemed essential in assessment and service provision. The resulting document is in conflict with record review findings and observations during attendance at the ACR.
Absent/Adverse Score - I
The reviewer finds no attempt or a total disregard of the standards for compliance and relevant considerations in the case documentation. As a result there is no Case Plan less than 7 months old at the point of review or the needs assessment and service provision process has been so poorly performed that it has had an adverse affect on case planning efforts.
Reminders:
' Narratives, the prior Case Planning document, assessments, provider feedback and family contacts all
play a role in determining what services or steps were required during the prior six-month period.
' For children 15.5 or older, there should also be an Independent Living plan that identifies specific
elements to achieve their goals.
' Foster Parent Provider support is also an area that should be explored as it relates to permanency for the
child. For in-home cases, necessary supports could include childcare, domestic violence, training or in-
home services.
' Also critical in this regard is the visitation contact and case management of the DCF worker. ' Housing is not a responsibility of DCF, but they are to assist in referrals, flex funding and brainstorming
to address barriers in this regard.
Section III.1. Medical Needs (p.34)
The standard is delineated as:
' Have the necessary medical interventions and well child/preventative care identified for this
child(ren) been provided?
The purpose ofthis section is to ensure that children's medical needs are properly øssessed and shared with the child andfamily as appropriqte to age and role in the case, and that well child/preventative care and medical interventions which are deemed necessary øre provided in a timely and appropriate mqnner.
Acknowledging the individual nature of cases, we cannot determine all critical considerations that may surface. You are to use your judgment in determining the weight of considerations in light of the case circumstance. Basic considerations which are likely to factor into the majority of cases are provided below to guide the reviewer in establishing if the standard has been met might include:
For children in out-of-home placement
' o Are newly emergent medical needs of children in home and in placement during the past
six-month period assessed and responded to in a timely and appropriate manner?
o If an MDE was required during the six-month period, does the Case Plan assessment
include the recommendations and appropriate services to address the medical needs?
o ls the child cunent with routine well care, in that health maintenance needs been met
through adherence to EPSDT standards for well checks and child is current with vaccinations?
118

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-3 Filed 12/13/17 Page 35 of 41
o Is special medical training, equipment or supports currently being provided, so that the
child/family or placement provider has the necessary tools to ensure optimal level of health given child's diagnosis/condition?
o Does the documentation indicate that use of psychotropic medications is being managed
and reviewed by qualified medical personnel as appropriate? For in-home cases:
o Have chronic medical needs for children active in DCF's in home cases been addressed
with parents?
o Is special medical training, equipment or supports curently being provided, so that the
child/family or placetnent provider has the necessary tools to ensure optimal level of health given child's diagnosis/condition? For both in-home and child in out-of-home placement cases:
o Is there evidence that the family and active providers in this case were given the opportunity
to provide input into the identification of needs and services that may meet those needs?
o Where non-routine medical needs were present, was ARG or outside specialist involvement
noted?
o Were there documented efforts by DCF to overcome access barriers to appropriate medical
care?
o Was there improvement or stabilization of health as a result of DCF and provider intervention
efforts?
o Did DCF make appropriate efforts to engage parents in the process of attending to medical
needs ofchildren?
o Was there discussion of the medical issues related to this child(ren) during the ACR, and did
necessary adjustments to the current Case Plan result?
o Did DCF make the necessary referrals to address the medical issues identified as a priority
within the SDM Family Strengths and Needs Assessment?
This applies to both in-home cases and children in placement, both CPS and Voluntary Services.
You will score this section based upon the 5 point scale mentioned prior and provided below for ease of use. Remember, that your professional judgment is critical in assigning the designation and your notes and process
should reflect how you arrived at any score.
Optimal Score - 5
The reviewer finds evidence that DCF has met all elements identified for the standards of compliance, and that DCF's assessment and service provision has incorporated all relevant consideration items.
Very Good Score - 4
The reviewer finds evidence that the essential elements for the standards of compliance are substantially present via DCF's assessment and service provision as it relates to the relevant considerations items.
Marginal Score - 3
There is an attempt to include the essential elements for the standards of compliance. However, the reviewer finds substantial elements for compliance are not present. Some relevant considerations have not been incorporated into DCF's assessment and service provision.
Poor Score - 2
The reviewer finds a failure to incorporate the most essential elements for the standards of compliance. The process does not take into account the relevant considerations deemed essential in assessment and service provision. The resulting document is in conflict with record review findings and observations during attendance at the ACR.
119

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-3 Filed 12/13/17 Page 36 of 41

- Absent/Adverse Score 1
The reviewer finds no attempt or a total disregard of the standards for compliance and relevant considerations in the case documentation. As a result there is no Case Plan less than 7 months old at the point of review or the needs assessment and service provision process has been so poorly performed that it has had an adverse affect on case planning efforts.

. Reminders:
MDE recommendations should be well documented in the record and incorporated into the FIRST60

day Case Planning document. Follow up should be documented in LINK and within the six-month

Case Plan that follows or subsequent plan if the situation warrants additional care beyond that time

frame to address the identified needs. If the timing of the case incorporates these time frames be sure to

focus on this aspect of case management. If the period of review is outside of this period you should

not expect to see historical information in the case plan document and would only include an MDE
I need if it was unmet and carried over from that prior period.
EPSDT information is provided for reference regarding the timing requirements for well checks. In

short:

o#tn'ffi*"*t.,"

between 2-4 daysof bìrth (usually occurs in the hospital serting prior

. .

to discharge"n) eck Two Weeks
2,4,6,9,72,15, 18 and 24 months ofage

: il:ïttt ror ages 3-6 Years
. Annually ages 10-18

Immunizations

Aftftougn tn" irmunization schedule chart is provided for reference, we will not determine the

exact timing requirements for immunizations this review. The question that you are to focus

on is whether the child is curent for immunizations or is in the process of getting caught up

. with the requirement upon DCF involvement.
If circumstances indicated a need for a B-3 referral related to medical condition or physical delays, was

. this followed up on and were any subsequent recommendations regarding medical care implemented?
ARG Resources should be utilized for medically complex children, or acute care needs that emerge

. during the period.
The TPC/ACR or family conference should incorporate the child(ren)'s medical status into the

discussion ofneeds.

Section III.2: Dental Needs (p.35)

The

.standard is delineated as:
Have the necessary dental

interventions

and

well

care

services identified

for

this

child

been

provided?

The purpose ofthis section is to ensure thqt children's dental needs are properly assessed and shqred with the child andfamily as appropriate to age and role in the cqse, qnd that well cqre services and dental interventions which are deemed necessary are provided in a timely and appropriqte mqnner.
Acknowledging the individual nature of cases, we cannot determine all critical considerations that may surface. You are to use your judgment in determining the weight of considerations in light of the case circumstance. Basic considerations which are likely to factor into the majority of cases are provided below to guide the reviewer in establishing if the standard has been met might include:
' For children in out-of-home placement: o Have routine dental needs been addressed in accordance with EPSDT standards by qualified
dental personnel?
o If an MDE was required during the six-month period, does the Case Plan assessment include
the recommendations and appropriate services to address the dental needs?
o Have newly emergent dental needs of children in placement been assessed and responded to in
a timely and appropriate manner?

120

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-3 Filed 12/13/17 Page 37 of 41
In-home cases:
o Have chronic or acute dental needs for children active in DCF's in home cases been addressed
with parents? For hoth in-home and Child in out-oÊhome nlacement cases
o Is there evidence that the family and active providers in this case were given the opportunity
to provide input into the identification of needs and services that may meet those needs?
o Where non-routine dental needs were present, was ARG or outside specialist involvement
noted?
o Were there documented efforts by DCF to overcome barriers to access for appropriate dental
care?
o Did DCF make appropriate efforts to engage parents in the process of attending to dental needs
ofchildren?
o Was there discussion of the dental issues related to this child(ren) during the ACR, and did
necessary adjustments to the current Case Plan result?
o Did DCF make the necessary referrals to address the dental issues identified as a priority
within the SDM Family Strengths and Needs Assessment?
This applies to both in-home cases and children in placement, both CPS and Voluntary Services.
You will score this section based upon the 5 point scale mentioned prior and provided below for ease of use. Remember, that your professional judgment is critical in assigning the designation and your notes and process should reflect how you anived at any score.
Optimal Score - 5
The reviewer finds evidence that DCF has met all elements identified for the standards of compliance, and that DCF's assessment and service provision has incorporated all relevant consideration items.
Very Good Score - 4
The reviewer finds evidence that the essential elements for the standards of compliance are substantially present via DCF's assessment and service provision as it relates to the relevant considerations items.
Marginal Score - 3
Theré is an attempt to include the essential elements for the standards of compliance. However, the reviewer finds substantial elements for compliance are not present. Some relevant considerations have not been incorporated into DCF's assessment and service provision.
Poor Score - 2
The reviewer finds a failure to incorporate the most essential elements for the standards of compliance. The process does not take into account the relevant considerations deemed essential in assessment and service provision. The resulting document is in conflict with record review findings and observations during attendance at the ACR.
Absent/Adverse Score - I
The reviewer finds no attempt or a total disregard of the standards for compliance and relevant considerations in the case documentation. As a result there is no Case Plan less than 7 months old at the point of review or the needs assessment and service provision process has been so poorly performed that it has had an adverse affect on case planning efforts.
121

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-3 Filed 12/13/17 Page 38 of 41
Reminder:
' MDE recommendations should be well documented in the record and incorporated into the 60 day Case Planning document. Follow up should be documented in LINK and within the six-month Case Plan. If
the timing of the case incorporates these time fiames be sure to focus on this aspect of case management. If the period of review is outside of this period you should not expect to see historical information in the case plan document and would only include an MDE need if it was unmet and caried over from that prior period.
In short: EPSDT information is provided for reference regarding the timing requirements for well checks.
.Periodicitv - Dental
AAP recommends that children at risk have their initial dental screen as early as 6 months and no later than 6 months after the first tooth erupts or l2 months of age (whichever comes first).
I Semi-annual screening and cleaning visits thereafter (unless more frequent visits are
required per Dentist's evaluation) The TPC/ACR or family conference should incorporate the child(ren)'s dental care status into the discussion ofneeds.
Section III.3. Mental Healtho Behavioral and Substance Abuse Services (p. 36)
The standards are delineated as:
' Mental Health and Substance Abuse Service Needs for children and families were assessed and
addressed during the past six months with ongoing input from qualified mental health professionals and family informing the current Case Planning process.
' Specialized services were provided as necessary to meet the individualized needs of the child
and family to achieve the case goals.
The purpose of this section is to ensure that children andfamily's mental heqlth, behqvioral and substance abuse needs are properly assessed and shqred with the child and family øs appropriate to age and role in the case, and that interventions which are deemed necessqry are provided in a timely and appropriate mqnner.
Acknowledging the individual nature of cases, we cannot determine all critical considerations that may surface. You are to use your judgment in determining the weight of considerations in light of the case circumstance. Basic considerations which are likely to factor into the majority of cases are provided below to guide the reviewer in establishing if the standard has been met might include:
' For children in out-of-home placement cases: o If an MDE was required during the six-month period, does the Case Plan assessment include
the recommendations and appropriate services to address the mental health needs?
o Have the necessary mental health interventions and services identified in the child's MDE . been provided?
For both in-home and child in out-oÊhome placement cases
o Was the child in the appropriate level of care (either in-patient or out patient) to address
mental health needs as assessed throughout the period?
o Were there refenals to service andlor assistance with navigation of the system and payment
as appropriate to parents or caregivers to assist them in actively participating in the plan to improve the level of functioning and achieve the permanency goal?
o Is there evidence that the family and active providers in this case were given the opportunity
to provide input into the identification of needs and services that may meet those needs?
o Where mental health or substance abuse needs were present (for children or parents), was
ARG or outside specialist involvement noted?
o What were the DCF actions to overcome access barriers to appropriate services? o Did DCF engage parents and children in identifying issues/needs and subsequently the services
to address those needs?
o Was there discussion of the mental health or substance abuse treatment during the ACR, and
did necessary adjustments to the current Case Plan result?
o Did the actions of the Department over the course of the six month planning cycle reflect
adequate services to address the emotional/behavioral or substance abuse issues reflected in the SDM Family Strengths and Needs Assessment, Safety Plan or Risk Reassessments in place?
122

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-3 Filed 12/13/17 Page 39 of 41
This applies to both children and their families for both in-home cases and children in placement cases (CPS and Voluntary Services).
You will score this section based upon the 5 point scale mentioned prior and provided below for ease of use. Remember, that your professional judgment is critical in assigning the designation and your notes and process
should reflect how you arrived at any score.
Optimal Score - 5
The reviewer finds evidence that DCF has met all elements identified for the standards of compliance, and that DCF's assessment and service provision has incorporated all relevant consideration items.
Very Good Score - 4
The reviewer fînds evidence that the essential elements for the standards of compliance are substantially present via DCF's assessment and service provision as it relates to the relevant considerations items.
Marginal Score - 3
There is an attempt to include the essential elements for the standards of compliance. However, the reviewer finds substantial elements for compliance are not present. Some relevant considerations have not been incorporated into DCF's assessment and service provision.
Poor Score - 2
The reviewer finds a failure to incorporate the most essential elements for the standards of compliance. The process does not take into account the relevant considerations deemed essential in assessment and service provision. The resulting document is in conflict with record review findings and observations during attendance at the ACR.
Absent/Adverse Score - I
The reviewer finds no attempt or a total disregard of the standards for compliance and relevant considerations in the case documentation. As a result there is no Case Plan less than 7 months old at the point of review or the needs assessment and service provision process has been so poorly performed that it has had an adverse affect on case planning efforts.
Reminder:
. Look for creative planning through use of flex funds or provider/family recommendation. Consider the
length of time on wait lists, and/or substitution of services (less individualized to the child or family's needs) when arriving at your scoring determination.
. If there is a placement in a residential setting beyond the point therapeutically indicated, this should also
weigh into your determination of how well DCF has met the mental health needs of the child during the period.
Section IV.1. Child's Current Placement (p. 37)
The standard is delineated as:
r The child's current placement or living ârrangement is the least restrictive, most family like
setting, is stable and consistent with his needs, age, ability, culture and peer group.
The purpose for this section is to determine the level with which the Department has been qble to secure
and maintain stability within Íhe most qppropriate placement consistent with the child's needs, age, ability, language and culture. Acknowledging the individual nature of cases, we cannot determine all critical considerations that may surface. You are to use your judgment in determining the weight of considerations in light of the case circumstance. Basic considerations which are likely to factor into the majority of cases are provided below to guide the reviewer in establishing if the standard has been met might include:
t23

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-3 Filed 12/13/17 Page 40 of 41

. If child's placement is in a Safe Home, Shelter, Permanency Diagnostic Center or other short term

. .

placement did it exceed 60 days in the 6 month period preceding attendance at ACR?22 Has child exceeded two placement changes (three providers) during the last 12 month period? Has the foster or adoptive parent been provided with adequate training and supports to maintain the

child in their home?

' Is the child receiving the necessary services/interventions or supports necessary to support the

r r

current placement? Has worker documented concerns related to the appropriateness of the current placement? Has the ARG been involved related to placement issues for this child(ren) and were those

. .

recommendations considered and utilized? Are services in place to maintain family relationships during placement where appropriate? Are social recreational activities being provided as appropriate to the age, ability and interest ofthe

. child while in care? Was there a discussion of the appropriateness of the current placement for this child(ren) during the

. ACR, and did necessary adjustments to the current Case Plan result if determined necessary?
Is there evidence of requests for a different level of out-of-home care? And, if so has child been

waitlisted for this level of care for an extended period of time?

This applies to children in placement cases (CPS and Voluntary Services). Is the current placement meeting the child's placement needs?

You will score this section based upon the 5 point scale mentioned prior and provided below for ease of use. Remember, that your professional judgment is critical in assigning the designation and your notes and process
should reflect how you arrived at any score.

Optimal Score - 5
The reviewer fìnds evidence that DCF has met all elements identified for the standards of compliance, and that DCF's assessment and service provision has incorporated all relevant consideration items.

Very Good Score - 4
The reviewer finds evidence that the essential elements for the standards of compliance are substantially present via DCF's assessment and service provision as it relates to the relevant considerations items.

Marginal Score - 3
There is an attempt to include the essential elements for the standards of compliance. However, the reviewer finds substantial elements for compliance are not present. Some relevant considerations have not been incorporated into DCF's assessment and service provision.

Poor Score - 2
The reviewer finds a failure to incorporate the most essential elements for the standards of compliance. The process does not take into account the relevant considerations deemed essential in assessment and service provision. The resulting document is in conflict with record review findings and observations during attendance at the ACR.
Absent/Adverse Score - I
The reviewer finds no attempt or a total disregard of the standards for compliance and relevant considerations in the case documentation. As a result there is no Case Plan less than 7 months old at the point of review or the needs assessment and service provision process has been so poorly performed that it has had an adverse affect on case planning eflorts.

Not Applicable to This Case - 99
To be selected ifthe case is not indicated as an applicable case type below the considerations listed.

22 Through record review and attendance at the ACR, the reviewer will determine if an exception to the 60 day rule was in the best interest of the child due to proper and active discharge planning efforts, or a lack of a more
appropriate placement resource.
124

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-3 Filed 12/13/17 Page 41 of 41
Section IV.2. Education (p. 38)
The standard is delineated as:
. Child has been assessed for early intervention or special educational needs where such action is
indicated by the child's behaviors or educational diffÏculties.
. DCF has taken appropriate action on behalf of the child and family so that needs identified
through assessment process are being addressed through the receipt of identified service interventions.
The purpose of this section is to determine how well DCF is working with the educational system and the child, pqrents or providers to ensure the educational needs are being properly assessed and addressed?
Acknowledging the individual nature of cases, we cannot determine all critical considerations that may surface. You are to use your judgment in determining the weight of considerations in light of the case circumstance. Basic considerations which are likely to factor into the majority of cases are provided below to guide the reviewer in establishing if the standard has been met might include:
. Where special educational needs were present (includes SPED and 504 classification) and of a nature
requiring consultation, was ARG involvement noted?
r Have necessary PPT meetings and assessments been scheduled/held? r Has child been maintained in their school or origin if this was in their best interest? . Is child academically achieving to his/her potential - If there is an IEP in place, does the IEP need to be
revisited?
r Has child attended school with regularity since DCF involvement? . Is there evidence that the family and active providers in this case were given the opportunity to
provide input into the identification of needs and services that may meet those needs?
. lfchild has required changes in school districts, was that disruption oftheir education due to the needs . of the child, or limited placement pool?
Was there discussion of the educational issues related to this child(ren) during the ACR, and did necessary adjustments to the current Case Plan result?
. If SDM Family Strengths and Needs Assessment identified educational issues rising to the level of
priority need, were these needs adequately attended to over the prior six month Case Planning cycle?
This section applies to both CPS and Voluntary Services children in placement cases and for in-home cases where education has been assessed as a need.
Overall Scoring for OM4 (Formerly OM 15) What is your conclusion: Needs Met or Not Met? Is an override warranted? Use your review and area offtce feedback to draw your frnal conclusions related to the last six month period ofthe ongoing services case. Be sure to provide rationale for Overall Scoring of the case as having met needs or not met during the period. Space is provided on page 48 for this purpose. In this space be sure to include comparison with the ACR designation of the strengths and ANI for areas of well being and case practice that we review: Visitation and documentation are 17.4, Medical/Vision/Dental is III.1, Substance Abuse/Suppoft Services and Mental Health are III.3, Education is IV.2, etc. Revisit the comments of the ACR reviewer and ratings and determine if they are consistent with your own and comment to that point in your write up so that the secondary screener has an
understanding of your position in relation to what was determined by the agency review.
t25

 </s> Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778 Filed 12/13/17 Page 1 of 14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

FILE[J

---------------------------------------------------------------}(

JUAN F., et al.,

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

)

DANNEL P. MALLOY, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

---------------------------------------------------------------}(

ZOil OEC 13 A Cf. ~0
US OISTR I · COlJ r..!
IRIOGEP T CT
CIVIL NO. 2:89cv00859 (SRU)

2017 REVISED EXIT PLAN

1

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778 Filed 12/13/17 Page 2 of 14

Table of Contents
2017 Revised Exit Plan November, 2017

Introduction
ApJ?endix A: Research Que lions, Logic, Measurement Elements and Identified
Vanablc for 2017 Revised Exit Plan
Appendix B: DCF Court Monitor's 2017-2018 Protocol for Outcome Measures 3 and4
Appendix C: Directional Guide for DCF Court Monitor's OM3 and OM4 Blind Reviews

Page
3
11
36
85

2

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778 Filed 12/13/17 Page 3 of 14
Introduction
1. The Juan F. class is: A. All children who are now, or will be, in the care, custody, or supervision of the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families as a result of being abused, neglected or abandoned or being found at risk of such maltreatment; and B. All children about whom the Department knows, or should know by virtue of a report to the Department, who are now, or will be, abused, neglected or abandoned, or who are now, or will be, at serious risk of such maltreatment.
2. The Court Monitor reserves the rights, authorities and responsibilities granted in the Monitoring Order of December 1, 1992, as modified, and all the rights, authorities and responsibilities granted in the October 7, 2003 Stipulation and Order (Dkt. #447), and in the 2005 Revised Monitoring Order (Dkt. #501), all ofwhich are incorporated in this Exit Plan by reference.
3. The Defendants shall provide funding and other resources necessary to fully implement and achieve sustained compliance with the 2017 Revised Exit Plan.
4. A joint strategic plan will be developed by the DCF Commissioner in consultation with the Court Monitor, to address compliance with the 2017 Revised Exit Plan Outcome Measures. The sole purpose of the strategic plan is to guide DCF in its implementation of the 201 7 Revised Exit Plan Outcome Measures. The strategic plan will be completed within 60 days of the entry of this 2017 Revised Exit Plan. It will be reviewed by the DCF Commissioner and the Court Monitor and updated, as needed, on a monthly basis.
5. The Defendants will provide timely notification to the Court Monitor of any actual or planned reductions of a material nature in DCF programs, staffing and services pertaining to the Juan F. class.
3

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778 Filed 12/13/17 Page 4 of 14

2017 REVISED EXIT PLAN OUTCOME MEASURES THAT MUST BE ACHIEVED1
Revised Outcome Measure 1: Commencement of Investigation/FAR
DCF shall assure that at least 90% of all reports of children alleged to be abused, or neglected, shall be prioritized, assigned and the investigation/FAR (Family Assessment Response) shall commence within the time frames specified below.
If the report of child abuse or neglect is determined by the DCF Careline to be:
A. A situation in which failure to respond immediately could result in the death of, or serious injury to, a child; then the response time for commencing an investigation is the same calendar day Careline accepts the report.
B. A non-life threatening situation that is severe enough to warrant a 24-hour response to secure the safety of the child and to access the appropriate and available witnesses, then the response time for commencing an investigation is 24 hours.
C. A non-life threatening situation that, because of the age or condition of the child, indicates that the response time for commencing an investigation is 72 hours.

1 The 2006 Revised Exit Plan Outcome Measures are herewith renumbered as follows:

Cross-reference of Measures from 2006 to 2017 Exit Plan

2006

Description

Measure

OM1

Commencement of Investigation

OM2

Completion of Investigation

OM3

Case Plans

OM4

Search for Relatives

OM5

ReEeat Maltreatment (In-Home)

OM6

Maltreatment of Children in OOH Care

OM7

Reunification

OM8

Adoption

OM9

Transfer Of Guardianship

OM10

Sibling Placement

OM11

Re-Entry into DCF Custody

OM12

MultiEie Placements

0Ml3

Foster Parent Training

OM14

Placement within Licensed Capacity

OM15

Needs Met

OM16

SW/Child Visitation (CIP)

OM17

SW/Child Visitation On-Home)

OM18

Caseload Standards

OM19 OM20

Reduction of CIP in Residential Discharge Measure

OM21

Discharge of Mentally Ill or DDS Children

OM22

MDE

2017 Measure
OM1 OM2 OM3 Compliant OM7 OM8 Compliant Compliant Compliant OM 13 OM9 OM 12 Compliant OM 11 OM4 OM 10 OM5 OM6 OM14 Compliant Compliant Compliant

4

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778 Filed 12/13/17 Page 5 of 14
Revised Outcome Measure 2: Completion of the lnvestigation/FAR
At least 85% of all reports of alleged child maltreatment accepted by the DCF Careline shall have their investigations completed within 45 calendar days of acceptance by the Care line.
Revised Outcome Measure 3: Case Plans
Except probate, interstate, and subsidy only cases, appropriate case plans shall be developed as set forth in the "DCF Court Monitor's Protocol for Outcome Measures 3 and 4" and the accompanying "Directional Guide for Outcome Measures 3 and 4 Reviews" attached collectively as Appendix B hereto. The enforceable domains of this Outcome Measure shall not include the "overall score" domain. The domains in Appendix B for which compliance at 90% or better has been met for a quarter and then sustained for an additional quarter as of the date of this 2017 Revised Exit Plan, shall be considered to have achieved Pre-Certification. There are no domains that currently qualify for Pre-Certification.
For each domain, once compliance at 90% or better has been met for one quarter and then sustained for an additional quarter, that domain shall also be considered to have achieved Pre-Certification. Once all of the domains achieve Pre-Certification, then Outcome Measure 3 shall be considered to have achieved Pre-Certification and subject to the process in Paragraphs 10 and 11 hereof as to whether a final review is required in connection with a request to terminate jurisdiction over this action.
Revised Outcome Measure 4: Children's Needs Met
Families and children shall have their medical, dental, mental health, and other service needs met as set forth in the "DCF Court Monitor's Protocol for Outcome Measures 3 and 4" and the accompanying "Directional Guide for Outcome Measures 3 and 4 Reviews," attached collectively as Appendix B hereto. The enforceable domains of this Outcome Measure shall not include the "all needs met" domain. The domains in Appendix B for which compliance at 85% or better has been met for a quarter and then sustained for an additional quarter as of the date of this 2017 Revised Exit Plan, shall be considered to have achieved Pre-Certification.
Those domains include:
• Risk: Child-in-Placement • Securing the Permanent Placement • DCF Case Management-Legal action to achieve the permanency goal in the prior
six months • DCF Case Management-Recruitment for placement providers to achieve
permanency goal during the prior six months • Child's current placement • Education
5

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778 Filed 12/13/17 Page 6 of 14
For each of the remaining domains, once compliance at 85% or better has been met for a quarter and then sustained for an additional quarter, that domain shall also be considered to have achieved Pre-Certification. The remaining domains include:
• Risk: In-Home • DCF Case Management - Contracting or providing services to achieve permanency
during the prior six months; • Medical needs; • Dental needs; • Mental health, behavioral and substance abuse services.
Once all of the domains achieve Pre-Certification, then Outcome Measure 4 shall be considered to have achieved Pre-Certification and subject to the process in Paragraphs 10 and 11 hereof as to whether a final review is required in connection with a request to terminate jurisdiction over this action.
Revised Outcome Measure 5: Worker-Child Visitation (In-Home)
DCF shall visit at least 85% of all in-home family cases at least twice a month, except for probate, interstate or voluntary cases.
Revised Outcome Measure 6: Caseload Standards
The caseload of no DCF social worker shall exceed the following caseload standards, with exceptions for emergency reasons on caseloads, lasting no more than 30 days. Additionally, the average caseload of all caseload carrying DCF social workers in each of the following categories shall not exceed 0.75 (i.e., 75% utilization) of these maximum caseload standards:
A. Investigators shall have no more than 17 investigative cases at any time. B. In-home treatment workers shall have no more than 15 cases at any time. C. Out-of-home treatment workers shall have no more than 20 individual children
assigned to them at any time. This includes voluntary placements. D. Adoption and adolescent specialty workers shall have no more than 20 cases at
anytime. E. Probate workers shall have no more than 35 cases at any time. When the probate or
interstate worker is also assigned to provide services to the family, those families shall be counted as in-home treatment cases with a ratio of 1:20 cases. F. Social workers with in-home voluntary and interstate compact cases shall have no more than 49 cases at any time. G. A worker with a mixed caseload shall not exceed the maximum weighted caseload derived from the caseload standards in A through F above.
6

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778 Filed 12/13/17 Page 7 of 14
PRE-CERTIFIED OUTCOME MEASURES THAT MUST BE SUSTAINED Outcome Measure 7: Repeat Maltreatment of Children No more than 7% of the children who are victims of substantiated maltreatment during any sixmonth period shall be the substantiated victims of additional maltreatment during any subsequent six-month period. Outcome Measure 8: Maltreatment of Children in Out-of-Home Care No more than 2% of the children in out-of-home care shall be the victims of substantiated maltreatment by substitute caregivers while in out-of-home care. Outcome Measure 9: Re-Entry into DCF Custody Of all children who enter DCF custody, 7% or fewer shall have re-entered care within 12 months of the prior out-of-home placement. Outcome Measure 10: Worker-Child Visitation (Out-of-Home) DCF shall visit at least 85% of all out-of-home children at least once each month, except for probate, interstate or voluntary cases. All children must be seen by their DCF social worker at least quarterly. Outcome Measure 11: Placement Within Licensed Capacity At least 96% of all children placed in foster homes shall be in foster homes operating within their licensed capacity, except where necessary to accommodate sibling groups. Outcome Measure 12: Multiple Placements At least 85% of the children in DCF custody shall experience no more than three (3) placements during any 12-month period. Outcome Measure 13: Sibling Placement At least 95% of the siblings entering out-of-home placement shall be placed together unless there are documented therapeutic reasons for separate placements. Outcome Measure 14: Reduction in the Number of Children Placed in Residential Care The number of children placed in privately operated residential treatment care shall not exceed 11% of the total number of children in DCF out-of-home care.
7

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778 Filed 12/13/17 Page 8 of 14
6. No Outcome Measures other than the 2017 Revised Exit Plan Outcome Measures and the Pre-Certified Outcome Measures shall be subject to further monitoring, review or court action. The parties are in agreement to terminate jurisdiction over the following 2006 Revised Exit Plan Pre-Certified Outcome Measures: • OM 4 Search for Relatives • OM 7 Reunification • OM 8 Adoption • OM 9 Transfer of Guardianship • OM 13 Foster Parent Training • OM 20 Discharge Measures • OM 21 Discharge ofMentally Ill or Developmentally Disabled Children • OM 22 Multi-Disciplinary Exams
7. The parties agree to terminate jurisdiction over the following 2017 Revised Exit Plan PreCertified Outcome Measures if the Defendants sustain compliance with the measures through the end ofthe Second Calendar Quarter 2018 (June 30, 2018). • OM 11 Placement within Licensed Capacity • OM 12 Multiple Placements • OM 13 Sibling Placement • OM 14 Reduction in the Number of Children in Residential Capacity
8. Reporting by the Court Monitor on all Revised Outcome Measures is required on a quarterly basis until the Court issues an order terminating jurisdiction over the action, except that public filing of reports by the Court Monitor may occur on a six-month basis and cover two quarters of performance.
Until jurisdiction over this matter is terminated by the Court, the parties agree that the DCF Court Monitor shall have discretion to conduct and provide for such additional reporting and case reviews to determine compliance or sustained compliance that are consistent with the terms of the 2017 Revised Exit Plan, as modified, and under any other applicable Court orders.
There shall be no changes to the measurement procedures to be used to determine and sustain compliance with Outcome Measure 3 and 4 except as may be ordered by the Court.
The Court Monitor's measurement procedures used to determine and sustain compliance with the Revised Outcome Measures in this 2017 Agreement are set forth in Appendix A attached hereto.
The Court Monitor's protocols and directional guides for Revised Outcome Measures 3 and 4 to be achieved, as amended pursuant to this 2017 Agreement, are set forth in Appendix B, attached hereto.
The methodology, including protocols and directional guides, for review of Revised Outcome Measures 1, 2, 5, and 6 for Pre-Certification will be developed by the Court Monitor with input from the parties.
8

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778 Filed 12/13/17 Page 9 of 14
9. The Defendants must be in compliance with all of the outcome measures, and in sustained compliance with all of the outcome measures for at least two quarters (six months) prior to asserting compliance and shall maintain compliance through any decision to terminate jurisdiction. The parties shall have meaningful opportunity to be heard by the Court Monitor before he renders his findings and recommendations.
10. Pre-Certification. IfDCF has met the requirements for any Revised Outcome Measure and sustained compliance for at least one (1) additional and consecutive quarter (6 months total), the Court Monitor shall conduct a "pre-certification review'' of that Outcome Measure ("Pre-Certification Review"). Pre-Certification Reviews have already taken place and are applicable to Outcome Measures 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 of the 201 7 Revised Exit Plan. The purpose of the Pre-Certification Review is to recognize DCF's sustained improved performance, to identify and provide a prompt and timely opportunity to remedy any problem areas that are affecting the well-being of Juan F. class members, and to increase the efficiency of DCF' s eventual complete compliance and exit from this action. Other than conducting the Pre-Certification Review earlier than the final review mandated by paragraph 11, the Pre-Certification Review will be conducted in accordance with the provision for review as described in paragraph 8, unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties and the Court Monitor. If the PreCertification Review with respect to a particular Revised Outcome Measure: (a) does not identify any material issues requiring remediation; and (b) no assertions of noncompliance with the specific Revised Outcome Measures(s) at issue are pending at the time Defendants assert sustained compliance with the Outcome Measures; and (c) the Court Monitor has not identified any material issues requiring remediation subsequent to the Pre-Certification, the final review as per paragraph 11 of this 201 7 Revised Exit Plan will not be required after the Defendants assert sustained compliance with all Outcome Measures. In conducting any Pre-Certification Review or final review of the Defendants' compliance with any specific Outcome Measure, the Court Monitor may also consider any current measurement methodologies, including any methodologies employed by the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children Youth and Families (ACYF), in its Child and Family Services (CFSR) reviews and in any Annual Progress and Services Review (APSR) reports issued pertaining to DCF.
11. To seek termination of the Court's jurisdiction over this action, Defendants may not seek ---to-t-erminate jurisclietion-over-ind ividual-Gutcome Measure~: rather-,--simultaneous----
compliance with all of the Revised and Pre-Certified Outcome Measures is a prerequisite to seeking termination ofjurisdiction over all of the Outcome Measures and this action. If Defendants assert compliance and request termination ofjurisdiction over this action, the Court Monitor shall, prior to the Court's adjudication of the Defendants' motion, determine which, if any, Outcome Measures require a final review in order to assess the Defendants' achievements, subject to Paragraph 10 of this 2017 Revised Exit Plan. The Court Monitor's determination on which Outcome Measures require a final review shall be conclusive and binding on the parties. For any Outcome Measures requiring a final review, the Court Monitor shall conduct a review of a statistically significant valid
9

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778 Filed 12/13/17 Page 10 of 14
sample of case files at the 96% confidence level, and such other measurements as are necessary, to determine whether Defendants are in compliance with their obligations. The Court Monitor shall then present findings and recommendations to the District Court in connection with the Defendants' request for termination ofjurisdiction over this action. The parties shall have a timely and meaningful opportunity to be heard by the Court Monitor before he submits any findings and recommendations to the Court, which findings and recommendations shall be submitted no more than 90 days from the submission of the Defendant's motion. The parties shall also have a meaningful opportunity to be heard by the Court before any ruling is rendered with respect to a motion to terminate jurisdiction over this action. Defendants shall maintain compliance through any final decision to terminate jurisdiction over this action. This 2017 Revised Exit Plan shall not limit any rights of any party to seek any relief from the Court under applicable federal law. 12. In furtherance of the parties' mutual desire to achieve sustained compliance and an end to this Consent Decree as soon as possible, the parties agree to meet at least monthly to review progress and concerns. It is the parties' intention to continue this process for at least one year, unless either party determines, and notifies the other, that the process is no longer productive or useful.
13. Should either party determine in good faith that the process described in paragraph 12 is not productive or useful in achieving its goals, that party may provide notice of that determination in writing. After 30 days of providing that notice, if the party giving notice chooses to do so, it may seek whatever assistance it deems appropriate from the Special Master, who may work further with the parties to resolve concerns.
14. Upon approval and entry ofthis 2017 Revised Exit Plan, Plaintiffs will promptly withdraw, without prejudice, the "Notice ofNoncompliance" of February 1, 2017.
15. The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut retains continuing jurisdiction over this action until the Court issues a final order terminating such jurisdiction.
10

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778 Filed 12/13/17 Page 11 of 14
THE PLAINTIFFS,
By: Ir . Lustbader, Esq. Childrens' Rights, Inc. 88 Pine St., Suite 800 New York, NY 10005 212-683-2210 Fax: 212-683-4015 ilustbader@childrensrights.org
t'evcn M. F •dcrick, Esq. Wofsey, Rosen, Kweskin & Kuriansky, LLP 600 Summer Street Stamford, CT 06901 203-327-2300 Fax: 203-967-9273 sfrederick@wrkk.com

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778 Filed 12/13/17 Page 12 of 14
THE DEFENDANTS,
By: 195 Church Street Assistant Attorney General The Office of the Attorney General 55 Elm Street Hartford, CT 061 06

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778 Filed 12/13/17 Page 13 of 14
~ 0 ~nd~Mancus~o~(?.+
DCF Court Monitor 300 Church Street 4th Floor Wallingford, CT 06492 203-741-0458 203-741-0462 Raymond.Mancuso@CT.Gov

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778 Filed 12/13/17 Page 14 of 14 /s/Stefan R. Underhill

 </s> Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 1 of 25 Revised Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN)
A: Appendix Research Questions, Logic, Measurement Elements and IdentifÏed
Variables initially taken from Revised Exit Plan of updated for Reference Purposes of the 2017 Revised Exit Plan.
1l

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 2 of 25 Revised Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN)
Outcome Measure 1: Commencement of Investigation/FAR (Family Assessment Response)
DCF shall assure that at least 907o of all reports of children alleged to be abusedo or neglectedo shall be prioritizedo assigned and the investigation/FAR shall commence within the timeframes specified below.
If the report of child abuse or neglect is determined by the DCF Careline to be... A. A situation in which failure to respond immediately could result in the death of, or
serious injury to a child, then the response time for commencing an investigation is the same calendar day Careline accepts the report. B. A non-life threatening situation that is severe enough to warrant a24-hour response to secure the safety of the child and to access the appropriate and available witnesses, then the response time for commencing an investigation is 24 hours.
C. A non-life threatening situation thato because of the age or condition of the childo the response time for commencing an investigation is 72 hours.
Case Review is not required to verify compliance quantitative status with this measure. LINK Reporting will be used to capture compliance with the timing requirement for commencement of investigations. Initial quarterly reporting has been available since August 15, 2004. The logic established by the DCF used by the LINK system to capture this measurement is based the information indicated belowl:
C o mme nc e ment of Inv e s ti gat i on :
Currently pending changes to existing LINKfunctions. Modifications to be made in phase one (Summer 2004) are:
o Removal of "Extension" button andfunctionality o Addition of Response time information button o Change in layout of the LlNKwindow to include Response Time
Compliance information, as well as the current Commencement date,
o and the new Commencement Time fields.
LINK e-help to provide guidance and nuances related to Compliance
Time Frames.
I Documentation taken directly from the LINK Modifications to Support Juan F. Exit Outcomes Presentation of April 13,2004.
I2

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 3 of 25 Revised Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN)

Outcome Measure 2: Completion of Investigation/FAR (Family Assessment
Response)

At least 857o of all reports of alleged child maltreatment accepted by the DCF

Careline shall have their investigations/assessments completed within 45 calendar days

of

the Careline.

Case Review is not required to verify compliance status with the quantitative requirement for this
measure. LINK Reporting will be used to capture compliance with the timing requirement for completion of investigations within 45 days. The logic established by the DCF to be used by the
LINk system to capture this measurement is provided below2:

Inv e s t i gat i o n C ompl e t i o n
Data Source: LINK
A query of the LINK database will be conducted to determine all investigations completed during the period. For each investigation completed during the period, the CPS report accept date will be subtractedfrom the investigation
completion date to determine the number of days the investigation was open. (Completion of the Investigation occurs when a Supervisor Approves the Investigation in LINK).

Methodological Notes As indicated in bullet 12 of the 2017 Revised Exit Plan, the Court Monitor shall, prior to the Court's
adjudication of the Defendants' motion, determine which, if any, Outcome Measures require a final review in order to assess the Defendants' achievements, subject to Paragraph l2 of this 2017 Revised
Exit Plan. The Court Monitor's determination on which Outcome Measures require a final review shall be conclusive and binding on the parties. For any Outcome Measures requiring a final review, the Court Monitor shall conduct a review of a statistically significant valid sample of case files at the
96Yo confidence level, and such other measurements as are necessary, to determine whether
Defendants are in compliance with their obligations. This review would be of a statistically significant valid sample of case files at the 96%o confidence level, including these questions and such other measurements as are necessary, to determine whether Defendants are in compliance with their
obligations:
1. Did the
established at the Careline?
2. Was an additional report accepted and merged with seven days of the initial
accepted report?
3. Vy'ere any additional reports accepted after seven days from initial acceptance, but
prior to the completion of that investigation/assessment (FAR)?
4. V/as the investigatiorVassessment (FAR) completed in 45 days from acceptance at
Careline?

2 On-Line LINK reporting documentation taken directly from the DCF LINK Reports: Outcomes for Children "Report Source". May be subject to enhancement changes through December 2004.
13

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 4 of 25 Revised Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN)
5. Was the initial investigation/assessment (FAR) interview with the alleged
perpetrator and identified family members conducted in their primary language?
6. Was the investigatior/assessment (FAR) conducted per policy with adherence to the
required protocol DCF 2074|DCF 3010: with all identified case participants interviewed, all required collateral contacts made, (or documentation provided for the social worker's inability to contact) and all safety factors, and needs assessed?
7. Were services identified to maintain a child in the home where applicable? 8. If applicable, was the alleged perpetrator asked to leave the home so that the child
(ren) could be maintained in the home during the course of investigation?
9. Did the investigator document his/her attempts to identify relative resources through
the course of interview with the family members in the event that removal would be required? 10. Were identified services provided to maintain a child in the home where applicable? 1 1. Did the SWS document his/her discussion with the investigator related to the investigatiodFAR assessment and subsequent findings of substantiated/nonsubstantiated abuse or neglect? 12. Was SDM completed and an assessment or case plan developed by the Social Worker to document any family service needs and identify subsequent referrals to community providers in order to address those needs/build upon strengths?
t4

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 5 of 25 Revised Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN)
Outcome Measure 3: Case Plans
Except probate, interstate, and subsidy only cases, appropriate case plans shall be developed as set forth in the "DCF Court Monitor's Protocol for Outcome Measures 3 and 4 (X'ormerly OM 15)" and the accompanying "Directional Guide for Outcome Measures 3 and 4 (Formerty OM 15) Reviews" attached collectively as Appendix B hereto. The enforceable domains of this Outcome Measure shall not include (although all
domains will be assessed and reported on each quarter by the Court Monitor and
included in public monitoring reports) (1) those domains in Appendix B for which the compliance has already been sustained at 90o/o or more; and (2) the oooverall score" domain. As of the date of fïling of this 2017 Revised Exit Plan the parties agree all domains remain enforceable including:
o Reason for Involvement; o Identifyinglnformation; o Engagement of Child and Family; o Present Situation and Assessment to Date of Review; o Determining Goals and Objectives; o Progress; o Action Steps to Achieving Goals ldentifïed for the Upcoming Six Month Period;
and
o Planning for Permanency
Prospectively, if Defendants achieve and sustain compliance with any of the individual remaining enforceable domains for two consecutive quarters, those will no longer be
enforceable domains under this Outcome Measure. Once the last remaining domain is achieved and sustained for two consecutive quarters (six months total)' this item shall be considered to have achieved Pre-Certification and subject to the process in paragraphs 11 and 12 as to whether a fïnal review pursuant to Paragraphs 11 and 12 is required in connection with a request to terminate jurisdiction over the Outcome Measures.
15

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 6 of 25 Revised Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN)
LINK will not be used to produce reporting on this measure. The measurement of Outcome Measure 3 requires a case review to determine compliance. While reporting on only the required domains, the Court Monitor quarterly case reviews will continue to include the following items originally identified within the Juan FExitPlan on July 1,2004 and incorporated within its data
collection instruments and included as reference in Appendix B:
l. To what extent are clinically appropriate case plans documented and developed in
conjunction with parents, children, providers and others involved in the case and approved by a DCF SV/S within the timeframes specified within the Case Plan document (or six months if the plan does not specify)? Elements a-h below:
a. Is there a SWS approved case plan in LINK less than 7 months old at the point of
review?
b. V/as the most recent case plan in compliance with the timing requirement set in
policy (within 60 days of case opening or child placed out of home, or within six months of the prior approved Case Plan?
c. Has there been a CPC or ACR in the last 7-month period? d. Who was invited to participate in the most recent ACR/TPC? e. Does this invitee list include all active providers and case participants in the case
during the six-month period preceding the ACR (60 days for the CPC)?
f. Who participated at the ACR/CPC and by what means did they participate (written
report, in person, teleconference, prior verbal report to SV/ or SV/S)
g. Was the ACRI-ACRI-F completed- identifying points of views of all participants
and required revisions noted by the SWS or ACR Coordinator at the point of the conference?
h. Did the final approved Case Plan include those required revisions documented on
the ACRI/ACRI-F?
2. To what extent do clinically appropriate case plans approved by the DCF SWS include the
following? (Elements a-o as identified in the Exit Plan are placed into meaningful categories established by DCF as follows :)
Background Information
a. A clear description of household members and each identified member's status b. Prior relevant case history c. Reason for most recent case opening
Assessment Information
d. Presenting issues and problem areas as identified by DCF or provider
assessment
e. Family issues as perceived by the parerÍ.lcaretakerlchild (if over l2) f. Family or child's strengths g. Family or child's needs (medical, dental, mental health, educational, other
setvice needs - housing, childcare, employment, transportation, etc.)
Treatment
h. Reasonable efforts as determined by the court, to prevent out of home
placement or reunify documented
j. Clearly stated case goal/permanency plan goal
m. Proposed services and identified responsible parties
o. Parental & sibling visitation schedules
I6

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 7 of 25 Revised Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN)

Progress Toward Case Goals
i. Responsibilities of children, parents, caretakers, service providers and DCF for
reaching the identified case goals (tasks required during the planning period)
k. Identification of the measurement of participants' progress toward and
achievement of stated goal (for those adolescents where applicable, this includes the attachment of a completed Independent Living Plan DCF-209I)
l. Timelines for completing tasks/expectations related to the case goal j. Legal activity and status during the preceding Case Planning period.
3. To what extent did DCF meet the language requirements of the clients during the Case
Planning process? Elements a-b below:
a. Was the ACR conducted in the primary language of the client? b. Was the Case Plan document prepared (or subsequently translated) in the
primary language of the client?
Methodological Notes:
1. The Court Monitor's Office will continue to conduct a quarterly review, utilizing the
methodology and protocol established for Outcome Measure 3 reporting on all domains as they remain enforceable as of the date of filing of the 2017 Revised Exit Plan. A minimum
of 50 cases (representing all area offices) will be randomly selected each quarter. Prospectively, if Defendants achieve and sustain compliance with any of the individual remaining enforceable domains for two consecutive quarters, those will no longer be
enforceable domains under this Outcome Measure. Once the last remaining domain is achieved and sustained for two consecutive quarters (six months total), this item shall be
considered to have achieved Pre-Certification and subject to the process in paragraphs 11 and 12 as to whether a final review pursuant to Paragraphs 12 is required in connection with a request to terminate jurisdiction over the Outcome Measures.

2. Additionally, a qualitative review may be conducted by the Monitor's Office on a sample of

all open cases identified, except probate, interstate, and subsidy only at the point of DCF

assertion of compliance with this outcome. This review would be of a statistically significant

valid sample of case files at the 960/o confidence level, and such other measurements as are

necessary, to determine whether Defendants are in compliance with their obligations. As

indicated, the Court Monitor shall, prior to the Court's adjudication of the Defendants'

motion, determine which, if any, Outcome Measures require a final review in order to assess

the Defendants' achievements, subject to Paragraph 12 of this 2017 Revised Exit Plan. The

C

¡equiie a firìa-l iñiew shãl be

conclusive and binding on the parties. For any Outcome Measures requiring a final review,

the Court Monitor shall conduct a review of a statistically significant valid sample of case

files at the 960/o confidence level, and such other measurements as are necessary, to determine

whether Defendants are in compliance with their obligations.

I7

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 8 of 25
Outcome Measure 4: Childrenso Needs Met (fuIeusure Formerll, klenti/ied us Outcottte Meusure I5) Families and children shall have their medical, dental, mental health, and other service needs met as set forth in the "DCF Court Monitor's Protocol for Outcome Measures 3 and 4 (Formerly OM15)" and the accompanying "Directional Guide for Outcome Measures 3 and 4 (Formerly OM15) Blind Reviews" attached collectively as Appendix B hereto. The enforceable domains of this Outcome Measure shall not include (although all domains will
be assessed and reported on each quarter by the Court Monitor and included in public
monitoring reports): (l) those domains in Appendix B for which the compliance has been
sustained at 85o/o or more; and (2) the "all needs met" domain. As of the date of filing of this 2017 Revised Exit Plan the parties agree the enforceable domains include:
o Legal Action to Achieve the Permanency Goal within the Prior Six Months; o Contracting or Providing Services to Achieve Permanency within the Prior Six Months; o Medical Needs; o Dental Needs; o Mental Health, Substance Abuse and Behavioral Health Services. Prospectively, if Defendants achieve and sustain compliance with any of the individual remaining enforceable domains for two consecutive quarters, those will no longer be
enforceable domains under this Outcome Measure. Once the last remaining domain is achieved
and sustained for an additional consecutive quarter (six months total), this item shall be
considered to have achieved Pre-Certification and subject to the process inparagraphs 5 and 11 as to whether a final review is required in connection with a request to terminate jurisdiction over the Outcome Measures.
18

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 9 of 25 Revised Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN)
LINK will not be used to produce quantitative reporting on this measure. The measurement of
Outcome Measure 4 requires a case review to determine compliance. While reporting on only the
required domains, the Court Monitor quarterly case reviews will continue to include the following items incorporated within its data collection instruments and included as reference in Appendix B:
1. To what extent have the medical, dental, mental health, and other service needs been
provided to the child and family as specified in the most recently approved, clinically appropriate Case Plan3? (a-f below)
a. Were there clearly indicated needs identified for the case participants in the
most recently approved clinically appropriate Case Plan?
b. Are medical issues as identified in the plan presently being addressed? c. Are mental health issues as identified in the plan presently being addressed? d. Are dental issues as identified in the plan presently being addressed? e. Are educational/development (0-3) issues as identified in the plan presently
being addressed?
f. Are other service needs as identified in the plan presently being addressed?
Notes:
1. The Court Monitor's Office will continue to conduct a quarterly review, utilizing the methodology
and protocol established for Outcome Measure 4, reporting only on those enforceable domains that
remain as of the date of filing of the 2017 Revised Exit Plan (Risk: In Home; Contracting or Providing Services to Achieve Permanency within the Prior Six Months; Medical Needs; Dental
Needs; Mental Health, Substance Abuse and Behavioral Health Services.) A minimum of 50 cases
(representing all area offices) will be randomly selected each quarter. Prospectively, if Defendants
achieve and sustain compliance with any of the individual remaining enforceable domains for two
consecutive quarters, those will no longer be enforceable domains under this Outcome Measure.
Once the last remaining domain is achieved and sustained for two consecutive quarters (six months total), this item shall be considered to have achieved Pre-Certification and subject to the process in paragraphs 1 1 and 12 as to whether a final review pursuant to Paragraphs 12 is required in connection with a request to terminate jurisdiction over the Outcome Measures.
2. Additionally, a qualitative review may be conducted by the Monitor's Office on a sample of all open
cases identified, except probate, interstate, and subsidy only at the point of DCF assertion of compliance with this outcome. This review would be of a statistically significant valid sample of
case files at the 96Yo confidence level, and such other measurements as are necessary, to determine whether Defendants are in compliance with their obligations. As indicated, the Court Monitor shall,
prior to the Courtls adjtrdicatisn of the Defendants' motion, detetmine which, if any, Outcome
Measures require a final review in order to assess the Defendants' achievements, subject to Paragraph 8 of this 2017 Revised Exit Plan. The Court Monitor's determination on which Outcome Measures require a final review shall be conclusive and binding on the parties. For any Outcome Measures requiring a final review, the Court Monitor shall conduct a review of a statistically significant valid sample of case files at the 960/o confidence level, and such other measurements as are necessary, to determine whether Defendants are in compliance with their obligations.
3 As indicated in the Revised Exit Plan document, the reviewers must also consider the form ACRI/ACRI-F, to ensure that corrections as documented on that form have been addressed.
t9

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 10 of 25
Outcome Measure 5: Worker-Child Visitation (In-Home)
(Meusure F'ormerl.1' Identilied us Oulct¡ttte tleusure l7) DCF shall visit at least 857o of all in-home family cases at least twice a month, except for
probate, interstate or voluntary cases.
Case Review is required to verify compliance status with the quantitative requirement for this measure until such time that LINK enhancements are completed. Logic applied by the DCF will be established based upon enhancements to the LINK system as indicated belowa:
c Current Narrative Categories will be condensed and those that are to be
countedfor reporting purposes will be clearly delineated. The following calculations will be applied in the LINK reporting
I. The denominator of in-home children will be determined by querying the
LINK database to determine all cases with a CPS In-Home assignment,
2. From these cases, determine all active case participants under age 19 who
are NOT in an out-of-home placement.
3. Determine all In-Home children visited during the period as the numerator
by identifying in-home children visited at least twice during a calendør month or quarter.
Until such time that LINK system capabilities are available to report on the full universe of children in the in home caseload, the Department's Office of Research and Evaluation will collect dataviaAdministrative Case Reviews or altemate data collection efforts. The ORE will
include the following questions in its data collection instrument:
1. What is the frequency of DCF's visits? 2. Did DCF visit with the children active in the case on average two times per month
during the quarter of this review?
3. Were all children in the home seen in accordance with the Department's practice
expectation?
Methodological Notes:
1. The universe includes all children in-home during each quarter of review. Per agreement,
Probate, Interstate, Voluntary, and Adoption Subsidy cases will be excluded.
2. As indicated, the Court Monitor shall, prior to the Court's adjudication of the Defendants'
motion, determine which, if any, Outcome Measures require a final review in order to assess the Defendants' achievements, subject to bullet 1l of this 2017 Revised Exit Plan. The Court Monitor's determination on which Outcome Measures require a final review
shall be conclusive and binding on the parties. For any Outcome Measures requiring a
4 Documentation taken from the LINK Modifications to Support Juan F. Exit Outcomes Presentation of April 13,
2004.
20

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 11 of 25 Revised Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN)
final review, the Court Monitor shall conduct a review of a statistically significant valid sample of case files at the 96Yo confidence level, and such other measurements as are necessary, to determine whether Defendants are in compliance with their obligations., a qualitative review may be conducted by the Monitor's Office on a sample of all open inhome cases identified, except probate, interstate, voluntary and subsidy only cases. This review would be of a statistically significant valid sample of case files at the 960/o confidence level, and such other measurements as are necessary, to determine whether Defendants are in compliance with their obligations. Included questions would be:
1. What is the quantity and quality of the visitation between worker and child in DCF's
in-home caseloads? (elements a-i below)
a. During each of the six months preceding this review, did the worker physically
meet with the child in accordance to the mandate?
b. How many times during the past six month period did the work did the DCF
worker meet with the child in person?
c. Did the social worker meet with the child alone? d. During conversation, did the worker assess the parent's ability to meet the needs
and well-being of the child?
e. Did the social worker discuss progress or regression in meeting the Case Plan
goal?
f. Did the social worker document any needs for additional supports to maintain the
child in the home?
g. Was the primary caregiver (parent) spoken to during the visit?
2l

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 12 of 25
Outcome Measure 6: Caseload Standards
(Measure Formerl¡, Identilíed as Outconte ll[etsure I8) The caseload of no DCF social worker shall exceed the following caseload standards, with exceptions for emergency reasons on caseloads,lasting no more than 30 days. Additionally, the average caseload of all caseload carrying DCF social workers in each of the following categories shall not exceed 0.75 (í.e.r7ío/o utilwation) of these maximum caseload standards:
A.Investigators shall have no more than 17 investigative cases at any time. B.In-home treatment workers shall have no more than 15 cases at any time. C. Out-of-Home treatment workers shall have no more than 20 individual children assigned to them at any time. This includes voluntary placements. D. Adoption and adolescent specialty workers shall have no more than 20 cases at any time. E. Probate workers shall have no more than 35 cases at any time. \ilhen the probate or interstate worker is also assigned to provide services to the family, those families shall be counted as in home treatment cases with a ratio of 1:20 cases. F. Social workers with in-home voluntary and interstate compact cases shall have no more than 49 cases at any time. G.A worker with a mixed caseload shall not exceed the maximum weighted caseload derived from the caseload standards in A through F above.
22

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 13 of 25 Revised Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN)
Case Review is not required to verify compliance status with the quantitative requirement for
this measure. LINK will be used to capture compliance with the percentage of workers at or
below established caseload utilization via the average of the daily reports during each quarter LINK logics for the reporting is provided below:
Caseload Standards
Report Source: LINK
Each night a batch program will run that will recognize any assignment changes and
calculate caseload accordingly based on the point designations in figure L l. These
point totals will be displayed next to each Worker's name on a Supervisor's Workers tab of the LINK desktop as well as in Worker Search.
Compliance can be meosured through a utility that displays the number of workers over I00oÁ on any given day and, of those, the number of workers that have been over 100%for 30 of the most recent 30 calendar days.
Percentaee Utilization Calculation: For each of the 9 categories, the program computes o/o Utilizationsfollows
Determine the % Util. for each assignment category for a worker by dividing the number of caseload points for that Worker by the Maximum number of points for that category. Then add all of the
percentages to arrive at an overall percentage utilization figure.
Adolescent (#points in category /20) +
CPS In-Home (þoints in category /15)
+ CPS (#points in category /20) + CPS OOH (#points in category /20) +
ICO (#points in category /19)
+ Investigation (#points in category /17) + Permunency (#points in category /20) +
Probate (#points in category /35)
+
:Voluntary (þoints in category /49) oÁ Utilization
Methodological Note
5 On-Line LINK reporting documentation taken directly from the DCF LINK Reports: Caseload Reports: "Percentage Utilization Calculation".
23

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 14 of 25
1. The Court Monitor shall, prior to the Court's adjudication of the Defendants' motion,
determine which, if any, Outcome Measures require a final review in order to assess the Defendants' achievements, subject to Paragraph 11 of this 2017 Revised Exit Plan. The Court Monitor's determination on which Outcome Measures require a final review shall be conclusive and binding on the parties. For any Outcome Measures requiring a final review, the Court Monitor shall conduct a review of a statistically significant valid sample
of case files at the 960/o confidence level, and such other measurements as are necessary, to determine whether Defendants are in compliance with their obligations.
24

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 15 of 25 Revised Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN)
Outcome Measure 7: Repeat Maltreatment (In-Home)
(Measure Formerly ldentíJi.ed as Outcome Meøsure 5) No more than 7o/o of the children who are victims of substantiated maltreatment during any six-month period shall be the substantiated victims of additional maltreatment during any subsequent six-month period.
Case Review is not required to verify compliance status with the quantitative requirement for
this measure. LINK Reporting will be used to capture compliance with the required
percentage of repeat maltreatment for children in DCF involved families in the in-home caseload. The logic established by the DCF to be used by the LINK system to capture this measurement is provided below6:
Repeat Maltreatment Data Source: LINK
Every six months, the Department will determine if this outcome hqs been achieved through applying the federal reporting logic to produce a six-month outcome report:
o Query the LINK database to retrieve all investigations completed during the 6-month period to then determine all associated, substantiated allegations (including type), substantiated victims and designated worker and ffice.
o For each substøntiated victim, lookforward I to 183 days to determine if the victim
had another substantiated allegation during the period using the CPS Report Incident Date or CPS Report Received Date íf there is no valid Incident Date. o Compare the two datasets to determine the substqntiated victims contained in both
extracts. o Divide the number of repeat victims by the number of total victims to determine
percentage of repeat maltreatment.
Note; CPS Reports that contain the same child(ren) and are less than or equal to 7 days
apart are considered as the same incident and would not be counted as Repeat
Msltreatment should they fall into both periods of measure.
Methodological Note:
Per bullet 5: Pre-Certification Review completed July 2014 with respect to a OM7: (a) did not identify any material issues requiring remediation; and (b) TBD if assertions of
noncompliance are present or compliance has been sustained at the time Defendants assert sustained compliance with all Outcome Measures; and (c) or whether the Court Monitor has or has not identified any material issues requiring remediation subsequent to the Pre-
Certification, the final review as per bullet 11 of this 2017 Revised Exit Plan. This will determine if additional case review will or will not be required at the Court Monitor's
discretion after the Defendants assert sustained compliance with all Outcome Measures.
6 On-Line LINK reporting documentation taken directly from the DCF LINK Reports: Outcomes for Children "Data Mapping". May be subject to enhancement changes through December 2004'
25

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 16 of 25
Outcome Measure 8: Maltreatment of Children in Out-of-Home Care
(Ì4eusut'e Þ'ormcrIy IdenIi./ictl u,¡' ()uIct¡ttte Ilccts'tu'a 6)
No more than2o/" of the children in out-of-home care shall be the victims of substantiated maltreatment by substitute caregivers while in out-of-home care.
Case Review is not required to verify compliance status with the quantitative requirement for this measure. LINK Reporting will be used to capture compliance with the percentage requirement for repeat maltreatment of children in out of home placement. The logic established by the DCF to be used by the LINK system to capture this measurement is provided belowT:
Neglect/Abuse in Custody
Data Source: LINK Query the LINK database to retrieve all investigations completed during the period to then determine all associated, substantiated øllegations (including
type), substantiated victims and the date of the associated reports.
Query the LINK database to retrieve all Juan F, Children in open placement during the period.
Compare the two datasets to identify the children contained in both extracts to then compare the CPS Report date to the child's placement begin and end date.
Divide the number of children involved in instances where the CPS report date
fell within the placement dates by the total number of Juan F. Children in care
during the period.
Methodological Note:
Per bullet 5: Pre-Certification Review completed October 2014 withrespect to a OM8: (a) did not identify any material issues requiring remediation; and (b) TBD if assertions of
noncompliance are present or compliance has been sustained at the time Defendants assert sustained compliance with all Outcome Measures; and (c) or whether the Court Monitor has or has not identified any material issues requiring remediation subsequent to the Pre-
Certification, the final review as per bullet 8 of this 2017 Revised Exit Plan. This will determine if additional case review will or will not be required at the Court Monitor's discretion after the Defendants assert sustained compliance with all Outcome Measures.
7 On-Line LINK reporting documentation taken directly from the DCF LINK Reports: Outcomes Data: "Data Mapping". May be subject to enhancement changes through December 2004.
26

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 17 of 25 Revised Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN)

Outcome Measure 9: Re-Entry into DCF Custody (ùIeusure Formerl.t'Identified us Otttcttttte X'Ieusure I I) Of all children who enter DCF custodyrT"/o or fewer shall have re-entered care within 12 months of the prior out-of-home placement.

Case Review is not required to verify compliance status with the quantitative requirement for this measure. LINK Reporting will be used to capture compliance with the required percentage for re-entry into out of home care. The logic established by the DCF to be used by
tn" fmf system to capture this measurement is provided belows:
Re-entry in to DCF Custody

Data Source: LINK DCF will query the LINK database to retrieve all children entering core during the period of measurement.
DCF will query the LINK database to retrieve the most recent discharge date (prior to the date o.f entry in step indicated above) if there is any.

DCF will subtract the most recent discharge date from the entry date to determine
time between discharge and re-entry.

DCF will divide the number of children re-entering care within twelve months by the number of children entering care during the period.
There will be a six-month lag beyond the end of the reporting period required to determine children discharged duríng the period. The first quarter 2004 report will
be available October 2004.

Methodological Note:

Per bullet 5: Pre-Certification Review completed January 2016 with respect to a OM9: (a)

did not identify any material issues requiring remediation; and (b) TBD if assertions of

noncompliance are present or compliance has been sustained at the time Defendants assert

sustained compliance with all Outcome Measures; and (c) or whether the Court Monitor has

or has

any material issues requìring remediãtion

uent to the Pre-

Certification, the final review as per bullet 11 of this 2017 Revised Exit Plan. This will

determine if additional case review will or will not be required at the Court Monitor's

discretion after the Defendants assert sustained compliance with all Outcome Measures.

8 On-Line LINK reporting documentation taken directly from the DCF LINK Reports: Outcomes Data "Data Mapping". May be subject to enhancement changes through December 2004.
27

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 18 of 25
Outcome Measure 10: Worker-Child Visitation (Out-of-Home) (fuIeusure Fornterl.y ldentified as Outcottte Measure I6)
DCF shall visit at least 857o of all out-of-home children at least once a month, except for probate, interstate or voluntary cases. All children must be seen by their DCF social worker at least quarterly.
Case Review is required to verify compliance status with the quantitative requirement for this measure until such time that LINK enhancements are completed. The logic established by the DCF will be established based upon enhancements to the LINK system as indicated belowe:
o Current Narrative Categories will be condensed snd those that are to be
countedfor reporting purposes will be clearly delineated.
o A new narrative cotegory will be addedfor Service Provider Contact with o Child (counted toward the requirement for out of state placements.
The logic that will be appliedwhen enhancements are realized in LINKwíll result in two reports averaging each quarter's performance as follows:
1. What percentage of children placed are seen on a monthly basis by the
DCF/ICPC or private provider social worker?
2. What percentage of children in placement, regardless of where that placement
is geographically, has been seen in the last quarter by his/her DCF worker?
o This calculation is based upon: L The denominator is all Juan F. children in an open placementfor at least 30
days during the period, excluding Probate, Voluntary and ICO coses.
2. The numerqtor is all childrenfrom the denominator who have been visited at
least once in the calendar month or calendar quarter. The Office of Research and Evaluation will include the following questions in its data collection instruments.
l. Does the case record contain documentation that a face-to-face visit with the child in
placement occurred in each calendar month of the quarter under review?
2. Did the DCF Social V/orker meet with this child in person at least once during the
quarter of this review?
e Documentation is taken from the LINK Modifications to Support Juan F. Exit Outcomes Presentation of April 13,2004.
28

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 19 of 25 Revised Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN)
Methodological Notes:
1. The Department's ORE has conducted in conjunction with the Court Monitor's Office a
case review on the full universe of children in out of home placement.
a. The universe included all children in out of home placement during two quarters of
review beginning January 1,2004 forward. Probate cases will be excluded.
b. Quantitative quarterly reporting is due to the Monitor's Office no later than 45 days
from the close ofeach calendar quarter.
2. Additionally, Per bullet 5: Pre-Certification Review completed April2012 with respect to a
OMl0: (a) did not identify any material issues requiring remediation; and (b) TBD if assertions
of noncompliance are present or compliance has been sustained at the time Defendants asseft sustained compliance with all Outcome Measures; and (c) or whether the Court Monitor has or has not identified any material issues requiring remediation subsequent to the Pre-Certification,
the final review as per paragraph I I of this 2017 Revised Exit Plan. This will determine if
additional case review will or will not be required at the Court Monitor's discretion after the
Defendants assert sustained compliance with all Outcome Measures. This qualitative review could include a sample of all open cases identified, except probate, interstate, and subsidy only. Questions would include:
a. What is the quantity and quality of the visitation between worker and child in out
of home placement? (Elements a-i below)
b. In how many of the last six months did the DCF worker meet with the child in
person?
c. If child is out of state, did lCPC/private provider social worker document in-
person visits with the child during each month in the six-month period ending with this review?
d. Did the DCF worker see this child within the quarter preceding this review? e. Did the social worker meet with the child alone? f. During conversation, did the worker assess the placement's ability to meet the
needs and well-being of the child?
g. Did the social worker discuss progress or regression in meeting the Case Plan
goal?
h. Did the social worker document any needs for FASU support to maintain the
placement?
i. Was the caretaker spoken to during the visit?
29

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 20 of 25
Outcome Measure 1L
(Measure Formerly ldentified as Outcome Measure l4) At least 96o/o of all children placed in foster homes shall be in foster homes operating within their licensed capacityo except when necessary to accommodate sibling
groups.
Case Review is not required to verify compliance status with the quantitative requirement for
this measure. LINK Reporting will be used to capture compliance with the percentage of
children placed in foster homes operating within their licensed capacity. The logic established by the DCF to be used by the LINK system to capture this measure is provided belowlo: L i c e ns e d C ap ac i ty (formerly Ov er cr ow ding)
Data Source: LINK DCF will query the LINK database to retrieve Provider datøfor all Juøn F. Children in foster care placement. Subtract the Provider's licensed bed capacity from the number of actual placements
open with that provider. Exempt qny overcapacity placements involving sibling groups placed together where thøt plocement caused the overcapacity to be exceeded. Divide the number of children placed in overcapacity homes by the number of Juan F. Children infoster care placement.
10 On-Line LINK reporting documentation taken directly from the DCF LINK Reports: Outcomes Data"Data Mapping". Modification made per conversation with Jay Anderson on May 26,2004 to ensure only foster care
placements were considered, and that this includes relatives, non-relative, special study, independent, medically
fragile, private provider, therapeutic, professional parent foster homes within the state of CT. May be subject to
enhancement changes through December 2004. 30

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 21 of 25 Revised Juan F. Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN)
Outcome Measure 12: Multiple Placements At least 85% of the chitdren in DCF custody shall experience no more than three (3)
placements during any l2-month period.
Definitions:
1. This includes Safe Home placements but excludes respite, hospitalizations of less
than seven (7) days, home visits, runaways or children sent to the Connecticut Juvenile Training School Measurements to be used by the Monitor:
l. The Monitor shall determine if this outcome has been achieved through LINK
quarterly reports. The percentage will be determined by averaging the three (3)
months in each quarter.
a. The universe for Outcome Measure 12 includes all children in out of home
placement (excluding voluntary service placements) on or after January l,
2004.
b. Quarterly reporting is due to the Monitor's Office no later than 45 days from
the close ofeach quarter.
2. The Monitor shall find that DCF has complied with this outcome measure when DCF has
documented this outcome measure for two (2) consecutive quarters as outlined in bullet 1 I of
the 2017 Revised Exit Plan.
31

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 22 of 25
Outcome Measure 13: Sibling Placement (Measure Formerly ldentified as Outcome Measure 10) At least 95o/o of the siblings entering out-of-home placement shall be placed together unless there are documented therapeutic reasons for separate placements.
Definitions and ClarificatÍons:
l. Therapeutic reasons include such things but are not limited to situations where siblings are placed
with multiple relatives, one (I) sibling requires hospitalization and others do not, one (1) sibling requires detention, or where siblings were abused by another sibling, etc. The therapeutic reason the siblings must be placed apart shall be documented in LINK by the DCF supervisor.
2. "Siblings" are defined as at least two children who share, at minimum, one biological or adoptive
parent, or who reside in the hone and have relationship through parents/guardians who have an adult legal relationship (i.e. step-siblings).
3. The universe of siblings is limited to children under the custody of DCF with a legal status of
"OTC", "committed" or "commitment-dual". TPR children are excluded from this universe of
children.
4. "Placement" relates to the coinciding initial out of hone placement and subsequent placement
changes ofsibling groups on or after January 1,2004.
5. Partial compliance (i.e. two children together, with one in another resource without a documented
therapeutic reason) does not achieve the standard. This is an all or nothing measurement.
6. The enhanced LINK monitoring system uses the term "clinical reasons". For our purpose, the
defÏnition of clinical reasons is consistent with the term "therapeutic reasons" above. "Nonclinical reasons" would be those reasons related to lack of resource; time of placement (i.e. after hours), size of sibling group, or other reason not related to the clinical/therapeutic needs of the children.
Measurements to be used by the Monitor:
1. DCF shall report quarterly on this outcome measure. Once LINK enhancements are in place to
report on this measure, the percentage will be determined by averaging the three (3) months in each quarter. Prior to that period, the Quality Improvement Division will include questions
related to this measure in their quarterly review process.
32

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 23 of 25 Revised Juan F.Exit Plan Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN)
asurel0includesallsiblingsenteringoutofhomecareon or after January 1,2004. Voluntary placement cases, and children with a legal status of TPR will be excluded. Until such time that the LINK system is available to produce reports on the full universe, the QID will incorporate this outcome measure into its quarterly case review process and report on those cases falling into this universe of clients. Subsequent sibling placement changes occurring after January 1,,2O04 will also be captured and reported. (b) Quarterly reporting is due to the Monitor's Office no later than 45 days from the close of
each quarter.
2. The Monitor shall find that DCF has complied with this outcome measure when DCF has
documented tills outcome measure for two (2) consecutive quarters, maintains compliance through exit from this action, and the Monitor has verified compliance with this measure. The Department must achieve sustained compliance with all 22 Ottcome Measures prior to requesting the verification process outlined in the Introduction of this document (Bullet 5).
aa JJ

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 24 of 25
Outcome Measure 14: Reduction in the Number of Children Placed in Residential Care (Measure Formerly ldentified as Outcome Measure 19)
The number of children placed in privately operated residential treatment care shall not exceed 11%o of the total number of children in DCF Out-Of-Home care.
The circumstances of all children in-state and out-of-state residential facilities shall be assessed after the Court's approval of this Exit Plan on a child specific basis to determine if their needs
can be met in a less restrictive setting. The placement of any additional children out-of-state after the approval of this plan shall require the approval of the Transition Task Force.
DefinitÍons and ClarifÏcations:
1. Residential treatment facilities are 24-hour mental health facilities, which operate for the purpose
of effecting positive change and normal growth and development for emotionally disturbed, behavioral disordered and socially maladjusted youth. Children are refened through a holistic treatment plan involving DCF staff and mental health professionals. Target Population: seriously
emotionally disturbed children up to age 18. State operated facilities; stand-alone group homes,
Safe Homes, and juvenile justice 24-hour facilities are not included in this measure.
Measurements to be used by the Monitor:
l. DCF will report on the number of children in in-state and out-of-state residential facilities in
addition to the number of new admissions and discharges from residential facilities on a quarterly
basis.
a. The universe for Outcome Measure l4 will be all childrens in in-state and out-of-
state residential facilities.
b. DCF should identify the following groups of children in residential care to generate
a more accurate portrayal of children who are eligible for less restrictive settings:
i. Children for whom mental retardation levels require facility care until child may
pass into the adult DMR system,
ii. Children in facilities via voluntary placement per the request of parent, iii. Children for whom mental health levels require facility care until child may
pass into the adult DMHAS system, and
iv. Children with medically complex status requiring intensive facility settings
through transition to adult facility care The Monitor may take this additional information into account when determining compliance with Outcome Measure 14.
c. Quarterly reporting is due to the Monitor's Office no later than 45 days from the close of
each calendar quafter.
5 The Court Monitor reserves the right to grant exceptions on an individual child basis when deemed appropriate.
34

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-1 Filed 12/13/17 Page 25 of 25
2. DCF will report on its aggregate assessments of the needs of all children placed
residentially sorted by in state and out-of-state.
a. The universe for Outcome Measure 14 will be all children in in-state and
out-of-state residential facilities.
b. DCF should identify the following groups of children in residential care to
generate a more accurate portrayal of children who are eligible for less restrictive settings:
i. Children for whom mental retardation levels require facility care until
child may pass into the adult DMR system,
ii. Children in facilities via voluntary placement per the request of parent, iii. Children for whom mental health levels require facility care until child
may pass into the adult DMHAS system, and
iv. Children with medically complex status requiring intensive facility
settings through transition to adult facility care
c. Quarterly reporting is due to the Monitor's Offrce no later than 45 days from
the close of each calendar quarter upon court order of this Revised Exit
Plan.
3. The Monitor shall find that DCF has complied with this outcome measure when
DCF has documented this outcome measure for two (2) consecutive quarters as
outlined in bullet 1l of the 2017 Revised Exit Plan.
35

 </s> Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 1 of 53
Appendix B: DCF Court Monitor's 2017-2018 Protocol for Outcome Measures 3 and 4 Updated April 2017 for Use in Blind Reviews

Case ID Number:

36

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 2 of 53

DCF Court Monitoros20lT-2018 Protocol for Outcome Measures 3 and 4 Updated April 2017 for Use in Blind Reviews

Safety Assessment upon Review

Are there clear safety factors present that are not being appropriately assessed and addressed by the assigned
Social Worker and/or Social Work Supervisor and therefore are placing the child in immediate danger as it

n I

Yes

n 2

No

applies to safety, well-being or permanency?

tr J

UTD - No SWS narratives in LINK during this period

(If søfety situation present is a serious concern, case wìll be referred to Review Supervisor so

that the Ombudsman can be notified to address situation.)

Override Exception Requested for OM3

1. flYes 2. lNo

Override Exception Requested for OM4 (Formerly OM15)

1. lYes Z. f]No

(Reviewers must include a detailed request for override on any case with a categorical score or three or less which they feel merits an overall passing grade. This is to be included on page l9 or page 38 for Outcome Measures 3 and 4 (Formerly OMI 5) respectively.)

Override Request is
Røtio nale for D etermin atío n :

1. f]Approved 2. lDenied 3. n N/A

Sígnature
Ray Manc\so, Juan E Court Monitor

Date

Case ID Number:

37

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 3 of 53

Check List

TASK

CommenlDate

n

IdentiS

case is valid for review (Case is open at the point that the case plan ts

due for approval and presents no conflicts)

25 days post ÀCR or FC (or at day 205 from date ofprior family case plan ifno FC is held which allows for 1 80 day federal requirement plus our 25 day allowance) pull the approved case plau or initialized plan in LINK and any corresponding
ACRI from LINK for review.

all relevant LINK

medical, education and legal

icon, investigation protocols, provider narratives during the PUR, SDM and

minimum of last two case plans with corresponding ACRI and CTM or SNR

documentation to identif, needs and DCF's ability to meet those needs during the

period and plan for the upcoming six months. Take notes.

present, review ACR SwS CTM findings on the CIP cases prior to issuing questions to area office staff.
-IfDevelop questions if any that remain open-ended and pose issues for OM3 or
oMl5 considerations. Issue template letter to area offìce staff with individualized clarification questions and global statement questions to provide forum for
feedback. (lfconsensus case, gather questions into one request.)

Incorporate AO respoltse into final scorirtg.

!

If consensus case, meet to finalize scores) If irrdividual case, submit completed tool with all backup informatiott.

Peer supervision (can be requested to bounce off any questions you may have once the tool is completed and ready for submittal, or at any point along the way if a question arises that poses difficulty - may be requested at time ofsupervisory
screening ifquestions or concerns arise.)

n

Screening

tr

Data Entry

Supervisory Screening Only CTMI RESPONSE is "YES" - follow up with questions at 120 day mark:

Yes No

Was the required action by the area office takerl as ofthe date ofthe follow up review?

Yes No

Did the AO action or response benefit the child by moving the child toward achievement ofthe permanency goal or otherwise stated objective/need on the treatment plan ore as identified at the time of the ACR?

Yes No

Case ID Number:

38

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 4 of 53

DCF Court Monitoros20lT-2018 Protocol for Outcome Measures 3 and 4 (Formerly OM15)

Administrative:

Al. Court Monitor Reviewer Name:

l.

le. MarvAnn Hartmann I 16. Other

", Gail Bakulski 3. Kit Bennett 5. Marv Corcoran 6. Janice DeBartolo 7 P*ulaÐelG+eso 8. Tom Gallese

I 10.
I lt. I 13.
I 30.
I t4.
I ts.

Ray Mancuso

41.16 a

of

Susan Marks Roberts

Joni Beth Roderick I 4--tr

Jen Spector

I t2- -+arb*r*0Get*nell

Karen Sullivan Oros I 11-

Michelle Turco

I 20. Aoril Brenker

21. Nicole Dionis

l))
24.
I 2s. I 26. I ,r,t I 28. I 29.

Javne Guckert Tracy Lovell Linda Madiean Erika Monerain Louise Montemurro Jennv Vesco David Williams Lisa Zuccaro

Ã2. Date of Case Review LINK Extraction:

(MM/DD/YYYY)

43. Date of CPC/ACR or Family Conference Heldl:

(MM/DDnvYv)

43.1 DsteACRI Completed: _l__J_

A3.2 Date of Approved Cuse PIan: _J____J_

44. Date of Review of Case Plan post CPC/ACR: /

/

(MM/DD/yYyy)

_ A.5. Quarter of Review for Outcome Measure 3:

(enter as qtr-yeat: e.g. 1-14)

46. Period of Review for Outcome Measure 4 (Formerly OM15)

through

(enter month and year of prior plan to date of current plan reviewed for OM 3) as: mm / yyyy through mm / yyyy

47. Review Supervisor's Initials:

1 Enter 1111119999 if a family conference was not held that meets the DCF criteria: parent(s), DCF and one or more other active case

participants - either providers or family supports attending.

Case ID Number:

39

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 5 of 53

Descriptive Information: Dl. LINK Case Number:

D2. Date the case was most recently opened/reopened: /

/

(MM/DD/YYYY)

D3. What was the cause for DCF's involvement on this date? Indicate all risks or issues identified in the investigation regardless

of substantiation. (Check all that apply.) Then check all that were substantiated.

Risk Factors Alleged/IdentifÏed in Investigation a. Abandonment b. Domestic Violence c. Educational Neglect
d. Emotional Neglect e. Emotional Abuse/Maltreatment
f. Medical Neglect t Moral Neglect h. Physical Abuse ¡. Physical Neglect
j. Sexual Al¡use j.1. Human Trafficking
k. Substance Abuse/Mental Health (parent) t. Voluntary Services Request for medical/mental

ldentified

1

Yes

1

Yes

I Yes

1

Yes

I

Yes

I

Yes

I

Yes

I

Yes

1

Yes

I

Yes

I

Yes

I

Yes

I

Yes

22. .l4f 222...ll4))

No
No No No No

2.4 No

22..n4

No No

2.2 2.J
222...ll4)f

No No No No No

Substantiated

1.! Yes z. n No
nI Yes z.nNo
!I Yes z.nNo

nI Yes 2. No

.n I Yes 2. No

.u I Yes 2. No

I .tr Yes 2. No

I .u Yes
.!1 Yes
nI Yes nI Yes

2. 2. 2.
)

No No No No

nI Yes 2. No

health/substance abuse/behavioral health of child (No CPS)
m. FWSN Referral n. Child's TPR prompted a new case open under child's name

1.!Y ES
l.nY ES

z. flNo
z. fl No

1.flY o. Child's behavioral, medical, substance abuse or delinquent

ES

z. nxo

behaviors in conjunction with CPS concerns in the home
p. History of prior investigations q. History of Prior TPRs r. FAR s. Probate

fl r. Yes fl r. Yes l n Yes fl 1. Yes

z. nNo z. nNo z. nNo 2. nNo

t. SPM (Services Post MajoritY)

t. lYes z. nNo

D3a. Primary Reason cited:

(of those listed above, indicate primary reason)

D3b. What is the total neqlect risk score cited in the SDM@ Risk Assessment at that investigation disposition? (Reflected in investigation begun on date entered in question D2)

D3c. What is the total abuse risk score cited in the SDM@ Risk Assessment at that investigation disposition? (Again' referring to Question D2)

D3d. What is the I Very Low

2. Low

3. Moderate

D3d.lls there indication of a policy or discretionary override? l. lYes

D2
4. High s. n N/A
2. f]No 3. nN/A

t. ! Low !2. Moderate

3. High 4. n N/A

D3e. What is the safety decision documented by the investigation prior to the finalization of that investigation disposition (that

began on date of D2)?
t. nSuf"

2. lConditionally Safe

3. [Unsafe 4. EN/A

[les nNo D3f. Was there a documented safety plan as a result of the SDM@ Safety Assessment process?

r.

z.

3. f]NiA

[ves nNo D3f.l Did the identifïed services/interventions assist in mitigating the safety factors within the home?

1.

z.

3. !N/A

Case ID Number:

40

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 6 of 53

D3g. Have there been ongoing SDM@ Risk Reassessments or Reunification Assessment/Reassessment at required intervals (min 180 days) for in-home or reunification cases? (If ínitiøl ctrse, píck N/A)
1. [Yes 2. nNo 3. [N/A

D3h. What is the most current SDM@ Risk Reassessment or Reunification AssessmentlReassessment level at the time of

I Low n low n Moderate n uign preparation for the development of the Case PIan under review?

1. Very

z.

3.

¿.

5. n N/A

D3h.lls there indication of a policy or discretionary override? l. lYes Z. lNo 3. EN/A

D3h.2 If yes, what is the final SDM@ Risk Reassessment or Reunification Assessment/Reassessment level assigned by
Supervisor?
1. ! Very Low 2. I Low 3. I Moderate l. ! nign S. n N/A

D3i. What is the total risk score2 cited in the SDM@ Risk Reassessment or Reunifïcation Assessment/Reassessment on the date of
the CPC/ACR/FC?

D4. What is the name of the assigned Social Worker that wrote (or was responsible to write) the Case Plan for the quarter under
review?

(Last Name, First Name)

D5. What is the name of the assigned Social Work Supervisor who approved the Case Plan for the quarter under review?

D6. a. Social Worker's Area OffÏce:
1.n Bridgeport 2.n Danbury 3.tr Milford 4.n Hartford
s.n Manchester
6.¡ Meriden
7.n Middletown 8.tr New Britain e.n New Haven
I 10. Norwalk fl 11. Norwich
+¿-ElS+amfeø
n 13. Torrington n 14. Waterbury
15. n'Willimantic

(Last Name, First Name)

D6.b. DCF Region (designation beginning afterAug I includes Region VI)

! 1.

Region I (Bridgeport, Norwalk)

! 2.

Region II (New Haven, Milford)

J. 4. 5.

! Region III Q.{orwich, Middletown, Willimantic)
n Region IV (Hartford, Manchester) n Region V (Danbury Torrington, Waterbury)

tr 6.

Region VI (Meriden, New Britain)

D7 What tyt re of case assignment is noted in LINK record?

1.

CPS In-home family case

2.

CPS child-in-placement case

Voluntary Services in-home family case

4.

Voluntary Services child-in-placement case

5.

Associated CIP Family Case

! 6.

Associated Voluntary Services Family Case

! 7.

Services Post Majority Child-in-Placement

2 The reassessed risk score is one combined number

Case ID Number:

4t

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 7 of 53

D8. LINK Family Case or Child's Name:

(Last Name, First Name)

D9. Child's Date of Birth: (enter I1/ll/9999 if in-home case)

(MWDDNYYY)

Dl0. Current legal status

n 1.

Not Committed

! 2.

Committed (AbuseÀleglect/uncared for)

! Dually Committed

4.

TPR/Statutory Parent

5.

Order of Temporary Custody

6.

96 hour hold

7

Protective Supervision

8.

N/A - In-home CPS case with no legal involvement

9.

N/A - In-home Voluntary Service

10. Committed Delinquent or Recommitted Delinquent
I l. Committed - Mental Health

12. Commitment/FWSN

13. Probate Court Custody or Probate Court Guardianship

14. DCF Custody Voluntary Services

15. Unknown

16. Pending

Dl0.a Did child in placement (CIP) have involvement with the criminal justice system (iuvenile or adult) during the PUR?
l. ! Yes 2.!No ¡ 3. N/A- In-home CPS or voluntary service case

D10b. Is child in placement eligible for special education status?

1. 2.

! Yes
nNo

n 99. N/A- In-home service case

Dll. Race (Child's or Family Case Name): l I American Indian or Alaskan Native 2. [ ,tsian 3. n Black/AfricanAmerican
E 5.4. ! Native Hawaiian wrrite
! 6. unknown E 8.7. n ntant (no race selected in LINK)
uro
n 9. Multiracial

Dtz.

l. ! tvtale 2. ! Female 3. ! Intersex n 99. N/A - In-home Case

(Child's or Family Case Name):

1

Hispanic

2

Non-Hispanic

J

Blank (no ethnicity selected in LINK)

4

Unknown

Case ID Number:

42

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 8 of 53 Dl3. For Child in Placement has TPR been filed?
r.n Yes
2.n No 3.n N/A- Compelling Reason3 noted in LINK 4.tr N/A - child's goal and length of time in care do not yet require termination of parental rights
5.f] N/A- In-home case (CPS or Voluntary Services)

D13.a Enter the date of filing here:

(l l/11/9999 if not applicable)

D13.b Has TPR been granted?

l.
2.

! Yes
nNo

3. E NrA-DCF didnot fîle TPR 4. f] NIA- In-home case (CPS or Voluntary Services)

D13.c Enter date that TPR was granted: (l1/l I/9999 if not øpplicable)

Dl4. Date of most recent removal episode?

//

(MM/DD/YYYY)

Dl4a. Date of entry into most current placement?

(MM/DD/YYYY)

Dl5. How many consecutive months has this child been in out-of-home placement as of date of this review (or date of case

closure du
l.

the period)?
< l month

2.

1- 6 months

J.

7-12 months

4.

l3-18 months

5.

19-24,months

6,

>24 months

7.

N/A - no child in placement (in-home case)

D15.a Has child's length of stay exceeded the 15 of the last22 months benchmark set by ASFA?
l. ! Yes
2. nNo 3. n N¡A- In-home case (CPS or Voluntary Services) 4. n N¡A - TPR has already been fîled or granted or compelling reason frled

Dl6. What is the child or family's stated goal on the most recent approved Case Plan in place during the period?

I 1.

Reunifìcation

I 2.

Adoption

Transfer of Guardianship

4.

Long Term Foster Care with a licensed Relative

5.

In-Home Goals - Safety/Well Being Issues

6.

UTD - Plan incomplete, unapproved or missing for this period

7.

Goal indicated is not an approved DCF Goal

8.

OPPLA

Dl6a. Does this correspond to the current SDM Family Reunification Assessment/Reassessment Permanency Plan

Recommendation arrived at in section E. Permanency Plan Recommendation Summary?

1. ! Yes 2. lxo

3. n nN/A 4. IUTD - Required Documentation Not in LINK

D16b. Was there an override in the SDM Family Reunification Assessment/Reassessment Permânency Plan Recommendation?
1. n Yes 2. nNo ¡. n lNln 4. n n UTD - Required Documentation Not in LINK

3 Compelling Reason must be consistent with acceptable language identified in DCF's policy/procedures. See Directional Guide for

assistance.

Case ID Number:

43

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 9 of 53

Dl7. What is the stated concurrent plan?

1.

! Reunification

2.

Adoption

Transfer of Guardianship

4.

Long Term Foster Care with a licensed Relative

5.

- In-Home Goals Safety/Well Being Issues

6.

None

7.

UTD - Plan incomplete, unapproved or missing for this period

8.

OPPLA

D18. a - Dl8.z Please circle the appropriate response to indicate which individuals had a documented engagement with DCF in
the Case Planning efforts and who participated in person or via teleconference in the CPC/ACR/Family Conference during this

period? Please enter type of provider (do not identify by name) attending and relationship of "other'o (e.g. neighbor, friend'

MGM, etc.) if resent at the

Child Aee 12 or older Mother Father Foster Parent
Active Service Provider l:

Ensasement documented
l. Yes 2. No 99. N/A l. Yes 2. No 99. N/A l. Yes 2. No 99. N/A 1. Yes 2. No 99. N/A 1. Yes 2. No 99. N/A

Participated the CPC/ACR/FC4
1. Yes 2. No 99. N/A 1. Yes 2. No 99. N/A l. Yes 2. No 99. N/A l. Yes 2. No 99. N/A 1. Yes 2. No 99. N/A

Active Service Provider 2:

l. Yes 2. No 99. N/A 1. Yes 2. No 99. N/A

Active Service Provider 3:

1. Yes 2. No 99. N/A l. Yes 2. No 99. N/A

Active Service Provider 4:

l. Yes 2. No 99. N/A l. Yes 2. No 99. N/A

Attorney/GAl for child Attorney for Darent All Other DCF staff

1. Yes 2. No 99. N/A 1. Yes 2. No 99. N/A l. Yes 2. No 99. N/A

l. Yes 2. No 99. N/A 1. Yes 2. No 99. N/A 1. Yes 2. No 99. N/A

Other l:
Other 2:

1. Yes 2. No 99. N/A 1. Yes 2. No 99. N/A

L Yes 2. No 99. N/A 1. Yes 2. No 99. N/A

D19 , Current residence of identified child on the date of this review:
l. O In-state non-relative licensed DCF foster care setting 2. tr In-state licensed relative DCF foster care setting
3. O In-state private provider foster care setting 4. O In-state residential setting
5. tr In state hospital setting
6. O Out-of-state non-relative foster care setting 7. O Out of state relative foster care setting
8. tr Out-ofstate residential setting
9. O Out-of-state hospital setting 10. O Home ofbiological parent, adoptive parent or legal guardian
I l. O Shelter

t2. O Temporary Emergency Foster Care Placement

13. O Detention center/CJTS

14. O Safe Home

15. O Group Home

16. tr CHAP/TLAP

17. O AWOL/Unknown
18. -tJ Other

_(specify)

19. tr N/A - Associated CIP Family Case

20. tr N/A - In-home family case

21. O STAR Home

D19.a Does child appear on the ASO' or Children Awaiting Placement List as a child requiring a different level of
placement/service?
zl..n! NYoes 3. n NiA- No child in placement

a Enter N/A if there was not a family conference with participation of others outside of the parent/guardians of the child and the DCF staff

involved in the case. A family meeting is not considered a family conference. This response needs to correspond with response to A3 -

do not put in a date of a family conference if it was actually a home visit.

Case ID Number:

44

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 10 of 53

D19.b If child is awaiting placement on the CTBHP listing, what is the number of days delayed?

D.20. If child had been in out-of-home care during the period, but was reunified prior to the date of this review, please enter the

date of reunification

(mm/dd/yyyy)

Notes:

End of Descriptive Information

Case ID Number:

45

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 11 of 53 Outcome Measure 3 - Case Plannins

The overarching principle that reviewers must consider is: Is DCF's Case Planning practice adequate to meet the
children and families'needs to resolve the presenting issues (CPS/Voluntary Service/FV/SN) and advance the case to safe and appropriate closure? The following guidelines are provided for consistent application of scoring within each of the following eight sections and overall determination of compliance achieved by DCF for the cases
selected each quarter.

In addition to the eight detailed sections of the Case Plan, the Exit Plan requires three essential elements of the plan

be in place to achieve a passing grade. A plan that fails any of these essential elements will not receive a score of

"Appropriate Case Plan" even in the event that it could have achieved the numerical score deemed acceptable

using the following five point scoring tool in each of the eight sections as it will be designated as absent for the

pulpose of overall scoring. The essential elements required are that the current plan be:

t . .

Approved by a SWS, and Of a time frame less than seven months from the prior plan, and ïlritten in the primary language of the client

Court Monitor's consideration for an override of the SWS approval may be requepted if there is documentation of supervisory review and oversight of the case planning process with an exception of the technical "click" of the check box in LINK. These situations will be assessed on the merit of the documentation in LINK at the time of the
review and are subject to the Monitor's discretion.
The Monitor's Review will utilize the attached Case Planning protocol, which encompasses the requirements of
Outcome Measure 3 outlined in the Exit Plan.

The process of review includes a full reading of the LINK record for the six month period, including all ACR
and/or family conference documentation, individual icon and narratives on the case and foster provider records5 through the point of case plan approval as well as prior pertinent LINK information in accordance with the Technical Advisory Committee recommendation which indicates, "In ordet to be best informed about recent practice, reviewers must also generally review (skim) the entire case record to better understand the family and the
child's history and the needs so that the actions taken by the department can be viewed in the context of a complete
understanding of the child and family." The case plan(s) will then be read in its approved form6, and a list of
clarifying questions will be generated as necessary for submittal to the area offtce.

5 In addition to review ofthe case and foster provider records, an individual name search should be conducted ifthe child is in a

residential setting to determine if the child has been an identifred victim of accepted abuse/neglect report during the period of review.

6 If case plan is not approved at day 205 from prior ACR date or 10 days from the issuance of the ACRI date the case plan has technically

not met the requirement. Our process calls for a review of LINK 25 days from the date of the ACR to allow the Department's process

adequate time to go through its documentation. The plan reviewed at the point of the ACR or family conference should be updated and
subsequently approved within 20 days from that dale. (25 days allows I 5 days for the ACR process,lO days for the AO to approve.) If

there is no initialized plan, the case will fail OM 3 review for that quarter with all sections scoring " I ". You will base your OM3 scores

for an unapproved initialized case plan on what is present at the point of your letter to the area office, giving weight to clarification

questions as warranted. An unapproved draft case plan can pass all domains if well written, but still will fail based upon the failure to

approve if the timeframe is signifîcantly over the 25 days post ACR or 201 days ffom the last ACR trigger date for in-home cases.

Case ID Number:

46

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 12 of 53
Outcome Measure 3 Scoring GuideT
Optimal Score - 5
The reviewer finds evidence of all essential Case Planning efforts for both the standard of compliance and all relevant consideration items.
Very Good Score - 4
The reviewer finds evidence that essential elements for the standard of compliance are substantially present given the review of relevant consideration items.
Marginal Score - 3
There is an attempt to include the essential elements for compliance but the review finds that substantial elements for compliance as detailed by the Department's protocol are not present. Some relevant considerations have not been incorporated into the process.
Poor Score - 2
The reviewer finds a failure to incorporate the most essential elements for the standard of compliance detailed in the Department's protocol. The process does not take into account the relevant considerations deemed essential, and the resulting document is in conflict with record review findings and observations during attendance at the ACR.
Absent/Adverse Score - L
The reviewer finds no attempt to incorporate the standard for compliance or relevant considerations identified by the Department's protocol. As a result there is no Case Plan less bhanT months old at the point of review or the process has been so poorly performed that it has had an adverse affect on case planning efflorts.

7 Dections resulting in a score of 4 or 5 will generally be considered passing. Overall determination of a score of "Appropriate Case Plan" or "Not an

Appropriate Case Plan" will be based upon the reviewer's documented consideration ofeach ofthe individual sections as they relate to a comprehensive

plan to address the issues that require ongoing DCF involvement.

Case ID Number:

47

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 13 of 53

Circle Score:
5 Optimal 4 Very Good 3 Marginal 2 Poor I Absent/Ädverse

I.l. Reason for DCF Involvement.
Standard for Compliance:
The plan provides a description ofthe current assessed risk and safetyfactorsfor the child/family ancl/ or provides brief details of the assessed barriers to achieving the stated case planning goal. For the Voluntary Services client, the section would identifu the primary qnd acute behaviors necessitating inÍervention and/or the necessary mental or behavioral health services that were not available without Department intervention and which is requestedfor the upcoming period.
Considerations:
¡ Is the statement reflective of SDM, narrative entry, and other assessments
conducted and available for review in the 6 month period leading up to and including the CPC/ACR or Family Conference
. If participants were present at the ACR, did the discussion provide adequate
explanation at an appropriate level to facilitate an understanding for the continued reasons for DCF involvement in the child/family's life?
Reviewer noles on Case Revieú ACR/Review of Case Pløn as Íhey relate to thÍs sectíon of the Crce Planning process. Plesse índicate if AO utìlìzedfeedback or
indicsted rationøle for dffirence of opinion to thst of ACR SÚl/S reluted to this section prìor to jlnalizing øpproved case plan.

Case ID Number:

48

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 14 of 53

Circle Score:
5 Optimal 4 Very Good 3 Marginal 2 Poor I Absent/Adverse

I.2. Identifying Information
Standard for Compliance:
. The worker høs identífied case participants and significant inter-
relationships.
Considerations:
Is the correct date of birth, sex, and primary language information provided on the case plan for all active family members living in the home? Has the worker identified the relationship between each adult to the children living within the home? I Does the worker identify the non-custodial birth/adoptive parent and provide a brief statement as to their relationship to his/her child residing in the home? (If whereabouts unknown, or if there is no ongoing relationship, this should be documented in a very brief statement.) Does this case plan include pertinent religious, medical, mental health,
employment, criminal activity or educational information if important to
setting the baseline for goal establishment? Are cultural connections and the positive/negative nature ofthese relationships or experiences that the family has experienced included? Have family and community support networks been explored/identified within the period under review? (This may be briefly highlighted in the document's assessment but more fully discussed at the ACR and on the ACRI)

Reviewer notes on Csse Revíew/ ACR/Revíew of Cøse Plan øs they relate to this
section of the Cøse Planníng process. . Please índícate if AO utilized feedback or
índicated ratíonalefor dffirence of opíníon to that of ACR SllS related to thís
section prior toJinalízìng øpproved case plan. :

Case ID Number:

49

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 15 of 53

Circle Score:
5 Optimal 4 Very Good 3 Marginal 2 Poor I Absent/Adverse

I.3. Engagement of Child and Family (Section Formerly ldentiiied
as Strengths/Needs/Other Iss ues)
Standards for Compliance:
. The input of the family/child is considered/addressed in the Case Planning
process.s
' The Cqse Plqn emphasizes individuql child and/or family strengths.
Considerations:
. Is DCF using effective outreach and engagement strategies to build a
working partnership with the child and family?
. When reading the case plan are the current needs and strengths evident from . both the worker/DCF perspective and the perspective of the client(s)?
Is the Case Plan reflective of the SDM@ Family Strengths qnd Needs As s es s m e nt/ Re as s es s m ent qnd S D M@ F ami ly ReuniJì c at i on Assessment/Reqssessment or ongoing Sl4 assessment through case
. mqnqgement and provider input in cases where SDM is not required?
What was the quality of the Family Feedback Narrative or Child's Perception included within the plan document? (i.e. Does it reflect what was stated at the meeting and recent narratives?)
¡ Were the required visitation plan and medical screens included in the process . and provided to the family during the meeting?e
Was there evidence that the SW had engaged the child and/or family in the development of the case plan prior to the meeting attended?
. Was the CPC, ACR or Family Conference facilitation successful in engaging
the child or family in discussion of their case plan?
. Is there evidence that the family been informed of the consequences of not
taking the necessary action to meet the prior plan's requirements?
. Is there evidence that the family/child has been involved in identification of . barriers and the development of the action steps?
Has the family been informed of the consequences of not taking the necessary action in the upcoming six-month period?

Reviewer notes on Csse Revieø ACR/Review of Case Plan as they relate to Íhis
sectíon of the Cuse Planning process. . Pleuse indícate if AO utilizedfeedback or
indícated røÍíonale for differcnce of opínion to that of ACR SllS related lo this seclion príor to Jinalizíng approved cøse plan:

s Notes: The client statement of issues needs and strengths should be the result of a discussion with the client in which the client is given the opportunity to indicate how they view the issues. Items to consider are: the client's perspective on what led to/required DCF involvement, how they feel they are progressing toward case closure, their selfidentified strengths, and any barriers they feel are preventing them from their goals. This may be a discussion at the ACR or one documented in LINK narrative preceding the
finalization of the Case Plan in LINK.

e We have been advised by the QIPS that practice in some offices does not include provision of these documents, but that these elements are
discussed and current information is documented in the ACRI and on the case plan. We will continue to look at these areas as required of
policy, but give weight to clear communication of these key components in the case plan when arriving at final scoring as it relates to

engagement.

Case ID Number:

50

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 16 of 53

Circle Score:
5 Optimal 4 Very Good 3 Marginal ,| Poor
l Absent/Adverse

I.4. Assessment at the Date of the Review
Standard for Compliance:
. The risks, safety concerns, and needs for the child andfamily are identified
within the worker's assessment of thefamily/child's current level of
functioning.
Considerations:
r Were the Priority and Other identifred needs of the primary and secondary
caretaker, as well as the all needs for each child and strengths of the family members as identified by SDM@ incorporated into the discussion at the CPC/ACR/FC and as appropriate, included into the domains within the assessment section of the Case Plan document?Io
' Are the identified risks, safety concems, and needs documented in the LINK
record within the six-month period leading up to the CPC/ACR meeting and any risks or needs identified at that meetingrr included into the planning document as appropriate?
. Does the assessment accurately take into account the history ofreferrals,
substantiations, and services provided to assist the client to reduce the risks identified to the date of the most recent ACR?

Does the section incorporate the current visitation evaluation from the most recent SDM@ F am i ly Reunifi c at i o n As s es s m ent/Re as s e s s m ent for m ?
I Has the social worker considered all available information including the provider's written and verbal comments, formal summary assessments, past history and recent progress; and included those that are pertinent?r2

Notes: This is the social worker's attempt to synthesize the data they have gathered
and draw conclusions regarding the level of risk, well-being and direction of
the permanency plan. It is the jumping off point for the development of the next six month's case plan.
Revíewer notes on Case Revíeú ACR/Revíew of Case Plan øs they relste to thís
seclíon of the Case Planníng process. . Pleøse indìcate íf AO utÍlízed feedback or
indícuted ratÍonalefor dffirence of opìníon to thut of ACR SII¡S related to this section prior toJínalízìng approved cøse plan. :

r0 SDM@ requires the assessment of all active case participant children in the home as well as the primary and secondary

caregivers in the home. The present situation and current assessment as well as the goals and objectives for the period should

be reflective of the SDM@ documentation. rr As the Technical Advisory Committee indicates, "In order to be best informed about recent practice, reviewers must also generally review

(skím) the entire case record to better understand the family and the child's history and the needs so that the actions taken by the Department

can be viewed in the context of a complete understanding of the child and family."

12 As the Technical Advisory Committee indicates, "In order to be best informed about recent practice, reviewers must also generally review

(skim) the entire case record to better understand the family and the child's history and the needs so that the actions taken by the Department

can be viewed in the context of a complete understanding of the child and family."

Case ID Number:

51

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 17 of 53

Circle Score:
5 Optimal 4 Very Good 3 Marginal 2 Poor I Absent/Adverse

II.1. Determining the Goals/Objectives (Priority Needs)
Standards for Comnliance: Clear, prioritized needs/goals/objectíves are stqtedwithin the case obiective section of the Case Planfor the child, andwhere applicablefor the parent ot guardian which are consistent with the family assessment.
The social worker shall address and document those issues which are speciJìc to the
needs of the adolescent population (children fourteen years of age who will not return home).t3 Adolescent Discharge Plan is completed during period if required by case
circumstancesta .
There is evidencers that the familylchild høs been involved in development of
the goals/objectives.

Considerations:
. Are goals/objectives and the priority needs accurately stated and connected to the
child and the reason for DCF's continued involvement? Where applicable, are they supported by the SDM@ Family Strengths and Needs Reassessment, SDM@ Family Reunification Assessment/Reassessment and/or the most current SDM@ Risk Reassessment and Safety Plan (when present) at the point of Case
Planning?r6
r Do the goals/objectives reflect concurrent planning efforts where there is a
. stated concurrent Plan?
Form 2250 is no longer being completed. As such for the Adolescent Population specific focus on engagement related to their issues must be monitored. Was there discussion with the child/family and providers for any adolescent (ages l4-21) in out of home care with a goal other than reunification regarding applicable issues such as:
o need to develop Life Skills and/or knowledge to enable self-suffrciently. o development ahd support of family members and significant adults willing and
able to make a lifelong commitment
o the need for an assessment to determine educational and/or vocational interests
and level ofability, and/or post high school educational interests
o whether the youth has taken a career interest assessment o whether the youth has taken a learning-style inventory o the need to achieve timely permanency o whether the youth has been referred to a Life-Long Family Ties Program o issues ofsexual orientation, cultural awareness o the need for future referral to Adult Services o whether the case should be transferred to a specialty unit o mental and medical health status (including identifying future needs) o housing o fînances (including any sources ofincome and any survivor benefits) o substance abuse o legal issues o parenting issues

(Jsefottowing pagefor revíewer notes on Case Review/ ACR/Review of Case Plan
as they relate to thís section of the Case Planníng ptocess. , Plesse ìndicate íf AO
utítized feedbøck or índicøted ratìonale for dffirence of opinion to that of ACR SWS related to thìs sectíon prior to Jinalizing approved cøse plan. :

t3 http://www.ct.eov/dcf/lib/dcf/policy/pdf/42070000.pdf and http://www.ct.sov/dcf/lib/dcf/policv/pdf-/42030000.pdf issued April 1' 2015

ou@ntplanningincludingthosewhoarenotretuminghomerequiringIndependentLivingplanning.
ra A conferencè shall be held to fìnalize an Adolescent Discharge Plan for all youth eighteen (18) years of age or oldcr in out-of-home

pttlaEciethmeer not bastelrevaesdt

one via

hundred and eighty ( I 80) attendance at the ACR or

days (six months) prior to the anticipated discharge as documented LINK narrative to that effect.

from Department

care.

Case ID Number:

52

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 18 of 53

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 19 of 53

tu SDM@ requires assessment of all active case participant children in the home as well as the primary and secondary caregivers in the home. The present situation and current assessment as well as the goals and objectives for the period should

be reflective of the SDM@ documentation

Case ID Number:

53

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 20 of 53

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 21 of 53

Circle Score:
5 Optimal 4 Very Good 3 Marginal 2 Poor I Absent/Adverse
99 N/A - Too Soon to Rate

II.2. Progress
Standard for Compliance:
This section within the plan reflects the progresstT towards øddressing the identified priority needs, goals/obiectives in the last six month oeriod qs evaluøted by DCF with input from the family and providers.
Considerations:
Has the social worker focused on the strengths ofthe client, and incorporated input from involved professionals during the 6 month period? I Does section accurately reflect the level of family's compliance with the SDM@ Safety Plan in place, or agency, provider and/or court expectations at the point ofthis current Case Planning process? Does SDM@ Risk Reassessment correspond with the progress noted within the case narratives, that discussed at the ACR or family conference and that identified within the Case Planning document? Have barriers been identified to progress as a result of this case planning effort so that future efforts have been informed by this Case Planning
process?

Notes: If the plan is an initial Case Plan and there are investigation goals, priority needs and/or interventions identified in the SDM@ Safety Plan, progress related to these should be indicated. Ifno goals/objectives or actions steps were set during the investigation phase, the social worker should indicate that the plan is the initial plan and therefore it is too early to note progress.

Reviewer notes on Case Revíew/ ACR/RevÍew of Cuse Plun as they relate to this section of the Case Planning process.. Please indicste if AO utilizedfeedback or
indícated ratÍonale for dìfference of opínion to that of ACR SWS related to lhis section prior tojlnulizing approved cøse plan. :

lT "Progress" can actually be regress or stability over the period. This section is measuring the accuracy ofthe worker's synopsis ofwhat has

transpired over the last Case Planning period. It may not be a positive movement and could still be a five ranking if it is accurate depiction of

what is documented in LINK, and discussed at the ACR/CPC or Family Conference.

Case ID Number:

54

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 22 of 53

Circle Score:
J Optimal 4 Very Good 3 Marginal I Poor
l Absent/Adverse

II.3. Action Steps to Achieving Goals/Objectives (Priority Needs)
Identifïed for the Upcoming Six Month Period
Standards for Comnliance:
. There are clearly stqted action stepsfor each goal/objective (priority needs)
and the responsible parties (DCF, providers, and all activefamily
membersls) for each goal are identified.

Considerations:
. Are the stated action steps consistent with the goals/objectives (priority
needs) and with the case documentation for each active family member; given the assessment information available to you from your review of the case information and attendance at the ACR or family conference?re
o Are the stated steps and goals/objectives consistent with the ACRI
documentation?
o Are the stated steps and goals/objectives reflective ofthe
permanency goal?
o Are the stated steps consistent with the SDM@ Safety Plan and
SDM@ Family Strengths and Needs Reassessment documentation at
. the time of this Case Planning cycle?
Are action steps specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time limited?
Notes: This is the section that informs the families of all expectations within the next six-month planning cycle and is therefore deemed the most critical. Each action step should adopt the SMART elements as detailed in the directional guide. If certain action steps are legally mandated, these should be identified
as such.
Revíewer notes on Case Revíew/ ACR/Revìew of Cøse Plan as they relate lo thß sectìon of the Case Plønníng process, Plesse índícøte íf AO ufílÍzed feedback or indícøted rstìonale for dífference of opíníon to thøt of ACR SllS reløted to thß section prior toJinalízÍng øpproved case plan.

r8 Review will include the completed family Case Plan document for additional details to capture all information related to the

parents' action steps as they relate to the child's goals as workers often do not include this information on the child's Case Plan

document. te SDM allows for 3 priority needs for each active family case participant. Other needs may be pulled in as required by the

case circumstances. In cases where SDM is not indicated, the social worker shall use alternate means of assessment, provider

and family feedback, and supervision to determine the priority needs for the period.

Case ID Number:

55

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 23 of 53

Circle Score:
5 Optimal 4 Very Good 3 lVlarginal 2 Poor I Absent/Adverse

II.4. Planning for PermanencY
Standard for Comnliance:
. The plqn contains the identification of an appropriate cqse permqnency
goal2| (based on the circumstqnces ofthe case) using one ofthe current
approved terms'.
o Reunificøtion o Adoption o Transfer of GuardianshiP o Long Term Foster Care with a licensed Relative o OPPLA o In-Home Goals * Søfety/Well Being Issues . There is an identification of ø concurrent goal q49!plan if the case
permanency goal is reunification.
. There is a visitation planfor parents qnd siblings for cases involving a child
in placement. It should describe thefrequency, durøtion and type of
visitation permitted between pqrents and their children, betvveen siblings, and between other relatives as necessqry.
t In cases with court involvement, the Case Plan goal or concurrent plan goal
as stated in the document coincides with the court approved permanency
goal for the child.
Considerations:
r Are the action steps consistent with the permanency goal? . Ifappropriate given the circumstances ofthe case has a concurrent plan been . developed where the goal is other than reunification?
For in-home cases, did the worker and family develop a plan that could be followed in the event that circumstances require the removal of their children or inability to reunifu? (This plan would identifl relative or other persons known to child as a potential resource for placement. Ifno resources have been identified, this should be indicated.)
. Does the goal coincide with the SDM Family Reunification
Assessment/Reassessment Permanency Recommendation?
. If the goal is OPPLA, has the area office followed the appropriate referral
process to the Permanency Planning Team and received their approval to proceed with this non-preferred goal?

Notes:
RevÍewer notes on Case Review/ ACR/Revíew of Case Plan os they relate to thÍs sectíon of the Cøse Plønning process, Pleose indicste if AO utÍlized feedback ot
ìntlicated ratíonale for difference of opínion to that of ACR SllS related to this section príor to iÎnalizing approved case plan.

20 TpR is not a permanency goal; it is an action step toward achieving permanency. The concurrent goal must be clearly stated in this section with a brief statement of the timing and activities that DCF is going to take toward achieving the concurrent plan.

Case ID Number:

56

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 24 of 53

Scoring Sheet:

Timing/Approvals of Case Planning:

T1. Was this ACR or F'amily Conference scheduled at the required timeframe from the prior ACR or CPC

based on where it is in the life of the case (within 60 days of the investigation completion or child coming into

! placement and within each 181 days thereafter)?
t. ves

!z.No

n Uf¡ ¡.

- ACR or Family Conference was not documented, so timing cannot be established.

T.1a) If no, what was the stated reason for the delay?

SWSI. Has this Case Plan been approved by the S\ilS?
1 Yes
2. No 3. UTD - No Plan less than 7 months old
T2. Was the case plan approved within 25 days from the ACR or family conferenóe held on the date indicated in response to question 43.
I t. yes
Inz.:N. uoro

T3. How many days passed between this approved plan date and the prior approved plan date?2l

Language Requirement: L.1. Was the family or child's language needs accommodated?
tr L Yes
n 2. No n 3. UTD n 99. N/A - There is no case plan or meeting documented
L.2. Check the reasons that apply to determination of response to L.1. below:
nr. Meeting not conducted/translated in primary language
Zz. Case Plan document not written in primary language
n:. Both Case Plan and meeting language requirements were not met
noo N/A - No case plan nss N/A - Both Case Plan and meeting language requirement met

2t Ifit is the initial plan or no approval is present enter "9999"

Case ID Number:

57

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 25 of 53

ACR Meetine and ACRI Documentation Process
CTMI. Did the ACR S\ilS identify the Child as one requiring a CTM?

1. Yes 2. No 3. UTD 99. N/A

CTM3a. Do the facts of your review agree with the ACR SWS findings related to

the Overall Case Plan (OM3) assessment (Strength vs ANI)?

1. Yes 2. No 3. UTD 99. N/A

Comment on CTM3a. (REOUIRED)

CRM3a.1 Do the facts of your review agree with the ACR SWS findings related to the OM4 (Formerly OM15) Needs Met as a Strength vs ANI
(Assessment of Needs Child and/or Parents Safety, Permanency, Well Being, Visitation)

1. Yes 2. No 3. UTD 99. N/A

Comment on CRM3a.1(REOUIRED)

Case ID Number:

58

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 26 of 53

Domain Scoring
Part I: General

Assessment Ratinss: For each sub section write in the reviewer rating.

I.1

I.3:

t.2z

t.4

Part II: Develonment of Goals/O hiectives & Action Stens Ratinss:
the reviewer rating.

II.1:

II.3:

ll.2z

ll.4z

For each sub section write in

OR.l. Overall score22:

! 1. Appropriate Case Plan ! 2. Not an Appropriate Case Plan

Remember..,if there ìs a 3 rønkíng or less than for any cøtegory and you feel the plun meríts consíderatíon for
t'appropríate" scorìng, you must wrÍte up reqaest for overríde and check off the box on the front of the tool so thst we cun eøsily flag for ímmediate considerutìon.

Reviewer notes of Case Review/ACR/Review of Case Plan as they relate to the overall

determination of ranking for Outcome Measure 3 the development and fïnalization of the

Case Plan reviewed: lMandatorv: Be sure to include r comments related to the overall

case planning. Speak to engagement and the final document itself. Also. brieflv touch upon

what the AO did with the ACRI

dations that either helned lor not) in the

development of the case plan. I

22 While ratings of 5 and 4 reflecting high standards and best case practices will generally be considered necessary for a finding of "Appropriate Case

Plan", instructions to the reviewers and supervisors for this process will stress that a reviewer's determination is not tied to a numerical scoring system

but rather will based on their overall review of all domains and elements of the case. This will allow reviewers to make informed decisions and over-ride

the rare case in which one domain with a lower score does not substantially impact the overall quality of performance. To ensure the validity of this

process, the tool will provide space in which all scoring must be justifred or defended by the reviewers. All cases will initially be reviewed in pairs and

then screened by Monitoring Supervisors prior to data entry. Any case which falls into the category of over-ride utilization will not only be reviewed by

the Monitoring Supervisors, but will also be forwarded to the Court Monitor/Assistant Court Monitor for review.

Case ID Number:

59

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 27 of 53

End of section for Case Plan (OM3)

Case ID Number:

60

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 28 of 53

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 29 of 53

Outcome Measure 4 (Formerlv

me Measure 15) - Needs Met

The overarching principle for reviewers to consider is: Is DCF's Case Planning practice, referral and
provision of services adequate to meet the children and families' needs, resolve presenting issues, and
advance the case to safe and appropriate closure?

The following guidelines are provided for consistent application of scoring within each of the following sections for specific elements of Outcome Measure 4 (Formerly Outcome Measure 15) and the overall scoring that will determine the level of compliance achieved by DCF for the cases selected each quarter.

The Monitor's Review will utilize the attached Needs Met protocol, which encompasses the requirements
of Outcome Measure 4 (Formerly Outcome Measure 15) outlined in the Exit Plan.

The review process looks at the impact of the prior Case Plan and actions implemented up through the
current Case Plan development. The review includes a review of approximately a six month period of
time in between the prior Administrative Case Plan Review or Family Conference and approval of the current case plan document, this includes a full reading of the LINK record for that six month period
including all LINK icon data related to case planning, investigations, medical, dental, mental health, educational, etc. The reviewer will revisit the LINK record to review the prior and current recorded Case Plan documents. V/hile reviewers are focusing on the most recent case practice, they will research prior LINK documentation to obtain information and background as necessary to make informed decisions as it
relates to DCF's ability to assess and meet the needs of the children and families during the six month
period. In the event that a case selected for review is open in treatment less than 6 months, the review will
incorporate the investigation findings/assessment to determine the needs identified for a child or family.

Case ID Number:

6T

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 30 of 53

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 31 of 53
Outcome Measure 4 (Formerly Outcome Measure 15) Score Guide23
Optimal Score - 5
The reviewer finds evidence that DCF has met all elements identified for the standards of compliance, and that DCF's assessment and service provision has incorporated all relevant consideration items.
Very Good Score - 4
Thqreviewer finds evidence that the essential elements for the standards of compliance are substantially present via DCF's assessment and service provision as it relates to the relevant considerations items.
Marginal Score - 3
Therð is an attempt to include the essential elements for the standards of compliance. However, the reviewer finds substantial elements for compliance are not present. Some relevant considerations have not been incorporated into DCF's assessment and service provision.
Poor Score - 2
The reviewer finds a failure to incorporate the most essential elements for the standards of compliance. The process does not take into account the relevant considerations deemed essential in assessment and
,.rui". provision. The resulting document is in conflict with record review findings and observations
during attendance at the ACR.
Absent/Adverse Score - I
The reviewer finds no attempt or a total disregard of the standards for compliance and relevant considerations in the case documentation. As a result there is no Case Plan less ihanT months old at the point of review or the needs assessment and service provision process has been so poorly performed that it has had an adverse affect on case planning efforts.
Not Applicable to This Case - 99
To be ielected if the case is not indicated as an applicable case type below the considerations listed within the Directional Guide.

23 In short - those sections resulting in a ooNeeds Mef, or o,Needs Not Mef icore

score of 4 or
will be based

5 will
upon

generally be considered passing. overall the reviewer's documented consideration

determination of each of the

of a individual

sections as well as service provision and case management efforts as a whole.

Case ID Number:

62

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 32 of 53
Using the scoring guide for OM4 (Formerly OM15) indicated prior, review each section based upon the standards for compliance and considerations indicated for that particular section.

Circle Score:
5 Optimal 4 Very Good 3 Marginal 2 Poor I Absent/Adverse
99 - N/A (CIP Only)

I.1 In-Homez The purpose of thß seclíon is to tletermine whether DCF høs conducted
Íhe appropríate assessments to identìfy rßkfactors that are detrímental to the safety of the chìld(ren) residíng ín the bíologícal, adoptíve or guardian home and thøt DCF has provìded the appropríøte servíces and legøl øction to umelíorste or manage those rísks so that the
children are reøsonøbly safefromfufther harm. If case ìdentities multíple rísks thøt are not
adequately assessed or øddressed, use the cover safeft assessment questíon to índícate that chíld ís ìn ímmedíate donger of bodily ínjury or overall wett beìng.

Standard for Comnliance:
' The child(ren) is/are currently in an environment that is safefrom known and
manageable risks of harm.
' RiskfsçAp*, such as but not limited to: domestic violence, substance abuse, mentql
health or parenting, and participants strengths hqve been adequately assessed with input from service providers, family, and DCF staff involved in this case and the necessary support services to øddress safety and riskfaetors-related to the reasonfor initial or ongoing DCF involvement (and as supported by låe SDM@ tools where these are available)z4 have been identified and provided in ø timely manner.
' Services to address assessed needs newly identified during the Case Planning period
or that høve been carried over from the prior plønning period have been identified and íncorporated into the action steps for the current Case Plan cycle in qccordance with
SMART guidelines.
' Legal action required to ensure the child(ren)'s safety have been taken in a timely and
informed manner.

r Considerations: 'Were services25 identified by the court, or appropriate services required as new information became known to DCF that identified a threat to the safety of the children r in the home, provided timely to address the identifïed needs? Does the review indicate that the service providers have a clear understanding of what it will take to achieve successful results and outcomes? Is this reflected in their discussion/reporting of parenlchild progress? ' During the Case Planning process were providers and family given the opportunity to take part in the discussion related to the progress in the last six month period and in developing the plan of action and goals for the upcoming period? ' Is the resulting Case Plan reflective of the input and information within the case record? ' Is child's safety discussed at the ACR? Have realistic expectations been set for the family in regard to improving the level of risk within the home setting? ' Has there been any repeat maltreatment of the child during the six-month period? ' Have there been episodes of domestic violence reported within the home during the past six month period? ' Have informal supports within the community been identified at the ACR or within the Case Plan document?
Reviewer Nofes : see next nase )

24 This would included all cases newly opened, reopened or with accepted report of abuse or neglect investigated on or after

May 1,2007.

25 This includes the full array of services as they relate to safety.

Case ID Number:

63

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 33 of 53
Reviewer Notesfor I.I

Case ID Number:

64

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 34 of 53

Circle Score:
5 Optimal 4 Very Good 3 Marginal 2 Poor 1 Absent/Adverse
99 - N/A (In Home)

I.2. Children in Placement: The purpose of thís sect¡on ß to determíne whether DCF
høs condacled the appropriøte assessments to ìdentífy rísk factors thøt are detrìmentul to the søfety of the child(ren) resídíng ín an out of home pløcement (Íncludes chÍldren on Ûísl home vísìt stíll Ín DCF Custody) snd that DCF has provided the appropriate servíces and
legal actíon to amelíorate or manage those rßks so that the chílclren ure reasonably safe from further hørm. If case identÍftes multíple rísks that are not arlequøtely sssessed or addressed,
use the cover søfely øssessment question to indícate that child ís ín ímmedíøte dønger of
bodìly injury or overall well beìng.

Standard for Compliance
' Riskfactors, such as but not limited to: domestic violence, substance øbuse, parenting,
or the child's behoviors have been adequately assessedwith inputfrom service providers, family, and DCF staff involved in this cqse qnd the appropriate support services to address safety and riskfaerers-related to the reasonfor initial or ongoing DCF involvement (and as supported by låe SDM@ tools where these are available)26 hqve been identified and provided in ø timely manner.
' The child is currently in an environment that is safe from known and manageable risks t of harm.
Services to address qssessed needs newly identified during the Case Planning period or that hqve been carried overfrom the prior planning period,(and are required to
address identified risl<s) have been identified and incorporated into the action steps for
the current Case Plan cycle.

r Considerations: Were services2T identified by the court or through DCF's Case Planning process
provided appropriate in relation to the identified needs?
' Have child's high risk behaviors been reduced through provision ofservices? r Have there been any substantiated reports of abuse/maltreatment while in care? ' Is provider and family input considered regarding the family's ability to achieve the
safety goals set during the prior six month period?
' During the Case Planning process were providers and family given the opportunity to ¡ take part in developing the plan of action and goals for the upcoming period?
Is the Case Plan reflective of the input at the ACR and information within the case
record?
' Is child's safety within the foster or residential care placement discussed at the ACR? . Is child's safety during visits with family discussed at the ACR?

Reviewer Notes:

26 This would included all cases newly opened, reopened or with accepted report of abuse or neglect investigated on or after

May 1,2007.

Number: 27 This includes the frrll spectrum of services as the)¡ relate to safety - see Crosswalk of Services for listing.
Case ID

65

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 35 of 53

Circle Score:
5 Optimal 4 Very Good 3 Marginal 2 Poor I Absent/Adverse
99 - N/A (In Home)

II.L Securing the Permanent Placement - Action Plan for the Next Six
Months
StantdardAsfowraCrroamntpeldianbcyethe length of time in care and specific to the childb needs, action
steps are underway, or are identified in the mosl recent Case Plan to secure (or møintain) the permanent placement that is most appropriate to the childb needs given DCF's qssessment and the information andfeedback of thefømily ønd providers.

Cons.ideralstiothnesgoal realistic given the current status of the child and family - specifrcally,
has the child been in care for l5 of the last22 months with little or no movement toward a permanent resource (biological family through reunification or with permanency placement resources via adoption, TOG, LTFC)?
. Is the Depaftment's action plan for the next six month period consistent with the
SDM@ Family Reunification Risk Reassessment score? Has visitation evaluation
r been undertaken and considered?
Does the child in placement, for which the courts have ruled no further reunification efforts, have an identified caregiver that will endure through the child's independence, either through Adoption, Transfer of Guardianship, Relative Long Term Foster Care
or OPPLA?
. If OPPLA has been identified as the permanency goal, has there been identification of
the resource selected to provide this long term placement resource?
. Where indicated, are PPSP contracts or other services in place or identified to
begin to support the current placement in the next six month period?
r Are appropriate recruitment efforts by DCF and/or private providers being utilized
to recruit an appropriate placement resource to meet the individualized needs of
this child?
. Are barriers to achieving reunification or the permanent placement addressed?

Reviewer Notes:

Case ID Number:

66

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 36 of 53

Circle Score:
5 Optimal 4 Very Good 3 Marginal 2 Poor I Absent/Adverse

II.2 DCF Case Management - Legal Action to Achieve the Permanency
Goal During the Prior Six Months

: Standard for Compliance
The Department has taken the necessary steps during the previous six months to move

.

toward achieving a permanent resourcefor the child through prompt legøl action. Thefamily has been advised of the permanency goal, andthe implications of afailure

to abide by the required action steps setforth by the courts order orwithin the Case

Plan.

. Considerations:
Is the stated permanency goal (or concurrent plan) consistent with the federally
r approved goals and the court approved goal where there is court involvement?
In cases with a stated goal ofreunification were all court ordered preservation services provided (reasonable efforts) in a timely manner?
' Did the feedback from family and providers indicate that the stated goal remained an . appropriate pennanency plan for this child?
Were the prior plan's action steps to achieve adoption, transfer of guardianship, independent living or long term foster care implemented over the course of six months
. leading up to the ACR attended?
'Were case management efforts during the past six month period consistent with MAP determinations (where present)?
. Were legal actions during the prior six months consistent with the SDM@ Family r Reunification Assessment/Reassessment tools where these are availablezs ?
For In-Home cases did worker file petitions or seek protective supervision when warranted by the facts of the case?

Reviewer Notes:

28 This would included all cases newly opened, reopened or with accepted report ofabuse or neglect investigated on or after

May 1,2007.

Case ID Number:

67

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 37 of 53

Circle Score:
5 Optimal 4 Very Good 3 Marginal 2 Poor I Absent/Adverse
99 - N/A (In Home)

II.3 DCF Case Management - Recruitment for Placement Providers to
achieve the Permanency Goal during the prior Six Months
. Standard for Compliance
The Department has tøken the necessary steps during the previous six months to move
toward achieving a permanent resource for the child through its recruitment efforts.

Cons.iderWateiorensth: e prior plan's action steps to achieve adoption, transfer of guardianship, or
OPPLA implemented over the course of six months leading up to the ACR attended?
. For TPR'd children in placement, was the child registered on the Adoption
. Resource Exchange (unless a documented exception applied)?
Where indicated, were PPSP contracts or other services in place or identified to begin to support the cument placement in the next six month period?
. Is there evidence of appropriate recruitment efforls2e or resource search by DCF
and/or private providers being utilized to recruit an appropriate placement resource
to meet the individualized needs of this child?
. If OPPLA is the goal, did DCF attempt to provide kinship connections for the child
via contracts with Life Long Family Ties or other resources?

Reviewer Notes:

2e Could include identification and licensing ofrelative resources.

Case ID Number:

68

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 38 of 53

Circle Score:
5 Optimal 4 Very Good 3 Marginal 2 Poor I Absent/Adverse

II.4 DCF Case Management - Contracting or Providing Services30 to
achieve the Permanency Goal during the prior Six Months3t
t Standard for Comnliance
The Department has taken the necessary steps during the previous six months to move
toward achieving a permønent resource or the permanency goal for the child(ren)
. through internal case manqgement and contractingfor services.
The current Adolescent Policy has been adhered tofor all children in care ages 14 or
older as indicated.

¡ Considerations: In cases with a stated goal ofreunification have all court ordered preservation services r been provided (reasonable efforts) in a timely manner? Have the priority and other needs as indicated in the SDM@ Strength and Needs tool r (where these are available32) been provided during the six month period. Were the prior plan's action steps to achieve adoption, transfer of guardianship, independent living, relative long term foster care or OPPLA implemented over the
I course of six months leading up to the ACR attended? Was the child been in care with a permanency goal that remained unmet for greater than 12 months? If child had been in care for 15 or the last 22 months, were ASFA guidelines appropriately considered in the development ofthe pennanency goal, and where applicable was an exception to ASFA documented?
' In cases where OPPLA is cited as a goal, were more permanent goals considered and I ruled out?
What is the level of emphasis put on the child's adolescent life skills planning during the period? Did child receive independent living, life skills, or transitional living
services deemed appropriate?
' Has child been provided with appropriate/timely transitions in placement toward goal . achievement as assessed appropriate by input from DCF and providers?
If housing is a barrier to reunification, has the Department assisted parent with Section
¡ 8 process, considered flex funding, or identifìed other means to address this banier(s)?
If other barriers were identified, did DCF attempt to address those barriers during the
r prior six month period? For In-Home cases, consider the case management of DCF and provider services to maintain the child(ren) in their home and move toward achieving the level of safety/wellbeing required to move toward case closure.

Reviewer Notes:

30 Includes DCF case management, visitation, advocacy, ARG assessments as well as referrals to community providers for such

services as Domestic Violence treatment programs, mentors, parent aides, reunification programs PPSP, etc. 3 r Be very specific in your notes below to delineate the area of lacking performance. Is the issue one of case management or

one of lack of resource? If you are identi$,ing a lack of resource there should clearly be a service deficit identified in the

following table beginning on page 35 of the tool which identifies services not provided in the prior six month period with an

is. explanation of what the barrier

Provide additional information in the narrative section as applicable.

32 This would included all cases newly opened, reopened or with accepted report of abuse or neglect investigated on or after

May 1,2007,

Case ID Number:

69

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 39 of 53

Circle Score:
5 Optimal 4 Very Good 3 Marginal 2 Poor I Absent/Adverse

III.I Medical Needs

Stan.dardHsaovef

Compliance the necessary

medicql

interventions

and

services

identifiedfor

this

child(ren)

been

provided?

. Considerations: For children in out-of-home placement o Are newly emergent medical needs of children in home and in placement during the past six month period assessed and responded to in a timely and
appropriate manner?
o If an MDE was required during the six month period, does the Case Plan
assessment include the recommendations and appropriate services to
address the medical needs?
o Is the child current with routine well care, in that health maintenance needs
been met through adherence to EPSDT standards for well checks and child
is current with vaccinations?
o Are special medical training, equipment or supports cunently being
provided, so that the child/family or placement provider has the necessary
tools to ensure optimal level of health given child's diagnosis/condition?
o Does the documentation indicate that use of psychotropic medications is t being managed and reviewed by qualified medical personnel as appropriate?
For in-home cases:
o Have chronic medical needs for children active in DCF's in home cases
been addressed with parents?
o Are special medical training, equipment or supports currently being
provided, so that the child/family or placement provider has the necessary
. tools to ensure optimal level of health given child's diagnosis/condition? For both in-home and child in out-of-home placement cases: o Is there evidence that the family and active providers in this case were given the opportunity to provide input into the identification ofneeds and services
that may meet those needs?
o Where non-routine medical needs were present, was ARG or outside specialist
involvement noted?
o Were there documented efforts by DCF to overcome access barriers to
appropriate medical care?
o Was there improvement or stabilization of health as a result of DCF and
provider intervention efforts?
o Did DCF make appropriate efforts to engage parents in the process of attending
to medical needs of children?
o Was there discussion of the medical issues related to this child(ren) during the

Did DCF make necessary

to

as a priority within the SDM@ Family Strengths and Needs Assessment?

Reviewer Notes:

Case ID Number:

70

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 40 of 53

Circle Score:
5 Optimal 4 Very Good 3 Marginal 2 Poor I Absent/Adverse

lll.2. Dental

Standards of Comnliance

Have the necessqry dental interventions and services identifiedfor this child been
provided?33

. Considerations: For children in out-of-home placement: o Have routine dental needs been addressed in accordance with EPSDT

standards by qualified dental personnel?
o If an MDE was required during the six month period, does the Case Plan

assessment include the recommendations and appropriate services to address

the dental needs?
o Have newly emergent dental needs of children in placement been assessed and

. responded to in a timely and appropriate manner? ln-home cases: o Have chronic or acute dental needs for children active in DCF's in home cases

. been addressed with parents? For both in-home and Child in out-of-home placement cases: o Is there evidence that the family and active providers in this case were given

the opportunity to provide input into the identification ofneeds and services

that may meet those needs?
o Where non-routine dental needs were present, was ARG or outside specialist

involvement noted?
o Were there documented efforts by DCF to overcome barriers to access for

appropriate dental care?
o Did DCF make appropriate efforts to engage parents in the process of attending

to dental needs ofchildren?
o Was there discussion of the dental issues related to this child(ren) during the

ACR, and did necessary adjustments to the current Case Plan result?

'

o Did DCF make the necessary referrals to address the dental issues identified as
a priority within the SDM@ Family Strengths and Needs Assessment?

Reviewer Notes:

33 For children under age 1, the pediatrician assumes responsibility for dental well-checks. If child is up to date

medically, you can consider that their dental well-care is also met. However, if pediatrician or MDE of child under one

identifies dental needs, these would need to be addressed by the appropriate referral to the dentist.

Case ID Number:

7l

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 41 of 53

Circle Score:
5 Optimal 4 Very Good 3 Marginal 2 Poor I Absent/Adverse
99 - N/A (TPR'd
infant/toddler)

III.3 Mental Health, Behavioral and Substance Abuse Services
Stan.dardMoefntCaol mHnelaialtnhcaend Substance Abuse Service Needs for children andfamilies were
assessed and addressed during the past six months with ongoing input from qualified mental health professionals andfamily informing the current Case Planning process.
. Speciqlized services were provided as necessary to meet the individualized needs of
the child andfamily to achieve the case goals.
ConsriderFaotirocnhsildren in out-of-home placement cases: o If an MDE was required during the six month period, does the Case Plan
assessment include the recommendations and appropriate services to address the mental health needs?
o Have the necessary mental health interventions and services identified in the
child's MDE been provided?
. For both in-home and child in out-of-home placement cases o Was child in appropriate level of care (either in patient or out patient) to address
mental health needs as assessed throughout the period?
o Were there referrals to service and/or assistance with navigation of the
system and payment as appropriate to parents or caregivers to assist them in actively participating in the plan to improve the level of functioning and achieve the permanency goal?
o Is there evidence that the family and active providers in this case were given
the opportunity to provide input into the identification ofneeds and services that may meet those needs?
o Vy'here mental health or substance abuse needs were present (for children or
parents), was ARG or outside specialist involvement noted?
o What were the DCF actions to overcome access barriers to appropriate
treatmenVspe cialized services3a?
o Did DCF engage parents and children in identifuing issues/needs and
subsequently the services to address those needs?
o Was there discussion of the mental health or substance abuse treatment during
the ACR, and did necessary adjustments to the current Case Plan result?
o Did the actions of the Department over the course of the six month planning
cycle reflect adequate services to address the emotional/behavioral or substance abuse issues reflected in the SDM@ Family Strengths and Needs Assessment, Safety Plan or Risk Assessments in place?
Reviewer Notes:

34 This could include treatment level of care options such as residential care, facility/hospitalization, group home, or therapeutic

foster care.

Case ID Number:

72

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 42 of 53

Circle Score:
5 Optimal 4 Very Good 3 Marginal 2 Poor I Absent/Adverse
99 - N/A (no CIP)

IV.l Child's Current Placement
Stan.dardThfoercChioldm'sncliuarnrecnet placement or living arrangement is the least restrictive, most
family like setting, is stable and consistent with his needs, age, ability, culture and peer group.
Considerations
' If child's placement is in a Safe Home, Shelter, Permanency Diagnostic Center or other short term placement did it exceed 60 days in the 6 month period preceding
r attendance at ACR?36 Has child exceeded two placement changes (three providers) during the last 12 month
r period? Has the foster or adoptive parent been provided with adequate training and supports to maintain the child in their home?
' Is the child receiving the necessary services/interventions or supports necessary to r support the current placement?
Has worker documented concerns related to the appropriateness ofthe current
. placement? Has the ARG been involved related to placement issues for this child(ren) and were
. those recommendations considered and utilized? Are services in place to maintain family relationships during placement where
. appropriate? Are social recreational activities being provided as appropriate to the age, ability and
. interest of the child while in care? Was there a discussion of the appropriateness of the curent placement for this child(ren) if during the ACR, and did necessary adjustments to the current Case Plan result
. determined necessary? Is there evidence ofrequests for a different level ofout-of-home care?

Reviewer Notes:

35 Support and Training services may be captured under the category of "Safety" or "Well-Being" as determined appropriate by

the reviewer.

36 Through record review and attendance at the ACR, the reviewer will determine if an exception to the 60 day rule was in the

best interest ofthe child due to proper and active discharge planning efforts, or a lack ofmore appropriate placement resource.

Case ID Number:

73

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 43 of 53

Circle Score:
5 Optimal 4 Very Good 3 Marginal 2 Poor I Àbsent/Adverse
99 - N/A

IV.2 Education

Stan.dardCfnoUr Cnoams pbeliaenncaessessedfor early intervention or special educqtionql needs where such
action is indicated by the childb behqviors or educationøl dfficulties.
. DCF has taken appropriate action on behalf of the child andfamily so that needs
identified through assessment process are being addressed through the receipt of
i dent ifi e d s erv ic e int erv ent i ons.

Considerations Where special educational needs were present and of a nature requiring consultation, was

. -. .

ARG involvement noted? Have necessary PPT meetings and assessments been scheduled/held? Is there documented contact with the school to assess progress?
Is child academically achieving to his/her potential - If there is an IEP in place, does the

. .

IEP need to be revisited?
Has child attended school with regularity since DCF involvement? Is there evidence that the family and active providers in this case were given the

opportunity to provide input into the identification of needs and services that may

. meet those needs?
Ifchild has required changes in school districts, was that disruption oftheir education
. due to the needs of the child, or limited placement pool? Was there discussion of the educational issues related to this child(ren) during the ACR,
. and did necessary adjustments to the current Case Plan result?
If SDM@ Family Strengths and Needs Assessment identified educational issues rising to the level ofpriority need, were these needs adequately attended to over the prior six

month Case Planning cYcle?

Reviewer Notes:

Case ID Number:

74

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 44 of 53

The following section is for informational purposes. It is primarily included to identify systemic seryice gaps for

further study. This data, through the measures identifÏed for each scoring element, will have already been

incorporated into reviewer's determination of ranking as it relates to the identified considerations and standards of

Met". compliance. The presence of a barrier does not, in itself, result in a score of "Needs Not

Reviewer discretion is

required.

l. Approval process 2. Child hospitalized 3. Client refused service (or was subsequently discharged for
non-compliance) 4a. Delay in referral by DCF 4b. No Referral Made by DCF during the PUR 5. Hours ofoperation (Alt. hours needed) 6. Insurance Issues
7. Financing unavailable 8. Gender-specific service not available male 9. Gender-specific service not available female 10. Service not availal¡le in primary language 11. Service does not exist in the community 12. Services not available for age group

13. Service deferred pending completion ofanother
14. Referred service is unwilling to engage client
15. Transportation unavailable
16. Placed on waiting list
17. No slots were available
18. No service was identified to address this need 19. Provider issues - untimely provision ofservices, gaps in services
related to staffing, lack of follow through, etc. 20. Lack of communication between DCF/Provider 66. UTD from Case Plan or narrative
@
88. N/A - client engaged in recommended service
99. Other (please note barrier in space provided) 100. Area Office did not respond to reviewer request for
clarification on barrier to this service. 101. DCF failed to properly assess child/family related to this need
the PUR

Directions: Complete the table on page 37-39 related to service needs identified in the prior plan that are unmet/unaddressed at the point of the CPC/ACR attended. Service Need Tlpe and Barriers to Services Tables are
PTOvided below foT TefeTence. REMEMBER - THESE ARE THE NEEDS UNMET DURING THE LAST SIX MONTH CASE PLANNING CYCLE.

REMEMBER:
If you found aîy area of OM4 (Formerly OM15) marginal or lower, or if there was a need not met timely
during the period that did not result in a marginal score, but had an impact case planning this is to be captured on the grid/table on pages 37-40. This erid is reflective of the past six months.
If you indicated that goals, objectives and action steps were less than "very good" for OM3 you should have something on the gridltable going forward on pages 41-43. This grid is canturine the needs identified through your review of the case record. includins LINK narrative. SDM and the ACR that were not incorporated into the current approved case plan.

Identified Categories of Needs & the Crosswalk of Services for the Service Provider Type

On the next three pages for eøch semíce need you idenlítied as unmet or sìgníJícantly delayed during the perìod under revíew, círcle the

b approûriate subcafesorv
the list provided on page

number ønd ín the blønk 33. There shoultl be very

next
few

to lhøt ídentíJíed needjdentifv the banier (/TD/SKIP responses. AddÍtionally ìf "99

-

Other"

ís

selectedfor

baníer,

-from you

must indicate what lhat bønier is by wrítíng a brief descriplíon nexÍ to the barrter space. Use the back ol the sheet to expløín/address the

barrier or detail the signìfícance the lengthy deløy caused to the child orfamily.

Case ID Number:

75

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 45 of 53

(Jnmet Needs ìn Prìor Sìx Months'Batìers
of
l. Afler School Programs

with the Identified Need
2. Childcare (Daycare) _

l. Dental Screenings & Evaluation
l. Domestic Violence Services Prog-rams- Victim
2. Domestic Violence Services Programs- Perpetrator

2. Dental or Orthodontic Services
_ 3. Prevention Programs (Violence)
4. Domestic Violence Shelter

l. Educational Screening or Evaluation

3. Individualized Programs per IEP Evaluation

2. Head Stafi

-

l. Job Coaching/Placement

4. Tuition for Private School/Colleee

L Community Housing Ass-istance (CFIAP)

2. Emergency Shelter (Adult/Family)

-

- l. Developmental Screening or Evaluation

2. Health /Medical Screening or Evaluation-

3. Healthy Staft _

-

4. Hospitalization, Medical _

5. A) Medication Management - Parent B) Medication Management - Child

l. A) Anger Mgmt - Parent

-

B) Anger Mgmt - Child

2. Behavior Management _
3. Care Coordination

4. _ Crisis Counseling

3. Housing Assistance (Section 8) _ 4. Transitional Living Program _
6. Occupational Therapy _
_ 7. Physical Therapy _ 8. Prenatal Services
9. Other Medical Intervention
Identify "other" be|ow
14. One to One Services_
15. Other State Agency Programs (DMR, DMHAS. MSS)
- I 6. Peer Counseling _
17. Problem Sexual Behavior Evaluation

5 A) Day Treatment/Partial Hospitalization -
Parent_
B) Day Treatment/Partial Hospitalization - Child

18. Problem Sexual Behavior Therapy
_ 19. A) Psychiatric Evaluation - Parent-
B). Psychiatric Evaluation - Child

6. _ Emergency Mobile Psychiatric Services
7. Extended Day Treatment
8: - Family orMarital Counseling 9. A) Group Counseling - Parent
B) Group Counseling - Child
- 10. A) Individual Counseling - Parent
B) Individual Counseling - Child
11. In-Home Treatment (MDFT, MST-, FFT)

- 20. A) Psychiatric Hospitalization - Parent
B) Psychiatric Hospitalization - Child
- 21. A) Psychological or Psychosocial Evaluation -
Parent B) Psychological or Psychosocial Evaluation -
child

22. Sex Abuse Evaluation

23. Sexual Abuse Victim Therapy

24. Therapeutic Child Care

-

- 12. Juvenile Justice Intermediate Evaluation

25. Other - Parent_ -

Other - Child

Parent 13. A) Mental Health Screening or Evaluation -

ldentifu "other" as applicable in space given

B) Mental Health Screening or Evaluation - Child

Case ID Number:

76

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 46 of 53

Subcatesorv of Services/Prosrams Associated with the ldentified Need

1. _ Adoption Recruitment

_ 8. Permanency Diagnostic Center

2. _ Basic Foster Care

_ 9. Permanent Family Residence Homes

3. Crisis Stabilization Beds

_ 10. Relative Foster Care

4. _ Group Home

ll. Residential Facility _

5. ICO)_ Matching/Placement/Processing(includes

_ 12. SAFE Homes

6. _ Matemiry Home

_ 13. Therapeutic Foster Care

7. _ Medically Complex Foster Care

14. Youth Shelter/STAR

l. A. Detoxification - Parent
B. Detoxification - Child

7. Substance Abuse Prevention - Pa¡ent
Substance Abuse Prevention - Child

_ 2 A. Drug/Alcohol Education - Parent _ B. Drug/Alcohol Education - Child

8. Substance Abuse ScreeningÆvaluation -
Parent

_ 3 A. Drug/Alcohol Testing - Parent
B. Drug/Alcohol Testing - Child

Substance Abuse Screening/Evaluation -
child

_ 4 Inpatient Substance Abuse Treatment - Parent
B. Inpatient Substance Abuse Treatment - Child
5. A. Outpatient Substance Abuse Treatment - Parent

9. Supportive Housing for Recovering Families
(SHRF)

B. Outpatient Substance Abuse Treatment - Child

6. _ Relapse Prevention Programs - Parent Relapse Prevention Program - Child
l. _ Family Advocacy 2. _ Adoption Supports (PPSP) 3. _ Delinquency Prevention 4. _ Family Preservation 5. Family Reunification 6. _ Family Stabilization 7. Flex Funds for Basic Needs 8. _ Foster Care Support 9. _ In-Home Parent Education and Support _ 10. Juvenile/Criminal Diversion l. _ I Maintaining Family Ties _ 12. Medically Fragile Services/Support 13. Mentorin9 _
14. Outreach, Tracking and Reunification Programs

_ 15. ParentingClasses _ 16. Parenting Groups _ 17. Peer Mediation
18. Positive Youth Development Program
19. Preparation for Adult Living Settings
_ 20. Respite Services
21. Services for the Disabled (TDD/TTY)
_ 22. Social Recreational Programs _ 23. Supervised Visitation _ 24. Translation Services _ 25. VNA Services _ 26. WIC Services _ 27. Young Parents Program
28. Other

Case ID Number:

77

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 47 of 53

of
L Family Advocacy _
2. Adoption Supports (PPSP) _
3. Delinquency Prevention

Associated

the ldentilied Need

15. Parenting Classes_

_ 16. Parenting Groups

_ 17. Peer Mediation

4. Family Preservation _ 5. Family Reunifìcation _ 6. FamilyStabilization 7. Flex Funds for Basic Needs

8. Foster Care Support 9. In-Home Parent Education and Support

10. Juvenile/Criminal Diversion

-

I l. Maintaining Family Ties -

12. Medically Fragile Services-/Support

13. Mentoring _

-

14. Outreach, Tracking and Reunification Programs

18. Positive Youth Development Program
19. Preparation for Adult Living Settings
_ 20. Respite Services .21 Services for the Disabled (TDD/TTY)
_ 22. Social Recreational Programs 23. Supervised Visitation _ _ 24. Translation Services 25. VNA Services _ 26. WIC Services _ _ 27. Young Parents Program

l. Adoption Training _ 2. Foster Parent Training 1. Worker/Child Visitation -
2. Worker Parent Visitation

28. Other
3. _ Lile Skills Training
_ 3. Provider Contact
4. Case Management/SupporlAdvocacy

5, ARG/AAG Consult

-

Case ID Number

78

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 48 of 53
15.15 Were all needs and service unmet during the prior six months discussed at the ACR (or on the ACRI documentation) and, as appropriateo incorporated as action steps on the current Case Plan?
l. !Yes-All 2. !Ves-Partially 3. E No-None 4. E N¡A - There are no unmet needs n 99. N/A - This is the initial case plan on an in home case with no family conference documented
15.16 Were any of these identified unmet needs indicated as a need for the identified person in the SDM@ Family Strengths and Needs Assessment Tool used to develop the prior plan?
zl..!!NYoes
3. E N/A
n 4. N/A - There are no unmet needs
OM15.26 Are there service needs not identified in the current Case Plan, but that are clearly identified within the 6 months of LINK documentation reviewed, ACRI, SDM@ Family Strengths and Needs Assessment Tool, SDM@ Risk Reassessment tool, or SDM@ Safety Assessment Tool?
l. !Yes 2. lNo ¡l¡ "no" go on to the scoring section on pqge 4l - nothing is required in the following table)
OlÙ{l5,27 - Using the same table of service categories used for the last six month period, identify on the following pages, those needs that were clearly identified within the 6 months of LINK documentation reviewed, ACRI, SDM@ Family Strengths and Needs Assessment Tool, SDM@ Risk Reassessment toolo or SDM@ Safety Assessment Tool but that were not carried over onto the current Case Plan that you reviewed for this case, REMEMBER - THESE ARE THE NEEDS GOING FORIYARD INTO THE NEXTSIX MONTHS.
In the space provided following the tableo provide any relevant comments regarding these issues, or the case practice around service provision that you feel relevant to the current planning efforts ofthe Department.

Case ID Number:

79

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 49 of 53

Needs

Unaddressed in U
Su
l. After School Programs _

Six Month A
of

Case Plan
Associated with the Identified
2. Childcare (Daycare) _

L Dental Screenings & Evaluation

2. Dental or Orthodontic Services

- 1. Domestic Violence Services Programs- Victim

_ 3. Prevention Programs (Violence)

- 2. Domestic Violence Services Programs- Petpetrator

4. Domestic Violence Shelter

l. Educational Screening or Evaluation

2. Head Staft

-

1. Job Coaching/Placement

l. Community Housing Ass-istance (CHAP)

2. Emergency Shelter (Adult/Family)

-

- l. Developmental Screening or Evaluation

2. Health /Medical Screening or Evaluation-

3. Healthy Staft _

-

4. Hospitalization, Medical

5. A) Medication Manageme-nt - Parent
B) Medication Management - Child

l. A) Anger Mgmt - Parent

-

B) Anger Mgmt - Child

2. Behavior Management

3. Care Coordination -
4. Crisis Counseling -
5 A) Day TreatmenlPartial Hospitalization -
Parent B) Day Treatment/Partial Hospitalization - Child

6. Emergency Mobile Psychiatric Services

7. Extended Day Treatment

-

8. - Family or Marital Counseling

9. - A) Group Counseling - Parent
B) Group Counseling - Child
- 10. A) Individual Counseling - Parent
B) Individual Counseling - Child
l. -- 1 In-Home Treatment (MDFT, MST, FFT)

- 12. Juvenile Justice Intermediate Evaluation

- 13. A) Mental Health Screening or Evaluation - Parent

S) Mentat Health Screening or Evaluation - Child

3. Individualized Programs per IEP Evaluation
4. Tuition for Private Schoo
_ 3. Housing Assistance (Section 8) _ 4. Transitional Living Program
6. Occupational Therapy -
_ 7. Physical Therapy _ 8. Prenatal Services
9. Other Medical Intervention Identif' "other" below

14. One to One Services_
15. Other State Agency Programs (DMR,
_ DMHAS, MSS) _ 16. Peer Counseling
17. Problem Sexual Behavior Evaluation
- 18. Problem Sexual Behavior Therapy
19. A) Psychiatric Evaluation - Parent B). Psychiatric Evaluation - Child
- 20. A) Psychiatric Hospitalization - Parent
B) Psychiatric Hospitalization - Child

21,
_ Evaluation - Parent
B) Psychological or Psychosocial
Evaluation - Child

22. Sex Abuse Evaluation

23. Sexual Abuse Victim Therapy

24. Therapeutic Child Care

-

25. Other-Parent_ _ Other - Child
Identify "other" as applicable in space given

Case ID Number:

80

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 50 of 53

Case ID Number:

of
1. _ Adoption Recruitment 2. _ Basic Foster Care 3. Crisis Stabilization Beds 4. _ Group Home 5. Matching/Placement/Processing(includesICO)

Associated with the ldentified Need
_ 8. Permanency Diagnostic Center _ 9. Permanent Family Residence Homes
_ 10. Relative Foster Care ll. Residential Facility _
_ 12. SAFE Homes

6. Matemity Home _
7. Medically Complex Foster Care
l. A. Detoxification - Parent
B. Detoxifìcation - Child

_ 13. Therapeutic Foster Care
14. Youth Shelter/STAR
7. Substance Abuse Prevention - Parent
Substance Abuse Prevention - Child

_ 2 A. Drug/Alcohol Education - Parent
B. Drug/Alcohol Education - Child

8.a Substance Abuse Screening/Evaluation -
Parent

_ 3 A. Drug/Alcohol Testing - Parent _ B. Drug/Alcohol Testing - Child
4. A. Inpatient Substance Abuse Treatment - Parent
B. Inpatient Substance Abuse Treatment - Child

b Substance Abuse ScreeningÆvaluation child
9. Supportive Housing for Recovering Families
(SHRF)

5. A. Outpatient Substance Abuse Treatment - Parent
B. Outpatient Substance Abuse Treatment - Child

6. Parent_ Relapse Prevention Programs -
Relapse Prevention Program - Child
l. _ Family Advocacy 2. _ Adoption Supports (PPSP) 3. DelinquencyPrevention 4. Family Preservation 5. FamilyReunification 6. FamilyStabilization 7. Flex Funds for Basic Needs 8. _ Foster Care Support 9. In-Home Parent Education and Support
_ 10. Juvenile/Criminal Diversion _ 11. Maintaining Family Ties _ 12. Medically Fragile Services/Support 13. Mentoring _
14. Outreach, Tracking and Reunification Programs

_ 15. ParentingClasses _ 16. Parenting Groups _ 17. Peer Mediation
18. Positive Youth Development Program
_ 19. Preparation for Adult Living Settings _ 20. Respite Services
21. Services for the Disabled (TDD/TTY)
_ 22. Social Recreational Programs
23. SupervisedVisitation 24. Translation Services
25. VNA Services _ _ 26. WIC Services _ 27. YoungParents Program
28. Other

81

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 51 of 53

of
l. Family Advocacy _
2. Adoption Supports (PPSP)

Associated with the

Need

15. Parenting Classes_

_ 16. Parenting Groups

3. Delinquency Prevention 4. Family Preservation _ 5. Family Reunification 6. Family Stabilizalion _7. Flex Funds for Basic Needs 8. Foster Care Support _

_ 17. Peer Mediation
18. Positive Youth Development Program
19. Preparation for Adult Living Settings
_ 20. Respite Services .2l Services for the Disabled (TDD/TTY)

9. In-Home Parent Education and Support

10. Juvenile/Criminal Diversion

-

I l. Maintaining Family Ties -

12. Medically Fragile Services-/Support

13. Mentoring _

-

14. Outreach, Tracking and Reunifrcation Programs

22. Social Recreational Programs

_ 23. Supervised Visitation

-

24. Translation Services_

_ 25. VNA Services

26. WIC Services

_ 27. Young Parents Program

28. Other

l. Adoption Training_

3. _ Lifle Skills Training

2. Foster Parent Training

l. Worker/Child Visitation -
2. Worker Parent Visitation

_ 3. Provider Contact
4. Case Management/Support/Advocacy

5. ARG/AAG Consult

-

Case ID Number:

82

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 52 of 53

OM 4 (Formerly OMl 5) Scoring Sheet:

Part I: Safetv

(vou will onlv resoond to one of the sections based on case assisned): For the

applicable sub section write in the reviewer rating.

I.1: t.2.

Part II: Permanencv Ratinss:
Part III: Well Beins lMedical
reviewer rating.

For each sub section write in the reviewer rating.
II.1 :
tt.2: II.3: tt.4:
Mental Health) Ratinss: For each sub section write in the
III.l:
ttt.2: III.3:

Part IV: Well Reins lOth Considerations) Ratinss:
rating.
IV.1: tY.2:

For each sub section write in the reviewer

OR.l. Overall Score3T:
! 1. Needs Met ! 2. Needs Not Met
STOP! If you identified unmet needs resulting in a lower than optimal score in one or more of the categories above,
there should likely be an entry on page 37-39. Likewise if you identified unmet needs not planned for going forward, the rank scoring should accurately reflect the level ofimpact ofthat service need in the case planning scoring or in II.4 on OM15. Please consult your notes and be sure to enter this information prior to submitting tool for data entry. Any
questions please see a senior reviewer.
Remember...ìf there ís ø 3 rankíng or less thøn for ony cetegory you mast write up requestfor overrìde ønd check off the
box on thefront of the Íool so thøt we cøn easíly flag for immediøte consíderatìon.

37 While ratings of5 and 4 reflecting high standards and best case practices will generally be considered necessary for a finding of"Needs

Met", instructions to the reviewers and supervisors for this process will stress that a reviewer's determination is not tied to a numerical

scoring system but rather will based on their overall review of all domains and elements of the case. This will allow reviewers to make

informed decisions and over-ride the rare case in which one domain with a lower score does not substantially impact the overall quality of

performance. To ensure the validity ofthis process, the tool will provide space in which all scoring must bejustified or defended by the

reviewers. All cases will initially be reviewed in pairs a¡rd then screened by Monitoring Supervisors prior to data entry. Any case which falls

into the category of over-ride utilization will not only be reviewed by the Monitoring Supervisors, but will also be forwarded to the TAC for

their review.

Case ID Number:

83

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 778-2 Filed 12/13/17 Page 53 of 53

OM4 (Formerlv OM15ì Reviewer Notes related to overall scorine (MANDATORY):

/pliiià ì

r tu note ¡n vour assessment DCF efforts to attend to or overcome those barríers vou

ffirlv

oMrst. Also ¡nclude ø comoarative assessment of ACR fíndínss ín resard

to OM4 (Formerlv OMl5t issues noted vs vour fíndínss.\

Case ID Number:

84

 </s> Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 1 of 53
Juan F. v. Malloy Exit Plan Status Report February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________
Juan F. v. Malloy Exit Plan Status Report
April 1, 2018 – September 30, 2018 Civil Action No. 2:89 CV 859 (SRU)
Submitted by: DCF Court Monitor's Office
300 Church St, 4th Floor Wallingford, CT 06492
Tel: 203-741-0458 Fax: 203-741-0462 E-Mail: Raymond.Mancuso@ct.gov
1

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 2 of 53
Juan F. v. Malloy Exit Plan Status Report February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________ Table of Contents
Juan F. v Malloy Exit Plan Status Report April 1, 2018 – September 30, 2018

Section 3
Highlights

Juan F. Exit Plan Outcome Measure Overview Chart

13

(April 1, 2018 – September 30, 2018)

14

Juan F. Pre-Certification Review-Status Update

(April 1, 2018 – September 30, 2018)

20

DCF Court Monitor's Office Case Review for

Outcome Measure 3 and Outcome Measure 4

42

Juan F. Action Plan Monitoring Report

2

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 3 of 53
Juan F. v. Malloy Exit Plan Status Report February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________ Juan F. v Malloy Exit Plan Status Report April 1, 2018 – September 30, 2018
Highlights
• The Court Monitor’s findings regarding the 2017 Revised Exit Plan Outcome Measures indicate that the Department maintained compliance with 5 of the remaining 10 measures during both the Second Quarter 2018 and the Third Quarter 2018. The five measures that were met have each been previously pre-certified as compliant and the Department continued to maintain compliance. The summary chart on page 20 provides the automated outcome measure performance/percentages while additional analysis and review of specific cases inform the final decisions of the Court Monitor with respect to compliance. Of the measures that did not meet the established standards in these two quarters, the most concerning continue to be the Department’s investigation practice, case planning process, meeting children and families service needs, appropriate visitation with children and required adult family members of the agency’s in-home cases, and caseloads for Social Work staff.
• Paragraph 4 of the 2017 Revised Exit Plan mandated that a strategic plan be developed by the DCF Commissioner in consultation with the Court Monitor, to address compliance with the 2017 Revised Exit Plan Outcome Measures. The plan was drafted and filed with the Court on April 26, 2018. The plan outlines specific implementation steps and strategies for each of the six (6) measures that had not been pre-certified at that point and there is a section devoted to Quality Assurance activities. Since the finalization of the Strategic Plan, the Court Monitor’s Office has pre-certified an additional Outcome Measure (Outcome Measure 1) concerning the Department’s investigation response time. This was reported in the last Status Update and a copy of the Strategic Plan was attached as an appendix. The plan is meant to be dynamic and over the last few months it has been systematically reviewed by the Department and the Court Monitor’s Office to identify progress, areas of concern and revisions that are necessary. The Strategic Plan is currently being updated to reflect the findings of the review and an updated Plan will be produced over the next month.
• Although the automated reporting indicates that the Department has achieved compliance with Outcome Measure 2 (Completion of Investigation) previous sampling confirmed that issues exist regarding the quality of the investigative work. At the request of the DCF Regional Administrators, the Court Monitor has sampled additional cases during the previous quarters to ascertain if the Department efforts have improved the outcomes for this measure. A new protocol was tested on these sample cases and the data was entered into SPSS for analysis. Findings from this sampling were shared with the parties and also with each DCF regional office in face-to face discussions with staff. The findings are being utilized to adjust/revise elements of the Strategic Plan. The findings indicated that the Department continues to do well in response time after a report is made and a majority of the subjects cited in the reports are seen by the 45 day limit standard that is set for investigation and Family Assessment Response (FAR) cases. Improvement in
3

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 4 of 53
Juan F. v. Malloy Exit Plan Status Report February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________ timely utilization of the Regional Resource Group staff on complex cases was noted in the reviewed cases and background checks were routinely completed on most cases. There remain a number of areas that require continued improvement and they include: accurate and timely assessment utilizing the Structured Decision Making model (SDM), the quantity and quality of family and collateral contacts (especially with non-custodial parents), timely and adequate supervision, and ongoing documentation issues. The Department has continued a statewide investigation review being conducted at the regional level utilizing its own QA process in each office.
• Another key element outlined in the Strategic Plan is sufficient staffing. Outcome Measure 6 (Caseload Standards) has not been met in the last eleven quarters. Improving the Department’s efforts in areas such as formal assessments, purposeful visitation, effective supervision, service provision, care coordination, and case planning require adherence to the established best practice standards as well as maintaining sufficient staffing and services. As outlined in previous reports and the Time Study conducted by the Court Monitor, this is a significant issue that impacts the quality of the Department’s work on behalf of the families for whom it provides service. During those periods in which staffing was stable and nearing sufficiency, children and families were better served and the related Outcome Measures being tracked improved.
In the last four quarters, the State has made a commitment to addressing this issue in a substantive manner. The Department has brought on 120 new staff to assist in addressing excessive caseloads. New staff have months of training before they can assume full caseloads. The Department is also struggling to retain staff and this has undermined the hiring efforts. In addition, the number of reports to the Careline has significantly increased which translates into more cases needing to be serviced.
The state has wisely moved to a system of predictive hiring for DCF. This allows them to plan blocks of hiring that track roughly with their attrition rate. The Department must strive to maintain stable staffing levels.
The Staffing/Caseload summary as of December 14, 2018 is:
• The current average caseload utilization which is defined as the average caseload of all caseload carrying workers is 80.30%. The average includes 67 Social Workers Trainees with low utilization as they are still in training and working their way up to full caseloads.
• Based on the current caseloads, the Department needs 1,210 Social Workers to be at the 75% average utilization outlined in the 2017 Revised Exit Plan. Currently there are 1,136 Social Workers carrying cases, 102 approved vacancies waiting to be filled and 2 Social Workers hired but not yet appearing in LINK. In November, the Department had 1,149 Social Workers carrying cases.
• In order to get to 75% utilization, 74 additional active, caseload carrying Social Worker positions and 19 Social Work Supervisors need to be established.
4

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 5 of 53
Juan F. v. Malloy Exit Plan Status Report February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________ • There are 102 Social Workers with caseloads over 100%. In October, there were 108 Social Workers over 100%. There are 53 Social Workers who have been over 100% for 25 or more days. • Approximately 54% of the Intake Workers in the Department are carrying more than 12 cases, which is the standard set by the Community of Practice. Approximately 50% of the Ongoing Social Workers are over an 80% caseload utilization. • The Department continues to fill available Social Worker vacancies.
• The 2017 Revised Exit Plan provides a new framework to assist the Department in taking a progressive approach to improving performance on the key Outcome Measures of OM 3-Case Planning and OM 4-Needs Met. The agreement will now focus attention on the individual domains for each measure. The agreement allows the Department to precertify for compliance on an individual domain basis. This was not previously the case. By focusing on individual domains the Department can better identify the many strengths in its practice and also work on specific strategies to address ongoing areas of concern. The Strategic Plan identifies multiple approaches to build on existing strengths while addressing known areas needing improvement.
The 2017 Revised Exit Plan requires the Department to be compliant at 90% for two quarters for an individual domain in Outcome Measure 3 (Case Planning). It requires the Department to be compliant at 85% for 2 consecutive quarters for an individual domain for Outcome Measure 4 (Needs Met).
Based on the data from this review period of the Outcome Measure 3 (Case Planning) three case planning domains have met and sustained the required benchmark: Identifying Information, Approving Case Plans, and providing translation/interpreter services to meet families’ language needs. The Department continues to struggle most with the domains related to engaging children and families and assessment of children and families. The summary chart on page 37 regarding the Department’s engagement efforts indicates fairly low percentages of older youth, fathers, providers and attorneys taking part in the Administrative Case Review process. While not achieving the benchmark, the Third Quarter results did show improvement in the domains related to setting goals/objectives and detailing the progress in the case. Case Plans are critical to identifying the progress that has been made and the steps and actions required by all parties involved with families. The antiquated LINK system presents challenges in assisting staff with ticklers, updates and prefilling and the Department has created additional reports to try to compensate for these shortcomings. The Department must continue to look for any and all opportunities to assist SWS whether that be additional training, mentoring, evaluation or workload reduction. Further discussion of Outcome Measure 3 findings is found on page 20 with a summary chart of the findings for the domains of Outcome Measure 3.
Based on the data from this review period, 5 of the 11 Outcome Measure 4 (Needs Met) maintained an 85% or higher compliance. Two domains that were previously precertified dealing with the appropriateness of the child’s placement and medical needs dipped slightly. See page 27 for the summary chart for Outcome Measure 4. As we have
5

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 6 of 53
Juan F. v. Malloy Exit Plan Status Report February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________ noted consistently in previous status reports, service needs noted via this methodology and other review activities which include discussions with staff and stakeholders indicate that services that are not readily available in areas of the state. They often include: outpatient mental health services, in-home services, substance abuse services, domestic violence services, mentoring, supportive housing vouchers, foster and adoptive resources, readily available placement/treatment options. This review period the top five unmet needs were referral to the ARG, Dental Screenings and Substance Abuse Screening/Evaluation – Parent, Individual Counseling-Child and Health/Medical Screening – Child.
As outlined in the Strategic Plan in Appendix A, an analysis of the service array identified critical service needs that could be enhanced within the fiscal constraints facing the State and the Department. During the previous Quarter the Department has moved deliberately to implement the following services:
• MDFT QA-The Department sought applications to design and deliver a program development, training, consultation and clinical quality assurance system to support DCF and their funded Multi-Dimensional Family Therapy (MDFT) service providers.
• MST:BSF-Multi Systemic Therapy/ Building Stronger Families is an evidenced based treatment model that provides intensive family and community based treatment for active DCF cases. The Department developed one additional team.
• MDFT-The Department developed 14 Multi-Dimensional Family therapy teams to provide statewide access for this intensive in-home service.
• MST:EA-The Department procured two Multi-Systemic: Emerging Adults teams to provide intensive in-home services for young adults in Connecticut
• Project SAFE-The Department redesigned and procured substance abuse toxicology, screening, brief intervention, referrals to treatment assessment (SBIRT) assessment, Multi-dimensional Family Recovery (MDFR), and Recovery Management Checkups (RMC) services to adult caregivers involved in child protective services statewide.
• Fatherhood Engagement-The Department established six (6) FES teams to assist DCF in achieving better outcomes related to father engagement through implementation of support, guidance, education, and mentoring for fathers whose children are involved with DCF.
The top five barriers to service provision identified this period were client refusal, failure to assess the need during the period under review, delay in referral, no referral made during the PUR and lack of communication between DCF and the provider. As previously reported, ongoing communication and interviews with Social Workers and Social Work Supervisors continues to indicate that some percentage of the categories of “lack of referral” or “delayed referral” are due to staff having knowledge that certain services are not readily available. Therefore, they don’t make referrals, even when all staff involved have assessed that a service is the best match for a client’s particular need. Thus, the number of cases with unmet needs due to waitlists and provider issues is understated in this status report.
6

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 7 of 53
Juan F. v. Malloy Exit Plan Status Report February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________ • Outcome Measure 5 (Worker-Child Visitation of In-Home cases) is not able to be tracked or analyzed accurately by the current LINK system with respect to the standard of a minimum of two visits per month with each active member of an in-home case. A previous review of this measure to ascertain pre-certification failed and a number of concerns with both the quality and quantity of the visits were identified. Until the “CT Kind” LINK replacement system is implemented there is no readily viable method to evaluate this measure short of individual cases reviews. This path will require considerable resource allocation and will be difficult to accomplish in a real time manner. Nevertheless the Court Monitor and the Department are exploring the methodologies that that can be used to accomplish this goal. While the Department has begun implementing efforts to improve this area of case management, it is imperative that a process be developed to evaluate the progress.
• The Department has continued to work on implementing a new data entry system to replace the antiquated LINK system. While the LINK system continues to provide the Department with adequate reporting data, it is severely limited and outdated in meeting the Department’s need for an efficient and streamlined data entry and retrieval. The Department has continued to perform a very detailed analysis of each of the primary work components. These LEAN efforts which include time studies will eventually address all elements of the Department’s work. These efforts have detailed and mapped current work flows and processes and they are allowing the Department to plan for a much more streamlined and effective data collection and reporting environment.
The Department announced on January 29, 2019 the selection of a vendor for the Careline CPS Reports and Online Reporting functionality. Currier, McCabe and Associates (CMA) has been selected to begin working with the CT-KIND Team. Along with the current DCF teams working on the builds for the Universal Referral Form (URF), Master Data Management (MDM) tools, Case Review System (CRS) and Structured Decision Making (SDM) enhancements for the Intake Risk and Safety Assessments, CMA/Care Director will work collaboratively with the CT-KIND team to provide their technological expertise in child welfare solutions. As new functionality is built in CT-KIND, it will be released to Department users.
DCF staff are hampered in performing their work while out in the field efficiently and in a quality manner due to the lack of mobility technology. Staff are currently not able to readily access their desk top system when they are away from the office. This means that they don’t have access to their case files. In order to address the mobility challenges presented by the outdated LINK system and until CT KIND is implemented, the Department has recently upgraded and replaced thousands of iPhones. In addition the Department is preparing to release tablets through a phase-in plan. The tablets will be released once the Department of Administrative Services (DAS) is ready with Office 365, since they are in charge of the state wide Microsoft tenant. DAS is working on the tenant configuration and policies with a Microsoft partner, Planet Technologies. This will not be finalized for a couple of months or more.
• For many years, the Department has utilized Structured Decision Making (SDM) as the formal means to assess the families it serves. There are a number of evidence-based tools
7

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 8 of 53
Juan F. v. Malloy Exit Plan Status Report February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________ required to be completed through engagement of the family at various points of the Department’s intervention. The quality of the Department’s assessment activities is a major part of the core of the work that is performed and is a key component to the process of case planning. It remains very concerning that the Department’s consistency and reliability in using this approach is still not adequate. The most recent sampling reviews have noted that formal assessment is not being performed timely or adequately in many cases. That is not to say that informal assessment has not occurred in many cases but informal assessment is prone to being influenced by individual bias, varied application of relevant standards and is inconsistent across the agency. DCF continues to work with the Children’s Research Center to both revise the tools and ready new training and mentoring for staff. Implementation of edited tools for the Careline SDM process has been accomplished and there is initial evidence of substantive attempts to better utilize these tools. Ongoing review and changes to the SDM tools is continuing regarding other components of the Department’s work.
• The court-ordered 2017 Revised Exit Plan applies to class members who receive placements, case management, and services from any successive Connecticut state agencies that provide applicable placement, case management and services to class members. The class includes youth who are dually committed (abuse/neglect and delinquent). Dating back to the original Consent Decree and throughout the period of the previously-governing 2004 Exit Plan (and as modified) these youth have been part of monitoring and performance reviews conducted by the Court Monitor. All sampling of individual cases and system wide data runs include these youth and the Court Monitor has had full access to DCF staff and records.
As outlined in the previous status reports, the legislature passed Public Act 17-02 and SB1502, transferring juvenile services from DCF to the Judicial Branch (Court Support Services Division). The effective transfer occurred in July 2018. Productive discussions have been held with staff from the Judicial Branch (CSSD) and agreement was reached on how to continue to monitor the small number of Juan F. youth that are now being serviced by CSSD. The agreement allows the Court Monitor to have timely access to staff, data, and records that are required to report on the Exit Plan performance for those class members serviced by CSSD.
• Since July 2017, the Department has been receiving technical assistance from the Harvard Kennedy School, Government Performance Lab (GPL) to improve and enhance the Department’s service coordination efforts. The goal is to allow the Department to achieve the revised OM 3 and OM 4 standards of the 2017 Revised Exit Plan through more efficient use of the Department’s existing resources and development of data reporting structures to inform where existing resources/funding could be better directed based on actual use patterns and outcomes data to demonstrate where programs can most effectively reduce entries into foster care, reduce repeat maltreatment and improve permanency outcomes.
There are a number of core practice changes that the Department is hoping to achieve through implementation of the Enhanced Service Coordination (ESC) model that is focused on improving the match between need and service referral. This effort has also
8

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 9 of 53
Juan F. v. Malloy Exit Plan Status Report February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________ helped to guide the application of an active contract management to selected services where there may be patterns of over-or under-utilization, and guide procurement decisions around service expansions or additions through use of data collected as part of this effort.
The change in practice is rolling out one region at a time and focuses on streamlining referral pathways by utilizing a dedicated Service Coordinator who helps guide service matching and referral decision making by Social Workers and their Supervisors.
The Service Coordinator also maintains dashboards that assist with leadership decisions by focusing on 4 key metrics including: 1) service matching; 2) service utilization trends; 3) timeliness of referral; and 4) barriers and waitlists.
The process emphasizes earlier engagement with RRG clinicians via multidisciplinary consultations on high-priority cases as well as review of cases upon transfer to ongoing service.
The focus is on “what do families need” rather than what is available. There are various issues noted repeatedly with DCF’s service referral processes that have made it difficult to determine the value of various service types and the quantity that is needed to reach the Needs Met goal. Social Workers will often make referrals based on non-value added factors like what is available as opposed to what is needed, their trust and confidence in a specific contractor, or advice given to them by a peer instead of assessing needs based on clinical or other objective criteria.
This effort has contributed toward improved and more consistent data informed collaboration during discussion between providers/Central Office/Regions and utilization of proactive “deep-dive” analysis of a specific question to inform program design and reengineering guided by the SARA-E meetings.
The Department had chosen to test the changes with Intensive Family Preservation (IFP) in early 2018, followed by Adolescent Community Reinforcement Approach (ACRA) in fall 2018, with other services to be identified in early 2019.
The Department has developed a Universal Referral Form (URF) that is currently being automated as part of DCF's CT-KIND build with the first iteration of the URF to be launched in March 2019 for 3 contracted service types to be determined based on feedback from the ESC implementation and URF User Acceptance Testing in February 2019. The URF will address two critical issues. It will assist in answering the questions of what does a family need and what is available and also provide data on the demand for services or areas of unmet need. These are important areas where the Department’s current information is limited.
The initial implementation of the ESC model was launched in Regions 5 and 6 where preliminary results from a year in review are very encouraging and demonstrate important insights into the utilization and effectiveness of selected in-home services. The importance of the improvements in the collaboration between the Department and service
9

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 10 of 53
Juan F. v. Malloy Exit Plan Status Report February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________ providers cannot be understated as the model is predicated on strong collaboration and communication between DCF's Central Office, Regions and provider network.
The statewide roll-out will move next into DCF's Region 3 pending the identification of their Service Coordinator, as these positions draw from current Social Work Supervisors, and require a backfill to ensure there is a good supervision ration for caseload carrying Social Workers.
Given the ESC model has now passed a 1-year milestone of launching in Region 5, and 6-month milestone in Region 6, the Department is working with the Division of Quality and Planning to establish a strong Quality Assurance framework with reporting to demonstrate the benefits an efficacy of this model to service matching. This QA framework is currently under development and will include a focus on lessons learned from streamlining decision making and internal service referral processes.
Through the ESC model and early data collecting the Department is seeing benefits where families are matched to more appropriate services to meet their needs, reducing the likelihood of repeat maltreatment. The model is also enabling the Department to collect more meaningful and accurate data to guide decisions around procurement and make adjustments to the service network by repurposing funding with data-driven metrics.
• Closely associated with the Department’s Enhanced Service Coordination (ESC) efforts, described above, is the Department’s Service Array Resource Allocation (SARA) process. The Department does not have a comprehensive needs assessment process, although there have always been pockets of individualized needs assessment work that have proven effective and consistent. Their efforts in revising and enhancing the SARA process have moved them closer to achieving this goal. Over the last few quarters, the Department implemented a SARA-W component. This workgroup is systemically undertaking a review of the Department’s service array. At each meeting of this workgroup a set of services is reviewed utilizing available data from multiple sources and input from staff that oversee the programs as well as regional and facility staff input. A series of questions are addressed including utilization, waitlists, and number of quality indicators. The chairs of this group summarize the findings and present to the Executive SARA group on a regular basis. The findings are incorporated into decisions about renewing, enhancing, or reducing the set of services. Over the course of the last few quarters, the staff have become much more comfortable and adept at implementing this critical process.
• The Division of Foster Care's report for July-September 2018 indicates that there are 2170 licensed DCF foster homes. This is an increase of 123 homes when compared with the previous status report. Of the total of 2,170 licensed DCF foster homes, 1,064 are kin/fictive kin families. The number of approved private provider foster care homes is 785 which is an increase of seven (7) homes from the previous status report. The number of private provider foster homes currently available for placement is 95.
During the last quarter the Department released an RFP and has again implemented Service Area Lead Agencies within the therapeutic foster care structure. The Department
10

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 11 of 53
Juan F. v. Malloy Exit Plan Status Report February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________ chose to re-implement this concept with the hope of creating a hub for all TFC referrals and to better disseminate, track, monitor and handle emergency referrals to providers in the network. In addition, the SALAS’s will perform quality assurance efforts on behalf of the TFC system. The Court Monitor was involved with a number of discussions with both DCF and TFC providers. Improved communication and coordination within the TFC system was sorely needed and this process should address those issues. Nevertheless, some providers indicated that the new process would not address the core issue of needing additional foster homes in the system and expressed concern that the money being used from their budgets to fund this implementation would be harmful to their ongoing efforts.
• As of November 2018, the number of children with the goal of Other Planned Permanent Living Arrangement (OPPLA) was 113. This is a slight increase from May 2018, when there were 106 children with an OPPLA goal. While this goal is appropriate for some youth, it is not a preferred goal due to its lack of formal permanent and stable relationships with an identified adult support, be it relative or kin. This will remain an ongoing point of focus by the Department.
• As of November 2018, there were 91 Juan F. children placed in residential facilities. This is an increase of nine children compared with May 2018. The number of children residing in residential care for greater than 12 months was 21 which is six less than May 2018.
• The Department continues to focus on the number of Juan F. children residing and receiving treatment in out-of-state residential facilities. As of July 3, 2018, there are 8 children in DCF custody residing in out-of-state residential facilities. This increase may be attributable to the closure of CJTS.
• The number of children age 12 years old or younger in congregate care as of November 2018 was 17 children which is the same as the number in May 2018. Of the current total, eight (8) are placed in residential care, four (4) children are placed in group homes, four (4) and one is placed in a DCF facility.
• As of November 2018, there was one (1) child aged 1 to 5 years of age residing in a group home placement.
• The number of children utilizing Short-term Family Integrated Treatment (SFIT) has increased as the Department has broadened access for referrals from Emergency Mobile Psychiatric Service and others. SFIT is a residential crisis-stabilization program for children ages 12-17 with a goal of stabilizing a youth and their family, guardian or fictive kin to coordinate a reintegration back into the homes. The intended length of stay is 15 days or less. The average length of stay is approximately 15 days for the last two quarters. The data with respect to discharges that meet treatment goals fluctuate from quarter to quarter (Quarter 2, 83% and Quarter 3, 92%) but are typically tied to the increased needs of the children being served. The data for April-September 2018 is found below.
11

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 12 of 53
Juan F. v. Malloy Exit Plan Status Report February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________

Client Status
In-Care at Period Start Admitted in Period Discharged in Period

Q2 SFY 2018 April-June 2018 87 94 94

Q3 SFY 2018 July–September 2018 87 103 95

Remaining in Care at Period End 87

95

Episodes Served in Period

181

190

Distinct Clients Served in Period 171

182

 Data source: PIE

 *PIE tracks length of stay data by months (not days)

• There were 23 youth in STAR/Shelter programs as of November 2018. This is 3 less than the 29 reported in May 2018. Twelve or 52% of these youth in STAR programs were in overstay status (>60 days) as of November 2018. There was four children with a length of stay longer than six months as of November 2018.

• The Monitor’s quarterly review of the Department for the period of April 1, 2018 through September 30, 2018 indicates that the Department has not achieve compliance with five (5) measures: • Completion of Investigation1 • Case Planning • Children's Needs Met • Worker-Child Visitation In-Home (N/A)2 • Caseload Standards

A full copy of the Department's Second Quarter 2018 and Third Quarter 2018 submission may be found on page 42.

1 Based on sampling of Differential Response cases over two quarters it has been determined that the quality of the investigative work (OM 1 and 2) is not in compliance with the provisions of the Exit Plan. 2 Outcome Measure 17 Worker-Child Visitation In-Home - Current automated reporting indicates the measure as statistically achieved, however this does not accurately reflect performance findings. The Outcome Measure 17 PreCertification Review indicated that compliance is not achieved. While DCF reports are numerically accurate based upon the algorithms utilized, user error in selection of narrative entry types, and a failure to demonstrate that workers are meeting the specific steps called for with the definition of 'visit' calls into question the automated report findings. As such, the Monitor will not indicate achievement of the measure based solely on the current reporting.
12

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 13 of 53
Juan F. v. Malloy Exit Plan Status Report February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________
13

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 14 of 53
Juan F. v. Malloy Exit Plan Status Report February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________
Juan F. Pre-Certification Review-Status Update (April 1, 2018 – September 30, 2018)
The Department is currently operating under the 2017 Revised Exit Plan, in which the Court Monitor is required to conduct what the parties and the Court Monitor refer to as a “Certification” reviews as follows:
The Defendants must be in compliance with all of the outcome measures, and in sustained compliance with all of the outcome measures for at least two quarters (six months) prior to asserting compliance and shall maintain compliance through any decision to terminate jurisdiction. The Court Monitor shall then conduct a review of a statistically significant valid sample of case files at a 96% confidence level, and such other measurements as are necessary, to determine whether Defendants are in compliance. The Court Monitor shall then present findings and recommendations to the District Court. The parties shall have a meaningful opportunity to be heard by the Court Monitor before rendering his findings and recommendations.
In recognition of the progress made and sustained by the Department with respect to a number of Outcome Measures, and the fact that the well-being of the Juan F. class members will be promoted by the earliest possible identification and resolution of the any quantitative or qualitative problems affecting class members that may be identified by the review required by Revised Exit Plan (¶5), the parties and the Court Monitor agree that it is in the best-interests of the Juan F. class members to create a “PreCertification” review process. It is expected that this “pre-certification” process may, in certain instances, obviate the need to implement the full certification review for certain outcome measures after sustained compliance is achieved for all Outcome Measures.
The “Pre-Certification” process that parties and the Court Monitor have created, and to which they have agreed, is as follows:
If DCF has sustained compliance as required by the Revised Exit Plan for at least two consecutive quarters (6 months) for any Outcome Measure (“OM”), the Court Monitor may, in his discretion, conduct a “pre-certification review” of that OM (“Pre-Certification Review”). The purpose of the Pre-Certification Review is to recognize DCF’s sustained improved performance, to identify and provide a prompt and timely opportunity to remedy any problem areas that are affecting the well-being of Juan F. class members, and to increase the efficiency of DCF’s eventual complete compliance and exit from the Consent Decree.
Other than conducting the Pre-Certification Review earlier than the review mandated by Revised Exit Plan (¶5), the Pre-Certification Review will be conducted in accordance with the provision for review as described in the Revised Exit Plan (¶5) unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties and the Court Monitor.
If the Pre-Certification Review does not identify any material issues requiring remediation, and no assertions of noncompliance with the specific Outcome Measures(s) at issue are pending at the time Defendants assert sustained compliance with all Outcome
14

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 15 of 53
Juan F. v. Malloy Exit Plan Status Report February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________ Measures, the Parties agree that the full review as per paragraph 5 of the Revised Exit Plan will not be required after the Defendants assert sustained compliance with all Outcome Measures. Upon Defendants’ assertion of sustained compliance with all Outcome Measures, the parties, with the involvement and consent of the Court Monitor, agree to present for the Court’s review, any agreement to conduct less than the full review process required by Revised Exit Plan (¶5) for any specific Outcome Measures, as a proposed modification of the Revised Exit Plan.
Of the ten remaining Outcome Measures there are five that have not been pre-certified. The status of all 2017 Revised Exit Plan Outcome Measures is found in the table that follows.
15

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 16 of 53
Juan F. v. Malloy Exit Plan Status Report February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________

2017 Measure OM1

2006 Outcome Measure OM1: Commencement of Investigations

OM2

OM2: Completion of Investigation

OM3

OM3: Case Plans

Statement of Outcome
At least 90% of all reports3 must be commenced same calendar day, 24 hours or 72 hours depending on the response time designation.
At least 85% of all reports of alleged child maltreatment accepted by the DCF Careline shall have their investigations completed within 45 calendar days of acceptance by the Careline.
Except probate, interstate, and subsidy only cases, appropriate case plans shall be developed as set forth in the “DCF Court Monitor’s Protocol for Outcome Measures 3 and 4” and the accompanying “Directional Guide for Outcome Measures 3 and 4 Reviews” attached collectively as Appendix B hereto. The enforceable domains of this Outcome Measure shall not include the ‘overall score” domain. The domains in Appendix B for which compliance at 90% or better has been met for a quarter and then sustained for an additional quarter as of the date of this 2017 Revised Exit Plan, shall be considered to have achieved Pre-Certification. Currently, three of the ten domains: Case Plan Approval, Family and Child Language Needs Accommodation, and Identifying Information have achieved two quarters of compliance.

Status
PreCertified November 2018 Requires assertion of compliance and PreCertificatio n Requires assertion of compliance and PreCertificatio n. See report to follow for results on individual domains to date.

For each of domain, once compliance at 90% or better has been met for a quarter and then sustained for an additional quarter, that domain shall also be considered to have achieved Pre-Certification. Once all of the domains achieve Pre-Certification, then Outcome Measure 3 shall be considered to have achieved Pre-Certification and subject to the process in Paragraphs 10and 11 hereof as to whether a final review is required in connection with a request to terminate jurisdiction over this action

3 Except Probate and Voluntary cases.
16

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 17 of 53
Juan F. v. Malloy Exit Plan Status Report February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________

2017 Measure OM4

2006 Outcome Measure OM15: Needs Met

Statement of Outcome
Families and children shall have their medical, dental, mental health, and other service needs met as set forth in the “DCF Court Monitor’s Protocol for Outcome Measures 3 and 4” and the accompanying “Directional Guide for Outcome Measures 3 and 4 Reviews”, attached collectively as Appendix B hereto. The enforceable domains of this Outcome Measure shall not include the “all needs met” domain. The domains in Appendix B for which compliance at 85% or better has been met for a quarter and then sustained for an additional quarter as of the date of this 2017 Revised Exit Plan, shall be considered to have achieved Pre-Certification.

Those domains include: • Risk: Child-in-Placement • Securing the Permanent Placement • DCF Case Management-Legal action to achieve the permanency goal in the prior six months • DCF Case Management-Recruitment for placement providers to achieve permanency goal during the prior six months • Child’s current placement • Education

Status
Requires assertion of compliance and PreCertification. See report to follow for results on individual domains to date.

For each of the remaining domains, once compliance at 85% or better has been met for a quarter and then sustained for an additional quarter, that domain shall also be considered to have achieved Pre-Certification. The remaining domains include:
• Risk: In-Home • DCF Case Management - Contracting or providing
services to achieve permanency during the prior six months;
• Medical needs; • Dental needs; • Mental health, behavioral and substance abuse services.

Once all of the domains achieve Pre-Certification, then Outcome Measure 4 shall be considered to have achieved PreCertification and subject to the process in Paragraphs 10 and 11 hereof as to whether a final review is required in connection with a request to terminate jurisdiction over this action.

17

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 18 of 53

Juan F. v. Malloy Exit Plan Status Report February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________

2017 Measure OM5
OM6

2006 Outcome Measure OM 17: Worker-Child Visitation (InHome)
OM18: Caseload Standards

Statement of Outcome
DCF shall visit at least 85% of all in-home family cases at least twice a month, except for probate, interstate or voluntary cases. Definitions and Clarifications: 1. Twice monthly visitation must be documented with each active child participant in the case. Visitation occurring in the home, school or other community setting will be considered for Outcome Measure 17.
The caseload of no DCF social worker shall exceed the following caseload standards, with exceptions for emergency reasons on caseloads, lasting no more than 30 days. Additionally, the average caseload of all caseload carrying DCF social workers in each of the following categories shall not exceed 0.75 (i.e., 75% utilization) of these maximum caseload standards:
A. Investigators shall have no more than 17 investigative cases
at any time.
B. In-home treatment workers shall have no more than 15 cases
at any time.
C. Out-of-home treatment workers shall have no more than
20 individual children assigned to them at any time. This includes voluntary placements.
D. Adoption and adolescent specialty workers shall have no
more than 20 cases at any time.
E. Probate workers shall have no more than 35 cases at any
time. When the probate or interstate worker is also assigned to provide services to the family, those families shall be counted as in-home treatment cases with a ratio of 1:20 cases.
F. Social workers with in-home voluntary and interstate
compact cases shall have no more than 49 cases at any time.
G. A worker with a mixed caseload shall not exceed the
maximum weighted caseload derived from the caseload standards in A through F above.

Status
Reviewed, but not PreCertified January 2012
Requires assertion of compliance and PreCertification

OM7 (to be maintained)

OM 5: Repeat Maltreatment of Children

No more than 7% of the children who are victims of substantiated maltreatment during any six-month period shall be the substantiated victims of additional maltreatment during any subsequent six-month period. This outcome shall begin to be measured within the sixmonth period beginning January 1, 2004.

Pre-Certified∗ July 2014

∗ Pre-Certification granted subject to verification of correction to ROM system reporting.
18

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 19 of 53

Juan F. v. Malloy Exit Plan Status Report February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________

2017 Measure OM8 (to be maintained)
OM9

2006 Outcome Measure OM6: Maltreatment of Children in Out-of-Home Care OM 11: Re-Entry into DCF Care

Statement of Outcome
No more than 2% of the children in out of home care on or after January 1, 2004 shall be the victims of substantiated maltreatment by substitute caregivers while in out of home care.
Of the children who enter DCF custody, seven (7) percent or fewer shall have re-entered care within 12 months of the prior out-of-home placement.

Status Pre-Certified October 2014
Pre-Certified January2016

OM10

OM 16: Worker/ Child Visitation (Child in Placement)

DCF shall visit at least 85% of all out-of-home children at least once a month, except for probate, interstate, or voluntary cases. All children must be seen by their DCF Social Worker at least quarterly.

Pre-Certified April 2012

19

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 20 of 53
Juan F. v. Malloy Exit Plan Status Report February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________
Semi-Annual Status Report of Outcome Measure 3 and Outcome Measure 4 for the Second Quarter 2018 and Third Quarter 2018
Outcome Measure 3 This status report reflects the Department’s progress in achieving the 2017 Revised Exit Plan Outcome Measure 3 and Outcome Measure 4 domain requirements. Outcome Measure 3 requires that “ Except probate, interstate and subsidy only cases, appropriate case plans shall be developed as set forth in the “DCF Court Monitor’s Protocol for Outcome Measures 3 and 4” and the accompanying “Directional Guide for Outcome Measure 3 and 4 Reviews”. The enforceable domains of Outcome Measure 3 shall not include the ‘overall score’ domain.
The domains for which compliance at 90% or better has been met for a quarter and then sustained for an additional quarter as of the date of this 2017 Revised Exit Plan are to have consideration for PreCertification. At the time of agreement, there were no Outcome Measure 3 domains qualifying for Statewide pre-certification. During this reporting period, Identifying Information was met and sustained above the required benchmark. We also note that during this period of review, the Department achieved a rate of approval of case plans, and accommodation of families’ language needs above the 90% benchmark. It is also noteworthy that findings for Goals/Objectives, Progress and Action Steps reflect a noticeable improvement in the Third Quarter comparative with previous quarter’s results.
Quarterly Statewide Summary of OM3 Domains 2nd Quarter 2018 - 3rd Quarter 2018

Has the Case plan been approved by the SWS? Was the family or child's language needs accommodated? Reason for DCF Involvement Identifying Information Engagement of Child and Family (formerly Strengths, Needs and Other Issues) Present Situation and Assessment to Date of Review Determining the Goals/ Objectives Progress Action Steps to Achieving Goals Identified for the Upcoming Six Month Period Planning for Permanency

Total Statewide – 3rd Quarter 2018 OM3 Total Statewide – 2nd Quarter 2018 OM3 Total Statewide - 1st Quarter 2018 OM3 Total Statewide - 4th Quarter 2017 OM3 Total Statewide - 3rd Quarter 2017 OM3 Total Statewide - 2nd Quarter 2017 OM3

98.1% 96.3% 83.3% 92.6% 55.6% 57.4% 79.6% 80.8% 70.3% 83.3% 94.3% 94.3% 81.1% 92.5% 54.7% 50.9% 60.4% 69.2% 62.3% 84.9% 84.2% 81.5% 81.5% 85.2% 51.9% 51.9% 53.7% 66.7% 53.7% 74.1% 86.8% 81.1% 75.5% 81.1% 50.9% 32.1% 58.5% 62.3% 52.8% 73.6% 96.2% 96.2% 88.6% 92.4% 66.0% 47.2% 62.3% 64.7% 56.6% 84.9% 88.7% 81.5% 81.1% 79.6% 55.6% 42.6% 66.7% 67.9% 66.7% 70.4%

20

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 21 of 53
Juan F. v. Malloy Exit Plan Status Report February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________ In the Second Quarter 2018, a total of 50 of the 53 case plans sampled (94.3%) had case planning efforts that were clearly accommodating of the family’s primary language. In the cases that a reviewer identified as potentially problematic, three (3) or (5.7%) of the cases were undetermined as the case plan was not approved at the time of the review and therefore it was unclear if translation or interpreter services were utilized in case planning for a family with a language other than English identified as primary/preferred. In one case there was no case plan initialized.
During Third Quarter 2018, 96.3% of cases reviewed documented appropriate language accommodations. Two (2) case plans were not approved timely, and one (1) was not approved prior to review completion (no case plan). We note the improvements in timely case plan approvals during this semi-annual cycle and continue to stress the need for case plans that are developed and shared timely with families in their preferred language as the process has always intended.
In looking at a more defined view of the data and taking a regional perspective, it is noted that there are some regions that had success with several domains achieving the 90% benchmark. However no region achieved all domains at the 90% requirement in either period.
DCF Court Monitor Review of Outcome Measure 3: Appropriate Case Planning – Regional Summary 2nd Quarter 2018

Has the Case plan been approved by the SWS? Was the family or child's language needs accommodated? Reason for DCF Involvement Identifying Information Engagement of Child and Family (formerly Strengths, Needs and Other Issues) Present Situation and Assessment to Date of Review Determining the Goals/ Objectives Progress Action Steps to Achieving Goals Identified for the Upcoming Six Month Period Planning for Permanency

Region I - 2nd Quarter 2018 Region II - 2nd Quarter 2018 Region III - 2nd Quarter 2018 Region IV - 2nd Quarter 2018 Region V- 2nd Quarter 2018 Region VI - 2nd Quarter 2018 Total Statewide - 2nd Quarter 2018 OM3 Results

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 75.0% 87.5% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
90.9% 90.9% 81.8% 90.9% 90.9% 90.9% 54.5% 90.9% 85.7% 85.7% 85.7% 85.7%
94.3% 94.3% 81.1% 92.5%

50.0% 37.5% 50.0% 72.7% 54.6% 42.9%
54.7%

66.7% 37.5% 70.0% 45.5% 36.4% 57.1%
50.9%

50.0% 100.0% 62.5% 62.5% 90.0% 80.0% 45.5% 72.7% 54.5% 45.5% 57.1% 71.4%
60.4% 69.2%

66.7% 100.0% 50.0% 87.5% 90.0% 90.0% 45.5% 90.9% 63.6% 72.7% 57.1% 71.4%
62.3% 84.9%

21

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 22 of 53
Juan F. v. Malloy Exit Plan Status Report February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________
DCF Court Monitor Review of Outcome Measure 3: Appropriate Case Planning – 3rd Quarter 2018

Has the Case plan been approved by the SWS? Was this case plan approved within 25 days from the ACR or family conference? Was the family or child's language needs accommodated? Reason for DCF Involvement Identifying Information Engagement of Child and Family (formerly Strengths, Needs and Other Issues) Present Situation and Assessment to Date of Review Determining the Goals/Objectives Progress Action Steps to Achieving Goals Identified for the Upcoming Six Month Period Planning for Permanency

Region Region I – 3rd Quarter 2018 Region II - 3rd Quarter 2018 Region III - 3rd Quarter 2018
Region IV - 3rd Quarter 2018 Region V – 3rd Quarter 2018 Region VI - 3rd Quarter 2018 Total Statewide - 3rd Quarter 2018 OM3 Results

100.0% 83.3% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 33.3% 66.7% 83.3% 66.7% 66.7% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 75.0% 87.5% 62.5% 50.0% 87.5% 87.5% 100.0% 62.5% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 80.0% 100.0% 70.0% 60.0% 80.0% 77.8% 90.0% 100.0%
90.9% 90.9% 100.0% 81.8% 81.8% 36.4% 45.5% 72.7% 81.8% 36.4% 81.8% 100.0% 91.7% 91.7% 83.3% 91.7% 75.0% 58.3% 75.0% 72.7% 58.3% 72.7% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 85.7% 100.0% 42.9% 71.4% 85.7% 100.0% 85.7% 100.0%
98.1% 94.4% 96.3% 83.3% 92.6% 55.6% 57.4% 79.6% 80.8% 70.3% 83.3%

A full summary of the both the Second and Third Quarter cases related to the Outcome Measure 3 domains are provided in the next two pages for a more in-depth review by Area Office and Region:

22

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 23 of 53

Juan F. v. Malloy Exit Plan Status Report February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________

Case Summaries for Second Quarter 2018 OM3 Domain Scores Identified by Area Office, Region, Statewide

Region

What is the social worker's area office
assignment?

What is the type of case assignment
noted in LINK?

Was this case plan

Has the treatment approved within 25 Was the family or

plan been

days from the ACR child's language

approved by the or family conference needs

SWS?

schedule date? accommodated?

Reason for DCF Involvement

Identifying Information

Engagement of Child and Family
(formerly Strengths, Needs and Other Issues)

Present Situation and Assessment to Date of Review

Determining the Goals/Objectives

Progress

Action Steps to Achieving Goals Identified for the Upcoming Six
Month Period

Planning for Permanency

Overall Score for OM3

Bridgeport

CPS CIP Case

yes

Yes

yes

Very Good

Very Good

Optim al

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Appropriate Case Plan

Bridgeport

CPS CIP Case

yes

Yes

yes

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Appropriate Case Plan

Bridgeport

CPS In-Home

yes

Fam ily Cas e

Bridgeport

CPS In-Home

yes

Fam ily Cas e

Bridgeport 2Q 2018

Yes Yes 100.0%

yes yes 100.0%

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Marginal Marginal 50.0%

Poor Marginal 50.0%

Too early to note progres s Very Good

Poor Marginal

50.0%

100.0%

Very Good

Not an Appropriate Case Plan

Very Good

Not an Appropriate Case Plan

75.0%

100.0%

50.0%

Region I

Norwalk

CPS In-Home

yes

Yes

Fam ily Cas e

Norwalk

CPS CIP Case

yes

Yes

yes

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Not an Appropriate Case Plan

yes

Very Good

Optim al

Optim al

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Appropriate Case Plan

Norwalk 2Q 2018

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

50.0%

100.0%

50.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

50.0%

Region I 2Q 2018

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

50.0%

66.7%

50.0%

100.0%

66.7%

100.0%

50.0%

Milford

CPS In-Home

yes

Yes

Fam ily Cas e

Milford

CPS CIP Case

yes

Yes

UTD yes

Marginal Optim al

Marginal Very Good

Marginal Very Good

Poor Marginal

Marginal Very Good

Poor Very Good

Poor Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Not an Appropriate Case Plan Appropriate Case Plan

Milford

CPS In-Home

yes

Yes

Family Case

Milford

CPS CIP Case

yes

Yes

yes

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Appropriate Case Plan

yes

Marginal

Very Good

Marginal

Marginal

Marginal

Marginal

Marginal

Marginal

Not an Appropriate Case Plan

Region II

Milford 2Q 2018 New Haven

CPS CIP Case

yes

100.0% Yes

100.0% yes

75.0%

50.0%

75.0%

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

50.0% Marginal

25.0% Marginal

50.0% Marginal

50.0%

25.0%

75.0%

50.0%

Very Good

Very Good

Not an Appropriate Case Plan

New Haven New Haven

CPS In-Home

yes

Fam ily Cas e

CPS CIP Case

yes

New Haven

CPS In-Home

yes

Fam ily Cas e

New Haven 2Q 2018

Region II 2Q 2018

Middletown

CPS CIP Case

yes

Middletown

CPS In-Home

yes

Fam ily Cas e

Middletown 2Q 2018

Norwich

CPS CIP Case

yes

Norwich Norwich

CPS In-Home

yes

Fam ily Cas e

CPS CIP Case

yes

Norwich

CPS CIP Case

yes

Yes
Yes Yes
100.0% 100.0%
Yes Yes
100.0% Yes Yes
Yes Yes

yes
yes yes
100.0% 100.0%
yes yes
100.0% yes yes
yes yes

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Appropriate Case Plan

Optim al Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Marginal

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Optim al

Very Good Optim al

Very Good Marginal

Very Good Optim al

Appropriate Case Plan Not an Appropriate Case Plan

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Optim al

Very Good

Optim al

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

50.0% 50.0%
Optim al Very Good

75.0% 75.0%
Very Good Optim al

75.0% 75.0%
Optim al Very Good

75.0% 75.0%
Marginal Very Good

75.0%

100.0%

50.0%

75.0%

100.0%

50.0%

Optim al

Appropriate Case Plan

Very Good

Appropriate Case Plan

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Optim al

Marginal

Very Good

50.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Very Good

Appropriate Case Plan

Very Good

Not an Appropriate Case Plan

Optim al Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Optim al Marginal

Very Good Marginal

Optim al Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Optim al Marginal

Appropriate Case Plan Not an Appropriate Case Plan

Region III

Norwich Norwich 2Q2018 Willim antic
Willim antic

CPS CIP Case

yes

CPS In-Home

yes

Fam ily Cas e

CPS CIP Case

yes

Yes 100.0%
Yes
Yes

yes 100.0%
yes
yes

Very Good

Optim al

100.0%

100.0%

Optim al

Optim al

Marginal 100.0%
Optim al

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good 20.0%
Optim al

Optim al

Very Good

60.0%

100.0%

Very Good

Very Good

Optim al

Optim al

80.0%

100.0%

Very Good

Very Good

Appropriate Case Plan

80.0%

100.0%

Appropriate Case Plan

Very Good

Marginal

Marginal

Very Good

Very Good

Not an Appropriate Case Plan

Willim antic

CPS CIP Case

yes

Yes

yes

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Optim al

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Not an Appropriate Case Plan

Willimantic 2Q 2018

Region III 2Q 2018

Hartford

CPS CIP Case

yes

100.0% 100.0%
Yes

100.0% 100.0%
yes

100.0% 100.0%
Marginal

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Very Good

Marginal

66.7% 50.0%
Marginal

66.7% 70.0%
Marginal

66.7% 90.0%
Marginal

66.7% 80.0%
Marginal

100.0%

100.0%

33.3%

90.0%

90.0%

60.0%

Very Good

Not an Appropriate Case Plan

Hartford

CPS In-Home

yes

Yes

Fam ily Cas e

Hartford

CPS CIP Case

yes

Yes

Hartford

CPS In-Home

yes

Yes

Fam ily Cas e

Hartford

CPS CIP Case

yes

Yes

yes

Optim al

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Marginal

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Not an Appropriate Case Plan

yes

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Appropriate Case Plan

yes

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Appropriate Case Plan

yes

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Not an Appropriate Case Plan

Hartford

CPS CIP Case

yes

Yes

yes

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Marginal

Marginal

Marginal

Very Good

Not an Appropriate Case Plan

Region IV

Hartford Hartford 2Q 2018 Manches ter Manches ter Manches ter

CPS In-Home

yes

Fam ily Cas e

Voluntary Services No

CIP Case

CPS In-Home

yes

Fam ily Cas e

CPS CIP Case

yes

Yes 100.0%
No Yes Yes

yes 100.0%
yes yes yes

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Not an Appropriate Case Plan

100.0%

85.7%

100.0%

85.7%

42.9%

57.1%

71.4%

28.6%

100.0%

28.6%

Abs ent/Avers e

Abs ent/Avers e

Abs ent/Avers e

Abs ent/Avers e

Abs ent/Avers e

Abs ent/Avers e

Abs ent/Avers e

Abs ent/Avers e

Not an Appropriate Case Plan

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Appropriate Case Plan

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Marginal

Marginal

Optim al

Very Good

Very Good

Not an Appropriate Case Plan

Manches ter

CPS CIP Case

yes

Yes

yes

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Not an Appropriate Case Plan

Manchester 2Q 2018

Region IV 2Q 2018

Danbury Danbury

CPS In-Home

yes

Fam ily Cas e

CPS CIP Case

yes

75.0% 90.9%
Yes
Yes

75.0% 90.9%
yes
yes

100.0% 100.0%
Very Good

75.0% 81.8%
Very Good

75.0% 90.9%
Very Good

50.0% 72.7%
Very Good

50.0% 45.5%
Very Good

25.0% 45.5%
Optim al

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

75.0% 72.7%
Very Good

75.0% 45.5%
Very Good

75.0%

25.0%

90.9%

27.3%

Appropriate Case Plan

Marginal

Very Good

Not an Appropriate Case Plan

Danbury 2Q 2018

Torrington

CPS CIP Case

yes

100.0% Yes

100.0% yes

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

100.0% Very Good

50.0% Very Good

50.0% Marginal

100.0%

50.0%

Not an Appropriate Case Plan

Torrington

CPS In-Home

yes

Fam ily Cas e

Torrington 2Q 2018

Waterbury

CPS CIP Case

yes

Yes
100.0% Yes

yes
100.0% yes

Optim al

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Optim al

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Appropriate Case Plan

100.0% Marginal

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

100.0% Very Good

50.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

50.0%

50.0%

Not an Appropriate Case Plan

Region V

Waterbury

CPS CIP Case

yes

Yes

yes

Marginal

Very Good

Marginal

Marginal

Marginal

Marginal

Very Good

Marginal

Not an Appropriate Case Plan

Waterbury

CPS CIP Case

yes

Yes

yes

Marginal

Very Good

Marginal

Marginal

Very Good

Marginal

Marginal

Very Good

Not an Appropriate Case Plan

Waterbury

CPS In-Home

yes

Yes

Fam ily Cas e

Waterbury

CPS CIP Case

yes

Yes

yes

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Marginal

Marginal

Marginal

Very Good

Not an Appropriate Case Plan

yes

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Marginal

Marginal

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Not an Appropriate Case Plan

Waterbury

CPS In-Home

No

Fam ily Cas e

Waterbury

CPS In-Home

yes

Fam ily Cas e

Waterbury 2Q 2018

Region V 2Q 2018

Meriden Meriden

CPS In-Home

yes

Family Case

CPS CIP Case

yes

Meriden 2Q 2018

New Britain

CPS CIP Case

yes

No
Yes
85.7% 90.9%
Yes
Yes 100.0%
Yes

UTD
yes
85.7% 90.9%
yes
yes 100.0%
yes

Abs ent/Avers e

Abs ent/Avers e

Abs ent/Avers e

Abs ent/Avers e

Abs ent/Avers e

Abs ent/Avers e

Abs ent/Avers e

Abs ent/Avers e

Not an Appropriate Case Plan

Marginal

Very Good

Marginal

Marginal

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Very Good

Not an Appropriate Case Plan

85.7% 90.9%
Very Good

28.6% 54.5%
Very Good

85.7% 90.9%
Very Good

28.6% 54.5%
Very Good

0.0% 36.4%
Marginal

42.9% 54.5%
Very Good

28.9% 45.5%
Very Good

57.1% 63.6%
Optim al

71.4%

0.0%

72.7%

18.2%

Appropriate Case Plan

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Very Good

50.0%

100.0%

Marginal

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Appropriate Case Plan

50.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Not an Appropriate Case Plan

Region VI

New Britain

CPS CIP Case

yes

Yes

New Britain

CPS In-Home

No

No

Fam ily Cas e

New Britain

CPS CIP Case

yes

Yes

yes UTD
yes

Very Good Abs ent/Avers e
Very Good

Very Good Abs ent/Avers e
Very Good

Very Good Abs ent/Avers e
Marginal

Very Good Abs ent/Avers e
Marginal

Very Good Abs ent/Avers e
Marginal

Very Good Abs ent/Avers e
Marginal

Very Good Abs ent/Avers e
Marginal

Marginal Abs ent/Avers e
Very Good

Appropriate Case Plan Not an Appropriate Case Plan
Not an Appropriate Case Plan

New Britain

CPS In-Home

yes

Fam ily Cas e

New Britain 2Q 2018

Region VI 2Q 2018

Statewide Total 2Q 2018

Yes
80.0% 85.7% 94.3%

yes
80.0% 85.7% 94.3%

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

80.0% 85.7% 94.3%

80.0% 85.7% 81.1%

80.0% 85.7% 92.5%

40.0% 42.9% 54.7%

40.0% 57.1% 50.9%

60.0% 57.1% 60.4%

60.0% 71.4% 69.2%

Very Good

Not an Appropriate Case Plan

40.0% 57.1% 62.3%

60.0% 71.4% 84.9%

20.0% 42.9% 39.6%

23

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 24 of 53

Juan F. v. Malloy Exit Plan Status Report February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________

Region I

Region II

Region

What is the social
worker's area office
assignment?

What is the type of case assignment
noted in LINK?

Has the treatment plan been approved by the SWS?

Case Summaries for Third Quarter 2018 OM3 Domain Scores Identified by Area Office, Region, Statewide

Engagement of

Was this case

Child and

plan approved Was the family

Family

Present

within 25 days or child's

(formerly

Situation and

from the ACR language needs Reason for

Strengths,

Assessment Determining

Schedule

accommodated DCF

Identifying

Needs and

to Date of

the Goals/

Date?

?

Involvement Information

Other Issues) Review

Objectives

Progress

Action Steps to Achieving Goals Identified for the Upcoming Six Month Period

Planning for Permanency

Overall Score for OM3

Bridgeport SPM CIP

yes

Yes

yes

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Optim al

Appropriate Case Plan

Bridgeport CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

yes

Bridgeport CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

yes

Bridgeport CPS CIP

yes

No

yes

Very Good Very Good Optim al

Very Good Very Good Very Good

Marginal Marginal Very Good

Marginal Marginal Very Good

Marginal Very Good Very Good

Marginal Marginal Very Good

Marginal Marginal Very Good

Very Good Very Good Optim al

Not an Appropriate Case Plan Not an Appropriate Case Plan Appropriate Case Plan

Bridgeport Area Office 3Q 2018

100.0%

75.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

50.0%

50.0%

75.0%

50.0%

50.0%

100.0%

50.0%

Norwalk

CPS CIP

yes

Yes

yes

Optim al

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Very Good

Appropriate Case Plan

Norwalk

CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

yes

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Very Good

Appropriate Case Plan

Norwalk Area Office 3Q 2018

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Region I 3Q 2018

100.0%

83.3%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

33.3%

66.7%

83.3%

66.7%

66.7%

100.0%

66.7%

Milford

CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

yes

Milford

CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

yes

Milford

CPS CIP

yes

Yes

yes

Milford

CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

yes

Very Good Marginal Marginal Very Good

Very Good Optim al Marginal Very Good

Very Good Marginal Marginal Optim al

Marginal Marginal Marginal Very Good

Marginal Very Good Very Good Very Good

Very Good Very Good Very Good Very Good

Very Good Optim al Very Good Very Good

Very Good Marginal Marginal Optim al

Not an Appropriate Case Plan Not an Appropriate Case Plan Not an Appropriate Case Plan Appropriate Case Plan

Milford Area Office 3Q 2018

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

50.0%

75.0%

50.0%

25.0%

75.0%

100.0%

100.0%

50.0%

25.0%

New Haven CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

yes

New Haven CPS CIP

yes

Yes

yes

New Haven CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

yes

Very Good Very Good Very Good

Very Good Optim al Very Good

Very Good Marginal Very Good

Marginal Very Good Very Good

Very Good Very Good Very Good

Very Good Marginal Very Good

Very Good Very Good Very Good

Very Good Marginal Very Good

Not an Appropriate Case Plan Not an Appropriate Case Plan Appropriate Case Plan

New Haven SPM CIP

yes

Yes

yes

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Very Good

Appropriate Case Plan

Mew Haven Area Office 3Q 2019

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

75.0%

75.0%

100.0%

75.0%

100.0%

75.0%

50.0%

Region II 3Q 2018

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

75.0%

87.5%

62.5%

50.0%

87.5%

87.5%

100.0%

62.5%

37.5%

Middletown CPS CIP

yes

Yes

Middletown CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

Middletown Area Office 3Q 2018

100.0%

yes yes 100.0%

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Marginal

Marginal

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

100.0%

50.0%

100.0%

50.0%

Marginal

Very Good Marginal

Very Good

Not an Appropriate

Case Plan

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Very Good

Not an Appropriate

Case Plan

0.0%

50.0%

50.0%

50.0%

100.0%

0.0%

Norwich Norwich

CPS CIP CPS CIP

yes

Yes

yes

yes

Yes

yes

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Marginal Marginal

Marginal Very Good

Very Good Marginal

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Not an Appropriate Case Plan Appropriate Case Plan

Norwich

CPS CIP

yes

Yes

yes

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Optim al

Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Very Good

Appropriate Case Plan

Region III

Norwich

CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

yes

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Very Good

Appropriate Case Plan

Norwich

CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

yes

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Very Good

Too early to Very Good note progress

Very Good

Appropriate Case Plan

Morwich Area Office 3Q 2018 Willimantic CPS In-Home Family Willimantic CPS CIP

100.0%

yes

Yes

yes

Yes

Willimantic CPS CIP

yes

Yes

Willimantic Area Office 3Q 2018

100.0%

Region III 3Q 2019

100.0%

Hartford

CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

Hartford

CPS CIP

yes

Yes

Hartford

CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

Hartford Hartford

CPS CIP CPS CIP

yes

Yes

yes

Yes

Hartford

CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

Hartford

CPS In-Home Family no

No

Hartford Area Office 3Q 2018 Manchester CPS CIP

85.7%

yes

Yes

Manchester CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

Manchester SPM CIP

yes

Yes

Manchester CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

Manchester Area Office 3Q 2018

100.0%

Region IV 3Q 2018

90.9%

Danb ury

CPS CIP

yes

Yes

Danbury

CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

100.0% yes yes
yes 100.0% 100.0%
yes
yes
yes
yes yes
yes yes
85.7% yes
yes yes
yes
100.0% 90.9% yes UTD

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

80.0%

60.0%

80.0%

75.0%

100.0%

100.0%

80.0%

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Very Good

Appropriate Case Plan

Marginal Optim al

Very Good Very Good

Marginal Optim al

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Optim al

Optim al Very Good

Not an Appropriate Case Plan Appropriate Case Plan

100.0%

66.7%

100.0%

66.7%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

66.7%

100.0%

80.0%

100.0%

70.0%

60.0%

80.0%

77.8%

90.0%

100.0%

60.0%

Very Good Very Good Very Good Very Good

Very Good Very Good Very Good Optim al

Marginal Marginal Marginal Very Good

Marginal Marginal Very Good Very Good

Marginal Very Good Very Good Optim al

Marginal Very Good Very Good Very Good

Marginal Marginal Very Good Optim al

Marginal Very Good Very Good Very Good

Not an Appropriate Case Plan Not an Appropriate Case Plan Not an Appropriate Case Plan Appropriate Case Plan

Marginal Optim al

Very Good Optim al

Marginal Very Good

Very Good Optim al

Very Good Optim al

Very Good Optim al

Marginal Very Good

Very Good Optim al

Not an Appropriate Case Plan Appropriate Case Plan

Absent/Averse Absent/Averse Absent/Averse Absent/Averse Absent/Averse Absent/Averse Absent/Averse Absent/Averse Not an Appropriate

Case Plan

100.0%

71.4%

85.7%

28.6%

57.1%

71.4%

71.4%

42.9%

71.4%

28.6%

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Marginal

Marginal Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Optim al

Marginal Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Not an Appropriate Case Plan Appropriate Case Plan

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Very Good Marginal

Very Good

Not an Appropriate

Case Plan

Very Good

Marginal

Marginal

Marginal

Marginal

Very Good Marginal

Very Good

Not an Appropriate

Case Plan

100.0%

100.0%

75.0%

50.0%

25.0%

75.0%

100.0%

25.0%

100.0%

25.0%

100.0%

81.8%

81.8%

36.4%

45.5%

72.7%

81.8%

36.4%

81.8%

27.3%

Very Good

Very Good

Optim al

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good Marginal

Very Good

Appropriate Case Plan

Marginal

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Marginal

Too early to Poor note progress

Marginal

Not an Appropriate Case Plan

Danbury Area Office 3Q 2018

Torrington

CPS In-Home Family

Torrington

SPM CIP

100.0%

yes

Yes

yes

Yes

Torrington Area Office 3Q 2018

100.0%

Waterbury

CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

Waterbury

CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

Waterbury

CPS CIP

yes

No

Waterbury

CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

Waterbury

CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

Waterbury Waterbury

CPS CIP CPS CIP

yes

Yes

yes

Yes

Waterbury

CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

Waterbury Area Office 3Q 2018

100.0%

Region V 3Q 2018

100.0%

Meriden

CPS CIP

yes

Yes

Meriden

CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

Meriden Area Office 3Q 2018 New Britain CPS CIP New Britain CPS In-Home Family

100.0%

yes

Yes

yes

Yes

New Britain CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

New Britain CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

New Britain CPS CIP

yes

Yes

New Britain Area Office 3Q 2018 Region VI 3Q 2018
OM3 Statewide Total 3Q 2018

100.0% 100.0%
98.1%

100.0% yes yes
100.0% yes
yes yes
UTD yes
yes yes
yes
87.5% 91.7%
yes
yes
100.0% yes yes
yes yes yes
100.0% 100.0%
94.4%

50.0%

50.0%

100.0%

100.0%

50.0%

50.0%

100.0%

0.0%

50.0%

50.0%

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Very Good

Appropriate Case Plan

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Marginal

Not an Appropriate

Case Plan

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

50.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

50.0%

50.0%

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Marginal Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Marginal Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Not an Appropriate Case Plan Appropriate Case Plan

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Marginal Very Good

Marginal Very Good

Marginal Very Good

Marginal Very Good

Marginal Very Good

Marginal Very Good

Not an Appropriate Case Plan Appropriate Case Plan

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Marginal Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Not an Appropriate Case Plan Appropriate Case Plan

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Marginal

Marginal

Marginal

Not an Appropriate

Case Plan

Marginal

Marginal

Marginal

Marginal

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Very Good

Not an Appropriate

Case Plan

87.5%

87.5%

87.5%

62.5%

62.5%

75.0%

62.5%

62.5%

75.0%

37.5%

91.7%

83.3%

91.7%

75.0%

58.3%

75.0%

72.7%

58.3%

72.7%

41.7%

Optim al

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Optim al

Not an Appropriate

Case Plan

Marginal

Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Very Good

Not an Appropriate

Case Plan

0.0%

50.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

0.0%

Optim al

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Optim al

Very Good

Very Good

Appropriate Case Plan

Marginal Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Marginal Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Not an Appropriate Case Plan Appropriate Case Plan

Optim al

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Very Good

Appropriate Case Plan

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Marginal

Marginal

Very Good Marginal

Very Good

Not an Appropriate

Case Plan

100.0%

80.0%

100.0%

60.0%

80.0%

80.0%

100.0%

80.0%

100.0%

60.0%

100.0%

85.7%

100.0%

42.9%

71.4%

85.7%

100.0%

85.7%

100.0%

42.9%

96.3%

83.3%

92.6%

55.6%

57.4%

79.6%

80.8%

70.3%

83.3%

44.4%

Region IV

Region V

Region VI

24

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 25 of 53
Juan F. v. Malloy Exit Plan Status Report February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________
Outcome Measure 4 The 2017 Revised Exit Plan requirement for Outcome Measure 4 – Needs Met is that: “ Families and children shall have their medical, dental, mental health and other service needs met as set forth in the “DCF Court Monitor’s Protocol for Outcome Measures 3 and 4” and the accompanying “Directional Guide for Outcome Measures 3 and 4 Reviews”. The enforceable domains of this Outcome Measure shall not include the “All Needs Met” domain. The domains for which compliance at 85% or better has been met for a quarter and then sustained for an additional quarter as of the date of this 2017 Revised Exit Plan, shall be considered to have achieved Pre-Certification. These domains include:
• Risk: Child in Placement • Securing the Permanent Placement • DCF Case Management – Legal Action to Achieve the Permanency Goal in the Prior Six Months • DCF Case Management – Recruitment for Placement Providers to Achieve Permanency Goal
during the Prior Six Months • Child’s Current Placement • Education For Each of the remaining Domains, once compliance at 85% or better has been met for a quarter and then sustained for an additional quarter that domain shall also be considered to have achieved PreCertification. Once all of the domains achieve Pre-Certification, then Outcome Measure 4 shall be considered to have achieved Pre-Certification and subject to the process in Paragraphs 10 and 11 hereof as to whether a final review is required in connection with a request to terminate jurisdiction over this action.”
Based upon the data from the Second and Third Quarters of 2018 there are no additional domains that achieved two consecutive quarter at the 85% requirement.
As you will recall from the prior semi-annual reporting periods the Department currently had met and sustained for an additional quarter the following domains:
• Risk: Child in Placement (July 2018 Status Report) • Securing the Permanent Placement (July 2018 Status Report) • DCF Case Management – Legal Action to Achieve the Permanency Goal in the Prior Six Months
(July 2018 Status Report) • DCF Case Management – Recruitment for Placement Providers to Achieve Permanency Goal
during the Prior Six Months (July 2018 Status Report) • Child’s Current Placement (January 2018 Status Report) • Education (January 2018 Status Report) • Medical (January 2018 Status Report) In this reporting cycle, the Court Monitor notes that as in the past, the prior trend has not been continuously maintained for several of the previously pre-certified domains: Medical and Child’s Current Placement did not maintain the standard across the current period under review. However, given the sample size and percentages noted it is too soon to determine if there is reason to determine that sustained effort has not been adequate and whether full review would be required at the point of a full compliance assertion by the State. The Court Monitor will continue to review all 11 Outcome Measure 4 domains in coming cycles and make that assessment in future reviews.
25

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 26 of 53
Juan F. v. Malloy Exit Plan Status Report February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________

Risk: In-Home Risk: Child In Placement Permanency: Securing the Permanent Placement Action Plan for the Next Six Months Permanency: DCF Case Mgmt. - Legal Action to Achieve the Permanency Goal During the Prior Six Months Permanency: DCF Case Mgmt. - Recruitment for Placement Providers to Achieve the Permanency Goal during the Prior Six Months Permanency: DCF Case Mgmt. - Contracting or Providing Services to Achieve the Permanency Goal during the Prior Six Months Well-Being: Medical Needs Well-Being: Dental Needs Well-Being: Mental Health, Behavioral and Substance Abuse Services Well-Being: Child's Current Placement Well-Being: Education

Quarter Statewide 3rd Quarter 2018 OM4 Results Statewide 2nd Quarter 2018 OM4 Results Statewide - 1st Quarter 2018 OM4 Results Statewide - 4th Quarter 2017 OM4 Results Statewide - 3rd Quarter 2017 OM4 Results Statewide - 2nd Quarter 2017 OM4 Results

70.0% 73.9% 81.3% 82.1% 81.8%
78.3%

96.2% 96.8% 100.0% 96.0% 100.0%
100.0%

100.0% 100.0% 95.8% 100.0% 93.5%
95.8%

87.0% 90.6% 92.5% 94.3% 90.6%
98.1%

100.0% 90.3% 95.7% 96.0% 93.8%
100.0%

51.9% 50.9% 51.9% 49.1% 52.8%
57.4%

83.3% 90.6% 85.2% 79.3% 86.8%
94.4%

87.0% 81.1% 75.9% 81.1% 83.0%
85.2%

70.4% 73.6% 61.1% 50.9% 64.2%
75.9%

91.7% 77.4% 91.3% 84.0% 87.1%
93.9%

86.3% 87.5% 86.8% 80.4% 88.0%
83.3%

A full summary of the Second Quarter 2018 and for Third Quarter 2018 Domain summaries by region and area office for Outcome Measure 4 are found respectively on the following two pages.

26

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 27 of 53

Juan F. v. Malloy Exit Plan Status Report February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________

Region I

Region II

Region

What is the social worker's
area office assignment?

What is the type of case assignment
noted in LINK?

Has the treatment plan been approved by the SWS?

Case Summaries for Third Quarter 2018 OM3 Domain Scores Identified by Area Office, Region, Statewide

Engagement of

Was this case

Child and

plan approved

Family

Present

within 25 days Was the family or

(formerly

Situation and

from the ACR child's language Reason for

Strengths,

Assessment Determining

Schedule

needs

DCF

Identifying

Needs and

to Date of

the Goals/

Date?

accommodated? Involvement Information

Other Issues) Review

Objectives

Progress

Action Steps to Achieving Goals Identified for the Upcoming Six Month Period

Planning for Permanency

Overall Score for OM3

Bridgeport

SPM CIP

yes

Yes

yes

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Optim al

Appropriate Case Plan

Bridgeport

CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

yes

Bridgeport

CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

yes

Bridgeport

CPS CIP

yes

No

yes

Very Good Very Good Optim al

Very Good Very Good Very Good

Marginal Marginal Very Good

Marginal Marginal Very Good

Marginal Very Good Very Good

Marginal Marginal Very Good

Marginal Marginal Very Good

Very Good Very Good Optim al

Not an Appropriate Case Plan Not an Appropriate Case Plan Appropriate Case Plan

Bridgeport Area Office 3Q 2018

100.0%

75.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

50.0%

50.0%

75.0%

50.0%

50.0%

100.0%

50.0%

Norwalk

CPS CIP

yes

Yes

yes

Optim al

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Appropriate Case Plan

Norwalk

CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

yes

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Appropriate Case Plan

Norwalk Area Office 3Q 2018

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Region I 3Q 2018

100.0%

83.3%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

33.3%

66.7%

83.3%

66.7%

66.7%

100.0%

66.7%

Milford

CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

yes

Milford

CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

yes

Milford

CPS CIP

yes

Yes

yes

Milford

CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

yes

Very Good Marginal Marginal Very Good

Very Good Optim al Marginal Very Good

Very Good Marginal Marginal Optim al

Marginal Marginal Marginal Very Good

Marginal Very Good Very Good Very Good

Very Good Very Good Very Good Very Good

Very Good Optim al Very Good Very Good

Very Good Marginal Marginal Optim al

Not an Appropriate Case Plan Not an Appropriate Case Plan Not an Appropriate Case Plan Appropriate Case Plan

Milford Area Office 3Q 2018

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

50.0%

75.0%

50.0%

25.0%

75.0%

100.0%

100.0%

50.0%

25.0%

New Haven

CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

yes

New Haven

CPS CIP

yes

Yes

yes

New Haven

CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

yes

Very Good Very Good Very Good

Very Good Optim al Very Good

Very Good Marginal Very Good

Marginal Very Good Very Good

Very Good Very Good Very Good

Very Good Marginal Very Good

Very Good Very Good Very Good

Very Good Marginal Very Good

Not an Appropriate Case Plan Not an Appropriate Case Plan Appropriate Case Plan

New Haven

SPM CIP

yes

Yes

yes

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Appropriate Case Plan

Mew Haven Area Office 3Q 2019

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

75.0%

75.0%

100.0%

75.0%

100.0%

75.0%

50.0%

Region II 3Q 2018

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

75.0%

87.5%

62.5%

50.0%

87.5%

87.5%

100.0%

62.5%

37.5%

Middletown

CPS CIP

yes

Yes

Middletown

CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

Middletown Area Office 3Q 2018

100.0%

yes yes 100.0%

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Marginal

Marginal

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

100.0%

50.0%

100.0%

50.0%

Marginal

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Not an Appropriate

Case Plan

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Very Good

Not an Appropriate

Case Plan

0.0%

50.0%

50.0%

50.0%

100.0%

0.0%

Norwich Norwich

CPS CIP CPS CIP

yes

Yes

yes

yes

Yes

yes

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Marginal Marginal

Marginal Very Good

Very Good Marginal

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Not an Appropriate Case Plan Appropriate Case Plan

Region III

Norwich

CPS CIP

yes

Yes

yes

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Optim al

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Appropriate Case Plan

Norwich

CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

yes

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Appropriate Case Plan

Norwich

CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

Morwich Area Office 3Q 2018

100.0%

yes 100.0%

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Very Good

Too early to Very Good

Very Good

Appropriate Case Plan

note progress

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

80.0%

60.0%

80.0%

75.0%

100.0%

100.0%

80.0%

Willim antic

CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

yes

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Appropriate Case Plan

Willim antic Willim antic

CPS CIP CPS CIP

yes

Yes

yes

yes

Yes

yes

Marginal Optim al

Very Good Very Good

Marginal Optim al

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Optim al

Optim al Very Good

Not an Appropriate Case Plan Appropriate Case Plan

Willimantic Area Office 3Q 2018

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

66.7%

100.0%

66.7%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

66.7%

Region III 3Q 2019

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

80.0%

100.0%

70.0%

60.0%

80.0%

77.8%

90.0%

100.0%

60.0%

Hartford

CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

yes

Hartford

CPS CIP

yes

Yes

yes

Hartford

CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

yes

Hartford

CPS CIP

yes

Yes

yes

Very Good Very Good Very Good Very Good

Very Good Very Good Very Good Optim al

Marginal Marginal Marginal Very Good

Marginal Marginal Very Good Very Good

Marginal Very Good Very Good Optim al

Marginal Very Good Very Good Very Good

Marginal Marginal Very Good Optim al

Marginal Very Good Very Good Very Good

Not an Appropriate Case Plan Not an Appropriate Case Plan Not an Appropriate Case Plan Appropriate Case Plan

Hartford

CPS CIP

yes

Yes

yes

Hartford

CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

yes

Marginal Optim al

Very Good Optim al

Marginal Very Good

Very Good Optim al

Very Good Optim al

Very Good Optim al

Marginal Very Good

Very Good Optim al

Not an Appropriate Case Plan Appropriate Case Plan

Hartford

CPS In-Home Family no

No

Hartford Area Office 3Q 2018

85.7%

yes 85.7%

Absent/Averse Absent/Averse Absent/Averse Absent/Averse Absent/Averse Absent/Averse Absent/Averse Absent/Averse Not an Appropriate

Case Plan

100.0%

71.4%

85.7%

28.6%

57.1%

71.4%

71.4%

42.9%

71.4%

28.6%

Manches ter

CPS CIP

yes

Yes

yes

Manchester

CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

yes

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Marginal

Marginal Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Optim al

Marginal Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Not an Appropriate Case Plan Appropriate Case Plan

Manches ter

SPM CIP

yes

Yes

Manches ter

CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

Manchester Area Office 3Q 2018

100.0%

yes yes 100.0%

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Not an Appropriate

Case Plan

Very Good

Marginal

Marginal

Marginal

Marginal

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Not an Appropriate

Case Plan

100.0%

100.0%

75.0%

50.0%

25.0%

75.0%

100.0%

25.0%

100.0%

25.0%

Region IV 3Q 2018

90.9%

90.9%

100.0%

81.8%

81.8%

36.4%

45.5%

72.7%

81.8%

36.4%

81.8%

27.3%

Danb ury

CPS CIP

yes

Yes

yes

Very Good

Very Good

Optim al

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Appropriate Case Plan

Danbury

CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

Danbury Area Office 3Q 2018

100.0%

UTD 100.0%

Marginal

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Marginal

Too early to Poor

note progress

50.0%

50.0%

100.0%

100.0%

50.0%

50.0%

100.0%

Marginal

Not an Appropriate

Case Plan

0.0%

50.0%

50.0%

Torrington

CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

yes

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Appropriate Case Plan

Torrington

SPM CIP

Torrington Area Office 3Q 2018

yes

Yes

100.0%

yes 100.0%

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Not an Appropriate

Case Plan

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

50.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

50.0%

50.0%

Waterbury

CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

yes

Waterbury

CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

yes

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Marginal Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Marginal Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Not an Appropriate Case Plan Appropriate Case Plan

Waterbury

CPS CIP

yes

No

Waterbury

CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

yes UTD

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Marginal Very Good

Marginal Very Good

Marginal Very Good

Marginal Very Good

Marginal Very Good

Marginal Very Good

Not an Appropriate Case Plan Appropriate Case Plan

Waterbury

CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

yes

Waterbury

CPS CIP

yes

Yes

yes

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Marginal Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Not an Appropriate Case Plan Appropriate Case Plan

Waterbury

CPS CIP

yes

Yes

Waterbury

CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

Waterbury Area Office 3Q 2018

100.0%

yes yes 87.5%

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Marginal

Marginal

Marginal

Not an Appropriate

Case Plan

Marginal

Marginal

Marginal

Marginal

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Very Good

Not an Appropriate

Case Plan

87.5%

87.5%

87.5%

62.5%

62.5%

75.0%

62.5%

62.5%

75.0%

37.5%

Region V 3Q 2018

100.0%

91.7%

91.7%

83.3%

91.7%

75.0%

58.3%

75.0%

72.7%

58.3%

72.7%

41.7%

Meriden

CPS CIP

yes

Yes

Meriden

CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

Meriden Area Office 3Q 2018

100.0%

yes yes 100.0%

Optim al

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Optim al

Not an Appropriate

Case Plan

Marginal

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Not an Appropriate

Case Plan

0.0%

50.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

0.0%

New Britain

CPS CIP

yes

Yes

yes

Optim al

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Optim al

Very Good

Very Good

Appropriate Case Plan

New Britain

CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

yes

New Britain

CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

yes

Marginal Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Marginal Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Not an Appropriate Case Plan Appropriate Case Plan

New Britain

CPS In-Home Family yes

Yes

yes

Optim al

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Appropriate Case Plan

New Britain

CPS CIP

New Britain Area Office 3Q 2018

yes

Yes

100.0%

yes 100.0%

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Marginal

Marginal

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Not an Appropriate

Case Plan

100.0%

80.0%

100.0%

60.0%

80.0%

80.0%

100.0%

80.0%

100.0%

60.0%

Region VI 3Q 2018

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

85.7%

100.0%

42.9%

71.4%

85.7%

100.0%

85.7%

100.0%

42.9%

OM3 Statewide Total 3Q 2018

98.1%

94.4%

96.3%

83.3%

92.6%

55.6%

57.4%

79.6%

80.8%

70.3%

83.3%

44.4%

Region IV

Region V

Region VI

27

Case 2:89-cv-00859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 28 of 53

Juan F. v. Malloy Exit Plan Status Report February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________

Region I

Region II

Region III

Case Summaries for Third Quarter 2018 OM4 Domain Scores Identified by Area Office, Region, Statewide

What is the social

worker's area What is the type of

office

case assignment

assignment?

noted in LINK?

Bridgeport

SPM CIP

Risk: InHome Very Good

Permanency: Permanency:

Permanency: DCF Case Mgmt - DCF Case Mgmt -

Permanency: DCF Case Mgmt - Recruitment for Contracting or

Securing the Legal Action to Placement

Providing

Well-Being:

Permanent Achieve the

Providers to

Services to

Mental Health,

Placement - Permanency Achieve the Action Plan for Goal During the Permanency

Achieve the Permanency

Well-Being:

Behavioral and Well-Being:

Substance

Child's

Risk: Child In the Next Six

Prior Six

Goal during the Goal during the Medical Well-Being:

Abuse

Current

Placement

Months

Months

Prior Six Months Prior Six Months Needs Dental Needs Services

Placement

Very Good Optimal

Optim al

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good Very Good Marginal

Optim al

Well-Being: Education Optim al

Overall Score for Outcome Measure 4
Needs Met

Bridgeport

CPS In-Home Family Very Good N/A to Case N/A to Case Optimal

N/A to Cas e

Marginal

Very Good Very Good Marginal

N/A to Case Marginal

Needs Not Met

Bridgeport

CPS In-Home Family Marginal N/A to Case N/A to Case Very Good

N/A to Cas e

Marginal

Marginal

Marginal

Very Good

N/A to Case Marginal

Needs Not Met

Bridgeport

CPS CIP

N/A to Case Optimal

Optim al

Very Good

Optim al

Very Good

Optim al

Optim al

Very Good

Very Good Very Good Needs Met

Bridgeport Area Office 3Q 2018

66.7%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

50.0%

75.0%

75.0%

50.0%

100.0%

50.0%

50.0%

Norwalk

CPS CIP

N/A to Case Very Good Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good Optimal

Very Good

Optim al

Optim al

Needs Met

Norwalk

CPS In-Home Family Very Good N/A to Case N/A to Case Very Good

N/A to Cas e

Very Good

Very Good Very Good Marginal

N/A to Case Very Good Needs Not Met

Norwalk Area Office 3Q 2018

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

50.0%

100.0%

100.0%

50.0%

Region I 3Q 2018

75.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

66.7%

83.3%

83.3%

50.0%

100.0%

66.7%

50.0%

Milford

CPS In-Home Family Very Good N/A to Case N/A to Case Very Good

N/A to Cas e

Marginal

Marginal

Marginal

Very Good

N/A to Case Very Good Needs Not Met

Milford

CPS In-Home Family Very Good N/A to Case N/A to Case Optimal

N/A to Cas e

Marginal

Very Good Very Good Very Good

N/A to Case Very Good Needs Not Met

Milford

CPS CIP

N/A to Case Marginal

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good Very Good Very Good

Very Good Poor

Needs Not Met

Milford

CPS In-Home Family Very Good N/A to Case N/A to Case Optimal

N/A to Cas e

Very Good

Very Good Very Good Very Good

N/A to Case Optimal

Needs Met

Milford Area Office 3Q 2018

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

75.0%

100.0%

25.0%

75.0%

75.0%

100.0%

100.0%

75.0%

25.0%

New Haven

CPS In-Home Family Very Good N/A to Case N/A to Case Very Good

N/A to Cas e

Marginal

Very Good Very Good Very Good

N/A to Case N/A to Case Needs Not Met

New Haven

CPS CIP

N/A to Case Very Good Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Marginal

Very Good Marginal

Very Good Very Good Needs Not Met

New Haven

CPS In-Home Family Very Good N/A to Case N/A to Case Very Good

N/A to Case

Very Good

Very Good Marginal

Very Good

N/A to Case Marginal

Needs Met

New Haven

SPM CIP

N/A to Case Very Good Very Good

Optim al

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good Very Good Very Good

Very Good Very Good Needs Met

New Haven Area Office 3Q 2018

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

50.0%

75.0%

75.0%

75.0%

100.0%

66.7%

50.0%

Region II 3Q 2018

100.0%

66.7%

100.0%

87.5%

100.0%

37.5%

75.0%

75.0%

87.5%

100.0%

71.4%

37.5%

Middletown

CPS CIP

N/A to Case Very Good Very Good

Optim al

Very Good

Marginal

Optim al

Optim al

Very Good

Very Good Optimal

Needs Not Met

Middletown

CPS In-Home Family Very Good N/A to Case N/A to Case Optimal

N/A to Cas e

Marginal

Optim al

Very Good Marginal

N/A to Case Very Good Needs Not Met

Middletown Area Office 3Q 2018

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

100.0%

50.0%

100.0%

100.0%

0.0%

Norwich

CPS CIP

N/A to Case Very Good Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good Optimal

Very Good

Very Good Very Good Needs Met

Norwich

CPS CIP

N/A to Case Very Good Optimal

Optim al

Optim al

Optim al

Optim al

Optim al

Very Good

Very Good Optimal

Needs Met

Norwich

CPS CIP

N/A to Case Very Good Optimal

Marginal

Optim al

Very Good

Optim al

Optim al

Very Good

Optim al

Very Good Needs Not Met

Norwich

CPS In-Home Family Very Good N/A to Case N/A to Case Optimal

N/A to Cas e

Marginal

Optim al

Very Good Very Good

N/A to Case N/A to Case Needs Not Met

Norwich

CPS In-Home Family Marginal N/A to Case N/A to Case Very Good

N/A to Cas e

Marginal

Very Good Very Good Very Good

N/A to Case Very Good Needs Met

Norwich Area Office 3Q 2018

50.0%

100.0%

100.0%

80.0%

100.0%

60.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

60.0%

Willim antic

CPS In-Home Family Very Good N/A to Case N/A to Case Optimal

N/A to Cas e

Very Good

Optim al

Optim al

Very Good

N/A to Case Optimal

Needs Met

Willim antic

CPS CIP

N/A to Case Very Good Optimal

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Optim al

Optim al

Marginal

Marginal

Very Good Needs Not Met

Willim antic

CPS CIP

N/A to Case Very Good Optimal

Very Good

Optim al

Optim al

Very Good Very Good Very Good

Optim al

Very Good Needs Met

Willimantic Area Office 3Q 2018

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

66.7%

100.0%

100.0%

66.7%

50.0%

100.0%

66.7%

Region III 3Q 2018

75.0%

100.0%

100.0%

90.0%

100.0%

50.0%

100.0%

100.0%

80.0%

83.3%

100.0%

50.0%

Hartford

CPS In-Home Family Marginal N/A to Case N/A to Case Marginal

N/A to Cas e

Marginal

Very Good Very Good Very Good

N/A to Case Very Good Needs Not Met

Hartford

CPS CIP

N/A to Case Very Good Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good Optimal

Very Good

Very Good Very Good Needs Not Met

Hartford

CPS In-Home Family Marginal N/A to Case N/A to Case Very Good

N/A to Cas e

Poor

Very Good Marginal

Marginal

N/A to Case Very Good Needs Not Met

Hartford

CPS CIP

N/A to Case Optimal

Very Good

Optim al

Very Good

Marginal

Optim al

Optim al

Very Good

Very Good Very Good Needs Not Met

Hartford

CPS CIP

N/A to Case Very Good Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good Very Good Very Good

Very Good Very Good Needs Not Met

Hartford

CPS In-Home Family Very Good Very Good N/A to Case Optimal

N/A to Cas e

Very Good

Optim al

Optim al

Very Good

N/A to Case Very Good Needs Met

Hartford

CPS In-Home Family Marginal N/A to Case N/A to Case Very Good

N/A to Cas e

Very Good

Optim al

Optim al

Very Good

N/A to Case Very Good Needs Not Met

Hartford Area Office 3Q 2018

25.0%

100.0%

100.0%

71.4%

100.0%

28.6%

100.0%

85.7%

85.7%

100.0%

100.0%

14.3%

Manches ter

CPS CIP

N/A to Case Very Good Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Optim al

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Optimal

Needs Met

Manches ter

CPS In-Home Family Very Good N/A to Case N/A to Case Very Good

N/A to Cas e

Very Good

Optim al

Optim al

Very Good

N/A to Case Very Good Needs Met

Manches ter

SPM CIP

N/A to Case Very Good Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good Marginal

Very Good Marginal

Needs Not Met

Manches ter

CPS In-Home Family Marginal N/A to Case N/A to Case Poor

N/A to Cas e

Marginal

Marginal

Very Good Marginal

N/A to Case Very Good Needs Not Met

Manchester Area Office 3Q 2018

50.0%

100.0%

100.0%

75.0%

100.0%

75.0%

50.0%

100.0%

50.0%

100.0%

75.0%

50.0%

Region IV 3Q 2018

33.3%

100.0%

100.0%

72.7%

100.0%

45.5%

81.8%

90.9%

72.7%

100.0%

90.9%

27.3%

Danbury

CPS CIP

N/A to Case Very Good Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good Very Good Very Good

Very Good Very Good Needs Met

Danbury

CPS In-Home Family Very Good N/A to Case N/A to Case Very Good

N/A to Cas e

Very Good

Very Good Optimal

Very Good

N/A to Case Optimal

Needs Met

Danbury Area Office 3Q 2018

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Torrington

CPS In-Home Family Very Good N/A to Case N/A to Case Very Good

N/A to Cas e

Very Good

Very Good Very Good Very Good

N/A to Case Very Good Needs Met

Torrington

SPM CIP

N/A to Case Very Good Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Optim al

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Very Good Needs Met

Torrington Area Office 3Q 2018

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Waterbury

CPS In-Home Family Very Good N/A to Case N/A to Case Very Good

N/A to Cas e

Marginal

Marginal

Marginal

Marginal

N/A to Case Very Good Needs Not Met

Waterbury

CPS In-Home Family Very Good N/A to Case N/A to Case Optimal

N/A to Cas e

Very Good

Very Good Very Good Very Good

N/A to Case N/A to Case Needs Met

Waterbury

CPS CIP

N/A to Case Very Good Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Marginal

Marginal

Marginal

Marginal

N/A to Case Very Good Needs Not Met

Waterbury

CPS In-Home Family Very Good N/A to Case N/A to Case Very Good

N/A to Cas e

Very Good

Very Good Very Good Very Good

N/A to Case Optimal

Needs Met

Waterbury

CPS In-Home Family Marginal N/A to Case N/A to Case Very Good

N/A to Cas e

Marginal

Very Good Very Good Very Good

N/A to Case Very Good Needs Not Met

Waterbury

CPS CIP

N/A to Case Optimal

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good Very Good Optimal

Very Good Optimal

Needs Met

Waterbury

CPS CIP

N/A to Case Very Good Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Marginal

Marginal

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Marginal

Needs Not Met

Waterbury

CPS In-Home Family Very Good N/A to Case N/A to Case Very Good

N/A to Cas e

Very Good

Marginal

Marginal

Marginal

N/A to Case Marginal

Needs Not Met

Waterbury Area Office 3Q 2018

80.0%

100.0%

100.0%

75.0%

100.0%

50.0%

50.0%

62.5%

62.5%

100.0%

71.4%

37.5%

Region V 3Q 2018

85.7%

100.0%

100.0%

83.3%

100.0%

66.7%

66.7%

75.0%

75.0%

100.0%

81.8%

58.3%

Meriden

CPS CIP

N/A to Case Very Good Optimal

Very Good

Optim al

Marginal

Very Good Optimal

Marginal

Very Good Very Good Needs Not Met

Meriden

CPS In-Home Family Poor

N/A to Case N/A to Case Very Good

N/A to Cas e

Marginal

Very Good Very Good Marginal

N/A to Case Very Good Needs Not Met

Meriden Area Office 3Q 2018

0.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

100.0%

0.0%

New Britain

CPS CIP

N/A to Case Very Good Very Good

Optim al

Optim al

Very Good

Very Good Very Good Very Good

Very Good Optimal

Needs Met

New Britain

CPS In-Home Family Marginal N/A to Case N/A to Case Very Good

N/A to Cas e

Marginal

Very Good Very Good Marginal

N/A to Case Very Good Needs Not Met

New Britain

CPS In-Home Family Very Good N/A to Case N/A to Case Optimal

N/A to Cas e

Very Good

Very Good Very Good Very Good

N/A to Case Very Good Needs Met

New Britain

CPS In-Home Family Very Good N/A to Case N/A to Case Optimal

N/A to Cas e

Very Good

Optim al

Optim al

Very Good

N/A to Case Very Good Needs Met

New Britain

CPS CIP

N/A to Case Very Good Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good Very Good Marginal

Marginal

Very Good Needs Not Met

New Britain Area Office 3Q 2018

66.7%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

60.0%

100.0%

100.0%

60.0%

50.0%

100.0%

60.0%

Region VI 3Q 2018

50.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

42.9%

100.0%

100.0%

42.9%

66.7%

100.0%

42.9%

Total Statewide 3Q 2018 OM4

70.0%

96.2%

100.0%

87.0%

100.0%

51.9%

83.3%

87.0%

70.4%

91.7%

86.3%

44.4%

Region IV

Region V

Region VI

28

Juan F. v. MalloCy EaxsitePla2n :S8ta9tu-scRvep-o0rt0859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 29 of 53
February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________
The individual unmet needs identified in the cases sampled included a total of 183 unmet needs for the Second Quarter 2018 and 190 for the 3rd Quarter 2018 for a total of 373 unmet needs across the cases reviewed. This is a decrease in comparison to the prior 6 month reporting cycle which included 479 unmet needs across 107 cases. Visitation with parents and contacts with providers aside, the top five unmet needs identified during the period under review was referral to the ARG, Dental Screenings and Substance Abuse Screening/Evaluation – Parent, Individual Counseling-Child and Health/Medical Screening – Child.
The top five barriers identified this period were client refusal, failure to assess the need during the period under review, delay in referral, no referral made during the PUR and lack of communication between DCF and the provider.

Frequency 2nd Quarter 2018 Frequency 3rd Quarter 2018 Semi Annual Total

Unmet Need

Barrier Identified

Adoption Recruitment
Adoption Recruitment
Adoption Supports (PPSP)
Adoption Supports (PPSP)
Anger Management – Parent ARG Consultation
ARG Consultation
ARG Consultation Basic Foster Care
Basic Foster Care
Behavior Management Case Management/Support/Advocacy: Other Case Management/Support/Advocacy: Other Case Management/Support/Advocacy: Other
Childcare/Daycare Program
Day Treatment/Partial Hospitalization – Parent Day Treatment/Partial Hospitalization – Parent

Delay in Referral by Worker Area Office did not respond to reviewer request for clarification on the barrier Delay in Referral by Worker No Referral Made by DCF During the Period Client Refused No Referral during the Period DCF failed to properly assess child/family member related to this need during the PUR Delay in Referral by Worker Service Not Available in primary language Other: Multiple Disruptions not due to permanency change. Placed on Wait List
STOG not done timely or during PUR
Assessment of Risk/Safety not done timely
PSE Plan not created
Lack of Communication between DCF and Provider
Client Refused Service
Transportation Unavailable

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

4

6

10

3

1

4

1

3

4

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

1

2

0

2

2

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

29

Juan F. v. MalloCy EaxsitePla2n :S8ta9tu-scRvep-o0rt0859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 30 of 53
February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________

Frequency 2nd Quarter 2018 Frequency 3rd Quarter 2018 Semi Annual Total

Unmet Need

Barrier Identified

Dental or Orthodontic Service

Client Refused Service

3

2

5

Dental or Orthodontic Service

Provider Issues – staffing, lack of follow through, etc.

1

0

1

Dental or Orthodontic Service

UTD from Case Plan or Narratives

0

1

1

Dental or Orthodontic Service

Delay in Referral by Worker

1

0

1

Dental or Orthodontic Service

No Service Identified to Meet this Need

1

0

1

Dental Screening or Evaluation Dental Screening or Evaluation Dental Screening or Evaluation

Client Refused Service
DCF failed to properly assess child/family member related to this need during the PUR
No Service Identified to Meet this Need

4

4

8

2

1

3

1

1

2

Dental Screening or Evaluation

Insurance Issues

1

1

2

Dental Screening or Evaluation

Other: Mother needs to make appointment

0

1

1

Dental Screening or Evaluation

Other: Rescheduled due to DCF Emergency

0

1

1

Dental Screening or Evaluation

Child hospitalized

1

0

1

Developmental Screening or Evaluation

Other: Mother failed to make the Birth to 3 Appointment during the PUR

1

0

1

Developmental Screening or Evaluation

UTD from case plan or narrative

1

0

1

Domestic Violence Prevention Services

Lack of Communication between DCF and Provider

0

1

1

Domestic Violence Services for Perpetrator

Client Refused Service

3

4

7

Domestic Violence Services for Perpetrator

Placed on Wait List

1

1

2

Domestic Violence Services for Perpetrator

Service Deferred Pending Completion of Another

1

1

2

Domestic Violence Services for Victim Client Refused Service

1

4

5

Domestic Violence Services for Victim Placed on Wait List

1

1

2

Domestic Violence Services for Victim Educational Screening or Evaluation Educational Screening or Evaluation

Provider Issues – staffing, lack of follow through, etc.
DCF failed to properly assess child/family member related to this need during the PUR
Delay in Referral by Worker

1

0

1

3

0

3

1

1

2

Educational Screening or Evaluation Client Refused Service

0

1

1

Emergency Adult/Family Shelter Emergency Adult/Family Shelter Extended Day Treatment Family or Marital Counseling

Client Refused Service No Referral made by DCF During the Period Transportation Unavailable Client Refused Service

1

0

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

30

Juan F. v. MalloCy EaxsitePla2n :S8ta9tu-scRvep-o0rt0859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 31 of 53
February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________

Frequency 2nd Quarter 2018 Frequency 3rd Quarter 2018 Semi Annual Total

Unmet Need

Barrier Identified

Family Reunification Services Family Reunification Services
Family Reunification Services
Family Stabilization Service
Foster Care Supports
Foster Care Supports
Group Counseling – Child Group Counseling – Parents Head Start Head Start Health /Medical Screening or Evaluation Health /Medical Screening or Evaluation Health /Medical Screening or Evaluation Health /Medical Screening or Evaluation Health /Medical Screening or Evaluation Health /Medical Screening or Evaluation Health /Medical Screening or Evaluation Housing Assistance: Section 8 Housing Assistance: Section 8 Housing Assistance: Section 8
Housing Assistance: Section 8
Housing Assistance: Section 8 IEP Programming
IEP Programming

Delay in Referral by Worker Placed on Wait List DCF failed to properly assess child/family member related to this need during the PUR Delay in Referral by Worker Services deferred pending completion of another No Referral made by DCF during the Period Client Refused Service Client Refused Service Placed on Wait List Client Refused Service
Client Refused Service
No Referral Made by DCF during the Period DCF failed to properly assess child/family member related to this need during the PUR
Delay in Referral by Worker
Insurance Issue
Other: Facility unable to draw blood of infant Area Office did not respond to Reviewer Request for Clarification on Barrier No Slots Available Client Refused Services Approval Process No Referral made by DCF During the Period Placed on Wait List Client Refused Service Lack of Communication between DCF and Provider

1

0

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

4

3

7

0

2

2

1

1

2

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

31

Juan F. v. MalloCy EaxsitePla2n :S8ta9tu-scRvep-o0rt0859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 32 of 53
February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________

Frequency 2nd Quarter 2018 Frequency 3rd Quarter 2018 Semi Annual Total

Unmet Need

Barrier Identified

Individual Counseling - Child Individual Counseling - Child Individual Counseling - Child Individual Counseling - Child Individual Counseling - Child Individual Counseling - Child Individual Counseling - Parent Individual Counseling - Parent Individual Counseling - Parent Individual Counseling - Parent In-Home Parent Education In-Home Parent Education
In-Home Parent Education
In-Home Parent Education In-Home Parent Education In-Home Treatment In-Home Treatment In-Home Treatment Job Coaching/Placement
Job Coaching/Placement
Job Coaching/Placement
Life Skills Training
Life Skills Training Maintaining Family Ties

Client Refused Service No Referral made by DCF during the period Delay in Referral by Worker
Provider Issues – Staffing, Lack of follow through, etc.
Client Discharged due to Non-Compliance
Lack of Communication between DCF and Provider
Client Refused Service
Delay in Referral by Worker
Insurance Issues
Client engaged in recommended service by end of PUR
Client Refused Service
Delay in Referral by Worker DCF failed to properly assess child/family member related to this need during the PUR Placed on Wait List
No Service Identified to Meet this Need
Client Refused Service
Placed on Wait List
Service Not Available for Age Group No Referral Made by DCF during the Period DCF failed to properly assess child/family member related to this need during the PUR No Referral Made by DCF during the Period No Referral Made by DCF During the Period Provider Issues – Staffing, lack of follow through, etc.
No Service Identified to Meet this Need

3

7

10

1

1

2

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

10

10

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

3

2

5

1

1

2

2

0

2

0

1

1

1

0

1

1

3

4

0

2

2

0

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

32

Juan F. v. MalloCy EaxsitePla2n :S8ta9tu-scRvep-o0rt0859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 33 of 53
February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________

Frequency 2nd Quarter 2018 Frequency 3rd Quarter 2018 Semi Annual Total

Unmet Need

Barrier Identified

Matching/Placement/Processing (includes ICO)

Lack of Communication between DCF and Provider

1

0

1

Matching/Placement/Processing (includes ICO)

DCF failed to properly assess child/family member related to this need during the PUR

1

0

1

Matching/Placement/Processing (includes ICO)

Delay in Referral by Worker

0

1

1

Medication Management (Child’s)

Approval Process

1

0

1

Medication Management (Child’s)

Client Refused

1

0

1

Medication Management (Parent)

Client Refused

3

1

4

Mental Health Screening or Evaluation - Child
Mental Health Screening or Evaluation - Child
Mental Health Screening or Evaluation – Parent

Delay in Referral by Worker
DCF failed to properly assess child/family member related to this need during the PUR
Client Refused Service

0

1

1

1

0

1

2

1

3

Mental Health Screening or Evaluation – Parent
Mental Health Screening or Evaluation – Parent
Mental Health Screening or Evaluation – Parent

Other: Parent Incarcerated
DCF failed to properly assess child/family member related to this need during the PUR
Insurance Issue

1

0

1

1

1

2

0

1

1

Mentoring Mentoring Mentoring

Lack of Communication between DCF and Provider

0

1

1

DCF failed to properly assess child/family

member related to this need during the

1

0

1

PUR

No Referral Made by DCF during the Period

1

0

1

Mentoring

No Slots Available

1

0

1

Other IH Service: Child First

Placed on Wait List

1

0

1

Other Medical Intervention: Specialist Care for CP
Other Medical Intervention: Vision Care
Other Medical Intervention: Weight Management/Nutrition Program
Other Medical Intervention: Wheelchair

Client Refused Service Client Refused Service Placed on Wait List Insurance Issues

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

33

Juan F. v. MalloCy EaxsitePla2n :S8ta9tu-scRvep-o0rt0859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 34 of 53
February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________

Frequency 2nd Quarter 2018 Frequency 3rd Quarter 2018 Semi Annual Total

Unmet Need

Barrier Identified

Other Mental Health Service: Child First Service Other Mental Health Service: Trauma Therapy Other OOH Service: CST
Other OOH Service: Secure State ID Other State Agency Program (DDS, DMHAS, MSS) Other State Agency Program (DDS, DMHAS, MSS) Parenting Classes
Parenting Classes
Parenting Classes Parenting Groups
Positive Youth Development Program
Problem Sexual Behavior Therapy Psychological or Psychosocial Evaluation – Child Psychological or Psychosocial Evaluation – Parent Psychological or Psychosocial Evaluation – Parent Relative Foster Care Relative Foster Care Relative Foster Care Sexual Abuse Therapy – Victim Sexual Abuse Therapy – Victim
Sexual Abuse Therapy – Victim
Social Recreational Programming
Social Recreational Programming
Social Recreational Programming

No Referral Made by DCF during the Period No Referral Made by DCF during the Period No Referral Made by DCF during the Period No Referral Made by DCF during the Period
Client Refused Service
Placed on Wait List
Client Refused Service Service Deferred Pending Completion of Another No Referral Made by DCF during the Period No Service Identified to Meet this Need DCF failed to properly assess child/family member related to this need during the PUR Client Refused Service
Client Refused Service
Client Refused Service
No Referral Made by DCF during the Period Approval Process Delay in Referral by Worker No Referral Made by DCF during the Period Client Refused Service No Service Identified to Meet this Need DCF failed to properly assess child/family member related to this need during the PUR Delay in Referral by Worker DCF failed to properly assess child/family member related to this need during the PUR No Service Identified to Meet this Need

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

2

2

4

0

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

2

1

0

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

2

0

2

2

0

2

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

34

Juan F. v. MalloCy EaxsitePla2n :S8ta9tu-scRvep-o0rt0859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 35 of 53
February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________

Frequency 2nd Quarter 2018 Frequency 3rd Quarter 2018 Semi Annual Total

Unmet Need

Barrier Identified

Substance Abuse Treatment: Drug & Alcohol Education – Parent
Substance Abuse Treatment: Drug & Alcohol Education – Parent
Substance Abuse Treatment: Drug & Alcohol Testing – Child
Substance Abuse Treatment: Detoxification – Parent
Substance Abuse Treatment: Drug/Alcohol Testing - Parent
Substance Abuse Treatment: Drug/Alcohol Testing - Parent
Substance Abuse Treatment: Drug/Alcohol Testing - Parent
Substance Abuse Treatment: Inpatient – Parent
Substance Abuse Treatment: Outpatient - Parent
Substance Abuse Treatment: Outpatient - Parent
Substance Abuse Treatment: Outpatient - Parent
Substance Abuse Treatment: Outpatient – Parent
Substance Abuse Treatment: Outpatient – Parent
Substance Abuse Treatment: Prevention – Parent
Substance Abuse Treatment: Relapse Prevention – Parent
Substance Abuse Treatment: Screening/Evaluation - Child
Substance Abuse Treatment: Screening/Evaluation - Child
Substance Abuse Treatment: Screening/Evaluation - Child

Service Deferred Pending Completion of Another
Client Discharged due to Non-Compliance
No Referral Made by DCF during the Period
Client Refused Service
Client Refused Service
No Service Identified to Meet this Need
UTD from Case Plan or Narrative
Client Refused Service
Client Refused Service
Transportation Issues DCF failed to properly assess child/family member related to this need during the PUR UTD from Case Plan or Narratives
Client Engaged in Recommended Service by End of PUR Service Deferred Pending Completion of Another Provider Issues – Staffing, lack of follow through, etc.
Delay in Referral by Worker
No Referral made by DCF during the Period DCF failed to properly assess child/family member related to this need during the PUR

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

1

2

3

0

1

1

1

0

1

2

0

2

3

6

9

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

35

Juan F. v. MalloCy EaxsitePla2n :S8ta9tu-scRvep-o0rt0859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 36 of 53
February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________

Frequency 2nd Quarter 2018 Frequency 3rd Quarter 2018 Semi Annual Total

Unmet Need

Barrier Identified

Substance Abuse Treatment: Screening/Evaluation - Parent
Substance Abuse Treatment: Screening/Evaluation - Parent
Substance Abuse Treatment: Screening/Evaluation - Parent Substance Abuse Treatment: Screening/Evaluation - Parent Substance Abuse Treatment: Screening/Evaluation - Parent Substance Abuse Treatment: Screening/Evaluation - Parent Substance Abuse Treatment: Supportive Housing for Recovering Families Substance Abuse Treatment: Supportive Housing for Recovering Families Substance Abuse Treatment: Supportive Housing for Recovering Families Supervised Visitation
Supervised Visitation
SW Case Management/Support/Advocacy
SW Case Management/Support/Advocacy
SW Case Management/Support/Advocacy SW/Child Visitation
SW/Child Visitation
SW/Child Visitation
SW/Child Visitation SW/Child Visitation

Client Refused Service DCF failed to properly assess child/family member related to this need during the PUR UTD from Case Plan or Narratives
OTHER: Parent Incarcerated
Delay in Referral by Worker
No Service Identified to Meet this Need
Placed on Wait List
UTD from Case Plan or Narrative
DCF failed to properly assess child/family member related to this need during the PUR Placed on a Wait List Service Deferred Pending Completion of Another
Delay in Referrals DCF failed to properly assess child/family member related to this need during the PUR DCF failed to properly assess caretakers related to this need during the PUR Delays in Visitation by Worker DCF failed to properly assess child/family member related to this need during the PUR DCF failed to properly assess caretakers related to this need during the PUR Client Refused Service UTD from Case Plan or Narrative

5

7

12

2

0

2

1

0

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

2

2

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

8

0

8

3

0

3

1

0

1

2

3

5

3

0

3

0

3

3

0

1

1

0

1

1

36

Juan F. v. MalloCy EaxsitePla2n :S8ta9tu-scRvep-o0rt0859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 37 of 53
February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________

Frequency 2nd Quarter 2018 Frequency 3rd Quarter 2018 Semi Annual Total

Unmet Need

Barrier Identified

SW/Parent Visitation
SW/Parent Visitation SW/Parent Visitation SW/Provider Contacts SW/Provider Contacts
SW/Provider Contacts
SW/Provider Contacts SW/Provider Contacts Therapeutic Foster Care Translation Services

DCF failed to properly assess child/family member related to this need during the PUR
Delays in Visitation by Worker

7

6

13

5

6

11

Client Refused Service

2

3

5

Lack of Communication between DCF and Provider

9

5

14

Delays in Contacts by Worker

6

4

10

DCF failed to properly assess child/family member related to this need during the PUR

1

1

2

UTD from Case Plan or Narrative

0

2

2

Client refused ROI

0

1

1

Service Not Available for Age Group

0

1

1

No Service Identified to Meet this Need

1

0

1

183

190

373

During the Second Quarter 2018, 54.7% of the cases included very good or optimal engagement of families in the case planning process. This included documented discussions with the family and social worker during the period under review and/or attendance at the ACR. This percentage was slightly improved at 55.6% of families engaged adequately during the Third Quarter 2018.

Stakeholders’ involvement varied. As shown in the table below there is still room for improvement in the level of engagement in case planning, particularly engagement inclusive of the ACR (note: percentages are based on the number of applicable case participants/stakeholders, not the number of cases reviewed)

Stakeholder/Participant
Child Older than 12 Years of Age Mother Father Foster Parent Active Providers Attorney/GAL Attorney for Parent(s)

ACR Attendance (Includes Teleconference)
20.0% 46.7% 19.5% 53.2% 22.7% 31.5% 37.2%

Documented Engagement in Narratives
97.1% 81.3% 52.9% 95.8% 75.7% 49.4% 53.7%

37

Juan F. v. MalloCy EaxsitePla2n :S8ta9tu-scRvep-o0rt0859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 38 of 53
February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________ 73.6% of the Second Quarter cases documented a discussion of some or all of the needs that were identified as unmet in the prior six month planning cycle and incorporate them going forward in the planning process. Reviewers identified four (4) cases where the planning process did not address any of the needs that were unmet from the last planning cycle. In six (6) cases the reviewers indicated that all needs identified from the prior case plan or during the PUR were reviewed at the Administrative Case Review (ACR) and were fully achieved or no longer needed and therefore no longer needed to be planned for. In four (4) cases, the plan reviewed was the initial case plan and no comparison of needs could be made.

During the Third Quarter 2018, 77.8% of the cases documented a discussion of some or all of the needs that were identified as unmet in the six month planning cycle. Reviewers identified one (1) case where the planning process did not address any of the needs that were unmet from the last planning cycle. In four (4) cases the reviewers indicated that all needs identified from the prior case plan or during the PUR were reviewed at the Administrative Case Review (ACR) and were fully achieved or no longer needed and therefore no longer needed to be planned for. In seven (7) cases, the plan reviewed was the initial case plan and no comparison of needs could be made.

Were all needs and services unmet during the prior six months discussed at the ACR and, as appropriate incorporated as action steps on the current case plan?

Needs Unmet Incorporated into Current Case Plan
Yes - All Yes - Partially No - None N/A - There are no Unmet Needs N/A - This is the Initial Case Plan Total

Frequency 2nd Quarter 2018
19 20 4 6 4 53

Frequency 3rd Quarter 2018
20 22 1 4 7 54

Semi-Annual Frequency
39 41 5 10 11 107

Our review also looked at the recurrence of unmet needs across planning cycles. In the Second Quarter 2018, a need was identified in 17 of 35 cases in which Structured Decision Making (SDM) was conducted that was identical to that which was identified on the prior case plan assessment. This would indicate a rate of 48.6% of the cases having at least one unmet priority need for greater than six months, or spanning two planning cycles for the 53 cases sampled. This occurred at a rate of 40.6% in the 32 applicable cases within the Third Quarter 2018.

Reviewers continue to see issues noted in the record, or identified at the ACR that fail to get included with identified services to address the priority needs in the plans going forward. Reviewers noted 28 cases within the Second Quarter 2018 (52.8%), and 22 cases within the Third Quarter 2018 (40.7%) that had documented issues or assessed objectives with known barriers; but which subsequently did not get incorporate into the plan document. There were several unapproved case plans which contributed to scores as well.

38

Juan F. v. MalloCy EaxsitePla2n :S8ta9tu-scRvep-o0rt0859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 39 of 53
February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________ A table of 113 such needs as identified by the reviewers follows. It is notable that this is a decline in the number of needs not incorporated from the prior status report which totaled 197:
Unmet Needs Not Incorporated Into the Upcoming Six Month Case Plan

Frequency 2nd Quarter 2018 Frequency 3rd Quarter 2018 Semi Annual
Total

Unmet Need

Barrier Identified

Adoption Recruitment Adoption Supports (PPSP)
ARG Consultation
ARG Consultation Behavior Management Dental or Orthodontic Service Dental Screening or Evaluation Dental Screening or Evaluation Developmental Screening or Evaluation Domestic Violence Services for Perpetrator Domestic Violence Services for Victim Domestic Violence Services for Victim
Educational Screening or Evaluation
Educational Screening or Evaluation Family Reunification Services Health/Medical Screening or Evaluation
Housing Assistance: Section 8
Housing Assistance: Section 8 IEP Programming Individual Counseling - Child Individual Counseling – Child
Individual Counseling - Parent
Individual Counseling - Parent Individual Counseling - Parent
In-Home Parent Education and Support
In-Home Parent Education and Support

No Service Identified to Meet this Need No Service Identified to Meet this Need DCF Failed to Properly Assess the Child/Family related to this need during the PUR No Service Identified to Meet this Need No Approved Case Plan No Service Identified to Meet this Need No Approved Case Plan No Service Identified to Meet this Need No Service Identified to Meet this Need
No Service Identified to Meet this Need
No Approved Case Plan No Service Identified to Meet this Need DCF Failed to Assess Child/Family member related to this need during the PUR No Service Identified to Meet this Need No Service Identified to Meet this Need No Service Identified to Meet this Need DCF Failed to Assess Child/Family member related to this need during the PUR No Service Identified to Meet this Need No Service Identified to Meet this Need Delay in Referral by Worker No Approved Case Plan DCF Failed to Properly Assess Child/Family related to this need during the PUR Insurance Issues No Service Identified to Meet this Need DCF Failed to Properly Assess Child/Family related to this need during the PUR No Approved Case Plan

2

0

2

2

3

5

0

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

2

1

3

1

0

1

5

0

5

1

0

1

0

2

2

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

3

1

4

1

4

5

1

0

1

0

2

2

3

0

3

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

2

0

2

2

0

2

2

0

2

39

Juan F. v. MalloCy EaxsitePla2n :S8ta9tu-scRvep-o0rt0859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 40 of 53
February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________

Frequency 2nd Quarter 2018 Frequency 3rd Quarter 2018 Semi Annual
Total

Unmet Need

Barrier Identified

In-Home Treatment

UTD from Case Plan or Narratives

In-Home Treatment

No Service Identified to Meet this Need

Job Coaching/Placement

DCF Failed to Assess Child/Family member related to this need during the PUR

Life Skills Training

No Service Identified to Meet this Need

Maintaining Family Ties

No Service Identified to Meet this Need

Medical Intervention (Other): Surgery, tubes and adenoid removal

No Service Identified to Meet this Need

Medical Intervention (Other): Vision Care

Other: No Service Identified to Meet this Need and no Objective identified on Case Plan

Medical Intervention (Other): Medical Alert System

Delay in Referral by Worker

Medication Management (Child’s)

No Service Identified to Meet this Need

Mental Health Screening or Evaluation – Child

No Service Identified to Meet this Need

Mental Health Screening or Evaluation – Parent

No Service Identified to Meet this Need

Mental Health Screening or Evaluation – Parent

No Approved Case Plan

Mentoring

No Service Identified to Meet this Need

Other OOH Service Need: Concurrent Legal Work

No Service Identified to Meet this Need

Other OOH Service Need: CST

No Service Identified to Meet this Need

Other State Agency (DDS, DMHAS, MSS)

No Approved Case Plan

Parenting Classes

No Approved Case Plan

Parenting Classes

No Service Identified to Meet this Need

Positive Youth Development Program No Service Identified to Meet this Need

Preparation for Adult Living Services No Service Identified to Meet this Need

Psychiatric Evaluation – Parent

No Service Identified to Meet this Need

Psychological or Psychosocial Evaluation – Parent

No Service Identified to Meet this Need

Sexual Abuse Therapy – Victim

No Service Identified to Meet this Need

Social Recreational Programming

No Service Identified to Meet this Need

Social Recreational Programming

No Approved Case Plan

Substance Abuse Treatment – Detoxification

No Service Identified to Meet this Need

1

0

1

1

2

3

1

0

1

1

2

3

0

1

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

2

0

2

2

0

2

1

2

3

1

0

1

3

0

3

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

2

0

2

0

1

1

1

0

1

40

Juan F. v. MalloCy EaxsitePla2n :S8ta9tu-scRvep-o0rt0859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 41 of 53
February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________

Frequency 2nd Quarter 2018 Frequency 3rd Quarter 2018 Semi Annual
Total

Unmet Need

Barrier Identified

Substance Abuse Treatment: Drug/Alcohol Testing - Parent
Substance Abuse Treatment: Inpatient Parent
Substance Abuse Treatment: Inpatient Parent
Substance Abuse Treatment: Outpatient - Parent
Substance Abuse Treatment: Outpatient - Parent
Substance Abuse Treatment: Outpatient - Parent
Substance Abuse Treatment: Screening/Evaluation – Child
Substance Abuse Treatment: Screening/Evaluation - Parent
Substance Abuse Treatment: Supportive Housing for Recovering Families

No Service Identified to Meet this Need No Service Identified to Meet this Need No Approved Case Plan No Service Identified to Meet this Need No referral Made by DCF for PUR No Approved Case Plan No Service Identified to Meet this Need No Service Identified to Meet this Need No Service Identified to Meet this Need

1

0

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

0

2

2

2

3

5

2

0

2

SW Case Management/Support/Advocacy: Case Plan

Case Plan lacked clear action steps to achieve timely permanency

0

1

1

SW/Child Visitation

DCF Failed to meet standards or properly

assess child/family member related to visitation needs during the PUR (Was not incorporated

0

1

1

into ongoing plan.)

SW/Parent Visitation

No Service Identified to Meet this Need

1

1

2

SW/Parent Visitation

DCF Failed to meet standards or properly

assess child/family member related to visitation needs during the PUR (Was not incorporated

0

2

2

into ongoing plan.)

SW/Parent Visitation

Client Refused Service

0

1

1

SW/Provider Contacts

Provider Issues – Staffing, lack of follow through, etc.

0

1

1

SW/Provider Contacts

Delays in Referral

0

1

1

Translation Services

No Service Identified to Meet this Need

1

0

1

68

45

113

41

Juan F. v. MalloCy EaxsitePla2n :S8ta9tu-scRvep-o0rt0859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 42 of 53
February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________ JUAN F. ACTION PLAN MONITORING REPORT
November 2018
This report includes data relevant to the permanency and placement issues and action steps embodied within the Action Plan. Data provided comes from the monthly point-in-time information from LINK and the Chapin Hall database.
A. PERMANENCY ISSUES
Progress Towards Permanency:
The following table developed using the Chapin Hall database provides a longitudinal view of permanency for annual admission cohorts from 2004 through 2018.

Figure 1: Children Exiting With Permanency, Exiting Without Permanency, Unknown Exits and Remaining In Care (Entry Cohorts)

Total Entries
In 1 yr In 2 yrs In 3 yrs In 4 yrs To Date
In 1 yr In 2 yrs In 3 yrs In 4 yrs To Date

Period of Entry to Care 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

3090 3407 2853 2829 2627 2693 2298 1859 2005 1929 1990 2261 2084 1776

1128 36.5%
1739 56.3%
2011 65.1%
2156 69.8%
2256 73.0%

1262 37.0%
1972 57.9%
2324 68.2%
2499 73.3%
2620 76.9%

1095 38.4%
1675 58.7%
1974 69.2%
2090 73.3%
2171 76.1%

289 9.4%
371 12.0%
431 13.9%
461 14.9%
585 18.9%

259 7.6%
345 10.1%
401 11.8%
449 13.2%
551 16.2%

263 9.2%
318 11.1%
354 12.4%
392 13.7%
465 16.3%

1098 38.8%
1676 59.2%
1943 68.7%
2033 71.9%
2121 75.0%
250 8.8%
320 11.3%
363 12.8%
394 13.9%
474 16.8%

1092 41.6%
1581 60.2%
1791 68.2%
1894 72.1%
1950 74.2%

Permanent Exits

1025

707

560

38.1% 30.8% 30.1%

1378 1052

857

51.2% 45.8% 46.1%

1676 1245 1035

62.2% 54.2% 55.7%

1780 1357 1120

66.1% 59.1% 60.2%

1844 1435 1151

68.5% 62.4% 61.9%

Non-Permanent Exits

208

196

138

95

7.9% 7.3% 6.0% 5.1%

267

243

188

146

10.2% 9.0% 8.2% 7.9%

300

275

220

190

11.4% 10.2% 9.6% 10.2%

328

309

257

218

12.5% 11.5% 11.2% 11.7%

405

380

297

250

15.4% 14.1% 12.9% 13.4%

535 26.7%
841 41.9%
1072 53.5%
1159 57.8%
1194 59.6%
125 6.2%
182 9.1%
218 10.9%
236 11.8%
264 13.2%

499 25.9%
789 40.9%
998 51.7%
1118 58.0%
111 5.8%
140 7.3%
157 8.1%
183 9.5%

427 21.5%
754 37.9%
989 49.7%
95 4.8%
124 6.2%
164 8.2%

565 25.0%
972 43.0%
68 3.0%
98 4.3%

584 28.0%
69 3.3%

205 11.5%
40 2.3%

42

Juan F. v. MalloCy EaxsitePla2n :S8ta9tu-scRvep-o0rt0859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 43 of 53
February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________
Period of Entry to Care
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Unknown Exits

In 1 yr

83 2.7%

76 2.2%

61 2.1%

60 2.1%

75 2.9%

127 4.7%

205 8.9%

133 7.2%

102 5.1%

113

200

270

5.9% 10.1% 11.9%

In 2 yrs

124 4.0%

117 3.4%

97 3.4%

91 3.2%

139 5.3%

303

399

254

311

346

438

11.3% 17.4% 13.7% 15.5% 17.9% 22.0%

In 3 yrs

164 5.3%

140 4.1%

123 4.3%

125 4.4%

192 7.3%

381

475

335

398

449

14.1% 20.7% 18.0% 19.9% 23.3%

In 4 yrs

182 5.9%

167 4.9%

155 5.4%

167 5.9%

217 8.3%

400

499

374

445

14.9% 21.7% 20.1% 22.2%

To Date

239 7.7%

225 6.6%

206 7.2%

212 7.5%

251 9.6%

434

534

406

468

487

539

537

305

16.1% 23.2% 21.8% 23.3% 25.2% 27.1% 23.8% 14.6%

Remain In Care

In 1 yr

1590 1810 1434 1421 51.5% 53.1% 50.3% 50.2%

1252 47.7%

1345 1248 1071 1243 1206 1268 1358 49.9% 54.3% 57.6% 62.0% 62.5% 63.7% 60.1%

In 2 yrs

856

973

763

742

27.7% 28.6% 26.7% 26.2%

640 24.4%

769

659

602

671

654

674

28.6% 28.7% 32.4% 33.5% 33.9% 33.9%

In 3 yrs

484

542

402

398

15.7% 15.9% 14.1% 14.1%

344 13.1%

361

358

299

317

325

13.4% 15.6% 16.1% 15.8% 16.8%

In 4 yrs

291 9.4%

292 8.6%

216 7.6%

235 8.3%

188 7.2%

204 7.6%

185 8.1%

147 7.9%

165 8.2%

To Date

10 0.3%

11 0.3%

11 0.4%

22 0.8%

21 0.8%

35 1.3%

32 1.4%

52 2.8%

79 3.9%

141

298

654 1126

7.3% 15.0% 28.9% 54.0%

2018
70 3.9%
1461 82.3%

The following graphs show how the ages of children upon their entry to care, as well as at the time of exit, differ depending on the overall type of exit (permanent or non-permanent).

43

Juan F. v. MalloCy EaxsitePla2n :S8ta9tu-scRvep-o0rt0859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 44 of 53
February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________
FIGURE 2: CHARACTERISTICS OF CHILDREN EXITING WITH AND WITHOUT PERMANENCY (2017 EXIT COHORT)

Exited with Permanent Family

Age at Entry

Exited without Permanent Family

Age at Exit

Exited with Permanent Family

Exited without Permanent Family

Permanency Goals:
The following chart illustrates and summarizes the number of children (which excludes youth ages 18 and older) at various stages of placement episodes, and provides the distribution of Permanency Goals selected for them.

44

Juan F. v. MalloCy EaxsitePla2n :S8ta9tu-scRvep-o0rt0859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 45 of 53
February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________
FIGURE 3: DISTRIBUTION OF PERMANENCY GOALS ON THE PATH TO PERMANENCY (CHILDREN IN CARE ON NOVEMBER 1, 20184)

Is the child legally free (his or her parents’ rights have been terminated)?

Yes 614 Goals of:
574 (93%) Adoption 27 (4%) APPLA 10 (2%) Transfer of Guardianship 2 (<1%)
Blank 1 (<1%) Reunification

No

↓ 3115

Has the child been in care more than 15 months?

No

Yes

2002

↓1113

Has a TPR proceeding been filed?

Yes

No

259 Goals of:

↓ 854

218 (84%)

Is a reason documented not to file TPR?

Adoption

Yes

No

18 (7%)

187

667

Reunify

Goals of:

Documented Reasons: Goals of:

12 (5%)

95 (51%)

56%

247 (37%)

Trans. of Guardian: Trans. of Guardian: Compelling Reason Trans. of Guardian:

Sub/Unsub

Sub/Unsub

19%

Sub/Unsub

9 (3%) APPLA

45 (24%) Adoption

Child is with relative 18%

206 (31%) Reunify

2 (1%)

32 (17%)

Petition in process

162 (24%)

Blank

Reunify

7%

Adoption

15 (8%) APPLA

Services not provided

50 (7%) APPLA

2 (<1%)

Blank

4 Children over age 18 are not included in these figures.
45

Juan F. v. MalloCy EaxsitePla2n :S8ta9tu-scRvep-o0rt0859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 46 of 53
February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________ Preferred Permanency Goals:

Reunification Total number of children with Reunification goal, preTPR and post-TPR Number of children with Reunification goal pre-TPR
• Number of children with Reunification goal, pre-TPR, >= 15 months in care
• Number of children with Reunification goal, pre-TPR, >= 36 months in care
Number of children with Reunification goal, postTPR

Aug 2017 1602
1601 325
44
1

Nov 2017 1556
1556 307
41
0

Feb 2018 1531
1531 296
38
0

May 2018 1555
1555 308
33
0

Aug 2018 1615
1614 283
29
1

Nov 2018 1587
1586 256
30
1

Transfer of Guardianship (Subsidized and NonSubsidized) Total number of children with Transfer of Guardianship goal (subsidized and non-subsidized), pre-TPR and post TPR Number of children with Transfer of Guardianship goal (subsidized and non-subsidized), pre-TPR
• Number of children with Transfer of Guardianship goal (subsidized and nonsubsidized , pre-TPR, >= 22 months)
• Number of children with Transfer of Guardianship goal (subsidized and nonsubsidized), pre-TPR , >= 36 months)
Number of children with Transfer of Guardianship goal (subsidized and non-subsidized), post-TPR

Aug 2017 519
503 186
63
16

Nov 2017 498
484 157
62
14

Feb 2018 522
512 186
61
10

May 2018 538
530 202
59
8

Aug 2018 558
548 223
63
10

Nov 2018 558
548 230
64
10

Adoption
Total number of children with Adoption goal, preTPR and post-TPR Number of children with Adoption goal, pre-TPR Number of children with Adoption goal, TPR not filed, >= 15 months in care
• Reason TPR not filed, Compelling Reason • Reason TPR not filed, petitions in progress • Reason TPR not filed , child is in placement
with relative • Reason TPR not filed, services needed not
provided • Reason TPR not filed, blank Number of cases with Adoption goal post-TPR • Number of children with Adoption goal,
post-TPR, in care >= 15 months • Number of children with Adoption goal,
post-TPR, in care >= 22 months Number of children with Adoption goal, post-TPR, no barrier, > 3 months since TPR Number of children with Adoption goal, post-TPR, with barrier, > 3 months since TPR

Aug 2017 1167
589 202
6 21 4
5
166 578 544
471
12
55

Nov 2017 1181
633 219
9 26 11
3
170 548 521
444
19
46

Feb 2018 1153
620 213
7 23 8
0
175 533 509
429
10
40

May 2018 1188
618 195
6 26 5
0
158 570 551
465
10
49

Aug 2018 1198
626 194
9 31 8
3
143 572 552
473
14
42

Nov 2018 1249
675 207
10 29 5
1
162 574 541
483
14
39

46

Juan F. v. MalloCy EaxsitePla2n :S8ta9tu-scRvep-o0rt0859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 47 of 53
February 2019

______________________________________________________________________________

Adoption

Aug

Nov

Feb

May

Aug

Nov

2017

2017

2018

2018

2018

2018

Number of children with Adoption goal, post-TPR,

265

284

267

308

361

317

with blank barrier, > 3 months since TPR

Progress Towards Permanency:
Total number of children, pre-TPR, TPR not filed, >=15 months in care, no compelling reason
Non-Preferred Permanency Goals:
Long Term Foster Care Relative: Total number of children with Long Term Foster Care Relative goal Number of children with Long Term Foster Care Relative goal, pre-TPR
• Number of children with Long Term Foster Care Relative goal, 12 years old and under, pre-TPR
Long Term Foster Care Rel. goal, post-TPR • Number of children with Long Term Foster Care Relative goal, 12 years old and under, post-TPR

Aug 2017 687
Aug 2017
4 2 0
0 0

Nov 2017 628
Nov 2017
2 2 0
0 0

Feb 2018 678
Feb 2018
1 1 0
0 0

May 2018 674
May 2018
0 0 0
0 0

Aug 2018 686
Aug 2018
0 0 0
0 0

Nov 2018 667
Nov 2018
0 0 0
0 0

Aug

Nov

Feb

May

Aug

Nov

APPLA*

2017

2017

2018

2018 2018 2018

Total number of children with APPLA goal

110

104

109

106

129

113

Number of children with APPLA goal, pre-TPR

87

83

85

78

97

86

• Number of children with APPLA goal, 12 years

0

0

0

0

0

0

old and under, pre-TPR

Number of children with APPLA goal, post-TPR

23

21

24

28

32

27

• Number of children with APPLA goal, 12 years

0

0

0

0

0

0

old and under, post-TPR

* Columns prior to Aug 07 had previously been reported separately as APPLA: Foster Care Non-Relative and APPLA: Other.

The values from each separate table were added to provide these figures. Currently there is only one APPLA goal.

Missing Permanency Goals:

Aug 2017

Number of children, with no Permanency goal,

28

pre-TPR, >= 2 months in care

Number of children, with no Permanency goal,

12

pre-TPR, >= 6 months in care

Number of children, with no Permanency goal,

7

pre-TPR, >= 15 months in care

Number of children, with no Permanency goal,

4

pre-TPR, TPR not filed, >= 15 months in care, no

compelling reason

Nov 2017
29
15
9
6

Feb 2018
14
7
2
1

May 2018
12
9
7
5

Aug 2018
15
8
6
3

Nov 2018
17
6
4
2

47

Juan F. v. MalloCy EaxsitePla2n :S8ta9tu-scRvep-o0rt0859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 48 of 53
February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________ B. PLACEMENT ISSUES Placement Experiences of Children The following chart shows the change in use of family and congregate care for admission cohorts between 2005 and 2018.
The next table shows specific care types used month-by-month for entries between October 2017 and September 2018.
48

Juan F. v. MalloCy EaxsitePla2n :S8ta9tu-scRvep-o0rt0859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 49 of 53
February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________

First placement type

Case Summaries

Residential DCF Facilities Foster Care Group Home Relative Care Medical Safe Home Shelter Special Study Total

enterOct17

enterNov17 enterDec17 enterJan18

enterFeb18 enterMar18 enterApr18

enterMay18 enterJun18

enterJul18

enterAug18

N

2

3

1

1

4

2

2

5

3

5

3

%

1.0%

2.2%

0.7%

0.6%

2.0%

1.1%

1.0%

2.4%

1.4%

2.5%

1.4%

N

2

1

1

3

1

3

3

1

1

3

%

1.0%

0.7%

0.7%

1.7%

0.5%

1.7%

1.5%

0.5%

0.5%

1.5%

N

78

62

62

93

108

104

83

105

101

92

108

%

40.2%

44.9%

45.9%

53.4%

54.3%

57.5%

40.9%

51.0%

48.8%

46.7%

48.9%

N

1

1

1

1

3

1

2

1

2

%

0.7%

0.6%

0.5%

0.6%

1.5%

0.5%

1.0%

0.5%

0.9%

N

70

51

46

50

55

44

88

69

77

70

81

%

36.1%

37.0%

34.1%

28.7%

27.6%

24.3%

43.3%

33.5%

37.2%

35.5%

36.7%

N

10

7

5

8

7

9

8

3

9

9

7

%

5.2%

5.1%

3.7%

4.6%

3.5%

5.0%

3.9%

1.5%

4.3%

4.6%

3.2%

N

5

3

5

6

7

7

4

7

4

4

%

2.6%

2.2%

3.7%

3.4%

3.5%

3.9%

2.0%

3.4%

1.9%

2.0%

N

4

3

5

4

2

2

5

5

3

2

%

2.1%

2.2%

2.9%

2.0%

1.1%

1.0%

2.4%

2.4%

1.5%

0.9%

N

23

11

11

7

12

9

10

10

5

10

18

%

11.9%

8.0%

8.1%

4.0%

6.0%

5.0%

4.9%

4.9%

2.4%

5.1%

8.1%

N

194

138

135

174

199

181

203

206

207

197

221

%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

enterSep18
5 2.7%
1 0.5%
77 41.0%
1 0.5%
78 41.5%
3 1.6%
3 1.6%
7 3.7%
13 6.9%
188 100.0%

The chart below shows the change in level of care usage over time for different age groups.

It is also useful to look at where children spend most of their time in DCF care. The chart below shows this for admission the 2005 through 2018 admission cohorts.
49

Juan F. v. MalloCy EaxsitePla2n :S8ta9tu-scRvep-o0rt0859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 50 of 53
February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________

The following chart shows monthly statistics of children who exited from DCF placements between October 2017 and September 2018, and the portion of those exits within each placement type from which they exited.

Last placement type in spell (as of censor date)

Residential

N

%

DCF Facilities

N

%

Foster Care

N

%

Group Home

N

%

Independent Living

N

%

Relative Care

N

%

Medical

N

%

Safe Home

N

%

Shelter

N

%

Special Study

N

%

Uknown

N

%

Total

N

%

Case Summaries

exitOct17 3
1.9% 3
1.9% 56
34.8% 3
1.9% 2
1.2% 75
46.6% 2
1.2%
2 1.2%
14 8.7%
1 0.6%
161 100.0%

exitNov17 5
2.3% 3
1.4% 90
41.9% 3
1.4% 2
0.9% 88
40.9% 6
2.8% 1
0.5% 3
1.4% 12
5.6% 2
0.9% 215
100.0%

exitDec17 4
2.5% 2
1.2% 71
43.8% 7
4.3% 5
3.1% 53
32.7% 3
1.9% 1
0.6%
15 9.3%
1 0.6%
162 100.0%

exitJan18 5
3.4%
64 43.2%
7 4.7%
1 0.7%
51 34.5%
4 2.7%
3 2.0%
4 2.7%
7 4.7%
2 1.4%
148 100.0%

exitFeb18 exitMar18 exitApr18 exitMay18 exitJun18 exitJul18 exitAug18 exitSep18

2

4

4

1

4

7

4

1.6%

2.1%

2.4%

0.6%

2.2%

4.9%

1.8%

1

4

2

4

3

4

1

0.8%

2.1%

1.2%

2.2%

2.1%

1.8%

0.8%

48

83

74

78

81

67

85

51

37.8%

43.2%

43.5%

47.0%

45.3%

46.9%

38.5%

38.9%

5

9

4

2

6

5

4

7

3.9%

4.7%

2.4%

1.2%

3.4%

3.5%

1.8%

5.3%

6

5

4

1

5

2

1

2

4.7%

2.6%

2.4%

0.6%

2.8%

1.4%

0.5%

1.5%

47

71

60

60

56

46

89

53

37.0%

37.0%

35.3%

36.1%

31.3%

32.2%

40.3%

40.5%

2 1.6%

5 2.6%

1 0.6%

2 1.1%

1 0.7%

4 1.8%

2

2

2

1

2

3

1

1.0%

1.2%

1.2%

0.6%

1.4%

1.4%

0.8%

2

2

4

5

3

1

3

1.6%

1.2%

2.4%

2.8%

2.1%

0.5%

2.3%

13

8

15

16

14

7

22

11

10.2%

4.2%

8.8%

9.6%

7.8%

4.9% 10.0%

8.4%

1

1

2

2

1

4

2

0.8%

0.5%

1.2%

1.2%

0.6%

1.8%

1.5%

127

192

170

166

179

143

221

131

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

50

Juan F. v. MalloCy EaxsitePla2n :S8ta9tu-scRvep-o0rt0859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 51 of 53
February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________

The next chart shows the primary placement type for children who were in care on October 1, 2018 organized by length of time in care.

Primary type of spell (>50%) * Duration Category Crosstabulation

Primary type of Residential Count

Duration Category < 30 durat < 90 durat < 180 durat < 365 durat < 545

5

7

9

15

8

durat < 20

spell (>50%) Total

% Row

% Col

DCF

Count

% Row

% Col

Foster Care Count

% Row

% Col

Group

Count

% Row

% Col

Independent Count

% Row

% Col

Relative Count

% Row

% Col

Medical Count

% Row

% Col

Mixed (none Count

% Row

% Col

Safe Home Count

% Row

% Col

Shelter

Count

% Row

% Col

Special Count

% Row

% Col

Unknown Count

% Row

% Col

Count

% Row

% Col

6.0% 2.8%
1 5.9% 0.6%
68 3.6% 37.6%
1 1.1% 0.6%
0 0.0% 0.0%
79 5.8% 43.6%
0 0.0% 0.0%
1 0.8% 0.6%
3 18.8%
1.7% 7
23.3% 3.9% 14 4.8% 7.7% 2 3.1% 1.1% 172 4.5%
100.0%

8.3% 1.8%
0 0.0% 0.0%
146 7.8% 38.4%
3 3.4% 0.8%
0 0.0% 0.0%
172 12.6% 45.3%
3 23.1%
0.8% 1
0.8% 0.3%
0 0.0% 0.0%
5 16.7%
1.3% 30
10.3% 7.9% 13
20.3% 3.4% 314 8.2%
100.0%

10.7% 1.8% 1 5.9% 0.2% 178 9.5%
36.3% 9
10.1% 1.8% 0 0.0% 0.0% 219
16.1% 44.7%
1 7.7% 0.2%
6 4.7% 1.2%
5 31.3%
1.0% 6
20.0% 1.2% 37
12.7% 7.6% 19
29.7% 3.9% 443
11.6% 100.0%

17.9% 2.1% 3
17.6% 0.4% 313
16.7% 43.4%
9 10.1%
1.2% 0
0.0% 0.0%
283 20.8% 39.3%
0 0.0% 0.0%
9 7.0% 1.2%
4 25.0%
0.6% 9
30.0% 1.2% 62
21.2% 8.6% 14
21.9% 1.9% 791
20.7% 100.0%

9.5% 1.4%
5 29.4%
0.9% 263
14.1% 45.4%
4 4.5% 0.7%
0 0.0% 0.0%
239 17.6% 41.3%
2 15.4%
0.3% 12
9.3% 2.1%
1 6.3% 0.2%
3 10.0%
0.5% 41
14.0% 7.1% 1 1.6% 0.2% 612
16.0% 100.0%

23.8% 2.0% 7
41.2% 0.7% 508
27.2% 51.9%
26 29.2%
2.7% 0
0.0% 0.0%
293 21.5% 29.9%
5 38.5%
0.5% 30
23.3% 3.1% 2
12.5% 0.2% 0 0.0% 0.0% 76
26.0% 7.8% 12
18.8% 1.2% 824
21.6% 100.0%

1095 20
23.8% 3.1% 0 0.0% 0.0% 395
21.1% 62.0%
37 41.6%
5.8% 1
100.0% 0.2% 76 5.6%
11.9% 2
15.4% 0.3% 70
54.3% 11.0%
1 6.3% 0.2%
0 0.0% 0.0%
32 11.0%
5.0% 3
4.7% 0.5%
660 17.3% 100.0%

Total 84
100.0% 2.1% 17
100.0% 0.4% 1871
100.0% 47.2% 89
100.0% 2.2% 1
100.0% 0.0% 1361
100.0% 34.3% 13
100.0% 0.3% 129
100.0% 3.3% 16
100.0% 0.4% 30
100.0% 0.8% 292
100.0% 7.4% 64
100.0% 1.6% 3816
100.0% 100.0%

51

Juan F. v. MalloCy EaxsitePla2n :S8ta9tu-scRvep-o0rt0859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 52 of 53
February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________ Congregate Care Settings

Placement Issues
Total number of children 12 years old and under, in Congregate Care
• Number of children 12 years old and under, in DCF Facilities
• Number of children 12 years old and under, in Group Homes
• Number of children 12 years old and under, in Residential
• Number of children 12 years old and under, in Safe Home or SFIT
• Number of children 12 years old and under in Shelter
Total number of children ages 13-17 in Congregate Placements

Aug 2017
17
0 5 9 2 1 237

Nov 2017
20
0 6 8 3 3 243

Feb 2018
17
0 6 7 2 2 225

May 2018
17
0 5 7 4 1 228

Aug 2018
15
0 7 7 1 0 233

Nov 2018
17
1 4 8 4 0 218

Use of SAFE Homes, Shelters and PDCs
The analysis below provides longitudinal data for children (which may include youth ages 18 and older) who entered care in Safe Homes, Permanency Diagnostic Centers and Shelters.

Total Entries SAFE Homes/ SFIT Shelter Total

2005 3090
394 13% 178
6% 572
19%

2006 3407
395 12% 114
3% 509
15%

2007 2853
382 13% 136
5% 518
18%

2008 2829
335 12% 144
5% 479
17%

2009 2627
471 18% 186
7% 657
25%

Period of Entry to Care 2010 2011 2012 2013 2693 2298 1859 2005
331 145 68 56 12% 6% 4% 3% 175 194 169 175
6% 8% 9% 9% 506 339 237 231
19% 15% 13% 12%

2014 1929
30 2% 91
5% 121
6%

2015 1990
9 0% 58
3% 67
3%

2016 2261
23 1% 53
2% 76
3%

2017 2084
54 3% 35
2% 89
4%

2018 1776
42 2% 35
2% 77
4%

2005 Total Initial Plcmnts 572

<= 30 days

241

42%

31 - 60

114

20%

61 - 91

76

13%

92 - 183

100

17%

41 184+
7%

2006 509 186 37% 73 14% 87 17% 118 23% 45 9%

2007 518 162 31% 73 14% 79 15% 131 25% 73 14%

2008 479 150 31% 102 21% 85 18% 110 23% 32 7%

2009 657 229 35% 110 17% 157 24% 124 19% 37 6%

Period of Entry to Care 2010 2011 2012 2013 506 339 237 231 135 103 60 63 27% 30% 25% 27% 106 56 44 41 21% 17% 19% 18% 91 54 39 38 18% 16% 16% 16% 136 84 56 57 27% 25% 24% 25% 38 42 38 32 8% 12% 16% 14%

2014 121 37 31% 27 22% 18 15% 24 20% 15 12%

2015 67 28 42% 9 13% 8 12% 15 22% 7 10%

2016 76 28 37% 13 17% 8 11% 17 22% 10 13%

2017 89 36 40% 25 28% 12 13% 10 11% 6 7%

2018 77 52 68% 8 10% 6 8% 10 13% 1 1%

52

Juan F. v. MalloCy EaxsitePla2n :S8ta9tu-scRvep-o0rt0859-SRU Document 792-2 Filed 02/26/19 Page 53 of 53
February 2019
______________________________________________________________________________ The following is the point-in-time data taken from the monthly LINK data, and may include those youth ages 18 and older.

Placement Issues
Total number of children in SAFE Home/SFIT • Number of children in SAFE Home/SFIT, > 60 days • Number of children in SAFE Home/SFIT, >= 6 months
Total number of children in STAR/Shelter Placement
• Number of children in STAR/Shelter Placement, > 60 days
• Number of children in STAR/Shelter Placement, >= 6 months
Total number of children in MH Shelter • Total number of children in MH Shelter, > 60 days • Total number of children in MH Shelter, >= 6 months

May 2017
8 3
0
29
12
2
0 0
0

Aug 2017
8 3
0
25
16
4
0 0
0

Nov 2017
11 4
1
26
16
1
0 0
0

Feb 2018
10 5
1
24
12
3
0 0
0

May 2018
17 14
1
26
14
3
0 0
0

Aug 2018
13 5
1
25
13
3
0 0
0

Nov 2018
9 4
1
23
12
4
0 0
0

Time in Residential Care
Placement Issues
Total number of children in Residential care • Number of children in Residential care, >= 12 months in Residential placement • Number of children in Residential care, >= 60 months in Residential placement

May 2017
86 24
0

Aug 2017
86 27
0

Nov 2017
89 31
0

Feb 2018
89 28
1

May 2018
82 27
0

Aug 2018
93 29
0

Nov 2018
91 21
0

53

 </s> Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report February 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________________________
Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report April 1, 2019 - September 30, 2019 Civil Action No. 2:89 CV 859 (SRU)
Submitted by: DCF Court Monitor's Office 300 Church Street, 4th Floor
Wallingford, CT 06492 Tel: (203) 741-0458 Fax: (203) 741-0462
Email: raymond.mancuso@ct.gov 1

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report February 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________________________
Table of Contents Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report
April 1, 2019 - September 30, 2019

Section

Highlights

3

Juan F. Exit Plan Outcome Measure Overview Chart

13

(April 1, 2019 - September 30, 2019)

Juan F. Pre-Certification Review-Status Update

14

(April 1, 2019 - September 30, 2019)

Juan F. Pre-Certification of Outcome Measure 6 (Caseload

20

Standards)

DCF Court Monitor's Office Case Review for Outcome Measure 3

22

and Outcome Measure 4

Juan F. Action Plan Monitoring Report

40

Appendix A - Commissioner's Highlights from: The Department of

52

Children and Families Exit Plan Outcome Measures-Status Report

(April 1, 2019 - September 30, 2019)

2

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report February 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________________________
Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report April 1, 2019 - September 30, 2019
Highlights
This Status Report covers the Second Quarter of 2019 (April-June 2019) and the Third Quarter of 2019 (July-September 2019). Significant progress has been made with respect to the remaining 2017 Revised Exit Plan measures that have not been pre-certified. The Court Monitor has determined that the Outcome Measure 6 (Caseload Standards/Staffing) is pre-certified. The findings were recently shared with Judge Stefan R. Underhill and the Juan F. parties. Whereas, previous status reports detailed well over 100 Social Workers over the maximum caseload standard the Department's efforts have resulted in there currently being only a very small number of workers in this situation. In addition, a pre-certification review of Outcome Measure 2 (Investigation) is in progress. Preliminary findings of the first 70 cases are encouraging and the decision was made with the Juan F. parties to continue the Court Monitor's full review of a sample of approximately 375 cases. Finally, the Department has shown progress over the last two quarters with specific domains of Outcome Measure 4 (Children's Needs Met) and it appears that the enhancement of services with documented waitlists that was part of the current budget, along with continued improvements with assessment and care coordination are having a positive impact. The number of incidents of unmet needs identified within sampled cases was considerably reduced from previous quarters. Each of these measures are highlighted below and discussed are in further detail within the report.
• The Court Monitor's findings regarding the 2017 Revised Exit Plan Outcome Measures indicate the Department has now met and sustained compliance with six of the 10 measures during both the Second Quarter 2019 and the Third Quarter 2019. As described above, Outcome Measure 6 (Caseload Standards) was met and maintained resulting in precertification during this period. The summary chart on page 13 provides the automated outcome measure performance/percentages. Additional analysis and review of specific cases inform the final decisions of the Court Monitor with respect to compliance. Of the measures that did not meet the established standards in these two quarters, the most significant issues continue to be the Department's investigation practice, case planning process, meeting children and families service needs, and appropriate visitation with children and required adult family members of the agency's in-home cases.
• Paragraph 4 of the 2017 Revised Exit Plan mandates that a strategic plan be developed by the DCF Commissioner in consultation with the Court Monitor, to address compliance with the 2017 Revised Exit Plan Outcome Measures. The plan was drafted and filed with the Court on April 26, 2018. The plan outlined specific implementation steps and strategies for each of the four (4) measures that had not been pre-certified at that point. The plan is meant to be dynamic and it is systemically reviewed by the Department and the Court Monitor's Office to identify progress, areas of concern and revisions that are necessary. Updated versions of the Strategic Plan have been routinely shared and discussed with the parties.
3

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report February 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________________________
• Outcome Measure 6 (Caseload Standards) is now pre-certified and this is a notable achievement for the state and DCF. It has been made possible because of the support from Governor Lamont, OPM Secretary Melissa McCaw, and the state legislature. The Department has worked diligently to achieve this goal and it is clear that the efforts of the DCF Human Resource Division, the DCF Academy for Workforce Development, and members of the Central Office and Regional operations have worked in a very coordinated manner to make this happen. It already appears from recent monitoring activity that meeting this benchmark is now having a positive impact on the family and child related outcome measure that remain to be pre-certified. Reasonable caseload sizes and relative stability in the workforce allow the Department to better concentrate on the best practice issues so important to the outcomes for children and families.
The improvement began under the previous administration when a predictive staffing model was employed. DCF continued its predictive staffing plan of hiring approximately 30 Social Workers every month from January to June 2019. During the second half of the calendar year, the Department continued to assess their staffing levels, attrition rates and caseload levels on a bi-weekly basis. The result of this multi-year effort culminated during the first year of Commissioner Dorantes administration with a seven (7) month period of compliance with the staffing and caseload levels set forth in the 2017 Revised Exit Plan.
The Staffing/Caseload summary as of November 2019 is:
o The average caseload utilization is 74.63% o The average includes 67 Social Worker Trainees with low utilization, as they are still
being trained and working their way up to full caseloads. o The Department maintained the standard despite a large rise in reports that
correspond with the start of the new school year. o Considerable caseload management activity has been noted in the Court Monitor's
review of individual cases and aggregate data. o The Department needed 1,089 Social Workers as of November report to be at 75%
utilization. There were 1,107 Social Workers carrying cases excluding the trainees mentioned above. o There were 15 vacancies waiting to be filled and 25 Social Workers that had been hired but not appearing in LINK yet. o Statewide utilization for Intake Social Workers was significantly lowered over the course of the two quarters from 75% to just over 50%. o Approximately 41% of the Ongoing Services Social Workers are over 80% of the caseload standard utilization. o The Department has 665 workers assigned to Ongoing Services. The Department would need to maintain a minimum of 636 Social Workers to achieve 75% utilization. o The Department has a typical attrition rate of 120-150 Social Workers annually. The Department will need to balance the rate of attrition, the new hires, caseload management efforts and the potential of lowered number of cases due to the implementation of the new IFCS program.
4

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report February 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________________________
The pre-certification report regarding Outcome Measure 6 (Caseload Standards/Staffing) can be found on page 20 of this report.
• Although the automated reporting has historically indicated that the Department has achieved compliance with Outcome Measure 2 (Completion of Investigation), previous sampling confirmed that issues existed regarding the quality of investigative work. The Department worked to address these issues and beginning in December 2019, the Court Monitor began a pre-certification review of recently completed FAR and CPS investigation cases. Approximately 375 cases with completed investigations or Family Assessment Response during the period of November, December, and January will be reviewed utilizing the tool developed and refined over the last year. A temporary stop was instituted after the first 70 cases were completed. After analysis of the data was performed the findings were shared with the Juan F. parties. The findings were encouraging, and the decision was made to continue with the review of the full sample. The period under review (PUR) of the review sample corresponds with the timeframe when the revised Structured Decision Making (SDM) process and the rollout of individual tablets for the front-line Social Worker staff occurred. Clearly, these efforts appear to be making a difference in the quality of the work, judging by the results thus far in this and other reviews. The findings from the precertification review of this measure will be included in the next Status Report.
• The 2017 Revised Exit Plan provides a framework that focuses on the individual domains comprising Outcome Measures 3 (Case Planning) and Outcome Measure 4 (Needs Met). The agreement allows the Department to pre-certify for compliance on an individual domain basis. By focusing on individual domains, the Department can better identify the many strengths in its practice and also work on specific strategies to address ongoing areas of concern. The Juan F. Strategic Plan identifies multiple approaches to build on existing strengths while addressing known areas needing improvement.
The 2017 Revised Exit Plan requires the Department to be compliant at 90% for two quarters for an individual domain in Outcome Measure 3 (Case Planning). It requires the Department to be compliant at 85% for 2 consecutive quarters for an individual domain for Outcome Measure 4 (Needs Met).
Based on the data from this review period of the Outcome Measure 3 (Case Planning) four case planning domains have met and sustained the required benchmark:
• Case Plan Approvals, • Accommodating Family/Child's Language Needs, • Identifying Information, and • Reason for Involvement.
The findings for Identifying Information and Reason for Involvement dropped slightly during this review period but are still considered to be pre-certified.
The Department continues to struggle with engaging children and families in case planning and assessment of the needs of children and families. This in turn impacts the domain findings on setting proper goals and action steps as well as reporting on progress in the cases
5

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report February 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________________________
reviewed. This has been reported previously. The summary charts on page 26 regarding the attendance at the Administrative Case Reviews (ACR) indicates that adolescents, fathers, Guardians ad Litem (GAL), other involved DCF staff, active providers have low attendance rates. In fact, no child in placement older than 12 in the Third Quarter sample (Six adolescent within the sample) took part in their ACR, two of the seven CIP adolescents in the Second Quarter attended the ACR.
The results from both quarters showed little if any improvement on the most critical domains of engagement, assessment, goals/objectives, progress and planning for permanence. Case Plans are critical to identifying the progress that has been made and the steps and actions required by all parties involved with families. As mentioned in each Status Report, the antiquated LINK system presents challenges in assisting staff with ticklers, updates, navigating within the plan and prefilling critical information. The Department has created additional reports to try to compensate for these shortcomings. Further discussion of Outcome Measure 3 findings is found on page 22 with a summary chart of the findings for the domains of Outcome Measure 3.
Based on the data from this review period, six of the 11 Outcome Measure 4 (Needs Met) domains maintained an 85% or higher compliance in each of the quarters.
Previously, the Department currently had met and sustained for an additional quarter the following domains:
• Risk: Child in Placement (July 2018 Status Report) • Securing the Permanent Placement (July 2018 Status Report) • DCF Case Management - Legal Action to Achieve the Permanency Goal in the Prior
Six Months (July 2018 Status Report) • DCF Case Management - Recruitment for Placement Providers to Achieve
Permanency Goal during the Prior Six Months (July 2018 Status Report) • Child's Current Placement (January 2018 Status Report) • Education (January 2018 Status Report) • Medical (January 2018 Status Report)
Some domains have fluctuated in maintenance of the required rates following initial precertification. In our last report, the Court Monitor noted that the Medical and Educational domains, specifically, dropped and remained below 85% rate of compliance and this quarter would be reviewed for consideration of removal as pre-certified. The Court Monitor now notes that this trend has reversed in the current period under review with Medical Needs met at 94.3% and 94.4% respectively and Educational Needs reported trending in the positive direction with needs met in 84.3% and 86.3% of the reviewed cases during the consecutive quarters of the period under review. Both will remain on the listing for pre-certified domains.
Joining the list of pre-certified domains for the first time is Dental Needs, which were met with findings of 86.8% and 87.0% across two quarters of the period under review. The three domains with which the Department continues to have the most difficulty are: Risk: InHome, Permanency: DCF Case Management - Contracting or Providing Services to Achieve
6

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report February 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________________________
the Permanency Goal During the Prior Six Months, and Well Being: Mental Health, Behavioral Health, and Substance Abuse Services.
As we have noted consistently in previous status reports, service needs noted via this methodology and other review activities which include discussions with staff and stakeholders indicate that services that are not readily available in all areas of the state consistently. These services often include: outpatient mental health services, in-home services, substance abuse services, domestic violence services, mentoring, supportive housing vouchers, foster and adoptive resources, and readily available placement/treatment options.
The budget that was passed last year by the legislature and signed by Governor Lamont provided additional funding for an array of some of the services that are either not available statewide or have demonstrated wait lists. It is important to note that the findings from two quarters reviewed for this status report indicate a significant drop in unmet needs from the previous findings. The previous status report indicated a total of 452 unmet needs identified and this report found 325 for the period of review. The current stable service funding level along with the continued efforts to improve care coordination are two of the likely foundations in the noted improvement in timely service provision. This review period, the top unmet needs were Individual Counseling-Parent, Visitation with Parents, DCF Contact with active providers Individual Counseling-Child, and Dental Screening/Evaluation. Client refusal remains the top noted reason for unmet need. The chart of unmet priority needs beginning on page 32 details the findings for Outcome Measure 4.
• Outcome Measure 5 (Worker/Child Visitation of In-Home cases) is not able to be tracked or analyzed accurately by the current LINK system with respect to the standard of a two visits per month with each active member of an in-home case. A previous review of this measure to ascertain compliance for pre-certification identified a number of concerns with both the quality and quantity of the visits. Until the "CT Kind" LINK replacement system is implemented there is no readily viable automated method to evaluate this measure. Individual case reviews are required. Thus, the Court Monitor conducted a statistically valid sample of in-home cases to establish a benchmark for current practice. Approximately 350 cases were reviewed to determine the Department's performance in both seeing children and families as often as prescribed in their policy and also in a quality manner. A formal report was not prepared, but the findings were shared and discussed with Juan F. parties. Improvement from the 2012 review was noted but DCF did not achieve compliance with required goals. Quality indicators included whether the Department is assessing all identified members of the family, speaking with the children alone when possible, appropriate documentation of their meetings, addressing the key elements that resulted in reports to the Department, correct utilization of SDM to determine risk levels that inform the required frequency of visitation, supervision activities and follow up to Social Work Supervisors' directives with respect to visitation etc.
The Court Monitor's Office and DCF will collaborate on ongoing reviews of this measure over the next few months to assess the Department's readiness for a formal pre-certification review to be conducted.
7

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report February 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________________________
• The Department has continued to work on implementing a new data entry system to replace the antiquated LINK system. While the LINK system continues to provide the Department with adequate reporting data, it is severely limited and outdated in meeting the Department's need for an efficient and streamlined data entry and retrieval. The Department has continued to perform a very detailed analysis of each of the primary work components. These LEAN efforts which include times studies will eventually address all elements of the Department's work as they continue to develop the new CT-Kind system. CT-Kind is expected to reduce the time spent by workers compared to LINK by up to 20%. The Department' s steady work on this effort has resulted in completion of the Careline portion of the new system and they are pivoting to other CPS areas. Work products from Information Systems and CT-Kind have also included incorporating the revised SDM tools, developing a Universal Referral Form (URF), developing the Kronos Timekeeping and Schedule, and incorporating the Case Review System (CRS).
During the period under review, the Department has provided 1,000 tablets to caseload carrying Social Work staff. DCF staff have been hampered in efficiently performing their work while out in the field and documenting in a quality manner due to the lack of mobile technology. This is being partially addressed by the release and use of the tablets. The positive impact will be fully realized once the new CT-Kind is released. Staff can now readily access their desk top system when they are away from the office. This means that they have remote access to their case files. As mentioned earlier, current review activity indicates that the tablets are already making a difference in the quality of the case record documentation.
• The Family First Prevention Services Act (FFPSA) was signed into law as part of the Bipartisan Budget Act on February 9, 2018. This act reforms the federal child welfare financing streams, Title IV-E and Title IV-B of the Social Security Act, to provide services to families who are at risk of entering the child welfare system. The bill aims to prevent children from entering foster care by allowing federal reimbursement for mental health services, substance use treatment, and in-home parenting skill training. It also seeks to improve the well-being of children already in foster care by incentivizing states to reduce placement of children in congregate care.
The Department held the kick-off event for their Family First efforts on November 18, 2019. Work groups were established for Candidacy, Programs and Service Array, Kinship and Foster Care, Fiscal and Revenue Enhancement, and Community Partnerships, and Family and Child Engagement. The timeframe shared at the kick-off indicated that the Department will be seeking approval of the plan in October 2020. There is widespread support for the philosophy of Family First and keeping children home in the least restrictive environment has been the goal for Connecticut for a number of years. Weekly meetings have been held since the kick-off. The stakeholder community has embraced the challenge and brought considerable energy to the effort this far. Connecticut's previous efforts that greatly reduced the use of congregate care and increased kinship care utilization, as well as the existing wide array of services already available, puts the Department in a good position to implement the plan.
8

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report February 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________________________
• For many years, the Department has utilized Structured Decision Making (SDM) as the formal means to assess the safety and risk of families it serves. There are several evidencebased tools required to be completed through engagement of the family at various points of the Department's intervention. The quality of the Department's assessment activities is a major part of the core of the work that is performed and is a key component in achieving the remaining Outcome Measures. There was considerable evidence from the Court Monitor's previous reviews for Outcome Measures 2 (Investigation), Outcome Measures 3 (Case Planning), Outcome Measure 4 (needs Met), and Outcome Measure 5 (In-Home Visitation) that the Department's consistency and reliability in using this tool has been an area of concern.
DCF continues to work with the Children's Research Center (CRC) and revised tools rolled out in November 2019 along with training and mentoring for staff. During the latter part of the 2019 training of the Safety and Risk Assessment with Intake Staff was accomplished. Basic SDM data, summary of the Risk Validation Study, and changes to the LINK screens were included in the full day of training. The revised Safety and Risk Assessment was released in October 2019. The most recent sampling reviews have noted that SDM use in Investigation cases is steadily improving although formal SDM assessment and use of the tools is not being performed timely or adequately nearly as often in the Ongoing Services cases. Documentation often reflects informal assessment does occur in many cases, but informal assessment is prone to being influenced by individual bias, varied application of relevant standards and is inconsistent across the 14 offices of the agency.
• The court-ordered 2017 Revised Exit Plan applies to class members who receive placement, case management, and services from any successive Connecticut state agencies that provide applicable placement, case management, and services to class members. The class includes youth who are dually committed (abuse/neglect and delinquent). Dating back to the original Consent Decree and throughout the period of the previously governing 2004 Exit Plan (and as modified) these youth have been part of monitoring and performance reviews conducted by the Court Monitor. All sampling methodologies of individual cases and system wide data runs include these youth and the Court Monitor has had full access to DCF staff and records if they are selected for review.
As outlined in the previous status reports, the legislature passed Public Act 17-02 and SB1502, transferring juvenile services from DCF to the Judicial Branch (Court Support Services Division). The effective transfer occurred in July 2018. Productive discussions were held with staff from the Judicial Branch (CSSD) and an agreement was reached on how to continue to monitor the small number of Juan F. youth that are now being serviced by CSSD. The Court Monitor has been provided with timely access to staff, data, and records that are required to report on the Exit Plan performance for those class members serviced by CSSD.
• As indicated in previous Court Monitor Status Reports, DCF was awarded Technical Assistance from the Government Performance Lab at Harvard Kennedy of Government in July 2017, to help assess their internal screening and referral processes for matching clients to services. The implementation effort began with a series of focus groups with almost 1,000
9

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report February 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________________________
staff and providers to elicit their feedback on ways in which DCF could improve their service matching for families served by DCF. The focus groups provided a range of technical and adaptive recommendations including:
• assessing our internal screening and referral pathways for redundancies; • broadening our staff's understanding of the service array and other services in the
community; • enhancing our service coordination across clinical and non-clinical programs; • increasing the appropriateness of our service matches so the right services gets to the
right client; and • taking more proactive approaches to engaging our service providers in data-informed
contract management.
The Department launched this "Enhanced Service Coordination (ESC)" model in two of DCF's six regions. The model requires a dedicated service coordinator who monitors utilization trends and service capacity and coordinates clinical and multidisciplinary consults with the Department's clinical teams, social work staff, and providers. The ESC rollout is also enabling DCF to capture data to inform real-time decision making, including improvements to case practice, additional services available in communities and gaps in the service array.
The goal moving forward was to launch this model statewide. The Department announced via memorandum that effective January 13, 2020, they have officially launched the Enhanced Service Coordination statewide with new Enhanced Service Coordinators (ESC's) in place in each region. While this work has been underway in Regions 5 and 6 since 2017, scaling up to the remaining regions has been a work in progress for the past several months. The ESCs will be supervised by a Statewide ESC Supervisor, and the Systems Directors in each region will serve as a local contact to assist with questions and provide additional support. The ESC efforts in Regions 5 and 6 enhanced the use of Regional Resource Group (RRG) staff engagement and it is expected that the statewide rollout will encourage similar success in the other regions.
Each Region's ESC will coordinate referrals for IFP (Intensive Family Preservation), PSS (Parenting Support Services) programs, RTFT (Reunification and Therapeutic Family Time) and Child First. The ESCs will be a support to help staff navigate the vast service array and provide guidance, where needed, in identifying services that best meet the needs of our families. Staff will continue to use the clinical gatekeepers for other non-clinical services. The ESC efforts also include a dashboard to monitor waitlists, utilization, timeliness of service referrals and real-time troubleshooting.
In the coming weeks, the Department will be working on the next steps involving the rollout of the automated Universal Referral Form (URF), which will launch for the four service types noted above with support from the ESC staff.
• The Division of Foster Care's report for July-September 2019 indicates that there are 2,172 licensed DCF foster homes. This is an increase of 54 homes when compared with the previous status report. Of the total of 2,172 licensed DCF foster care homes, 796 (36%) are
10

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report February 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________________________
kin/fictive kin families. The number of approved private provider foster care homes (Therapeutic Foster Homes) is 771 which is a decrease of 22 homes from the previous status report. The number of private provider foster homes currently available for placement is 104.
During the previous quarters, the Department and private providers have worked very diligently to review and identify a potential new direction for the Specialized Foster Care work in Connecticut. This included work by sub-committees compromised of both Department and private provider staff. The Court Monitor recently attended a very informative and lively presentation and discussion regarding Functional Family TherapyFoster Care. Final decisions and plans will be forthcoming.
• As of November 2019, the number of children with the goal of Other Planned Permanent Living Arrangement (OPPLA) was 136. This is an increase from May 2019, when there were 117 children with an OPPLA goal. While this goal is appropriate for some youth, it is not a preferred goal due to the lack of formal permanent and stable relationships with an identified adult support, be it relative or kin.
• As of November 2019, there were 82 Juan F. children placed in residential facilities. This is a decrease of seven children compared with May 2019. The number of children residing in residential care for greater than 12 months was 23 which is the same as reported in May 2019.
• The Department continues to focus on the number of Juan F. children residing and receiving treatment in out-of-state residential facilities. As of December 2019, there are five (5) children in DCF custody residing in out-of-state residential facilities.
• The number of children age 12 years old or younger in congregate care as of November 2019 was 15 children, which is four (4) more children than the number reported in May 2019. Of the current total, eight (8) are placed in residential care, three (3) children are placed in group homes, three (3) are placed in a SFIT and one (1) is in a shelter.
• As of November 2019, there are no children aged 1 to 5 years of age residing in a congregate setting. There are three (3) children placed in medical settings.
• The number of children utilizing Short-term Family Integrated Treatment (SFIT) has increased as the Department has broadened access for referrals from Emergency Mobile Psychiatric Service and others. SFIT is a residential crisis-stabilization program for children ages 12-17 with a goal of stabilizing a youth and their family, guardian or fictive kin to coordinate a reintegration back into the homes. The intended length of stay is 15 days or less. Episodes of care include all children served in the S-FIT and these include respites, DCF and non–DCF. There was a record number of admissions and discharges during this period and that is strong indication of the children moving through the S-FIT system within the 15-day timeline. The data for April 2019-September 2019 is found below.
11

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report February 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________________________

Client Status

Q4 SFY 2018

Q1 SFY 2019

Oct.-Dec. 2018

Jan.–March 2019

In-Care at Period Start

44

49

Admitted in Period

162

122

Discharged in Period

157

127

Remaining in Care at Period End

49

44

Episodes Served in Period

206

171

Distinct Clients Served in Period

193

164

▪ Data source: PIE

• There were 8 youth in STAR/Shelter programs as of November 2019. This is 16 less than the 24 reported in May 2019. Only one of these youth in STAR programs were in overstay status (>60 days) as of November 2019.

• The Monitor’s quarterly review of the Department for the period of April 1, 2019 through September 30, 2019 indicates that the Department has not achieve compliance with four (4) measures: • Completion of Investigation1 • Case Planning • Children's Needs Met • Worker-Child Visitation In-Home (N/A)2

A full copy of the Department's Second Quarter 2019 and Third Quarter 2019 submission including the Commissioner's Highlights may be found on page 52.

1 Based on sampling of Differential Response cases over two quarters it has been determined that the quality of the investigative work (OM 2) is not in compliance with the provisions of the Exit Plan. 2 Outcome Measure 5 Worker-Child Visitation In-Home - Current automated reporting indicates the measure as statistically achieved, however this does not accurately reflect performance findings. The Outcome Measure 5 PreCertification Review indicated that compliance is not achieved. While DCF reports are numerically accurate based upon the algorithms utilized, user error in selection of narrative entry types, and a failure to demonstrate that workers are meeting the specific steps called for with the definition of 'visit' calls into question the automated report findings. As such, the Monitor will not indicate achievement of the measure based solely on the current reporting.
12

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report February 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________________________
13

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report February 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________________________
Juan F. Pre-Certification Review-Status Update (April 1, 2019 - September 30, 2019)
The Department is currently operating under the 2017 Revised Exit Plan, in which the Court Monitor is required to conduct what the parties and the Court Monitor refer to as a “Certification” reviews as follows:
The Defendants must be in compliance with all of the outcome measures, and in sustained compliance with all of the outcome measures for at least two quarters (six months) prior to asserting compliance and shall maintain compliance through any decision to terminate jurisdiction. The Court Monitor shall then conduct a review of a statistically significant valid sample of case files at a 96% confidence level, and such other measurements as are necessary, to determine whether Defendants are in compliance. The Court Monitor shall then present findings and recommendations to the District Court. The parties shall have a meaningful opportunity to be heard by the Court Monitor before rendering his findings and recommendations.
In recognition of the progress made and sustained by the Department with respect to a number of Outcome Measures, and the fact that the well-being of the Juan F. class members will be promoted by the earliest possible identification and resolution of the any quantitative or qualitative problems affecting class members that may be identified by the review required by Revised Exit Plan (¶5), the parties and the Court Monitor agree that it is in the best-interests of the Juan F. class members to create a “PreCertification” review process. It is expected that this “pre-certification” process may, in certain instances, obviate the need to implement the full certification review for certain outcome measures after sustained compliance is achieved for all Outcome Measures.
The “Pre-Certification” process that parties and the Court Monitor have created, and to which they have agreed, is as follows:
If DCF has sustained compliance as required by the Revised Exit Plan for at least two consecutive quarters (6 months) for any Outcome Measure (“OM”), the Court Monitor may, in his discretion, conduct a “pre-certification review” of that OM (“Pre-Certification Review”). The purpose of the Pre-Certification Review is to recognize DCF’s sustained improved performance, to identify and provide a prompt and timely opportunity to remedy any problem areas that are affecting the well-being of Juan F. class members, and to increase the efficiency of DCF’s eventual complete compliance and exit from the Consent Decree.
Other than conducting the Pre-Certification Review earlier than the review mandated by Revised Exit Plan (¶5), the Pre-Certification Review will be conducted in accordance with the provision for review as described in the Revised Exit Plan (¶5) unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties and the Court Monitor.
If the Pre-Certification Review does not identify any material issues requiring remediation, and no assertions of noncompliance with the specific Outcome Measures(s) at issue are pending at the time Defendants assert sustained compliance with all Outcome Measures, the Parties agree that the full review as per paragraph 5 of the Revised Exit
14

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report February 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________________________
Plan will not be required after the Defendants assert sustained compliance with all Outcome Measures. Upon Defendants’ assertion of sustained compliance with all Outcome Measures, the parties, with the involvement and consent of the Court Monitor, agree to present for the Court’s review, any agreement to conduct less than the full review process required by Revised Exit Plan (¶5) for any specific Outcome Measures, as a proposed modification of the Revised Exit Plan. Of the ten remaining Outcome Measures there are five that have not been pre-certified. The status of all 2017 Revised Exit Plan Outcome Measures is found in the table that follows.
15

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report February 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________________________

2017 Measure OM1
OM2

2006 Outcome Measure OM1: Commencement of Investigations OM2: Completion of Investigation

Statement of Outcome
At least 90% of all reports3 must be commenced same calendar day, 24 hours or 72 hours depending on the response time designation.
At least 85% of all reports of alleged child maltreatment accepted by the DCF Careline shall have their investigations completed within 45 calendar days of acceptance by the Careline.

Status
Pre-Certified November 2018
Requires assertion of compliance and PreCertification

OM3

OM3: Case Plans

Except probate, interstate, and subsidy only cases, appropriate case plans shall be developed as set forth in the “DCF Court Monitor’s Protocol for Outcome Measures 3 and 4” and the accompanying “Directional Guide for Outcome Measures 3 and 4 Reviews” attached collectively as Appendix B hereto. The enforceable domains of this Outcome Measure shall not include the ‘overall score” domain. The domains in Appendix B for which compliance at 90% or better has been met for a quarter and then sustained for an additional quarter as of the date of this 2017 Revised Exit Plan, shall be considered to have achieved Pre-Certification. Currently, three of the ten domains: Case Plan Approval, Family and Child Language Needs Accommodation, and Identifying Information have achieved two quarters of compliance.

Requires assertion of compliance and PreCertification. See OM3 report to follow for results on individual domains. At the time of this reporting four case planning domains are precertified: Case Plan Approvals, Accommodating Family/Child’s Language Needs, Identifying Information, and Reason for Involvement.

For each of domain, once compliance at 90% or better has been met for a quarter and then sustained for an additional quarter, that domain shall also be considered to have achieved PreCertification. Once all of the domains achieve PreCertification, then Outcome Measure 3 shall be considered to have achieved Pre-Certification and subject to the process in Paragraphs 10and 11 hereof as to whether a final review is required in connection with a request to terminate jurisdiction over this action

3 Except Probate and Voluntary cases.
16

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report February 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________________________

2017 Measure
OM4

2006 Outcome Measure OM15: Needs Met

Statement of Outcome

Status

Families and children shall have their medical, dental, mental health, and other service needs met as set forth in the “DCF Court Monitor’s Protocol for Outcome Measures 3 and 4” and the accompanying “Directional Guide for Outcome Measures 3 and 4 Reviews”, attached collectively as Appendix B hereto. The enforceable domains of this Outcome Measure shall not include the “all needs met” domain. The domains in Appendix B for which compliance at 85% or better has been met for a quarter and then sustained for an additional quarter as of the date of this 2017 Revised Exit Plan, shall be considered to have achieved Pre-Certification.
Those domains include: • Risk: Child-in-Placement • Securing the Permanent Placement • DCF Case Management-Legal action to achieve the permanency goal in the prior six months • DCF Case Management-Recruitment for placement providers to achieve permanency goal during the prior six months • Child’s current placement • Education
For each of the remaining domains, once compliance at 85% or better has been met for a quarter and then sustained for an additional quarter, that domain shall also be considered to have achieved PreCertification. The remaining domains include:
• Risk: In-Home • DCF Case Management - Contracting or
providing services to achieve permanency during the prior six months;
• Medical needs; • Dental needs; • Mental health, behavioral and substance abuse
services.
Once all of the domains achieve Pre-Certification, then Outcome Measure 4 shall be considered to have achieved Pre-Certification and subject to the process in Paragraphs 10 and 11 hereof as to whether a final review is required in connection with a request to terminate jurisdiction over this action.

Requires assertion of compliance and PreCertification. See OM4 report to follow for results on individual domains to date.
At the time of this reporting six domains are pre-certified: Risk: Child in Placement, Permanency: Securing the Permanent Placement – Action Plan for the Next Six Months, Permanency: DCF Case Management – Recruitment for Placement Providers during the Prior Six Months, DCF Case Management – Legal Action to Achieve Permanency in the Prior Six Months, child’s Current Placement, and Well Being- Education.
Well-Being: Medical Needs which had previously been deemed pre-certified had been below the required 85% benchmark in the last three quarters. During the PUR, Well-Being/Medical achieved the required benchmark and will remain pre-certified. DCF achieved precertification of Dental during this PUR (Second-Third Quarter 2019).

17

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report February 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________________________

2017 Measure OM5
OM6

2006 Outcome Measure OM 17: WorkerChild Visitation (In-Home)
OM18: Caseload Standards

Statement of Outcome

Status

DCF shall visit at least 85% of all in-home family cases at least twice a month, except for probate, interstate or voluntary cases. Definitions and Clarifications: 1. Twice monthly visitation must be documented with each active child participant in the case. Visitation occurring in the home, school or other community setting will be considered for Outcome Measure 17.
The caseload of no DCF social worker shall exceed the following caseload standards, with exceptions for emergency reasons on caseloads, lasting no more than 30 days. Additionally, the average caseload of all caseload carrying DCF social workers in each of the following categories shall not exceed 0.75 (i.e., 75% utilization) of these maximum caseload standards:
A. Investigators shall have no more than 17
investigative cases at any time.
B. In-home treatment workers shall have no
more than 15 cases at any time.
C. Out-of-home treatment workers shall
have no more than 20 individual children assigned to them at any time. This includes voluntary placements.
D. Adoption and adolescent specialty
workers shall have no more than 20 cases at any time.
E. Probate workers shall have no more than
35 cases at any time. When the probate or interstate worker is also assigned to provide services to the family, those families shall be counted as inhome treatment cases with a ratio of 1:20 cases.
F. Social workers with in-home voluntary
and interstate compact cases shall have no more than 49 cases at any time.
G. A worker with a mixed caseload shall
not exceed the maximum weighted caseload derived from the caseload standards in A through F above.

Reviewed, but not PreCertified January 2012
Pre-certified January 2020

18

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report

February 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________________________

2017

2006

Statement of Outcome

Status

Measure

Outcome Measure

OM7 (to be maintained)

OM 5: Repeat Maltreatment of Children

No more than 7% of the children who are victims of substantiated maltreatment during any six-month period shall be the substantiated victims of additional maltreatment during any subsequent six-month period. This outcome shall begin to be measured within the six-month period beginning January 1,

PreCertified July 2014

2004.

OM8 (to be maintained)

OM6:

No more than 2% of the children in out of home care on or

Maltreatment after January 1, 2004 shall be the victims of substantiated

of Children maltreatment by substitute caregivers while in out of home

PreCertified October

in Out-of-

care.

2014

Home Care

OM9

OM 11:

Of the children who enter DCF custody, seven (7) percent or Pre-

Re-Entry into fewer shall have re-entered care within 12 months of the prior Certified

DCF Care out-of-home placement.

January 2016

OM10

OM 16:

DCF shall visit at least 85% of all out-of-home children at least Pre-

Worker/ Child

once a month, except for probate, interstate, or voluntary cases. Certified All children must be seen by their DCF Social Worker at least April 2012

Visitation (Child in

quarterly.

Placement)

 Pre-Certification granted subject to verification of correction to ROM system reporting.
19

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report February 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________________________
Pre-Certification of Outcome Measure 6 (Caseload Standards)
The Court Monitor undertook a pre-certification review of Outcome Measure 6 (Caseload Standards) after the Department’s assertion that they had been compliant for two consecutive quarters. This measure requires the following:
Outcome Measure 6: Caseload Standards
The caseload of no social worker shall exceed the following caseload standards, with exception for emergency reasons on caseloads, lasting no more than 30 days. Additionally, the average caseload of all caseload carrying DCF social workers in each of the following categories shall not exceed 0.75 (i.e., 75% utilization) of these maximum caseload standards:
A. Investigators shall have no more than 17 investigative cases at any time B. In-Home treatment workers shall have no more than 15 cases at any time. C. Out-of-Home treatment workers shall have no more than 20 individual children
assigned to them at any time. This includes voluntary placements. D. Adoption and adolescent specialty workers shall have no more than 20 cases at any
time. E. Probate workers shall have no more than 35 cases at any time. When the probate or
interstate worker is also assigned to provide services to the family, those families shall be counted as in-home treatment cases with a ratio of 1:20 cases. F. Social Workers with in-home voluntary and interstate compact cases shall have no more than 49 cases at any time.
A worker with a mixed caseload shall not exceed the maximum weighted caseload derived from the caseload standards in A through F above.
Subsequent to the Honorable Judge Stefan R. Underhill entering an order to adopt the 2017 Revised Exit Plan in December of 2017, DCF and the Court Monitor developed a framework for reporting monthly on this measure. The Department has been providing these reports since that time, and the Court Monitor has been analyzing and verifying the information on an ongoing basis. The reporting provides all the relevant data required and separates the findings for Intake and Ongoing Services.
Over the past year and a half, bridging the previous administration into the current administration, tremendous progress has been made to address the staffing and caseload outcomes outlined in the current 2017 Revised Exit Plan. The state moved to a “predictive hiring model” which accounts for rate of attrition, the need for new hires and caseload management efforts. From January through June of 2019, monthly hiring blocks of 30 Social Workers were hired to bring the Department into compliance with this measure.
The Court Monitor deems that Outcome Measure 6 (Caseload Standards) is pre-certified. The reviewed documentation indicates that for two consecutive quarters the Department has
20

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report February 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________________________
maintained the standard of 75% utilization average and significantly lowered the number of staff exceeding 100% of the maximum standard. The Court Monitor has used a variety of methods to verify the findings. Besides verifying the information provided each month, staffing reports were also reviewed on a monthly basis. In addition, interviews with staff at all levels have been routinely performed since the period beginning with the new 2017 Revised Exit Plan in December 2017.
As of the verified November report from the Department, the following caseload findings exist:
• The average caseload utilization is 74.63% • The average includes 67 Social Worker Trainees with low utilization, as they are still
being trained and working their way up to full caseloads. • The Department maintained the standard despite a large rise in reports that corresponded
with the start of the new school year. • Considerable caseload management activity has been noted in the Court Monitor’s
review of individual cases and aggregate data. • The Department needed 1089 Social Workers as of November report to be at 75%
utilization. There were 1,107 Social Workers carrying cases excluding the trainees mentioned above. • There were 15 vacancies waiting to be filled and 25 Social Workers that had been hired but not appearing in LINK yet. • Statewide utilization for Intake Social Workers was significantly lowered over the course of the two quarters from 75% to just over 50%. • Approximately 41% of the Ongoing Services Social Workers are over 80% of the caseload standard utilization. • The Department has 665 workers assigned to Ongoing Services. The Department would need to maintain a minimum of 636 Social Workers to achieve 75% utilization. • The Department has a typical attrition rate of 120-150 Social Workers annually. The Department will need to balance the rate of attrition, the new hires, caseload management efforts and the potential of lowered number of cases due to the implementation of the new IFCS program.
Pre-certification of Outcome Measure 6 (Caseload Standards) is a notable achievement for the state and DCF. It has been made possible because of the support from Governor Lamont, OPM Secretary Melissa McCaw, and the state legislature. The Department has worked diligently to achieve this goal and it is clear that the efforts of the Human Resource Division, the Academy for Workforce Development, and members of the Central Office and Regional operations have worked in a very coordinated manner to make this happen. It already appears from recent monitoring activity that meeting this benchmark is now having an impact on the family and child related outcome measure that remain to be pre-certified. Reasonable caseload sizes and relative stability in the workforce allow the Department to better concentrate on the best practice issues so important to the outcomes for children and families.
21

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report February 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________________________
Semi-Annual Status Report of Outcome Measure 3 and Outcome Measure 4 for the Second and Third Quarters of 2019 (April – September)
Outcome Measure 3
This status report reflects the Department’s progress in achieving the 2017 Revised Exit Plan Outcome Measure 3 and Outcome Measure 4 domain requirements. Outcome Measure 3 requires that
“Except probate, interstate and subsidy only cases, appropriate case plans shall be developed as set forth in the “DCF Court Monitor’s Protocol for Outcome Measures 3 and 4” and the accompanying “Directional guide for Outcome Measure 3 and 4 Reviews”. The enforceable domains of Outcome Measure 3 shall not include the “overall score” domain.”
At the time of agreement there were no Outcome Measure 3 domains qualifying for statewide precertification. During the last six quarters, the Department has consistently met the requirement for Supervisory Approval and Accommodation of Language Needs. The domains Reason for DCF Involvement and Identifying Information, were achieved and maintained during the reporting period encompassing Fourth Quarter 2019 and First Quarter 2019. While the findings for these two domains have dropped slightly, these domains remain pre-certified at this time.
Quarterly Statewide Summary of OM3 Domains 2nd Quarter 2017 – 3rd Quarter 2019 (Requirement 90.0%)

Quarte r Has the Case plan been approved by the SWS? Was the family or child's
language needs accommodated? Reason for DCF
Involvement Identifying Information Engagement of Child and Family (formerly Strengths, Needs and Other Issues) Present Situation and Assessment to Date of
Review Determining the Goals/
Objectives Progress Action Steps to Achieving Goals Identified for the Upcoming Six Month Period Planning for Permanency

Total Statewide - 3rd Quarter 2019 Total Statewide - 2nd Quarter 2019 Total Statewide – 1st Quarter 2019 Total Statewide – 4th Quarter 2018 Total Statewide – 3rd Quarter 2018 Total Statewide – 2nd Quarter 2018 Total Statewide - 1st Quarter 2018 Total Statewide - 4th Quarter 2017 Total Statewide - 3rd Quarter 2017 Total Statewide - 2nd Quarter 2017

92.6% 92.5% 96.2%
96.2% 98.1% 94.3% 84.2% 86.8% 96.2% 88.7%

92.6% 92.5% 94.3%
92.5% 96.3% 94.3% 81.5% 81.1% 96.2% 81.5%

87.0% 88.7% 90.6%
96.2% 83.3% 81.1% 81.5% 75.5% 88.6% 81.1%

88.9% 84.9% 92.5%
92.5% 92.6% 92.5% 85.2% 81.1% 92.4% 79.6%

63.0% 64.2% 54.7%
64.2% 55.6% 54.7% 51.9% 50.9% 66.0% 55.6%

57.4% 45.3% 52.8%
47.2% 57.4% 50.9% 51.9% 32.1% 47.2% 42.6%

68.5% 71.7% 67.9%
64.2% 79.6% 60.4% 53.7% 58.5% 62.3% 66.7%

75.5% 71.2% 75.0%
71.7% 80.8% 69.2% 66.7% 62.3% 64.7% 67.9%

66.7% 60.4% 66.0%
60.4% 70.3% 62.3% 53.7% 52.8% 56.6% 66.7%

88.9% 75.5% 77.4%
83.0% 83.3% 84.9% 74.1% 73.6% 84.9% 70.4%

In looking at a more defined view of the data from a regional perspective, it is noted, as in the past that some regions have had success with achievement of several domains at the 90% requirement in each quarter. The following two tables reflect findings for each quarter sorted at the regional level. During the Second Quarter, Region III (Middletown, Norwich and Willimantic) achieved eight of the measured domains and was able to sustain five of those across the full reporting period. No region met all ten domains in either quarter.

22

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report February 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________________________
Quarterly Regional Summary 2nd Quarter 2019 (Requirement 90.0%)

Region Has the Case plan been approved by the SWS? Was the family or child's
language needs accommodated? Reason for DCF Involvement Identifying Information Engagement of Child and Family (formerly Strengths, Needs and Other Issues) Present Situation and Assessment to Date of
Review Determining the Goals/
Objectives Progress Action Steps to Achieving Goals Identified for the Upcoming Six Month Period Planning for Permanency

Region I - 2nd Quarter 2019 Region II - 2nd Quarter 2019 Region III - 2nd Quarter 2019 Region IV - 2nd Quarter 2019 Region V - 2nd Quarter 2019 Region VI - 2nd Quarter 2019 S tatewide - 2nd Quarter 2019 OM3 Results

83.3% 87.5% 100.0% 90.9% 100.0% 85.7% 92.5%

83.3% 87.5% 100.0% 90.9% 100.0% 85.7% 92.5%

83.3% 75.0% 100.0% 90.9% 90.9% 85.7% 88.7%

83.3% 75.0% 100.0% 81.8% 81.8% 85.7% 84.9%

83.3% 62.5% 70.0% 63.6% 36.4% 85.7% 64.2%

66.7% 25.0% 50.0% 54.5% 27.3% 57.1% 45.3%

83.3% 37.5% 100.0% 63.6% 63.6% 85.7% 71.7%

66.7% 50.0% 100.0% 63.6% 63.6% 57.1% 71.2%

66.7% 37.5% 90.0% 45.5% 54.5% 71.4% 60.4%

83.3% 62.5% 90.0% 54.5% 81.8% 85.7% 75.5%

Quarterly Regional Summary of OM3 Domains 3rd Quarter 2019 (Requirement 90.0%)

Has the Case plan been approved by the SWS? Was the family or child's
language needs accommodated? Reason for DCF Involvement Identifying Information Engagement of Child and Family (formerly Strengths, Needs and Other Issues) Present Situation and Assessment to Date of
Review Determining the Goals/
Objectives Progress Action Steps to Achieving Goals Identified for the Upcoming Six Month Period Planning for Permanency

Region I - 3rd Quarter 2019 Region II - 3rd Quarter 2019 Region III - 3rd Quarter 2019 Region IV - 3rd Quarter 2019 Region V - 3rd Quarter 2019 Region VI - 3rd Quarter 2019 Statewide 3rd Quarter 2019 OM3 Results

100.0% 87.5% 100.0% 90.0% 90.9% 87.5% 92.6%

100.0% 87.5% 100.0% 90.0% 90.9% 87.5% 92.6%

100.0% 87.5% 100.0% 90.0% 63.6% 87.5% 87.0%

100.0% 87.5% 100.0% 80.0% 81.8% 87.5% 88.9%

71.4% 37.5% 90.0% 50.0% 54.5% 75.0% 63.0%

85.7% 25.0% 70.0% 60.0% 45.5% 62.5% 57.4%

85.7% 62.5% 80.0% 80.0% 36.4% 75.0% 68.5%

71.4% 62.5% 77.8% 80.0% 72.7% 87.5% 75.5%

71.4% 50.0% 80.0% 70.0% 54.5% 75.0% 66.7%

85.7% 75.0% 100.0% 90.0% 90.9% 87.5% 88.9%

The full summary documents reflecting data to the individual case level within the area offices are provided for review below:

23

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report February 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________________________
Second Quarter 2019 Outcome Measure 3: Individual Domain Case Summaries by Office, Region, State

What is the social worker's
area office assignment?

What is the type of case noted in LINK?

Bridgeport CPS Child in Placement

Bridgeport CPS In-Home Family

Bridgeport CPS In-Home Family

Bridgeport CPS Child in Placement

Region I Bridgeport 2nd Quarter 2019

No rwa l k

CPS In-Home Family

No rwa l k

CPS Child in Placement

Norwalk 2nd Quarter 2019

Region I 2nd Quarter 2019

Mi l fo rd

CPS In-Home Family

Mi l fo rd

CPS In-Home Family

Mi l fo rd

CPS Child in Placement

Mi l fo rd

CPS Child in Placement

Milford 2nd Quarter 2019

Region II New Haven CPS In-Home Family

New Haven CPS Child in Placement

New Haven CPS In-Home Family

New Haven CPS Child in Placement

New Haven 2nd Quarter 2019

Region II 2nd Quarter 2019

Middletown CPS In-Home Family

Middletown CPS Child in Placement

Middletown 2nd Quarter 2019

No rwi ch

CPS In-Home Family

No rwi ch

CPS In-Home Family

Norwich

CPS Child in Placement

No rwi ch Region III
Norwich

CPS In-Home Family CPS Child in Placement

Norwich 2nd Quarter 2019

Willimantic CPS In-Home Family

Willimantic CPS Child in Placement

Willimantic CPS In-Home Family

Willimantic 2nd Quarter 2019

Region III 2nd Quarter 2019

Ha rtfo rd

CPS In-Home Family

Hartford

CPS Child in Placement

Ha rtfo rd

CPS In-Home Family

Has the Case plan been approved by
the SWS? ye s ye s no ye s
75.0% ye s ye s
100.0% 83.3%
ye s ye s ye s no 75.0% ye s yes ye s ye s 100.0% 87.5% yes ye s 100.0% ye s ye s yes ye s yes 100.0% ye s ye s ye s 100.0% 100.0% ye s yes ye s

Was the family or child's language needs accommodated? ye s ye s UTD ye s 75.0% ye s ye s 100.0% 83.3% ye s ye s ye s UTD 75.0% ye s yes ye s ye s 100.0% 87.5% yes ye s 100.0% ye s ye s yes ye s yes 100.0% ye s ye s ye s 100.0% 100.0% ye s yes ye s

Ha rtfo rd

CPS In-Home Family

Ha rtfo rd

CPS Child in Placement

Hartford

CPS In-Home Family

Region IV Hartford

CPS Child in Placement

Hartford 2nd Quarter 2019

Manches ter CPS In-Home Family

Manches ter CPS In-Home Family

Manches ter CPS Child in Placement

Manches ter CPS Child in Placement

Manchester 2nd Quarter 2019

Region IV 2nd quarter 2019

Da n b u ry

CPS Child in Placement

Da n b u ry

CPS In-Home Family

Danbury 2nd Quarter 2019 Torrington CPS Child in Placement

Torrington CPS In-Home Family

Torrington 2nd Quarter 2019

Waterbury CPS Child in Placement

Region V Waterbury CPS Child in Placement

Waterbury CPS In-Home Family

Waterbury CPS In-Home Family

Waterbury CPS In-Home Family

Waterbury CPS In-Home Family

Waterbury CPS Child in Placement

Waterbury 2nd Quarter 2019

Region V 2nd Quarter 2019

Me ri d e n

CPS In-Home Family

Me ri d e n

CPS Child in Placement

Meriden 2nd Quarter 2019

New Britain CPS Child in Placement

New Britain CPS In-Home Family Region VI
New Britain CPS In-Home Family

New Britain CPS Child in Placement

New Britain CPS In-Home Family

New Britain 2nd Quarter 2019

Region VI 2nd Quarter 2019

Total

Statewide 2nd Quarter 2019

ye s ye s yes ye s 100.0% ye s ye s no ye s 75.0% 90.9% ye s ye s 100.0% ye s ye s 100.0% ye s ye s ye s ye s ye s ye s ye s 100.0% 100.0% ye s ye s 100.0% no ye s ye s ye s yes 80.0% 85.7% 92.5%

ye s ye s yes ye s 100.0% ye s ye s UTD ye s 75.0% 90.9% ye s ye s 100.0% ye s ye s 100.0% ye s ye s ye s ye s ye s ye s ye s 100.0% 100.0% ye s ye s 100.0% UTD ye s ye s ye s yes 80.0% 85.7% 92.5%

Reason for DCF Involvement Very Good Very Good
Abs ent/Avers e Very Good 75.0% Very Good Very Good 100.0% 83.3% Very Good Very Good Very Good
Abs ent/Avers e 75.0%
Very Good Very Good Ma rgi n a l Very Good
75.0% 75.0% Very Good Very Good 100.0% Op ti ma l Very Good Very Good Very Good Very Good 100.0% Very Good Op ti ma l Very Good 100.0% 100.0% Op ti ma l Very Good Very Good
Very Good Very Good Very Good Very Good
100.0% Very Good Very Good Abs ent/Avers e Very Good
75.0% 90.9% Very Good Very Good 100.0% Very Good Op ti ma l 100.0% Very Good Op ti ma l Op ti ma l Ma rgi n a l Very Good Very Good Very Good 85.7% 90.9% Very Good Very Good 100.0% Abs ent/Avers e Very Good Very Good Very Good Very Good 80.0% 85.7% 88.7%

Engagement of Child

and Family (formerly Present Situation and

Identifying Strengths, Needs and Assessment to Date

Information

Other Issues)

of Review

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Abs ent/Avers e

Abs ent/Avers e

Abs ent/Avers e

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

75.0%

75.0%

75.0%

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Ma rgi n a l

100.0%

100.0%

50.0%

83.3%

83.3%

66.7%

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Ma rgi n a l

Very Good

Very Good

Ma rgi n a l

Abs ent/Avers e

Abs ent/Avers e

Abs ent/Avers e

75.0%

75.0%

25.0%

Ma rgi n a l

Ma rgi n a l

Poor

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Ma rgi n a l

Poor

Very Good

Very Good

Ma rgi n a l

75.0%

50.0%

25.0%

75.0%

62.5%

25.0%

Optimal

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

100.0%

100.0%

50.0%

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Ma rgi n a l

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Ma rgi n a l

Ma rgi n a l

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

100.0%

60.0%

40.0%

Very Good

Ma rgi n a l

Ma rgi n a l

Very Good

Op ti ma l

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

100.0%

66.7%

66.7%

100.0%

70.0%

50.0%

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Ma rgi n a l

Very Good Very Good Very Good Very Good
100.0% Op ti ma l Ma rgi n a l Abs ent/Avers e Very Good
50.0% 81.8% Very Good Very Good 100.0% Very Good Very Good 100.0% Very Good Op ti ma l Very Good Ma rgi n a l Very Good Ma rgi n a l Very Good 71.4% 81.8% Very Good Very Good 100.0% Abs ent/Avers e Very Good Op ti ma l Very Good Very Good 80.0% 85.7% 84.9%

Ma rgi n a l Ma rgi n a l Marginal Very Good
57.1% Very Good Very Good Abs ent/Avers e Very Good
75.0% 63.6% Very Good Ma rgi n a l 50.0% Ma rgi n a l Ma rgi n a l 0.0% Very Good Op ti ma l Ma rgi n a l Ma rgi n a l Very Good Ma rgi n a l Ma rgi n a l 42.9% 36.4% Very Good Very Good 100.0% Abs ent/Avers e Very Good Very Good Very Good Very Good 80.0% 85.7% 64.2%

Ma rgi n a l Very Good Very Good Ma rgi n a l
57.1% Op ti ma l Ma rgi n a l Abs ent/Avers e Very Good
50.0% 54.5% Ma rgi n a l Ma rgi n a l 0.0% Ma rgi n a l Very Good 50.0% Ma rgi n a l Very Good Ma rgi n a l Ma rgi n a l Very Good Ma rgi n a l Ma rgi n a l 28.6% 27.3% Ma rgi n a l Very Good 50.0% Abs ent/Avers e Very Good Very Good Very Good Marginal 60.0% 57.1% 45.3%

Determining the Goals/Objectives
Very Good Very Good Abs ent/Avers e Very Good
75.0% Very Good Very Good
100.0% 83.3% Very Good Very Good Ma rgi n a l Abs ent/Avers e 50.0% Ma rgi n a l Marginal Ma rgi n a l Very Good 25.0% 37.5% Very Good Very Good 100.0% Op ti ma l Very Good Very Good Very Good Very Good 100.0% Very Good Op ti ma l Very Good 100.0% 100.0% Very Good Very Good Ma rgi n a l
Ma rgi n a l Very Good Very Good Ma rgi n a l
57.1% Very Good Very Good Abs ent/Avers e Very Good
75.0% 63.6% Op ti ma l Very Good 100.0% Very Good Op ti ma l 100.0% Ma rgi n a l Op ti ma l Ma rgi n a l Very Good Very Good Ma rgi n a l Ma rgi n a l 42.9% 63.6% Very Good Very Good 100.0% Abs ent/Avers e Very Good Very Good Very Good Very Good 80.0% 85.7% 71.7%

Action Steps to

Achieving Goals

Identified for the

Upcoming Six Month

Progress

Period

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Abs ent/Avers e

Abs ent/Avers e

Very Good

Very Good

75.0%

75.0%

Op ti ma l

Very Good

Ma rgi n a l

Ma rgi n a l

50.0%

50.0%

66.7%

66.7%

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Ma rgi n a l

Ma rgi n a l

Abs ent/Avers e

Abs ent/Avers e

50.0%

50.0%

Poor

Poor

Very Good

Very Good

Poor

Ma rgi n a l

Very Good

Ma rgi n a l

50.0%

25.0%

50.0%

37.5%

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

100.0%

100.0%

Very Good

Op ti ma l

Very Good

Ma rgi n a l

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

100.0%

80.0%

Very Good

Very Good

Op ti ma l

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

90.0%

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Too early to note progres s Ma rgi n a l

Ma rgi n a l Ma rgi n a l

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Ma rgi n a l

83.3%

42.9%

Op ti ma l

Very Good

Ma rgi n a l

Ma rgi n a l

Abs ent/Avers e

Abs ent/Avers e

Very Good

Very Good

50.0%

50.0%

63.6%

45.5%

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

100.0% Ma rgi n a l

100.0% Ma rgi n a l

Very Good

Op ti ma l

50.0%

50.0%

Ma rgi n a l

Ma rgi n a l

Ma rgi n a l

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Ma rgi n a l

Very Good

Very Good

Ma rgi n a l

Ma rgi n a l

Very Good

Ma rgi n a l

57.1%

42.9%

63.6%

54.5%

Ma rgi n a l

Ma rgi n a l

Very Good

Very Good

50.0%

50.0%

Abs ent/Avers e

Abs ent/Avers e

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Op ti ma l

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

80.0%

80.0%

57.1%

71.4%

71.2%

60.4%

Planning for Permanency Very Good Very Good Abs ent/Avers e Very Good
75.0% Very Good Very Good
100.0% 83.3% Very Good Very Good Poor Abs ent/Avers e 50.0% Ma rgi n a l Optimal Very Good Very Good 75.0% 62.5% Very Good Very Good 100.0% Very Good Very Good Very Good Ma rgi n a l Very Good 80.0% Very Good Op ti ma l Very Good 100.0% 90.0% Very Good Very Good Very Good

Overall Score for OM3 Appropriate Cas e Plan Appropriate Cas e Plan Not an Appropriate Cas e Plan Appropriate Cas e Plan
75.0% Appropriate Cas e Plan Not an Appropriate Cas e Plan
50.0% 66.7% Appropriate Cas e Plan Not an Appropriate Cas e Plan Not an Appropriate Cas e Plan Not an Appropriate Cas e Plan 25.0% Not an Appropriate Cas e Plan Appropriate Case Plan Not an Appropriate Cas e Plan Not an Appropriate Cas e Plan 25.0% 25.0% Appropriate Case Plan Appropriate Cas e Plan 100.0% Appropriate Cas e Plan Not an Appropriate Cas e Plan Appropriate Case Plan Not an Appropriate Cas e Plan Appropriate Case Plan 60.0% Not an Appropriate Cas e Plan Appropriate Cas e Plan Appropriate Cas e Plan 66.7% 70.0% Appropriate Cas e Plan Appropriate Case Plan Not an Appropriate Cas e Plan

Ma rgi n a l Ma rgi n a l Very Good Ma rgi n a l
57.1% Very Good Ma rgi n a l Abs ent/Avers e Very Good
50.0% 54.5% Very Good Very Good 100.0% Ma rgi n a l Very Good 50.0% Ma rgi n a l Op ti ma l Very Good Very Good Very Good Very Good Very Good 85.7% 81.8% Very Good Very Good 100.0% Abs ent/Avers e Very Good Very Good Very Good Very Good 80.0% 85.7% 75.5%

Not an Appropriate Cas e Plan Not an Appropriate Cas e Plan
Appropriate Case Plan Not an Appropriate Cas e Plan
42.9% Appropriate Cas e Plan Not an Appropriate Cas e Plan Not an Appropriate Cas e Plan Appropriate Cas e Plan
50.0% 45.5% Not an Appropriate Cas e Plan Not an Appropriate Cas e Plan 0.0% Not an Appropriate Cas e Plan Appropriate Cas e Plan 50.0% Not an Appropriate Cas e Plan Appropriate Cas e Plan Not an Appropriate Cas e Plan Not an Appropriate Cas e Plan Appropriate Cas e Plan Not an Appropriate Cas e Plan Not an Appropriate Cas e Plan 28.6% 27.3% Not an Appropriate Cas e Plan Appropriate Cas e Plan 50.0% Not an Appropriate Cas e Plan Appropriate Cas e Plan Appropriate Cas e Plan Appropriate Cas e Plan Appropriate Case Plan 80.0% 71.4% 49.1%

24

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report February 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________________________
Third Quarter 2019 Outcome Measure 3: Individual Domain Case Summaries by Office, Region, State

Region I Region I Region I Region I
Region I Region I Region I
Region II
Region II Region II Region II
Region II Region II Region II Region II
Region III
Region III
Region III Region III Region III Region III Region III
Region III Region III Region III
Region IV Region IV Region IV Region IV Region IV Region IV
Region IV Region IV Region IV Region IV
Region V Region V
Region V Region V
Region V Region V Region V Region V Region V Region V Region V
Region VI Region VI
Region VI
Region VI Region VI Region VI Region VI Region VI

Action S teps to

Has the

Engagement of

Achieving Goals

treatment Was the family or

Child and Family Present

Identified for

What is the social What is the type of plan been child's language Reason for

(formerly

S ituation and Determining

the Upcoming

worker's area office assignment noted in approved by needs

DCF

Identifying S trengths, Needs Assessment to the Goals/

S ix Month Planning for

assignment?

LINK?

the S WS ? accommodated? Involvement Information and Other Issues) Date of Review Objectives

Progress

Period

Permanency

Overall S core for OM3

Bridgep ort

CPS CIP

y es

y es

Very Good

Very Good

M arginal

Very Good

Very Good M arginal

M arginal

M arginal

Not an Appropriate Case Plan

Bridgep ort

CPS CIP

y es

y es

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good Very Good Very Good

Very Good Appropriate Case Plan

Bridgep ort

CPS In-Home Family yes

y es

Op t imal

Very Good Very Good

Very Good

Very Good Very Good Very Good

Very Good Appropriate Case Plan

Bridgep ort

CPS In-Home Family yes

y es

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good Very Good Very Good

Op t imal

Appropriate Case Plan

Bridgeport 3rd Quarter 2019

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

75.0%

100.0%

100.0%

75.0%

75.0%

75.0%

75.0%

Norwalk Norwalk Norwalk

CPS In-Home Family yes

CPS CIP

y es

CPS In-Home Family yes

Norwalk 3rd Quarter 2019

y es y es y es 100.0%

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Op t imal

Very Good Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

M arginal

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

M arginal

Very Good Very Good Very Good

Very Good Not an Appropriate Case Plan

Very Good

Very Good Optimal

Very Good

Very Good Appropriate Case Plan

Very Good

M arginal

M arginal

M arginal

Very Good Not an Appropriate Case Plan

66.7%

66.7%

66.7%

66.7%

66.7%

100.0%

33.3%

Region I OM3 3rd Quarter 2019

M ilford

Services Post M ajority yes

Child-in-Placement

M ilford

CPS In-Home Family no

M ilford

CPS CIP

y es

M ilford

CPS In-Home Family yes

Milford 3rd Quarter 2019

100.0% y es
UTD y es y es 75.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

71.4%

85.7%

85.7%

71.4%

71.4%

85.7%

57.1%

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

M arginal

Very Good Very Good Very Good

Very Good Not an Appropriate Case Plan

Absent/Averse Absent/Averse Absent/Averse

Absent/Averse Absent/Averse Absent/Averse Absent/Averse Absent/Averse Not an Appropriate Case Plan

Very Good

Very Good

M arginal

M arginal

M arginal

Very Good M arginal

Very Good Not an Appropriate Case Plan

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good Very Good Very Good

Very Good Appropriate Case Plan

75.0%

75.0%

75.0%

50.0%

25.0%

50.0%

75.0%

50.0%

75.0%

25.0%

New Haven New Haven New Haven New Haven

CPS CIP

y es

CPS CIP

y es

CPS In-Home Family yes

CPS In-Home Family yes

New Haven 3rd Quarter 2019

y es y es y es y es 100.0%

Very Good

Very Good

M arginal

Very Good

Very Good

M arginal

Very Good

Very Good

M arginal

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

M arginal

Very Good M arginal

Very Good

Very Good Not an Appropriate Case Plan

M arginal

Very Good Very Good M arginal

M arginal

Not an Appropriate Case Plan

M arginal

M arginal

M arginal

M arginal

Very Good Not an Appropriate Case Plan

Very Good

Very Good Very Good Very Good

Very Good Appropriate Case Plan

25.0%

25.0%

75.0%

50.0%

50.0%

75.0%

25.0%

Region II OM3 3rd Quarter 2019

M iddletown

Services Post M ajority yes

Child-in-Placement

M iddletown

CPS In-Home Family yes

87.5% y es
y es

Middletown 3rd Quarter 2019

100.0%

87.5%

87.5%

87.5%

37.5%

25.0%

62.5%

62.5%

50.0%

75.0%

Op t imal

Very Good Very Good

Very Good

Very Good Optimal

Very Good

Op t imal

Appropriate Case Plan

25.0%

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

M arginal

Very Good Too early to Very Good

Very Good Appropriate Case Plan

note progress

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

50.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Norwich Norwich Norwich Norwich Norwich

CPS CIP

y es

CPS In-Home Family yes

CPS CIP

y es

CPS CIP

y es

CPS In-Home Family yes

Norwich 3rd Quarter 2019

y es y es y es y es y es 100.0%

Very Good

Very Good

M arginal

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Op t imal

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Very Good

Very Good M arginal

Very Good

Very Good Not an Appropriate Case Plan

M arginal

Very Good Very Good M arginal

Very Good Not an Appropriate Case Plan

Very Good

Very Good Very Good Very Good

Very Good Appropriate Case Plan

Very Good

Op t imal

Op t imal

Very Good

Op t imal

Appropriate Case Plan

M arginal

Poor

M arginal

Poor

Very Good Not an Appropriate Case Plan

80.0%

60.0%

80.0%

60.0%

60.0%

100.0%

40.0%

Willimantic Willimantic Willimantic

CPS In-Home Family yes

CPS CIP

y es

CPS CIP

y es

Willimantic 3rd Quarter 2019

y es y es y es 100.0%

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Op t imal

Very Good Optimal

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Very Good

M arginal

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Not an Appropriate Case Plan

Very Good

Op t imal

Very Good Optimal

Very Good Appropriate Case Plan

Very Good

Op t imal

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Appropriate Case Plan

100.0%

100.0%

66.6%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

66.7%

Region III OM3 3rd Quarter 2019

Hartford

CPS CIP

y es

Hartford

CPS In-Home Family yes

Hartford

CPS In-Home Family yes

Hartford

CPS In-Home Family yes

Hartford

CPS CIP

no

Hartford

CPS CIP

y es

Hartford 3rd Quarter 2019

100.0% y es y es y es y es UTD y es
83.3%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

90.0%

70.0%

80.0%

77.8%

80.0%

100.0%

60.0%

Op t imal

Very Good Optimal

Very Good

Very Good Optimal

Very Good

Op t imal

Appropriate Case Plan

Very Good

M arginal

Poor

M arginal

Very Good Very Good Very Good

Very Good Not an Appropriate Case Plan

Very Good

Very Good

M arginal

Very Good

Very Good Very Good Very Good

Very Good Appropriate Case Plan

Op t imal

Very Good Very Good

Very Good

M arginal

Very Good M arginal

Very Good Not an Appropriate Case Plan

Absent/Averse Absent/Averse Absent/Averse

Absent/Averse Absent/Averse Absent/Averse Absent/Averse Absent/Averse Not an Appropriate Case Plan

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

M arginal

Very Good Very Good M arginal

Very Good Not an Appropriate Case Plan

83.3%

83.3%

66.7%

50.0%

50.0%

66.7%

83.3%

50.0%

83.3%

33.3%

M anchester

CPS CIP

y es

y es

Very Good

Very Good

M arginal

Very Good

Very Good Very Good Very Good

Very Good Appropriate Case Plan

M anchester

CPS In-Home Family yes

y es

Very Good

Op t imal

Very Good

Very Good

Op t imal

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Appropriate Case Plan

M anchester

CPS In-Home Family yes

y es

Very Good

Very Good

M arginal

Very Good

Very Good Very Good Very Good

Very Good Appropriate Case Plan

M anchester

CPS CIP

y es

y es

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

M arginal

Very Good M arginal

Very Good

Very Good Not an Appropriate Case Plan

Manchester 3rd Quarter 2019

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

50.0%

75.0%

100.0%

75.0%

100.0%

100.0%

75.0%

Region IV OM3 3rd Quarter 2019

90.0%

90.0%

90.0%

80.0%

50.0%

60.0%

80.0%

80.0%

70.0%

90.0%

50.0%

Danbury

CPS CIP

y es

y es

Very Good

Very Good

M arginal

Very Good

M arginal

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Not an Appropriate Case Plan

Danbury

CPS In-Home Family yes

y es

M arginal

M arginal

M arginal

M arginal

M arginal

M arginal

Very Good

Very Good Not an Appropriate Case Plan

Danbury 3rd Quarter 2019

100.0%

100.0%

50.0%

50.0%

0.0%

50.0%

0.0%

50.0%

100.0%

100.0%

0.0%

Torrington

CPS In-Home Family yes

y es

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

M arginal

Very Good Very Good Very Good

Very Good Appropriate Case Plan

Torrington

CPS CIP

y es

y es

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good Very Good Very Good

Very Good Appropriate Case Plan

Torrington 3rd Quarter 2019

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

50%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

Waterbury

CPS In-Home Family yes

y es

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

M arginal

M arginal

M arginal

M arginal

Very Good Not an Appropriate Case Plan

Waterbury

CPS In-Home Family yes

y es

M arginal

Very Good Very Good

Very Good

M arginal

Very Good M arginal

Very Good Not an Appropriate Case Plan

Waterbury

CPS CIP

y es

y es

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

M arginal

M arginal

Very Good M arginal

Very Good Not an Appropriate Case Plan

Waterbury

CPS In-Home Family yes

y es

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good Very Good Very Good

Very Good Appropriate Case Plan

Waterbury

CPS CIP

y es

y es

Very Good Very Good M arginal

Very Good

Very Good Very Good Very Good

Op t imal

Appropriate Case Plan

Waterbury

CPS CIP

y es

y es

M arginal

Very Good M arginal

M arginal

M arginal

Very Good M arginal

Very Good Not an Appropriate Case Plan

Waterbury

CPS In-Home Family no

UTD

Absent/Averse Absent/Averse Absent/Averse

Absent/Averse Absent/Averse Absent/Averse Absent/Averse Absent/Averse Not an Appropriate Case Plan

Waterbury 3rd Quarter 2019

85.7%

85.7%

57.1%

85.7%

57.1%

42.9%

28.6%

71.4%

28.6%

85.7%

28.6%

Region V OM3 3rd Quarter 2019

90.9%

90.9%

63.6%

81.8%

54.5%

45.5%

36.4%

72.7%

54.5%

90.9%

36.4%

M eriden

CPS CIP

y es

y es

Op t imal

Very Good Very Good

Very Good

Very Good Very Good Very Good

Very Good Appropriate Case Plan

M eriden

CPS In-Home Family yes

y es

Very Good Very Good M arginal

Very Good

M arginal

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Appropriate Case Plan

Meriden 3rd Quarter 2019

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

50.0%

100.0%

50.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

New Britain

CPS In-Home Family UTD - No UTD - No Plan Absent/Averse Absent/Averse Absent/Averse

Absent/Averse Absent/Averse Absent/Averse Absent/Averse Absent/Averse Not an Appropriate Case Plan

plan less than

7 months old

New Britain

CPS In-Home Family yes

y es

Very Good Very Good Very Good

M arginal

Very Good Very Good M arginal

Very Good Not an Appropriate Case Plan

New Britain

CPS CIP

y es

y es

Very Good Very Good Optimal

Very Good

Very Good Very Good Very Good

Very Good Appropriate Case Plan

New Britain

CPS In-Home Family yes

y es

Very Good Very Good Very Good

M arginal

Very Good Very Good Very Good

Very Good Appropriate Case Plan

New Britain

CPS CIP

y es

y es

Op t imal

Very Good Very Good

Very Good

Op t imal

Very Good Very Good

Op t imal

Appropriate Case Plan

New Britain

CPS CIP

y es

y es

Very Good Very Good Very Good

Very Good

Very Good Very Good Very Good

Very Good Appropriate Case Plan

New Britain 3rd Quarter 2019

83.3%

83.3%

83.3%

83.3%

83.3%

50.0%

83.3%

83.3%

66.7%

83.3%

66.7%

Region VI OM3 2019

87.5%

87.5%

87.5%

87.5%

75.0%

62.5%

75.0%

87.5%

75.0%

87.5%

75.0%

S tatewide OM3 3rd Quarter 2019

92.6%

92.6%

87.0%

88.9%

63.0%

57.4%

68.5%

75.5%

66.7%

88.9%

50.0%

25

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report February 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________________________
Issues with inclusion/engagement of case participants in the case planning process were noted in prior reporting. During this period under review, the Department engaged case participants with varying amounts of success. While documentation reflected some level of case planning discussions with most key case participants, attendance at the Administrative Case Reviews continues to be low in many cases especially with respect to adolescents, fathers, Guardian Ad Litem (GAL), other involved DCF staff, and active service providers.

Participation in Case Planning and Attendance at the ACR 2nd

Quarter 2019

Documentation of

Case Planning Attendance at

Case Participant

during PUR

the ACR

Child (Age 12 or more)

98.3%

28.6%

Mother

89.8%

77.3%

Father

68.2%

26.3%

Foster Parent

91.7%

39.1%

Active Service Provider

76.9%

31.1%

Attorney/GAL

45.9%

30.7%

Attorney for Parent

57.1%

47.8%

Other DCF Staff

69.0%

20.0%

Other Case Participants

70.8%

69.2%

Participation in Case Planning and Attendance at the ACR 3rd

Quarter 2019

Documentation of

Case Planning Attendance at

Case Participant

during PUR

the ACR

Child (Age 12 or more)

87.5%

0.0%

Mother

91.7%

63.7%

Father

60.9%

25.0%

Foster Parent

96.3%

52.0%

Active Service Provider

75.4%

23.1%

Attorney/GAL

42.1%

25.0%

Attorney for Parent

45.5%

42.1%

Other DCF Staff

73.3%

22.2%

Other Case Participants

90.5%

62.5%

26

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report February 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________________________
Outcome Measure 4
The 2017 Revised Exit Plan requirement for Outcome Measure 4 – Needs Met, is stated as:
“Families and children shall have their medical, dental, mental health and other service needs met as set forth in the “DCF Court Monitor’s Protocol for Outcome Measures 3 and 4” and the accompanying “Directional Guide for Outcome Measures 3 and 4 Reviews”. The enforceable domains of this Outcome Measure shall not include the “All Needs Met” domain. The domains for which compliance at 85% or better has been met for a quarter then sustained for an additional quarter as of the date of this 2017 Revised Exit Plan shall be considered to have achieved Pre-Certification. These domains include:
• Risk: Child in Placement • Securing the Permanent Placement • DCF Case Management – Legal Action to Achieve the Permanency
Goal in the Prior Six Months • DCF Case Management – Recruitment for Placement Providers to
Achieve Permanency Goal during the Prior Six Months • Child’s Current Placement • Education For each of the remaining domains, once compliance at 85% or better has been met for a quarter and then sustained for an additional quarter, that domain shall also be considered to have achieved Pre-Certification. Once all the domains achieve Pre-Certification, then Outcome Measure 4 shall be considered to have achieved Pre-Certification and subject to the process in Paragraphs 10 and 11 hereof as to whether a final review is required in connection with a request to terminate jurisdiction over this action.”
In previous quarters, the Department met and sustained for an additional quarter, the following domains:
• Risk: Child in Placement (July 2018 Status Report) • Securing the Permanent Placement (July 2018 Status Report) • DCF Case Management – Legal Action to Achieve the Permanency Goal in the Prior Six
Months (July 2018 Status Report) • DCF Case Management – Recruitment for Placement Providers to Achieve Permanency
Goal during the Prior Six Months (July 2018 Status Report) • Child’s Current Placement (January 2018 Status Report) • Education (January 2018 Status Report) • Medical (January 2018 Status Report)
Some domains have fluctuated in maintenance or required rates following initial pre-certification as noted in our reporting of monitored performance in the quarters since goal achievement. In
27

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report February 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________________________
our last report, this Office noted that the Medical and Educational domains, specifically, dropped and remained below the 85% rate of compliance and this quarter would be reviewed for consideration of removal as pre-certified. The Court Monitor notes that this trend has reversed in the current period under review with Medical Needs met in 94.3% and 94.4% respectively and Educational reported trending in the positive direction with needs met in 84.3% and 86.3% of the cases during the consecutive quarters of the period under review. Both will remain on the listing for pre-certified domains.
Joining the list of pre-certified domains for the first time is Dental Needs, which were met 86.8% and 87.0% consecutively across the two quarters of the period under review. The three domains with which the Department continues to have the most difficulty are: Risk: In-Home, Permanency: DCF Case Management – Contracting or Providing Services to Achieve the Permanency Goal During the Prior Six Months, and Well Being: Mental Health, Behavioral Health, and Substance Abuse Services.
Quarterly Statewide Summary of OM4 Domains 2nd Quarter 2017 – 3rd Quarter 2019 (Requirement 85.0%)

Risk: In-Home Risk: Child In Placement Permanency: Securing the Permanent Placement - Action Plan for the Next Six Months Permanency: DCF Case Mgmt. - Legal Action to Achieve the Permanency Goal During the Prior Six Months Permanency: DCF Case Mgmt. - Recruitment for Placement Providers to Achieve the Permanency Goal during the Prior Six
Months Permanency: DCF Case Mgmt. - Contracting or Providing Services to Achieve the Permanency Goal during the Prior Six
Months Well-Being: Medical Needs Well-Being: Dental Needs Well-Being: Mental Health, Behavioral and Substance Abuse
Services Well-Being: Child's Current Placement
Well-Being: Education

Quarter

S tatewide 3rd Quarter 2019 OM4 Results S tatewide 2nd Quarter 2019 OM4 Results S tatewide 1st Quarter 2019 OM4 Results S tatewide 4th Quarter 2018 OM4 Results S tatewide 3rd Quarter 2018 OM4 Results S tatewide 2nd Quarter 2018 OM4 Results S tatewide - 1st Quarter 2018 OM4 Results S tatewide - 4th Quarter 2017 OM4 Results S tatewide - 3rd Quarter 2017 OM4 Results
S tatewide - 2nd Quarter 2017 OM4 Results

75.0% 90.3% 69.0% 66.7% 70.0% 73.9% 81.3% 82.1% 81.8%
78.3%

100.0% 100.0%
92.0% 92.6% 96.2% 96.8% 100.0% 96.0% 100.0%
100.0%

96.3% 87.5% 91.7% 91.3% 100.0% 100.0% 95.8% 100.0% 93.5%
95.8%

85.2% 90.6% 86.8% 78.9% 87.0% 90.6% 92.5% 94.3% 90.6%
98.1%

100.0% 87.5% 87.5% 91.7% 100.0% 90.3% 95.7% 96.0% 93.8%
100.0%

74.1% 75.5% 60.4% 58.5% 51.9% 50.9% 51.9% 49.1% 52.8%
57.4%

94.4% 94.3% 81.1% 81.1% 83.3% 90.6% 85.2% 79.3% 86.8%
94.4%

87.0% 86.8% 81.1% 75.5% 87.0% 81.1% 75.9% 81.1% 83.0%
85.2%

74.1% 71.2% 56.6% 63.5% 70.4% 73.6% 61.1% 50.9% 64.2%
75.9%

100.0% 91.7% 83.3% 91.3% 91.7% 77.4% 91.3% 84.0% 87.1%
93.9%

86.3% 84.3% 74.5% 84.6% 86.3% 87.5% 86.8% 80.4% 88.0%
83.3%

A summary of this measure by region during each quarter is found on the following pages. While all regions had successes across many of the identified domains, Region VI (Meriden, New Britain) achieved full compliance on all measured domains within the Third Quarter 2019 reporting period.

28

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report February 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________________________
Quarterly Statewide Summary of OM4 Domains 2nd Quarter 2019 (Requirement 85.0%)

Risk: In-Home Risk: Child In Placement Permanency: Securing the Permanent Placement - Action Plan for the Next Six
Months Permanency: DCF Case Mgmt. - Legal Action to Achieve the Permanency Goal During the
Prior Six Months Permanency: DCF Case Mgmt. - Recruitment
for Placement Providers to Achieve the Permanency Goal during the Prior Six Months Permanency: DCF Case Mgmt. - Contracting or Providing Services to Achieve the Permanency
Goal during the Prior Six Months Well-Being: Medical Needs Well-Being: Dental Needs
Well-Being: Mental Health, Behavioral and Substance Abuse Services
Well-Being: Child's Current Placement Well-Being: Education

Quarter

Region I - 2nd Quarter 2019 Region II - 2nd Quarter 2019 Region III - 2nd Quarter 2019 Region IV - 2nd Quarter 2019 Region V - 2nd Quarter 2019 Region VI - 2nd Quarter 2019 S tatewide - 2nd Quarter 2019 OM3 Results

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
66.7% 100.0%
80.0% 90.3%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

100.0% 75.0%
100.0% 100.0%
80.0% 66.7% 87.5%

83.3% 100.0%
90.0% 90.9% 81.8% 100.0% 90.6%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
60.0% 66.7% 87.5%

100.0% 75.0% 80.0% 63.6% 72.7% 71.4% 75.5%

83.3% 87.5% 100.0% 90.9% 100.0% 100.0% 94.3%

66.7% 87.5% 100.0% 72.7% 90.9% 100.0% 86.8%

66.7% 87.5% 88.9% 63.6% 54.5% 71.4% 71.2%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
80.0% 80.0% 100.0% 91.7%

66.7% 100.0% 100.0%
81.8% 70.0% 71.4% 84.3%

Quarterly Regional Summary of OM4 3rd Quarter 2019 (Requirement 85.0%)

Risk: In-Home Risk: Child In Placement Permanency: Securing the Permanent Placement - Action Plan for the Next Six
Months Permanency: DCF Case Mgmt. - Legal Action to Achieve the Permanency Goal During the
Prior Six Months Permanency: DCF Case Mgmt. - Recruitment
for Placement Providers to Achieve the Permanency Goal during the Prior Six Months Permanency: DCF Case Mgmt. - Contracting or Providing Services to Achieve the Permanency
Goal during the Prior Six Months Well-Being: Medical Needs Well-Being: Dental Needs
Well-Being: Mental Health, Behavioral and Substance Abuse Services
Well-Being: Child's Current Placement Well-Being: Education

Quarter

Region I - 3rd Quarter 2019 Region II - 3rd Quarter 2019 Region III - 3rd Quarter 2019 Region IV - 3rd Quarter 2019 Region V - 3rd Quarter 2019 Region VI - 3rd Quarter 2019 S tatewide - 3rd Quarter 2019 OM3 Results

75.0% 75.0% 80.0% 80.0% 50.0% 100.0% 75.0%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

66.7% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 96.3%

71.4% 87.5% 90.0% 80.0% 90.9% 87.5% 85.2%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

57.1% 75.0% 60.0% 80.0% 72.7% 100.0% 74.1%

100.0% 87.5% 90.0% 100.0% 90.9% 100.0% 94.4%

100.0% 50.0% 90.0% 100.0% 81.8% 100.0% 87.0%

71.4% 62.5% 80.0% 77.8% 72.7% 87.5% 74.1%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

100.0% 87.5% 77.7% 88.9% 72.7% 100.0% 86.3%

A reporting of the measures by Area Office at the case level is provided for consideration on the following pages.

29

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report February 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________________________

What is the social worker's area office assignment?

What is the type of assignment noted in
LINK?

Risk: In-Home

Outcome Measure 4 - 2nd Quarter 2019 Individual Domain Case Summaries by Office, Region and State

Permanency: DCF

Permanency: DCF Case Mgmt -

Case Mgmt -

Contracting or

Permanency: Permanency: DCF Recruitment for

Providing

Securing the Case Mgmt - Legal Placement Providers Services to

Permanent Action to Achieve to Achieve the

Achieve the

Placement - the Permanency Permanency Goal Permanency Goal

Risk: Child In Action Plan for the Goal During the during the Prior Six during the Prior Well-Being:

Well-Being:

Placement Next Six Months Prior Six Months

Months

Six Months

Medical Needs Dental Needs

Well-Being: Mental Health, Behavioral and Substance Abuse
Services

Well-Being: Child's Current
Placement

Well-Being: Education

Overall Score for Outcome Measure
4

Bridgeport

CPS Child in Placement Very Good

Very Good

Optim al

Optim al

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Needs Met

Bridgeport

CPS In-Home Family Very Good

N/A to Case

N/A to Case

Very Good

N/A to Case

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

N/A to Case

Marginal

Needs Met

Bridgeport

CPS In-Home Family Very Good

N/A to Case

N/A to Case

Very Good

N/A to Case

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

N/A to Case

Very Good

Needs Met

Bridgeport

CPS Child in Placem ent N/A to Case

Optim al

Very Good

Optim al

Optim al

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Optim al

Optim al

Needs Met

Region I Bridgeport 2nd Quarter 2019

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

75.0%

100.0%

100.0%

75.0%

100.0%

Norwalk

CPS In-Home Family Very Good

N/A to Case

N/A to Case

Marginal

N/A to Case

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Marginal

N/A to Case

Very Good

Needs Not Met

Norwalk

CPS Child in Placem ent N/A to Case

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Marginal

Needs Not Met

Norwalk 2nd quarter 2019

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

50.0%

100.0%

100.0%

50.0%

50.0%

0.0%

100.0%

50.0%

0.0%

Region I 2nd Quarter 2019

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

83.3%

100.0%

100.0%

83.3%

66.7%

66.7%

100.0%

66.7%

66.7%

Milford

CPS In-Home Family Very Good

N/A to Case

N/A to Case

Optim al

N/A to Case

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

N/A to Case

Optim al

Needs Met

Milford

CPS In-Home Family Very Good

N/A to Case

N/A to Case

Very Good

N/A to Case

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

N/A to Case

Very Good

Needs Not Met

Milford

CPS Child in Placem ent N/A to Case

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Poor

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Needs Not Met

Milford

CPS Child in Placem ent N/A to Case

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Needs Met

Milford 2nd Quarter 2019

100.0%

100.0%

50.0%

100.0%

100.0%

75.0%

100.0%

75.0%

75.0%

100.0%

100.0%

50.0%

Region II New Haven

CPS In-Home Family Very Good

N/A to Case

N/A to Case

Optim al

N/A to Case

Marginal

Marginal

Very Good

Very Good

N/A to Case

Very Good

Needs Not Met

New Haven

CPS Child in Placem ent N/A to Case

Optim al

Optim al

Very Good

Optim al

Very Good

Very Good

Optim al

Very Good

Optim al

Optim al

Needs Met

New Haven

CPS In-Home Family Very Good

N/A to Case

N/A to Case

Very Good

N/A to Case

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

N/A to Case

Very Good

Needs Met

New Haven

CPS Child in Placem ent N/A to Case

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Needs Met

New Haven 2nd Quarter 2019

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

75.0%

75.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

75.0%

Region II 2nd Quarter 2019

100.0%

100.0%

75.0%

100.0%

100.0%

75.0%

87.5%

87.5%

87.5%

100.0%

100.0%

62.5%

Middletown

CPS In-Home Family Very Good

N/A to Case

N/A to Case

Very Good

N/A to Case

Very Good

Optim al

Optim al

Very Good

N/A to Case

Very Good

Needs Met

Middletown

CPS Child in Placem ent N/A to Case

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Optim al

Very Good

Very Good

Optim al

Needs Met

Middletown 2nd Quarter 2019

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Norwich

CPS In-Home Family Very Good

Optim al

N/A to Case

Optim al

N/A to Case

Very Good

Optim al

Optim al

Very Good

N/A to Case

Optim al

Needs Met

Norwich

CPS In-Home Family Very Good

N/A to Case

N/A to Case

Very Good

N/A to Case

Marginal

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

N/A to Case

Very Good

Needs Not Met

Norwich

CPS Child in Placem ent N/A to Case

Very Good

Optim al

Marginal

Optim al

Very Good

Optim al

Optim al

Very Good

Optim al

Very Good

Needs Not Met

Norwich Region III
Norwich

CPS In-Home Family Very Good CPS Child in Placem ent N/A to Case

Very Good Very Good

N/A to Case Very Good

Very Good Optim al

N/A to Case Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Optim al Optim al

Optim al Optim al

Very Good Very Good

N/A to Case Very Good

Very Good Very Good

Needs Met Needs Met

Norwich 2nd Quarter 2019

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

80.0%

100.0%

80.0%

100.0%

100.0%

80.0%

100.0%

100.0%

60.0%

Willim antic

CPS In-Home Family Very Good

N/A to Case

N/A to Case

Very Good

N/A to Case

Marginal

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

N/A to Case

Very Good

Needs Not Met

Willim antic

CPS Child in Placem ent N/A to Case

Optim al

Optim al

Optim al

Optim al

Optim al

Optim al

Optim al

N/A to Case

Optim al

Optim al

Needs Met

Willim antic

CPS In-Home Family Very Good

N/A to Case

N/A to Case

Very Good

N/A to Case

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

N/A to Case

Very Good

Needs Met

Willimantic 2nd Quarter 2019

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

66.7%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

66.7%

Region III 2nd Quarter 2019

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

90.0%

100.0%

80.0%

100.0%

100.0%

88.9%

100.0%

100.0%

70.0%

Hartford

CPS In-Home Family Very Good

Optim al

N/A to Case

Optim al

N/A to Case

Optim al

Optim al

Optim al

Very Good

N/A to Case

Optim al

Needs Met

Hartford

CPS Child in Placem ent N/A to Case

Very Good

Very Good

Optim al

Very Good

Very Good

Optim al

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Needs Met

Hartford

CPS In-Home Family Very Good

N/A to Case

N/A to Case

Very Good

N/A to Case

Marginal

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

N/A to Case

Very Good

Needs Not Met

Hartford

CPS In-Home Family Very Good

N/A to Case

N/A to Case

Very Good

N/A to Case

Very Good

Marginal

Poor

Marginal

N/A to Case

Very Good

Needs Not Met

Hartford

CPS Child in Placem ent N/A to Case

Very Good

Optim al

Very Good

Optim al

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Optim al

Needs Not Met

Hartford

CPS In-Home Family Marginal

N/A to Case

N/A to Case

Marginal

N/A to Case

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Marginal

N/A to Case

Marginal

Needs Not Met

Hartford

CPS Child in Placem ent N/A to Case

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Region IV

Hartford 2nd Quarter 2019

75.0%

100.0%

100.0%

85.7%

Marginal 100.0%

Very Good

Optim al

71.4%

85.7%

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Needs Not Met

57.1%

71.4%

66.7%

85.7%

28.6%

Manches ter

CPS In-Home Family Very Good

N/A to Case

N/A to Case

Optim al

N/A to Case

Very Good

Optim al

Very Good

Very Good

N/A to Case

Very Good

Needs Met

Manches ter

CPS In-Home Family Marginal

N/A to Case

N/A to Case

Very Good

N/A to Case

Marginal

Very Good

Optim al

Marginal

N/A to Case

N/A to Case

Needs Not Met

Manches ter

CPS Child in Placem ent N/A to Case

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Optim al

Marginal

Very Good

Very Good

Needs Not Met

Manches ter

CPS Child in Placem ent N/A to Case

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Optim al

Optim al

Very Good

Very Good

Optim al

Needs Met

Manchester 2nd Quarter 2019

50.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

50.0%

100.0%

100.0%

50.0%

100.0%

100.0%

50.0%

Region IV 2nd Quarter 2019

66.7%

100.0%

100.0%

90.9%

100.0%

63.6%

90.9%

72.7%

63.6%

80.0%

81.8%

36.4%

Danbury

CPS Child in Placem ent N/A to Case

Very Good

Optim al

Very Good

Optim al

Very Good

Optim al

Optim al

Marginal

Very Good

Marginal

Needs Not Met

Danbury

CPS In-Home Family Very Good

N/A to Case

N/A to Case

Optim al

N/A to Case

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

N/A to Case

Very Good

Needs Met

Danbury 2nd Quarter 2019

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

50.0%

100.0%

50.0%

50.0%

Torrington

CPS Child in Placem ent N/A to Case

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Marginal

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Marginal

Marginal

Needs Not Met

Torrington

CPS In-Home Family Optimal

N/A to Case

N/A to Case

Optim al

N/A to Case

Very Good

Optim al

Optim al

Very Good

N/A to Case

Optim al

Needs Met

Torrington 2nd Quarter 2019

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

0.0%

50.0%

100.0%

100.0%

50.0%

0.0%

50.0%

50.0%

Waterbury

CPS Child in Placem ent N/A to Case

Very Good

Marginal

Marginal

Marginal

Very Good

Optim al

Optim al

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Needs Not Met

Region V Waterbury

CPS Child in Placem ent N/A to Case

Optim al

Optim al

Very Good

Optim al

Very Good

Optim al

Optim al

Very Good

Optim al

Very Good

Needs Met

Waterbury

CPS In-Home Family Very Good

N/A to Case

N/A to Case

Optim al

N/A to Case

Marginal

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

N/A to Case

N/A to Case

Needs Not Met

Waterbury

CPS In-Home Family Very Good

N/A to Case

N/A to Case

Very Good

N/A to Case

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

N/A to Case

Very Good

Needs Not Met

Waterbury

CPS In-Home Family Very Good

N/A to Case

N/A to Case

Very Good

N/A to Case

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

N/A to Case

Very Good

Needs Met

Waterbury

CPS In-Home Family Very Good

N/A to Case

N/A to Case

Very Good

N/A to Case

Very Good

Optim al

Marginal

Marginal

N/A to Case

Marginal

Needs Not Met

Waterbury

CPS Child in Placem ent N/A to Case

Optim al

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Optim al

Very Good

Very Good

Optim al

Needs Not Met

Waterbury 2nd Quarter 2019

100.0%

100.0%

66.7%

71.4%

66.7%

71.4%

100.0%

85.7%

57.1%

100.0%

83.3%

28.6%

Region V 2nd quarter 2019

100.0%

100.0%

80.0%

81.8%

60.0%

72.7%

100.0%

90.9%

54.5%

80.0%

70.0%

36.4%

Meriden

CPS In-Home Family Marginal

N/A to Case

N/A to Case

Very Good

N/A to Case

Very Good

Optim al

Very Good

Marginal

N/A to Case

Marginal

Needs Not Met

Meriden

CPS Child in Placem ent N/A to Case

Optim al

Very Good

Very Good

Optim al

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Optim al

Optim al

Needs Met

Meriden 2nd Quarter 2019

0.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

50.0%

100.0%

50.0%

50.0%

New Britain

CPS Child in Placement Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Marginal

Marginal

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good

Marginal

Needs Not Met

New Britain Region VI
New Britain

CPS In-Home Family CPS In-Home Family

Very Good Very Good

N/A to Case N/A to Case

N/A to Case N/A to Case

Very Good Very Good

N/A to Case N/A to Case

Very Good Marginal

Very Good Very Good

Very Good Optim al

Very Good Very Good

N/A to Case N/A to Case

Very Good Very Good

Needs Met Needs Met

New Britain

CPS Child in Placem ent N/A to Case

Optim al

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Optim al

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Needs Met

New Britain

CPS In-Home Family Very Good

N/A to Case

N/A to Case

Very Good

N/A to Case

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

N/A to Case

Very Good

Needs Met

New Britain 2nd Quarter 2019

100.0%

100.0%

50.0%

100.0%

50.0%

60.0%

100.0%

100.0%

80.0%

100.0%

80.0%

80.0%

Region VI 2nd Quarter 2019

80.0%

100.0%

66.7%

100.0%

66.7%

71.4%

100.0%

100.0%

71.4%

100.0%

71.4%

71.4%

Total Statewide 2nd Quarter 2019

90.3%

100.0%

87.5%

90.6%

87.5%

75.5%

94.3%

86.8%

71.2%

91.7%

84.3%

54.7%

30

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report February 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________________________
Outcome Measure 4 - 3nd Quarter 2019 Individual Domain Case Summaries by Office, Region and State

Permanency:

Permanency:

Permanency: DCF Case Mgmt - DCF Case Mgmt -

Well-Being:

Permanency: DCF Case Mgmt Recruitment for Contracting or

Mental

S ecuring the - Legal Action to Placement

Providing

Health,

What is the

Permanent

Achieve the

Providers to

S ervices to

Behavioral

social

What is the

Placement - Permanency

Achieve the

Achieve the

and

Well-Being:

worker's area type of case

Action Plan for Goal During the Permanency Permanency Goal Well-Being: Well-Being: S ubstance

Child's

Well-

Overall S core

office

assignment

Risk: Child the Next S ix

Prior S ix

Goal during the during the Prior Medical

Dental

Abuse

Current

Being:

for Outcome

assignment? noted in LINK? Risk: In-Home In Placement Months

Months

Prior S ix Months S ix Months

Needs

Needs

S ervices Placement Education Measure 4

Region I Bridgeport CPS CIP Case N/A to Case Very Good M arginal

M arginal

Very Good

M arginal

Very Good Very Good M arginal

Very Good Very Good Needs Not M et

Region I Bridgeport CPS CIP Case N/A to Case Very Good Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Op t imal

Op t imal

Very Good Very Good Very Good Needs M et

Region I Bridgeport

CPS In-Home Very Good

N/A to Case N/A to Case Optimal

N/A to Case

Very Good

Op t imal

Very Good Very Good N/A to Case Very Good Needs M et

Family Case

Region I Bridgeport

CPS In-Home Very Good

Op t imal

N/A to Case Optimal

N/A to Case

Very Good

Very Good Very Good Very Good N/A to Case Very Good Needs M et

Family Case

Bridgeport 3rd Quarter 2019 OM4

100.0%

100.0%

50.0%

75.0%

100.0%

75.0%

100.0%

100.0%

75.0%

100.0%

100.0%

75.0%

Region I Norwalk

CPS In-Home Marginal

N/A to Case N/A to Case Very Good

N/A to Case

Very Good

Optimal

Optimal

Very Good N/A to Case Optimal

Needs Met

Family Case

Region I Norwalk

CPS CIP Case N/A to Case Optimal

Very Good

Very Good

Optimal

Marginal

Very Good

Optimal

Very Good Very Good Very Good Needs Met

Region I Norwalk

CPS In-Home Very Good

N/A to Case N/A to Case M arginal

N/A to Case

M arginal

Very Good Very Good M arginal

N/A to Case Very Good Needs Not M et

Family Case

Norwalk 3rd Quarter 2019 OM4

50.0%

100.0%

100.0%

66.7%

100.0%

33.3%

100.0%

100.0%

66.7%

100.0%

100.0%

66.7%

Region I OM4 3rd Quarter 2019

75.0%

100.0%

66.7%

71.4%

100.0%

57.1%

100.0%

100.0%

71.4%

100.0%

100.0%

71.4%

Region II M ilford

Services Post N/A to Case Very Good Very Good

Op t imal

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good Optimal

Very Good Very Good Very Good Needs M et

M ajority CIP

Case

Region II M ilford

CPS In-Home M arginal

N/A to Case N/A to Case Very Good

N/A to Case

Very Good

Very Good Very Good Very Good N/A to Case Very Good Needs Not M et

Family Case

Region II M ilford

CPS CIP Case N/A to Case Very Good Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

M arginal

Very Good M arginal

Very Good Very Good Very Good Needs Not M et

Region II Milford

CPS In-Home Very Good

N/A to Case N/A to Case Optimal

N/A to Case

Very Good

Very Good

Marginal

Very Good N/A to Case Very Good Needs Met

Family Case

Milford 3rd Quarter 2019 OM4

50.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

75.0%

100.0%

50.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

50.0%

Region II New Haven CPS CIP Case N/A to Case Very Good Very Good

Very Good

Op t imal

Very Good

Very Good Very Good Optimal

Op t imal

Very Good Needs M et

Region II New Haven CPS CIP Case N/A to Case Very Good Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Op t imal

Very Good M arginal

Very Good M arginal Needs Not M et

Region II New Haven CPS In-Home Very Good

N/A to Case N/A to Case Poor

N/A to Case

M arginal

M arginal

M arginal

M arginal

N/A to Case Very Good Needs Not M et

Family Case

Region II New Haven CPS In-Home Very Good

N/A to Case N/A to Case Very Good

N/A to Case

Very Good

Very Good M arginal

M arginal

N/A to Case Very Good Needs Not M et

Family Case

New Haven 3rd Quarter 2019 OM4

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

75.0%

100.0%

75.0%

75.0%

50.0%

25.0%

100.0%

75.0%

25.0%

Region II OM4 3rd Quarter 2019

75.0%

100.0%

100.0%

87.5%

100.0%

75.0%

87.5%

50.0%

62.5%

100.0%

87.5%

37.5%

Region III M iddletown Services Post N/A to Case Optimal

Op t imal

Op t imal

Op t imal

Op t imal

Op t imal

Op t imal

Op t imal

Op t imal

Op t imal

Needs M et

M ajority CIP

Case

Region III Middletown CPS In-Home Very Good

N/A to Case N/A to Case Very Good

N/A to Case

Marginal

Very Good

Very Good Very Good N/A to Case Very Good Needs Met

Family Case

Middletown 3rd Quarter 2019 OM4

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

50.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Region III Norwich

CPS CIP Case N/A to Case Optimal

Op t imal

Very Good

Op t imal

M arginal

Op t imal

Op t imal

Very Good Optimal

Op t imal

Needs Not M et

Region III Norwich

CPS In-Home Very Good

N/A to Case N/A to Case Very Good

N/A to Case

M arginal

M arginal

Poor

Very Good N/A to Case Poor

Needs Not M et

Family Case

Region III Norwich

CPS CIP Case N/A to Case Very Good Very Good

Very Good

Op t imal

Very Good

Op t imal

Op t imal

Very Good Optimal

N/A to Case Needs M et

Region III Norwich

CPS CIP Case N/A to Case Optimal

Op t imal

Very Good

Op t imal

Very Good

Op t imal

Op t imal

Very Good Optimal

Op t imal

Needs M et

Region III Norwich

CPS In-Home M arginal

N/A to Case N/A to Case Very Good

N/A to Case

M arginal

Very Good Very Good M arginal

N/A to Case M arginal Needs Not M et

Family Case

Norwich 3rd Quarter 2019 OM4

50.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

40.0%

80.0%

80.0%

80.0%

100.0%

50.0%

40.0%

Region III Willimantic CPS In-Home Very Good

N/A to Case N/A to Case Very Good

N/A to Case

Very Good

Very Good Very Good M arginal

N/A to Case Very Good Needs Not M et

Family Case

Region III Willimantic CPS CIP Case Very Good

N/A to Case Very Good

Very Good

Op t imal

Very Good

Op t imal

Op t imal

Very Good Optimal

Very Good Needs M et

Region III Willimantic CPS CIP Case N/A to Case Optimal

Very Good

M arginal

Op t imal

Very Good

Op t imal

Op t imal

Very Good Very Good Optimal

Needs Not M et

Willimantic 3rd Quarter 2019 OM4

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

66.7%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

66.7%

100.0%

100.0%

33.3%

Region III OM4 3rd Quarter 2019

80.0%

100.0%

100.0%

90.0%

100.0%

60.0%

90.0%

90.0%

80.0%

100.0%

77.7%

50.0%

Region IV Hartford

CPS CIP Case N/A to Case Optimal

Very Good

Op t imal

Op t imal

Very Good

Op t imal

Very Good Very Good Very Good Optimal

Needs M et

Region IV Hartford

CPS In-Home M arginal

N/A to Case N/A to Case M arginal

N/A to Case

M arginal

Very Good Very Good M arginal

N/A to Case M arginal Needs Not M et

Family Case

Region IV Hartford

CPS In-Home Very Good

N/A to Case N/A to Case Very Good

N/A to Case

Very Good

Very Good Very Good Very Good N/A to Case Very Good Needs M et

Family Case

Region IV Hartford

CPS In-Home Very Good

N/A to Case N/A to Case Very Good

N/A to Case

Very Good

Optimal

Very Good Marginal

N/A to Case Very Good Needs Met

Family Case

Region IV Hartford

CPS CIP Case N/A to Case Very Good Very Good

Op t imal

Op t imal

Very Good

Very Good Optimal

N/A to Case Very Good N/A to Case Needs M et

Region IV Hartford

CPS CIP Case N/A to Case Very Good Very Good

Op t imal

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good Very Good Very Good Very Good Very Good Needs M et

Hartford 3rd Quarter 2019 OM4

66.7%

100.0%

100.0%

83.3%

100.0%

83.3%

100.0%

100.0%

60.0%

100.0%

80.0%

83.3%

Region IV M anchester CPS CIP Case N/A to Case Very Good Very Good

Op t imal

Very Good

Very Good

Op t imal

Op t imal

Very Good Very Good Very Good Needs M et

Region IV M anchester CPS In-Home Very Good

N/A to Case N/A to Case Very Good

N/A to Case

Very Good

Very Good Very Good Very Good N/A to Case Very Good Needs M et

Family Case

Region IV M anchester CPS In-Home Very Good

N/A to Case N/A to Case Very Good

N/A to Case

M arginal

Very Good Very Good Very Good N/A to Case Very Good Needs Not M et

Family Case

Region IV M anchester CPS CIP Case N/A to Case Optimal

Op t imal

M arginal

Op t imal

Very Good

Op t imal

Op t imal

Very Good Very Good Very Good Needs Not M et

Manchester 3rd Quarter 2019 OM4

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

75.0%

100.0%

75.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

50.0%

Region IV OM4 3rd Quarter 2019

80.0%

100.0%

100.0%

80.0%

100.0%

80.0%

100.0%

100.0%

77.8%

100.0%

88.9%

70.0%

Region V Danbury

CPS CIP Case N/A to Case Very Good Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

M arginal

Op t imal

Very Good Very Good Very Good Very Good Needs Not M et

Region V Danbury

CPS In-Home M arginal

N/A to Case N/A to Case M arginal

N/A to Case

M arginal

Very Good M arginal

M arginal

N/A to Case M arginal Needs Not M et

Family Case

Danbury 3rd Quarter2019 OM4

0.0%

100.0%

100.0%

50.0%

100.0%

0.0%

100.0%

50.0%

50.0%

100.0%

50.0%

0.0%

Region V Torrington CPS In-Home Very Good

N/A to Case N/A to Case Optimal

N/A to Case

Very Good

Op t imal

Op t imal

Very Good N/A to Case Optimal

Needs M et

Family Case

Region V Torrington CPS CIP Case N/A to Case Very Good Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good Very Good Very Good Optimal

Needs M et

Torrington 3rd Quarter 2019 OM4

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Region V Waterbury CPS In-Home M arginal

N/A to Case N/A to Case Very Good

N/A to Case

Very Good

M arginal

Poor

M arginal

N/A to Case Poor

Needs Not M et

Family Case

Region V Waterbury

CPS In-Home Very Good

N/A to Case N/A to Case Optimal

N/A to Case

Very Good

Op t imal

Op t imal

Very Good N/A to Case Very Good Needs M et

Family Case

Region V Waterbury CPS CIP Case N/A to Case Very Good Very Good

Very Good

Op t imal

Very Good

Very Good Optimal

Op t imal

Op t imal

Very Good Needs M et

Region V Waterbury

CPS In-Home Very Good

N/A to Case N/A to Case Optimal

N/A to Case

Op t imal

Very Good Optimal

Very Good N/A to Case Very Good Needs M et

Family Case

Region V Waterbury CPS CIP Case N/A to Case Very Good Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good Very Good Very Good Very Good Very Good Needs M et

Region V Waterbury CPS CIP Case N/A to Case Very Good Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good Optimal

Very Good Very Good Very Good Needs M et

Region V Waterbury CPS In-Home M arginal

N/A to Case N/A to Case Very Good

N/A to Case

Poor

Very Good Very Good M arginal

N/A to Case M arginal Needs Not M et

Family Case

Waterbury 3rd Quarter 2019 OM4

50.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

85.7%

85.7%

85.7%

71.4%

100.0%

85.7%

71.4%

Region V OM4 3rd Quarter 2019

50.0%

100.0%

100.0%

90.9%

100.0%

72.7%

90.9%

81.8%

72.7%

100.0%

72.7%

63.6%

Region VI M eriden

CPS CIP Case N/A to Case Optimal

Op t imal

Op t imal

Op t imal

Very Good

Very Good Very Good Very Good Optimal

Very Good Needs M et

Region VI M eriden

CPS In-Home Very Good

N/A to Case N/A to Case Very Good

N/A to Case

Very Good

Very Good Optimal

Very Good N/A to Case Very Good Needs M et

Family Case

Meriden 3rd Quarter 2019 OM4

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Region VI New Britain CPS In-Home Very Good

N/A to Case N/A to Case Very Good

N/A to Case

Very Good

Very Good Optimal

Very Good N/A to Case Very Good Needs M et

Family Case

Region VI New Britain CPS In-Home Very Good

N/A to Case N/A to Case M arginal

N/A to Case

Very Good

Very Good Optimal

M arginal

N/A to Case Very Good Needs Not M et

Family Case

Region VI New Britain CPS CIP Case N/A to Case Optimal

Very Good

Very Good

Very Good

Op t imal

Very Good Optimal

Very Good Optimal

Very Good Needs M et

Region VI New Britain CPS In-Home Very Good

N/A to Case N/A to Case Very Good

N/A to Case

Very Good

Very Good Very Good Very Good N/A to Case N/A to Case Needs M et

Family Case

Region VI New Britain CPS CIP Case N/A to Case Optimal

Op t imal

Op t imal

Op t imal

Very Good

Op t imal

Op t imal

Very Good Optimal

Very Good Needs M et

Region VI New Britain CPS CIP Case N/A to Case Optimal

Very Good

Op t imal

Op t imal

Very Good

Very Good Optimal

Very Good Optimal

Very Good Needs M et

New Britain 3rd Quarter 2019 OM4

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

83.3%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

83.3%

100.0%

100.0%

83.3%

Region VI OM4 3rd Quarter 2019

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

87.5%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

87.5%

100.0%

100.0%

87.5%

S tatewide OM4 3rd Quarter 2019

75.0%

100.0%

96.3%

85.2%

100.0%

74.1%

94.4%

87.0%

74.1%

100.0%

86.3%

63.0%

31

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report February 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________________________
The individual needs identified in the 107 cases sampled over the two quarters of the review period included a total of 157 unmet needs for the Second Quarter 2019 and 168 for cases in the Third Quarter 2019; for a total of 325 for the full period under review (individual cases may have more than one need identified). The Court Monitor notes that identified unmet needs are down sharply from the 452 unmet reported in the last status report. The highest noted unmet needs were Individual Counseling for parents (n=30), SW Visitation with Parents (21), DCF Contact with Active Service Providers (19), Individual Counseling for child (n=16), and Dental Screening (n=16). Client refusal remains the top noted reason for the unmet need.

Unmet Needs Priority Needs with Identified Barriers During the Prior Six Months

2nd

Quarter

Need

Identified Barrier

2019

No Referral Made by DCF during the

Adoption Recruitment

period under review

1

Other: No Adoption Resource Will

Adoption Recruitment

Accept Youth

0

Anger Management

Client Refused Service

1

No Referral Made by SW during the

ARG Consultation

period under review

5

ARG Consultation

Other: Court Delays/Court Schedule

1

ARG Consultation

Delay in Referral by SW

0

Behavior Management

Placed on Wait List

1

Case Management/Support Advocacy Delays in Referrals

5

Case Management/Support Advocacy Other: Untimely filing of TPR

1

Other: Lack of assessment of child active

Case Management/Support Advocacy in case

1

DCF Failed to Properly Assess

Child/Family Member related to this need

Case Management/Support Advocacy during the period under review

1

Day Treatment/Partial Hospitalization Client Refused Service

0

DCF/Provider Contacts

Delays in Referrals

4

DCF/Provider Contacts DCF/Provider Contacts DCF/Provider Contacts
DCF/Provider Contacts

Client refused ROI

1

No Referral Made by DCF during the

period under review

1

Provider Issues - Staffing, Lack of Follow

Through, etc.

1

DCF Failed to Properly Assess

Child/Family Member related to identified

service during the period under review

1

3rd Quarter
2019
0
1 2
1 0 4 0 4 0
0
1 1 3 0
4
1
3

32

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report

February 2020

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter

Need

Identified Barrier

2019

2019

Dental or Orthodontic Services Dental or Orthodontic Services

Client Refused Service No Referral Made by DCF during the period under review

0

1

0

1

Dental Screening or Evaluation Dental Screening or Evaluation Dental Screening or Evaluation
Dental Screening or Evaluation

Client Refused Service No Referral Made by DCF during the period under review Delay in Referral by SW DCF Failed to Properly Assess Child/Family Member related to this need during the period under review

4

6

3

0

1

0

1

0

Dental Screening or Evaluation
Detoxification - Parent Developmental Screening or Evaluation Domestic Violence Services Perpetrator Domestic Violence Services Victim Domestic Violence Services Victim Domestic Violence Services Victim Domestic Violence Services Victim Drug/Alcohol Education Services - Child Drug/Alcohol Education Services - Parent
Drug/Alcohol Testing - Parent
Drug/Alcohol Testing - Parent
Drug/Alcohol Testing - Parent

Provider Issues - Staffing, Lack of Follow Through, etc. Client Refused Service
Client Refused Service
Client Refused Service Service Deferred Pending Completion of Another
Placed on Wait List
Client Refused Service
UTD from Case Plan or Narratives No Referral Made by DCF during the period under review
Client Refused Service Client Refused Service Delay in Referral by SW Area Office did not Respond to reviewer request for clarification

0

1

0

1

1

0

1

0

1

0

1

1

0

3

0

1

1

0

0

1

0

3

0

1

0

1

Educational Screening or Evaluation Educational Screening or Evaluation
Educational Screening or Evaluation

Client Refused Service No Referral Made by DCF during the period under review DCF Failed to Properly Assess Child/Family Member related to this need during the period under review

1

2

1

0

0

2

Emergency Adult/Family Shelter Family Advocacy - Child Family or Marital Counseling
Family or Marital Counseling
Family or Marital Counseling

Client Refused Service
Client Refused Service
Client Refused Service No Referral Made by DCF during the period under review Provider Issues - Staffing, Lack of Follow Through, etc.

2

0

0

1

2

1

1

0

1

0

33

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report

February 2020

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter

Need

Identified Barrier

2019

2019

Family Preservation Services Family Preservation Services

Delay in Referral by SW Service Does Not Exist in local community

1

0

1

0

Family Preservation Services Family Preservation Services

Client Engaged after lengthy Delay DCF Failed to Properly Assess Child/Family Member related to this need during the period under review

1

0

1

0

Family Preservation Services Family Reunification Services Family Reunification Services
Family Reunification Services Family Reunification Services
Family Stabilization Services Group Counseling - Parent Group Home Head Start Services Health/Medical Screening or Evaluation Health/Medical Screening or Evaluation Health/Medical Screening or Evaluation Health/Medical Screening or Evaluation Housing Assistance (Section 8) Housing Assistance (Section 8) Housing Assistance (Section 8) Housing Assistance (Section 8) Housing Assistance (Section 8) Housing Assistance (Section 8)
Housing Assistance (Section 8) Housing Assistance (Section 8)

Client Refused Service Client Refused Service Delay in Referral by SW Provider Issues - Staffing, Lack of Follow Through, etc. Placed on Wait List No Referral Made by DCF during the period under review Client Refused Service Approval Process Client Refused Service
Delay in Referral by SW No Referral Made by DCF during the period under review
UTD from Case Plan or Narratives
Client Refused Service Approval Process Client Refused Service Placed on Wait List No Slots Available No Service Identified to Meet this Need Delay in Referral by SW Service Deferred Pending Completion of Another UTD from Case Plan or Narratives

0

1

1

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

0

1

1

0

1

0

2

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

6

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

1

0

0

1

0

1

0

1

34

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report February 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________________________

Need IEP Programming IEP Programming
IEP Programming Individual Counseling - Child Individual Counseling - Child Individual Counseling - Child Individual Counseling - Child Individual Counseling - Child Individual Counseling - Parent Individual Counseling - Parent Individual Counseling - Parent Individual Counseling - Parent Individual Counseling - Parent In-Home Parent Education Services In-Home Parent Education Services In-Home Parent Education Services In-Home Treatment In-Home Treatment In-Home Treatment In-Home Treatment In-Home Treatment
In-Home Treatment

Identified Barrier Provider Issues - Staffing, Lack of Follow Through, etc.
Client Refused Service DCF Failed to Properly Assess Child/Family Member related to this need during the period under review
Client Refused Service
Delay in Referral by SW Service Deferred Pending Completion of Another No Referral Made by DCF during the period under review
Placed on Wait List
Client Refused Service Service Deferred Pending Completion of Another Provider Issues - Staffing, Lack of Follow Through, etc. Other Barrier - Client engaged sporadically
Delay in Referral by SW
Client Refused Service
Delay in Referral by SW No Service Identified to Meet this Need
Client Refused Service
Placed on Wait List
Delay in Referral by SW No Referral Made by DCF during the period under review
Insurance Issues DCF Failed to Properly Assess Child/Family Member related to this need during the period under review

2nd Quarter 2019
4 2

3rd Quarter 2019
0 0

0

1

4

6

1

2

1

0

0

1

0

1

10

14

3

0

1

0

1

0

0

1

1

4

1

1

1

0

1

2

1

0

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

1

35

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report February 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________________________

Need Inpatient Substance Abuse Treatment - Parent Inpatient Substance Abuse Treatment - Parent
Job Coaching/Placement
Maintaining Family Ties
Medically Fragile Supports/Services Medication Management - Child Medication Management - Child Medication Management - Child Medication Management - Parent Mental Health Screening or Evaluation - Child Mental Health Screening or Evaluation - Child
Mental Health Screening or Evaluation - Child Mental Health Screening or Evaluation - Child Mental Health Screening or Evaluation - Child Mental Health Screening or Evaluation - Child Mental Health Screening or Evaluation - Parent Mental Health Screening or Evaluation - Parent Mentoring Mentoring Other Medical Intervention: Orthopedist Other OOH Service - Legal
Other OOH Service - Legal
Other OOH Service - Legal Other OOH Service - Legal

Identified Barrier
Client Refused Service Provider Issues - Staffing, Lack of Follow Through, etc. No Service Identified to Meet this Need No Referral Made by DCF during the period under review Service Does Not Exist in local community
Client Refused Service
Delay in Referral by SW
Placed on Wait List
Client Refused Service
Placed on Wait List No Service Identified to Meet this Need DCF Failed to Properly Assess Child/Family Member related to this need during the period under review
Client Refused Service No Referral Made by DCF during the period under review Service Deferred Pending Completion of Another
Client Refused Service No Service Identified to Meet this Need
Client Refused Service
Placed on Wait List
Delay in Referral by SW
Neglect Petitions not filed Child in care 3+ years with no TPR or exception filed Delay in Filing TPR/No TPR filed during the period under review
Delays in filing PTOG/STOG

2nd Quarter 2019 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1
1 0 0 0 6 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 0

3rd Quarter 2019 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 1
0 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 1 0 0 2 2

36

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report

February 2020

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter

Need

Identified Barrier

2019

2019

Other State Agency Program (DDS, No Referral Made by DCF during

DMHAS, MSS)

the period under review

1

0

Other State Agency Program (DDS,

DMHAS, MSS)

Client Refused Service

0

1

Outpatient Substance Abuse

Treatment - Parent

Client Refused Service

8

5

Parenting Classes Parenting Classes

Client Refused Service No Referral Made by DCF during the period under review

1

0

1

0

Parenting Classes Parenting Classes Parenting Groups

Client Refused Service Service Deferred Pending Completion of Another Service Deferred Pending Completion of Another

1

0

0

1

1

0

Parenting Groups

Client Refused Service

0

2

Problem Sexual Behavior Evaluation Client Refused Service

1

0

Psychiatric Hospitalization - Child No Slots Available

1

0

Psychiatric Hospitalization - Child Psychological or Psychosocial Evaluation - Child Psychological or Psychosocial Evaluation - Parent Psychological or Psychosocial Evaluation - Parent
Relative Foster Care

Placed on Wait List
Client Refused Service
Client Refused Service
Other - Determination of Court No Referral Made by DCF during the period under review

0

1

1

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

Relative Foster Care Relative Foster Care Residential Facility

Other: Delay in Licensing Other: Identified Relative Unwilling to Foster No Service Identified to Meet this Need

0

1

0

1

1

0

Substance Abuse Screening - Child Substance Abuse Screening - Child

Client Refused Service No Referral Made by DCF during the period under review

1

0

1

0

Substance Abuse Screening - Parent Client Refused Service

5

5

Substance Abuse Screening - Parent Delay in Referral by SW

1

1

No Service Identified to Meet this

Substance Abuse Screening - Parent Need

1

0

No Referral Made by DCF during

Substance Abuse Screening - Parent the period under review

0

1

Supportive Housing for Recovering

Families

Placed on Wait List

2

0

Supportive Housing for Recovering No Service Identified to Meet this

Families

Need

1

0

DCF Failed to Properly Assess

Child/Family Member related to

Supportive Housing for Recovering this need during the period under

Families

review

1

0

Supportive Housing for Recovering

Families

UTD from Case Plan or Narratives

0

1

37

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report

February 2020

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter

Need

Identified Barrier

2019

2019

SW/Child Visitation SW/Child Visitation

Delays in Visitation DCF Failed to Properly Assess Child/Family Member related to this need during the period under review

1

4

1

4

SW/Parent Visitation

Client Refused Service

1

2

SW/Parent Visitation SW/Parent Visitation

Area Office did not Respond to reviewer request for clarification DCF Failed to Properly Assess Child/Family Member related to this need during the period under review

1

0

1

4

SW/Parent Visitation

Delays in Visitation

0

6

SW/Parent Visitation VNA Services

UTD from Case Plan or Narratives

0

2

Referred Service Unwilling to

Engage Client

1

0

Total Unmet Needs Identified

157

168

In looking at discussion of the unmet needs identified within the six-month planning cycle reviewed, reviewers noted that most cases addressed all (42.1%) or some (26.2%) of these needs in the approved plan going forward.
There are a total of 7 cases in which needs and services unmet during the prior period were discussed at the ACR but were not addressed in the current approved case plan.

Were all needs and services unmet during the prior six months discussed at the ACR and, as appropriate, incorporated as action steps on the current case plan?

Need Unmet Incorporated into the Current Case Plan
Yes - All Yes - Partially No - None N/A - There are no Unmet Needs N/A - this is the initial plan Total

Frequency 2nd
Quarter 21
14
4
7
7
53

Frequency 3rd
Quarter 24
14
3
9
4
54

SemiAnnual Frequency
45
28
7
16
11
107

In looking at the recurrence of unmet needs across consecutive planning cycles, the review found that during each quarter there were 21 cases (39.6%) identifying the same unmet need carrying across the two planning case planning cycles.

38

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report February 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewers also noted that there continue to be discrepancies between issues noted in the case record (or identified at the ACR) and those incorporated into the case plan. This occurred related to 47 needs during the Second Quarter and 36 needs during the Third Quarter. This does not mean that the agency was not working on addressing the priority need, but rather that the case plan failed to accurately identify the priority need for the families as evidenced by the documentation or noted at ACR.
39

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report February 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________________________
JUAN F. ACTION PLAN MONITORING REPORT
November 2019
This report includes data relevant to the permanency and placement issues and action steps embodied within the Action Plan. Data provided comes from the monthly point-in-time information from LINK and the Chapin Hall database.
A. PERMANENCY ISSUES
Progress Towards Permanency:
The following table developed using the Chapin Hall database provides a longitudinal view of permanency for annual admission cohorts from 2006 through 2019.
Figure 1: Children Exiting With Permanency, Exiting Without Permanency, Unknown Exits and Remaining In Care (Entry Cohorts)
Period of Entry to Care 200 200 200 200 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total Entries 3408 2853 2829 2628 2694 2298 1859 2005 1929 1988 2257 2082 2357 1652

In 1 yr
In 2 yrs
In 3 yrs
In 4 yrs To Date
In 1 yr
In 2 yrs
In 3 yrs
In 4 yrs To Date

1262
37.0 %
1972
57.9 %
2324
68.2 %
2500
73.4 %
2622
76.9 %
259
7.6%
345
10.1 %
401
11.8 %
449
13.2 %
553
16.2 %

1095
38.4 %
1675
58.7 %
1974
69.2 %
2090
73.3 %
2174
76.2 %
263
9.2%
318
11.1 %
354
12.4 %
392
13.7 %
468
16.4 %

1098
38.8 %
1676
59.2 %
1943
68.7 %
2033
71.9 %
2121
75.0 %
250
8.8%
320
11.3 %
363
12.8 %
394
13.9 %
476
16.8 %

1093
41.6 %
1582
60.2 %
1792
68.2 %
1895
72.1 %
1953
74.3 %
208
7.9%
267
10.2 %
300
11.4 %
328
12.5 %
408
15.5 %

1025 707 560 535

38.0 30.8 30.1 26.7

%

%

%

%

1378 1052 857 841

51.2 %
1676

45.8 %
1245

46.1 %
1035

41.9 %
1072

62.2 %
1780

54.2 %
1357

55.7 %
1119

53.5 %
1159

66.1 %
1851

59.1 %
1436

60.2 %
1160

57.8 %
1211

68.7 62.5 62.4 60.4

%

%

%

%

Non-Permanent Exits

196 138

95 125

7.3% 6.0% 5.1% 6.2%

243 188 146 182 9.0% 8.2% 7.9% 9.1%

275 220 190 218

10.2 9.6% 10.2 10.9

%

%

%

309 257 218 236

11.5 11.2 11.7 11.8

%

%

%

%

385 303 255 277

14.3 13.2 13.7 13.8

%

%

%

%

499 25.9
% 791 41.0
% 1000 51.8
% 1111 57.6
% 1160 60.1
%
111 5.8%
140 7.3%
157 8.1%
176 9.1%
200 10.4
%

427 21.5
% 754 37.9
% 972 48.9
%
1082 54.4
%
95 4.8%
124 6.2%
156 7.8%
182 9.2%

566 25.1
% 903 40.0
%
1191 52.8
% 68 3.0% 89 3.9%
116 5.1%

542 25.9
%
836 40.2
% 62 25.9 %
98 4.7%

571 24.2
%
92 3.9%

182 11.0
%
42 2.5%

40

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report February 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________________________
Period of Entry to Care
200 200 200 200 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Unknown Exits

In 1 yr

76

61

60

75 127 205 133 101 112 197 252 245

2.2% 2.1% 2.1% 2.9% 4.7% 8.9% 7.2% 5.0% 5.8% 9.9% 11.2 11.9

%

%

In 2

117

97

91 139 303 399 254 310 341 432 501

yrs

3.4% 3.4% 3.2% 5.3% 11.2 17.4 13.7 15.5 17.7 21.7 22.2

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

In 3

140 123 125 192 380 475 336 397 442 532

yrs

4.1% 4.3% 4.4% 7.3% 14.1 20.7 18.1 19.8 22.9 26.8

%

%

%

%

%

%

In 4

167 155 167 217 399 499 375 443 478

yrs

4.9% 5.4% 5.9% 8.3% 14.8 21.7 20.2 22.1 24.8

%

%

%

%

%

To

225 206 214 252 438 537 417 475 494 575 652 569 384

70

Date

6.6% 7.2% 7.6% 9.6% 16.3 23.4 22.4 23.7 25.6 28.9 28.9 27.3 16.3 4.2%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

Remain In Care

In 1 yr 1811 1434 1421 1252 1346 1248 1071 1244 1207 1269 1371 1233

In 2 yrs
In 3 yrs
In 4

53.1 50.3 50.2 47.6 50.0 54.3 57.6 62.0 62.6 63.8 60.7 59.2

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

974 763 742 640 770 659 602 672 657 678 764

28.6 26.7 26.2 24.4 28.6 28.7 32.4 33.5 34.1 34.1 33.9

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

543 402 398 344 363 358 298 318 330 328

15.9 14.1 14.1 13.1 13.5 15.6 16.0 15.9 17.1 16.5

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

292 216 235 188 206 185 147 167 164

yrs

8.6% 7.6% 8.3% 7.2% 7.6% 8.1% 7.9% 8.3% 8.5%

To Date

8

5

18

15

20

22

27

42

75 149 298 579 1310 1358

0.2% 0.2% 0.6% 0.6% 0.7% 1.0% 1.5% 2.1% 3.9% 7.5% 13.2 27.8 55.6 82.2

%

%

%

%

The following graphs show how the ages of children upon their entry to care, as well as at the time of exit, differ depending on the overall type of exit (permanent or non-permanent).

41

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report February 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________________________
FIGURE 2: CHARACTERISTICS OF CHILDREN EXITING WITH AND WITHOUT PERMANENCY (2018 EXIT COHORT)

Exited with Permanent Family

Age at Entry

Exited without Permanent Family

Exited with Permanent Family

Age at Exit

Exited without Permanent Family

Permanency Goals:
The following chart illustrates and summarizes the number of children (which excludes youth ages 18 and older) at various stages of placement episodes, and provides the distribution of Permanency Goals selected for them.

42

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report February 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________________________
FIGURE 3: DISTRIBUTION OF PERMANENCY GOALS ON THE PATH TO PERMANENCY (CHILDREN IN CARE ON NOVEMBER 4, 20194)

Is the child legally free (his or her parents’ rights have been terminated)?

Yes

No

563 Goals of:

↓ 3129

524 (93%) Has the child been in care more than 15 months?

Adoption No

Yes

29 (5%) OPPLA

1990

↓1139

7 (1%)

Has a TPR proceeding been filed?

Transfer of Guardianship
3 (1%) Reunification

Yes 253
Goals of:
201 (79%) Adoption

No
↓ 886

Is a reason documented not to file TPR?

Yes

No

24 (9%)

209

677

Trans. of Guardian: Goals of:

Documented Reasons: Goals of:

Sub/Unsub

85 (41%)

49%

259 (38%)

21 (8%) Reunify

Trans. of Guardian: Compelling Reason Trans. of Guardian:

Sub/Unsub

68%

Sub/Unsub

5 (2%) OPPLA

75 (36%) Adoption

Petition in process 30%

188 (28%) Reunify

2 (1%)

31 (15%)

Child is with relative

167 (25%)

Blank

Reunify

9%

Adoption

18 (9%) OPPLA

Services not provided

59 (9%) OPPLA

4 (1%)

Blank

Preferred Permanency Goals:
Reunification Total number of children with Reunification goal, pre-TPR and post-TPR Number of children with Reunification goal pre-TPR
• Number of children with Reunification goal, pre-TPR, >= 15 months in care
• Number of children with Reunification goal, pre-TPR, >= 36 months in care
Number of children with Reunification goal, post-TPR

Aug 2018 1615
1614
283

Nov 2018 1587
1586
256

Feb 2019 1673
1671
278

May 2019 1589
1588
237

Aug 2019 1557
1557
251

Nov 2019 1501
1498
240

29

30

29

25

26

35

1

1

2

1

0

3

4 Children over age 18 are not included in these figures.
43

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report February 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________________________

Transfer of Guardianship (Subsidized and Non-Subsidized) Total number of children with Transfer of Guardianship goal (subsidized and nonsubsidized), pre-TPR and post TPR Number of children with Transfer of Guardianship goal (subsidized and nonsubsidized), pre-TPR
• Number of children with Transfer of Guardianship goal (subsidized and non-subsidized , pre-TPR, >= 22 months)
• Number of children with Transfer of Guardianship goal (subsidized and non-subsidized), pre-TPR , >= 36 months)
Number of children with Transfer of Guardianship goal (subsidized and nonsubsidized), post-TPR

Aug 2018 558 548 223
63
10

Nov 2018 558 548 230
64
10

Feb 2019 567 560 225
68
7

May 2019 604 592 214
81
12

Aug 2019 585 574 181
73
11

Nov 2019 636 629 196
71
7

Adoption
Total number of children with Adoption goal, pre-TPR and post-TPR Number of children with Adoption goal, preTPR Number of children with Adoption goal, TPR not filed, >= 15 months in care
• Reason TPR not filed, Compelling Reason
• Reason TPR not filed, petitions in progress
• Reason TPR not filed , child is in placement with relative
• Reason TPR not filed, services needed not provided
• Reason TPR not filed, blank Number of cases with Adoption goal post-TPR
• Number of children with Adoption goal, post-TPR, in care >= 15 months
• Number of children with Adoption goal, post-TPR, in care >= 22 months
Number of children with Adoption goal, postTPR, no barrier, > 3 months since TPR Number of children with Adoption goal, postTPR, with barrier, > 3 months since TPR Number of children with Adoption goal, postTPR, with blank barrier, > 3 months since TPR

Aug 2018 1198 626 194
9
31
8
3
143 572 552
473
14 42 361

Nov 2018 1249 675 207
10
29
5
1
162 574 541
483
14 39 317

Feb 2019 1189 689 225
10
30
2
4
179 500 471
414
9 27 251

May 2019 1257 714 237
10
30
4
4
189 543 504
417
6 30 246

Aug 2019 1266 717 229
11
39
6
1
172 549 515
434
7 29 315

Nov 2019 1224 700 242
6
61
6
2
167 524 497
415
9 22 271

44

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report

February 2020

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Progress Towards Permanency:

Aug

Nov

Feb

May

Aug

Nov

2018 2018 2019 2019 2019 2019

Total number of children, pre-TPR, TPR not

686

667

725

653

645

677

filed, >=15 months in care, no compelling

reason

Non-Preferred Permanency Goals:

Long Term Foster Care Relative: Total number of children with Long Term Foster Care Relative goal Number of children with Long Term Foster Care Relative goal, pre-TPR
• Number of children with Long Term Foster Care Relative goal, 12 years old and under, pre-TPR
Long Term Foster Care Rel. goal, post-TPR
• Number of children with Long Term Foster Care Relative goal, 12 years old and under, post-TPR

Aug 2018
0
0
0
0 0

Nov 2018
0
0
0
0 0

Feb 2019
0
0
0
0 0

May 2019
0
0
0
0 0

Aug 2019
0
0
0
0 0

Nov 2019
0
0
0
0 0

OPPLA Total number of children with OPPLA goal Number of children with OPPLA goal, pre-TPR
• Number of children with OPPLA goal, 12 years old and under, pre-TPR
Number of children with OPPLA goal, post-TPR • Number of children with OPPLA goal, 12 years old and under, post-TPR

Aug 2018 129
97 0
32 0

Nov 2018 113
86 0
27 0

Feb 2019 107
80 0
27 0

May 2019 117
92 0
25 0

Aug 2019 131 104
0
27 0

Nov 2019 136 107
0
29 0

Missing Permanency Goals:
Number of children, with no Permanency goal, pre-TPR, >= 2 months in care Number of children, with no Permanency goal, pre-TPR, >= 6 months in care Number of children, with no Permanency goal, pre-TPR, >= 15 months in care Number of children, with no Permanency goal, pre-TPR, TPR not filed, >= 15 months in care, no compelling reason

Aug 2018
15
8
6
3

Nov 2018
17
6
4
2

Feb 2019
13
4
2
2

May 2019
11
7
4
1

Aug 2019
16
8
0
0

Nov 2019
21
13
6
4

45

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report February 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________________________
B. PLACEMENT ISSUES
Placement Experiences of Children
The following chart shows the change in use of family and congregate care for admission cohorts between 2006 and 2019.

The next table shows specific care types used month-by-month for entries between October 2018

and September 2019.

First placement type

Residential

N

%

DCF Facilities

N

%

Foster Care

N

%

Group Home

N

%

Relative Care

N

%

Medical

N

%

Safe Home

N

%

Shelter

N

%

Special Study

N

%

Total

N

%

Case Summaries

enterOct18
102 51.5
1 0.5 64 32.3
5 2.5
3 1.5
2 1.0 21 10.6 198 100.0

enterNov18 enterDec18

1

4

0.5

2.6

1

0.5

101

56

47.0

36.6

1

0.7

76

61

35.3

39.9

10

4

4.7

2.6

4

4

1.9

2.6

4

4

1.9

2.6

18

19

8.4

12.4

215

153

100.0

100.0

enterJan19 enterFeb19 enterMar19

3

2

4

1.7

1.4

1.9

100 55.2
1 0.6 52 28.7
2 1.1
4 2.2
6 3.3 13 7.2 181 100.0

70 47.6
60 40.8
3 2.0
2 1.4
2 1.4
8 5.4 147 100.0

123 57.5
1 0.5 63 29.4
7 3.3
4 1.9
5 2.3
7 3.3 214 100.0

enterApr19 enterMay19

4

2

2.4

1.1

3

1.6

79

107

46.5

56.3

1

2

0.6

1.1

58

47

34.1

24.7

5

3

2.9

1.6

3

6

1.8

3.2

5

10

2.9

5.3

15

10

8.8

5.3

170

190

100.0

100.0

enterJun19 1
0.5
94 46.8
1 0.5 73 36.3 13 6.5
6 3.0
2 1.0 11 5.5 201 100.0

enterJul19 enterAug19 enterSep19

3

2

1

1.7

1.0

0.6

3

1

1.7

0.6

106

84

79

60.2

42.6

44.9

1

2

2

0.6

1.0

1.1

46

81

72

26.1

41.1

40.9

2

3

3

1.1

1.5

1.7

3

6

3

1.7

3.0

1.7

2

3

2

1.1

1.5

1.1

10

16

13

5.7

8.1

7.4

176

197

176

100.0

100.0

100.0

46

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report February 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________________________
The chart below shows the change in level of care usage over time for different age groups.
47

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report February 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________________________
It is also useful to look at where children spend most of their time in DCF care. The chart below shows this for admission of the 2006 through 2019 admission cohorts.

The following chart shows monthly statistics of children who exited from DCF placements between October 2018 and September 2019, and the portion of those exits within each placement type from which they exited.

Last placement type in spell (as of censor date)

Residential N

%

DCF

N

Facilities %

Foster Care N %

Group Home N %

Independent N

Living

%

Relative

N

Care

%

Medical

N

%

Safe Home N %

Shelter

N

%

Special

N

Study

%

Uknown

N

%

Total

N

%

Case Summaries

exitOct18 exitNov18 exitDec18 exitJan19 exitFeb19 exitMar19 exitApr19 exitMay19 exitJun19 exitJul19 exitAug19 exitSep19

4

3

4

2

4

1

8

1

3

3

1

2.3

1.8

2.4

1.5

2.5

0.5

4.3

0.5

1.8

1.4

0.7

1

2

1

2

1

0.6

1.2

0.7

1.2

0.6

77

121

66

70

58

59

84

74

100

74

103

76

44.3 4

49.4 6

39.5 4

41.7 7

43.3 6

36.2 2

45.2 5

39.8 3

53.2 4

44.8 1

48.1 2

51.7 3

2.3

2.4

2.4

4.2

4.5

1.2

2.7

1.6

2.1

0.6

0.9

2.0

2

2

5

2

3

4

5

5

2

3

1.1

0.8

3.0

1.2

2.2

2.5

2.7

2.7

62

83

66

64

56

67

71

72

1.2

67

59

2.0

79

55

35.6 1
0.6

33.9 8
3.3

39.5 6
3.6

38.1 1
0.6

41.8 2
1.5

41.1 2
1.2

38.2 3
1.6

38.7

35.6 1
0.5

35.8

36.9
3 1.4

37.4

1

1

3

1

1

1

2

1

4

2

2

0.6

0.4

1.8

0.6

0.7

0.6

1.1

0.5

2.1

1.2

0.9

4

4

5

3

1

4

5

9

3

4

4

4

2.3

1.6

3.0

1.8

0.7

2.5

2.7

4.8

1.6

2.4

1.9

2.7

17

19

6

14

3

16

10

12

8

15

14

4

9.8

7.8

3.6

8.3

2.2

9.8

5.4

6.5

4.3

9.1

6.5

2.7

1

1

1

2

1

2

2

4

4

1

0.6

0.4

0.6

1.2

0.7

1.2

1.1

2.4

1.9

0.7

174

245

167

168

134

163

186

186

188

165

214

147

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

48

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report February 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________________________
The next chart shows the primary placement type for children who were in care on November 4, 2019 organized by length of time in care.
P rim ary typ e of sp ell ( >50% ) * Du ration Categ ory Crosstab u lation
Duration Category

Primary type of spell (>50%)
T otal

Residential Count

% Row % Col

DCF Facilities

Count % Row % Col

Foster Care Count

% Row

% Col

Group Home

Count % Row

% Col

Independent Count

Living

% Row

% Col

Relative Care

Count % Row

% Col

Medical

Count

% Row

% Col

Mixed (none Count

>50%)

% Row

% Col

Safe Home Count

% Row

% Col

Shelter
Special Study Unknown

Count % Row % Col Count % Row % Col Count % Row % Col
Cou n t

% Row

% Col

1 <= durat < 30 30 <= durat < 90

2

3

90 <= durat < 180
26

180 <= durat < 365
55

365 <= durat < 545 545 <= durat < 1095 more than 1095

68

109

75

0.6 0.2
1 2.6 0.1 15 0.7 1.2
2 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
9 1.4 0.7
0 0.0 0.0
1 0.2 0.1 842 49.2 67.2 380 35.6 30.3
0 0.0 0.0
1 2.8 0.1
1253

0.9 0.4
3 7.7 0.4 38 1.8 4.9
3 1.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 28 4.3 3.6
2 11.1
0.3 10 2.3 1.3 368 21.5 47.1 318 29.8 40.7
4 2.4 0.5
5 13.9
0.6
782

7.7 3.7
4 10.3
0.6 96 4.6 13.8 11 3.9 1.6 1.0 3.1 0.1 58 9.0 8.4
0 0.0 0.0 19 4.4 2.7 256 15.0 36.9 203 19.0 29.3 15 9.1 2.2
5 13.9
0.7
694

16.3 6.1 14
35.9 1.6 283
13.7 31.4
32 11.4
3.6 6
18.8 0.7 133
20.6 14.8
9 50.0
1.0 33 7.7 3.7 177 10.3 19.6 116 10.9 12.9 39 23.8 4.3
4 11.1
0.4
901

20.1 10.5
7 17.9
1.1 261 12.6 40.3
44 15.7
6.8 2
6.3 0.3 129 20.0 19.9
4 22.2
0.6 41 9.6 6.3 34 2.0 5.3 31 2.9 4.8 22 13.4 3.4
4 11.1
0.6
647

32.2 8.6 4
10.3 0.3 625
30.2 49.2
96 34.2
7.6 7
21.9 0.6 219
34.0 17.2
3 16.7
0.2 103 24.0 8.1
30 1.8 2.4 17 1.6 1.3 49 29.9 3.9
9 25.0
0.7
1271

22.2 5.8 6
15.4 0.5 753
36.4 58.7
93 33.1
7.2 16 50.0 1.2 69 10.7 5.4
0 0.0 0.0 222 51.7 17.3
5 0.3 0.4
1 0.1 0.1 35 21.3 2.7
8 22.2
0.6
1283

18.3

11.4

10.2

13.2

9.5

18.6

18.8

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Total 338
100.0 4.9 39
100.0 0.6
2071 100.0
30.3 281 100.0 4.1
32 100.0
0.5 645 100.0 9.4
18 100.0
0.3 429 100.0 6.3 1712 100.0 25.1 1066 100.0 15.6 164 100.0 2.4
36 100.0
0.5
6831
100.0
100.0

49

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report February 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________________________
Congregate Care Settings

Placement Issues
Total number of children 12 years old and under, in Congregate Care
• Number of children 12 years old and under, in DCF Facilities
• Number of children 12 years old and under, in Group Homes
• Number of children 12 years old and under, in Residential
• Number of children 12 years old and under, in Safe Home or SFIT
• Number of children 12 years old and under in Shelter Total number of children ages 13-17 in Congregate Placements

Aug 2018
15
0
7
7
1
0 233

Nov 2018
17
1
4
8
4
0 218

Feb 2019
17

May Aug Nov 2019 2019 2019
11 15 15

1

1

0

0

4

4

4

3

7

5

7

8

5

1

2

3

0

0

2

1

209 202 188 170

Use of SAFE Homes, Shelters and PDCs
The analysis below provides longitudinal data for children (which may include youth ages 18 and older) who entered care in Safe Homes, Permanency Diagnostic Centers and Shelters.

Period of Entry to Care

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Total Entries

3408 2853 2829 2627 2693 2298 1859 2005 1929 1990 2261 2082 2358 541

SAFE Homes/SFIT 396 382 335 471 331 145 68 56 30

9 23 54 54 37

Shelters

12% 13% 12% 18% 12% 6% 4% 3% 2% 0% 1% 3% 2% 7% 114 136 144 186 175 194 169 175 91 58 53 35 45 37

Total

3% 5% 5% 7% 6% 8% 9% 9% 5% 3% 2% 2% 2% 7% 510 518 479 657 506 339 237 231 121 67 76 89 99 74

15% 18% 17% 25% 19% 15% 13% 12% 6% 3% 3% 4% 4% 14%

Total Initial Plcmnts <= 30 days
31 - 60
61 - 91 92 - 183
184+

Period of Entry to Care

200 200 200 200 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201 201

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

510 518 479 657 506 339 237 231 121 67 76 89 99 74

186 162 150 229 135 103 60 63 37 28 28 36 56 48

36.5 31.3 31.3 34.9 26.7 30.4 25.3 27.3 30.6 41.8 36.8 40.4 56.6 64.9

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

73 73 102 110 106 56 44 41 27

9

13 25 15

8

14.3 14.1 21.3 16.7 20.9 16.5 18.6 17.7 22.3 13.4 17.1 28.1 15.2 10.8

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

87 79 85 157 91 54 39 38 18

8

8

12

8

5

17.1 15.3 17.7 23.9 18.0 15.9 16.5 16.5 14.9 11.9 10.5 13.5 8.1% 6.8%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

118 131 110 124 136 84 56 57 24 15 17 10 14 12

23.1 25.3 23.0 18.9 26.9 24.8 23.6 24.7 19.8 22.4 22.4 11.2 14.1 16.2

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

46 73 32 37 38 42 38 32 15

7

10

6

6

1

9.0% 14.1 6.7% 5.6% 7.5% 12.4 16.0 13.9 12.4 10.4 13.2 6.7% 6.1% 1.4%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

50

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report February 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________________________
The following is the point-in-time data taken from the monthly LINK data, and may include those youth ages 18 and older.

Placement Issues
Total number of children in SAFE Home/SFIT
• Number of children in SAFE Home/SFIT, > 60 days
• Number of children in SAFE Home/SFIT, >= 6 months
Total number of children in STAR/Shelter Placement
• Number of children in STAR/Shelter Placement, > 60 days
• Number of children in STAR/Shelter Placement, >= 6 months
Total number of children in MH Shelter • Total number of children in MH Shelter, > 60 days • Total number of children in MH Shelter, >= 6 months

May 2018
17 14 1 26 14 3
0 0 0

Aug 2018
13 5 1 25 13 3
0 0 0

Nov 2018
9 4 1 23 12 4
0 0 0

Feb 2019
10 4 1 25 15 4
0 0 0

May 2019
11 3 0 24 7 3
0 0 0

Aug 2019
9 4 1 20 8 1
0 0 0

Nov 2019
9 5 1 8 7 1
0 0 0

Time in Residential Care
Placement Issues
Total number of children in Residential care • Number of children in Residential care, >= 12 months in Residential placement • Number of children in Residential care, >= 60 months in Residential placement

May 2018
82 27

Aug 2018
93 29

Nov 2018
91 21

Feb 2019
86 21

May 2019
89 23

Aug 2019
87 24

Nov 2019
82 23

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

51

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report February 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________________________
Appendix A Commissioner's Highlights from: The Department of Children and Families Exit Plan Outcome Measures-Status
Report (April 1, 2019 – September 30, 2019)
52

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report February 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________________________
Commissioner Statement for Juan F v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report April 1, 2019 - September 30, 2019
This is such an exciting and promising time to work in child welfare in Connecticut! A number of critical developments are underway with the potential to significantly improve how we partner with providers to serve children and families in our state.
First, in the context of the Juan F. Exit Plan, I am pleased that the Court Monitor can "precertify" that the Department has achieved maintaining caseload standards. This measure is truly fundamental to all our work. Appropriate staffing equates to better safety decisions, risk assessments and timely intervention for children and families. As we ask our social workers to involve children, families and communities more fully as partners in our work, we must ensure that staff have the necessary time and support to do so. Thus, reasonable caseloads are critically important. Tremendous appreciation and thanks to Governor Lamont, the Office of Policy and Management, and the Connecticut Legislature for their steady and substantial support this past year.
This support and capacity comes at an important juncture as we work hard to fulfill the vision of this new Administration. Our values are clear and simple:
• Keep children safely at home whenever possible; • place children with relatives (including maternal and paternal family) to maintain kinship
bonds, if they must enter state care and • if they cannot be safely placed with someone they know, children will be in a family
through our strong networks of foster family homes.
We have also steadily reduced the use of institutional care for those children who require out of home clinical treatment. Only 7.2 percent of children in care on January 1, 2020 were in congregate or group care.
These were the goals I set out immediately upon assuming the role of Commissioner one year ago. In less than one year, we have reduced the number of children in state care by almost 6 percent while at the same time increasing the share of children living with relatives and kin. I am very proud of the work of our staff in making significant progress in each of these areas.
Multidisciplinary assessments and Enhanced Service Coordination will serve to more accurately identify root causes of familial strife and match to the appropriate services to address those needs. The deployment of tablets and continued development of CT-KIND will enable improved documentation and data collection efforts through technology. Supervision of all staff regardless of position or function is also a priority focus with an emphasis on the more consistent utilization of Structured Decision Making tools related to safety and risk factors.
During this period under review, the department participated in the Statewide Advisory Council's (SAC) annual retreat. Throughout this forum our aspirational targets were solidified through feedback heard from partners including youth, family advocates, providers, sister state agencies, and legislative representatives. This forum served to emphasize our desire to be inclusive of all voices as we continue to collaborate in improving outcomes for children.
53

Juan F. v. Lamont Exit Plan Status Report February 2020 _____________________________________________________________________________________________
The Department has also begun, in earnest, the planning stages of developing our CT state plan in response to the federal Family First Prevention Services Act. DCF hosted a standing-roomonly kickoff in November 2019 which was attended by our child welfare system partners. Since that event, over 200 stakeholders have been participating on five distinct Family First workgroups. The provisions of Family First are a part of the framework in an overall prevention strategy. For CT's children and families to benefit from Family First, stakeholder involvement is absolutely vital in the state plan development. We are excited to be a galvanizing element on this team approach to fully engaged communities in empowering families to raise resilient children who thrive!
We, at DCF, are committed to continuing progress. To that end, in early January the DCF Executive team held a statewide summit for our leadership teams from all 14 area offices, facilities and central office divisions to clearly focus the department's vision for 2020. We were fortunate to have Dr. Jerry Milner, Acting Commissioner of the Administration for Children and Families, a division of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, offer an inspiring and energizing keynote about the necessity to expand prevention efforts in child welfare, including opportunities within Family First. Dr. Milner's invigorating presentation is in concert with this Administration's vision for the child welfare system in Connecticut. The summit was a wonderful opportunity to reinforce our common values of keeping children safely at home, and re-aligning our services to ensure the highest risk populations have their needs met.
We greatly appreciate the work of the Office of the Court Monitor and the Federal Court in supporting our steadfast efforts towards approaching an exit from Juan F. I again thank the Connecticut General Assembly and the Lamont Administration, including the Governor's Office, the Office of Policy and Management and our sister state agencies. The department's executive team is continually grateful to the DCF staff, who do great and difficult work each day. We thank the thousands of partners in communities across Connecticut standing with us. Service providers, educators, law enforcement officials, court personnel, medical providers and others are all making fantastic contributions to our efforts to support children and families through difficult times.
Most of all, we thank the children and families themselves for their active engagement in all our efforts. They hold the answers, and we need to listen to continue to make our state a great place for all of us to live.
54

 </s> ..

i\

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

F/L:'D

....

1':",\

lIeI'/J'·

....... w

/Ul"\

':-

" i

," i..

! J

fi(j' ij'

;-..

U. t ',' :~. ~)

'7' - _..

;i 4~d: '! :~.

JUAN F., a minor, by and through

his next friends BRIAN LYNCH,

M.S.W., and ISABEL ROMERO;

BECKY M., a minor, by and through

her next friends MORRIS

WESSEL, M.D., and NANCY ORSI;

BENJAMIN B., a minor, by and

:

through his next friends BARRY

KASDAN, M.S.W., and EDYTHE

LATNEY, M.H.S.A.;

JASON B., a minor, by and through

his next friends GEORGE PIPKIN

· and JOHN LEVENTHAL, M.D.;
ANNA R., a minor, by and through her next friends CESAR

BATALLA and JULIA RAMOS GRENIER

Ph.D;

DOMINIQUE S., a minor, by and

through his next friends NANCY

HUMPHREYS, D.S.W., and MARGARET:

PENN, M. S . W. ;

PATRICK S., a minor, by and through:

his next friends JERRY REISMAN,

Ph.D, and JULIA HAMILTON;

DANIEL C., a minor, by and through

his next friends PATRICK

BOLOGNA, M.S.W., and CYNTHIA

McKENNA, M.S.W.;

FLORENCE J., a minor, by and

through her next friends

MICHAEL ROHDE, M.H.S.A. and

:

JUDITH HYDE', M.A.;

on behalf of themselves and all

others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs

·

v.

CIVIL NO.

H

, .

DECEMBER 19, 1989

I
1
~
WILLIAM O'NEILL, Governor, State of Connecticut,
AMY B. WHEATON, Ph.D, Commissioner,: Department of Children and Youth: Services, State of Connecticut, :
in their official capacities Defendants
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

I. INTRODUCTION

This is a civil rights class action brought by and on behalf

of Connecticut's most vulnerable citizens

all abused,

neglected, abandoned, and at risk children who are in the

custody, care, or supervision of the defendant Commissioner of

the Connecticut Department of Children and Youth Services

DCYS ( /I

/I ),

as

well

as

all

other children who have been abused,

neglected, or abandoned or are at risk of such maltreatment, and

who are, or should be, known to the defendant Commissioner of

DCYS by virtue of that status. In the state with the highest per

capita income of any in the country, Connecticut's most

vulnerable children continue to be subjected to widespread

violations of laws which were enacted to protect them and to

ensure for each of them an opportunity for a safe and heal thy

childhood and a permanent family.

Plaintiffs challenge certain unlawful policies and practices

of the defendant officials of the State of Connecticut concerning

the operation of Connecticut's child welfare system as it affects

their daily lives, specifically:

a. defendants' failure to provide adequate protective

services to children who are abused, neglected or who are at risk

of abuse, neglect, and maltreatment, including their failure to

ensure that all reports regarding these children are investigated

and responded to promptly by caseworkers who are trained

adequately and appropriately;

.1 I
- 2-

b. defendants' failure to make reasonable efforts to

keep families together by providing to families which are

threatened with the removal of a child because of abuse or

neglect reasonable and appropriate services to prevent placement

into out-of-home care;

c. defendants' failure to provide minimally-adequate

and appropriate care to all of the children who are placed by

them into foster homes or other substitute care settings,

including their failure to place children in the least

restrictive, most family-like settings and in settings which

allow them to maintain sibling relationships, their use of

overcrowded and inadequately trained and supervised foster homes

that do not conform to nationally-accepted standards, their

failure to ensure that all children in care receive adequate

medical and mental health assessments and treatment and adequate

and consistent parenting and nurturance, and their failure to

provide specialized substitute care placements for all children

with special needs,

d.

defendants' failure to develop and implement

appropriate case plans that will assure permanent placements for

all children in their custody, either by providing services to

families to enable the children to be returned home safely or by

timely placement of the children into other permanent homes.

Plaintiffs assert that Connecticut's child welfare system

endangers children it is charged to protect, causes harm to

- 3-
children it is charged to help, and has been allowed to deteriorate to a state of systemic, ongoing crisis. This crisis has caused, and is causing, irreparable injury to the thousands of children involved therein.
Plaintiffs assert that defendants' actions and knowing inactions in the face of this crisis have deprived plaintiffs, and all others similarly situated, of their rights as guaranteed by the First, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, their rights under the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 as amended, P.L. 96-272, 42 U.S.C. §§620-627, 670-679, and their rights under the federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§5101-5106. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to remedy defendants' unconstitutional and illegal policies and practices. II. JURISDICTION
1. This action alleging violations of federal statutes and the United States Constitution is authorized by 42 U.S.C. §1983 and jurisdiction over this action is conferred by 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343 (a)(3).
2. A declaratory judgment is authorized pursuant to 28 U. S.C. §§2201 and 2202 and by Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Injunctive relief is authorized by Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. An award of costs and attorneys' fees is authorized by 42 U.S.C. §1988.

I
OJ
I
- 4-
III. PARTIES Plaintiffs
3. Plaintiff Juan F. is a ten year old child who has been under the supervision of defendant Wheaton since at least 1985. He is currently committed to the custody of defendant Wheaton and resides in a Connecticut residential facility.
4. Plaintiff Juan F. appears in this action by and through his next friends Brian Lynch, M.S.W., and Isabel Romero. Mr. Lynch is Chief Executive Officer of The Children I s Center in Harnden, Connecticut and a member of the DCYS Regional Advisory Council for Region II. Ms. Romero is President of Connecticut InterAm Corporation in Cheshire, Connecticut and President of the Hispanic Coalition for Children and Families, in Waterbury, Connecticut.
5. Plaintiff Becky M. is a one year old infant who has been under the supervision and care of defendant Wheaton since shortly after her birth in February, 1988. She is currently residing with a relative in Connecticut.
6. Plaintiff Becky M. appears in this action by and through her next friends Morris Wessel, M.D. and Nancy Orsi. Dr. Wessel is a former Vice-President of the Child Welfare League of America and a pediatrician who has, in his thirty-seven years of practice, provided medical care to hundreds of children in the care of the DCYS and its predecessor agencies. Ms. Orsi is Acting President of the Professional Foster Care Association of

- 5-
Connecticut, President of the Connecticut Family Coalition, and a foster and adoptive parent who has, for seventeen years, provided foster care to more than thirty infants and children who are medically-involved.
7. Plaintiff Benjamin B. is a two and one-half year old toddler who was committed to defendant Wheaton's custody as an "uncared for" child in July, 1988. He currently resides in a Connecticut foster home.
8. Plaintiff Benjamin B. appears in this action by and through his next friends Barry Kasdan, M.S.W., and Edythe Latney, M.H.S.A. Mr. Kasdan is the Executive Director of the Milford Mental Health Clinic, Inc., a member of the DCYS Regional Advisory Council for Region II, and a former foster parent. Edythe Latney is Director of Social Services for the Town of Bloomfield, Connecticut, Co-Chairperson of Advocates for Black Children, and an appointed member of the Governor's Task Force on Transracial Adoption.
9. Plaintiff Jason B. is a ten month old infant, and Benjamin B.'s brother. He is in defendant Wheaton's care pursuant to an Order of Temporary Custody issued in June, 1989. He currently resides in a Connecticut specialized foster home distant from his birth mother and also his brother.
10. Plaintiff Jason B. appears in this action by and through his next friends George Pipkin and John Leventhal, M.D .. Mr. Pipkin is the Executive Director of the Hall Neighborhood

·1
I
I I
- 6-
House in· Bridgeport, Connecticut, an agency which provides services to nearly 22,000 Bridgeport residents each year, including day care, therapeutic day care, adoption, foster care, and home-based family preservation services. Dr. Leventhal is a pediatrician in the Primary Care Center at Yale-New Haven Hospi tal and Medical Director of the DART Committee for:~ that: facili ty which has responsibility for assessing suspected child abuse and neglect.
11. Plaintiff Anna R. is a ten year old child who has been committed to defendant Wheaton's custody and who currently resides in a Connecticut foster home.
12. Plaintiff Anna R. appears in this action by and through her next friends Cesar Batalla and Julia Ramos Grenier, M.S., Ph.D. Mr. Batalla is community relations .specialist for a prominent Connecticut business, President of the Puerto Rican Coalition of Bridgeport, and Vice-President of the Bridgeport Future Initiative. Dr. Grenier is a psychologist in private practice in Hartford, Connecticut, and a member of the Connecticut Sexual Abuse Task Force.
13. Plaintiff Dominique S. is a seven year old child who has been under the care and supervision of defendant Wheaton since Spring, 1989 and who currently resides in a relative foster home in Connecticut.
14. Plaintiff Dominique S. appears in this action by and through his next friends Nancy Humphreys, D. S .W., and Margaret

- 7-
Penn, M. S . W. Dr. Humphreys has worked in child welfare since 1960, is currently the Dean of the University of Connecticut School of Social Work, former President of the National Association of Social Workers, and a former board member of numerous national professional child welfare and social work organization. Margaret Penn is a social worker at the Mark Twain School in Hartford, Connecticut, a member of Advocates for Black Children, and a Member of the Connecticut Task Force on Transracial Adoption.
15. Plaintiff Patrick S. is a five year old child who has been under the care and supervision of defendant Wheaton since Spring, 1989, and who currently resides in a relative foster home in Connecticut.
16. Plaintiff Patrick S. appears in this action by and through his next friends Jerry Reisman, Ph.D., and Julia Hamilton. Dr. Reisman is Director of the Capitol Region Education Council's Preschool Intervention Program and Project First Step (a home intervention program). Ms. Hamilton is Chief of Social Work for Ambulatory Care at Yale-New Haven Hospital, a member of the DCYS Regional Advisory Council for Region II, and an Associate Professor of Social Work at Southern Connecticut State University.
17. Plaintiff Daniel C. is a one year old child who has been under the care and supervision of defendant Wheaton since

- 8-
Spring, 1989, and who currently resides in a relative foster home in Connecticut.
18. Plaintiff Daniel C. appears in this action by and through· his- next friends Patrick Bologna, M. S. W., and Cynthia McKenna, M.S.W. Mr. Bologna is the Executive Director of the Child Guidance Center of Greater Bridgeport, Inc. and a member of the Executive Committee of the Connecticut Association of Mental Health Clinics for Children. Ms. McKenna is a member of the Board of Directors of The Children's Concern, a past-Executive Director of Casey Family Program, East, and a former consultant to DCYS on foster care issues.
19. Plaintiff Florence J. is a thirteen year old child who was committed to defendant Wheaton's custody in June, 1989 under an Order of Temporary Custody, and who currently is placed with her mother in Connecticut under the protective supervision of DCYS, having been adjudicated to be uncared for.
20. Plaintiff Florence J. appears by and through her next friends Michael Rohde, M.H.S.A., and Judith Hyde, M.A. Mr. Rohde is the Executive Director of the Curtis Home Children's Program in Meriden, Connecticut, Vice-Chair of the Connecticut Commission on Children, and former co-chair of the Connecticut Sexual Abuse Task Force. Ms. Hyde is Director of the Child Protection Council of Northeastern Connecticut, a member of the DCYS Regional Advisory Council for Region VI, and a member of the Board of Directors for the Connecticut Children and the Courts Committee.

- 9-

Defendants

21.

Defendant WILLIAM O'NEILL is, and at all times

pertinent herein has been, Governor of the State of Connecticut.

Defendant O'Neill is empowered to take any action concerning the

protection of the citizens of the state and is required to

prepare a budget for the State. He is also authorized to apply

for federal funds or to designate any commissioner, officer or

agency of the state to apply for, accept, and expend federal

funds allocated or payable to the state, to establish and

administer or supervise the administration of any state-wide plan

which might be required as a condition for receipt of federal

funds, and to take all such other actions as are necessary to

fulfill the federal requirements. He is sued in his official

capacity.

22. Defendant AMY B. WHEATON, Ph.D, is, and at all times

pertinent herein has been, Commissioner of the Connecticut

Department of Children and Youth Services. As the chief

executive officer of that agency, she is responsible for the

overall operation, direction and supervision of DCYS, for

initially preparing and finally administering DCYS' budget, for

adopting and enforcing regulations and rules for the Department's

operation, and for the administration of all state and federal

funds received by DCYS for its programs and activities. She is

sued in her official capacity.

- 10 -
IV. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 23. The named plaintiffs bring this action as a class
action pursuant to Rule 23 (b) (1) and (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
24. Plaintiffs file this complaint on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated children, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief from the unconstitutional and unlawful actions and inactions of defendants, as herein set forth.
25. The named plaintiffs, Juan F. et aI, are children who are either abused, neglected, or abandoned, or who are at risk of such maltreatment about which DCYS knows, or should know. The named plaintiffs have suffered the deprivations of rights claimed herein.
26. The class plaintiffs seek to represent is composed of: 1) all children who were, are, or will be in the care, custody, or supervision of defendant Wheaton as a result of being abused, neglected, or abandoned, or of being found at risk of such maltreatment~ and 2) all children who are, or will be, abused, neglected, or abandoned, or who are or will be at serious risk of such maltreatment, of which DCYS knows, or should know.
27. Joinder of all members is impracticable as the class includes many thousands of children at anyone time and class membership fluctuates continuously.
28. The questions of law and fact common to the members of the plaintiff class include: I) whether defendants operate a child welfare system that conducts inadequate investigations of

- 11 -

child abuse or neglect and fails to offer adequate services to

children and their families to enable the children to remain

safely in their homes, instead of entering foster care or other

out-of-home placements; 2) whether defendants fail to provide

appropriate placements and proper care to the children in their

custody; 3) whether defendants fail to create and implement

appropriate plans for children to assure their proper care and

permanent placement; 4) whether defendants' actions and in-

actions violate plaintiffs' rights under the federal Adoption

Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980; 5) whether defendants'

actions and inactions violate plaintiffs' rights under the

federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act; and 6) whether

defendants' actions and inactions violate plaintiffs' rights

under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United

States Constitution.

29. The claims of the representative parties are typical of

those of the class in that the constitutional and statutory

deprivations alleged by the named plaintiffs and caused by

defendants are the same as those suffered by all other class

members.

30. The representative parties will fairly and adequately

protect the interests of the class. The named plaintiffs have no

interests antagonistic to those of the class.

Further,

plaintiffs are represented by attorneys experienc~d in children's

rights law and federal constitutional litigation.

- 12 -
31. The prosecution of separate actions by individual
members of the class would create a risk of inconsistent or
varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the
class which would establish incompatible stanoards of conduct for
defendants.
32. Defendants have consistently acted and refused to act
on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making
appropriate final injunctive and declaratory relief with respect
to the class as a whole.
v. STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. Administrative and Statutory Framework
1. DCYS
33. The Connecticut General Assembly has declared
the public policy of the State of Connecticut to be:
To protect children whose health and welfare may be adversely affected through injury and neglect; to strengthen the family and to make the home safe for children by enhancing the parental capacity for good child care; to provide a temporary or permanent nurturing and safe environment for children when necessary; and for these purposes to require the reporting of suspected child abuse, investigation of such reports by a social agency, and provision of services, where needed to such child and family. Conn. Gen. Stat. s 17-38a(a).
34. To fulfill this public policy, DCYS was
created. It is a Single budgeted agency mandated, by Conn. Gen.
Stat. §17-412, to "plan, create, develop, operate or arrange for,
administer and evaluate a comprehensive and integrated state-wide
program of services, including preventive services, for children

- 13 -

and youth" who are mentally ill, emotionally disturbed, substance

abusers, abused,neglected or uncared for, committed to it by any

court, and voluntarily admitted to it for services of any kind.

35.

State law mandates DCYS to provide: an

effective program for the placement, care and treatment of

children in its care; appropriate services to families and

children and youth as needed; staff development and training; and

aftercare and follow-up services appropriate to the needs of all

children under DCYS care.

It is also mandated to prepare

biennially a five-year master plan which includes a written plan

for the prevention of child abuse and neglect and a comprehensive

mental health plan for children and adolescents. Conn. Gen. Stat.

§17-412.

36. The Connecticut General Assembly has imposed

significant specific responsibilities on the defendant

Commissioner of DCYS. She, through her agents, is required to

investigate all referrals regarding children who are reported to

be abused, neglected, abandoned or at risk of such maltreatment,

whether made by a professional mandated by state law to make such

referrals, or by some other person, and whether made by written

report or by phone, letter or other means. She, through her

agents, is further required to conduct "immediate" inspections

regarding all referrals to DCYS by state-mandated reporters of

any child abuse, neglect or maltreatment, and "prompt"

investigations of all other referrals, and, when a referral is

- 14 -

substantiated, to take necessary action to protect the child who

is the subject of the referral, as well as all other children at

risk by being under the care of the same custodians. Her

additional mandated responsibilities include that she: provide

careful supervision of all children under DCYS' care and ensure

that they have adequate medical, dental, psychiatric,

psychological, social, religious and other services~ maintain a

variety of facilities and services for identification,

evaluation, treatment, and aftercare of children and youth in

need of DCYS' services and administer them in a coordinated and

integrated manner. Conn. Gen. Stat. §§17-32, 17-36 to 17-38c,

17-415, 17-446, 46b-129.

2. Federal Statutory Framework

37.

DCYS receives substantial federal funds

pursuant to the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act

of 1980, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 670-679 and 42

U.S.C. §§620-627. This Act, and the Connecticut Plans submitted

to and approved by the Secretary of the United States Department

of Health and Human Services in order for DCYS to obtain funding

pursuant to this Act, confer various rights upon children who are

in foster care or other out-of-home placements, or who are at

risk of entering such placements.

38. The federal Adoption Assistance and Child

Welfare Act of 1980 requires that reasonable efforts be made by

the defendants to provide services to enable children to remain

- 15 -
with their families or to be returned to their families whenever possible; that all children in foster care be provided written
..
case plans developed and reviewed within specified time periods; that these plans contain certain specified components; that appropriate services be provided to children, their parents, and their foster parents to address each child's needs and to assure each child's permanent placement; that each child receive proper care; that the homes or institutions in which children are placed conform to national standards and that foster care payments are appropriate; that children be placed in the least restrictive, most family-like setting; that children receive periodic judicial or administrative reviews; and that children receive dispositional reviews to determine their future status no later than eighteen months after placement.
39. DCYS receives federal funding pursuant to the federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment and Adoption Reform Act, as codified at 42 U.S.C. SS5101-5106.
40. The federal Child Abuse Act confers various rights upon children who, by virtue of reports of abuse or neglect, are or should be known to state agencies which receive funds pursuant to that Act. The Act requires defendants to institute "prompt investigations" into all reports of known or suspected instances of child abuse and neglect to substantiate the accuracy of the report and, if substantiated, to take immediate steps to protect the child who is the subject of the

- 16 -

substantiated referral, as well as all other children who are at

risk by being under the care of the same custodians. The Act

also requires defendant Wheaton to have administrative

procedures, trained and qualified personnel, and facilities

adequate to deal effectively with child abuse and neglect cases.

The federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act requires

state compliance with the federal Child Abuse Act.

41. Defendant Wheaton has established written DCYS

policy to implement the federal and state statutory mandates for

protective service investigations, which include specific time

periods within which investigations must be initiated and

completed.

The most serious referrals require same-day

commencement of investigation. The investigation of slightly

less severe referrals must commence by the following day and

investigation of all others within three working days.

B. The Named Plaintiffs

Juan F.

42. Plaintiff Juan F. was born in 1979.

43. Beginning in 1984, or earlier, DCYS began receiving

reports that Juan and his younger siblings were being neglected

and being raised in conditions which placed them at risk of harm,

including being left without parental supervision. DCYS failed

to take legally-mandated actions either to protect the children

or to make reasonable efforts to provide services that could have

enabled Juan's mother to provide adequate care to them.

- 17 -
44. In 1985, Juan's mother requested that her children be placed with DCYS because the family was about to be evicted and all utili ties had been cut off for non-payment. DCYS took the children into foster care without making reasonable efforts to provide services to Juan's mother that could have averted Juan's need for foster care placement.
45. Between May, 1985 and March, 1988, Juan was moved from one foster placement to another, living in a total of eleven different foster homes for periods ranging two days to nine months. Although his two siblings are also in DCYS custody, they were not all placed together. Only briefly during this period was he returned home to his mother, and then was again placed in foster care.
46. In March, 1988, having suffered the trauma of these repeated moves and uncertainty in his placement for an extended period of time, Juan was evaluated at a mental health clinic. The evaluation recommended residential treatment with a goal of working toward an adoptive family.
47. Parental rights were terminated in June, 1988, making Juan free for adoption.
48. In August, 1988, Juan was placed by DCYS in a hospital for psychiatric evaluation where he remained for approximately ten days. Though a child known to DCYS to be in need of mental health care, upon release he was placed by DCYS in the State Receiving Home, DCYS' "short"-term shelter facility.

- 18 -
The State Receiving Home has extremely limited treatment capability and lacked sufficient numbers of trained professional staff to meet Juan's mental health needs. He remained at the State Receiving Home for the following eleven months.
49. In July, 1989, DCYS placed Juan in the residential facility where he resides today.
50. Juan has at least one visible medical condition of which the residential facility staff is aware which has existed for some time and which needs surgical intervention. At his admission, however, DCYS failed to provide the residential facility with adequate information about Juan's medical history, compromising the facility's ability to assure timely, appropriate medical care for the child.
51. Since Juan's placement in the residential facility in July, 1989, his DCYS caseworker has rarely visited. During the time Juan has been in the care of DCYS, his case has been frequently transferred from one worker to another, impeding the development and implementation of a consistent plan for his permanent placement.
52. . DCYS has not told Juan where it has placed his younger sister and has arranged no visits between them. DCYS also has failed to make adequate efforts to facilitate visits between Juan and his younger brother, who is also in DCYS custody, leaving Juan intensely fearful that he will lose all

- 19 -

contact with his brother, just as he has lost contact with all of

his other family members.

53. Despite the fact that DCYS' plan is to have Juan

adopted, DCYS has failed to make adequate efforts to seek or

secure an adoptive home for him, some fifteen placements and more

than four years after being removed from his mother's care.

54.

Defendants have violated Juan's federal and

statutory constitutional rights, including: by failing to make

reasonable efforts to avoid the need for foster care placement,

by failing to timely develop and implement written treatment

plans which contain the requisite elements, by failing to provide

timely and appropriate services or make other efforts to

implement DCYS' plan of adoption, by failing to provide him with

proper care and adequate services, by separating him from his

siblings, and by failing to protect him from harm. As a result

of these violations of his rights, Juan has been deprived of the

opportunity for healthy development and a normal childhood, and

has been, and continues to be, irreparably harmed.

Becky M.

55. Becky M. was born in February 1988 with multiple

congenital abnormalities, including scoliosis in the thoracic

region of her spine and abnormalities of the lip and palate.

56. Referrals of neglect and risk of maltreatment to

DCYS by the Visiting Nurse Association, which attempted to

provide care to Becky and her mother in the months after the

-I
I
- 20 -

infant's birth, documented the family I s inadequate housing and

failure to provide adequate care to Becky and her siblings,

including leaving Becky unsupervised. By September, 1988 , or

earlier, DCYS determined that the situation was sufficiently

serious to open a protective services case file regarding Becky

and her family, but failed to comply with specific legal

requirements regarding the investigation of neglect reports and

the requisite protective action.

57. Three months after her birth, upon referral from

the community clinic which had been providing medical care to

her, Becky was brought to a hospital for initial evaluation of

her multiple congenital abnormalities and developmental delays.

58.

At the time of her initial evaluation and

continuing over the following year, this hospital scheduled a

series of more than a dozen followup appointments and tests that

it considered necessary to fully assess the infant 's condition

and needs for treatment.

59. Beginning in September, 1988, and continuing though

this fall, hospital staff repeatedly advised DCYS that Becky's

mother was failing to bring Becky to about two-thirds of these

scheduled appointments though they were necessary to meet her

critical medical needs. DCYS failed to take appropriate and

legally-mandated action, despite continuing knowledge of medical

neglect.

- 21 -
60. Concurrently, the community medical clinic staff who were attempting to provide routine health services to Becky were reporting to DCYS staff that she was routinely missing many of these appointments, as well.
61. During this time, Becky's DCYS caseworker changed several times. Calls to DCYS from medical providers were not returned on several occasions.
62. In an August, 1989 letter to the appropriate DCYS Regional Director, hospital staff advised DCYS that any further delays in medical intervention would be a matter of serious concern. Of particular concern to hospital staff was the possibility that Becky's spinal curvature could deteriorate to the point that spinal surgery would become necessary. Hospital staff requested DCYS' s assistance in getting this child in for follow-up evaluation and care as soon as possible.
63. From August through November, 1989, Becky continued to miss most of her appointments at the hospital, despite DCYS' repeated assurances to hospital staff that it would assist in transporting Becky to the appointments. Despite DCYS' promise that it would bring Becky to her most recent appointment, competing demands on the DCYS' worker's time on the date of the appointment prevented this. Becky missed the appointment. Becky's current DCYS worker was recently hired by DCYS, has had no formal training from DCYS, yet already has a caseload of nearly 30 "intake" cases.

- 22 -
64. Becky remains in need of a comprehensive evaluation of her medical problems, and, in particular, assessment of, and treatment for, her ear and mouth deformities, which are causing her speech to develop improperly, and for her spinal curvature, which compromises her lung function and could require, if allowed to further deteriorate, spinal surgery. In addition, without a completed assessment, Becky cannot be enroll'ed in the various programs for which she is now old enough to qualify and which are essential for her development.
65. Despite knowledge of these multiple and serious medical needs and of her caregivers' failure to ensure necessary medical treatment, DCYS failed to respond appropriately, and as required by law, to the repeated reports about medical neglect within mandated time periods, to investigate adequately the ability of Becky's caregivers to meet her serious medical problems, and to take appropriate steps to protect her by either providing such services as are necessary to ensure that Becky's medical needs are met while remaining in her. horne or, failing that, removing Becky to a placement which is able to meet her needs, thereby violating Becky's federal statutory and constitutional rights. Plaintiffs Benjamin B. and Jason B.
66. Plaintiffs Benjamin and Jason B. are the toddler and infant sons of Louisa B., a sixteen year old unmarried teenage mother.

- 23 -
67. Louisa B. is herself a product of Connecticut's child welfare system, having been committed to DCYS intermittently since she was six years old. She has been placed by DCYS over the last ten years in multiple out-of~home placements, including foster homes, group homes, a shelter, and the State Receiving Home.
68. Benjamin B. was born in April, 1987 when Louisa was thirteen. Shortly after Benjamin/s birth, he was separated from his mother. He lived with Louisa's mother while Louisa, who was in DCYS custody, was placed first in an emergency foster home and then moved through multiple other placements, with frequent turbulent returns to her mother's home. DCYS had no placements available in which Benjamin and his mother could remain together.
69. In August, 1988, DCYS· obtained legal custody of Benjamin. He was placed by the court with Louisa's mother. Louisa, who was now fifteen and four months pregnant with her second child, was placed by DCYS in a residential facility for pregnant teenagers, located far from Benjamin, because DCYS had no suitable~ closer placement.
70. Between May, 1987 and October, 1988, Louisa frequently reported to DCYS that she believed that her mother was endangering Benjamin because of her alleged substance abuse. DCYS did not conduct a prompt and appropriate investigation of each and every one of these reports as legally-required, nor maintain adequate supervision over the placement.

·1
I
!
- 24 -

71. In October, 1988, DCYS finally removed Benjamin

from his grandmother's home and placed him in a foster home,

after his grandmother was arrested for possession of drugs.

Louisa could not assume his care as she was in a DCYS placement

for pregnant teenagers which did not accept children and: DCYS

offe~ed her no alternative placement in which she could live with

and care for Benjamin.

72. DCYS changed Benjamin's foster placement on several

occasions before finally placing him in the foster home in which'

he resides today. His foster mother periodically leaves him in

the care of her natural and foster children and babysitters who

are younger than Benjamin's own mother. The home is located in

an area in which Louisa is fearful to travel alone to visit him.

73.

Though DCYS' current goal for Benjamin is

reunification, he has now begun to refer to his foster mother as

"Mommy," to his own young mother'S great sorrow.

74. Jason B., Benjamin's younger brother, was born in

February, 1989. He has been diagnosed as having multiple and

severe birth defects.

75. . After his release from the hospital, he resided

with Louisa in her mother's home, and then with Louisa in a

licensed DCYS foster home which Louisa had herself located after

she left her mother's home because she felt endangered by her

mother's alleged substance abuse. During this time, Jason was

periodically hospitalized because of his medical problems.

- 25 -
76. In June, 1989, Jason was placed in DCYS' custody because Louisa was found to be unable to provide for his severe medical needs, and had received no adequate assistance from DCYS in doing so.
77. After another period of hospitalization, Jason was placed by DCYS in a specialized foster home. Distant from Louisa, it was the only home DCYS had at this time that could meet his medical needs. It is a different home than the foster horne in which his brother resides.
78. Louisa's first visit with Jason in this horne did not occur until early November, 1989. Louisa has no car and the home is not easily accessible by public transportation. High DCYS caseloads limit the number of times DCYS can transport Louisa to visits to about once a month.
79. DCYS' current plan for Benjamin is to return him to Louisa. However, DCYS has failed to arrange appropriate and necessary visiting between Benjamin and his mother, and to formulate specific plans and identify and provide the services which would allow this plan to be implemented. At the same time, DCYS has failed to consider or implement an alternative permanent placement plan to assure Benjamin a permanent home.
80. DCYS currently has no permanent plan for ten month old Jason, except for continued foster care. DCYS has failed to arrange appropriate and necessary visiting between this baby and

- 26 -
his mother, and it has failed to formulate any specific plan or identify and provide services to assure any permanent placement for Jason.
81. Defendants have violated Benjamin and Jason/s federal statutory and constitutional rights, including by failing to conduct prompt and appropriate investigations of reports of endangerment, by failing to make reasonable efforts to avoid the need for foster care placement for them, by failing to place them together and in a horne near their mother, and by failing to develop in a timely manner and to implement written treatment plans which contain the requisite elements and which are likely to ensure the boys' permanent placements. Anna R.
82. Plaintiff Anna R. was born in 1979. 83. Beginning at least as early as April, 1985, DCYS began receiving reports that Anna and her four siblings were being neglected. Subsequent referrals to DCYS included reports that the youngest child was not attending school, that the children were being left alone with the oldest child (then eleven years old), that the children were improperly dressed for winter, that the mother was selling food stamps for drugs, that there was no furniture in the horne and all five children slept on mattresses on the floor, and that there was no food for the children in the home.

- 27 -

84. DCYS determined that the situation was sufficiently

serious to open a protective services case regarding Anna and her

family, by late 1986.

85. During this time, DCYS failed to comply with

specific legal mandates regarding the investigation of all

neglect reports and requisite protective action.

86. In August, 1987, Anna and her other siblings were

placed in DCYS custody in foster care when their mother was

imprisoned and relatives could not be located who could care for

them.

87. Between August, 1987 and January, 1988, DCYS

changed Anna's foster placement twice. While in her third foster

home -- from January, 1988 to February, 1989, she was physically

abused.

88. Anna was placed in this third foster home though

DCYS was aware that the foster parents had alcohol abuse problems

and that there was a history of physical abuse in the family.

89. The DCYS caseworker assigned to· Anna's case failed

to visit and otherwise maintain contact with her with sufficient

frequency to ascertain the danger which she was in this foster

placement.

90.

In February, 1989, DCYS referred Anna to a

specialized foster care program after the foster parents in the

third home asked that she be removed because of her "bad"

behavior. DCYS provided only the most rudimentary information

I
'j
- 28 -
about Anna's past to the new foster home. No medical information was given, other than that the child's last physical was in December, 1987. There was no record of a mental health assessment ever having been done.
91 . Between March, 1989 and September, 1989 , Anna resided in her fourth foster placement, in Fairfield County. Anna's mother, who lived in Hartford County, failed to visit her, and DCYS failed to make reasonable efforts to assist her in doing so, though reunification was DCYS' goal at that time.
92. In July, 1989, the coordinator for the foster care program in which Anna is involved wrote to DCYS requesting a meeting to clarify Anna's limbo-like state and advised DCYS that absent a prompt, permanent placement Anna would be irrevocably damaged.
93. DCYS failed to respond promptly to this written request. The requested meeting did not occur until midSeptember, 1989. In the interim, Anna's DCYS worker was terminated from employment and a new worker was not reassigned for a number of weeks.
94. In late September, 1989, Anna's fourth foster mother asked that she be moved, because of her acting out behavior. Anna's fifth and current foster home is in New Haven County. Payment to these foster parents was delayed, and they spent hundreds of dollars of their own funds to clothe, feed and house her.

- 29 -

95. Not until October, 1989, was Anna given a mental

health assessment. It found her to be depressed and frustrated,

and to be demonstrating feelings of abandonment and rejection.

96. DCYS staff has not visited Anna or her new foster

parents since she was placed in her fifth foster home two and one

half months ago.

97. DCYS' current plan is to free Anna for adoption by

filing for termination of parental rights unless Anna's mother

finds appropriate housing, abides by a predetermined phone and

visitation schedule with Anna, and speaks with her roommate about

his police record.

98. To date, Anna's mother has failed to fulfill DCYS'

preconditions for reunification, continuing a more than two year

pattern of failing to meet DCYS' expectations prerequisite to

Anna's return.

99. Though DCYS ' current plan is to delay seeking

termination of parental rights, DCYS is failing to make

reasonable efforts to provide services to Anna and her mother to

assist in reunification so that she might be returned home, while

at the same time failing to take steps to move Anna toward an

alternative permanent placement.

100. Anna currently suffers from severe feelings of

rejection and abandonment.

She continues to act out her

frustration and anxiety and frequently inquires anxiously about

'I
i
'I
- 30 -
whether she can remain in her current placement, or if she again will have to move.
101. Defendants have violated Anna's federal statutory and constitutional rights, including: by failing to conduct prompt and appropriate investigations of her maltreatment, by failing to make reasonable efforts to protect her and to avert the need for foster placement for her, by failing to protect her from harm, by failing to provide her with proper care and adequate services, and by failing to develop in a timely manner and to implement written treatment plans which contain the requisite elements to ensure her a permanent placement. Plaintiffs Dominique S .• Patrick S. and Daniel C.
102. Plaintiffs Dominique S., Patrick S., and Daniel C. are two brothers and a half brother aged seven, five and one, respectively.
103. Beginning in April, 1989, and continuing through late May, 1989, DCYS received complaints from various sources that the boys, who were Iiving with their mother, were being neglected and were at risk of maltreatment. These referrals, including one from a neighbor and another from a worker with the Connecticut Department of Human Resources, advised DCYS that there were drugs in the home, that the children were being left alone, hungry and crying, that the mother was about to be evicted, that the apartment was dirty and full of garbage and rats, that the boys were unbathed and their clothing was dirty,

- 31 -
that Dominique was not being sent to school, and that the children were being left outside all day and into the evening with no supervision. Because of confusion in the DCYS office, one of these referrals was mistakenly given to a worker who was not involved in the investigation, and the worker responsible for investigating the case failed to learn of it until three weeks after it was made.
104. On two occasions when the DCYS worker made a horne visit to investigate, the worker was told -- through closed doors -- that the boys I mother was not available. On two subsequent occasions a worker spoke with the mother, though was not allowed in the horne. She denied all neglect allegations but admitted to keeping Dominique out of school. The worker simply made a referral to a parent aide program.
105. Based on these cursory "investigations" DCYS developed a treatment plan in June, 1989 that stated that the goal of DCYS involvement was for the mother to provide a healthy and stable environment and that DCYS was to refer her for appropriate support services, maintain contact with all parties, and file neglect petitions if Dominique continued chronic absenteeism. DCYS did not make reasonable efforts to implement this plan.
106. In early July, 1989, police, responding to a domestic dispute report, found the plaintiff children at home with no food and virtually no furniture in the home. Drug

- 32 -
paraphanalia and empty beer cans were also found. A rag was on fire on the living room floor. Plaintiffs' mother and her companion, (Patrick and Daniel's father) were both arrested for risk of injury and the father was additionally charged with reckless burning. A DCYS serious incident summary stated there was serious neglect and risk of injury. The children were placed in DCYS custody.
107. Though plaintiffs' aunts, with the consent of plaintiffs' mother, expressed their willingness to DCYS to assume the boys' care, DCYS instead separated the boys and placed them in different foster homes and in a different town than their mother. They remained there until moved by DCYS to the home of one of these same aunts, several weeks later.
108. This aunt, though licensed by DCYS as a relative foster home, waited about two months to receive her first check from DCYS to pay for food and shelter for the three boys.
109. At the time the boys were removed from their home, the DCYS caseworker assigned to their case had been employed by DCYS for only about five months. He had received virtually no training from DCYS and had more than fifty other cases already, with responsibility for nearly 100 children.
110. The current plan for these children is that they be reunited with their mother. However, the plan has been developed without any adequate assessment of the children's and the mother's situations and needs for services. DCYS has no

- 33 -
adequate plan for the provision of necessary reunification services, nor has DCYS made any reasonable efforts to implement its plan. At the same time, DCYS has made no adequate assessment as to whether the boys' placement with their aunt is an appropriate and possible long-term placement, even though these children remain in DCYS custody.
111. Defendants have violated Dominique, Patrick, and Daniel's federal statutory and constitutional rights, including: by failing to conduct prompt and appropriate investigations of their maltreatment, by failing to protect them and to make reasonable efforts to avoid the need for foster placement for them, by failing to protect them from harm, by failing to place them together in out-of-home placements, and by failing to develop in a timely manner and to implement written treatment plans which contain the requisite elements to ensure the boys a permanent placement. Plaintiff Florence J.
112. In June, 1980, when Florence J. was four years old, a referral was made to DCYS after Florence had been diagnosed as having gonorrhea. DCYS left her in the care of her mother, after its "investigation" revealed no clear explanation of the origin of this condition.
113. In December, 1981, a hospital again referred Florence to DCYS for investigation of possible sexual abuse after Florence was found to have a vaginal discharge and an enlarged

- 34 -
vaginal opening. DCYS placed Florence temporarily with her grandmother while it investigated, then returned her to her mother's care when it decided it could not establish the identity of the perpetrator. DCYS failed to comply with specific legal requirements regarding the investigation of abuse reports and requisite protective action.
114. Seven years later, in December, 1988 when Florence was twelve years old, she was again referred to DCYS, this time by school authorities after Florence revealeq a pattern of sexual abuse by two of her uncles since she was five years old. After parental denials of any wrongdoing, DCYS staff decided to keep Florence in the home. At least one of these uncles continued to babysit for Florence on occasion.
115. In April, 1989, DCYS received yet another referral about Florence. A Junior League Phone Friend, to whom Florence had made repeated calls to discuss her father's inappropriate touching, reported her concern. Not until three weeks later did DCYS, after phone calls to Florence's school and the Junior League, interview Florence at school. Florence described a seven year history of being sexually abused not only by her uncles, but also by her father.
116. In a follow-up interview at school shortly thereafter, Florence told DCYS staff that she had been sexually abused as recently as the preceding day. DCYS did not initiate

- 35 -
any emergency proceeding to assume legal custody, change her placement, or otherwise act to ensure her safety.
117. It was not until several days later that DCYS questioned Florence's mother about her daughter's allegations. Florence's mother consented to voluntarily place her at a hospital for evaluation. Florence was found to have trichomonas vaginalis vaginitis. An in-patient psychiatric evaluation was recommended.
118. Florence was subsequently admitted to a private psychiatric hospital, where she made further disclosures regarding the sexual abuse, and talked about suicide. Professional staff at this hospital recommended to DCYS that Florence be placed, upon her discharge, in a group home for victims of sexual abuse or in a specialized foster home because Florence's mother could not protect her from further abuse. Follow-up aftercare through special community sexual abuse programs was also recommended by hospital staff.
119. While Florence was at this psychiatric hospital, DCYS filed a neglect and uncared for petition regarding her.
120. In early June, 1989, DCYS sought and obtained Florence's mother's consent to her daughter's transfer from the psychiatric facility. DCYS did not place her in a group home or specialized foster home as professionally recommended, but sent her to the State Receiving Home. When Florence's mother

- 36 -

subsequently demanded that Florence be returned home, DCYS

obtained legal custody.

121. Florence remained at the State Receiving Home for

nearly two months. It was a placement which was inappropriate

for her needs.

While there, she received no treatment.

Visitation with her mother was not frequent because the State

Receiving Home was distant from her mother's home. Florence took

suicidal actions.

122. Though Florence remained greatly in need of

counselling, her DCYS worker, who then had a caseload of more

than fifty cases, could not spend the time to provide, or to

obtain, counselling for her.

123. As early as June, 1989, DCYS had decided that

placement in a residential treatment facility or group home was

appropriate for Florence. However, DCYS staff made no referrals

for these placements until September, 1989, and no placement

appointments were scheduled.

124. In late July, 1989, Florence ran away from the

State Receiving Home. After she was found, DCYS placed her with

her paternal grandmother while retaining legal custody.

125. Florence's treatment plan requires DCYS staff to

maintain contact with Florence and her mother. However, Florence

was not visited by her DCYS worker from the end of June, 1989

until the very end of November, when he came prinCipally to

introduce her to the worker to whom her case was being

- 37 -

reassigned. He had expressed that his caseload is far too high

to permit frequent contact.

126. In early December, 1989, Florence was placed under

the Protective Supervision of DCYS, having been adjudicated, by

consent, to be uncared for. C~rtain specific conditions were set

by the court as prerequisites to Florence being allowed to return

to and remain with her mother, including the immediate initiation

of individual and family counselling, and her father moving out

of the home. DCYS is mandated to monitor compliance, and take

action if these conditions are not met, but continues to fail to

meet its legal obligations.

127. Florence remains at risk of serious harm while in

her mother's care unless DCYS provides all necessary court-

ordered supervision, and she is at risk of again being placed in

DCYS custody. In addition, she has not, to date, been provided

the treatment necessary to ameliorate the effects of years of

sexual abuse about which DCYS was advised, but from which DCYS

failed to protect her, even though DCYS staff has repeatedly been

told that such treatment is necessary, by both its own, and also

by outside, professional staff.

128.

Defendants have violated Florence's federal

statutory and constitutional rights, including: by failing to

conduct prompt and appropriate investigations of her

maltreatment, by failing to make reasonable efforts to avoid the

need for foster care, by failing to protect her from harm, by

- 38 -
failing to provide her with adequate care and services, by failing to place her in placements which were appropriate to her needs and the least restrictive possible, and by failing to develop in a timely manner and to implement written treatment plans which are appropriate to ensure her a permanent placement.
C. The Crisis in Connecticut's Child Welfare System and its Systemwide Violations of the Law 129. Connecticut has the highest per capita income of
any s tate in the country . Yet, Hartford, Bridgeport, and New Haven rank among the top twenty cities nationally in abject poverty.
130. While the number of children under the age of eighteen in Connecticut has been decreasing over the last eight years, the extreme poverty experienced by many of Connecticut's children, as well as increases in reported domestic violence, parental substance abuse, AIDS and homelessness, have led to a doubling in the numbers of protective service referrals made to, and investigated by, DCYS over this same time period. Approximately 70% of DCYS' investigations each year confirm that the children referred have been abused, neglected, or abandoned, or were at risk of such maltreatment.
131. Concurrent with an increase in the numbers of protective service referrals has been an increase in the seriousness of the referrals being made. Nearly half of the DCYS average daily child welfare caseload are victims of family violence. In addition, the number of referrals accepted by DCYS

- 39 -
for investigation which involve addiction has increased approximately four-fold in the last three years.
132. In addition, an increasing number of families are re-entering the DCYS system, or are being referred multiple times in a year.
133. The numbers of children and families identified by DCYS as currently in need of services, as well as the number to whom defendant" Wheaton is now providing services, is increasing. In each month in 1987 DCYS served an average of 11,638 cases statewide. By 1989, this number had increased to more than 14,000, and the gap between the number of cases opened and the number closed continues to widen. For example, five of six DCYS Regions reported a net gain of cases in April, 1989. In the Hartford Region (Region IV) in April, 1989, more than twice as many cases were opened as were closed. DCYS as a whole reported a net gain of more than 200 cases in this single month.
134. The increase in the need for DCYS' involvement has not been matched by a corresponding increase in adequately trained workers and appropriate services, widening the gap between that which defendants are currently providing to children and that which they are required by federal law to provide to them.
135. Indeed, the crisis in Connecticut's child welfare system has grown so acute that defendant Wheaton, in her February 21, 1989 testimony to the Appropriations Committee of the

- 40 -
Connecticut General Assembly, likened the system to a "hospital emergency room" and decried the "senseless, merciless destruction and devastation of our children."
D. Defendants' Failure to Investigate Referrals and Protect Children Who are Abused, Neglected, and at Risk of Maltreatment 136 . The number of children reported to DCYS being
physically and/or sexually abused, neglected, abandoned or at risk of these dangers has increased dramatically over the last several years. In SFY 81-2, DCYS accepted for investigation referrals in 7,542 cases involving 10,846 such children. In the past year, SFY 88-9, the number had dramatically increased to 13,090 cases involving 20,233 children.
137. The total number of referrals to DCYS regarding children subjected to, or at risk of, maltreatment exceeds the number which DCYS elects to investigate. DCYS follows a pattern and practice of failing to investigate a significant number of all "at risk" referrals. It estimates that about 60% of all calls concerning children who are at risk of abuse or neglect have been screened out1 no investigation takes place because of staff shortages, leaving many children who are reported to DCYS without any investigation of how serious or imminent the harm might be to them, and without any protection from harm.
138. DCYS also follows a pattern and practice of failing to investigate certain abuse/maltreatment reports based on substance abuse, domestic violence, mental retardation or

- 41 -
caretaker immaturity. In certain regions of the state, DCYS also follows a pattern and practice of failing to investigate certain reports which are based on sexual abuse, incest, educational abuse and medical neglect, leaving these children in danger of continuing harm.
139. Those investigations which DCYS does undertake are not all initiated or completed with the promptness required by federal law and DCYS' own policy implementing state and federal law mandates. The investigations, even when completed, are not always conducted by adequately trained staff and in a manner which consistently meets professional standards concerning the content of investigations necessary to protect children from harm, nor is appropriate protective action consistently taken when-DCYS' investigation substantiates maltreatment.
E. Defendants' Failure to Ensure Sufficient Services to Avert Out-of-Home Placements 140. Between January, 1983 and January, 1987, the
number of children in DCYS' child welfare jurisdiction who were in out-of-home placements each day decreased from 4,287 to 3,293. Since ~987, however, this number has begun to rise. In January, 1988 there were 3,470 such children in out-of-home placements. By January, 1989, this number had increased to 3,612.
141. In the 1988-90 Child Welfare Services Plan and its August, 1989 Update, approved by defendant O'Neill and submitted to the United States Department of Health and Human Services as a prerequisite to receipt of Title IV-B funds under the P.L. 96-

- 42 -
272, defendant Wheaton expressed concern that the number of
connecticut children in out-of-home care is "too high" and
acknowledged that "[e]xpanded alternatives to out-of-home placements would prevent many unnecessary placements. II
142. Defendants have failed to provide sufficient services statewide (and particularly to non-English-speaking and African-American families) to ensure timely access to services which are necessary to ensure that reasonable efforts are, and can be, made by DCYS to avert out-of-home placements for all children. Although some pilot programs are available, they serve only a small fraction of the families of children known by DCYS to be at imminent risk of out-of-home placement.
F. Defendants' Failure to Provide Adequate Care and Treatment to Children in DCYS Care 1. Failure to Provide Adequate Medical Care 143. Many children who enter DCYS custody, and for
whom defendants thereby assume responsibility for ensuring adequate medical care and treatment, have acute medical and dental problems, and also chronic handicapping medical, developmental, and behavioral problems. DCYS has estimated, for example, that children in foster care are three to seven times more likely than children in the general population to have chronic medical problems, three times more likely to have hearing problems, two times more likely to have visual problems, and two to three times more likely to have intellectual deficits.

- 43 -

144. Many children who enter DCYS care escape

detection of their serious medical needs by DCYS, and still

others fail to receive necessary preventive and on-going

recommended treatment.

145. DCYS has no consistent, coordinated, and

comprehensive system to ensure that the health care needs of

children in DCYS care are met. As a result, various specific

deficiencies in the medical care for these children are allowed

to persist, including:

a.

children receive no immediate health

screening routinely at the time of their placement with DCYS,

though such screening is essential to ascertain their current

health status and treatment needs;

b.

children entering DCYS care neither

routinely receive a more comprehensive assessment of their health

care .needs, a treatment plan, and all necessary followup

treatment, nor are they routinely ensured all necessary periodic

medical and dental examinations, thereby allowing many medical

and dental problems to remain undetected and untreated until they

grow more severe and more seriously jeopardize the children's

health;

c. DCYS does not maintain, as a part of each

child's DCYS record, a fully documented medical history and

record of the current status of compliance with, and the adequacy

of, the child's prescribed course of treatment. Children often

- 44 -

move from one placement to another with the current foster parent

or custodian, the current provider of health care, as well as

DCYS, unaware of their current medical needs and on-going

treatment, if any;

d.

children discharged from DCYS care

experience a lack of continuity in their health care because of

DCYS' inadequate referral and follow-up system;

e. there are inadequate monitoring, quality

assurance, and other appropriate mechanisms of administrative

oversight, review, and decisionmaking to assess the individual

medical needs of children in care and to assure that they are

receiving necessary and appropriate treatment.

146. Defendants have long been aware that the

medical needs of these children have been inadequately met:

a.

Several years ago a DCYS Health Care

Advisory Conunittee, which included a number of pediatricians,

emphatically identified the gaps in services outlined above, and

produced a twenty-three page proposal for a DCYS Health Care Unit

to remedy these problems. The Unit was never established and a

medical passport, which this group developed over two years ago,

has yet to be fully implemented within DCYS.

b. A study by the Connecticut Chapter of the

American Academy of Pediatrics in October 1987, conducted with

DCYS' encouragement and entitled Health Care for Children in

Foster Care, verified that low levels of reimbursement and lack

- 45 -
of medical information on foster children were the primary problems facing health care providers and made specific remedial recommendations, few of which have been implemented;
c. DCYS' Budget Option for SFY 88-89 requesting $90,000 for initial health screens for all' preschool foster children for six months went unfunded by the State, as did DCYS' plans to increase medical resources by employing a nurse coordinator in each Region.
147. Despite defendants' long knowledge, they have failed to implement reasonable plans to provide and ensure necessary medical and other health care services for children in DCYS custody.
2. Failure to Provide Adequate Mental Health Treatment 148. Many children who enter DCYS custody, and for
whom defendants thereby assume responsibility f.or ensuring adequate mental health care and treatment, have pre-existing mental health problems which require treatment and which are often exacerbated by their experiences while in DCYS care. For other children, their experiences in entering, and while in, DCYS care cause new mental. health problems to arise which require diagnosis and treatment.
149. Until September, 1989, DCYS had no mental health plan, though federal law (P.L. 96-660), and state law for nearly a decade, (Conn. Gen. Stat. §17-412), have mandated DCYS to develop a comprehensive mental health plan. DCYS' attempts

- 46 -
in the past to plan for mental health services have been erratic and inconsistent, and indeed DCYS has never conducted an overall assessment of the mental health needs of children in its custody.
150. DCYS' current mental health plan, entitled "Carlos Rodriguez is Waiting," addresses only the mental health needs of children and adolescents with serious emotional disturbances. There remains no comprehensive plan for those children in DCYS jurisdiction who do not fall into this category, and even this limited plan is far from being implemented.
151. DCYS has no cQnsistent, coordinated, and comprehensive system to ensure that the mental health care needs of children in DCYS care are identified and met. Often mental health treatment for a child in custody is tailored to the availability of services, rather than to the actual needs of the child. As a result, various specific deficiencies in the mental health care for these children, in addition to those alleged in §V.G., infra, are allowed to persist, including:
a. DCYS does not ensure that appropriate mental health assessments are performed for each child corning into DCYS care by appropriately trained personnel, that appropriate referrals are made for treatment, and that necessary treatment is, in fact, provided;
b. While all Regions lack adequate diagnosis and assessment services, there is also a tremendous disparity among Regions in children's access to such services;

- 47 -

c. DCYS fails to maintain, as a part of each

child's DCYS record, a fully documented history of mental health

assessments and treatment and a record of the current status of

compliance with, and the adequacy of, the child's prescribed

course of treatment. As a resul-t, those persons currently

providing care to the DCYS child are often unaware of the child's

current treatment needs, delaying and impeding the delivery of

necessary treatment and causing interruptions in the child's

course of treatment;

d. For children who are African-American and

Latino, there is no system to ensure that sufficient numbers of

appropriately trained, culturally sensitive, and bilingual

persons exist to perform necessary evaluations and render

appropriate treatment;

e.

children discharged from DCYS care

experience a lack of continuity in their mental health care

because of DCYS' inadequate referral and follow-up system;

f. there are inadequate monitoring, quality

assurance, and other appropriate mechanisms of administrative

oversight, review, and decisionmaking t9 assess the individual

mental health needs of children in care and to assure that they

are receiving proper treatment;

g. Emergency psychiatric services for children

in DCYS care are insufficient to meet the need, and access to

services varies by Region. There are gaps in out-patient

I
L
- 48 -
services across the State. Assessment and diagnostic shelter services are insufficient. Emergency psychiatric beds, both for emergencies and for short-term hospitalizations, are lacking for children in each Region who need in-patient hospitalization. There are inadequate mental health crisis intervention services for children with special cultural and linguistic needs;
h. Children in need of mental health outpatient evaluative and treatment services through DCYS-contracted child or family guidance clinics encounter long waiting lists because of inadequate funding of such services, resulting in delays in care and, on occasion, otherwise avoidable out of home placements, and inappropriate or overly restrictive placements;
i. The number of referrals to DCYS' three inpatient psychiatric facilities exceeds the number of children able to be admitted. In addition, because DCYS has no automated system to track available residential treatment and hospital beds, children do not receive the necessary services as soon as they are needed. On many occasions, children in DCYS care have been hospitalized in local community hospitals or maintained in other inappropriate settings waiting for a bed space at an appropriate psychiatric facility;
j. Children in DCYS care lack equal access to state hospital care because of geographic disparities in the services DCYS offers;

- 49 -

k. Only 55% of the 149 DCYS I state hospital

beds are located in closed units which provide a high level of

security. The admission of children in DCYS care who are in need

of such a secure setting is often delayed as a result;

1.

Programmatic differences among the

hospitals also limit the treatment services which are available

to adolescents in DCYS care in a particular Region. Only

fourteen to seventeen year olds from Regions I and V can enter a

long term voluntary admission treatment service through the Adams

~ouse program at Housatonic. Adolescents from other Regions have

no access to a comparable program at Altobello;

m.

Once children in DCYS care are

hospitalized, lack of community resources and high caseloads lead

DCYS workers to view the hospitalization as a temporary reduction

in an already over-burdened, active caseload, rather than an on-

going crisis with the highest priority for resolution, resulting

in some children languishing in overly restrictive placements;

n. Discharge planning for children in DCYS

care who are released from a psychiatric facility is inadequate

because of the lack of appropriate and sufficient community-based

services and placement alternatives, and insufficient staff to

coordinate such planning.

152. For well over eight years, the defendants and

their predecessors have known that the mental health needs of

children in DCYS care were not being adequately met. There have

- 50 -

been repeated Task Force reports prepared by DCYS alone, and in

conjunction with private sector providers, which have documented

the deficiencies, as detailed herein, and made professional

recommendations to remedy them, including the September, 1986

Mental Health Services to Children and Youth, a Blueprint for

Change, the January, 1987 Legislature's Program Review and

Investigations Committee report Psychiatric Hospital Services for

Children and Adolescents, the April, 1988 DCYS Report of the
I
Residential Study/Work Group Findings and Recommendations, the

September, 1988 DCYS report Day Treatment Services for DCYS

\
i

I

Children: Program and Fiscal Needs for Ensuring Viability into

I
I

the 1990's, the October, 1988 report of DCYS' Committee on

!

Inpatient Psychiatric Care for Children (which remains in draft

I

form over a year later), and DCYS' recent mental health plan for

I

seriously emotionally disturbed children, Carlos Rodriguez is

Waiting. Defendants have neither implemented these various

professional recommendations, nor implemented reasonable

alternative plans to provide necessary mental health services for

children in its custody.

3. Failure to Provide Adequate Substance Abuse Treatment

153. Some of the children who are the legal

responsibility of defendants have serious substance abuse

problems.

154. The DCYS-sponsored 1988 Residential Study/Work

Group Report, and the reports of the recent Drug and Alcohol Task

- 51 -

Force, have found that all levels of services are lacking for

adolescents in DCYS care who are in need of treatment for alcohol

and drug abuse problems.

155.

Specialized, and appropriately-staffed,

substance abuse evaluation and intervention services that can

ensure the appropriate utilization of, and expeditious placement

of youths in, limited residential treatment programs are minimal,

and not coordinated state-wide.

156. DCYS has only twelve short-term treatment

beds, and has failed to develop all other components of a

comprehensive and integrated statewide substance abuse program.

It lacks adequate numbers of long-term beds, specialized group

homes (halfway houses), residential placements for children

returning . from hospitalizations for substance abuse, day

treatment, aftercare, and treatment services which are necessary

to meet the unique treatment needs of DCYS I young substance-

abusing population. As a result, necessary care and treatment

has been delayed or denied to children in DCYS custody who have

substance abuse problems.

4. Failure to Provide Adequate Treatment Services for Sexual Abuse Victims and Offenders in DCYS Care

157. Though many children in defendants I· care are the victims and/or perpetrators of sexual abuse, DCYS has failed to provide adequate training in sexual abuse or to develop sufficient specialized sexual abuse services and placements in

- 52 -

all Regions of the state to meet the treatment needs of this

population, denying appropriate care and treatment to children in

need of these services to remedy the enormous injuries caused to

them through sexual abuse.

G. Failure to Ensure that all Children in DCYS Care Receive Necessary and Appropriate Treatment, and Appropriate and Least Restrictive Placements, by Providing a Complete Continuum of Care.

158. Connecticut's child welfare system does not

currently guarantee equal access to care, services, and

placements which are necessary and appropriate to the treatment

needs of each individual child in DCYS' jurisdiction. Without a

full continuum of services and placements, children in need of

DCYS placement too often are placed by DCYS where beds are

available -- not necessarily in placements appropriate to their

needs -- and there are frequently waiting lists for necessary

services, care, and programs.

159.

Defendants' failure to establish needed new

services and placements to create a full continuum of services

and placements for children in DCYS' care results in children

being denied proper care and treatment, and/or being placed, or

being allowed to remain, in settings which are inappropriate or

more restrictive than their needs require.

160. Gaps in the continuum of care are particularly

wide for non-English speaking children, African-American

children, and children in certain rural areas of the state.

Spanish-speaking children and families face additional delays in

- 53 -
obtaining, and/or denials of, appropriate placements and services because of the paucity of Spanish-speaking professional staff within DCYS and in the DCYS-contracted agencies.
1. Foster family care 161. Foster parents assist defendant Wheaton in
fulfilling her legal obligation to meet all of a foster child/s developmental needs, including his nutritional, physical, psychological, religious, recreational, safety, educational, and medical needs.
162. In July, 1987, an internal DCYS Foster Care Commi ttee reported that /lConnecticut I s foster care system is critically depleted and fragile./I
163. Since that time, the foster care system has further deteriorated. The need for appropriate foster placements in Connecticut far exceeds the number of homes currently available and licensed, and the gap between this need and the homes which are appropriate, and also available, has grown wider.
164. While the average number of children in placement on a daily basis with foster families decreased 15.4% between SFY '83 and SFY '87 -- from 2,054 to 1,737 -- the number of foster children has again begun to increase, to 1,869 in SFY '88 and 2,064 in SFY '89. These children are the victims of increasingly severe abuse and neglect, including conditions unknown a decade ago such as AIDS, in utero exposure to /lcrack", and massive homelessness.

- 54 -

165. Concurrent with the increase in the number of

children in need of foster placement has been a decrease in the

number of approved foster placements. In 1982 there were

approximately 1340 licensed foster homes in Connecticut. By

April, 1989 this number had decreased to approximately 990. For

nearly all of the past five years, DCYS has had a net loss in

licensed foster homes. In addition, some DCYS staff choose not

to place children in certain licensed foster homes as they have judged them to be unacceptable placements for childre~.

166. The shortage of appropriate, licensed, and

available foster homes results with increasing frequency in

inappropriate placements for children in need of substitute care.

167. Defendants often cannot place children in

close geographic proximity to their birth parents, impairing

reunification efforts.

168. Siblings have been placed into separate foster

homes and into homes which are distant from each other, impairing

sibling visitation and family reunification.

169. Children have been placed in foster homes

which are over their licensed capacity , impairing the foster

parent's ability to adequately meet the child's needs.

170.

Newborn infants, and children with

disabilities, often are forced to live in hospitals beyond the

time hospitalization is medically necessary for them.

·/
I

- 55 -

171.

DCYS has failed to develop appropriate

placements for older children, pregnant teenagers, and children

who are disturbed, acting-out, and/or in need of temporary,

emergency foster care in a foster home, and so, instead, places

them in settings which are overly restrictive and/or

inappropriate for their needs, or allows them to remain in

placements which are dangerous or harmful to them.

172. Some children are being moved from one foster

home to another, subjecting these children to additional and

continuing psychological damage. The percentage of the children

who have been in an out-of-home placement for more than six

months and who have been in more than three placements has

increased steadily since 1984 -- from approximately 22% in 1984

to approximately 37% in 1989.

173. Though DCYS sets capacity limits for foster

homes, DCYS, on occasion, allows, by informal policy and by

practice, up to five African-American or Latino foster children

to reside in a foster placement, while generally limiting the

number of Caucasian children placed in a foster home to three .

. 174. An insufficient number of Latino foster homes

causes DCYS, on occasion, to place a Spanish-speaking foster

child with foster parents who cannot speak Spanish, thereby

traumatizing the child who suddenly finds s/he cannot speak to

anyone in the placement, impeding the foster child's ability to

develop trusting relationships with adults, impairing

- 56 -

reunification efforts with the birth parents, and, on occasion,

resulting in the foster child learning to speak only English,

thereby becoming unable to communicate with his/her birth

parents.

175. The number of emergency and respite foster

care beds is inadequate to ensure that a placement is open and

available when needed, resulting in DCYS placing children in

homes which are beyond their licensed capacity, or far from the

child's home, or which lack even an extra bed in which a child

can sleep.

176 . Increasing numbers of children in need of

foster placements are medically-involved and require foster

parents who have specialized skills to meet their medical needs,

including children infected with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus

(AIDS) or harmed by prenatal exposure to harmful drugs and

alcohol. Yet DCYS has failed to recruit, train, and adequately

support foster parents who are competent to meet the complex

medical needs of these children.

177.

Repeated reports and recommendations,

including the January 7, 1985 DCYS Foster Care Rate Structure

Study, the July 1, 1987 Final Report of the DCYS Foster Care

Committee, the June 28, 1988 Final Report to DCYS on Recruitment

and Retention of Foster Parents, by Spectrum Research Associates,

and the defendant Commissioner's own Budget Options to defendant

O'Neill, have documented these serious problems and consistently

- 57 -
recommended the necessary and reasonable steps which must be taken to ensure a sufficient number and range of foster homes, including: a. increasing the rate of payment to foster parents; b. increasing support services for foster parents; c. improving training for foster parents and social workers; and d. enhancing recruitment and retention efforts by DCYS staff, especially for Latino and African-American placements and for placements for medically-involved children.
178. Despite these concrete, specific, and repeated professional recommendations, the foster care system continues to deteriorate.
179. Current DCYS foster care rates remain about 30% short of the current USDA standards for the cost of supporting children of varying ages in Connecticut, and DCYS' payments are frequently delayed, imposing financial hardship on many foster parents and impairing the recruitment of persons with competent parenting skills who are eager to be foster parents, but who cannot assume these additional financial burdens.
180. DCYS continues to fail to provide foster parents with frequent, routine, and supportive contact with adequately trained DCYS social workers who would assist them in providing competent and adequate care to the foster children. DCYS continues to fail to provide foster parents with adequate information about the foster children who are newly-placed in their care, such as histories of medical conditions and sexual

,, .
1- 58 -

and physical abuse, though such information is necessary for the

parents to immediately and competently assume their parenting

responsibilities. DCYS continues to fail to provide fo.ster

parents with necessary supportive resources to provide care to

foster children who are frequently emotionally-troubled (such as

respite care, day care, individual and family counselling to

assist in integrating the foster child into the family, parenting

training, funds for necessary incidental expenses, and crisis

intervention services). As a result, many foster homes cannot

be retained, and many children are moved from one foster home to

another.

181. Current pre-licensing foster parent training

is inadequate to prepare foster parents to parent children who

have been abused, neglected, abandoned, and who may have complex

medical and mental health needs.

182.

Post-licensing training is neither required

nor offered on an on-going and consistent basis, though required

by national professional standards and recommended in the various

professional reports on foster care prepared for, and by, DCYS.

183. DCYS lacks procedures and staff to fully

assess the competence of potential foster parents, to monitor

adequately the quality of care in each foster home, and to

conduct relicensing inspections at sufficient frequency to ensure

the safety and welfare of the children placed therein.

Defendants commonly rely on only "paper" relicensure, rather than

- 59 -

on-site inspections, for placements in which DCYS places children

over five years of age.

184. DCYS lacks adequate staff and resources to

recruit, study and license new homes.

Recent statutory

requirements which impose time limits for licensure of" the

relative homes which DCYS uses as foster placements, without a

corresponding increase in the size of the DCYS homefinding and

licensure staff, has further hindered DCYS' recruitment,

licensing, and retention efforts. As of August 1989, DCYS was

taking eight to twelve months to study and license new homes,

resulting in significant attrition among the potential foster

parents awaiting licensure who have completed pre-licensing

training, and a loss of potential homes.

185. One tragic consequence of DCYS' failure to

maintain a foster care system with an adequate number of

appropriate and closely-monitored homes is that some children,

removed by DCYS from their birth parents' homes for their

protection, have then been subjected to abuse and neglect in the

foster homes in which DCYS has placed them.

2. Specialized and treatment foster care

186. Many of the children in defendant Wheaton's

care require specialized or treatment foster care placements

because of their medical, physical, psychological, developmental

or behavioral problems. Other children, who are in foster care

placements which are in danger of being disrupted, require

- 60 -

appropriate services to avert disruption and the resultant

gravely deleterious effects of multiple foster care moves.

187.

Defendants have been, advised repeatedly,

through studies, task force reports, and evaluations of pilot

programs starting as early as 1971 and continuing througn the

past year, and defendant Wheaton's own Budget Options have

acknowledged, that additional specialized and treatment foster

care beds are needed to avert unnecessary institutionalization,

inappropriate placements, and further damage to children.

188. Absent a comprehensive, statewide system of

specialized and treatment foster care, DCYS has caused children

in its custody to be unnecessarily institutionalized, or remain

institutionalized beyond the time that care in such a restrictive

setting has been necessary; children have been released from

residential and psychiatric facilities to .inappropriate

placements (including shelters, the State Receiving Home, and

their own homes); children have not come into placement though

placement was necessary for their safety and wellbeing; children

have suffered moves through multiple foster homes; and children

have otherwise been allowed by DCYS to remain in placements which

are deleterious to them and which fail to provide them with

appropriate care, causing them serious and long-lasting harm.

3. Day treatment

189. Defendants have failed to establish sufficient

day treatment programs in all Regions of the state, though they

- 61 -
offer a structured treatment environment which allows some children to remain with their families who otherwise would be likely to require or remain in out-of -home placements. As a result, some children remain longer than necessary in residential facilities and other institutional settings, and other children in DCYS care remain in the community though they are harmed, or are at risk of harm, without this necessary care.
4. Shelters and Group Homes 190. DCYS fails to provide shelter services and
group homes in all Regions of the state to all children in DCYS care who are in need of such services. Certain categories of children are particularly underserved, such as girls in need of group home beds and children in need of adequate emergency shelter who are aged eight to thirteen, who have special needs, who are severely acting out or firesetters, or who have committed sexual offenses.
191. Services and placements to assist adolescents in DCYS care to make the transition to independent living, such as therapeutic group homes and life skills training, are woefully inadequate in the state.
192. Pre- and post-natal maternity homes for pregnant adolescents in DCYS I care, and particularly for those who already have children, are virtually non-existent in the state.

- 62 -

5. Residential treatment

193. Residential treatment is a necessary component

of the continuum of care for the most seriously disturbed

children and adolescents in DCYS I custody who need twenty-four

hour care in a structured environment which offers individualized

treatment planning, and who cannot be maintained in other

settings.

194.

Defendants fail to provide adequate

residential treatment services to children in need of such

placements who are aged fourteen to seventeen, who are sexual

offenders or who have sexual identity problems, and who are

severely disturbed, firesetters, or assaultive.

195. Without a comprehensive continuum of treatment

services and less restrictive placements in any Region of the

state, some children remain in residential care when a less

restrictive setting is appropriate for their needs, while other

children in need of residential placement remain in placements

which are inappropriate for their needs awaiting a residential

bed.

6. Aftercare Services

196. DCYS fails to provide adequate aftercare

services to children in its care, though such services can reduce

the time that children remain in an institutional or other out-

of-home setting, can preserve and enhance the gains in treatment

I
- 63 -

made while in an out-of-home placement, and can reduce the

likelihood of re-institutionalization and re-referral to DCYS.

197.

In May, 1986, the DCYS Commissioner's

Aftercare Task Force designed a model for aftercare services and

recommended development of overnight respite care, day treatment

and supervised independent living programs. This model, however,

has not been implemented, nor has any reasonable alternative to

it.

H. Failure to Develop and Implement Plans to Enable Children to Leave Foster Care and Other Out-of-Home
Placements

198. DCYS fails to consistently develop in a timely and

legally sufficient manner, and to implement, the written plans

required by federal law. Many plans are vague and unfocused, do

not contain meaningful timetables, and are often developed in the

absence of professional judgments and without taking into

consideration the needs of the child and the family. In those

plans which contain a plan of reunification of the child with the

parent, DCYS often fails to identify and provide the services

necessary to implement that plan, with the result that children

remain in state custody unnecessarily.

199. In addition, a number of defendants' current

practices actually impair efforts to reunify children with their

parents, such as: placing children in out-of-home placements

which are geographically distant from the birth parents, thereby

severely impairing visitation, especially for parents with

- 64 -
limited financial means; placing children in foster homes in which the foster family speaks a language different than the birth parents, without ensuring the children an opportunity to maintain their native language; and maintaining such high caseloads for DCYS workers that it is impossible for them to take reasonable steps to implement treatment plans. In addition, defendants fail to provide a complete and comprehensive continuum of aftercare services in all Regions which can maintain a child in his or her home once he is returned, resulting in an increasing rate of re-referrals to DCYS and repeated removals from home.
200. Treatment plans are not always reviewed every six months as required by federal law, nor are dispositional hearings always held within time limits mandated by federal law.
201. For some children, DCYS maintains a "plan" to return the child to his or her home but fails to make reasonable efforts to implement the plan or retains the plan long after it ceases to be realistic, and in many instances long after the parent has ceased to have a meaningful relationship with the child.
202. For children with a DCYS' plan for termination of parental rights and adoptron, DCYS fails to take all necessary steps to ensure that they are legally available for adoption, and that each child is quickly placed in an appropriate adoptive home. DCYS' delays, in freeing these children for adoption and

- 65 -
in recruiting, screening, and licensing potential adoptive parents, mean that some children will be permanently deprived of any opportunity to grow up in a caring adoptive family.
I. Failure to Move Children to Adoptive or Other Permanent Homes when Reunification is Impossible. 203. Even when a child is available for adoption, DCYS
fails to take appropriate and timely steps to obtain an adoptive home for him or her.
204. The number of DCYS children who are freed for adoptive placement far exceeds the number of licensed adoptive homes, particularly if the children are African-American, Latino, or have special needs.
205. The gap between the number of DCYS children awaiting adoptive homes and the number of available placements has been markedly increasing. In June, 1988, there were 450 children awaiting placement and 146 licensed homes. One year later, in June, 1989, there were 541 DCYS children with parental rights terminated awaiting adoptive placements and only 166 licensed adoptive homes available. In addition, some homes licensed for adoption are not actually used by DCYS because caseworkers find them to be inappropriate for the particular child in need of adoption.
206. Departmental studies of recruitment, licensing, and retention of adoptive homes have documented, and defendant Wheaton's own Budget Options have acknowledged, that additional services and supports for potential adoptive families (such as

- 66 -

increased pre- and post-licensing training, adoption supports and

subsidies, and support services beyond the time of adoption), as

well as additional staff to recruit, conduct home studies, and

license, are necessary to increase the number of available,

licensed adoptive homes generally, and in particular the number

of African-American and Latino adoptive homes. These services

are also essential to minimize the possibility that the adoptive

placements will be disrupted.

207. Despite defendants' knowledge of the problem,

defendants have failed to take the steps necessary to ensure that

there is adequate recruitment, licensing, and training of

sufficient numbers of appropriate adoptive parents to ensure that

children in DCYS custody will expeditiously be moved into

adoptive homes.

J. Failure to Provide Sufficient, Trained Staff to Fulfill Defendants' Legal Obligations.

208.

Trained social work staff and supervisors,

together with sufficient support staff, equipment, and services,

are essential components of Connecticut's child welfare system.

209.

Defendants have failed to maintain adequate

numbers of DCYS caseworkers, support staff, equipment and

services to comply with the DCYS' legal obligations under federal

law.

210. Since SFY 81-2, the number of investigations of

abuse, neglect, and at risk referrals completed by DCYS has

nearly doubled. Since 1987, the average daily caseload served by

- 67 -
the regional offices has increased by about 15%, and the number of abused, neglected or maltreated children who are in out-ofhome care has increased by about 10%. The total number of currently authorized positions in DCYS, however, has failed to increase proportionately with this need for service.
211. Many authorized positions in the agency are vacant and defendants have ordered some of them to remain unfilled. Recent retirements under the state's early retirement plan have exacerbated DCYS' staffing shortages. Only about 1/4 of the nearly seventy DCYS employees who recently retired, including more than ten social workers in the Regional offices, currently are authorized to be replaced.
212. Staffing shortages are further exacerbated by staff who are unable to meet their job responsibilities because they are on workmen's compensation or leaves for medical or personal reasons.
213. As a result of defendants' chronic understaffing of DCYS' social work force, the DCYS social worker staff have dangerously high caseloads that far exceed minimally-accepted professional standards and the professional standards as set forth in various state task force reports (including the Report
-
of the 1986 Governor's Task Force on Family Violence and the February 1989 Report of the Governor's Task Force on Justice for Abused Children) and DCYS' Budget Options from at least SFY 85-6 through and including SFY 89-90. DCYS' Child Welfare Service

- 68 -
Plan Update 1989-90 states that DCYS' 1989 caseload figures "represented an increase over the previous year and are above recommended standards".
214. In early 1989, defendant Wheaton testified to the Appropriations Committee of the General Assembly that these shortages require DCYS intake staff, who -- defendant Wheaton claimed -- have an "average" caseload as high as thirty-six cases, to make a series of choices, none of which are "good" because "any of them could result in a child being hurt": to turn away referrals, to delay initiation or completion of the investigation, or to spend less time than is needed to assess the situation.
215. Defendant Wheaton also testified to this Committee that the average caseloads of treatment workers, who are assigned ongoing supervision of the confirmed abuse and neglect cases in which children are at greatest risk, "range from a low of twentyfive to a high of forty-nine," assuming no staff vacancies or leaves. DCYS' statewide average treatment caseload of 32.4 last spring was "50% over the national standard of good practice," which the Commissioner testified to be "between seventeen and twenty" treatment cases per worker.
216. The caseloads of many individual intake and treatment caseworkers far exceed these already high average caseload figures, particularly in offices with high vacancy and leave rates and many newly-hired social work employees. Some

- 69 -

individual intake workers have as many as thirty or more cases.

Some individual treatment workers have sixty or more cases.

Significant workload inequities exist among workers, among units,

and among the six Regional Offices of DCYS.

Bilinqual

caseworkers frequently carry caseloads greater than the average.

217. Inadequacies in support staff, equipment, and

services, including shortages in clerical staff and necessary

equipment, and defendants' failure to hire social work aides to

assist caseworkers, also contribute to the existing delays in

providing casework services to children.

218. Defendants are well aware of the harmful impact of

these staffing inadequacies on Connecticut's most vulnerable

children. Defendant Wheaton, in her 1989-90 Budget Options to

defendant O'Neill, stated that because of increases in referrals

and high caseloads "[r]egular, supportive contact between

Department social work staff and even the highest risk families

is next to impossible". She characterized the situation in child

protective services as "unacceptable and dangerous" and stated

that without additional casework positions "the Department cannot

assure the safety and protection of children."

219. Though defendants have been long aware of these
staffing inadequacies, staf-fing problems have grown more severe.

DCYS has fewer authorized positions in the current SFY 1989-90

budget than it had the preceding year.

- 70 -
220. DCYS also has a high rate of turnover among casework staff, resulting in a less experienced staff to manage the complex cases for which defendants are responsible. Since SFY 85-6, the turnover rate among DCYS social work staff has approximately doubled. At least one-third of the caseworkers in the Hartford DCYS office are new this year, and only about 30% of the social work staff in that office has worked there for more than two years.
221. The high turnover rate among DCYS casework staff, and the number of new staff currently being hired with no formal social work education, makes staff training for newly-hired social work staff a matter of particuiar importance, yet the training program for such staff is less comprehensive and timely than it was several years ago,- is inadequate, and falls short of national standards.
222. Formal system-wide training for new staff was, for a time in 1988, totally suspended. Many positions for staff development and training remain unfilled; a budget adequate for such training is lacking. Current staff training is inadequate to ensure that workers are aware of their responsibilities and that they have the basic information, knowledge, and skills necessary to ensure that the children's legal rights are protected.
223. For example, caseworkers can be assigned cases and even go to court prior to completion, or even initiation, of any

- 71 -
formal and systematic basic training about DCYS and its processes. DCYS also fails to provide an adequate on-going training program for more experienced caseworkers and social work supervisors.
224. Social worker supervisors are responsible for the supervision of an excessive number of cases, limiting their ability to ensure that social work staff provide services competently and in a timely manner. In addition, because of social worker shortages, supervisors are called upon to assist in providing casework services, further limiting their ability to provide supervision, sound caseload management, and consultation in complex situations.
225. Though an increasing percentage of the children in DCYS care are Latino, there remains a critical shortage of Spanish-speaking social work staff. As a result, Latino children and families have experienced delays in receiving culturally and linguistically appropriate services, even beyond those experienced by other children in defendant Wheaton's care.
226. High caseloads hinder DCYS workers in providing necessary oversight for children and youth who experience serious emotional disturbance and who are in placement or at high risk of placement because of this. There is insufficient staff to perform essential quality assurance functions and to plan, develop, and administer community services in each Region.

- 72 -
K. Inadequate Records and information systems 227. DCYS has no reliable system for identifying the
individual children in care and tracking the actions taken for each of them on essential matters which are necessary to protect them, to ensure that they receive proper care, and to assure them a permanent placement. The computer system maintained by DCYS contains unreliable and inaccurate information which makes it impossible for DCYS to fulfill all of its various legal obligations.
228. In addition, DCYS' records on individual children and families are seldom complete, impairing DCYS' ability to fulfill its legal obligations to all children in its care.
229. In the Spring of 1986, a detailed study of DCYS' data processing services reported emphatically that DCYS' information system was insufficient. The SFY 87-8 Budget Option requesting additional funds to expand these services stated that /I [y]ears of neglect in this area have seriously diminished the effectiveness and efficiency of the Division. The agency simply cannot reasonably respond to external requests for information and meet Federally mandated program reporting requirements. Most importantly, meeting the needs of its clients [sic] base is becoming seriously impacted through the insufficiency of its automated support systems to provide timely and accurate information to the social workers in the field interacting with these clients./I

- 73 -
230. Though aware that DCYS' records and information systems must be significantly upgraded to ensure that the needs of children in DCYS care are adequately met, defendants have failed to remedy all the various deficiencies of the systems, thereby violating plaintiffs' right to receive services in a child welfare system with an adequate information system.
L. The Continuing Crisis in Connecticut's Child Welfare System 231. Over the last six years, innumerable studies and
task force reports by, for, and involving DCYS have "studied" the crisis in Connecticut's child welfare system.
232. These studies and task force reports include: Family with Service Needs Work Group: Committee on the Hard to Service Draft Report (10/83); The 1984-5 proposal of the DCYS Committee on Acting Out Kids; The DCYS Foster Care Rate Structure Study (1/85); The Governor's Task Force on Family Violence Report (1985); The DCYS Specialized Foster Care Report (11/85); Final Report of the Connecticut Sexual Abuse Task Force (1/86); Final Report and Recommendations of the Governor's Task Force on Family Violence (1/86); The DCYS Commissioner's Aftercare Task Force Report (5/86); DCYS' First Annual Advocacy Action Plan to Enhance Services for Minority Children and Youth (5/86) i DAS-BlDP Da.ta Processing Services Study (Spring, 19~6); Mental Health Services to Chi ldren and youth « A Blueprint for Change ( 9/86 ) ; DCYS ' Report on Adoption for Connecticut's Black Children (11/86) i Report of the DCYS Health Care Advisory Committee (1987);

- 74 -
Psychiatric Hospital Services for Children and Adolescents (1/87); Final Report of the DCYS Foster Care Conunittee (1/87); Final Report of the DCYS Adoption Committee (7/87); Health Care for Children in Foster Care (10/87); Report of the Residential Study/Work Group - Findings and Recommendations (4/88); DCYS' Final Report on Recruitment and Retention of Foster Parents (6/88); Final Report of the Task Force on Transracial Adoption (6/88); Research and Study on Treatment Foster Care (8/88); Governor's Intra-Agency Plan on Youth Substance Abuse Prevention and Intervention (9/88); Day Treatment Services for DCYS Children: Program and Fiscal Needs for Ensuring Viability into the 1990s (9/88); DCYS' Proposal for a System of Psychiatric Inpatient Care for Children (Draft, 10/88); Report of the Governor's Task Force on Justice for- Abused Children (2/89); DCYS' Out of Biological Home Conunittee Report (4/89); Refinancing and Expanding Services to Children Through a Controlled Use of Medicaid (Title XIX) (7/89); Carlos Rodriguez is WaitingConnecticut's Plan for a Comprehensive. Community-Based Service System for Children and Adolescents Who Experience Serious Emotional Disturbance and Their Families (9/89).
233. These studies and task force reports, and others, have acknowledged the multi-faceted nature of the crisis in Connecticut's child welfare system and, with striking consistency, have recommended the various steps which defendants must take to ensure that children in DCYS care and supervision

- 75 -

receive the protection, care, and treatment to which they are

lawfully entitled.

234. However, defendants have failed to follow these

professional recommendations to address this crisis, and also

have failed to develop alternatives to bring Connecticut's'child

welfare system into compliance with the law. At a time that the

number of children in need of DCYS' care and protection continues

to increase, Connecticut's child welfare system continues to

deteriorate.

235. The knowing actions and inactions of the defendant

officials of the State of Connecticut, as herein set forth, are

causing Connecticut's most vulnerable citizens

the children

who have been abused, neglected, abandoned, and who are at grave

risk of such maltreatment -- to continue to suffer irreparable

injury for which there is no adequate remedy at law.

VI. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION - Federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980.

236. Paragraphs 1 through 235 are incorporated herein by

reference, the same as though pleaded in full.

237.

Defendants' actions and knowing inactions have

deprived plaintiffs and the members of their class of the rights

conferred upon them by the federal Adoption Assistance and Child

Welfare Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. 55620-627, 670-679, including

their rights to:

a. DCYS' reasonable efforts to prevent plaintiffs'

- 76 -

removal from their homes and to prevent unnecessary separation

from their parents;

b. DCYS' reasonable efforts to provide services to

enable children to be returned to their families whenever

possible;

c. timely and appropriate services to prevent and

remedy neglect, abuse, and dependency which may result in out-of-

home placement;

d.

individualized written case plans developed in

accordance with reasonable professional judgment that contain

specified elements; timely and complete implementation of said

plans by the provision of necessary and appropriate services; and

timely and complete review of those plans;

e. placement in foster homes or other out-of-home

placements which are appropriate for plaintiffs' needs and which

conform to nationally-recommended standards, and appropriate

foster care payments;

f. appropriate services for plaintiffs, their parents,

and their foster parents to address each child's needs and to

assure each child's permanent placement;

g. placements in the least restrictive, most family-

like settings;

h. proper care and treatment;

i. periodic judicial or administrative reviews;

- 77 -

j. dispositional reviews to determine future status

within eighteen months after placement, and periodically

thereafter;

k. services in a child welfare system with an adequate

information system;

1. defendants' compliance with the Child Abuse

Prevention and Treatment Act.

VII. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION - Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act.

238. paragraphs 1 through 237 are incorporated herein by

reference, the same as though pleaded in full.

239. Defendants' knowing actions and inactions in failing

to appropriately investigate all referrals to DCYS, and in

failing to provide adequately trained staff in sufficient numbers

to undertake such investigations in a timely and complete manner

and to take appropriate protective action, have deprived

plaintiffs and the members of their class of the rights conferred

upon them by federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, 42

U.S.C. 55106 et ~., including their rights to:

a. prompt investigations into all reports regarding

children who are known to be,_ or suspected of being, abused,

neglected, abandoned, or at risk of such maltreatment;

b. appropriate protection when reports of abuse or

neglect have been substantiated;

c.

adequate procedures, trained and qualified

- 78 -

personnel, and facilities to deal effectively with child abuse

and neglect cases.

VIII.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION - Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Right to a Safe, Decent, and Humane Environment while in the Custody of the State and Right not to be Harmed.

240. Paragraphs 1 through 239 are incorporated herein by

reference, the same as though pleaded in full.

241. Defendants have a duty to ensure the safety, security

and freedom from harm of all children in their care and custody

and all children of whom defendants have, or should have,

knowledge who are at risk of harm. Defendants have failed to

develop and maintain a complete continuum of care in all Regions,

including services, placements, and programs which are staffed by

appropriately qualified, trained and supported persons, which are

adequately monitored, which are not overcrowded, which meet

nationally-reconunended standards, and which adequately meet the

physical, emotional, medical, psychological, and developmental

needs of plaintiffs and the members of their class. Defendants'

actions and inactions have caused plaintiffs and members of their

class to be denied appropriate and necessary care and to be

subjected to harm, in violation of plaintiffs' rights under the

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

- 79 -
IX. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION - Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Right to Care That is Consistent With Competent Professional Judgment.
242. Paragraphs 1 through 241 are incorporated herein by reference, the same as though pleaded in full.
243. Defendants' actions and inactions in failing to provide children in their custody and/or under their supervision with care consistent with competent professional judgment has caused plaintiffs and the members of their class to be deprived of their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. X. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION - Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution - Right Not to Be Deprived of State and FederallyCreated Liberty and Property Rights Without Due Process. 244. Paragraphs 1 :through 243 are incorporated herein by reference, the same as though pleaded in full. 245. Plaintiffs and the members of their class enjoy certain liberty and property rights which have been created by mandatory state and federal law governing their protection, care, and treatment including, but not necessarily limited to: the right to prompt investigation of all referrals regarding children who are abused, neglected, or at risk; the right to protection when DCYS investigations substantiate harm or danger; the right to careful supervision when in DCYS care, to such DCYS contact as is necessary to promote their safety and support, and to
maintenance of such records as are necessary for such proper

- 80 -

supervision; the right to adequate food, clothing, shelter, and

medical and mental health care services while in care; and the

right to safe and secure out-of-home placements which are

appropriately licensed.

Defendants' knowing actions: and

inactions, in administering a child welfare system which

arbitrarily denies plaintiffs and the members of their class

various of their liberty and property rights, deny plaintiff

class members their rights to due process of law as guaranteed by

the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

XI. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION - Fourteenth Amendment to United States Constitution - Right to Placement in the Least Restrictive, Appropriate Placement.

246. Paragraphs 1 through 245 are incorporated herein by

reference, the same as though pleaded in full.

247. Defendants' failure to establish and implement a full

continuum of services and placements in all Regions and to make

appropriate placements for each child has caused plaintiffs and

members of their class to be placed in inappropriate placements

and in placements which are more restrictive than is necessary to

provide them with appropriate care and treatment and to protect

them from harm, thereby violating plaintiffs' rights under the

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

- 81 -

XII.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION - First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Const'itution - Right to Freedom of Association and to Family Integrity.

248. Paragraphs 1 through 247 are incorporated herein by

reference, the same as though pleaded in full.

249. Defendants have denied plaintiffs and members of their

class their rights to freedom of association and to family

integrity as guaranteed to them by the First, Ninth, and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by:

failing to place children in DCYS care in close proximity to

their parents; failing to provide services necessary to enable

children in DCYS care to remain together or to be reunified

whenever appropriate; failing to place siblings in need of out-

of-home placements in the same placements; and failing to

facilitate visitation between children and parents, and children

and their siblings.

XIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs respectfully request this Court

to:

1. Assume and retain jurisdiction over this action;

2. Certify this action as a class action;

3.

Enter preliminary and permanent injunctive relief

necessary and appropriate to:

a. remedy defendants' violations· of the plaintiffs'

- 82 -
rights under the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended;
b. remedy defendants' violations of the plaintiffs' rights under the federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatmen.t Act, as amended;
c. remedy defendants' violations of the plaintiffs' rights under the United States Constitution.
4. Enter a declaratory judgment declaring that defendants' policies and practices violate the plaintiffs' rights under the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended, under the federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, as amended, and under the United States Constitution.
5. Award to the plaintiffs their costs and attorneys' fees. 6. Grant such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

- 83 -
Respectfully Submitted,
Shelley Geballe Connecticut Civil Liberties
Union Foundation 32 Grand Street Hartford, CT 06106 (203) 247-9823
Martha Stone Connecticut Civil Liberties
Union Foundation 32 Grand Street Hartford, CT 06106 (203) 247-9823
Marcia Robinson LOwry Children's Rights Project American Civil Liberties Union 132 West 43rd Street New York, NY 10036 (212) 944-9800 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

 </s> -
( )
,'.:,
. ,.
.CONSENT DECREE
Connecticut Department of Children and Youth Services

{. )

United States District Court District of Connecticut January 7, 1991

')
CONSENT DECREE TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.

Preamble

1

II.

General Provisions

6

III.

Definitions

9

IV.

The Training Academy

11

(A) Objectives

11

(B) Location

13

(C) Director

13

(0) Staff and Consultants

13

(E.) - Advisory Board

14

(F) General Training Plans

14

(G) Individual Training Plans

15

I (li). Pre-Service Staff Training

16

(I) Training Units

17

(J) In-Service Training and

Continuing Education

20

(K) Training for CUrrent Employees

21

(L) Non-Clerical Support Staff

Training

21

(M) Foster Parent Training

22

(N) Training Academy Manual

23

V.

Central and Regional Offices

24

(A) Central Office

24

(B) Regional Office

25

(C) Central and Regional Office Manual

26

i

VI.

Health Management Unit

2·7

(A) Formation

27

( B) Purposes

27

(C) Director and Personnel

29

(D) Department's Institutions -

Coordination Plan

29

(E) Health Management Unit Manual

30

VII.

Contracts Unit

31

(A) Purposes

31

(B) Personnel

32

(C) Contracts Unit Manual

32

VIII.

Social Work and Support Staff

33

(A) Support Staff

33

(B) social Workers: Qualifications

and Caseload Size

33

(C) Master Social Workers

34

(D) Supervisors: Qualifications

and Staffing Ratios

35

(E) Department Personnel Recruitment

and Retention Plans

35

(1) Recruitment Plan

35

(2) Retention Plan

36

IX.

Policy

38

(A) Purposes

38

(B) Personnel

39

(C) Monitoring

39

ii

X.

Quality Assurance

40

(A) Purposes

40

(B) Director and Personnel

41

(C) Quality Assurance Manual

42

XI.

statewide Hotline

43

(A) Purposes

43

(B) Personnel and Assignment

43

(C) Procedures

44

(D) Hotline Manual

46

XII.

Child Protective services -

Intake and Investigation

47

(A) Purposes

47

(B) Intake and Investigation Manual

49

(C) Placement Prevention and

Family Preservation Services

51

(D) High-Risk Newborns

53

(E) Personnel

54

XIII.

Voluntary Service Units

55

(A) Formation and status

55

(B) 'Objectives

55

(C) Miscellaneous

56

(D) Voluntary Service Manual

56

XIV.

Treatment Units

57

(A) Transfer and Assignment

57

(B) preliminary Treatment Plan:

Child In-Home

57

iii

(C) Permanent Treatment Plan:

Child In-Home

59

(0) Treatment Plans:

Child Out-of-Home

60

(E) Case Management Procedures

for Children in Out-of-Home

61

(F) Case Management Procedures for

Children in Their OWn Home

Under Protective Supervision

65

(G) supervision

67

(H) Medical Aspects of Treatment Plans

67

(I) Mental Health and Substance Abuse

Aspects of Treatment Plans

68

(J) Independent Living Aspects of

Treatment Plans

68

(K) Treatment Plan Amendments/

Exceptions

73

(L) Treatment Plans - General

Requirements

73

(M) Personnel

74

(N) Treatment Unit Manual

74

xv.

Family Training and Support unit

75

(A) Purposes

75

(B) Responsibilities of the

Family Training and Support

Units: Foster Care

76

(C) Other Matters Pertaining to

Children in Foster Care

79

(0) Responsibilities of the

Family Training and

Support units: Adoptive

Home Recruitment

82

iv

(E) Director, Personnel and

Consultants

83

(F) Family Training and Support

unit Manual

84

XVI.

Adoption

85

(A) Objectives

85

(B) Personnel

86

(C) Voluntary Termination of

Parental Rights

87

(D) Involuntary Parental

Termination

87

(E) Adoption By The Foster

Parent

88

(F) Adoption By Non-Foster

Parents: Matching

90

(G) Duties of the Adoption

Specialist

90

(H) Post-Adoption Services

92

(I) Adoption Manual

92

XVII.

Regional Resource Groups

93

(A) Purposes

93

(B) Personnel

94

(C) Regional Resource Group

Manual

95

XVIII. Consultants

96

(A) Community Consultants

96

(1) Purposes

96

(2) Community Consultants

96

(3) Community Consultant Manual

97

v

XIX.
XX •.
XXI. XXII. XXIII. XXIV.

(B) Language Consultants Administrative Case Review
(A) Functions (B) Staff (C) Attendance (D) Administrative Case Review
Manual Aftercare Services
(A) Objectives (B) Eligibility (C) Duration (D) Services (E) Personnel (F) Aftercare Plans (G) Aftercare Manual Regional services (A) Objectives (B) Department Institutions Paperwork, Information Management, and Technology (A) Assessment Committee -
Purposes (B) Capacities of the Single
Statewide Computer System Probate Court Ordered Studies Funding

vi

~
97 98 98 99 99
100 101 101 101 101 101 102 102 103 104 104 107
109
109
111 113 114

XXV. XXVI.

DCYS Monitoring Panel (A) PUrposes (B) Composition (C) Vacancies (D) Removal (E) Resolution of Issues (F) Performance of Duties (G) Staff (H) Consultants and Subpanels (I) other Expenses and Costs (J) Fees and Expenses (K) Liability (L) Termination
Modification of Consent Decree

Page
115 115 116 116 116 116 117 117 117 117 118 118 118 120

vii

SECTION I. PREAMBLE

I. PREAMBLE
Background On December 19, 1989, the plaintiffs identified as Juan F.,
a minor, by and through his next friends Brian Lynch, M.s.W., and Isabel Romero; Becky M., a minor, by and through her next friends Morris Wessel, M.D., and Nancy Orsi; Benjamin B., a minor, by and through his next friends Barry Kasdan, M.s.W., and Edythe Latney, M.H.s.A.; Jason B., a minor, by and through his next friends George pipkin and John Leventhal, M.D.; ~~na R., a minor, by and through her next friends Cesar Batalla and Julia Ramos Grenier, Ph.D.; Dominique 5., a minor, by and through his next friends Nancy Humphreys, D.s.W., and Margaret Penn, M.s.W.; Patrick S., a minor, by and through his next friends Jerry Reisman, Ph.D., and Julia Hamilton; Daniel C., a minor, by and through his next friends Patrick Bologna, M.s.W., and Cynthia McKenna, M.s.W.; Florence J., a minor, by and through her next friends Michael Rohde, M.H.s.A. and Judith Hyde, M.A.; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, instituted this action against William o'Neill, Governor, state of Connecticut, and Amy B. Wheaton, Ph.D., Commissioner, Department of Children and Youth Services, State of Connecticut, in their official capacities.
1

This action consisted of broad-scale challenges to the management, policies, practices, operations, funding, and protocols of the Connecticut Department of Children and Youth Services ("DCY'S" or the "Department"). The over one hundred issues identified for resolution may be generally separated into the following categories:
(1) Investigations and pre-placement services; (2) Foster care and other out-of-home placements and
services; (3) Medical care; (4) Mental health care; (5) Adoption; (6) Staffing; and (7) Management and systems. In a commendable effort to resolve their disputes without lengthy and expensive formal judicial proceedings, the parties agreed to mediate the complex factual and legal issues raised in this case. The agreement of the parties was formalized in a Mediation Order dated July 16, 1990. The Mediation Order in pertinent part provided: (1) That Theodore J. stein, M.S.W., Ph.D. (selected by plaintiffs), Patricia Wilson-Coker, M.S.W., J.D. (selected by defendants), and Senior Judge Robert C. Zampano, as Chairperson, would constitute the DCY'S Mediation Panel; (2) That the DCYS Mediation Panel was empowered to resolve and submit fair and just settlement terms on each issue
2

involved in this lawsuit; (3) That certain timetables and mediation procedural
phases would be adhered to by the DCYS Mediation Panel including an Investigation-and Information-Gathering Phase, a Consultation Phase, a Deliberation Phase, a Settlement Report or Consent Decree Phase, and a Post-Settlement Phase;
(4) That if by December 31, 1990, a Consent Decree had not been unanimously agreed upon by the DCYS Mediation Panel, the mediation process would terminate unless all counsel agreed to an extension of the process;
(5) That if the DCYS Mediation Panel was unable to resolve all issues and matters submitted to it, the case would be returned to the Trial Judge for formal judicial proceedings;
(6) That if all issues and matters submitted to the DCYS Mediation Panel were resolved by unanimous der.ision, the determinations would be final and binding, and would not be subject to appeal; and
(7) That if a Consent Decree was unanimously agreed upon by the DCYS Mediation Panel, the Consent Decree would provide for the implementation and monitoring of the Consent Decree. The Mediation Process
For over five months, the DCYS Mediation Panel heard from hundreds of people, conducted four public hearings, reviewed numerous documents, conferred with counsel, discussed each and every issue and matter presented to it, appointed medical and
3

mental health subpanels for recommendations,' and, by December 1, 1990, reached unanimity in principle on each issue and matter involved in this case.
During December 1990, the DCYS Mediation Panel reviewed each one of its determinations and drafted this Consent Decree to incorporate its judgment on each issue and matter. The Structure of the Consent Decree
The DCYS Mediation Panel fully recognized the scope of its adjudications and the effects upon all aspects of the management, operations, procedures, staffing, and funding of the Department. Therefore it very carefully formulated this Consent Decree to consist of definitive, rational, and fair resolutions of the issues, with reasonable implementation and monitoring provisions to reduce to the extent possible the impact on the Department's operations and funding.
Thus, this Consent Decree mandates prudent, state-of-theart, conclusive adjudications; however, it also provides for fiscal and compliance flexibility and reasonableness in the implementation and monitoring of these adjudications.
As soon as practicable after the effective date of this Consent Decree, the DCYS Monitoring Panel will meet with officials of the Department, members of administrative and legislative bodies, representatives of the Governor's Office, and
Dr. John M. Leventhal (selected by plaintiffs) and Dr. Mark D. Simms (selected by defendants) were the members of the Medical Subpanel; Dr. Joseph L. Woolston (selected by plaintiffs) and Dr. Kenneth E. Towbin (selected by defendants) were the members of the Mental Health Subpanel.
4

other persons or entities, to review and discuss the required funding for the implementation of the provisions of this Consent Decree. Thereafter, the DCYS Monitoring Panel will establish on an annual basis binding timetables and fiscal patterns for the funding of the provisions of this Consent Decree as implemented by the determinations of the DCYS Monitoring Panel.
To ensure implementation and compliance with the standards and adjudications set forth in this Consent Decree, but also to ensure that the implementation and compliance will be flexible and reasonable within the intent of the DCYS Mediation Panel, the members of the DCYS Mediation Panel will compose the membership of the DCYS Monitoring Panel established by this Consent Decree.
5

Section II. General Provisions

II. GENERAL PROVISIONS
(1) The provisions of this Consent Decree resolve the existing disputes and issues in the case of JUAN F., by and through his next friends Brian Lynch, M.S.W.c and Isabel Romero, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, et al. v. William O'Neill, et al., Civil Action No. H-89-859 (AHN).
(2) This Consent Decree satisfies and resolves the claims of the plaintiffs and plaintiffs' class in the above-entitled case as of the date of this Consent Decree.
(3) The provisions of this Consent Decree are the result of lengthy discussions and negotiations among the members of the DCYS Mediation Panel. They have been agreed upon solely as a means to put a reasonable end to this complex case and to avoid the costs, time, and risks that would be involved for the parties to litigate the case in full. In many respects, this Consent Decree embodies a compromise of the issues involved in this case and, while its provisions are binding on the parties herein, its provisions are not to be construed to be statements, rulings, or precedents with" respect to the constitutional and other legal rights of persons who are parties or nonparties to this litigation in this or any other action. Moreover, the provisions of this Consent Decree are not to be. construed as statements, rulings, or precedents with respect to the constitutional or
6

other legal rights of any person or persons involved in any action pertaining to the Department of Children and Youth Services.
(4) All provisions of this Consent Decree shall be deemed final and binding upon the parties except that the implementation of and compliance with those provisions, and all time specifications contained therein, shall be determined from time to time by the unanimous decision of the members of the DCYS Monitoring Panel. Detail, definition, implementation, and compliance mandates shall be set forth in writing and distributed by way of Manuals or similar memoranda.
(5) The DCYS Monitoring Panel's Manuals, memoranda, and any other document issued under its direction, shall be deemed final and binding. upon the parties, and not subject to appeal.
(6) The DCYS Monitoring Panel by unanimous decision may amend, alter, or change the contents of its Manuals, memoranda, or other documents issued under its direction. The amendments, alterations, or changes shall be deemed final and binding upon the parties and not subject to appeal.
(7) All disputes and issues concerning any aspect of the provisions of this Consent Decree or the DCYS Monitoring Panel's Manuals, memoranda, or other documents issued under its direction, shall be resolved by the unanimous decision of the DCYS Monitoring Panel. The DCYS Monitoring Panel's determinations shall be deemed final and binding upon the parties, and not subject to appeal.
7

(8) If any issue, matter, or dispute is not resolved by the unanimous decision of the DCYS Monitoring Panel, anyone of the members of the DCYS Monitoring Panel, or any party or counsel, may refer that issue, matter, or dispute to the Trial Judge for resolution pursuant to proceedings the Trial Judge deems appropriate. At any such proceeding, anyone of the DCYS Monitoring Panel may be called as a witness by a party, counsel, or the Trial Judge.
(9) The provisions of this Consent Decree satisfy and resolve the disputes and claims of the parties and the plainiiff class members in the above-entitled action, and shall apply to and be binding upon their employees, heirs, successors-ininterest and assigns. It does not resolve any claims or disputes said persons might have for monetary relief in pending or future litigation.
(10) This consent Decree satisfies and resolves the claims of plaintiffs and plaintiff class members under the various federal statutes and constitutional provisions pleaded in the Complaint, but resolves no claims which plaintiffs and plaintiff class members might have under other federal statutes and constitutional provisions, including (but not limited to) claims under the Education for Handicapped Children Act and claims relating to conditions of confinement within any of the Department's operated institutions and facilities.
(11) Nothing contained in this Consent Decree shall be interpreted so as to reduce the requirements and obligations imposed on the Department by the terms of prior judicial rulings, decrees, and consent judgments in other actions.
8

(13) This case shall be certified as a class action and the class certified shall be defined as:
(a) All children who are now, or will be, in the care, custody, or supervision of the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Youth Services as a result of being abused, neglected or abandoned or being found at risk of such maltreatment; and
(b) All children about whom the Department knows, or should know by virtue of a report to the Department, who are now, or will be, abused, neglected or abandoned, or who are now, or will be, at serious risk of such maltreatment.
(13) Notice to plaintiff class members of this Consent Decree shall issue pursuant to the December 13, 1990 Order Directing Notice of Proposed Settlement.
(14) Plaintiffs shall file their motion for costs and attorneys' fees within thirty days of judicial approval of this Consent Decree. Any disputes regarding this motion shall be submitted in the first instance to the Settlement Judge for resolution. If informal resolution is not possible, the matter shall thereafter be referred to the Trial Judge for an appropriate hearing. Defendants shall pay plaintiffs their costs and attorneys' fees within sixty days of the entry of a judicial Order directing payment.
(15) This Court has subject matter and personal jurisdiction over this action and therefore the authority to enter this Consent Decree.
(16) This Court shall have continuing jurisdiction of this action to ensure compliance with this Consent Decree.
Sa

Section III. Definitions

III. DEFINITIONS

As used in this Consent Decree, the following terms shall

have the following meaning unless specifically stated otherwise:

(1) "Adolescent"

a youth between the age of

twelve and eighteen.

(:2) "Case"

refers to a family under protective

services investigation; a child and his family receiving services

at home or a child out-of-home under a court order: or a child or

family receiving services' provided on a voluntary basis.

(3) "Child"

any person under eighteen years of

age.

(4) "Commissioner"

the Commissioner of the

Connecticut Department of Children and Youth Services acting by

him/herself or through agents, employees, or assigns and shall

include any successor Commissioner or Commissioners who at any

time after judicial approval of this Consent Decree may come to

assume any or all of the responsibilities and obligations

currently held by the Commissioner of the Connecticut Department

of Children and Youth Services.

(5) "DCYS"

the Connecticut Department of Children

and Youth Services, and any successor agency or agencies that at

any time after judicial approval of this Consent Decree may come

to assume any or all of the responsibilities and obligations

9

currently held by the Department of Children and Youth Services.

(6) "Department"

same as "DCYS".

(7) "Manuals"

refers to guidelines and handbooks

to be promulgated by the DCYS Monitoring Panel that will set

forth the directives and details concerning the procedures,

timetables, additional staffing requirements, funding

requirements, and other matters necessary to implement and

monitor the mandates in this consent Decree.

(8) "Out-of-Home Care"

any type ot round-the-

clock, seven-day a week care of a child outside of his or her own

home including care in foster family homes and congregate care

settings.

(9) "Parent"

a child's biological or adoptive

parent, guardian, or caretaker (other than foster parent) in

whose care a biological or adoptive parent or guardian has left

the child •.

(10) "Services"

assistance provided by the

Department and others to children and/or their tamilies.

(11) "Social Workers"

employees ot the

Department's regional ottices who provide casework services,

including Intake Workers, Treatment Workers, Hotline Workers,

Adoption Specialists and Social Worker trainees.

,
10

Section IV. The Training Academy

IV. THE TRAINING ACADEMY
(A) Objectives The Department, under the direction and with the
approval of the DCYS Monitoring Panel, shall establish a Training Academy for the following purposes:
(1) To provide pre-service training that meets nationally accepted standards for new workers, supervisors, nonclerical support staff, and other persons designated in the Training Academy Manual;
(2) To provide in-service training that meets nationally accepted standards for workers, supervisors, nonclerical support staff, adoption homefinders, foster homefinders, and other persons designated in the Training Academy Manual;
(3) To provide training that meets nationally accepted standards for foster and adoptive parents;
(4) To develop statewide, and as appropriate, regionspecific training plans for workers, supervisors, foster parents, adoptive parents, and other persons designated in the Training Academy Manual;
(5) To establish a computerized system that is part of a single statewide computer 'system to record and preserve information relating to pre-service, in-service, and other training plans, programs, evaluations of programs, and
11

evaluations of workers, supervisors, non-clerical support staff, foster parents, and other persons designated in the Training Academy Manual;
(6) To develop curricula and educational materials which may be used by facilities of the Department, contractees who care for the Department's children, and other related entities concerning health, human sexuality, AIDS, pregnancy, birth control, HIV infection, alcohol, drugs, tobacco, and other subjects designated in the Training Academy Manual:
(7) To administer the Social Work Internship Program and the Tuition Reimbursement Program:
(8) To maintain a library containing educational books, materials, and equipment required for the fulfillment of the objectives and effective operation of the Training Academy and regional offices;
(9) To engage in research and study to improve the performance and activities of workers, supervisors, managers, non-clerical support staff, adoptive and foster parents, and other persons designated in the Training Academy Manual:
(10) To promulgate guidelines for the reimbursement of expenses for those who participate in programs authorized by the Training Academy;
(11) To develop and implement Training Academy evaluation procedures;
(12) To issue an annual report, describing Training Academy activities;
12

(13) To train staff in the use and operation of the single statewide computer system: and
(14) To perform all other duties and activities prescribed in the Training Academy Manual.
(B) Location The Training Academy shall be centrally located and
shall have the space, equipment, furniture, and all other items and features specified in the Training Academy Manual.
(C) Director The Director of staff Development shall be the Director
of the Training Academy. The Director should possess the following qualifications:
(1) A Masters Degree, preferably one in social work or child welfare;
(2) At least five years experience in providing services in a human service agency, or three years experience in providing services in a human service agency and two years of experience as a supervisor in a human service agency; and
(3) Two years experience teaching in a school or department of social work, child welfare, or human services, or two years of experience as a training instructor in a public or private social welfare agency.
(D) Staff and Consultants (1) The Training Academy shall consist of
adequate qualified staff: (2) The training staff and librarian shall
13

possess the qualifications set forth in the Training Academy Manual; and
(3) When deemed necessary, the DCYS Monitoring Panel may appoint experts and consultants to effectuate the objectives of the Training Academy.
(E) Advisory Board (1) The Department, with the approval of the DCYS
Monitoring panel, shall appoint an Advisory Board consisting of representatives from the Department, educational institutions, public and private sector agencies, and community providers to recommend: policies; goals; minimum standards for knowledge and skills for social workers, superiors, foster parents, adoptive parents, and non-clerical support staff; training programs; recruitment of staff; procedures for assessing the qualifications of social workers, superiors, new hires, foster parents, adoptive parents, and non-clerical support staff; and all other acts necessary for the fulfillment of the objectives and effective administration of the Training Academy; and
(2) To the extent deemed necessary by the DCYS Monitoring Panel, the recommendations of the Advisory Board shall be incorporated into the requirements set forth in the Training Academy Manual.
(F) General Training Plans (1) A statewide Training Plan shall be developed
annually for the following purposes: (a) To describe the contents and objectives of
14

each training program that will be administered by the Training

Academy;

(b) To describe procedures to be followed by

regional training units; (c) To identify on at least a bi-annual basis the
dates, times, and training staff for each training program;

(d) To ensure, when necessary, that trainees will

have direct and supervised client contact; (e) To establish procedures to enable

participants to attend training programs at the Training Academy, or to arrange regional training sessions for the convenience of participants; and
(f) To incorporate all other information designated in the Training Academy Manual for the development and distribution of general Training Plans.

(G) Individual Training Plans (1) Individual Training Plans for social workers and
supervisors shall be developed for the following purposes:

(a) To incorporate evaluations of the strengths and weaknesses of a worker's and supervisor's knowledge and

skills: and

(b) To designate time frames and training programs

required to improve a worker's and supervisor's knowledge and

skills or to remedy professional deficiencies.

(2) Information recorded in Individual Training Plans

15

and subsequent amendments shall be maintained in the worker's personnel file.
(H) Pre-Service Staff Training (1) Pre-service training shall: (a) Be provided to the new worker for the first
four months of employment; (b) Consist of both didactic (e.g., lectures,
seminars) and supervised casework experiences in training units; and
(c) Comply with the timetables, procedures, and subjects of instruction prescribed in the Training Academy Manual.
(2) No trainee shall be solely responsible for any ,case function (e.g., intake, investigations, in-home, substitute care services) during the first twelve weeks of the pre-service training period.
(3) All trainees will be evaluated on a weekly basis by the instructors and supervisors.
(4) The period of pre-service training may be extended up to a maximum of thirty days to remedy difficulties encountered during the training period.
(5) with respect to newly hired workers who have at least twelve consecutive months of direct child welfare experience in the thirty-six months preceding the date of hire:
16

(a) An Individual Training Plan shall be developed for the worker within five days of commencing employment;
(b) The worker must attend the first three weeks of pre-service training required for all new workers;
(c) Subsequent training after t~e first three weeks will depend on the training needs identified in the Individual Training Plan;
(d) The worker shall not have sole responsibility for any case function until the worker has completed the mandatory three-week pre-service training; ·and
(e) At the completion of the mandatory threeweek pre-service training, a worker who demonstrates the requisite knowledge and skills may be assigned to a regular department unit.
(I) Training units (1) Training Units shall be established within each
region or within two geographically contiguous regions for the following purposes:
(a) To contribute to the pre-service training prescribed in this Consent Decree;
(b) To provide a locus for supervised case work experience for new workers during the required pre-service training period; and
(c) To maintain balanced caseloads for workers who provide services to clients.
17

(2) The supervisor/instructor shall provide the training throughout the period of time the trainee is as~igned to the Training Unit.
(3) Training Unit supervisors/instructors shall be experienced personnel who have attained the level of supervisor or Master Social Worker, or such other person or contractees whose experience allows them to provide services in any type of case, and who have been trained as supervisors/instructors as set forth in the Training Academy Manual.
(4) The ratio of supervisor/instructor to trainees shall not exceed one supervisor/instructor to three trainees.
(5) The caseload of supervisor/instructor shall not exceed one-half of the maximum caseload permitted by this Consent Decree.
(6) During the first six weeks of the pre-service training period, no trainee shall provide services to any client except under the direct supervision of a supervisor/instructor.
(7) In the seventh week of the pre-service training period and on subsequent weeks for the balance of the four-month training period, the trainee may be assigned additional cases pursuant to the timetables and procedures set forth in the Training Academy Manual.
(8) The cases assigned to the trainee by the completion of the training period shall constitute the trainee's first caseload.
(9) During the pre-service training period, the
18

trainee shall not be solely responsible for any investigation of an alleged child abuse case.
(10) During the pre-service training period, the trainee may be assigned one case of alleged child neglect in any two-week period, but shall not be assigned more than three such cases. If the trainee in consultation with the supervisor/ instructor determines that the child should be removed from the home, the case shall immediately be assigned to the supervisor/instructor for appropriate action.
(11) Prior to the trainee's assignment to a regular departmental unit in any region, there shall be a pre-assignment conference attended by the trainee, the supervisor/instructor, and the supervisor of the regular unit to review and discuss:
(a) Strengths and weaknesses in the trainee's performance observed during the training period, and the supervisory requirements for the trainee:
(b) The case plan for each child on the worker's caseload:
(c) The services needed for a child or family; and
(d) Specific problems in each case. (12) The issues discussed and conclusions reached on each case during the pre-assignment conference shall be reduced to writing, and copies of the report shall be filed in the case record. A summary of the worker's strengths and weaknesses shall be used as a part of a formal performance review pursuant to the
19

close of the working test period and shall be maintained in the files of the supervisor/instructor, the supervisor of the Transfer unit, and the trainee.
(13) Following the preparation and filing of a conference report, the trainee may be assigned to a regular unit of the Department.
(J) In-Service Training and continuing Education (1) The objectives of In-service Training and
continuing education for professional staff (e.g., workers, supervisors, and managers) are:
(a) To acquaint professional staff, through lectures, seminars, and workshops, with new knowledge and new methods relating to a workers' duties, management practices, and . supervisory techniques;
(b) To reinforce and update prior training particularly in areas suggested in the worker's and supervisor's Individual Training Plans: and
(c) To encourage professional staff to improve their knowledge and skills by enrolling in courses at educational institutions and attending workshops offered by professional organizations.
(2) In addition to other technical training requirements for in-service training, the professional staff annually must receive five days of general in-service training and other special training as may be deemed necessary, or indicated in a worker's or supervisor's Individual Training Plan.
20

(3) Supervisors shall be required to attend training programs prescribed in the Training Academy Manual.
(4) The Training Academy Manual shall establish timetables and particularized procedures to fulfill the objectives and effective administration of the In-Service Training Program.
(K) Training for Current Employees (1) A training program for employees who are on staff
before opening of the Training Academy shall be developed or purchased. The training program shall:
(a) Be in accordance with nationally accepted training curriculum;
(b) Provide for Individual Training Plans for each employee; and
(c) Be implemented, and workers be trained, within twelve months from a date to be determined by the DCYS Monitoring Panel.
(2) While employees are in training their cases will be managed by their supervisors or other workers.
(L) Non-Clerical Support Staff Training (1) Non-Clerical Support Staff Training shall be
developed for the following purposes: (a) To provide pre-service and in-service
training which shall include, but not be limited to: the threeweek orientation training program required for workers; the procedures for gathering and documenting information; accessing
21

services for clients; and the necessary computer skills and ability to go on-line on the various databases of the Department: and
(b) To provide such other training to meet minimum standards for knowledge and skills for non-clerical support staff as may be prescribed in the Training Academy Manual.
(2) Non-Clerical Support Staff shall not, unless accompanied by a social worker, have direct contact with clients before completing the three-week training program.
(M) Foster Parent Training (1) Foster Parent Training shall be developed for the
following purposes: Ca) To provide a foster parent with the
.
information, rules, data, advice, and training deemed necessary to comply with the objectives and procedures of the Foster Care Program:
(b) To provide specific pre-service and inservice training programs for the foster parent:
(c) To enable a prospective or new foster parent to meet experienced foster parents;
(d) To establish training plans and programs for continuing education and training of a foster parent:
(e) To develop particularized training programs for a foster parent of a child with special problems and needs (e.g., medical, emotional, behavioral, health); and
22

.... --------~ ----------------------------------------------
(f) To incorporate all other training plans and ?rograms required for a foster parent as designated in the rraining Academy Manual.
(2) At a time designated by the Monitoring Panel, all foster parents, immediately upon licensing must attend the training program prescribed in the Training Academy Manual.
(3) At a time designated by the Monitoring Panel, all current foster parents, as a condition for relicensing, must attend the training program prescribed in the Training Academy Manual.
(4) Commencing at the time mandated in the Training Academy Manual, no child shall be placed in a foster home until the foster parent satisfactorily demonstrates the knowledge and skills deemed necessary for foster parents.
(5) Commencing at the time mandated in the Training Academy Manual, no child with special needs shall be placed in a foster home until the foster parent satisfactorily demonstrates the special knowledge and skills required of a foster parent for the special needs of that child.
(N) Training Academy Manual Within a reasonable time after the effective date of this Consent Decree, the DCYS Monitoring Panel shall promulgate and distribute a Training Academy Manual.
23

Section V. Central and Regional Offices

v. CENTRAL AND REGIONAL OFFICES
(A) Central Office Under the direction and with the approval of the DCYS
Monitoring Panel, the functions of the Central Office shall include:
(1) Development and dissemination of policies and procedures:
(a) To ensure guidance and uniformity in the dayto-day operations of programs and services to clients including foster and adoptive parents;
(b) For the evaluation of the services rendered by community service providers and other persons or entities under contract; and
(c) To maintain or establish liaison with statewide organizations (e.g., Parents Anonymous, child guidance clinics);
(2) Development and implementation of policies and guidelines regarding the selection, compensation, and deployment of Master Social Workers;
(3) Establishment of an Office of Public Relations to undertake a statewide education program and to inform mandated reporters and the general public about the Department's mission, authority, services, and the appropriate procedures for
24

reporting; (4) Operation of all divisions of the Department, the
Unified School District, statewide units and functions including those created in this consent Decree (e.g., Hotline, Health Management Unit, Training Academy) ;
(5) oversight of institutions and facilities of the Department (e.g., Long Lane School, State Receiving Home, RiverView, Altobello, Housatonic, High Meadows) ;
(6) Development of statewide plans; and (7) Management of the single statewide computer information system. (B) Regional Office Under the direction and with the approval of the DCYS Monitoring Panel, the regional administrator of Chi1drens Protective Services and designated staff shall assume the following functions: (1) Supervision of regional personnel including Intake and Treatment workers; case aides; clinical consultants; Regional Resource Groups: Voluntary Service Units; Family Training and Support units; Contract Units; and clerical staff: (2) Identification of each region's capacity to provide services (e.g., community service and other providers); (3) Leading negotiations for the terms of contracts and participating in evaluation and monitoring of contracts with community service and other providers, pursuant to the standards and procedures established by the Central Office;
25

(4) Maintain and establish liaison with community service and other providers to develop a cooperative working relationships;
(5) Working with Regional Advisory committees; (6) Submission of required regional plans (e.g., foster and adoptive parent recruitment programs) to the Central Office for consideration and approval; and (7) Compliance with other requirements prescribed by the Central and Regional Office Manual. (C) Central and Regional Office Manual Within a reasonable time after the effective date of this Consent Decree, the DCYS Monitoring Panel, in consultation with the Commissioner, and other managers of the Department shall design and implement a management structure that delineates reporting relationships, lines of authority that support the programs and practices required by this Consent Decree, and facilitates communication and accountability among the Department's management, professional, and support staff.
26

VI. HEALTH MANAGEMENT UNIT
(A) Formation Within a reasonable time after the effective date of this Consent Decree, the Department, under the direction and with the approval of the DCYS Monitoring Panel, shall establish a Central Office Health Management Unit for children under the supervision, care or custody of the Department. (B) Purposes The Health Management Unit shall be established for the following purposes:
(1) To review policies, standards, proposals, programs, and procedures relating to all aspects of the medical and mental health, and substance abuse of the children;
(2) To develop policies, standards, proposals, procedures, and programs relating to all aspects of the medical and mental health, and substance abuse of the children;
(3) To implement and to assist in the implementation of policies, standards, proposals, procedures, and programs relating to all aspects of the medical and mental health, and substance abuse of the children;
(4) In conjunction with the Training Academy, to develop appropriate training materials and programs to educate foster parents, prospective adoptive parents, and Department
27

Section VI. Health Management Unit

personnel concerning all aspects of the medical and mental health, and substance abuse of the children:
(5) In conjunction with the Division of Quality Assurance, to carry out a statewide Quality Assurance program for the health care delivery system for children in the Department's care:
(6) To coordinate with the Deputy commissioner for Programs regional activities relating to the medical and mental health, and SUbstance abuse of the children:
(7) To coordinate programs and activities and establish and maintain liaison with other state agencies, health organizations, and community providers relating to all aspects of the medical and mental health, and substance abuse of the children:
(8) To ensure that medical and mental health, and substance abuse policies, standards, plans, and procedures comply with Federal and other applicable rules and guidelines relating to the medical and mental health, and substance abuse of children under the supervision and custody of the Department:
(9) To establish procedures for the evaluation of the type and quality ot medical and mental health, and substance abuse care being received by children in out-ot-home placements;
(10) To establish procedures for the provision of support services to assist children in residential care, including transition to biological or foster homes or to other facilities;
28

(11) To establish procedures for reviewing the deaths of all children under the care or supervision of the Department;
(12) To investigate and research new methods for the medical and medical health, and substance abuse treatment and care of children;
(13) To coordinate with the Medical Review Board activities related to emergency medical care and advice related to HIV infection issues; and
(14) To take all other action deemed necessary for the effective administration of the Health Management Unit: and to comply with all provisions of the Health Management Unit Manual.
(C) Director and Personnel The Director of the Health Management Unit shall be a physician. The Director, under the direction and with the approval of the DCYS Monitoring Panel, shall retain a Substance Abuse Coordinator (either on a full-time or part-time basis, to coordinate sUbstance abuse education and treatment) and such other personnel to perform the functions of the Health Management Unit. (D) Department's Institutions - Coordination Plan
(l) The Health Management Unit shall prepare a plan for the coordination of services among current health facilities (Altobello, RiverView, Housatonic Adolescent Hospital, High Meadows, State Receiving Home) which shall include:
(a) Compliance with the principles espoused in the Child and Adolescent Service System Program (CASSP);
29

, -
(b) Recommendations for professional staffing and functions consistent with nationally recognized guidelines;
(c) Recommendations for establishing or .'strengthening interaction among the Department's health and treatment facilities, and therapeutic foster homes; and
(d) Recommendations concerning the continuation of the Diagnostic Evaluation Placement Program at High Meadows, and the most effective uses of the Housatonic Adolescent Hospital.
(E) Health Management Unit Manual Within a reasonable time after the effective date of this Consent Decree, and with assistance and recommendations of the members of medical or mental health subpanels, or other consultants, the DCYS Monitoring Panel shall promulgate and distribute a Health Management Unit Manual.
30

Section VII. Contracts Unit

VII. CONTRACTS UNIT
(A) Purposes within a reasonable time after the effective date of this Consent Decree, the Department, under the direction and with the approval of the DCYS Monitoring Panel, shall establish and staff a Central Office Contracts Unit with regional Contracts Units for the following purposes:
(1) To compile and review existing contracts, grantsin-aid, and expenditures of the Department's funds for services and programs;
(2) To determine the objectives of existing contracts, grants-in-aid, and the procedures for evaluating effectiveness;
(3) To establish criteria and guidelines for future contracts, grants-in-aid, and expenditures of the Department's funds for services and programs;
(4) To review all future contracts, grants-in-aid, and expenditures of the Department's funds for services and programs to ensure that there is compliance with the objectives for the awards and expenditures, and that criteria and guidelines are complied with;
(5) To monitor perfo~ance of all future contracts, grants-in-aid, and expenditures of the Department's funds for service and programs to ensure compliance with the objectives for
31

the awards and expenditures; (6) To establish procedures for the discontinuance or
modification of funding for contracts, grants-in-aid, and programs and services that are not in compliance;
(7) To perform the duties and to comply with the timetables, criteria, and procedures set forth in the Contracts unit Manual for the award of contracts, grants-in-aid, and the expenditure of Department funds for services and programs;
(8) To establish procedures to ensure that contracts are fully executed before the contractee is expected to render services pursuant to a contract; and
(9) To establish procedures for prompt payment according to the terms of a contract.
(B) Personnel The supervisor and staff of the Contracts Unit shall consist of persons or consultants with the educational background and experience (accounting, legal, financial, business, and clerical) set forth in the Contrac~ units Manual. Contract Units shall be adequately staffed to carry out assigned functions. (C) Contracts Unit Manual Within a reasonable time after the effective date of this Consent Decree, the DCYS Monitoring Panel shall promulgate and distribute a Contracts Unit Manual.
32

Section VIII. Social Workers and Support Staff

VIII. SOCIAL WORKERS AND SUPPORT STAFF
(A) Support Staff (1) The support staff shall include clerical staff,
case-aides, and data entry operators. (2) All support staff hired after the signing of this
Consent Decree must have a high school diploma, complete the training requirements specified in the Training Academy Manual, and reflect the region's staffing needs. Case-aides must have a valid Connecticut driver's license.
(3) The DCYS Monitoring Panel shall establish a ratio of support staff members to social workers.
(B) Social Workers: Qualifications and Caseload Size (1) Preference in hiring social workers will be given
to those with a Bachelors Degree in social work or a human services field, or a Masters Degree in social work or child welfare.
(2) For five years after this Consent Decree, social workers without a Masters Degree may be promoted to supervisor if they have at least three years experience and were hired before the signing of this Consent Decree.
(3) The Department shall use a nationally accepted or court-approved case-load weighting formula for mixed caseloads. The formula shall be predicated on the following standards:
))

(a) Social workers responsible for investigation of protective service cases will carry a caseload of nine to fifteen open investigations per month:
(b) Social workers responsible for providing inhome supervision wil~ carry a caseload of seven to thirteen families;
(c) Social workers responsible for providing services to children with a return home, adoption, or independent living plan, and Adoption Specialists, will carry a caseload of seventeen to twenty-three children: and
(d) Social workers responsible for providing Aftercare services will carry a caseload of thirty-seven to forty-three children; and
(e) A Family Training and Support Unit worker will carry a caseload of five new foster and/or adoptive homestudies per month.
(4) Social worker's caseloads may be modified by the DCYS Monitoring Panel as necessary.
(5) Social workers will not carry a caseload at the upper range of any caseload standard for a period exceeding six consecutive months, except under emergency circumstances that must be documented and submitted to the DCYS Monitoring Panel for review.
(C) Master Social Workers Every year a number of social workers will be appointed
Master social Workers by the Regional Administrator of Childrens
34

Protective Services, for a two-year period to handle complex cases, participate in staff training, and provide direction and support to other social workers. Only social workers who have demonstrated excellence in serving clients, and who have at least five years experience and a Masters Degree in social work, child welfare, or a related field will be eligible. The number of Master Social Workers and the annual monetary bonus shall be determined by the DCYS Monitoring Panel.
(D) supervisors: Qualifications and Staffing Ratios (1) The DCYS Monitoring Panel shall establish" a ratio
of supervisors to social workers. (2) Preference in hiring supervisors will be given to
those with a Masters Degree in social work, child welfare, or a related field.
(3) After this Consent Decree has been in effect for five years, preference in promotions to supervisors hired before the signing of this Consent Decree will be given to those with a Masters Degree in social work, child welfare, or a related field.
(E) Department Personnel Recruitment and Retention Plans The Department, under the direction and with the
approval of the DCYS Monitoring Panel, shall develop plans for personnel recruitment and staff retention.
(1) Recruitment Plan (a) The purpose of the Recruitment Plan is to
increase generally the number of staff, to continue affirmative action in the hiring of social workers and supervisors, and
35

increase the number of minorities in child care, clinical, and management positions.
.'
(b) The Recruitment Plan must specify all recruitment activities including: sending written notices of available positions to institutions of higher education; advertising available positions for social workers and supervisors in professional journals and newsletters; and developing a speaker's bureau to inform the public of the Department's missions, programs, and employment opportunities.
(c) All recruitment activities must be documented (e.g., dates of activity: institutions where notices were sent; professional journals or newsletters where advertisements were placed; job fairs and conferences attended; names of applicants; and how each applicant learned of the position).
(2) Retention Plan (a) The purpose of the Retention Plan is to
improve the rate of retention. (b) The Retention Plan shall include: educationa:
leaves for social workers and supervisors to pursue advanced degrees in related fields: opportunities for all personnel to transfer to new service areas within the Department; opportunities for social workers and supervisors to attend professional conferences: counseling for social workers who experience death of a child client: and opportunities for professional staff to have input into changes in the Departm.nt'~ programs.
36

Section IX. Policy

(c) A tuition reimbursement program for those pursuing advanced degrees in evening programs shall be developed by the DCYS Monitoring Panel in consultation with connecticut institutions of higher education.
(3) The Department shall work with the Division of state Personnel to create a permanent job classification for Master Social Workers.
37

IX. POLICY
(A) Purposes The Division of Policy shall, among other functions,
have the following purposes: (1) To review, coordinate, revise, and update existing
agency policies, standards, and procedures; (2) To coordinate, revise, and otherwise conform
existing policies, standards, and procedures to the provisions and mandates of this Consent Decree;
(3) To develop and adhere to a schedule that will ensure that policies, standards, and procedures are reviewed and updated annually to conform with state and federal law;
(4) To develop procedural manuals describing the specific tasks which must be undertaken to fulfill required staff functions and manage Department programs;
(5) To issue policy manuals to all Department Unit supervisors and Managers;
(6) To issue and distribute policy and procedural manuals in loose-leaf binders to permit additions or changes. The Division of Policy shall ensure that changes in law, policy, or procedure are promptly communicated to all staff and distributed in written form within a reasonable period.
38

(B) Personnel Staff of the Division of Policy shall have experience
in writing policy and procedures, and an educational background in the areas of policy being drafted. The Division of Policy shall have an adequate number of qualified staff to perform its functions.
(C) Monitoring Except in emergency situations, the DCYS Monitoring
Panel shall approve all policy directives before they are issued.
39

x. QUALITY ASSURANCE
(A) Purposes The purposes of the Quality Assurance Division shall
include: (1) Development and implementation of procedures to
ensure effective review and evaluation ot programs, contracts, and records designated in the Quality Assurance Manual;
(2) Development of methods and instruments that: (a) Ensure case records contain required
treatment plans, including any medical and mental health components, other relevant data and information, and demonstrate that agency policy has been adhered to;
(b) Ensure that quality assurance for Department hospitals and, to the extent possible, agencies under contract to the Department, provide medical, mental health, and substance abuse services that are modelled after the standards of the Joint commission on the Accreditation of Health organizations;
Cc) Ensure that the central office Quality Assurance Unit coordinate its efforts with quality assurance at Department institutions and in regional offices: and
Cd) Record on standardized forms the data and information required to perform the duties assigned to it in the Quality Assurance Manual.
40

--
Section X. Quality Assurance

(3) Investigate or contract for investigations of reports of child abuse or neglect, or a child-at-risk of abuse or neglect, in a foster home, Department institution or facility.
(B) Director and Personnel (1) The preferred qualifications for the Director of
the Quality Assurance Unit are a Master's Degree and five years experience performing quality assurance functions in a human service agency, hospital, or similar facility;
(2) The preferred qualifications for staff are: (a) A Bachelors Degree; and (b) Experience in a human service agency,
hospital, or similar setting. (3) For those conducting investigations of child abuse
or neglect, the qualifications shall be those specified in the Intake and Investigation Manual.
-(4) At least one staff person shall have the knowledge and skills in the development of statistical procedures, in the design of methodologies for the review and evaluation of records, in the preparation of reports, and in the use of computers; and
(5) The Quality Assurance Unit shall be adequately staffed to carry out the following functions:
(a) To relicense foster homes and congregate care settings and to perform licensing functions related to child caring agencies;
(b) To ensure required annual review and evaluation of Hotline records and the case records of social
41

workers in all regional offices and sub-region offices; ec) To enter data regarding quality assurance
reviews into a computerized program, which shall be part of the single statewide computer, within thirty days of the time the data is compiled;
(d) To edit and clean data within thirty days from the time the data is entered into the computerized program;
(e) To analyze data and produce required reports; (f) To conduct in a timely fashion investigations of child abuse or neglect or a child-at-risk of abuse or neglect in foster homes, Department institution or facility; and (g) To perform all the duties prescribed in the Quality Assurance Manual. (e) Quality Assurance Manual Within a reasonable time after the effective date of this consent Decree, the DCYS Monitoring Panel shall promulgate and distribute a Quality Assurance Manual.
42

XI. STATEWIDE HOTLINE
(A) Purposes The Department, under the direction and with the
approval of the DCYS Monitoring Panel, shall establish a statewide toll free "Hotline" for the following purposes:
(l) To accept and process reports of child abuse or neglect or of a child-at-risk of abuse or neglect; and
(2) To accept and process calls from persons seeking information, referral, and voluntary assistance for problems relating to child abuse or neglect.
(B) Personnel and Assignments (l) The Hotline shall be adequately staffed to
carry out assigned functions. Personnel must possess the educational requirements and receive the special training set forth in the Hotline Manual.
(2) Priority in assignments to the Hotline shall be given to:
(a) Those individuals who have met the educational requirements, received the special training, and who have at least three years experience in child abuse and neglect investigations; and
(b) Supervisors who have met the educational requirements, received the special training, and who have at
43

Section XI. Statewide Hotline .

least three years of experience in conducting child abuse and neglect investigations and one year experience in supervising a unit of child abuse or neglect investigations.
(C) Procedures (1) The Hotline shall operate twenty-four hours a
day, seven days a week. (2) All reports of child abuse or neglect or a
child-at-risk of abuse or neglect are actionable and shall be immediately referred (e.g., facsimile or electronic mail) to regional protective service units or to after-hours investigators (e. g., Careline) for investigation unless':
(a) The alleged victim is over the age of eighteen;
(b) The call does not involve intra-family child abuse or neglect or a child-at-risk of intra-family abuse or neglect; or
(c) The caller is unable to furnish sufficient information to initiate an investigation.
(3) With respect to actionable cases, the operator shall complete a Hotline Information Sheet that at a minimum contains:
(a) Basic identification information relating to the caller; the victim; basic medical information known by the caller about the victim; family members; and the alleged abuser;
(b) A summary of the allegations of child
44

abuse or neglect or a child-at-risk of abuse or neglect: (c) The dates and times of referrals to units
for investigation: (d) Cross-reference information, if any,
obtained from the Computerized Central Registry concerning prior reports of investigations relating to the victim or members of the family and cross reference information from the subfile in the Computerized Central Registry containing data concerning investigations in progress; and
(e) Other pertinent data to facilitate prompt and effective processing of the case report.
(4) The facts and data collected on the Hotline Information Sheet, except for cross-reference information, shall be entered in the Computerized Central Registry only if the report is substantiated.
(5) All information that is to be added to, or expunged from, the Computerized Central Registry shall be done pursuant to the provisions set forth in the Hotline Manual.
(6) Reports made to the Hotline concerning children already under the care and custody of the Department and placed in out-of-home care shall also be referred to the Quality Assurance Unit.
(7) A log of calls containing basic information and notations of referrals shall be kept regarding non-actionable matters.
45

(D) Hotline Manual Within a reasonable time after the effective date of
this Consent Decree, the DCYS Monitoring Panel shallpromulqate and distribute a Hotline Manual.
46

Section XII. Child Protective Services Intake and Investigation

XII. CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES - INTAKE AND INVESTIGATION
(A) Purposes The Department, under the direction and with the
approval of the DCYS Monitoring Panel, shall promulgate comprehensive guidelines and regulations to facilitate the uniform intake and investigation of reports of suspected child abuse or neglect. The Regional Intake and Investigation Units shall:
(1) Investigate and take all appropriate action with respect to allegations and acts of child abuse or neglect and o~ a child-at-risk of abuse or neglect:
(2) Provide services to enable children to remain within the family when reasonable or return to the family when feasible:
(3) Establish procedures that provide for: (a) Contact with a child's most recent medical
providers when there is an allegation or investigation that suggests abuse, sexual abuse, neglect or a child-at-risk of ab~s. or neglect: and
(b) The compilation, with the parent's permission, of relevant medical information and records by investigators:
47

(4) Provide medical resource information to parents for their children (e.g., local Title XIX medical providers);
(5) Refer families with children who have special medical needs to the appropriate support services;
(6) Provide information to parents and caretakers regarding services that their children may be entitled to or eligible for;
(7) Refer children for appropriate services that they are entitled to and eligible for (e.g., WIC, Title V, Head Start) ;
(8) Refer a child to a physician or nurse practitioner for a medical evaluation:
(a) Within twenty-four hours after learning that a child suffers from ~ny of the conditions set forth in the Investigations Manual; or
(b) As soon as practicable to address ongoing health care needs or document problems (e.g., failure to thrive, sexual abuse that occurred several weeks prior);
(9) Develop and implement concrete mechanisms to improve relations with medical and other service providers so that investigations can be conducted and services provided in a more collegial and cooperative atmosphere;
(10) Contact, in person or by phone, pediatric care sites in each region annually to provide information on maltreatment, and facilitate direct communication between medical providers' intake and supervisory staff; and
48

(11) Assume and fulfill all duties and responsibilities assigned to it in the Intake and Investigation Manual.
(B) Intake and Investigation Manual Within a reasonable time after the effective date of
this consent Decree, the DCYS Monitoring Panel shall promulgate and distribute an Intake and Investigation Manual. The Intake and Investigation Manual shall:
(1) Define the duties and responsibilities of the Intake and Investigation workers:
(2) Describe the procedures to discharge those duties and responsibilities in an effective and prompt manner:
(3) Establish a uniform system for prioritizing abuse or neglect reports:
(4) Standardize interview protocols for abuse and neglect investigations that:
(a) Provide for initial face to face contact with the parent, if the parent is home; and the child, if the child is home, or within twenty-four hours if the child is not in the home; and
(b) Provide for at least one contact, in person or by telephone, with some combination of school, pre-school or day-care personnel; medical and other community providers; relatives; neighbors; and any other person deemed necessary under the circumstances:
(5) List items of information that must be obtained
49

for a complete and meaningful investigation: (6) Establish procedures for creating a record or
maintaining in a family's case record information gathered during an investigation or trans~i~~ed from the Hotline whether or not such information is subsequently substantiated:
(7) Establish procedures for compiling information that shall form the basis for a Psychosocial Database:
(8) Designate model forms and records to be completed and maintained by Intake and Investigation workers with respect to each case:
(9) Particularize existing risk assessment guidelines to determine:
(a) Whether parents are providing an adequate level of child care:
(b) Whether the basic needs (e.g., medical, shelter) of the child are being furnished: and
(c) Whether the home environment requires removal for the safety and welfare of the child:
(10) Establish uniform criteria for determining whether a case is or is not substantiated:
(11) Designate the timetables that the Intake and Investigation workers must adhere to, unless extended for good cause after conSUltation with a supervisor. These timetables must include:
(a) A thirty to forty five-day limitation period to decide whether a case is or is not substantiated:
50

(b) A ninety-day limitation period to decide whether judicial intervention is required based on info~ation known to date: and
(c) A one hundred and eighty-day limitation , period for monitoring and supervising a case before transfer to a
treatment unit if deemed in the best interest of the child; (12) Contain provisions for preparing case summaries
and transferring cases to Treatment units; (13) Contain provisions to ensure that mandated
reporters are notified in writing within five days of the decision whether or not a case was substantiated and referred for services; and
(14) Contain all other pertinent information to enable . the Intake and Investigation workers to perform their duties in
effective and efficient ways. eC) Placement Prevention and Family Preservation Services (1) The Department, under the direction and with the
approval of the DCYS Monitoring Panel, shall develop or contract for all reasonable and necessary services to prevent placement and aid in family preservation including:
(a) Twenty-four hour emergency caretaker and homemaker programs;
(b) Parent-aids: (c) Day-care: (d) Crisis, individual, and family counseling; (e) Emergency shelters:
51

(f) Intensive family preservation services; and (g) A computerized resource directory of programs within a region (e.g., mental health, and drug and alcohol abuse counseling) deemed appropriate to prevent placement and aid in family preservation for parents, foster parents, home-based family services, self-help groups, and unmarried persons. (2) In an individual case, if a service identified above is deemed necessary to prevent a child's removal from his horne, the Department shall make reasonable efforts to contract, provide, or arrange for the service within a period of time that will permit the child to remain in his home. If such service cannot be arranged, all specific efforts made to obtain the service shall be documented in the family's case record. (3) The Department, under the direction and with the approval of the DCYS Monitoring Panel, shall establish a pilot Discretionary Fund Program to assist intake and treatment workers to prevent a child's placement. Discretionary Funds shall not te available to any person until it can be documented that all otne: avenues for financial relief (e.g., public and private agency programs, food banks, Goodwill) have been unsuccessfully pursued. Discretionary Funds shall be readily available to social workers to assist them in the provision of concrete emergency assistanc@ to families in order to prevent a child's placement, for exa~p:~ (a) To pay rent to avoid eviction: (b) To provide security deposits for rental housing;
52

(c) To purc~ase food, clothing, furniture, and other basic needs: and
(d) To pay fer energency horne repairs. T~e Discretionary Fund Program shall be designed with an evaluatlon component and will be implemented statewide if it proves effective and cost efficient. (D) High-Risk Newborns
(1) Pursuant to the criteria and procedures set forth in the Intake and Investigation Unit Manual, there shall be an immediate investigation of a newborn considered to be at risk (e.g., a serious medical problem and the mother's condition or behavior) by a hospital or other medical provider. The investigation may be conducted in collaboration with appropriate ~reg~onal agencies or organizations (e.g., Visiting Nurses Association: Public Health Nursing).
(2) If a newborn considered to be at-risk is released home, a social worker, with parental permission, shall maintain close contact (e.g. twice a week with the family for at least four weeks). The Department shall establish uniform guidelines for such contact including:
(a) Purpose and method to the contact: (b) Mechanisms for collaborating or contracting with agencies providing horne-based services (e.g., Visiting Nurses Association, Public Health nurses, parent-aides): and (c) Provisions either to close the case or to continue contacts beyond four weeks.
53

(E) Personnel Intake and Investigation workers shall have the
experience, education, and training as set forth in the Intake and Investigation Unit Manual.
54

Section XIII. Voluntary Service Units

XIII. Voluntary Service Units
(A) Formation and Status (1) Under the direction and with the approval of
the DCYS Monitoring Panel, the Department shall institute and staff or contract for Voluntary Service Units.
(2) Voluntary service units shall be considered pilot programs that shall be p~riodically reviewed by the DCYS Monitoring Panel to determine their effectiveness, their potential as permanent programs, and whether they should be modified or discontinued.
(5) Objectives The purposes of the Voluntary Service Units are to
provide information, advice, limited case management, and access to services to:
(1) Referrals from the Hotline operators or other Department units:
(2) youths transitioning to independence or youths emancipated one year or less:
(3) Families with minor children who are at-risk of abuse or neglect because of substance abuse, mental health, domestic violence, or other serious problems with the families' environment:
(4) Adoptive parents of children placed by the
55

Department who are in need of specialized services: and (5) Referrals to the Non-committed Treat~ent
Program. (C) Miscellaneous (1) Personnel shall receive special training in the
procedures for accepting and processing clients pursuant to the provisions set forth in the Voluntary Service Unit Manual.
(2) The Voluntary Service Units shall have access to the computerized Resource Directory.
(D) Voluntary Service Manual Within a reasonable time after the effective date of
this Consent Decree, the DCYS Monitoring Panel shall promulgate and distribute a Voluntary Service Manual detailing issues of eligibility, the extent of services to be provided, and provisions for evaluating the pilot program.
56

Section XIV. Treatment Units

XIV. TREATMENT UNITS
(A) Transfer and Assignment A case shall be transferred to a Treatment Unit within
forty-eight hours from the approval of the Case Summary by the Intake Investigation Unit supervisor. Within seventy-two hours after transfer, the case shall be assigned to a Treatment Worker.
(B) Preliminary Treatment Plan: Child In-Home (1) A Preliminary Treatment Plan for each child shall
be developed to gather diagnostic/assessment information. This information shall specifically describe the problems identified at intake (e.g., whether child neglect is due to lack of resources, lack of knowledge, or indifference to a child's needs) .
(2) Within thirty days after a case is assigned to a Treatment Worker, a planning conference shall be held with the Treatment Worker and the Treatment Worker's supervisor. The parent, the legal representative of the parent, and the adolescent child shall be invited to the planning conference when necessary or appropriate.
(3) Within ten working days of the planning conference, a written Preliminary Treatment Plan shall be developed. The Preliminary Treatment Plan shall, in specific terms, include:
57

(a) The reasons for the child's commitment to the Department:
(b) The goal to be achieved (e.g., return home or adoption) ;
(c) The procedures for conducting an assessment to identify any problems, in addition to those identified by the Intake/Investigation Worker, that must be resolved to achieve the goal:
(d) The steps to be followed during the assessment, including timetables for conducting the assessment:
(e) The Department's responsibilities to accomplish each step:
(f) The responsibilities and duties of the child, if any, and of the parent to accomplish each step:
(g) The identity of the person responsible for conducting the assessment:
(h) The identity, nature, and timetable for each service to be provided, or services for which a client is waitlisted:
(i) The timetables for each required procedure and service:
(j) The responsibilities of the worker and pepartment for monitoring the treatment plan:
(k) The arrangement made to provide the services needed before the implementation of the assessment plan, and the services needed by the parent and child before the finalization
58

of the permanent treatment plan;
(I) The schedule for visitation between the Department's staff and the child in the presence and outside the
presence of the parent; and
(m) The information and procedures specified in
the Treatment Worker Manual. (C) Permanent Treatment Plan: Child In-Home (1) If a Preliminary Treatment Plan is deemed
unnecessary (e.g., a healthy child is abandoned), a written Permanent Treatment Plan shall be developed within thirty days after a case is assigned to a Treatment Worker.
(2) Within ninety days after the completion of the Preliminary Treatment Plan, a written Permanent Treatment Plan shall be developed that, in specific terms, shall include:
(a) The procedures and timetables to achieve the goal, resolve the problems, and implement the services set forth in the Preliminary Treatment Plan:
(b) The goal that describes, in behaviorally specific terms, the expected outcome of solving problems that gave rise to Departmental involvement;
(c) The responsibilities of the Department's staff, the Child, and the parent in addition to those set forth in the Preliminary Treatment Plan:
(d) The responsibilities of the community service provider to furnish services. The nature, extent, and timetable for the services shall be summarized and signed by the worker and
59

service provider for the purpose of providing a framework for collaboration between the Department and the provider a~ set forth in the Treatment Unit Manual: and
(e) Such other information and procedures that are specified in the Treatment Unit Manual.
(D) Treatment Plans: Child Out-of-Home (1) When a child is placed out-of-home the written
Preliminary Treatment Plan and the Permanent Treatment Plan shall:
(a) Conform to the requirements of this Consent Decree:
(b) Incorporate all the case planning requirements specified in relevant federal law;
(c) Describe the type of home or institution mos~ appropriate for the child;
(d) Contain the procedures that comply with the terms of the Voluntary Placement Agreement or judicial mandates: and
(e) Specify the care and services given to the child, parent, and foster parent that will facilitate the child's return home, return to relatives, adoption, independent living, or planned long-term foster care, and addresses the needs of the child in foster care.
(2) The Priority of goals for a child's out-of-home Treatment Plan shall be:
(a) Return home:
60

(b) Return to a relative: (c) Adoption: (d) Independent living for a youth sixteen years of age or older: and (e) Long term foster care. These priorities may vary under certain circumstances described in the Treatment Unit Manual. (3) With respect to visitation, Treatment Plans shall contain a schedule for parent and child visits and describe: (a) The location for the visits which are most conducive to effective parent and child interaction (e.g., visitation centers, the parent's home, the foster parent's home): (b) The method of transportation for the visits: (c) The supervision during the visits: (d) The foster parent's role during the visits: (e) A plan for overnight visits before a child is returned home: and (f) The information and procedures required in the Treatment Unit Manual. (4) Routine visits at an office of the Department should be avoided if possible. (E) Case Management Procedures for children in out-of-Home Care (1) Case management procedures shall: (a) Provide for personal contact between the Treatment Worker and the child, foster parent, or residential caretaker within twenty-four to forty-eight hours from the time
61

of placement: for weekly contact in the following months: and for alternating personal and telephone contact on a weekly basis;
(b) Establish, as appropriate, a schedule for personal and telephone contacts between the Treatment Worker and the child, biological parent, foster parent, and community service provider(s) on a weekly or bi-weekly basis to determine and discuss the needs of the child; the case and supervision of the child: the services being provided the child: the problems being encountered with the child; compliance with placement requirements; compliance of the parent with the service provisions of the treatment plan; and visitation;
(c) Provide for Treatment Workers to monitor implementation of Treatment Plans and to document client progress;
(d) Provide for, to the extent possible, Discretionary Fund aid to the foster parent for basic and emergency needs of the child; and
(e) Include such other information and management requirements as set forth in the Treatment unit Manual.
(2) Except in emergency situations, a child may not be removed from a foster horne after one year of continuous residence unless the foster parents are notified of their right to request a removal hearing, as more fully set forth in the Treatment Unit Manual and the Foster Parent Manual.
(3) Reports of alleged child abuse or neglect of a child in a foster horne or residential facility shall immediately
62

be processed by the Division of Quality Assurance. (4) With respect to a child who has two or more foster
home placements due to child related-behavior, the Treatment Unit Worker shall:
(a) Discuss the situation with a supervisor, the community service provider, and a member of a Regional Resource Group anq/or a Community Consultant;
(b) Record, in the case record, the reasons for the multiple placements; the decisions reached at the placement conference; the necessity for further evaluations of the child's care; and whether the best interest of the child requires another foster home placement or placement in some other suitable facility; and
(c) Implement the decisions reached at the placement conference within ten working days.
(5) Mechanisms will be established to collaborate with residential care programs. The mechanisms shall:
(a) Provide a copy of the Mental Health portion of the Treatment Plan to the residential care provider;
(b) Establish written procedures for communicating and resolving any disagreement between the residential care therapist and department personnel (e.g., social worker, regional community consultant) ;.
(c) Provide for the Treatment Worker to have biweekly telephone or personal contact with the child's institutional therapist and personal contact with the child at
63

least every thirty days to discuss progress and complication in treatment, and to review the Mental Health portion of the Treatment Plan;
(d) Provide reviews of the child's Mental Health Casework Plan with the residential therapist to determine whether the child can be placed in a less restrictive setting;
(e) Provide for the appropriate Regional Administrator to receive a list of children and youth who remain in residential care beyond their clinical requirements;
(f) Provide for children and youths in residential care, and during their transition to biological, foster, or group homes, to receive the same level of support services as those available to foster children and their foster parents: and
(g) Provide for meetings and contacts between the social worker and residential care providers to be documented in the child's case file.
(6) Establish mechanisms for collaboration with inpatient psychiatric hospitals including:
(a) Making a copy of the Mental Health portion of the Treatment Plan for the psychiat~ist and in-patient treatment team:
(b) Providing for the Treatment Worker to have weekly personal contact, for the first thirty days and bi-weekly contact thereafter, with the child and the child's in-patient therapist to discuss progress and complication in treatment, and
64

to review the Mental Health portion of the Treatment Plan; (c) Providing for weekly contact between the
hospital therapist and the child's social worker; (d) Provide for children and youths in
psychiatric care, and during their transition to residential care, biological, foster, or group homes, to receive the same level of support services as those available to children and foster parents; and
(e) Provide for meetings and contacts between the worker and psychiatric care providers to be documented in the child's case file.
(F) Case Management Procedures for Children in Their Own Home Under Protective Supervision
(1) Case Management Procedures for adjudicated cases where a judge has determined that the child can safely remain in their own home under Department supervision shall:
(a) Provide for personal contact between the Treatment Worker and the child and the parent once each week for the first thirty days; and for alternating personal and telephone contact weekly thereafter;
(b) Determine whether the parent and child are participating in the assessment and/or treatment plan, any difficulties encountered, and the reasons therefore; .
(c) Provide for children to be seen alone at weekly and bi-weekly meetings;
(d) Provide for bi-weekly telephone contact wlt~
65

community service providers involved with a parent and/or child to determine if the parent and/or child is participating in the service plan or assessment and if any difficulties have arisen;
(e) Provide for a bi-monthly conference with the social worker, and/or their supervisor, community-service providers, the parent, adolescent child, and, by invitation, Community Consultants or the appropriate member of the Regional Resource Group to assess client progress and determine whether to continue the plan for a specified period; modify the plan or terminate services; and
(f) Provide for conferences, with the same individuals as the bi-monthly conference, to be convened in an expedited manner if an assessment or Treatment Plan is not proceeding according to the Plan's timetable to identify and resolve problems;
(2) Unless a court dictates otherwise, before the Department terminates services to a parent and/or child a conference with the Treatment Unit worker and supervisor, the appropriate member of the Regional Resource Group, and as available a Community Consultant, and community service providers working with the family and/or child to discuss whether it is in the best interest of the child to terminate services.
(3) The decision to terminate services shall be based on a risk assessment protocol that shows the risk to the child has been reduced to the point where, in the professional judgement of the conferees, the child can safely remain in home
66

without the ongoing supervision of the Department. (4) All contacts and written communications between
Treatment Workers, family members, and community service providers shall be logged on a case contact log sheet and summarized on the appropriate forms.
(G) supervision (1) Treatment unit Supervisors sh~ll meet with
individual social workers for approximately one hour per week to discuss the status of cases and determine which cases require the assistance of the Regional Resource Group and/or Community Consultants.
(2) Treatment Unit Supervisors shall meet with their unit and a mental health expert (e.g., Community Consultant) once each week for approximately ninety minutes to discuss selected cases and to:
(a) Address concerns regarding mental health or substance abuse problems of children:
(b) Recommend referrals for needed services: (c) Assess the effectiveness of mental health services provided to children: and (d) Make recommendations for amendments or changes to the mental health portion of a child's Treatment Plan. (3) Recommendations of the mental health expert shall be documented in the child's case record. (H) Medical Aspects of Treatment Plans (1) All Treatment Plans shall have, as an integral
67

part, a health plan that shall be developed after a comprehensive multidisciplinary evaluation. The health plan portion of a Treatment Plan shall:
(a) Review the physical, mental, and developmental status of the child;
(b) Describe and identify the services required to meet the health needs of the child: and
(c) Be reviewed regularly to ensure that it accurately reflects changes in a child's health status and current needs.
(2) Where appropriate, a member of a Regional Resource Group or a Community Consultant, or health, mental health or educational professional shall be invited to treatment planning conferences.
(I) Mental Health and Substance Abuse Aspects of Treatment Plans All Treatment Plans shall have where appropriate, as an
integral part, a mental health and substance abuse plan. The mental health and substance abuse plan portion of a Treatment Plan shall:
(1) Indicate what services are necessary, and who, where, and, when the services can be obtained or provided: and
(2) Include information about mental health or substance abuse issues which threaten, or have disrupted, placement in a home setting.
(3) Independent Living Aspects of Treatment Plans (1) For any youth sixteen years of age or older the 68

Treatment Plan shall include a Plan for Independent Living unless there is medical, psychiatric, or psychological evidence indicating the youth's needs preclude living independently.
(2) The Treatment Plan for any child fourteen years of age or older may include any of the services described in the Independent Living Manual to prepare the youth for living independently.
(3) In preparation for a Plan for Independent Living, a conference shall be held between the social worker and the youth and other individuals invited at the youth's request (e.g., biological parent, relative, foster parent) who can facilitate the youth's plan. The conference shall include discussion of:
(a) The occupational and/or post high school interests of the youth;
(b) The options to pursue occupational or educational interests;
(c) The need to develop skills or knowledge to enable the youth to live independently; and
(d) Any assessment that is needed to assist the youth to determine his or her interests.
(4) Within thirty days of the conference, a written Independent Living Plan shall be developed which includes provisions and timetables for offering s~rvices and assessments identified at the conference.
(5) At least six months prior to the youth's transition to independent living, the Independent Living Plan shall be amended
69

to include a Transitional Living Plan that shall specify: (a) The estimated date of the youth's discharge
to living independently; (b) The youth's anticipated living arrangements: (c) An estimated budget (e.g., rent, utilities,
transportation, clothing, recreational expenses, and health care 'needs) :
(d) Sources and amounts of income; (e) Assistance to be provided by the Department, including Aftercare Services: (f) A schedule of voluntary meetings between the social worker and the youth: and (g) Any other plans necessary to facilitate the youth's transition to independent living. (6) Ninety days before the youth is expected to leave the physical and/or legal custody of the Department, a conference shall be held between the social worker and the youth and other individuals invited at the youth's request (e.g., biological parent, relative, foster parent) who can facilitate the youth's plan. The conference shall include discussion of: (a) Concerns that the youth has about making the transition to independent living: (b) Any difficulties with the transition to independent living, foreseen by the foster parent, relative who has had ongoing contact with the youth, or professionals who have been providing services to the youth:
70

(c) Expectations about the youth's continuation with any service program, including the responsibilities of the youth, the social worker, service providers, the foster parent and any relative who will assist the youth:
(d) Any benefits to which the youth will be entitled (e.g., a housing allowance) or any benefits which will be discontinued (e.g., Medicaid) will be identified and the effects on the youth discussed: and
(e) The existence of mentoring groups, the services they provide and arrangements for making an appointment with a mentor or group.
(7) Before a youth is discharged to independent living the Department shall provide, or assist the youth in acquiring, the following:
(a) A Social Security card: (b) The youth's complete medical record, including a list of physicians, clinics or hospitals where the youth has been served: (c) Any medical information about the youth's biological family which could have bearing on the youth's future medical needs: (d) A birth certificate: (e) The youth's educational records and transcripts from the last school attended: (f) A copy of the youth's high school diploma or assistance in obtaining a GED certificate:
71

(g) A listing of available services, (e.g. medical, counseling, self-help, crisis hotlines) in the community where the youth will be living;
(h) The name, address, and telephone number of a mentor or family member; and
(i) The name and telephone number of the youth's social worker and supervisor.
(8) The Department shall assist the youth in acquiring a driver's license and housing.
(9) For youths who will require assistance from any other state agency, the social worker shall:
(a) Contact a representative of the other agency at least ninety days prior to the discharge of the youth to independent living to identify eligibility criteria and requirements and to arrange a meeting with the youth, the social worker, and a representative of the state agency or, if a meeting is not possible, obtain the name of a contact person at the agency; and
(b) Document, in the youth's file with a copy to the contact at the other agency, the information gathered and results of the contact.
(10) The Department shall provide or arrange for transitional living facilities (e.g., subsidized apartments) or a monthly housing allowance for youths in those facilities until
the youth is self-supporting or reaches the age of eighteen.
(11) The Department, under the direction and with the
72

approval of the DCYS Monitoring Panel, shall establish a regional Mentoring Program with a statewide coordinator to identify foster families or other adults to provide encouragement and advice to the youth and be a link to the community as the youth begins independent living.
(K) Treatment Plan Amendments/Exceptions Additional problems, changed circumstances, and
exceptions to the preferred planning options that bear directly on the ability to achieve the objectives of a treatment plan, shall be written, signed, dated, attached to the original plan, and distributed to the appropriate individuals.
(L) Treatment Plans - General Requirements (1) All treatment plans 'shall be signed by all the
participants in the development of the plan. A biological parent and an adolescent child shall be asked to sign the treatment plan and shall be provided with copies. Service providers shall be given copies of the portion of the plan specifying their responsibilities unless a release is signed by the parent in
i
which case the provider shall be given a copy of the entire plan. (2) All treatment plans shall be implemented within
ten working days of the time they are developed. Implementation shall begin when the assessment procedures described in the plan have started or required services are first provided. If implementation does not begin within ten working days because a service is not readily available, reasonable efforts shall be made to obtain the service and those efforts shall be documented.
73

(M) Personnel Treatment unit workers and supervisors shall have the
qualifications, experience, and training provided in the Treatment Unit Manual.
(N) Treatment Unit Manual Within a reasonable time after the effective date of
this consent Decree, the DCYS Monitoring Panel shall promulgate and distribute a Treatment unit Manual.
74

XV. FAMILY TRAINING AND SUPPORT UNIT
(A) Purposes Under the direction and with the approval of the DCYS
Monitoring Panel, the Department shall develop and implement in each region a Family Training and Support Unit(s). Family Training and Support units will be under the supervision of the Regional Administrator of Childrens Protective Services. The regional Family Training and Support Units will be coordinated by, and will re~eive direction from, a statewide Director of Family Recruitment and Training (the "Director"). The primary purposes of the Family Training and Support Units shall be:
(1) To assume responsibility of and to take all appropriate actions with respect to foster and adoptive horne surveys, recruitments, orientations, screening, pre-licensing training, horne studies, and licensing for foster and adoptive homes;
(2) To submit to the Director staffing and funding needs, and regional plans for timely recruitment, orientation, training, and support programs for foster and adoptive parents;
(3) To submit a plan for timely licensing of foster and adoptive homes and additional staffing required by mandates for licensing of relative foster homes pursuant to state law;
(4) To follow directives for determining and
75

Section XV. Family Training and Support Unit

monitoring the type and quality of care in foster and adoptive hones;
(5) To provide ongoing support for foster and adoptive parents:
(6) To recommend to the Director contracts with con~unity service providers or other suitable providers to assist in the implementation of objectives and directives of the Family Training and Support Units:
(7) To follow procedures established by the Director for the documentation of foster and adoptive parent recruitment programs (e.g., community and media efforts, dates of meetings, identification of participants, follow up contacts) ;
(8) To assist the Director in the development of brochures and manuals relating to the recruitment, orientation, training. and support of foster and adoptive parents or homes, which brochures and manuals shall be published by the Department;
(9) To develop and submit to the Director plans and procedures to ensure that placements do not exceed nationally accepted standards or state regulations: and
(10) To ensure that plans and recommendations, including staffing patterns, submitted to the Director shall be implemented according to timetables established by the Director in consultation with the DCYS Monitoring Panel.
(B) Responsibilities of the Family Training & Support Units: Foster Care Pursuant to the directives and timetables of the DCYS
Monitoring Panel, the Family ~raining and Support Units shall: 76

(1) Establish plans to be implemented for: (a) Recruitment of foster parents for children
with special needs (e.g., handicapped children: children with diverse racial, cultural, and language backgrounds: children who are at a legal-risk: children who are HIV positive) :
(b) Recruitment or development of special foster homes as identified by Administrative Reviewers, Quality Assurance, or other Units;
(c) Recruitment of foster parents without automatic disqualification based on an applicant's age, race, employment status, marital status, or sexual orientation;
(d) orientation sessions for prospective foster parents to be conduc~ed on a bi-weekly basis in each region or in geographically contiguous regions;
(e) Pre-screening of foster care applicants to determine their ability to provide effective parenting, to determine their interest and ability to parent a child from a different race or culture, and to determine their interest and ability to parent a special needs child:
(f) Orientation, training, and licensing of foster parents within ninety days of application (unless the applicant delays the process): and
(g) Working in conjunction with Quality Assurance staff to review and evaluate foster parents' records for relicensing at least annually.
(2) Cooperate with the child's social worker to place
77

children, unless it is not in the best interest of the child, in the same foster horne with siblings; with their relatives; with foster parents who live in close proximity to a child's own home: in homes of the same racial and cultural backgrounds; in ho~es , where the child's own language is spoken if he cannot make known his needs in English; in homes that will accept a legal-risk placement if the child is not likely to be returned to the biological home or to a relative's horne;
(3) Develop, implement, and document procedures for locating appropriate homes and moving children not placed·in accordance with the preceding guidelines in a timely fashion, unless such movement is not in the child's best interest;
(4) Except in emergency situations, provide the foster parents with information in the child's file relevant to meeting his or her needs while in foster care (e.g., Medical Passport, identification of special needs, behavioral problems) at the time of placement. For children placed under emergency circumstances, the information shall be provided within ninety-six hours after placement;
(5) Provide advance notice to a child and caretaker prior to moving the child except in emergency circumstances, and shall provide, whenever possible, the opportunity for preplacement visitation, and encourage contact between the former caretaker, the child, and the prospective caretaker;
(6) Develop and implement retention and support programs such as foster parents' group meetings; newsletters:
78

annual recognition dinners: updated brochures on services written in various languages: respite programs: services to avoid disruption (e.g., intensive family preservation services, day care, parent-aides, case-aides): and other direct financial assistance for transportation as indicated in the Treatment Plan; and
(7) Develop and implement pilot programs involving support groups for children, foster, and adoptive parents. The support groups shall address the common needs of children in placement and the special informational needs of families when the parents' racial or cultural background differs from that of the child they care for (e.g., coping with racism, understanding differences in skin and hair care, ethnic food preparation) . These pilot programs shall include provisions for appropriate staffing, review, evaluation, and dissemination of the programs.
(C) other Matters Pertaining to Children in Foster Care The Department, under the direction and with the
approval of the DCYS Monitoring Panel shall: (1) Review rates and implement changes (e.g., clothing
reimbursement according to a foster child's age): (2) Develop and maintain a computerized foster care
vacancy list on the single statewide computer system which sha:: contain relevant information such as a description of the foster care home: identification of the foster parent: number of vacancies in the home; knowledge and skill of the foster parent: licensing data: preferences of the foster parent (e.g., child's
79

age). The list shall be periodically updated on the Department's computer system:
(3) Maintain a health care program for foster children that at a minimum:
(a) Provides for an initial physical examination by a physician or nurse practitioner, within seventy-two hours of the placement;
(b) Provides for the collection of relevant health, family, education, and mental health history from the biological parent;
(c) Requires foster parents, within one week of placement, to arrange for a well-child visit to occur within sixty days of placement:
(d) Requires well-child care, treatment, immunizations, and medical screening tests that conform to the standards of the American Academy of Pediatrics, based on the child's age; and
(e) Requires instruction for the foster parent or the adolescent regarding routine preventive health care, safety and injury prevention education: nutrition, dietary, and physical exercise information; drug abuse prevention instruction: the availability of family planning advice and tests for sexually transmitted diseases and tuberculosis when indicated.
(4) Develop and implement guidelines for advising foster parents how to obtain well-child care without a primary care physician;
80

(5) Maintain the Medical Passport Program that records pertinent health information about the child (e.g., HIV status). The Medical Passport program shall conform to the standards outlined in the Medical Passport Manual:
(6) Inform foster parents about obtaining immediate emergency health care services, medication, and permission to treat the child:
(7) Develop and implement a dental care program that contains at a minimum:
(a) A regional list of dentists who will treat the child:
(b) A "Dental Passport," (which may be included in a redesigned Medical Passport) containing pertinent information to assist in the ongoing dental treatment of the child:
(c) The child's needs for dental care which shall be included in a child's Treatment Plan;
(d) A requirement that children over two years of age receive an evaluation and appropriate treatment by a dentist within ninety days of placement, and every six months thereafter unless the dentist recommends more or less; and
(e) To the extent possible, an agreement with a dentist in each region to provide dental care to foster children.
(8) Develop and implement a program that provides: (a) within thirty days after placement and
annually thereafter, for a comprehensive multidisciplinary
81

evaluation by appropriate providers in the region in order to identify the necessity, if any, for further specialized diagnostic or therapeutic services;
(b) A specific statement of a child's status and needs:
(c) Developmental and psychosocial assessments; and
(d) Monitoring of a child's progress in the foster home; and
(9) Develop and implement schedules and conditions for reimbursement to foster parents at one hundred percent of USDA foster parent rates, and, on a case by case basis, for special reimbursement to foster parents .with special needs children or those who otherwise qualify under incentives established by the DCYS Monitoring Panel.
(D) Responsibilities of the Family Training and Support Units: Adoptive Horne Recruitment Pursuant to the directives and timetables of the DCYS
Monitoring Panel, the Department's Family Training and Support Units shall:
(1) Determine the current need and availability of .adoptive homes for children with and without special medical, psychological, cultural, racial, or linguistic requirements;
(2) Inform the general public of the need for and advantages of child adoption:
(3) Encourage greater participation in child adoption by community organizations, churches, child advocacy groups,
82

adoptive parents groups, and other state and local organizations; (4) Work cooperatively with the Connecticut Adoption
Resource Exchange and the DCYS Office of Public Relations to distribute brochures, news releases, informational publications, and to conduct private and public meetings with interested persons and agencies, concerning the orientation, training, and licensing of adoptive parents;
(5) Work cooperatively with the Connecticut Adoption Resource Exchange to implement and staff projects (e.g., One Church One Child) on a full-time basis; and
(6) Design and implement such other programs to recruit and support suitable persons as adoptive parents as from time to time the DCYS Monitoring Panel may prescribe.
(El Director. Personnel, and Consultants Pursuant to the timetables and directives of the DCYS
Monitoring Panel: (1) A statewide Director shall be appointed to direct
the activities of the Family Training and Support Units and to consult and coordinate plans and programs with Regional Administrators of Child Protective Services, Adoption Resource Exchange, and the Training Academy;
(2) Staff, consultants, and other personnel shall be hired by the Department as needed by the Director to. assist in the statewide objectives of Family Recruitment and Support; and
(3) Staff and other personnel shall be hired by the
83

Department to enhance the operations of the Regional Family Training and Support Units upon the recommendation of the Director. Such staffing shall include at le~st one social worker whose primary responsibility is:
(a) To support and assist forty foster parents to obtain needed equipment or resources for foster children;
(b) Assist foster parents in gaining access to educational opportunities and training as may be required by the Department:
(c) Assist in the development of foster parent support groups; and
(d) Act as an orr~udsman for foster parents (e.g., when the foster parent encounters difficulties working within the Department) ;
(4) The Director shall, in consultation with Regional Family Training and Support Units and the Director of Careline, develop a twenty-four hour a day telephone response capacity to address foster parent concerns and need for information.
(F) Family Training and Support Unit Manual Within a reasonable time after the effective date of
this Consent Decree, the DCYS Monitoring Panel shall promulgate
a and distribute Family Training and Support Unit Manual.
84

Section XVI. Adoption

,
XVI. ADOPTION
(A) Objectives When it is determined that a child cannot return home, the goal of the child's Treatment Plan shall be adoption except in the following circumstances:
(1) An adolescent child does not wish to be adopted; (2) Adoption is not feasible because the child has repeatedly demonstrated over a period of time the inability to function in a community setting. Annual re-evaluations of the child must be performed to determine if adoption has become feasible; (3) The child is over twelve and the foster parent is not willing "to become an adoptive parent but is willing to sign a long-term care agreement and, pursuant to a conference, it is determined that it is in the child's best interest to remain in the foster home; (4) The child is placed with a relative who is not willing to become an adoptive parent but agrees to care for the child through his minority, and it is determined to be in the child's best interest to remain in that home. In such circumstances the relative shall be advised and assisted in the process to obtain legal guardianship; and (5) A child has exceptional special needs which will
85

make adoptive placement very difficult and the child has been in the care of a foster parent who will not adopt, but agrees to care for the child until adulthood. In such circumstance, a conference shall be held and a determination made that continued care in that home is in the child's best interest if a more permanent horne cannot be found. The Adoption Resource Exchange should be apprised of this type of case as soon as termination of parental rights is contemplated and special efforts to locate an adoptive home begun. If no horne can be found within eighteen months, another conference must be held and a decision reached whether to continue the search or change the child's plan to long term foster care.
(B) Personnel (1) Treatment Workers retain primary responsibility
for a child's case after termination of parental righ~s when a pre-adoptive home has been identified for the child, or when the child's foster parents decide to adopt the child within ninety days after termination is granted:
(2) At least one Adoption Resource Exchange worker shall be assigned full-time to each Regional Office to ensure that children are photolisted and registered on the Adoption Resource Exchange in a timely manner, and to involve the child in other special needs recruitment efforts (e.g., adoption):
(3) Adoption Specialists shall be assigned in Regional Offices in sufficient numbers to meet the caseload requirements. Adoption Specialists shall be specially trained and prepared to
86

provide advice in conferences concerning permanency planning, and adoption, the preparation of children for adoption, recommendations and monitoring of Permanency Planning Services Programs contracts with private agencies, and the performance of other duties specified in the Adoption Manual.
(C) Voluntary Termination of Parental Rights (1) Fifteen working days after the decision to plan
for adoption is made, the Treatment Worker shall discuss relinquishment with the biological parent and, if the parent voluntarily decides to terminate parental rights, the Treatment Worker shall prepare the relinquishment documents, obtain any necessary signatures, and forward the documents to counsel within seven days of the conference with the parent.
(2) The Treatment Worker's duties with respect to ··voluntary parental termination shall be performed pursuant to the
timetables, criteria, and procedures prescribed in the Adoption Manual.
(D) Involuntary Parental Termination (1) If voluntary parental termination is not obtained,
the Treatment Worker shall: (a) Confer with counsel within ten working days
of the conference with the parent to determine the sufficiency of the grounds to terminate parental rights:
(b) Within sixty days prepare the appropriate documentation, under the direction of counsel, to obtain judicia: termination of parental rights;
87

(c) Monitor and document the progress of judicial proceedings relating to involuntary parental termination; and
(d) Assist counsel in performing other activities to effect, as quickly as possible, an involuntary parental termination.
(2) The Treatment Worker's duties with respect to involuntary parental termination shall be performed pursuant to the timelines, criteria, and procedures prescribed in the Adoption Manual.
(E) Adoption By The Foster Parent (1) Ten working days after the decision to plan for
adoption is made, the Treatment Worker shall consult with a supervisor and a member of the Regional Resource Group or Community Consultant to decide whether it is in the child's best interest to be adopted by the foster parent. The consultation shall be documented;
(2) If there is a determination that it is in the child's best interest to be adopted by a foster parent, the Treatment Worker shall meet with the foster parent within five working days of the consultation and explain in detail:
(a) The process of freeing a child for adoption: (b) The available pre-adoption services and programs that are available, including orientation, training, and licensing; (c) The available post-adoption services and programs', including adoption Subsidy:
88

(d) The horne study process; (e) The special needs of the child, if any, with specific information concerning professional, medical, and mental health care of the child to date: (f) The opportunities available to speak to other adoptive parents and professionals who have knowledge of the child's special needs: (g) The costs associated with adopting a child that must be borne by an adoptive parent: (h) All other aspects of the adoption to enable the foster parent to make an informed decision: and (i) The provisions of the Adoptive Parents Manual which apply to foster parents. (3) Within ninety days after termination of parental rights, the foster parents must decide whether to adopt the child. (4) If a foster parent elects to adopt the child, the Treatment Worker shall: (a) Within five working days refer the case for an adoption horne study: (b) Request the assistance of an Adoption Specialist and/or the Adoption Resource Exchange to discuss and assist in the preparation of the child for adoption: (c) Document the results of discussions with the Adoption Specialist or the Adoption Resource Exchange and prepare a written Adoption Plan for the child in the child's case record:
89

and (d) Monitor compliance with the provisions of the
Adoption Manual. (F) Adoption By Non-Foster Parents: Matching (1) In cases of adoption by non-foster parents,
consideration will be given to the following principles: (a) Protecting the child's established
relationships; (b) Placing a child in a pre-adoptive horne of the
same racial, cultural, ethnic, and/or lingual background of the child;
(c) Placing the child in the same pre-adoptive horne as siblings; and
(d) Placing the child with pre-adoptive parents who have received training to work with any special needs of the child.
(2) If the above guidelines cannot be followed documentation of the efforts to place the child shall be kept in the child's case record.
(G) Duties of the Adoption Specialist (1) Whenever a child's plan changes to adoption: (a) The case may be referred to the Adoption
Specialist at the time the decision is made to pursue termination ~f parental rights. In such case, the Adoption Specialist shall review the matter with counsel and assume responsibility for the case during and subsequent to that proceeding;
90

(b) The case must be referred to an Adoption Specialist after termination of parental rights if the child's foster parent decides not to adopt the child, and the child is not placed in another pre-adoptive horne within ninety days;
(2) An Adoption Specialist may provide assistance to a Treatment Worker with all adoption-related tasks of permanency planning (e.g. preparing a child for adoption by his foster parent, monitoring permanency planning contracts). When the Adoption Specialist assists in such manner, the Treatment Worker shall continue to work with the child and foster parent;
(3) After referred by the Treatment Worker, the Adoption Specialist shall review the child's case record within five working days, meet with the Treatment Worker to discuss the . child's special needs, and be introduced to the child and foster parent;
(4) The Adoption Specialist assumes full responsibility for a case (including administrative case review and bi-weekly visits to the foster horne) immediately after to these meetings.
(5) The Adoption Specialist is responsible for developing a written plan for those children whose adoption has special problems or whose case has been referred for special handling. This plan shall, if ·it is in the child's best interest:
(a) Protect established relationships; (b) Enable the child to be with siblings;
91

(c) Provide for placement in a home with the same cultural, racial, ethnic and linguistic background as the child;
(d) Take into consideration the special needs of the child: and
. (e) contain provisions for contracting with instate or out-of-state agencies to recruit an adoptive home if a home has not been found within ninety days.
(6) The Adoption Specialist shall perform all other duties and comply with the guidelines, timetables, criteria, and procedures prescribed in the Adoption Manual.
(H) Post-Adoption Services The Adoption Manual shall prescribe timetables,
criteria, and procedures for post-adoption services and programs which shall include continuing meetings with adoptive parents for consultation, advice, training, and aid for the purposes of family preservation.
(I) Adoption Manual Within a reasonable time after the effective date of
this consent Decree, the DCYS Monitoring Panel shall promulgate and distribute an Adoption Manual.
92

Section XVII. Regional Resource Groups

XVII. REGIONAL RESOURCE GROUPS
(A) Purposes The Department, under the direction and with the
app~oval of the DCYS Monitoring Panel, shall establish a Regional Resource Group(s) in each region for the following purposes:
(1) To provide consultation and assistance in the type and performance of services, including those offered by other State agencies;
(2) To provide expertise in child development: child behavioral management: mental health assessment: HIV infection; AIDS; management and placement issues: special education: and other areas as may be set forth in the provisions of the Regional Resource Group Manual:
(3) To evaluate the special needs of children: (4) To review and assist in the preparation of and participation in legal proceedings: (5) To evaluate, when necessary, the degree of risk to a child and recommend whether immediate intervention is needed to safeguard a child in his or her own horne or whether an out-ofhorne placement is needed: (6) To determine the information to be compiled for purposes of assessment of services:
93

(7) To determine the professional expertise (e.g., physicians, psychologists, educa~ional evaluators) needed to compile necessary information:
(8) To participate in Administrative Case Reviews, as necessary;
(9) To participate in regional training and training in the Training Academy;
(10) To develop a mechanism for the staff of the Department's institutions, hospital facilities, and the Unified School District who have expertise in child behavior management and special education to be utilized as consultants to the Regional Resource Groups, foster parents, and adoptive parents;
(11) To develop, in conjunction with medical consultants, a uniform system for reviewing medical records;
,
(12) To maintain and update the Computer Resource Directory; and
(13) To facilitate access to the non-committed Treatment Program in regions with no voluntary Service Unit.
(B) Personnel (1) The personnel of the Regional Resource Groups
shall not carry a caseload; (2) Each Regional Resource Group shall have, at a
minimum, the following personnel: (a) A psychiatric social worker; (b) A nurse practitioner: (c) A registered nurse who shall, among other
94

things assist the nurse practitioner and shall manage medical records:
(d) A certified substance abuse counselor: and (e) To the extent practicable, an Assistant Attorney General. (3) The level of experience, degree requirements, and number of personnel for each Regional Resource Group shall be set forth in the provisions of the Regional Resource Group Manual. (C) Reaional Resource Group Manual Within a reasonable time after the effective date of this Consent Decree, the DCYS Monitoring Panel shall promulgate and distribute a Regional Resource Group Manual.
95

Section XVIII. Consultants

XVIII. CONSULTANTS
(A) Community Consultants (1) Purposes Within a reasonable time after the effective date
of this Consent Decree, the Department shall contract with professionals in each region for the following purposes:
(a) To participate in case consultations, case assessments, and group conferences concerning a child's medical or mental health;
(b) To recommend or undertake specific assessment tasks or treatment programs (e.g., physical examinations, educational assessments) with definite timetables for fulfillment;
(c) To provide clinical assessments that take into account a child cultural; and
(d) To perform such other duties as may be designated in the Community Consultants Manual.
(2) Community Consultants (a) The Community Consultants shall include a
Board certified pediatrician, psychologists, and child psychiatrists. The Department shall make efforts to contract with professionals familiar with the language and customs of the
96

black and Latino population as well as various small cultural groups in the state (e.g., Vietnamese, Laotians).
(b) Treatment recommendations made by community Consultants shall be included in a family's or child's records. These recommendations shall be followed or the record documented regarding the reasons why such recommendations were not followed.
(3) Community Consultant Manual Within a reasonable time after the effective date
of this Consent Decree, the DCYS Monitoring Panel shall promulgate and distribute a Community Consultant Manual.
(8) L2nguage consultants (1) The Department shall contract with language
consultants: (a) To attend meetings with biological parents,
foster parents, and relatives of a child when those persons cannot communicate in English: and
(b) To translate forms and letters sent to parents regarding the child.
97

Section XIX. Administrative Case Review

XIX. ADMINISTRATIVE CASE REVIEW
(A) Functions The Administrative Case Review shall include the
following functions: (1) To review the implementation of objectives set
forth in the Treatment Plan; the progress being made in reducing or eliminating problems related to returning a child home or to a relative's horne; compliance with the Visitation Plan; the progress being made in a child's Adoption Plan, including the availability of an adoptive home; the services being provided to an adolescent in accordance with his/her Independent Living Plan; and to those in planned long-term foster care;
(2) To identify and recommend procedures for eliminating obstacles to achieving objectives in the Treatment Plan and to put these recommendations in writing;
(3) To recommend with reasons in writing either to continue the current Treatment Plan or to change the plan to an Adoption Plan when:
(a) It is in the best interest of the child; (b) The plan to return the child to the biological home or to a relative's home has been in force for more than twelve months; and (c) It is not expected that the child will be returned to his biological or relative's home within another s:x-
98

month period. (B) Staff (1) There shall be sufficient qualified workers in
Quality Assurance to ensure that cases are thoroughly"reviewed every six months in accordance with federal law. It is anticipated that a thorough review should last at least one hour.
(2) To ensure objectivity, Quality Assurance staff should not conduct an Administrative Review of any case that they reviewed in the annual Quality Assurance Review of case records required by this Consent Decree.
(3) Preference in hiring staff shall be given to persons with at least three years of experience in providing services, or two years of experience in providing services and one year of experience as a unit supervisor.
(C) Attendance (1) Administrative Case Reviews shall be conducted by
a Quality Assurance Reviewer, the social worker in charge of the case, and at least one or more of the following:
(a) A member of a Regional Resource Group or a Community Consultant;
(b) The social worker's supervisor: (c) A support staff worker who has assisted on the case; (d) A representative from the community service provider who rendered services to the child or family; (e) Legal counsel if the plan involves
99

termination of parental rights; (f) The Adoption Specialist if the plan involves
adoption; (g) The child's parent or relative if the plan
involves returning the child home or to a relative's home; (h) An adolescent child; and (i) The child's foster parent or caretaker.
(2) The Quality Assurance Reviewer shall: (a) Schedule dates and times for the review; (b) Invite those required to attend; (c) File all notices in the case record; and (d) Arrange transportation and day-care to
facilitate attendance by the biological or foster parent. (3) At least two weeks prior to the review, the social
worker shall prepare and submit to those individuals who will conduct the Administrative Case Review a case review summary sheet which describes progress since the child's first Treatment Plan and last Administrative Case Review; a list of persons who could make contributions to future plans; and relevant monitoring information.
(4) The child's case record shall be brought to the Administrative Case Review.
(D) Administrative Case Review Manual Within a reasonable time after the effective date of
this Consent Decree, the DCYS Monitoring Panel shall promulgate and distribute an Administrative Case Review Manual.
100

Section XX. Aftercare Services

xx. AFTERCARE SERVICES
(A) Obiectives The primary purposes of providing Aftercare Services
shall be: (1) To monitor the child's care and welfare within the
horne; and (2) To support and stabilize the child's horne
situation to prevent a recurrence of out-of-home placement. (B) Eligibility (1) Aftercare services shall be mandatory for all
children who were i~ out-of-home placement and returned to their own homes, or relative's homes; and for children placed in preadoptive homes.
(2) Aftercare services shall be provided on a voluntary basis for children and families after a child's commitment has expired, and for adoptive families after finalization.
(C) Duration Aftercare services shall be provided for four months
and, if it is in the child's best interest, up to nine months. (D) Services (1) Services shall include: (a) Coordination such as matching clients with
101

community service providers or with others who provide services (e.g., health care, counseling, day treatment, education};
(b) Parent-aides; (c) Respite care limited to emergencies: (d) Crisis intervention: (d) Intensive Family Preservation Services: and (e) Weekly visits by a social worker with the child and family for the first two weeks, then bi-weekly with alternate week telephone contact. (E) Personnel (1) Aftercare services are provided by the child's social worker or a contractee if it is in the best interest of the child: (2) Aftercare Plans are developed by the social worker for children who are in foster home care, or by a discharge worker and the child's social worker for children who were in congregate settings: (3) A discharge worker shall be assigned in each residential treatment facility and in the State's psychiatric hospitals (e.g., RiverView, Altobello, High Meadows). The discharge worker and the social worker shall develop an appropriate Aftercare Plan that shall be implemented by the child's social worker, or by a contractee if it is in the best interest of the child. (F) Aftercare Plans (1) Aftercare Plans shall be developed at least thir~~
102

days prior to the child's return to his own home, independent living facility, the home of a relative, or an adoptive home.
(2) Prior to the adoption of an Aftercare Plan, a planning conference shall be held, attended by the child's social worker and one or more of the following persons:
(a) The social worker's supervisor; (b) A member of a Regional Resource Group or Co~munity Consultant who is familiar with the family; (c) A representative of a community service provider who rendered services to the child or the parent; and/or (d) Any other person whose advice may be needed to effect a meaningful Aftercare Plan. (2) The written Aftercare Plan shall include: (a) The services to be· rendered to the child and family; and (b) A timetable for the implementation of the services, which services shall commence within ten days from the date the child leaves out-of-home care. (G) Aftercare Manual Within a reasonable time after the effective date of this Consent Decree, the DCYS Monitoring Panel shall promulgate and distribute an Aftercare Manual.
103

Section XXI. Regional Services

XXI. REGIONAL SERVICES
(A) Objectives As soon as practicable after the effective date of this
Consent Decree, the DCYS Monitoring" Panel shall consult with Department personnel and other persons and entities deemed necessary to establish a Master Plan for the prompt implementation of required regional services and programs. The Master Plan shall include:
(1) A methodology for conducting a "capacity" assessment to determine among other things: office space and equipment needs for current and new workers; automobiles";
(2) Identification of regional needs such as Early Intervention Programs; training programs; family preservation programs; parent-aide programs; respite care projects; programs relating to sexual abuse, substance abuse, medical and mental health, and neglect; day-care; Visitation Centers; Foster Care Clinics; health services and programs; transportation procedures (coordination with state agencies and local organizations who furnish transportation services, taxi and bus companies) to facilitate transportation "for clients without resources; and other services and programs mandated by this Consent Decree;
(3) Timetables for the implementation of each service and program within each region, with priority to the development
104

and expansion of services and programs for children at the greatest risk:
(4) A mandatory funding schedule for the implementation of each service and program within each region;
(5) Timely and specific Requests For Proposals to implement each service and program within each region or statewide. Within ten working days following the issuance of each Request For Proposal, a bidders conference shall be held to provide information and answer questions relating to the subject matter of the Request For Proposals;
(6) Standards, procedures, and fee schedules for the implementation of regional services and programs through community service providers, with periodic evaluation studies to determine the utilization, amount and effectiveness of services and programs for children under the supervision, care, and custody of·the Department;
(7) A methodology for the immediate compilation of information, data, and information relating to needs assessment, implementation, and funding until the statewide computer system is operational. Once the single statewide computer system is operational, data for the needs assessment shall be compiled on a computer program developed for that purpose which program shall be a part of the single statewide computer system;
(8) An investigation of needs and implementation plan for alternative settings, placements, services where needed for
105

children under the supervision and custody of the Department including:
(a) Therapeutic Foster Homes for the specialized treatment, care, and supervision of children with mental illness:
(b) Long-term Structured Family Living Homes as an alternative to long-term (e.g., more than eighteen months) hospital treatment, that, in close collaboration with the Department hospitals, will provide twenty-four hour supervision for children:
(c) Half-Way Houses to serve the needs of children during transitional periods:
(d) Residential Treatment Facilities for children who cannot be managed in a less restrictive setting, and whose needs may include provision for visiting resources:
(e) Out-patient mental health services needed to meet the recommendations of Treatment Plans;
(f) The needs for day treatment and extended day services including those for substance abusing adolescents:
(g) The needs for assessment and diagnostic shelter services to provide on-site medical and mental health consultation; and
(h) Alternative living arrangements for adolescents with mental health and substance abuse needs:
(9) The development, in collaboration with local hospital emergency rooms and local mental health providers, ot a mechanism for twenty-four hour emergency mental health services
106

for children in the care of the Department; and (10) Such other provisions deemed appropriate by the
DCYS Monitoring Panel. (B) Department Institutions (1) The bed capacity at Altobello and RiverView shall
remain at no less than fifty beds in each facility unless: consistent with the requirements of the State Commission on Health Care and Costs and, in addition, there is a statistically significant decline in need, a feasible phasing-out procedure, and an assessment study which confirms the decrease.
(2) Criteria for admission to a Department hospital shall be outlined in the Health Management Unit Manual.
(3) A certified Substance Abuse Coordinator, possessing an M.S.W. or higher degree, shall be retained at Altobello and Housatonic either full-time or part-time to coordinate SUbstance abuse education and treatment programs in each facility.
(4) The State Receiving Home and the Diagnostic Evaluation Placement Program at High Meadows shall have the capability: for complete multi-disciplinary medical and mental health assessments by professionals; to initiate and continue treatment with medication: to complete full-scale medical and mental health assessment and treatment plans within six weeks ot a request by the staff at the State Receiving Home, and the Diagnostic Evaluation Placement Program at High Meadows, or by the Department supervisor after consultation with a mental health
107

professional: and to furnish weekly progress reports to the Regional Director of Childrens Protective Services after a child remains at the State Receiving Home for more than eight weeks.
(5) The capacity to conduct multidisciplinary mental health assessments shall be preserved at High Meadows and Housatonic Adolescent Facility.
108

Section XXII. Paperwork, Information Management and Tecllnology

XXII. PAPERWORK, INFOR¥~TION MANA~EMENT, AND TEC~OLOGY
(A) Assessment committee - Purposes Within a reasonable time after the effective date of
this consent Decree, the Department, under the direction and with the approval of the DCYS Monitoring Panel, shall form a Paperwork, Information Management, and Technology Assessment Committee (the "Assessment committee"), and any necessary subcommittees, which may include independent consultants. The members of the Assessment Committee shall be available up to half-time, as necessary, for up to six months unless otherwise determined by the DCYS Monitoring Panel. The Assessment Committee shall have the following purposes:
(1) To consult with Department personnel at all levels to determine what reports are needed to meet the needs of Department personnel, including management, workers, and supervisors, and to comply with state and federal reporting requirements;
(2) To review and revise current Department paperwork requirements with the aim of reducing paperwork and computerizing where possible;
(3) To draft required forms and reporting formats to meet the needs and criteria established by the Assessment Committee;
109

(4) To develop a uniform case record; (5) To study and recommend to the DCYS Monito!ing Panel the current and future computer needs of the Department, and the elements of a single statewide networked computer system that shall be implemented (the "Single Statewide computer System") with terminals which possess stand alone capacities (e.g., word-processing). This study shall address the following issues:
(a) Whether any of the current computer systems can be modified to meet the requirements and capacities of this Consent Decree, or whether a new system must be purchased;
(b) The number of terminals necessary to meet the needs of the Department;
(c) Staffing requirements to support the Single Statewide Computer System;
(d) Telephone or electronic requirements to support the Single Statewide Computer System, the Hotline, and the Central and Regional Offices;
(e) The extent to which forms and reports can be computerized;
(f) The ratio of terminals to personnel for each category of department employee, unit, or function;
(g) Any software which may be designed or purchased to fulfill the requirements of the Department and training necessitated thereby;
(h) The projected cost, budget, and time frame fer
110

implementing the recommendations of the Assessment Committee; and (i) Such other tasks as shall be designated to it
by the DCYS Monitoring Panel. (B) caoacities of the Sinale Statewide Computer System (1) The Single Statewide Computer System shall have a
Computerized Resource Directory for the following purposes: (a) To list all state and community service
providers, whether or not funded directly by the Department, and all individual service providers with contracts to provide services to Department clients, with relevant pertinent information (e.g., name, address, contact, eligibility requirements, availability); and
(b) Such other information as the DCYS Monitoring Panel or the various Regional Resource Groups prescribe from time to time.
(2) The Single Statewide Computer System shall have a Case Management System for the following purposes:
(a) To maintain for each child on the Department caseload, a case file which identifies the child's and/or family's placement, treatment and service needs, and the date the needs were identified, acted on, or wait-listed;
(b) To generate, on a regional and statewide basis, reports describing gaps in placement and service/treatmen~ resources by type and need for which a client has waited ninety days or more;
(c) To issue an alert to the appropriate Regional
111

Director when the number of children and/or families wait-listed for a service in any region for six weeks or more exceeds twenty; and
(d) To generate, on a regional and statewide basis, data on newly emerging needs in order to determine what new program, services, or treatments should be developed.
(3) The Single Statewide Computer System shall have a computerized Central Registry for the following purposes:
(a) To maintain a listing of substantiated cases of child abuse or neglect and a child-at-risk of abuse or neglect; and
(b) To maintain a listing of pending investigations of child abuse or neglect and a child-at-risk of abuse or neglect.
(4) The Single statewide Computer System shall have such other capacities as may be required by this Consent Decree or as the DCYS Monitoring Plan may prescribe.
112

Section XXIII. Probate Court Ordered Studies

XXIII. PROBATE COURT ORDERED STUDIES
The Department, under the direction and with the approval of the DCYS Monitoring Panel, shall:
(A) Develop procedures to complete Probate Court Studies within the timeframes specified by state law:
(B) Assign qualified workers and support staff to conduct Probate Court Studies;
(C) Review the number of employees required periodically to ensure that Probate Court Studies are completed in a timely fashion;
(D) Develop a mechanism or contract, if necessary, with qualified persons to eliminate the existing backlog of Probate Cou"rt Studies within eighteen months of the signing of this Consent Decree; and
(E) Develop procedures to facilitate effective working relationships with the Probate Courts.
113

Section XXIV. Funding

XXIV. FUNDING The State of Connecticut shall pay for, and fund, the costs for the establishment, implementation, compliance, maintenance, and monitoring of all mandates in this Consent Decree and all determinations and directives of the DCYS Monitoring Panel as may be set forth in Manuals, memoranda, or other materials issued in the performance of its duties.
114

Section XXV. DCYS Monitoring Panel

xxv. DCYS MONITORING PANEL
(A) Purposes Commencing on the effective date of this Consent
Decree, the DCYS Monitoring Panel is established for the following purposes:
(1) To determine, promulgate, or approve the policies, standards, procedures, programs, Manuals, and staffing to fulfill the mandates of this Consent Decree;
(2) To implement with definite and reasonable timetables the policies, standards, procedures, programs, Manuals, and staffing patterns deemed necessary to fulfill the mandates of this Consent Decree;
(3) To establish mandatory funding amounts and patterns to ensure compliance with the policies, standards, procedures, timetables, programs, Manuals, and staffing patterns of the DCYS Monitoring Panel:
(4) To take any and all action, including resort to judicial processes, to effect reasonable and ongoing compliance with the determinations of the DCYS Monitoring Panel concerning policies, standards, procedures, timetables, programs, Manuals, staffing patterns, and funding requirements;
(5) To resolve all issues and matters relating to this Consent Decree and the policies, standards, procedures,
115

timetables, programs, Manuals, and staffing patterns promulgated by the DCYS Monitoring Panel: and
(6) To prepare and submit to the Trial Judge, counsel for the parties, and such other persons or entities named by the Trial Judge, progress and compliance reports periodically as the Trial Judge shall determine.
(E) Composition The members of the DCYS Mediation Panel shall
constitute the membership of the DCYS Monitoring Panel, with the judicial member serving as Chairperson.
(C) Vacancies If any member of the DCYS Monitoring Panel resigns or
is unable to serve for any reason, the Trial Judge shall fill the vacancy in the same manner as the original appointment (See Section I(A) (D) of the Mediation Order, filed July 16, 1990).
(D) Removal The Trial Judge for good cause may remove and replace
any member of the DCYS Monitoring Panel. (E) Resolution of Issues (1) All issues and matters relating to the
interpretation of this Consent Decree, or to the implementation and compliance requirements set forth in the policies, standards, procedures, timetables, programs, Manuals, funding patterns, and staffing patterns promulgated by the DCYS Monitoring Panel, shall first be submitted to the DCYS Monitoring Panel for resolution.
(2) All such issues and matters resolved by the
116

unanimous decision of the DCYS Monitoring Panel shall be deemed final and binding and shall not be subject to appeal.
(3) If any such issue or matter is not resolved by the unanimous decision of the DCYS Monitoring Panel, the issue or matter shall be referred to the Trial Judge for adjudication pursuant to any proceeding the Trial Judge shall deem feasible. At any such proceeding, the members of the DCYS Monitoring Panel may be called as witnesses by a party or the Trial Judge.
(F) Performance of Duties The DCYS Monitoring Panel shall perform its duties at
such times and places, and in such manner, as it deems necessary and reasonable.
(G) Staff The DCYS Monitoring Panel, to the extent it deems
nec.ssary, may retain clerical or other professional and administrative staff to assist it in the performance of its duties.
(H) Consultants and Subpanels The DCYS Monitoring Panel, to the extent it deems
necessary, may retain medical or mental health monitoring subpanel experts, consultants, or other professionals to assist it in the performance of its duties.
(I) Other Expenses and Costs The DCYS Monitoring Panel may rent space, purchase
equipment, materials, supplies, and incur such other costs it deems necessary to the performance of its duties.
117

(~) Fees and Expenses (1) The State of Connecticut shall pay the fees of the
non-judicial members of the DCYS Monitoring Panel as shall be determined reasonable by the Trial Judge.
(2) The State of Connecticut, to the extent deemed reasonable by the judicial member of the DCYS Monitoring Panel, shall pay:
(a) All expenses incurred by the non-judicial members of the DCYS Monitoring Panel in the performance of their duties:
(b) All fees and expenses of staff, consultants, experts, professionals, or other persons retained by the DCYS Monitoring Panel in the performance of its duties: and
(c) All costs and expenses for equipment, materials, supplies, and other needs required by the DCYS Monitoring Panel in the performance of its duties.
(3) Any dispute or issue over fees, expenses, or costs shall be referred to the Trial Judge for resolution.
(K) Liability The state of Connecticut shall defend, indemnify, and
hold harmless to the same extent as state employees the members of the DCYS Monitoring Panel in any litigation or proceeding involving the DCYS Monitoring Panel in the performance of its duties.
(L) Termination (1) The Trial Judge for good cause may terminate the
118

DCYS Monitoring Panel pursuant to conditions and orders the Trial Judge deems feasible: or
(2) The DCYS Monitoring Panel shall terminate when it has substantially performed all of its duties.
119

Section XXVI. Modification of Consent Decree

XXVI. Modification of Consent Decree This Consent Decree may be modified, amended, or changed by the Trial Judge, only upon appropriate motion filed by any party or the DCYS Monitoring Panel.
DCYS Mediation Panel Patrlc~a W~lson-Coker, M.S.W., J.D.
Ph.D. airperson District Judge
120

 </s> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
---------------------------------------------------------------)( JUAN F., et al.,
Plaintiffs,

Z008 JUL 11 P 12: 31../ u.s. D!SH:lCT COURT
L;:;:>~t.P~i\T. CS;"\i'i

v.

CIVIL NO. H89-

859 (ARN)

M. JODI RELL, et al.,

Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------)(
STIPULATION REGARDING OUTCOME MEASURES 3 AND 15
WHEREAS, on May 5, 2008, pursuant to the Revised Monitoring Order in this action filed October 12, 2005, Plaintiffs asserted and notified Defendants of actual or likely noncompliance with the Revised E)(it Plan of July I, 2004, as modified July II, 2006;
WHEREAS, Plaintiffs' May 5, 2008 assertion of noncompliance is limited to Outcome Measures 3 and 15 in the Revised E)(it Plan of July 1, 2004, as modified July 11,2006;
WHEREAS, the parties have met in good faith and have resolved the matters in Plaintiffs' May 5, 2008 assertion of noncompliance with the tenus ofthis Stipulation Regarding Outcome Measures 3 and 15 ("StipUlation");
THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE, that Plaintiffs' May 5, 2008 assertion of noncompliance is hereby withdrawn, pursuant to the following terms:
I. Foster Care Recruitment and Retention Plans.
A. DCF, in conjunction with the Technical Advisory Committee ("TAC"), and with input from the DCF Court Monitor and Plaintiffs' Counsel, shall jointly develop revised approved statewide and area-based/regional foster care Recruitment and Retention Plans ("R&R Plans") effective for the fiscal year July 1,2008 - June 30, 2009, and for the fiscal year July 1, 2009 - June 30, 2010, which R&R Plans shall require approval of the TAC. The R&R Plan for the fiscal year July 1,2008 - June 30, 2009 shall require TAC approval no later than August 15, 2008, with ongoing collaboration with the TAC. The R&R plans shall be driven by data concerning the needs and placements of the foster care population and mapping of the capacity and preferences of the pool of foster parents, and shall include specific interim and annual perfonuance recruitment and

I I

retention goals. The R&R plans shall include specific strategies to increase responsiveness and support to foster parents at all stages of recruitment, licensing, placement and throughout foster parents' involvement with the DCF system. The R&R Plans shall also include a specific schedule for redesigning the delivery of "treatment foster care" or "therapeutic foster care" that provides for the recruitment, retention, training, payment and service support of foster parents to provide care for foster children with therapeutic needs that can be served with the child living in a family environment.
B. The goals in the R&R Plans shall include, at a minimum, the following: (1) a statewide net gain of 350 foster family homes by June 30, 2009; and (2) an additional statewide net gain of 500 foster family homes by June 30, 2010.
II. Automation of Administrative Case Reviews and Treatment Planning Conferences. In conjunction with the DCF Court Monitor, within 180 days of the date of entry of this Stipulation, DCF shall develop the capacity to electronically store and generate child-specific and aggregate reports concerning the information collected and documented at each child's Administrative Case Review ("ACR") and Treatment Planning Conference ("TPC"). The functionalities shall include the capacity (I) to generate reports that are child-specific, so that information, obligations and implementation of treatment plan items can be tracked over time; and (2) to generate aggregate reports for purposes of additional monitoring under the Juan F. Exit Plan and for DCF management and quality assurance functions. The DCF Court Monitor shall have the authority to make any necessary and reasonable extensions of the required timeframe for completing the requirements of this Section.
III. Independent Expert Review of the Utilization of Congregate Care Facilities. DCF, in conjunction with the TAC, and with input from the DCF Court Monitor and Plaintiffs' Counsel, shall undertake a review and assessment of the current models and utilization of congregate care (nonfamily) placements, including but not limited to group homes (all levels), SAFE Homes, STAR Homes, residential placements and DCF facilities. The purpose of this review and assessment will be to evaluate DCF's overall ability to provide placements in the least restrictive, most family-like setting that meet children's needs. The review and assessment shall include, without limitation, an overview of DCF's current policies and procedures, an analysis ofthe implementation of policies and procedures for approving placements conducted by the Administrative Service Organizations (ASO's), a review of relevant data and information, interviews and site visits as appropriate, and recommendations for improvement and/or modifications of existing policies, procedures, and/or models. Within 270 days of the date of entry ofthis Stipulation, the DCF and the TAC shall issue a joint report, including any recommendations for improvement and/or modifications of existing policies,
2

procedures and/or models, and/or for phasing out the use of any types or categories of congregate care. If DCF and the TAC are unable to agree on any aspects of this report, including any recommendations for improvement or modification, the TAC shall provide an Addendum setting forth the TAC's recommendations and any areas of disagreement with DCF. In the event an Addendum is issued by the TAC, the parties shall address the items in the Addendum under the same procedures and time1ines for dispute resolution pursuant to Section III.B. of the Revised Monitoring Order in this action filed October 12, 2005.
IV. Practice Model. Within 90 days of the date of entry of this Stipulation, DCF shall, in conjunction with the TAC, engage an independent consultant to assist in the creation and implementation of a Practice Model, an example of which is attached as Exhibit A hereto. If the TAC objects to the consultant selected by DCF, the parties shall address the issue under the same procedures and timelines for dispute resolution pursuant to Section III.B. of the Revised Monitoring Order in this action filed October 12, 2005. An implementation plan shall set forth the timeframes for development, training, full implementation and accountability with respect to the Practice Model, which implementation activities shall begin no later than November 1, 2008.
V. Service Needs Reviews.
A. Service Needs Reviews: Authority and Purposes
Service Needs Reviewers shall conduct in-depth Service Needs Reviews of the cases of all children who fall within one or more of the eight categories listed in Section V.B. below as of July I, 2008.'
The Service Needs Review process shall be overseen by the DCF Court Monitor. The DCF Court Monitor will select and supervise the Service Needs Reviewers, which may include staff from the DCF Court Monitor's office, DCF staff, TAC staff and other consultants hired specifically for this purpose. All Service Needs Reviewers shall be trained and supervised by the DCF Court Monitor and shall have appropriate clinical expertise and experience.
It is the express intent of the parties that the DCF Court Monitor shall have the authority to modifY or substitute alternatives to the processes and procedures outlined in this Section V that serve the purposes of the Service Needs Reviews. The DCF Court Monitor shall provide the parties with proposed Service Needs Review processes and procedures, including any modification or alternatives to be used, by August 15, 2008. The parties shall have 10 days thereafter to provide comment to the DCF Court
1 These eight categories will hereinafter be referred to as "Target Cohorts." They shall be identified, for purposes of the Service Needs Reviews, as a specific one-time population or cohort.
3

Monitor. By September I, 2008, the DCF Court Monitor shall provide the final Service Needs Review processes and procedures to the parties, which shall be binding.
The purposes of the Service Needs Reviews are to identify the following for each child in the Target Cohorts: (a) the particular child and family circumstances; (b) the barriers that exist to a permanent exit from DCF custody, placement in an appropriate, least restrictive, most family-like setting while in DCF custody, and meeting any unmet service needs required by Outcome Measure 15; (c) the specific steps that must be taken to remove these barriers and achieve appropriate results for the child; and (d) through periodic follow-up reviews, the degree to which these steps have been implemented and appropriate results for the child have been achieved.
B. Target Cohorts
The Target Cohorts shall include the following:
1. All children age 12 and under placed in any non-family congregate care settings (excluding children in SAFE Homes for less than 60 days);
2. All children who have remained in any emergency or temporary facility, including STAR homes or SAFE homes, for more than 60 days;
3. All children on discharge delay for more than 30 days in any nonfamily congregate care setting, with the exception of in-patient psychiatric hospitalization;
4. All children on discharge delay for more than seven days that are placed in an inpatient psychiatric hospital;
5. All children with a permanency goal of Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement ("APPLA");
6. All children with a permanency goal of adoption who have been in DCF custody longer than 12 months for whom a petition for termination of parental rights (TPR) for all parents has not been filed, and no compelling reason has been documented for not freeing the child for adoption;
7. All children with a permanency goal of adoption and for whom parental rights have been terminated (except those who are living in an adoptive home with no barrier to adoption and are on a path to fmalization); and
4

8. All children with a pennanency goal of reunification who have been in DCF custody longer than 12 months and have not been placed on a trial home reunification, or have not had an approved goal change.
C. Service Needs Review Process.
The Service Needs Review process described below shall be carried out for each child in the Target Cohorts, and all processes below shall be subject to the DCF Court Monitor's fmal Service Needs Review processes and procedures as set forth in Section V.A. above.
1. Initial Service Needs Review. An Initial Service Needs Review shall be completed by January 31, 2009. By September I, 2008, the DCF Court Monitor shall develop a protocol to be used in each Initial Service Needs Review with input from DCF, Plaintiffs and the TAC.
a. This Initial Service Needs Review shall include a complete file review by the Service Needs Reviewer, in consultation with the child's DCF worker and supervisor, and the convening of a Case Conference for each child in the Target Cohorts. The Case Conference must include the documentation of existing barriers to a pennanent exit from DCF custody; placement in an appropriate, least restrictive, most family-like setting while in DCF custody; meeting any unmet service needs as required by Outcome Measure 15; and the identification of strategies to address these specific barriers.
b. The Initial Service Needs Review shall include a detennination of whether a referral shall be made to a Specialized Case Manager (as set forth below in Section V.C.3.), and, if a referral is made, the referral shall take place within 30 days of the Initial Service Needs Review.
c. In the event that any unmet needs are identified as required by Outcome Measure 15, the results of the Initial Service Needs Reviews shall be promptly shared with any attorney assigned to the child and any attorney assigned to the child's parent(s).
2. 90-Day Follow-Up Reviews.
a. 90-Day Follow-Up Reviews by the Service Needs Reviewer shall be conducted every 90 days after the date ofthe child's Initial Service Needs Review to assess and discuss case progress, detennine needed next steps, and record case status for entry into the data collection database described in Section V.C.S. below.
5

These Reviews shall consist of an in-person meeting attended by the Service Needs Reviewer, the DCF worker, the DCF supervisor and the Specialized Case Manager (if a referral is made), and, if appropriate, the conducting of another Case Conference.
b. 90-Day Follow-Up Reviews shall be conducted every 90 days until the child's needs, as required by Outcome Measure 15, are met.
c. If referral to a Specialized Case Manager has not been made, each 90-Day Follow-Up Review shall include a determination of whether a referral shall be made to a Specialized Case Manager (as set forth below in Section V.C.3.), and, if a referral is made, the referral shall take place within 10 days of the 90-Day Follow-Up Review.
d. In the event that any unmet needs are identified as required by Outcome Measure 15, the results of any 90-Day Follow-Up Reviews shall be promptly shared with any attorney assigned to the child and any attorney assigned to the child's parent(s).
e. Through a process approved and overseen by the DCF Court Monitor, the 90-Day Follow-Up Reviews shall not be necessary for any of those children in the Target Cohorts set forth in Section V.A. for whom the completed Initial Service Needs Review did not document any urunet needs as required by Outcome Measure 15.
3. Specialized Case Manager Function. The function of a Specialized Case Manager-independent of the child's case worker, supervisor or Special Needs Reviewer-shall be established by DCF, with input from the TAC and the DCF Court Monitor, to implement the recommendations of the Service Needs Review in such cases where heightened implementation support is determined to be necessary by the Service Needs Review or Follow-Up Review. The Specialized Case Manager shall have authority to make decisions, which shall be implemented, concerning children in the Target Cohorts. Each Specialized Case Manager shall have oversight over no more than 10 children (or as may be modified by the DCF Court Monitor to meet the requirements of this Section V), and shall engage in leading a "teaming" approach with the child's DCF case manager, DCF supervisor and other relevant stakeholders concerning the child, including, but not limited to, the child' s/parents' attorney(s), the child (if of appropriate age), and the child's educational surrogate (if applicable). In teaming the case and implementing the recommendations of the Service Needs Review, the Specialized Case Manager shall ensure that the following activities occur as appropriate for each child:
6

a. Convene meetings, access funding and make independent decisions in order:
(i) To determine the continuing appropriateness and effectiveness of the child's permanency goal and to seek court-approved change of the goal, if appropriate; and
(ii) To determine the continuing appropriateness and effectiveness of the services being provided to the child; whether new or different services are necessary for the child; and, if so, by whom and when they will be provided;
b. Partner with the area/statewide Independent Living staff and Central Office Adolescent Service staff to determine whether adequate independent living services and plans are being provided for all children age 14 and older;
c. Evaluate the continuing appropriateness and effectiveness of services to biological parents and relatives, and determine whether new or different services are necessary to assist the biological parents and relatives in achieving the child's permanency goal;
d. Consult with public and private professionals and take all steps necessary to ensure the provision of services for achieving permanency, achieving placement in the least restrictive, most family-like placement, and addressing any identified uomet needs as required by Outcome Measure 15; and
e. No sooner than 60 days prior to discharge, regardless of the discharge destination, convene a special discharge planning meeting that shall be held to ensure that appropriate services and plans are in place to ensure a successful discharge.
4. DCF may contract out any or all of the duties and functions of the
Specialized Case Managers to one or more private providers which have a demonstrated capacity to perform the specific duties and functions of the Specialized Case Manager, and which have a proven track record of achieving positive permanency, placement and service delivery outcomes for children. However, any such contracts shall not alter any of the legal obligations of Defendants under this Stipulation, the Revised Exit Plan ofJuly 1,2004 (as modified July II, 2006), or other governing orders in this action.
7

5. Service Needs Review Data Collection and Analysis. The DCF Court Monitor shall develop a data collection tool with input from DCF, Plaintiffs and the TAC, which shall be utilized by the Service Needs Reviewer to systematically collect and document for each child's case and for aggregate reporting and analysis: (a) the identified barriers to moving out of the corrective action category; (b) the Service Needs Reviewer's specific recommendations to address the barriers; and (c) the implementation status of the recommendations.
VI. Prospective Placement Restrictions. The following placement standards shall be implemented immediately:
A. Beginning 90 days after the date of entry of this Stipulation, no child entering any emergency or temporary facility, including STAR homes or SAFE homes, shall remain in such facility for more than 60 days. Beginning 90 days after the date of entry of this Stipulation, an exception to the 60-day limit may be granted for an individual child for a one-time maximum of20 days if the Area Director (or functional equivalent) certifies in writing that an appropriate placement has been identified and that a transition to that placement is underway and necessary. Beginning 180 days after the date of entry of this Stipulation, an exception to the 60day limit may be granted for an individual child for a one-time maximum of 10 days if the Area Director (or functional equivalent) certifies in writing that an appropriate placement has been identified and that a transition to that placement is underway and necessary. Beginning 270 days after the date of entry of this Stipulation, an exception to the 60-day limit may be granted for an individual child for a one-time maximum of 5 days if the Area Director (or functional equivalent) certifies in writing that an appropriate placement has been identified and that a transition to that placement is underway and necessary.
B. Beginning 90 days after the date of entry of this Stipulation, no child shall be placed in more than one emergency or temporary facility, including STAR Homes or SAFE Homes, within any l2-month period. An exception to the limit on multiple placements within any 12-month period may occur for an individual placement episode for a maximum of 5 days. The exception shall only apply to children returning from runaway status and children facing a direct threat to their safety, or children who are a threat to the safety of others, where immediate removal is necessary. An additional exception to the limit on multiple placements within any 12month period is if a child's behavior has changed so significantly that placement for the purposes of assessment is critical for the determination of an appropriate placement, and the Area Director (or functional equivalent) certifies in writing that the assessment is essential for an appropriate placement. In such cases, there may be a single additional placement in an emergency or temporary facility, including SAFE Homes or STAR Homes, for up to a maximum of 15 days.
8

C. Beginning 90 days after the date of entry of this Stipulation, no child shall remain in any hospital or in any in-patient status beyond the determination that the child is appropriate for discharge (i.e., on discharge delay). The only exception shall be in such cases, upon the express written approval of the DCF Commissioner, the Chief of Staff, the Bureau Chief for Child Welfare, the Bureau Chieffor Behavioral Health, or the Director of Foster Care (or the functional equivalent of these senior management officials), based upon such senior management official's determination, that an appropriate placement has been identified that is not currently available and any other alternative for a placement move will be contrary to that child's best interests, in which case the child may remain in the hospital, emergency room or any in-patient status for a single additional period of 10 days.
D. Beginning 90 days after the date of entry of this Stipulation, no child age 12 and under shall be placed in a congregate non-foster family home setting, except for children with exceptional needs that cannot be met in any other type of placement and upon the express written approval of the DCF Commissioner, the Chiefof Staff, the Bureau Chief for Child Welfare, the Bureau Chieffor Behavioral Health or the DCF Medical Director (or the functional equivalent of these senior management officials). Such approval shall be based on such senior management official's certification based on a determination that the child's needs can only be met in that specific facility, including a description ofthe services available in the facility to address the individual child's needs.
E. Beginning 90 days after the date of entry of this Stipulation, no child over the age of 12 shall be placed in any congregate non-foster family setting without express written approval by the Bureau Chief for Behavioral Health (or functional equivalent). Such approval shall be based on his or her certification and specific fmdings that the child's needs can be met in that specific facility, including a description of the services available in the facility to address the individual child's needs, and that the facility is the least restrictive placement to meet this child's needs.
F. Beginning 30 days after the date of entry of this Stipulation, no child shall be given a goal of Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement ("APPLA") without the written approval of the DCF Commissioner, the Chief of Staff, or the Bureau Chief for Child Welfare (or the functional equivalent of these senior management officials). Such approval shall be based on such senior management official's certification based on a personal determination that the limitations of the use of APPLA are applicable to that individual child, based on the written policy (attached as Exhibit B to this Stipulation), with a description of why the goal is appropriate for that child.
9

VII. Health Care.
A. EPSDT Screens. Within 30 days of entry of this Stipulation, DCF shall identify all children in the 6 categories below, and within 90 days of the entry of this Stipulation, DCF shall ensure the provision of the required dental, medical, mental health, vision, hearing and developmental screens for all children in the 6 categories below:
1. Children who have not received a required initial or periodic dental screen under the federal Early Periodic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) statutory program, state law and DCF policy, and for whom the required screen is more than 60 days overdue;
2. Children who have not received a required initial or periodic medical screen under the federal Early Periodic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) statutory program, state law and DCF policy, and for whom the required screen is more than 60 days overdue;
3. Children who have not received a required initial or periodic mental health screen under the federal Early Periodic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) statutory program, state law and DCF policy, and for whom the required screen is more than 60 days overdue;
4. Children who have not received a required initial or periodic vision screen under the federal Early Periodic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) statutory program, state law and DCF policy, and for whom the required screen is more than 60 days overdue;
5. Children who have not received a required initial or periodic hearing screen under the federal Early Periodic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) statutory program, state law and DCF policy, and for whom the required screen is more than 60 days overdue; and
6. Children who have not received a required initial or periodic developmental screen under the federal Early Periodic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) statutory program, state law and DCF policy, and for whom the required screen is more than 60 days overdue.
B. Health Care Treatment. DCF shall ensure that children promptly receive all medically necessary treatment for any needs identified at required EPSDT screens and any needs identified in between such screens. Any health care service need (dental, medical, mental health, vision, hearing, developmental or other related health services) for which the availability of an approved Medicaid provider is a barrier to service delivery shall be documented in the child's record in LINK. DCF shall promptly ensure service delivery for children's health care service needs (dental, medical, mental health, vision, hearing, developmental or other related health
10

services), including, but not limited to, the purchase of such services on the open market at market rates by a qualified health professional.

C. Improved Health Care Tracking. Within 120 days of entry of this Stipulation, DCF shall work with the Connecticut Department of Social Services (DSS) to create a computerized unique identifier for DCF children and families, so that data concerning the provision and payment of health care services (medical, dental, mental health, vision, hearing, developmental and other related health services) for individual DCF involved children enrolled in the HUSKY or Medicaid fee-for-service program can be tracked, and so that such data for all DCF-involved children can be aggregated and reported.

VIII.

Treatment Planning. DCF, in conjunction with the TAC, and with input from the DCF Court Monitor and Plaintiffs' Counsel, shall undertake a review and assessment of the current policies, procedures and practices related to the creation of required Treatment Plans for children, including any efforts underway or planned by DCF to improve the quality of Treatment Plans for children, and any recommendations for improvement and/or modifications of existing DCF policies, procedures and/or models. Within 90 days of the date of entry of this StipUlation, DCF and the TAC shall issue a joint report. If DCF and the TAC are unable to agree on any aspects ofthe report, including recommendations for improvement and/or modification of existing DCF policies, procedures and/or models, the TAC shall provide an Addendum setting forth the TAC's recommendations and any of the TAC's areas of disagreement with DCF. In the event an Addendum is issued by the TAC, the parties shall address the items in the Addendum under the same procedures and timelines for dispute resolution pursuant to Section m.B. of the Revised Monitoring Order in this action filed October 12,2005.

IX. Interim Performance

A. Baseline Reductions. Upon the completion of the Initial Service Needs Reviews in Section V, the DCF Court Monitor shall issue a validated report identifYing, at a point in time as close as reasonably possible to the completion of the Initial Service Needs Reviews, a baseline of the total number of children in each of the categories in Section V.B.I-8 of this Stipulation. The parties, with input from the TAC and the DCF Court Monitor, shall then meet and confer for a period of no more than 30 days, unless agreed to by the parties, to identifY and agree upon required percentage reductions off of some or all of the baselines, and a timeline for achieving such reductions, which shall become part of this StipUlation. If the parties cannot agree upon the baseline reductions and timelines, the parties shall proceed under the same procedures and timelines for dispute resolution pursuant to Section I1I.B. of the Revised Monitoring Order in this action filed October 12,2005.

11

B. Health Care.
1. Dental Service Needs. By the quarter ending December 31, 2008, Defendants shall have a target/goal of reaching 85% or better on the "Dental" service needs component of the Outcome Measure 15 methodology. By the quarter ending March 31, 2009, and for each quarter thereafter, Defendants shall have a target/goal of reaching 90% or better on the "Dental" service needs component of the Outcome Measure 15 methodology.
2. Mental Health Service Needs. By the quarter ending December 31, 2008, Defendants shall have a target/goal of reaching 85% or better on the "Mental Health needs" service needs component of the Outcome Measure 15 methodology. By the quarter ending March 31, 2009, and for each quarter thereafter, Defendants shall have a target/goal of reaching 90% or better on the "Mental Health" service needs component of the Outcome Measure 15 methodology.
C. Contracting or Providing Services to Meet the Permanency Goal. By the quarter ending December 31,2008, Defendants shall have a target/goal of reaching 85% or better on the "DCF Case management - Contracting or Providing Services to Achieve the Permanency Goal" component of the Outcome Measure 15 methodology. By the quarter ending March 31, 2009, and for each quarter thereafter, Defendants shall have a target/goal of reaching 90% or better on the "DCF Case management - Contracting or Providing Services to Achieve the Permanency Goal" component of the Outcome Measure 15 methodology.
D. Goals for Increasing Family-Based Placements. The DCF Court Monitor shall validate and report a baseline of the percentage of children in DCF custody who are placed in a family-based (non-congregate) placement, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2008. The target/goal for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2009 shall be to increase this baseline by 7%, and a target/goal of an additional annual 3% increase each fiscal year for the duration of this Stipulation.
E. Treatment Planning.
1. Action Steps to Achieving Goals Identified. The baseline for improvement shall be established by the results reported in the Juan F. v. Rell Exit Plan Quarterly Report for the quarter ending March 31, 2008. By the quarter ending December 31,2008, Defendants shall have a target/goal of performance improvement of 15 % or better on the "Action Steps to Achieving Goals Identified" treatment planning component of the Outcome Measure 3 methodology. For each quarter thereafter, Defendants shall have a target/goal of performance improvement of 10% or better over the preceding quarter until the
12

performance has reached 90% or better on the "Action Steps to Achieving Goals Identified" treatment planning component of the Outcome Measure 3 methodology, after which the target/goal shall remain at 90% or better.
2. Determining the Goals/Objectives. December 31,2008, Defendants shall have a target/goal of reaching 85% or better on the "Determining the Goals/Objectives" treatment planning component of the Outcome Measure 3 methodology. By the quarter ending March 31, 2009, and for each quarter thereafter, Defendants shall have a target/goal of reaching 90% or better on the "Determining the Goals/Objectives" treatment planning component of the Outcome Measure 3 methodology.
3. Planning for Permanency. By the quarter ending December 31,2008, Defendants shall have a target/goal of reaching 85% or better on the "Planning for Permanency" treatment planning component of the Outcome Measure 3 methodology. By the quarter ending March 31, 2009, and for each quarter thereafter, Defendants shall have a target/goal of reaching 90% or better on the "Planning for Permanency" treatment planning component of the Outcome Measure 3 methodology.
4. StrengthslNeeds/Other Issues. By the quarter ending December 31, 2008, Defendants shall have a target/goal of reaching 85% or better on the "StrengthslNeeds/Other Issues" treatment planning component of the Outcome Measure 3 methodology. By the quarter ending March 31,2009, and for each quarter thereafter, Defendants shall have a target/goal of reaching 90% or better on the "StrengthslNeeds/Other Issues" treatment planning component of the Outcome Measure 3 methodology.
5. Progress. By the quarter ending December 31, 2008, Defendants shall have a target/goal of reaching 85% or better on the "Progress" treatment planning component of the Outcome Measure 3 methodology. By the quarter ending March 31, 2009, and for each quarter thereafter, Defendants shall have a target/goal of reaching 90% or better on the "Progress" treatment planning component of the Outcome Measure 3 methodology.
X. Duration of Stipulation. Sections VIII and IX.E. of this Stipulation shall remain effective and enforceable until Defendants sustain performance under Outcome Measure 3 at 90% or better for two consecutive quarters. All other provisions in this Stipulation shall remain effective and enforceable until Defendants sustain performance under Outcome Measure 15 at 80% or better for two consecutive quarters.
13

XI. Monitoring. The DCF Court Monitor shall undertake appropriate measures to collect data, validate and report on Defendants' performance within the terms of this Stipulation.

XII. Enforceability. It is the express intent of the parties that this Stipulation shall only be enforceable, by its terms, in this action-Juan P, et aI., v. M Jodi Rel/, et al., CA H89-859 (AHN)--and that this Stipulation does not create any separately enforceable obligations outside of this action.

tzll0. . SOSTIPUL

.TEDBY~::~AR~IE.%JUL~008:
i~.4/

Steven M. Frederic)<.

\.

c-M"'-a-rc--ci-a~R-oc-bic-n-so-n-L:-o-w-ry---

Federal Bar No. ct08743 sfrederick@wrkk.com Wofsey, Rosen, Kweskin
& Kuriansky, LLP 600 Summer Street Stamford, CT 06901-1490 Tel (203) 327-2300 Fax (203) 967-9273

Federal Bar No. ct04688 mlowry@childrensrights.org Ira P. Lustbader Federal Bar No. ct2355I ilustbader@childrensrights.org Children's Rights 330 Seventh Avenue, 4th Floor New York, N.Y. 10001 Tel (212) 683-2210 Fax (22) 683-4015

FOR PLAINTIFFS

REVIEWED AND APPROVED:

Ann H. Rubin, Esq. Federal Bar No. ct04486 arubin@carmodylaw.com Carmody & Torrance LLP 195 Church Street New Haven, CT 06590-1950 Tel (203) 777-5501
FOR DEFENDANTS

RAYMOND MANCUSO. DCF COURT MONITOR

DATE

SO ORDERED:

HON. ALAN H. NEVAS, SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 14

DATE

Xl. Monitoring. The DCF Court Monitor shall undertake appropriate measures to collect data. validate and report on Defendants' perfonnance within the tenns of this Stipulation.
XII. Enforceability. It is the express intent ofthe parties that this Stipulation shall only be enforceable, by its tenns, in this action-Juan F, e/ al., v. M. Jodi Rell, c/ aI., CA H89-859 (AHN)-and that this Stipulation does not creatc any separately enforceable obligations outside ofthis action.
J.i, SO STIPULATED BY THE PARTIES, JULY 2008:

Steven M. Frederick Federal Bar No. ct08743 sfrederick@wrkk.com Wofsey, Rosen, Kweskin
& Kuriansky, LLP 600 Summer Street Stamford, CT 06901-1490 Tel (203) 327-2300 Fax (203) 967-9273

MarcIa Robinson Lowry Federal Bar No. ct04688 mlowry@childrensrights.org Ira P. Lustbader Federal Bar No. ct23551 ilustbader@childrensrights.org Children's Rights 330 Seventh Avenue, 4th Floor New York, N.Y. 10001 Tel (212) 683-2210 Fax (212) 683-4015
FOR PLAINTIFFS

REVIEWED AND APPROVED:

Ann H. Rubin, Esq. Federal Bar No. ct04486 arubin@cannodylaw.com Cannody & Torrance LLP 195 Church Street New Haven, CT 06590-1950 Tel (203) 777-5501
FOR DEFENDANTS

RAYMOND MANCUSO, DCF COURT MONITOR

DATE

SO ORDERED:

HON. ALAN H. NEVAS, SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

DATE

14

XI. Monitoring. The DCF Court Monitor shall undertake appropriate measures to collect data, validate and report on Defendants' pertonnance within the tenns of this Stipulation.
XII. Enforceability. It is the express intent of the parties that this Stipulation shall only be enforceable, by its tenns, in this action-Juan F., et al., v. M. Jodi Rell. et al., CA H89-859 (AHN)-and that this Stipulation does not create any
sepnrately cnforce,lblc obligations outside of this action.
SO STIPliLA TED BY nIE I'\RTIFS. JULY L~()08:

Steven M. Frederick Federal Bar No. et08743 sfrcdcrickG"-'_\\ rkk,co1l1 \Vofscy, Roscn. Kweskin
& Kuriansky, LLP 600 Summer Street Stamford, CT 06901-1490 Tel (203) 327-2300 Fax (203) 967-9273
REVIEWED AND APPROVED:

Marcia Robinson Lowry Federal Bar No. et04688 11110 \\ Ty( ~'-/ ell i1dren srigh ts. 0 rg Ira P. Lustbader Federal Bar No. ct23551 il ustbad er@childrensrights.org Children's Rights 330 Seventh Avenue, 4lh Floor New York, N.Y. 10001 Tel (212) 683-2210 Fax (22) 683-4015
FOR PLAINTIFFS
4,.,,,a~
Ann H. Rubin, Esq. Federal Bar No. ct04486 arubin(qj:carmodylaw.com Cannady & TOITance LLP 195 Church Street New Haven, CT 06590-1950 Tel (203) 777-5501
FOR DEFENDANTS

RAYMOND MANCUSO, DCF COURT MONITOR

DATE

SO ORDERED:

HON. ALAN H. NEVAS, SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

DATE

14

XI. Monitoring. The DCF Court Monitor shall undertake appropriate measures to collect data, validate and report on Defendants' performance within the terms of this Stipulation.
XII. Enforceability. It is the express intent of the parties that this Stipulation shall only be enforceable, by its terms, in this action-Juan F., et al., v. M. Jodi Rell, et al., CA H89-859 (AHN)-and that this Stipulation does not create any separately enforceable obligations outside of this action.
SO STIPULATED BY THE PARTIES, JULY /.5':2008:

Steven M. Frederick Federal Bar No. ct08743 sfrederick@wrkk.com Wofsey, Rosen, Kweskin
& Kuriansky, LLP 600 Summer Street Stamford, CT 06901-1490 Tel (203) 327-2300 Fax (203) 967-9273

Marcia Robinson Lowry Federal Bar No. ct04688 mlowry@childrensrights.org Ira P. Lustbader Federal Bar No. ct2355I ilustbader@childrensrights.org Children's Rights 330 Seventh Avenue, 4th Floor New York, N.Y. 10001 Tel (212) 683-2210 Fax (22) 683-4015
FOR PLAINTIFFS

Ann H. Rubin, Esq. Federal Bar No. ct04486 arubin@carmodylaw.com Carmody & Torrance LLP 195 Church Street New Haven, CT 06590-1950 Tel (203) 777-5501

FOR DEFENDANTS

RE D MANCUSO, CF COURT MONITOR

~ ,.., ~'" /0 CY

SOO~RED:

... ~

lSi Alan H. 'laws. SUSDJ

,.~
~AN

-
H.

,,, "
NEVAS,

- - - ! , ( . ! . / ~~
SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT

JUDGE

14

"~ fleolo$>

 </s> EFILE,HBF,REFCNF
U.S. District Court District of Connecticut (Hartford) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:89−cv−00859−SRU

Juan F., et al v. Rell, Governor, et al Assigned to: Judge Stefan R. Underhill Referred to: Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons (Settlement) Demand: $0 Case in other court: 01−07088
01−07088
93−07714
93−07714
93−07714
93−07714
96−07998
96−07998 Cause: No cause code entered
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 12/19/1989 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero

represented by Adam J. Blank Wofsey, Rosen, Kweskin & Kuriansky 600 Summer St. Stamford, CT 06901 203−327−2300 Fax: 203−967−9273 Email: ablank@wrkk.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Erik S. Pitchal Children's Rights 404 Park Avenue South, 11th Floor New York, NY 10016 212−683−2210 TERMINATED: 10/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gena E. Wiltsek Childrens' Rights, Inc. 88 Pine St., Suite 800 New York, NY 10005 212−683−2210 Fax: 212−683−4015 Email: gwiltsek@childrensrights.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ira P. Lustbader Childrens' Rights, Inc. 88 Pine St., Suite 800 New York, NY 10005 212−683−2210 Fax: 212−683−4015 Email: ilustbader@childrensrights.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeffrey B. Gracer Sive, Paget & Riesel

460 Park Avenue 10th Floor New York, NY 10022 646−378−7280 Fax: 212−421−1891 Email: jgracer@sprlaw.com TERMINATED: 10/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica E. Polansky Childrens' Rights, Inc. 88 Pine St., Suite 800 New York, NY 10005 212−683−2210 Fax: 212−683−4015 Email: jpolansky@childrensrights.org TERMINATED: 10/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonel Newman Connecticut Civil Liberties Union Foundation 32 Grand St. Hartford, CT 06106 860−247−9823 TERMINATED: 11/01/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcia Robinson Lowry Childrens' Rights, Inc. 330 Seventh Avenue, 4th Floor New York, NY 10001 212−683−2210 Fax: 212−683−4015 TERMINATED: 05/08/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martha Stone Center for Children's Advocacy, Inc UCONN School of Law 65 Elizabeth St. Hartford, CT 06105−2290 860−570−5327 Fax: 860−570−5256 Email: mstone@kidscounsel.org TERMINATED: 07/01/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shelley D. Geballe 19 Flying Point Rd. Stony Creek, CT 06405 TERMINATED: 07/23/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen Wizner Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization PO Box 209090

Plaintiff
M., Becky, By Next Friends Morris Wessel, M.D. & Nancy Orsi

New Haven, CT 06520−9090 203−432−4800 Fax: 203−432−1426 Email: stephen.wizner@yale.edu TERMINATED: 10/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven M. Frederick Wofsey, Rosen, Kweskin & Kuriansky 600 Summer St. Stamford, CT 06901 203−327−2300 Fax: 203−967−9273 Email: sfrederick@wrkk.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Adam J. Blank (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erik S. Pitchal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gena E. Wiltsek (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ira P. Lustbader (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey B. Gracer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica E. Polansky (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonel Newman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcia Robinson Lowry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/08/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
B., Benjamin, By Next Friends Barry Kasdan & Edythe Latney

Martha Stone (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/01/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shelley D. Geballe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/23/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen Wizner (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven M. Frederick (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Adam J. Blank (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erik S. Pitchal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gena E. Wiltsek (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ira P. Lustbader (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey B. Gracer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica E. Polansky (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonel Newman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
B., Jason, By Friends George Pipkin & John Leventhal

Marcia Robinson Lowry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/08/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martha Stone (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/01/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shelley D. Geballe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/23/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen Wizner (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven M. Frederick (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Adam J. Blank (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erik S. Pitchal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gena E. Wiltsek (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ira P. Lustbader (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey B. Gracer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica E. Polansky (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
R., Anna, By Friends Cesar Batalla & Julia Ramos Grenier

Jonel Newman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcia Robinson Lowry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/08/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martha Stone (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/01/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shelley D. Geballe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/23/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen Wizner (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven M. Frederick (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Adam J. Blank (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erik S. Pitchal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gena E. Wiltsek (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ira P. Lustbader (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey B. Gracer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
S., Dominique, By Friends Nancy Humphreys & Margaret Penn

Jessica E. Polansky (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonel Newman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcia Robinson Lowry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/08/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martha Stone (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/01/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shelley D. Geballe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/23/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen Wizner (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven M. Frederick (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Adam J. Blank (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erik S. Pitchal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gena E. Wiltsek (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ira P. Lustbader (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
S., Patrick, By Friends Jerry Reisman & Julia Hamilton

Jeffrey B. Gracer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica E. Polansky (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonel Newman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcia Robinson Lowry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/08/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martha Stone (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/01/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shelley D. Geballe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/23/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen Wizner (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven M. Frederick (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Adam J. Blank (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erik S. Pitchal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gena E. Wiltsek (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
C., Daniel, By Friends Patrick Bologna & Cynthia McKenna

Ira P. Lustbader (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey B. Gracer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica E. Polansky (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonel Newman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcia Robinson Lowry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/08/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martha Stone (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/01/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shelley D. Geballe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/23/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen Wizner (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven M. Frederick (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Adam J. Blank (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erik S. Pitchal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff
J., Florence, By Friends Michael Rohde & Judith Hyde

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gena E. Wiltsek (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ira P. Lustbader (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey B. Gracer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica E. Polansky (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonel Newman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcia Robinson Lowry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/08/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martha Stone (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/01/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shelley D. Geballe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/23/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen Wizner (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven M. Frederick (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Adam J. Blank (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erik S. Pitchal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gena E. Wiltsek (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ira P. Lustbader (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey B. Gracer (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica E. Polansky (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonel Newman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcia Robinson Lowry (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/08/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Martha Stone (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/01/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shelley D. Geballe (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/23/1993 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen Wizner (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Steven M. Frederick (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
M. Jodi Rell Governor, State of CT

represented by Ann H. Rubin Carmody Torrance Sandak & Hennessey, LLP − NH 195 Church St. 18th floor PO Box 1950 New Haven, CT 06509−1950 203−573−1200 Fax: 203−575−2600 Email: arubin@carmodylaw.com TERMINATED: 02/08/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anne D. Peterson Carmody Torrance Sandak & Hennessey, LLP − NH 195 Church St. 18th floor PO Box 1950 New Haven, CT 06509−1950 203−777−5501 Fax: 203−784−3199 Email: apeterson@carmodylaw.com TERMINATED: 02/08/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Arthur E. Webster Attorney General's Office Education, Handicapped & Youth Services MacKenzie Hall, 110 Sherman St. Hartford, CT 06105 566−3696 TERMINATED: 12/21/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Zivyon Attorney General's Office Education, Handicapped & Youth Services MacKenzie Hall, 110 Sherman St. Hartford, CT 06105 566−3696 TERMINATED: 10/31/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David S. Hardy Carmody Torrance Sandak & Hennessey, LLP − NH 195 Church St. 18th floor PO Box 1950 New Haven, CT 06509−1950 203−784−3119 Fax: 203−784−3199 Email: dhardy@carmodylaw.com TERMINATED: 05/06/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James P. Welsh

Director−Legal & Govt Affairs Dept. of Mental Retardation 460 Capitol Ave. Hartford, CT 06106 860−418−6085 Fax: 860−418−6009 Email: james.welsh@po.state.ct.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jane S. Scholl Attorney General's Office Administration Dept. 55 Elm St., Po Box 120 Hartford, CT 06141−0120 860−566−2026 TERMINATED: 11/06/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristine D. Williams 15 Strong Ct Plainville, CT 06062 860−543−1378 TERMINATED: 02/05/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan T. Pearlman Attorney General's Office Child Protection MacKenzie Hall, 110 Sherman St. Room 305 Hartford, CT 06105 860−808−6480 Email: susan.pearlman@po.state.ct.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Rubin Attorney General's Office 55 Elm St., Po Box 120 Hartford, CT 06141−0120 860−808−5316 Fax: 860−808−5387 Email: joseph.rubin@ct.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kimberly P. Massicotte Attorney General's Office − Elm St (Htfd) 55 Elm St. Environmental Dept. 2nd Floor Hartford, CT 06106 860−808−5250 Fax: 860−808−5386 Email: Kimberly.Massicotte@ct.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark F. Kohler State of Connecticut, Office of the Attorney General 55 Elm Street PO Box 120 Hartford, CT 06141 860−808−5177

Defendant
Dept Children & Families Darlene Dunbar, Commissioner Now known as DCF

Fax: 860−808−5347 Email: mark.kohler@ct.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Skold Office of the Attorney General 55 Elm Street Hartford, CT 06106 860−808−5020 Email: michael.skold@ct.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Perry A. Zinn Rowthorn Attorney General's Office 55 Elm St., Po Box 120 Hartford, CT 06106 860−808−5315 Fax: 860−808−5387 Email: Perry.Zinn−Rowthorn@ct.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ann H. Rubin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/08/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Anne D. Peterson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/08/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Arthur E. Webster (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/21/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Benjamin Zivyon (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/31/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James K. Robertson , Jr. Carmody Torrance Sandak & Hennessey, LLP 50 Leavenworth Street P.O. Box 1110 Waterbury, CT 06702 203−575−2636 Fax: 203−575−2600 Email: jrobertson@carmodylaw.com TERMINATED: 11/26/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James P. Welsh (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Notice US Court of Appeals TERMINATED: 05/06/2002
Movant Sheila Matthews Movant Center for Children's Advocacy

Jane S. Scholl (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/06/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Essex Tucker Attorney General's Office 110 Sherman St. Hartford, CT 06105 860−808−5480 Fax: 860−808−5595 Email: john.tucker@ct.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristine D. Williams (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/05/1997 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan T. Pearlman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph Rubin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kimberly P. Massicotte (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mark F. Kohler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Skold (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Perry A. Zinn Rowthorn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by US Court of Appeals Office of the Clerk US Courthouse Foley Square New York, NY 10007 212−857−8500 TERMINATED: 05/06/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by

Interested Party Esq. David J. Sullivan, Jr. TERMINATED: 10/12/2005 Interested Party Ray D. Sirry TERMINATED: 10/12/2005
Interested Party DCF Court Monitor's Office

Martha Stone (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David Joseph Sullivan , Jr. 39 Sherman Court Fairfield, CT 06430 203−254−5713 TERMINATED: 10/12/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ray D. Sirry DCF Court Monitor's Office 300 Church Street, 4th Floor Wallingford, CT 06492 203−741−0458 Fax: 203−741−0462 Email: Ray.Sirry@po.state.ct.us PRO SE
David P. Atkins Pullman & Comley − Bpt 850 Main St., PO Box 7006 Bridgeport, CT 06601−7006 203−330−2103 Fax: 203−576−8888 Email: datkins@pullcom.com TERMINATED: 09/07/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jacob D. Zeldes Zeldes, Needle & Cooper 1000 Lafayette Blvd. P.O. Box 1740 Bridgeport, CT 06601−1740 203−333−9441 Email: jzeldes@znclaw.com TERMINATED: 09/07/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph C. Hutchison Mead Westvaco One High Ridge Park Stamford, CT 06905 203−461−7514 TERMINATED: 09/07/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James T. Shearin Pullman & Comley 850 Main St., Po Box 7006 Bridgeport, CT 06601−7006 203−330−2000 Email: jshearin@pullcom.com LEAD ATTORNEY

Interested Party Raymond Mancuso DCF Court Monitor, Trustee of the Plan
V. Amicus CT Council 4, Am. Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees CT Council 4, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL−CIO TERMINATED: 05/12/1992
Amicus Jeanne Milstein Office of the Child Advocate 999 Asylum Avenue Hartford, CT 06105 860−566−2106

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy G. Ronan Pullman & Comley LLC 281 Tresser Boulevard P.O. Box 3262 Suite 1000 Stamford, CT 06901−3262 203−674−7933 Fax: 203−363−8659 Email: tronan@pullcom.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Raymond Mancuso DCF Court Monitor's Office 300 Church Street, 4th Floor Wallingford, CT 06492 203−741−0458 Fax: 203−741−0462 Email: raymond.mancuso@ct.gov PRO SE
James T. Shearin (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Timothy G. Ronan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Barbara J. Collins The Law Office of Barbara J. Collins 557 Prospect Avenue, 1st Floor Hartford, CT 06105 860−570−4627 Fax: 860−920−5187 Email: barbarajcollins@gmail.com TERMINATED: 05/12/1992 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan R. Creamer Afscme Council 4, Afl−Cio 444 East Main St. New Britain, CT 06051 224−4000 TERMINATED: 05/12/1992 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christina D. Ghio Law Office of Christina D. Ghio, LLC PO Box 186 Cheshire, CT 06410 860−580−9443 Fax: 860−516−1550 Email: christinaghio@ctchildlaw.com

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 12/30/1991
01/27/1992 01/27/1992
02/19/1992 02/21/1992
02/27/1992 02/28/1992
03/10/1992
03/17/1992 05/11/1992 05/11/1992 05/11/1992 05/11/1992 05/11/1992 05/11/1992 05/11/1992 05/11/1992 05/11/1992 05/11/1992 05/11/1992
05/13/1992

# Docket Text
118 RULING on pltfs amended mtn for atty fees:$335,828.73 in attys fees and $122,804.00 in costs to pltfs counsel. SEE FOR FURTHER DETAILS ( signed by Senior Judge Robert C. Zampano ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 01/02/1992)
119 MOTION by O'Neill, Dcys to clarify the Consent Decree (Brief Due 2/18/92 ) (Former Employee) Modified on 02/03/1992 (Entered: 01/27/1992)
120 MEMORANDUM by O'Neill, Dcys in support of [119−1] motion to clarify the Consent Decree by Dcys, O'Neill (Former Employee) Modified on 02/03/1992 (Entered: 01/27/1992)
121 MOTION by S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B. to Extend Time until 3/10/92 to respond to deft mtn to clarify (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/20/1992)
ENDORSEMENT denying without prejudice for failure to co mply with Local Rule 9(b)2, as amended 5/1/90 [121−1] motion to Extend Time until 3/10/92 to respond to deft mtn to clarify ( signed by Clerk ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/24/1992)
122 MOTION by S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B. to Extend Time until 3/10/92 to respond to defts mtn to clarify (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/27/1992)
ENDORSEMENT granting [122−1] motion to Extend Time until 3/10/92 to respond to defts mtn to clarify, Brief Deadline set for 3/10/92 [119−1] motion to clarify the Consent Decree ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/02/1992)
123 MEMORANDUM by S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B. in opposition to [119−1] motion to clarify the Consent Decree by Dcys, O'Neill (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/10/1992)
Motion hearing re: [119−1] motion to clarify the Consent Decree by Dcys, O'Neill set at 10:00 4/2/92 ( AHN) (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/17/1992)
124 MOTION by O'Neill, Dcys to Withdraw [119−1] motion to clarify the Consent Decree by Dcys, O'Neill (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/12/1992)
125 MOTION by O'Neill, Dcys to Modify consent Decree (#90) (Brief Due 6/1/92 ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/12/1992)
126 MOTION by O'Neill, Dcys for Leave to File memorandum of law over 40 pages (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/12/1992)
127 AFFIDAVIT of Lorraine M. Aronson Re (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/12/1992)
128 AFFIDAVIT of Rose Alma Senatore Re (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/12/1992)
129 AFFIDAVIT of Dolores M. Woodward Re (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/12/1992)
130 AFFIDAVIT of Sharon A. Martin Re (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/12/1992)
131 AFFIDAVIT of Jean Watson Re (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/12/1992)
132 AFFIDAVIT of David C. Lass Re (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/12/1992)
133 MOTION by O'Neill, Dcys to Stay of proceedings to enforce the judgment (Brief Due 6/1/92 ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/13/1992)
134 MEMORANDUM by O'Neill, Dcys in support of [133−1] motion to Stay of proceedings to enforce the judgment by Dcys, O'Neill (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/13/1992)
ENDORSEMENT granting [124−1] motion to Withdraw [119−1] motion to clarify the Consent Decree by Dcys, O'Neill ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/14/1992)

05/28/1992
05/29/1992
06/01/1992
06/01/1992 06/01/1992 06/01/1992 06/01/1992 06/01/1992 06/01/1992 06/01/1992 06/01/1992 06/01/1992 06/01/1992 06/01/1992 06/01/1992 06/01/1992 06/01/1992 06/01/1992 06/04/1992 06/09/1992 06/09/1992
06/10/1992

ENDORSEMENT denying [126−1] motion for Leave to File memorandum of law over 40 pages ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/28/1992)
135 Supplemental MEMORANDUM by O'Neill, Dcys in support of [125−1] motion to Modify consent Decree (#90) by Dcys, O'Neill (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/01/1992)
136 MOTION by S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B. to Extend Time for 30 days until after defts comply with pltfs discovery request and depositions are completed to answer defts mtn for stay and motion for modification (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/02/1992)
137 NOTICE of Service of pltfs request for production of documents, fld by S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B. (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/02/1992)
138 NOTICE by S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B. to take deposition of Mary Ann Palmarozza on 7/10/92. (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/02/1992)
139 NOTICE by S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B. to take deposition of Dr. Kenneth Tobin on 7/10/92. (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/02/1992)
140 NOTICE by S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B. to take deposition of Dr. Al Solnit on 7/15/92. (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/02/1992)
141 NOTICE by S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B. to take deposition of Edward Fitch on 7/15/92. (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/02/1992)
142 NOTICE by S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B. to take deposition of David Friez on 7/10/92. (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/02/1992)
143 NOTICE by S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B. to take deposition of Norma Totah on 7/8/92. (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/02/1992)
144 NOTICE by S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B. to take deposition of Ann Quinn on 7/8/92. (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/02/1992)
145 NOTICE by S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B. to take deposition of David Lass on 7/15/92. (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/02/1992)
146 NOTICE by S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B. to take deposition of Jean Watson on 7/6/92. (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/02/1992)
147 NOTICE by S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B. to take deposition of Dr. Mark Simms on 7/8/92. (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/02/1992)
148 NOTICE by S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B. to take deposition of Lorraine M. Aronson on 7/6/92. (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/02/1992)
149 NOTICE by S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B. to take deposition of Delores M. Woodward on 7/6/92. (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/02/1992)
150 NOTICE by S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B. to take deposition of Sharon Martin on 7/17/92. (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/02/1992)
151 NOTICE by S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B. to take deposition of Comm. Rose Alma Senatore on 7/17/92. (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/02/1992)
152 MEMORANDUM by O'Neill, Dcys in support of [125−1] motion to Modify consent Decree (#90) by Dcys, O'Neill (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/04/1992)
153 APPEARANCE of Attorney for O'Neill, Dcys −− Jane S. Scholl (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/10/1992)
154 OBJECTIONS by O'Neill, Dcys to [136−1] motion to Extend Time for 30 days until after defts comply with pltfs discovery request and depositions are completed to answer defts mtn for stay and motion for modification by plaintiff (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/10/1992)
Motion hearing held re: [136−1] motion to Extend Time for 30 days until after defts comply with pltfs discovery request and depositions are completed to answer defts mtn

06/10/1992
06/12/1992
06/25/1992 06/25/1992 06/25/1992 06/30/1992 07/06/1992 09/03/1992 09/03/1992 10/26/1992 11/16/1992 11/25/1992
12/01/1992 03/19/1993 03/19/1993 03/19/1993
05/03/1993 05/03/1993

for stay and motion for modification by plaintiff. Dec. Res. ( AHN) (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/11/1992)
MINUTE Entry: [136−1] motion to Extend Time for 30 days until after defts comply with pltfs discovery request and depositions are completed to answer defts mtn for stay and motion for modification under advisement ( AHN) (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/11/1992)
155 ORDER referring case to Mag. Judge Thomas P. Smith for the purpose of resolving all discovery disputes in connection with the stipulated discovery schedule pertaining to thedefts mtn tomodify the consent decree (signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/15/1992)
156 Witness list by O'Neill, Dcys (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/25/1992)
157 NOTICE of Answers to Request for Production, fld by O'Neill, Dcys (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/25/1992)
158 Answer to Request for Production of Documents by O'Neill, Dcys (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/25/1992)
159 ORDER referring case to Senior Judge Robert C. Zampano for the purpose of to perform the duties delineated in Sec XXV(J)(2) of the Consent Decree... (signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/01/1992)
160 TRANSCRIPT for dates of 1/7/91 (Court reporter: John Brandon) (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/06/1992)
161 STIPULATION and Request for Order by S., S., R., O'Neill, M., J., F., Dcys, C., B., B., CT Counsel 4 (Former Employee) (Entered: 09/03/1992)
162 ORDER approving and adopting [161−1] stipulation. See order for details ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 09/03/1992)
163 ORDER: Pursuant to the consent Decree, David J. sullivan, Jr. is hereby appointed as the sole monitor in this matter (see for details) ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/27/1992)
164 ORDER Re: Fees of the DCYS Court Monitor ( See for Details) ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 11/16/1992)
165 ORDER Re: Necessary Expenditures of the DCYS Court Monitor: pursuant to CONSENT DECREE, The Court finds the retention of a child welfare expert as a consultant to the Court monitor to be a necessary expenditure, and authorizes the Monitor to enter into a contract for these services. ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (PLEASE SEE THE ORDER FOR DETAILS) (Former Employee) (Entered: 11/30/1992)
166 MONITORING ORDER, entered. (See order for details) ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 12/02/1992)
ENDORSEMENT denying without prejudice to renewal [125−1] motion to Modify consent Decree (#90) ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/19/1993)
ENDORSEMENT denying as moot [133−1] motion to Stay of proceedings to enforce the judgment ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/19/1993)
ENDORSEMENT denying as moot [136−1] motion to Extend Time for 30 days until after defts comply with pltfs discovery request and depositions are completed to answer defts mtn for stay and motion for modification ( signed by Judge Alan H. ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/19/1993)
167 STIPULATION Regarding Costs & Attys' Fees by S., S., R., O'Neill, M., J., F., Dcys, C., B., B., CT Counsel 4 (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/03/1993)
168 ORDER granting [167−1] stipulation. It is hereby ORDERED that defts shall pay to pltfs w/i 60 days of the date of this Order, the amt of $75,000 in full satisfaction of

06/15/1993 06/25/1993 06/25/1993 06/25/1993 06/25/1993 06/30/1993 07/06/1993 07/07/1993
07/09/1993 07/12/1993 07/15/1993 07/20/1993 07/23/1993
07/23/1993 08/30/1993 09/09/1993 09/09/1993 09/16/1993 09/30/1993

pltfs' req for costs & attys' fees for work perfomrd during the period from 6/6/91 thru 12/30/92. ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 05/03/1993)
169 Monitor's Certificate of Issue & Recommendations, filed by David J. Sullivan, Jr. (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/15/1993)
170 APPEARANCE of Attorney for O'Neill, Dcys −− James P. Welsh (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/28/1993)
171 OBJECTION To Monitor's Certfification of Issues & Recommendations by O'Neill, Dcys re: [169−1] (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/28/1993)
Motion hearing held re: [125−1] motion to Modify consent Decree (#90) by Dcys, O'Neill ( AHN) (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/15/1993)
MINUTE Entry: The Court accepts the recommendation of the monitor & orders the consent decree be amended.( AHN) (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/15/1993)
172 (Juan F. Semi−Annual) STATUS REPORT, submitted by David J. Sullivan, Esq., Court Monitor (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/02/1993)
173 TRANSCRIPT for dates of June 25, 1993 (Court reporter: Susan E. Catucci) (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/06/1993)
175 NOTICE OF APPEAL of Hearing on District Court's Order modifying the Consent Decree on June 25, 1993 by O'Neill, Dcys . FILING FEE $ 105.00 RECEIPT # 130942 Certified Copy of Appeal and Docket mailed to USCA Appeal record due on 8/16/93 (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/15/1993)
ENDORSEMENT denying for the reasons stated on the record @ the hrg held on 6/25/93 [171−1] objection ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 07/09/1993)
174 MOTION by (pltfs) S., S., R., M., C., B., B. to Extend Time until Sept. 30, 1993 in which to file a Mot for costs & Attys' Fees (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/13/1993)
ENDORSEMENT granting [174−1] motion to Extend Time until Sept. 30, 1993 in which to file a Mot for costs & Attys' Fees ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/15/1993)
176 MOTION by S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B. for Shelley Geballe to Withdraw as Attorney (Brief Due 8/10/93 ) (Torday, B.) (Entered: 07/20/1993)
ENDORSEMENT granting [176−1] motion for Shelley Geballe to Withdraw as Attorney (Terminated attorney Shelley D. Geballe for B., attorney Shelley D. Geballe for B., attorney Shelley D. Geballe for C., attorney Shelley D. Geballe for F., attorney Shelley D. Geballe for J., attorney Shelley D. Geballe for M., attorney Shelley D. Geballe for R. ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/26/1993)
ENDORSEMENT granting [176−1] motion for Shelley Geballe to Withdraw as Attorney (Terminated attorney Shelley D. Geballe for S., attorney Shelley D. Geballe for S. ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/26/1993)
177 MONITOR'S COMPLIANCE REPORT, Filed by David J. Sullivan, Jr., Court Monitor. (Torday, B.) (Entered: 09/01/1993)
178 Monitor's Certification of Issues and Recommendations by David J. Sullivan, Jr., Court Monitor (Former Employee) (Entered: 09/09/1993)
179 Scheduling Order from USCA regarding [175−1] appeal by Dcys, O'Neill USCA Number: 93−7714 Appeal Record due 9/13/93 (Warren, C.) (Entered: 09/14/1993)
INDEX to Record on Appeal mailed to USCA: [175−1] appeal by Dcys, O'Neill. Copies of Index mailed to counsel of record. (Warren, C.) (Entered: 09/16/1993)
180 MOTION by S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B. for Costs , and for Attorney Fees (Brief Due 10/21/93 ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/01/1993)

09/30/1993 09/30/1993 09/30/1993 09/30/1993 10/06/1993 11/09/1993 11/17/1993 11/29/1993 12/02/1993 12/02/1993 01/11/1994 01/11/1994 01/11/1994 03/01/1994 03/30/1994 04/14/1994 04/19/1994 04/25/1994 05/18/1994
05/19/1994

181 AFFIDAVIT of Martha Stone by S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B. Re [180−2] motion for Attorney Fees by plaintiffs (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/01/1993)
182 AFFIDAVIT of Shelley Geballe by S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B. Re [180−1] motion for Costs by plaintiffs, [180−2] motion for Attorney Fees by plaintiffs (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/01/1993)
183 AFFIDAVIT of Jonel Newman by S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B. Re [180−1] motion for Costs by plaintiffs, [180−2] motion for Attorney Fees by plaintiffs (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/01/1993)
184 MEMORANDUM by S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B. in support of [180−1] motion for Costs by plaintiffs, [180−2] motion for Attorney Fees by plaintiffs (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/01/1993)
ACKNOWLEDGED receipt of Record on Appeal at USCA on 09/20/93 received re: [175−1] appeal by Dcys, O'Neill USCA Number: 93−7714 (Warren, C.) (Entered: 10/06/1993)
ENDORSEMENT granting, absent objection [180−1] motion for Costs, granting [180−2] motion for Attorney Fees ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 11/09/1993)
185 ORDER, ent: ORDERED that defts shall pay pltfs w/in 60 days of the date of this Order, the amt of $30,000 in full satisfaction of pltfs' req for costs & attys' fees. ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 11/17/1993)
186 APPEARANCE of Attorney for O'Neill, Dcys −− Kristine D. Ragaglia (Kolesnikoff, D.) (Entered: 11/29/1993)
187 MOTION by O'Neill, Dcys to Stay Case to enforce judgment pending appeal (Brief Due 12/23/93 ) (Kolesnikoff, D.) (Entered: 12/03/1993)
188 MEMORANDUM by O'Neill, Dcys in support of [187−1] motion to Stay Case to enforce judgment pending appeal by Dcys, O'Neill (Kolesnikoff, D.) (Entered: 12/03/1993)
189 Juan F. Semi−annual Status Report filed by court monitor David J. Sullivan, Jr. (Kolesnikoff, D.) (Entered: 01/11/1994)
190 Juan F. Case Review filed by court monitor David J. Sullivan, Jr. (Kolesnikoff, D.) (Entered: 01/11/1994)
191 Training Academy Assessment, November 1993 submitted by court monitor, David J. Sullivan, Jr. (Kolesnikoff, D.) (Entered: 01/11/1994)
192 OBJECTIONs by O'Neill, Dcys re: [190−1] remark, [189−1] remark (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 03/01/1994)
Record on Appeal Mailed to USCA: [175−1] appeal by DCYS, O'Neill (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 03/30/1994)
First Supplement to the Record on Appeal Mailed to USCA: [175−1] appeal by Dcys, O'Neill (Warren, C.) (Entered: 04/14/1994)
ENDORSEMENT denying [187−1] motion to Stay Case to enforce judgment pending appeal as noot in light of 2nd Circuit order dated 12/17/93, granting motion to stay ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 04/19/1994)
ACKNOWLEDGED receipt of Record on Appeal at USCA on 4/15/94 received re: [175−1] appeal by Dcys, O'Neill USCA Number: 93−7714 (Warren, C.) (Entered: 05/13/1994)
193 ORDER : The Monitoring Order dated 12/1/92, is hereby amended by deleting paragraph IX & substituting the following language: (see for details). Pursuant to the foregoing, the Hon. Holly B. Fitzsimmons, U.S. Mag. Judge is hereby appointed. ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 05/18/1994)
194 MOTION by David J. Sullivan Jr. to Amend [166−1] monitoring order (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 05/19/1994)

05/19/1994 05/26/1994 10/27/1994 10/27/1994 11/03/1994 11/07/1994 11/14/1994
11/17/1994 11/17/1994 11/18/1994 11/22/1994 11/28/1994 12/23/1994
01/25/1995
01/31/1995 01/31/1995 02/06/1995 02/17/1995 05/09/1995

ENDORSEMENT granting [194−1] motion to Amend [166−1] monitoring order ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 05/19/1994)
195 OBJECTION by O'Neill, Dcys re: [191−1] remark, [189−1] remark (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 05/26/1994)
196 MOTION by S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B. for Costs & Attorney Fees (Brief Due 11/17/94 ) (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 10/31/1994)
197 MEMORANDUM by S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B. in support of [196−1] motion for Costs & Attorney Fees by plaintiffs (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 10/31/1994)
198 Supplemental AFFIDAVIT of Marcia Robinson Lowry, Esq., o/b/o S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B. Re [196−1] motion for Costs & Attorney Fees by plaintiffs (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 11/04/1994)
199 MOTION by Dcys to Extend Time 10 days after the expiration of all avenues of appeal relative to this Court's 6/25/93 order, to obj to pltfs' motion for costs & attys fee (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 11/07/1994)
200 OBJECTIONS by S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B., to [199−1] motion to Extend Time 10 days after the expiration of all avenues of appeal relative to this Court's 6/25/93 order, to obj to pltfs' motion for costs & attys fee by Dcys (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 11/14/1994)
201 MOTION by O'Neill, Dcys for Protective Order (Brief Due 12/8/94 ) (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 11/18/1994)
202 MEMORANDUM by O'Neill, Dcys in support of [201−1] motion for Protective Order by Dcys, O'Neill (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 11/18/1994)
203 OPPOSITION by S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B. to [201−1] motion for Protective Order by Dcys, O'Neill (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 11/18/1994)
ENDORSEMENT denying as moot [201−1] motion for Protective Order, based on the Monitor's representation that the parties were able to reach an agreement ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 11/22/1994)
Status Conference held ( AHN) (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 12/12/1994)
ENDORSEMENT granting in part, denying in part [199−1] motion to Extend Time 10 days after the expiration of all avenues of appeal relative to this Court's 6/25/93 order, to obj to pltfs' motion for costs & attys fee...Granted insofar as it relates to atty's fees & costs w/ respect to the appeal, but the motion is denied as to that part which relates to monitoring fees & costs ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Lopez, B.) (Entered: 12/27/1994)
204 ORDER granting [196−1] motion for Costs & Attorney Fees. Defendants shall pay to plaintiffs, within forty five days of the date of this order the amount of $32,119.00 in full satisfaction of plaintiffs' motion for costs and attorneys' fees ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 01/25/1995)
205 LETTER dated 1/31/95 Regarding: DCYS request for appointment of Master Social Workers :DOCKETED PER CEC (Depino, F.) (Entered: 02/03/1995)
206 ORDER: regarding Monitoring Order of 12/1/92. SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS. ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 02/03/1995)
207 MANDATE OF USCA (certified copy) dated 1/30/95 affirming [175−1] appeal ( Kearse, Pratt, Ward, J's) (Warren, C.) (Entered: 02/14/1995)
208 FOURTH SEMI−ANNUAL STATUS REPORT by the Juan F. vs. Weicker Monitor David J. Sullivan Jr. (Depino, F.) (Entered: 02/17/1995)
209 AMENDED ORDER; Mr. Sullivan shall be paid $85.00 per hour, not to exceed the sum of $85,000.00 in any fiscal year(July 1 through June 30th) except for the fiscal year commencing July 1,1994 and exceeding June 30th 1995, during which compensation shall not exceed $110,000.00 for the services rendered as the DCF Court Monitor and reimbursed for all reasonable expenses incurred in the performance of his duties as DCF Court Monitor ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Depino, F.) (Entered:

07/05/1995 07/17/1995 07/17/1995 07/19/1995 07/21/1995 08/01/1995 08/01/1995 08/04/1995 08/04/1995 08/04/1995 08/04/1995 08/04/1995 08/04/1995 08/04/1995 08/08/1995
08/10/1995 08/21/1995 08/22/1995 08/29/1995

05/10/1995)
210 Response to [196−1] motion for Costs & Attorney Fees by plaintiffs by O'Neill, Dcys (Depino, F.) (Entered: 07/10/1995)
211 FIFTH SEMI−ANNUAL STATUS REPORT (Juan F. vs. Rowland, Monitor, David J. Sullivan, Jr.) (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/17/1995)
212 ORDER: Re: Monitoring Order of December 1, 1992. (SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS) ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/17/1995)
213 MOTION by S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B. to Extend Time until August 4, 1995 in which to file Motion for Costs and Attorneys' Fees (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/19/1995)
ENDORSEMENT granting [213−1] motion to Extend Time until August 4, 1995 in which to file Motion for Costs and Attorneys' Fees ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 07/24/1995)
214 OBJECTION by O'Neill, Dcys re: [211−1] report (Depino, F.) (Entered: 08/01/1995)
215 MOTION by O'Neill, Dcys for status Conference (Depino, F.) (Entered: 08/01/1995)
216 AMENDED MOTION by S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B. for Attorney Fees , and for Costs and Fees (Brief Due 8/25/95 ) referring to: [196−1] motion for Costs & Attorney Fees by plaintiffs. (Depino, F.) (Entered: 08/04/1995)
217 MEMORANDUM by S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B. in support of [216−1] supplemental amended motion for Attorney Fees by plaintiffs, [216−2] supplemental amended motion for Costs and Fees by plaintiffs (Depino, F.) (Entered: 08/04/1995)
218 AFFIDAVIT of Joseph Garrison in support [216−1] supplemental amended motion for Attorney Fees by plaintiffs, [216−2] supplemental amended motion for Costs and Fees by plaintiffs (Depino, F.) (Entered: 08/04/1995)
219 AFFIDAVIT of Martha Stone in support [216−1] supplemental amended motion for Attorney Fees by plaintiffs, [216−2] supplemental amended motion for Costs and Fees by plaintiffs (Depino, F.) (Entered: 08/04/1995)
221 AFFIDAVIT of David N. Rosen Re [216−1] supplemental amended motion for Attorney Fees by plaintiffs, [216−2] supplemental amended motion for Costs and Fees by plaintiffs (Depino, F.) (Entered: 08/04/1995)
222 AFFIDAVIT of Marcia Robinson Lowry in support [216−1] supplemental amended motion for Attorney Fees by plaintiffs, [216−2] supplemental amended motion for Costs and Fees by plaintiffs (Depino, F.) (Entered: 08/04/1995)
220 AFFIDAVIT of Paul Orth in support [216−1] supplemental amended motion for Attorney Fees by plaintiffs, [216−2] supplemental amended motion for Costs and Fees by plaintiffs (Depino, F.) (Entered: 08/04/1995)
223 ORDER referring: [216−1] supplemental amended motion for Attorney Fees referred to Mag. Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons, [216−2] supplemental amended motion for Costs and Fees referred to Mag. Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons, [215−1] motion for status Conference referred to Mag. Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons (signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 08/08/1995)
ENDORSEMENT granting [215−1] motion for status Conference. Conference is scheduled for 8/22/95 at 10:00a.m.. SO ORDERED. signed by Mag. Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 08/11/1995)
224 MOTION by O'Neill, Dcys to Extend Time to 9/8/95 to reply to plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys Fees (Depino, F.) (Entered: 08/21/1995)
225 Status Conference held ( HBF) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 08/22/1995)
ENDORSEMENT granting [224−1] motion to Extend Time to 9/8/95 to reply to plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys Fees, Brief Deadline set for 9/8/95 [216−1] supplemental amended motion for Attorney Fees, set for 9/8/95 [216−2] supplemental amended motion for Costs and Fees ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Depino, F.)

09/08/1995 09/19/1995
09/21/1995 10/31/1995 11/01/1995
12/11/1995
01/29/1996
02/12/1996 02/12/1996 02/15/1996 02/22/1996 03/11/1996
03/25/1996 03/28/1996 05/22/1996
05/31/1996

(Entered: 08/29/1995)
226 OPPOSITION by O'Neill, Dcys to [216−1] supplemental amended motion for Attorney Fees by plaintiffs, [216−2] supplemental amended motion for Costs and Fees by plaintiffs (Former Employee) (Entered: 09/08/1995)
227 BRIEF IN REPLY by S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B. to response to [216−1] supplemental amended motion for Attorney Fees by plaintiffs, [216−2] supplemental amended motion for Costs and Fees by plaintiffs (Former Employee) (Entered: 09/20/1995)
228 APPEARANCE of Attorney for O'Neill, Dcys −− Kristine Ragaglia (Depino, F.) (Entered: 09/21/1995)
229 MOTION by S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B. for JoNel Newman to Withdraw as Attorney (Former Employee) (Entered: 10/31/1995)
ENDORSEMENT granting [229−1] motion for JoNel Newman to Withdraw as Attorney (Terminated attorney Jonel Newman for B., C., F., J., M., R., S., (signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas) (Former Employee) Modified on 11/16/2000 (Entered: 11/01/1995)
230 ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that paragraph II of the 12/1/92 Monitoring Order entitled Duties and Responsibilities of the DCYS Monitor be amended. SEE DOCUMENT FOR AMENDMENT. ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 12/12/1995)
231 RECOMMENDED Ruling granting [216−1] supplemental amended motion for Attorney Fees Objections due 2/16/96, [216−2] supplemental amended motion for Costs and Fees Objections due 2/16/96 ( signed by Mag. Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 03/11/1996)
232 STATUS REPORT for February 1996 by David J. Sullivan Jr. (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/12/1996)
233 STATUS REPORT for February 1996 by David J. Sullivan Jr. (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/12/1996)
234 OBJECTION to [231−1] recommended ruling of 1/29/96 re: [216−1] supplemental amended motion for Attorney Fees, [216−2] supplemental amended motion for Costs and Fees by O'Neill, Dcys (Depino, F.) (Entered: 03/11/1996)
235 OBJECTION by O'Neill, Dcys re: [233−1] report by David J. Sullivan Jr. (Depino, F.) (Entered: 02/22/1996)
236 Response Memorandum in Opposition by S., S., R., C., B., B. to [234−1] objection by Dcys, O'Neill to [231−1] order of 1/29/96 regarding [216−1] supplemental amended motion for Attorney Fees by plaintiffs, [216−2] supplemental amended motion for Costs and Fees by plaintiffs (Depino, F.) Modified on 03/12/1996 (Entered: 03/11/1996)
Record on Appeal and first Supplement returned from U.S. Court of Appeals Regarding [175−1] appeal by Dcys, O'Neill . Receipt mailed to USCA. (Warren, C.) Modified on 04/15/1996 (Entered: 04/15/1996)
ENDORSEMENT approving and adopting [231−1] recommended ruling, granting [216−1] supplemental amended motion for Attorney Fees ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 03/28/1996)
237 ORDER: The court hereby authorizes Court Monitor David J. Sullivan, Jr., to expend up to 100 additional hours in monitoring services necessary for the remainder of the DCF Court Monitor's Office's fiscal year. ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 05/22/1996)
238 Monitor's Report by David J. Sullivan Jr. on Findings of Noncompliance with the Resource Development Plan and Recommendations EXHIBITS THAT ARE REFERENCED IN REPORT ARE CONTAINED IN A BOX LABELLED "JUAN F EXHIBITS REGARDING 3/21/96 AND 4/3/96 HEARINGS" ON TOP OF THE FILE CABINET IN FILE ROOM (Depino, F.) Modified on 07/12/1996 (Entered:

06/04/1996 06/04/1996 06/06/1996
06/14/1996 06/27/1996 06/27/1996 07/03/1996 07/08/1996 07/08/1996 07/29/1996 08/06/1996 09/27/1996 11/08/1996
11/13/1996 11/13/1996 12/02/1996

06/03/1996)
239 MOTION by O'Neill, Dcys to Continue Hearing scheduled for Friday 6/7/96 regarding compliance with service provision requirements of the consent decree and manuals and the resource development plan (Brief Due 6/25/96 ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 06/05/1996)
240 MEMORANDUM by O'Neill, Dcys in support of [239−1] motion to Continue Hearing scheduled for Friday 6/7/96 regarding compliance with service provision requirements of the consent decree and manuals and the resource development plan (Depino, F.) (Entered: 06/11/1996)
ENDORSEMENT granting [239−1] motion to Continue Hearing scheduled for Friday 6/7/96 regarding compliance with service provision requirements of the consent decree and manuals and the resource development plan The hearing has been rescheduled for Monday, 6/17/96 at 10:00a.m.( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 06/07/1996)
241 OBJECTION by O'Neill, Dcys re: [238−1] support memorandum (Monitor's Report On Findings of Non Compliance With The Resource Development Plan and Recommendations) by David J. Sullivan Jr. (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/14/1996)
242 JOINT MOTION by S., S., R., O'Neill, M., J., F., Dcys, C., B., B. for Attorney Fees in the amount of $119,273.45 , and for Costs (Brief Due 7/18/96 ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 06/27/1996)
ENDORSEMENT granting [242−1] joint motion for Attorney Fees in the amount of $119,273.45, granting [242−2] joint motion for Costs ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 06/27/1996)
243 TRANSCRIPT of Hearing on Master's Report of Non Compliance for date of 6/27/96 (Court reporter: Catucci) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 07/08/1996)
244 DEFENDANTS' Supplemental Offer of Proof (Depino, F.) (Entered: 07/08/1996)
245 MEMORANDUM of Decision approving and adopting [238−1] support memorandum ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 07/10/1996)
246 ORDER, modifying its July 8, 1996 Memorandum of Decision and Order. ADOPTS and RATIFIES the Monitor's revised recommendation contained in Appendix A to this order. The court expects full compliance with the new deadlines set forth therein. ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/29/1996)
247 NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL of [245−1] order, [237−1] order by O'Neill, Dcys FILING FEE $ 105.00 RECEIPT # 146881 Certified Copy of Appeal and Docket mailed to USCA Appeal record due on 9/15/96 (Warren, C.) Modified on 10/07/1996 (Entered: 08/07/1996)
248 Scheduling Order from USCA regarding [247−1] appeal by Dcys, O'Neill USCA Number: 96−7998 (Montgomery, C.) (Entered: 09/30/1996)
249 ORDER: It is hereby ordered that a draft of the Needs Assessment and Resource development plan, to take effect January 1, 1997, be made available to the Plaintiffs and the Monitor by 11/15/96. The final document shall be submitted to the Monitor no later than 11/29/96 ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 11/08/1996)
250 JOINT MOTION by S., S., R., O'Neill, M., J., F., Dcys, C., B., B. to Accept a proposed stipulated agreement regarding a modification to the consent decree and manuals relating to family training and support (Depino, F.) (Entered: 11/13/1996)
ENDORSEMENT granting [250−1] joint motion to Accept a proposed stipulated agreement regarding a modification to the consent decree and manuals relating to family training and support ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 11/13/1996)
251 ACKNOWLEDGED receipt of Index to Record on Appeal at USCA on 11/15/96 received re: [247−1] appeal by Dcys, O'Neill, [175−1] appeal by Dcys, O'Neill USCA Number: 96−7998 (Warren, C.) (Entered: 12/13/1996)

12/19/1996 12/19/1996 12/27/1996 12/27/1996 12/27/1996 12/27/1996 12/27/1996 01/03/1997 01/30/1997 02/05/1997
02/20/1997 04/10/1997 04/30/1997 05/01/1997 05/02/1997 05/19/1997 06/17/1997 07/01/1997 07/03/1997 07/03/1997

252 MOTION by S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B. for Order to show cause , and for Contempt , and for Further Orders (Brief Due 1/9/97 ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 12/19/1996)
253 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE issued Re: Motion for Order to Show Cause to hold Commissioner Rossi in contempt Hearing set for 12/27/96 @ 2p.m. ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 12/19/1996)
254 MEMORANDUM by S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B. in support of [252−1] motion for Order to show cause, [252−2] motion for Contempt, [252−3] motion for Further Orders (Depino, F.) (Entered: 12/27/1996)
255 OBJECTIONS by Dcys to [252−2] motion for Contempt by plaintiffs with alternative request to extension of time for filing of the final report to 1/6/97 PART 1 OF 2 (Depino, F.) (Entered: 12/27/1996)
255 MOTION by Dcys to Extend Time to 1/6/97 to file final report with objection to motion for contempt PART 2 OF 2 (Depino, F.) (Entered: 12/27/1996)
256 AFFIDAVIT of Sharon Martin by Dcys Re [255−1] motion to Extend Time to 1/6/97 to file final report by Dcys, [255−1] objection by Dcys (Depino, F.) (Entered: 12/27/1996)
257 Contempt hearing held Continued until 1/9/97 at 2p.m. unless the matter has been resolved prior to that time( AHN) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 12/31/1996)
258 MANDATE OF USCA (certified copy) dated 12/23/96 withdrawing [247−1] appeal ( George Lange III) (Montgomery, C.) (Entered: 05/19/1997)
259 MOTION by O'Neill, Dcys for Kristine D. Ragaglia to Withdraw as Attorney (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 01/31/1997)
ENDORSEMENT granting [259−1] motion for Kristine D. Ragaglia to Withdraw as Attorney (Terminated attorney Kristine D. Ragaglia for Dcys, attorney Kristine D. Ragaglia for O'Neill ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 02/05/1997)
ENDORSEMENT denying as moot [255−1] motion to Extend Time to 1/6/97 to file final report ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 02/21/1997)
260 ENDORSEMENT RULING denying [252−2] motion for Contempt, denying [252−3] motion for Further Orders ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Depino, F.) (Entered: 04/10/1997)
261 STIPULATION regarding costs and attorneys' fees by S., S., R., O'Neill, M., J., F., Dcys, C., B., B. (Depino, F.) (Entered: 04/30/1997)
ENDORSEMENT approving [261−1] stipulation & order ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) Modified on 05/07/1997 (Entered: 05/06/1997)
262 ORDER defendants shall pay plaintiffs $95,000.00 within 45 days. SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 05/07/1997)
263 ORDER Authorizing Court Monitor David J. Sullivan, Jr. to expend up to 120 additional hours in Monitoring fees for the period 5/18/97 throught 6/30/97. ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 05/20/1997)
264 Acknowledgement of Receipt from Marth Stone of Plaintiff's exhibits 1−17 3/14/90; 2a, 2b 1/7/91 (Former Employee) (Entered: 06/17/1997)
Acknowlegement letter sent 5/21/97 regarding defendant's Exhibits A & B. Acknowledgment not received. Exhibits put in file (Gothers, M.) (Entered: 07/01/1997)
265 Letter MOTION by David J. Sullivan Jr. addition monitoring fees (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 07/11/1997)
ENDORSEMENT granting [265−1] motion addition monitoring fees ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 08/06/1997)

09/26/1997 09/26/1997
11/10/1997 12/12/1997 12/12/1997 12/12/1997
12/18/1997 12/18/1997 02/18/1998 02/18/1998 06/10/1998
07/09/1998 07/22/1998 07/23/1998 09/14/1998 10/13/1998
02/17/1999 02/18/1999 02/18/1999 02/18/1999 02/18/1999 02/18/1999

266 LETTER dated 8/13/97 Regarding: approval of Ms. Sharkey's employment at the state salary level by David J. Sullivan Jr. (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 09/29/1997)
ENDORSEMENT granting [266−1] letter Regarding: approval of Ms. Sharkey's employment at the state salary level ( signed by Mag. Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 09/29/1997)
267 ORDER re: fees of the DCF court monitor. SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 11/12/1997)
268 LETTER dated 12/10/97 Regarding: Court Monitor annual expense by David J. Sullivan Jr. (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 12/12/1997)
ENDORSEMENT [268−1] letter Regarding: Court Monitor annual expense ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 12/12/1997)
269 ORDER granting [268−1] letter Regarding: Court Monitor annual expense. SEE ORDER FOR DETAIL ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 12/12/1997)
270 Letter MOTION by David J. Sullivan Jr. re: annual expense (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 12/22/1997)
ENDORSEMENT granting [270−1] motion re: annual expense ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 12/22/1997)
279 TRANSCRIPT for date of 11/24/98 (Court reporter: post reporting service) (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/22/1999)
280 TRANSCRIPT for date of 12/1/98 (Court reporter: post reporting service) (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/22/1999)
271 ORDER The court hereby authorizes an additional payment of $50,000 to the Court Monitor to pay for the consulting services performed at the Department's request by Dr. Ray Sirry in the reorganization of the Quality Assurance process & by Linc Systems Corporation in the upgrading of the LINK information system. ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 06/10/1998)
272 ORDER re: Consent Decree, SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 07/10/1998)
273 Joint STIPULATION for cost & attorneys' fees by S., S., R., O'Neill, M., J., F., Dcys, C., B., B. (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 07/22/1998)
ENDORSEMENT granting [273−1] stipulation ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 07/24/1998)
274 ORDER re: Consent Decree, SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 09/15/1998)
275 ORDER re: Modifications of Consent Decree & Manual cites. SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) Modified on 10/14/1998 (Entered: 10/14/1998)
283 ORDER Re: Consent Decree & Manuals. SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 02/22/1999)
277 TRANSCRIPT for date of 11/20/98 (Court reporter: post reporting service) (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/22/1999)
278 TRANSCRIPT for date of 11/20/98 (afternoon session) reporter: post reporting service) (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/22/1999)
281 TRANSCRIPT for date of 12/2/98 (Court reporter: post reporting service) (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/22/1999)
282 TRANSCRIPT for date of 12/3/98 (Court reporter: post reporting service) (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/22/1999)
284 Juan F. Court Monitor's Report On Compliance Hearing Regarding Foster Care Services (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 02/22/1999)

02/22/1999 02/24/1999 02/24/1999 02/24/1999 02/24/1999 03/23/1999 03/23/1999
04/16/1999 04/20/1999 04/23/1999 04/27/1999 05/04/1999 05/06/1999 05/13/1999 06/01/1999
06/17/1999 06/21/1999
06/24/1999
07/23/1999 07/23/1999 08/19/1999 08/23/1999

276 TRANSCRIPT for date of 11/18/98 (Court reporter: post reporting service ) (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/22/1999)
285 Confirmation Hearing held ( AHN) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 02/24/1999)
286 OBJECTION by S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B. re: [284−1] remark (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 02/24/1999)
287 OBJECTION by O'Neill, Dcys re: [284−1] remark (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 02/24/1999)
288 APPEARANCE of Attorney for Dcys −− John Essex Tucker (Former Employee) (Entered: 02/24/1999)
289 TRANSCRIPT for date of 2/24/99 (Court reporter: Susan E. Catucci) (Former Employee) (Entered: 03/23/1999)
290 ORDER that defendants shall pay to plaintiffs within 30 days of the date of this order, the amount $17,022.50 in full satisfaction of plaintiffs' request for costs & attorney fees incurred during the period from 4/1/98 & 10/31/98 ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 03/23/1999)
291 MOTION by O'Neill, Dcys for Modification of the consent decree & related DCYS manuals (Brief Due 5/7/99 ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 04/16/1999)
292 Confirmation Hearing held ( AHN) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 04/21/1999)
293 AMENDMENT TO JUAN F. COURT MONITOR'S REPORT of 2/18/99 by David J. Sullivan Jr. (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 04/26/1999)
294 ORDER Re: Court Monitor's Report SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) Modified on 04/28/1999 (Entered: 04/28/1999)
295 TRANSCRIPT for date of 4/20/99 (Court reporter: Susan E. Catucci) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 05/04/1999)
296 STIPULATION regarding Court Monitor's Report by S., S., R., O'Neill, M., J., F., Dcys, C., B., B. (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 05/10/1999)
ENDORSEMENT granting [296−1] stipulation ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 05/13/1999)
ENDORSEMENT granting [291−1] motion for Modification of the consent decree & related DCYS manuals ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 06/03/1999)
297 ORDERS that the Consent Decree & Manual cites be modified. See Order For Details ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 06/21/1999)
298 ORDER Authorizing Court Monitor David J. Sullivan, Jr., to expend up to 75 additional hours in monitoring services ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 06/21/1999)
299 ORDER The Court hereby finds that the Monitors has, pursuant to the authority accorded to him by the Consent Decree of 1/7/91 Section VIII.(B)(4), page 34, modified the social workers caseloads (signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 06/28/1999)
300 JUAN F. Court Monitor's Recommendations on Infant Safe Homes (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/23/1999)
301 JUAN F. Court Monitor's Recommendations on the Reorganization and Restructuring of Foster Care and Adoption Service (Former Employee) (Entered: 07/23/1999)
302 AGREEMENT of DCF & The Plaintiffs on Emergency Diagnostic Assessments for Adolescents Age 13 through 17 (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 08/19/1999)
303 OBJECTION by S., S., R., O'Neill, M., J., F., C., B., B. re: [301−1] report (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 08/23/1999)

09/08/1999 09/08/1999 09/16/1999 09/20/1999
09/21/1999 09/22/1999
10/06/1999 11/16/1999 11/18/1999 12/29/1999 02/02/2000 04/28/2000 05/15/2000 05/17/2000 05/18/2000 05/26/2000
05/30/2000 05/31/2000 06/01/2000 06/02/2000

304 Response by O'Neill, Dcys to [303−1] objection by plaintiffs (Kolesnikoff, D.) (Entered: 09/09/1999)
305 AFFIDAVIT of Sharon Martin by O'Neill, Dcys Re [304−1] response by Dcys, O'Neill (Kolesnikoff, D.) (Entered: 09/09/1999)
308 Motion hearing held re: OBJECTION to 301 Court Monitor's Recommendations ( AHN) Overruled (Gutierrez, Y.) Modified on 09/27/1999 (Entered: 09/27/1999)
306 MOTION by S., S., R., O'Neill, M., J., F., Dcys, C., B., B. to Vacate order [291−1] motion for Modification of the consent decree & related DCYS manuals by Dcys, O'Neill , for Modification of the consent decree & related manuals (Brief Due 10/11/99 ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 09/21/1999)
307 ORDER approving and adopting [301−1] report, approving and adopting [300−1] report ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 09/22/1999)
ENDORSEMENT granting [306−1] motion to Vacate order [291−1] motion for Modification of the consent decree & related DCYS manuals by Dcys, O'Neill, granting [306−2] motion for Modification of the consent decree & related manuals, vacating order re: [291−1] motion for Modification of the consent decree & related DCYS manuals by Dcys, O'Neill ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 09/23/1999)
309 AMENDED STATUS REPORT by David J. Sullivan Jr. (Cody, C.) (Entered: 10/08/1999)
310 STIPULATION & Order Regarding Costs & Attorneys' Fees by S., S., R., O'Neill, M., J., F., Dcys, C., B., B. (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 11/16/1999)
311 ORDER granting [310−1] stipulation ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 11/18/1999)
312 ORDER that the Consent Decree & Manual Cites be modified. SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 01/03/2000)
313 ORDER Re: Court Monitor ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 02/07/2000)
314 ORDER re: Modifications to the Consent Decree ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 05/01/2000)
315 MOTION by Dcys to Extend Time to 5/17/00 to respond to the Monitor's report (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 05/16/2000)
316 OBJECTION by O'Neill, Dcys re: [309−1] report by David J. Sullivan Jr. (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 05/22/2000)
ENDORSEMENT granting [315−1] motion to Extend Time to 5/17/00 to respond to the Monitor's report ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 05/22/2000)
317 ORDERED that effective immediately, D. Ray Sirry shall assume the position of DCF Court Monitor. Further Ordered that effective immediately, David J. Sullivan, Esq. shall assume the position of Senior Consultant for Legal Affairs. See Order For Details ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 05/30/2000)
318 MOTION by Dcys to Withdraw [316−1] objection by Dcys, O'Neill (Cody, C.) (Entered: 05/31/2000)
319 ORDER The court accepts & adopts Agreement between Juan F. v. Rowland Parties Pertaining to Compliance with Caseload Standards 2000−2001( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 06/02/2000)
320 ORDER The court accepts & adopts Agreement Related to the Health Management Issue of Health Screens ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 06/02/2000)
ENDORSEMENT granting [318−1] motion to Withdraw [316−1] objection by Dcys, O'Neill, withdrawing [316−1] objection ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez,

07/24/2000
07/27/2000 09/11/2000 09/15/2000
09/28/2000
09/29/2000 10/12/2000 10/17/2000 10/17/2000
10/18/2000 10/26/2000 10/30/2000
10/30/2000
10/31/2000
10/31/2000 11/01/2000 11/01/2000 11/01/2000 11/06/2000
11/06/2000

Y.) (Entered: 06/02/2000)
321 ORDER defendants to pay plaintiffs $26,000 to Center for Children's Advocacy, Inc. and $24,000 to Children's Rights, Inc. ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Sanders, C.) (Entered: 07/25/2000)
322 ORDER Re: Monitor Payment of $125,000.00 ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 07/27/2000)
323 MOTION by O'Neill, Dcys to Extend Time to 9/29/00 to file a respond to Dr. Sirry's recommendations (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 09/12/2000)
ENDORSEMENT granting [323−1] motion to Extend Time to 9/29/00 to file a respond to Dr. Sirry's recommendations ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Candee, D.) (Entered: 09/18/2000)
ENDORSEMENT granting [328−1] letter Regarding: Transfer of Insurance Funds to Travel Reimbursement Category ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 10/20/2000)
324 OBJECTION to Monitor's Report Dated 8/29/00 by O'Neill, Dcys re: (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 10/03/2000)
325 Monitor's REPORT by D. Ray Sirry (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 10/17/2000)
326 APPEARANCE of Attorney for O'Neill, Dcys −− Ann H. Rubin, James K. Robertson Jr. (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 10/18/2000)
327 MOTION by O'Neill, C. to Remand to Court Monitor Magistrate for an Evidentiary Hearing , for submission of an offer of proof preliminary to an evidentiary hearing before the Court (Brief Due 11/7/00 ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 10/18/2000)
328 LETTER dated 9/01/00 Regarding: Transfer of Insurance Funds to Travel Reimbursement Category (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 10/20/2000)
329 MOTION by O'Neill, Dcys for Benjamin Zivyon to Withdraw as Attorney (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 10/26/2000)
330 MOTION by S., S., R., M., J., F., C. for An Order Adopting the Recommdendations of the Juan F. Court Monitor date 8/29/00 (Brief Due 11/20/00 ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 11/01/2000)
331 MEMORANDUM by S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B. in support of [330−1] motion for An Order Adopting the Recommdendations of the Juan F. Court Monitor date 8/29/00 (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 11/01/2000)
ENDORSEMENT granting [329−1] motion for Benjamin Zivyon to Withdraw as Attorney (Terminated attorney Benjamin Zivyon for Dcys & O'Neill ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 11/01/2000)
332 APPEARANCE of Attorney for Ray D. Sirry −− Jacob D. Zeldes (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 11/02/2000)
333 MOTION by O'Neill for Jane S. Scholl to Withdraw as Attorney (Cody, C.) (Entered: 11/02/2000)
335 APPEARANCE of Attorney for Ray D. Sirry −− Joseph C. Hutchison (Warren, C.) (Entered: 11/08/2000)
336 APPEARANCE of Attorney for Ray D. Sirry −− Jacob D. Zeldes (Warren, C.) (Entered: 11/08/2000)
ENDORSEMENT granting [333−1] motion for Jane S. Scholl to Withdraw as Attorney (Terminated attorney Jane S. Scholl for O'Neill ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 11/06/2000)
334 MEMORANDUM by O'Neill, Dcys in support of [327−1] motion to Remand to Court Monitor Magistrate for an Evidentiary Hearing, [327−2] motion for submission of an offer of proof preliminary to an evidentiary hearing before the Court & MEMORANDUM by O'Neill, Dcys in opposition to [330−1] motion for An Order

11/06/2000
11/21/2000 11/28/2000
12/18/2000 12/18/2000 12/18/2000 12/18/2000 12/21/2000 12/22/2000
01/22/2001 02/01/2001 02/01/2001 02/01/2001 02/07/2001 02/14/2001 03/19/2001 03/27/2001

Adopting the Recommdentions of the Juan F. Court Monitor Date 8/29/00 by plaintiffs (part 1 of 2) (Gutierrez, Y.) Modified on 11/06/2000 (Entered: 11/06/2000)
334 MEMORANDUM by O'Neill, Dcys in support of [327−1] motion to Remand to Court Monitor Magistrate for an Evidentiary Hearing, [327−2] motion for submission of an offer of proof preliminary to an evidentiary hearing before the Court & MEMORANDUM by O'Neill, Dcys in opposition to [330−1] motion for An Order Adopting the Recommdendations of the Juan F. Court Monitor date 8/29/00 by plaintiffs (part 2 of 2) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 11/06/2000)
337 REPLY by S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B. to response to [330−1] motion for An Order Adopting the Recommdendations of the Juan F. Court Monitor date 8/29/00 by plaintiffs (Cody, C.) (Entered: 11/22/2000)
338 ORDER Defendants shall pay to plaintiffs, within 30 days of this order, the amount of $28,000, payable to the Center for Children's Advocacy, Inc. & $60,000 to Children's Rights, Inc., in full satisfaction of plaintiffs' request for costs and attorneys' fees in the above−captioned case incurred during the period of 11/1/99 through 4/30/00 ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 11/28/2000)
339 AGREEMENT among the Juan F. Parties regarding unlicensed or unapproved homes by O'Neill, J., F., Dcys, C., B., B., Ray D. Sirry (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 12/18/2000)
ENDORSEMENT granting [339−1] stipulation ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 12/18/2000)
340 STIPULAITON & ORDER re: Court Monitor ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 12/18/2000)
341 MOTION by O'Neill, Dcys for Arthur E. Webster to Withdraw as Attorney (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 12/18/2000)
ENDORSEMENT granting [341−1] motion for Arthur E. Webster to Withdraw as Attorney (Terminated attorney Arthur E. Webster for Dcys & O'Neill ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 12/21/2000)
342 RULING & ORDER granting [330−1] motion for An Order Adopting the Recommdendations of the Juan F. Court Monitor date 8/29/00, denying [327−1] motion to Remand to Court Monitor for an Evidentiary Hearing, denying [327−2] motion for submission of an offer of proof preliminary to an evidentiary hearing before the Court ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) 9 Page(s) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 12/26/2000)
343 NOTICE OF APPEAL of [342−1] order by O'Neill, Dcys FILING FEE $ 105.00 RECEIPT # N002593 Certified Copy of Appeal and Docket mailed to USCA (Basile, F.) (Entered: 01/23/2001)
344 MOTION by Dcys for Stay of Order (Brief Due 2/22/01 ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 02/02/2001)
345 MEMORANDUM by Dcys in support of [344−1] motion for Stay of Order (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 02/02/2001)
346 AFFIDAVIT of Janice Sanders by Dcys Re [344−1] motion for Stay of Order by Dcys (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 02/02/2001)
347 MEMORANDUM by S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B. in opposition to [344−1] motion for Stay of Order by Dcys (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 02/07/2001)
348 RULING denying [344−1] motion for Stay of Order ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) 3 Page(s) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 02/14/2001)
INDEX to Record on Appeal mailed to USCA: [343−1] appeal by Dcys, William O'Neill (Warren, C.) (Entered: 03/19/2001)
349 ORDER Amendment to Due Dates for Implementation of the Court Monitor's Recommendations to the Court Dated 8/29/00 ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 03/28/2001)

03/27/2001
04/02/2001 04/02/2001
04/18/2001 04/18/2001 04/18/2001 04/19/2001 04/19/2001 05/04/2001
05/07/2001 05/07/2001 05/07/2001 05/07/2001 05/07/2001 05/07/2001 05/07/2001 05/24/2001 05/29/2001 05/29/2001 05/30/2001
06/01/2001 06/01/2001 06/01/2001

350 ORDER Agreement of the Parties for Modification of Quarterly Timeframes for Consent Decree & Quality Assurance Manual ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 03/28/2001)
351 ORDER Re: Consent Decree ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 04/04/2001)
352 ACKNOWLEDGED receipt of Index to Record on Appeal at USCA on 3/29/01 received re: [343−1] appeal by Dcys, William O'Neill USCA Number: 01−7088 (Warren, C.) (Entered: 04/10/2001)
353 STATUS REPORT by Ray D. Sirry (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 04/19/2001)
ENDORSEMENT granting [353−1] report ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 04/19/2001)
354 ORDER Re: paragraph II of the 12/1/92 Monitoring Order ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 04/19/2001)
INDEX to Record on Appeal mailed to USCA: [343−1] appeal by Dcys, William O'Neill (Warren, C.) (Entered: 04/19/2001)
First SUPPLEMENTAL Index to Record on Appeal mailed to USCA re: [343−1] appeal by Dcys, William O'Neill (Warren, C.) (Entered: 04/19/2001)
355 ACKNOWLEDGED receipt of Modified Index to Record on Appeal at USCA on 4/27/01 received re: [343−1] appeal by Dcys, William O'Neill USCA Number: 01−7088 (Ruocco, M.) (Entered: 05/04/2001)
356 ORDER Re: Fees of DCF Court Monitor ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 05/08/2001)
357 Final Report of a Review of the DCF LINK Development Issues; Timeline & Project Plans (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 05/08/2001)
ENDORSEMENT so ordered [357−1] remark ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 05/08/2001)
358 DCF'S Behavioral Health Plan (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 05/08/2001)
ENDORSEMENT so ordered [358−1] remark ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 05/08/2001)
359 Juan F. Court Monitor's Office Review of the Bureau of Quality Management (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 05/08/2001)
ENDORSEMENT so ordered [359−1] remark ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 05/08/2001)
360 ORDER re: Court Monitor's Office permanency planning case review reports ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 05/24/2001)
361 Supplemental MEMORANDUM by William O'Neill, Dcys re: Vistation Compliance Hearing 6/1/01 (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 06/01/2001)
365 MOTION by S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B. to Show Cause , for Contempt , for further Remedial Orders (Brief Due 6/19/01 ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 06/07/2001)
366 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE issued Re: Motion for Contempt & Further Orders Hearing set for 6/7/01 at 9:30 ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 06/07/2001)
362 MOTION by Dcys to Exclude Evidence (Brief Due 6/22/01 ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 06/05/2001)
363 MOTION by Dcys to Exclude Evidence , for the Monitor to Recuse himself (Brief Due 6/22/01 ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 06/05/2001)
364 MOTION by Dcys to Modify Consent Decree (Brief Due 6/22/01 ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 06/05/2001)

06/06/2001
06/06/2001 06/06/2001 06/06/2001 06/06/2001
06/06/2001 06/06/2001
06/06/2001
06/06/2001 06/11/2001 06/21/2001 07/03/2001 07/03/2001 07/05/2001 07/05/2001 07/05/2001 07/05/2001 07/06/2001 07/06/2001 07/09/2001 07/09/2001 07/09/2001

367 MEMORANDUM by S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B. in support of [365−1] motion to Show Cause, [365−2] motion for Contempt, [365−3] motion for further Remedial Orders (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 06/07/2001)
368 MOTION by Dcys for Partial Continuance on Order to Show Cause hearing (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 06/07/2001)
369 MOTION by Dcys to Dismiss (Brief Due 6/27/01 ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 06/07/2001)
370 MEMORANDUM by Dcys in support of [369−1] motion to Dismiss (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 06/07/2001)
371 MEMORANDUM by Dcys in opposition to [365−1] motion to Show Cause by plaintiffs, [365−2] motion for Contempt by plaintiffs (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 06/07/2001)
372 MOTION by Dcys to Modify Consent Decree (Brief Due 6/27/01 ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 06/07/2001)
373 MOTION by Dcys to Quash , for Partial Protective Order Regarding Plaintiff's Subpoena Duces Tecum dated 6/4/01 (Brief Due 6/27/01 ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 06/07/2001)
374 MEMORANDUM by Dcys in support of [373−1] motion to Quash, [373−2] motion for Partial Protective Order Regarding Plaintiff's Subpoena Duces Tecum dated 6/4/01 (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 06/07/2001)
375 Contempt hearing held continued to 6/26/01 at 10:00 ( AHN) Reporter/ECRO: Fazekas (Cody, C.) (Entered: 06/08/2001)
376 ORDER Re: Second Report of the Permanency Planning Case Review ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 06/12/2001)
377 ORDER Re: PARA Plan Report ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 06/22/2001)
378 TRANSCRIPT for date of 6/6/01 (Court reporter: Bowles Reporting Service) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 07/05/2001)
379 TRANSCRIPT for date of 6/6/01 (Court reporter: Bowles Reporting Service) (filed Under Seal) (Gutierrez, Y.) Modified on 07/06/2001 (Entered: 07/05/2001)
380 Modification Agreement re: Health Management Unit Manual (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 07/09/2001)
ENDORSEMENT granting [380−1] remark ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 07/09/2001)
381 Supplemental Report re: Review of the DCF Link Development Issue; Timeline & Project Plans (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 07/09/2001)
ENDORSEMENT granting [381−1] remark ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 07/09/2001)
382 Outline for the monitoring mechanism for the 2001−2003 Behavioral Health Plan (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 07/10/2001)
ENDORSEMENT granting [382−1] remark ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 07/10/2001)
383 MOTION by Dcys to Modify Consent Decree Monitoring Order (Brief Due 7/30/01 ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 07/10/2001)
384 MEMORANDUM by Dcys in support of [383−1] motion to Modify Consent Decree Monitoring Order (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 07/10/2001)
385 MOTION by Dcys to Compel Court Monitor to review the Department's Request for modification of the Consent Decree (Brief Due 7/30/01 ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 07/10/2001)

07/09/2001 07/11/2001 07/16/2001 07/17/2001 07/17/2001 07/23/2001
07/23/2001 07/23/2001 07/23/2001 07/23/2001 08/02/2001 09/13/2001 09/13/2001 09/28/2001 10/10/2001 10/10/2001 10/22/2001 10/22/2001 10/26/2001 10/31/2001

386 MEMORANDUM by Dcys in support of [385−1] motion to Compel Court Monitor to review the Department's Request for modification of the Consent Decree (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 07/10/2001)
387 MEMORANDUM by S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B. in opposition to [369−1] motion to Dismiss by Dcys (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 07/11/2001)
388 ORDER so ordered the Administrative Case Review & Treatment Planning Conferences ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 07/17/2001)
ENDORSEMENT denying [364−1] motion to Modify Consent Decree ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 07/17/2001)
ENDORSEMENT denying [362−1] motion to Exclude Evidence ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 07/17/2001)
ENDORSEMENT denying as moot [373−1] motion to Quash, denying as moot [373−2] motion for Partial Protective Order Regarding Plaintiff's Subpoena Duces Tecum dated 6/4/01 ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 07/23/2001)
ENDORSEMENT denying [385−1] motion to Compel Court Monitor to review the Department's Request for modification of the Consent Decree ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 07/23/2001)
ENDORSEMENT denying [383−1] motion to Modify Consent Decree Monitoring Order ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 07/23/2001)
ENDORSEMENT denying as moot [368−1] motion for Partial Continuance on Order to Show Cause hearing ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 07/23/2001)
ENDORSEMENT denying as moot [369−1] motion to Dismiss ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 07/23/2001)
ENDORSEMENT denying as moot [365−1] motion to Show Cause, denying as moot [365−2] motion for Contempt, denying as moot [365−3] motion for further Remedial Orders ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 08/03/2001)
ENDORSEMENT denying [372−1] motion to Modify Consent Decree ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 09/13/2001)
ENDORSEMENT denying [363−1] motion to Exclude Evidence, denying [363−2] motion for the Monitor to Recuse himself ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 09/13/2001)
389 ORDER re: Consent Decree Sec. VIII.B.3(d) to be modified in accordance with proposed modification ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Candee, D.) (Entered: 10/01/2001)
390 MOTION by S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B. for Attorney Fees , for Costs and Fees (Brief Due 10/31/01 ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 10/11/2001)
391 MEMORANDUM by S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B. in support of [390−1] motion for Attorney Fees, [390−2] motion for Costs and Fees (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 10/11/2001)
392 LETTER dated 10/11/01 Regarding: Review Report On Financial Statement dated 6/30/01 by Ray D. Sirry (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 10/23/2001)
ENDORSEMENT approving [392−1] letter Regarding: Review Report On Financial Statement dated 6/30/01 ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 10/23/2001)
393 MOTION by William O'Neill, Dcys to Extend Time for one week to file Memorandum in Opposition to attorney fees and expenses (Warren, C.) (Entered: 10/26/2001)
ENDORSEMENT granting [393−1] motion to Extend Time for one week to file Memorandum in Opposition to attorney fees and expenses, Brief Deadline set for

11/05/2001 11/09/2001 11/09/2001 11/09/2001 11/09/2001 11/09/2001 11/09/2001 11/09/2001 11/09/2001 11/09/2001 11/09/2001 11/09/2001 11/13/2001 11/13/2001
11/13/2001 11/15/2001 11/15/2001
11/21/2001
12/11/2001

11/6/01 [390−1] motion for Attorney Fees, set for 11/6/01 [390−2] motion for Costs and Fees ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 10/31/2001)
394 MOTION by William O'Neill, Dcys to Extend Time to 11/13/01 to file memorandum in opposition (Corriette, M.) (Entered: 11/07/2001)
395 MOTION by S., S., R., William O'Neill, M., J., F., Dcys, C., B., B., Ray D. Sirry re: Stip 8/30/01, 10/3/01, 10/4/01 (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 11/13/2001)
396 STIPULATION dated 8/30/01 by S., S., R., William O'Neill, M., J., F., Dcys, C., B., B., Ray D. Sirry (Gutierrez, Y.) Modified on 11/13/2001 (Entered: 11/13/2001)
ENDORSEMENT so ordered [396−1] stipulation ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 11/13/2001)
397 STIPULATION dated 10/3/01 by S., S., R., William O'Neill, M., J., F., Dcys, C., B., B., Ray D. Sirry (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 11/13/2001)
ENDORSEMENT so ordered [397−1] stipulation ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 11/13/2001)
398 STIPULATION dated 10/4/01 by S., S., R., William O'Neill, M., J., F., Dcys, C., B., B., Ray D. Sirry (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 11/13/2001)
ENDORSEMENT so ordered [398−1] stipulation ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 11/13/2001)
399 ORDER Re: Consent Decree ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 11/13/2001)
400 TRANSCRIPT for date of 6/1/01 (Court reporter: Post Reporting Service) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 11/13/2001)
401 TRANSCRIPT for date of 7/11/01 (Court reporter: Post Reporting Service) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 11/13/2001)
402 TRANSCRIPT for date of 7/12/01 (Court reporter: Post Reporting Service) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 11/13/2001)
ENDORSEMENT so ordered [395−1] motion re: Stip 8/30/01, 10/3/01, 10/4/01 ( signed by DCF Court Monitor ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 11/13/2001)
ENDORSEMENT granting [394−1] motion to Extend Time to 11/13/01 to file memorandum in opposition, Brief Deadline set for 11/13/01 [390−1] motion for Attorney Fees, set for 11/13/01 [390−2] motion for Costs and Fees ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 11/13/2001)
403 MOTION by William O'Neill, Dcys to Extend Time to 11/20/01 to file memorandum in opposition to motion for interim award of attorneys fees and expenses (Corriette, M.) (Entered: 11/13/2001)
404 MOTION by William O'Neill, Dcys to Extend Time to 12/3/01 to file memorandum in opposition to motion for interim award of attorney's fees and expenses (Corriette, M.) (Entered: 11/15/2001)
ENDORSEMENT granting [403−1] motion to Extend Time to 11/20/01 to file memorandum in opposition to motion for interim award of attorneys fees and expenses, Brief Deadline set for 11/20/01 [390−1] motion for Attorney Fees, set for 11/20/01 [390−2] motion for Costs and Fees ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 11/16/2001)
ENDORSEMENT granting [404−1] motion to Extend Time to 12/3/01 to file memorandum in opposition to motion for interim award of attorney's fees and expenses, Brief Deadline set for 12/3/01 [390−1] motion for Attorney Fees, set for 12/3/01 [390−2] motion for Costs and Fees ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 11/26/2001)
405 STIPULATION regarding Attorneys' Fee & Expenses by S., S., R., William O'Neill, M., J., F., Dcys, C., B., B. (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 12/12/2001)

12/11/2001 12/11/2001 12/20/2001 01/04/2002 01/08/2002
01/11/2002 01/15/2002 01/23/2002 02/01/2002 02/19/2002 02/20/2002 02/20/2002 02/20/2002 04/26/2002 04/30/2002 05/06/2002 05/20/2002 05/20/2002 05/24/2002
05/30/2002 05/30/2002 05/30/2002 05/30/2002 05/31/2002

ENDORSEMENT approving [405−1] stipulation ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 12/12/2001)
406 ORDER Re: Attorneys's Fees & Expenses ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 12/12/2001)
407 STIPULATED AGREEMENT to Modify the Central Office & Regional Office Manual ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 12/21/2001)
408 MOTION by S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B. for Ira P. Lustbader to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 01/08/2002)
ENDORSEMENT [408−1] motion for Ira P. Lustbader to Appear Pro Hac Vice ordered accordingly ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 01/08/2002)
409 Status Conference held (AHN) (Montz, A.) (Entered: 01/14/2002)
410 STIPULATION regarding Consent Decree & Manuals by S., S., R., William O'Neill, M., J., F., Dcys, C., B., B. (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 01/16/2002)
411 TRANSCRIPT for date of 1/11/02 (Court reporter: Bowles Reporting Service) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 01/23/2002)
ENDORSEMENT so ordered [410−1] stipulation ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 02/05/2002)
414 APPEARANCE of Attorney for S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B. −− Ira Lustbader (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 02/22/2002)
412 ORDER Re: Adoption Stipulation ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 02/20/2002)
413 Performance & Outcome Measures, Transition, and Exit Plan (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 02/20/2002)
ENDORSEMENT so ordered [413−1] remark ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 02/20/2002)
415 ORDER re: modification of stipulated agreement (signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas) (Candee, D.) (Entered: 04/30/2002)
416 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Court Monitor D. Ray Sirry (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 06/18/2002)
417 MANDATE OF USCA (certified copy) dated 5/2/02 Voluntary withdrawing [343−1] appeal ( Roseann B. MacKechnie) (Warren, C.) (Entered: 05/09/2002)
418 APPEARANCE of Attorney for William O'Neill −− David S. Hardy (Fazekas, J.) (Entered: 05/21/2002)
419 MOTION by Dcys to Extend Time until 6/4/02 to file motion re Monitor's Ruling (Fazekas, J.) (Entered: 05/22/2002)
ENDORSEMENT granting [419−1] motion to Extend Time until 6/4/02 to file motion re Monitor's Ruling ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Cody, C.) (Entered: 05/28/2002)
420 STATUS REPORT by Ray D. Sirry (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 05/31/2002)
ENDORSEMENT so ordered [420−1] report ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 05/31/2002)
422 ORDER so ordered [421−1] remark ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 06/04/2002)
ENDORSEMENT so ordered [421−1] remark ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 06/04/2002)
421 Modification of Performance & Outcome Measures, Transition & Exit Plan (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 06/04/2002)

06/04/2002 06/04/2002 06/04/2002 06/10/2002
06/12/2002 06/12/2002
06/27/2002
06/27/2002 10/08/2002 11/08/2002 11/08/2002 12/04/2002 04/07/2003 04/07/2003 04/10/2003 04/10/2003 04/10/2003
04/29/2003 04/29/2003 05/05/2003 05/06/2003
07/21/2003

423 MOTION by William O'Neill, Dcys for Costs and Fees (Brief Due 6/25/02 ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 06/05/2002)
424 STIPULATION for Attorneys' Fees & Expenses by S., S., R., William O'Neill, M., J., F., Dcys, C., B., B. (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 06/05/2002)
425 MOTION by Dcys to Extend Time to 6/14/02 to Respond to Ruling on Motion to Modify Monitoring Order (Corriette, M.) (Entered: 06/06/2002)
ENDORSEMENT granting [425−1] motion to Extend Time to 6/14/02 to Respond to Ruling on Motion to Modify Monitoring Order ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 06/11/2002)
ENDORSEMENT granting [423−1] motion for Costs and Fees ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 06/12/2002)
426 ORDER Defendants shall pay plaintiffs the amount of $151,336.26, payable to Children's Rights, Inc. & $52,502.88 to the Center for Children's Advocacy, Inc. in full satisfaction of plaintiffs' claims for attorneys' fees & expenses ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 06/12/2002)
427 ORDER accepting & adopting 6/26/02 Stipulation concerning Link Management Information Systems & Quality (signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas) (Candee, D.) (Entered: 06/27/2002)
ENDORSEMENT so ordered [416−1] report and recommendations ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas) (Candee, D.) (Entered: 06/27/2002)
428 ORDER Re: Case Reviews ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 10/08/2002)
429 Preliminary Case Review held ( AHN) Reporter/ECRO: Judy Fazekas (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 11/08/2002)
430 ORDER re: Monitor's Preliminary Case Review ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 11/08/2002)
431 TRANSCRIPT for date of 11/8/02 (Court reporter: Bowles) (Corriette, M.) (Entered: 12/04/2002)
432 MOTION by William O'Neill, Dcys for Attorneys' Costs and Fees (Brief Due 4/28/03) (Corriette, M.) (Entered: 04/07/2003)
433 JOINT STIPULATION regarding Fees & Expenses by S., S., R., William O'Neill, M., J., F., Dcys, C., B., B. (Corriette, M.) (Entered: 04/07/2003)
ENDORSEMENT granting [432−1] motion for Attorneys' Costs and Fees ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 04/11/2003)
ENDORSEMENT approving [433−1] stipulation ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 04/11/2003)
434 ORDER Defendant shall pay to plaintiffs the amount of $66,446.12 payable to Children's Rights, Inc. & $19,663.96 to the Center for Children's Advocacy Inc. SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 04/11/2003)
435 STATUS REPORT by Ray D. Sirry (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 04/30/2003)
436 ORDER approving [435−1] report ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 04/30/2003)
437 MOTION by William O'Neill for David S. Hardy to Withdraw as Attorney (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 05/05/2003)
ENDORSEMENT granting [437−1] motion for David S. Hardy to Withdraw as Attorney (Terminated attorney David S. Hardy for William O'Neill ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 05/07/2003)
438 MOTION by S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B. for Erik S. Pitchal to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 07/21/2003)

07/21/2003
07/21/2003 07/24/2003 07/29/2003 08/01/2003
08/01/2003 08/20/2003 09/03/2003 09/03/2003 10/07/2003 10/07/2003 10/07/2003 10/29/2003 11/13/2003 11/26/2003 11/26/2003
12/23/2003
12/23/2003
12/31/2003 01/07/2004

439 AFFIDAVIT of Erik S. Pitchal by S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B. Re [438−1] motion for Erik S. Pitchal to Appear Pro Hac Vice by plaintiffs (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 07/21/2003)
ENDORSEMENT [438−1] motion for Erik S. Pitchal to Appear Pro Hac Vice ordered accordingly ( signed by Clerk ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 07/21/2003)
440 MONITOR'S CERTIFICATION OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION REPORT by Ray D. Sirry (Cody, C.) (Entered: 07/29/2003)
441 ORDER approving and adopting [440−1] monitor's findings and recommendations report ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Cody, C.) (Entered: 07/29/2003)
442 ORDER re: An Exit Plan Comprehensive Evaluation of Investigation Services: Exit Plan, Component Five ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 08/01/2003)
443 APPEARANCE of Attorney for S., S., R., M., J., F., C., B., B. −− Erik S. Pitchal (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 08/04/2003)
444 ORDER re: Adoption Case Review ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 08/20/2003)
445 ORDER Re: Comprehensive Case Review ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 09/03/2003)
446 ORDER Re: Errata Sheet ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 09/03/2003)
447 STIPULATION regarding Monitoring Order by S., S., R., William O'Neill, M., J., F., Dcys, C., B., B., Ray D. Sirry (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 10/07/2003)
ENDORSEMENT so ordered [447−1] stipulation ( signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas ) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 10/07/2003)
448 STIPULATION by S., S., R., William O'Neill, M., J., F., Dcys, C., B., B., Ray D. Sirry (SEE STIPULATION FOR DETAILS) (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 10/08/2003)
449 ORDER, allocating $103,756 additional funds to the annual budget . Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 10/29/03. (Warren, C.) (Entered: 11/04/2003)
450 MOTION for James K. Robertson to Withdraw as Attorney by Dcys, Wheaton, Amy, Comm.. (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 11/18/2003)
451 ORDER re: Request for extension until 1/7/04 to submit the final exit plan.. Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 11/26/03. (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 12/03/2003)
452 ENDORSEMENT ORDER granting 450 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney James K. Robertson terminated . Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 11/19/03. (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 12/03/2003)
453 ORDER submitted by D. Ray Sirry Court Monitor re: Melodie Peet to assist in managing the Department of Children and Families, assistance of the Monitor's Office to complete the needs assessment and $120,000. for fiscal year 2003−2004 to perform services. Adopted and So Ordered by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 12/23/03. (Cody, C.) (Entered: 01/05/2004)
454 ORDER re: Final Exit Plan submitted by D. Ray Sirry, Court Monitor and Adopted and So Oredered by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 12/23/03. (Cody, C.) (Entered: 01/05/2004)
455 Revised Monitoring ORDER . Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 12/31/03. (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 01/12/2004)
456 MOTION for Attorney Fees & Expenses by B., Benjamin, By Next Friends Barry Kasdan & Edythe Latney, B., Jason, By Friends George Pipkin & John Leventhal, C., Daniel, By Friends Patrick Bologna & Cynthia McKenna, Dcys, Wheaton, Amy, Comm., F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero, J., Florence, By Friends Michael Rohde & Judith Hyde, M., Becky, By Next Friends Morris Wessel, M.D. & Nancy Orsi, William O'Neill, R., Anna, By Friends Cesar Batalla & Julia

01/07/2004 01/08/2004 01/08/2004 01/28/2004
01/28/2004 01/29/2004
01/29/2004 02/10/2004 02/10/2004 02/10/2004 02/26/2004 04/07/2004
08/31/2004

Ramos Grenier, S., Dominique, By Friends Nancy Humphreys & Margaret Penn, S., Patrick, By Friends Jerry Reisman & Julia Hamilton.Responses due by 1/28/2004 (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 01/13/2004)
457 ORDER Adopted & Approved the Monitor's Exit Plan dated 12/23/03 re 454 Order. Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 1/7/04. (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 01/13/2004)
458 NOTICE of Appearance by David P. Atkins on behalf of Ray D. Sirry (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 01/13/2004)
459 MOTION for Reconsideration re 454 Order by Dcys, Wheaton, Amy, Comm., William O'Neill.Responses due by 1/29/2004 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law in Support)(Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 01/14/2004)
460 NOTICE of Appearance by Erik S. Pitchal on behalf of B., Benjamin, By Next Friends Barry Kasdan & Edythe Latney, B., Jason, By Friends George Pipkin & John Leventhal, C., Daniel, By Friends Patrick Bologna & Cynthia McKenna, F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero, J., Florence, By Friends Michael Rohde & Judith Hyde, M., Becky, By Next Friends Morris Wessel, M.D. & Nancy Orsi, R., Anna, By Friends Cesar Batalla & Julia Ramos Grenier, S., Dominique, By Friends Nancy Humphreys & Margaret Penn, S., Patrick, By Friends Jerry Reisman & Julia Hamilton (Simpson, T.) (Entered: 01/28/2004)
461 ORDER So Ordered 456 Motion for Attorney Fees . Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 1/27/04. (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 01/29/2004)
462 Memorandum in Opposition re 459 MOTION for Reconsideration re 454 Order filed by B., Benjamin, By Next Friends Barry Kasdan & Edythe Latney, B., Jason, By Friends George Pipkin & John Leventhal, C., Daniel, By Friends Patrick Bologna & Cynthia McKenna, F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero, J., Florence, By Friends Michael Rohde & Judith Hyde, M., Becky, By Next Friends Morris Wessel, M.D. & Nancy Orsi, R., Anna, By Friends Cesar Batalla & Julia Ramos Grenier, S., Dominique, By Friends Nancy Humphreys & Margaret Penn, S., Patrick, By Friends Jerry Reisman & Julia Hamilton. (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 01/30/2004)
463 Memorandum in Opposition re 459 MOTION for Reconsideration re 454 Order filed by Ray D. Sirry. (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 02/03/2004)
464 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Alan H. Nevas : Motion Hearing held on 2/10/2004 re 459 MOTION for Reconsideration re 454 Order filed by Dcys, Wheaton, Amy, Comm., William O'Neill. (Court Reporter Baldwin.) (Montz, A.) (Entered: 02/11/2004)
ORAL ORDER denying 459 Motion for Reconsideration. Judge Alan H. Nevas on 2/10/04. (Montz, A.) (Entered: 02/11/2004)
465 RULING AND ORDER denying 459 MOTION for Reconsideration re 454 Order filed by Dcys, Wheaton, Amy, Comm., William O'Neill. Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 2/10/04. (Cody, C.) (Entered: 02/13/2004)
466 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 02/10/04 before Judge Alan H. Nevas. Court Reporter: Bowles Reporting Service. (Baldwin, S.) (Entered: 02/26/2004)
467 ORDER re 454 Order, 448 Stipulation filed by B., Benjamin, By Next Friends Barry Kasdan & Edythe Latney, B., Jason, By Friends George Pipkin & John Leventhal, C., Daniel, By Friends Patrick Bologna & Cynthia McKenna, Dcys, Wheaton, Amy, Comm., F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero, J., Florence, By Friends Michael Rohde & Judith Hyde, M., Becky, By Next Friends Morris Wessel, M.D. & Nancy Orsi, William O'Neill, R., Anna, By Friends Cesar Batalla & Julia Ramos Grenier, S., Dominique, By Friends Nancy Humphreys & Margaret Penn, S., Patrick, By Friends Jerry Reisman & Julia Hamilton, Ray D. Sirry. Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 4/5/04. (Gutierrez, Y.) (Entered: 04/15/2004)
468 ORDER re: Completion of the 5th review of the DCF adoption cohort that began in March of 2002.. Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 8/24/04. (Simpson, T.) (Entered: 09/01/2004)

08/31/2004 09/02/2004 09/02/2004 09/02/2004 10/07/2004 10/07/2004
10/07/2004 12/10/2004 12/17/2004
12/21/2004 02/07/2005
03/04/2005 03/15/2005 04/01/2005 05/03/2005 06/16/2005

469 ORDER re: Report on DCF's Compliance with Caseloads Standards. Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 8/24/04. (Simpson, T.) (Entered: 09/01/2004)
470 ORDER re: Report on DCF's Compliance with Caseloads Standards dated 8/1/04. Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 9/2/04. (Simpson, T.) (Entered: 09/03/2004)
471 ORDER re: Completion of the 5th review of the DCF adoption cohort that began in March of 2002. Dated 8/3/04. Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 9/2/04. (Simpson, T.) (Entered: 09/03/2004)
472 ORDER re: The Monitor's Office exit plan progress report for the April through June 2004 period. ( ATTACHMENT SUBMITTED IN BOUND PAPER FORM ). Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 9/2/04. (Simpson, T.) (Entered: 09/03/2004)
473 ORDER accepting Court Monitor's Report and Ordering it filed. Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 10/7/04. (Simpson, T.) (Entered: 10/13/2004)
474 COURT MONITOR'S REPORT − The Overwhelming Majority of Flex Funds Are Used to Meet Essential Needs of DCF Clients: The Findings of the Juan F. Court Monitor's Office Regarding the Use of Flex Funds Expended April−August 2004 by F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero (Attachments: # 1 Appendix B# 2 Instructions Guidelines)(Simpson, T.) (Entered: 10/13/2004)
475 ORDER Approving Attorneys Fees and Expenses from 10/1/03 to 3/31/04. Defendants to pay $ 57,256.83 to Children's Rights and $ 21,322.75 to the Center for Children's Advocacy. ( SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS ). Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 10/7/04. (Simpson, T.) (Entered: 10/13/2004)
476 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons for Conference on the issue of the representation of the plaintiff class in connection with the Exit Plan and related matters. Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 12/8/04. (Simpson, T.) (Entered: 12/10/2004)
477 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE.ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. Conference on the issue of the representation of the plaintiff class set for 2/24/2005 10:00 AM in Chambers Room 266 − Annex before Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons. (Kolesnikoff, D.) (Entered: 12/17/2004)
478 ORDER Accepting Exit Plan Progress Report. Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 12/16/04. (Attachments: # 1 Exit Plan Quarterly Report June to September 2004)(Simpson, T.) (Entered: 12/21/2004)
479 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE.ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. Conference on the issue of the representation of the plaintiff class RESCHEDULED for 3/4/2005 02:00 PM in Chambers Room 266 − Annex, 915 Lafayette Blvd., Bridgeport, CT before Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons. (Kolesnikoff, D.) (Entered: 02/07/2005)
481 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons : Status Conference held on 3/4/2005. (Kolesnikoff, D.) (Entered: 03/21/2005)
480 ORDER Accepting Exit Plan Progress Report for the October through December 2004 period. ( REPORT IS BOUND DOCUMENT SUBMITTED IN PAPER FORM ). Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 3/11/05. (Simpson, T.) (Entered: 03/17/2005)
482 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons : Settlement Conference held on 4/1/2005. (Kolesnikoff, D.) (Entered: 04/01/2005)
483 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons : Status Conference held on 5/3/2005. (Kolesnikoff, D.) (Entered: 05/03/2005)
484 MOTION for Martha Stone to Withdraw as Attorney by J., Florence, By Friends Michael Rohde & Judith Hyde, F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero, M., Becky, By Next Friends Morris Wessel, M.D. & Nancy Orsi, B., Benjamin, By Next Friends Barry Kasdan & Edythe Latney, B., Jason, By Friends George Pipkin & John Leventhal, R., Anna, By Friends Cesar Batalla & Julia Ramos

06/21/2005 07/01/2005 07/12/2005
07/12/2005
07/25/2005 07/27/2005
08/11/2005 08/12/2005 08/22/2005
08/23/2005 08/23/2005

Grenier, S., Dominique, By Friends Nancy Humphreys & Margaret Penn, S., Patrick, By Friends Jerry Reisman & Julia Hamilton, C., Daniel, By Friends Patrick Bologna & Cynthia McKenna. (Simpson, T.) (Entered: 06/16/2005)
485 ORDER re: Juan F. Exit Plan Quarterly Report. Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 6/21/05. (Attachments: # 1 Juan F. Exit Plan Quarterly Report 1/1/05−3/31/05)(Simpson, T.) (Entered: 06/22/2005)
486 ORDER granting 484 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Martha Stone terminated . Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 7/1/05. (Brooks, L.) (Entered: 07/01/2005)
487 NOTICE of Appearance by Steven M. Frederick on behalf of J., Florence, By Friends Michael Rohde & Judith Hyde, F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero, M., Becky, By Next Friends Morris Wessel, M.D. & Nancy Orsi, B., Benjamin, By Next Friends Barry Kasdan & Edythe Latney, B., Jason, By Friends George Pipkin & John Leventhal, R., Anna, By Friends Cesar Batalla & Julia Ramos Grenier, S., Dominique, By Friends Nancy Humphreys & Margaret Penn, S., Patrick, By Friends Jerry Reisman & Julia Hamilton, C., Daniel, By Friends Patrick Bologna & Cynthia McKenna (Simpson, T.) (Entered: 07/12/2005)
488 MOTION for Approval of Additional Class Counsel by J., Florence, By Friends Michael Rohde & Judith Hyde, F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero, M., Becky, By Next Friends Morris Wessel, M.D. & Nancy Orsi, B., Benjamin, By Next Friends Barry Kasdan & Edythe Latney, B., Jason, By Friends George Pipkin & John Leventhal, R., Anna, By Friends Cesar Batalla & Julia Ramos Grenier, S., Dominique, By Friends Nancy Humphreys & Margaret Penn, S., Patrick, By Friends Jerry Reisman & Julia Hamilton, C., Daniel, By Friends Patrick Bologna & Cynthia McKenna.Responses due by 8/2/2005 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Simpson, T.) (Entered: 07/12/2005)
489 ORDER granting 488 Motion . Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 07/25/05. (Brooks, L.) (Entered: 07/25/2005)
490 ORDER Granting re 488 MOTION for Approval of Additional Class Counsel filed by B., Benjamin, By Next Friends Barry Kasdan & Edythe Latney, B., Jason, By Friends George Pipkin & John Leventhal, C., Daniel, By Friends Patrick Bologna & Cynthia McKenna, F. Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero, J. Florence, By Friends Michael Rohde & Judith Hyde, M. Becky, By Next Friends Morris Wessel, M.D. & Nancy Orsi,, R., Anna, By Friends Cesar Batalla & Julia Ramos Grenier, S. Dominique, By Friends Nancy Humphreys & Margaret Penn, S. Patrick By Friends Jerry Reisman & Julia Hamilton, . Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 7/26/05. (Simpson, T.) (Entered: 08/01/2005)
491 ORDER Pursuant to Stipulation that all applicable and governing orders remain in full force and effect to September 26, 2005 . Signed and So Ordered by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 8/11/2005. (D'Andrea, S.) (Entered: 08/11/2005)
492 MOTION for Order Awarding to the Center for Children's Advocacy, Inc. attorneys' fees and costs for the period 4/1/04 − 6/23/05 by William O'Neill, Dcys, Wheaton, Amy, Comm.. (Simpson, T.) (Entered: 08/12/2005)
493 JOINT MOTION for Fees and Expenses by J., Florence, By Friends Michael Rohde & Judith Hyde, William O'Neill, Dcys, Wheaton, Amy, Comm., F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero, M., Becky, By Next Friends Morris Wessel, M.D. & Nancy Orsi, B., Benjamin, By Next Friends Barry Kasdan & Edythe Latney, B., Jason, By Friends George Pipkin & John Leventhal, R., Anna, By Friends Cesar Batalla & Julia Ramos Grenier, S., Dominique, By Friends Nancy Humphreys & Margaret Penn, S., Patrick, By Friends Jerry Reisman & Julia Hamilton, C., Daniel, By Friends Patrick Bologna & Cynthia McKenna.Responses due by 9/12/2005 (Simpson, T.) (Entered: 08/23/2005)
494 ORDER granting 493 JOINT MOTION for Fees and Expenses . Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 8/15/05. (Simpson, T.) (Entered: 08/23/2005)
495 MOTION for David P. Atkins to Withdraw as Attorney by Ray D. Sirry. (Simpson, T.) (Entered: 08/23/2005)

09/06/2005 09/07/2005 09/22/2005
09/26/2005 10/03/2005
10/12/2005
10/13/2005 11/07/2005
01/13/2006 01/17/2006 02/10/2006 02/28/2006 03/02/2006 03/03/2006 03/10/2006

497 NOTICE of Appearance by James T. Shearin on behalf of DCF Court Monitor's Office (Simpson, T.) (Entered: 09/08/2005)
496 ORDER granting 495 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney David P. Atkins, Joseph C. Hutchinson and Jacob D. Zeldes terminated . Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 9/7/05. (Brooks, L.) (Entered: 09/07/2005)
498 ORDER finding as moot 492 Motion for Order in light of the Court's order 494 granting 493 Joint Motion for Fees and Expenses which authorized an award of attorneys fees and costs for the period April 1, 2004 through June 23, 2005, to the Center for Children's Advocacy. Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 9/22/05. (Brooks, L.) (Entered: 09/22/2005)
499 STIPULATED ORDER that 491 Order pursuant to Stipulation is extended to 10/3/05.. Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 9/26/05. (Cody, C.) (Entered: 09/29/2005)
500 Upon consent of the parties, the Stipulation and Order dated September 26, 2005, [doc. #499] is hereby extended through and including October 11, 2005. All orders in this action in effect as of August 8, 2005, shall remain in full force and effect through and including October 11, 2005, except that all orders are hefeby modified on consent of the parties in the following way only: D. Ray Sirry, as DCF Court Monitor, is replaced by Raymond Mancuso, as Acting Court Monitor. The Acting Court Monitor will have the same authority during this extended period as those granted by the terms of all orders to former DCF Court Monitor Sirry. SO ORDERED. . Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 10/3/2005. (Brooks, L.) (Entered: 10/03/2005)
501 REVISED MONITORING ORDER superseding order dated 12/31/03. The court appoints U.S. Magistrate Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons as Special Master, Raymond Mancuso as DCF Court Monitor, and a Technical Advisory Committee will be formed. Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 10/12/05. (Simpson, T.) Modified on 10/13/2005 (Simpson, T.). (Entered: 10/12/2005)
Docket Entry Correction re 501 Order, MODIFIED TO DELETE INCORRECT TEXT (Simpson, T.) (Entered: 10/13/2005)
502 ORDER accepting the Exit Plan Outcome Measures 2005 Annual Progress Report ( EX. 1 SUBMITTED IN PAPER FORM ). Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 11/7/05. (Attachments: # 1 Exit plan outcome measures 2005 annual progress report part 1# 2 Exit plan outcome measures 2005 annual progress report part 2# 3 Exhibit 2# 4 Exhibit 3 part 1# 5 Exhibit 3 part 2# 6 Exhibit 3 part 3# 7 Exhibit 3 part 4# 8 Exhibit 3 part 5)(Simpson, T.) (Entered: 11/08/2005)
503 ORDER Accepting the Exit Plan Quarterly Report from 7/1/05 − 9/30/05. Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 1/12/06. (Attachments: # 1 Table of Contents & Highlights# 2 Exit Plan)(Simpson, T.) (Entered: 01/13/2006)
504 ORDER Appointing Raymond Mancuso as trustee of the plan effective as of the effective date of the resignation of said position by D. Ray Sirry, Ph.D.. Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 1/13/06. (Simpson, T.) (Entered: 01/18/2006)
506 MOTION for Approval of Budget by Raymond Mancuso. (Sanders, C.) (Entered: 03/10/2006)
505 OBJECTION re: 506 MOTION for approval of budget of the office of the Juan F. court monitor filed by M. Jodi Rell, Darlene Dunbar. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−3)(Simpson, T.) Modified on 3/10/2006 (Sanders, C.). (Entered: 03/01/2006)
Docket Entry Correction: M. Jodi Rell, Governor of the State of CT substituted for O'Neill and Dept of Children and Families, Darlene Dunbar Commissioner substituted for DCYS. (Cody, C.) (Entered: 03/02/2006)
508 REPLY Memorandum to 506 MOTION for Approval of Budget filed by DCF Court Monitor's Office. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2)(Sanders, C.) (Entered: 03/10/2006)
507 Docket Entry Correction....Modified by linking doc #506 re 505 Objection (Sanders, C.) (Entered: 03/10/2006)

03/13/2006 03/13/2006 03/13/2006 03/13/2006 03/13/2006 03/17/2006
03/29/2006 05/18/2006
06/08/2006 06/12/2006 06/14/2006 06/15/2006 07/10/2006 07/10/2006
07/10/2006 07/12/2006 07/12/2006

509 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Alan H. Nevas : Motion Hearing held on 3/13/2006 re 506 MOTION for Approval of Budget filed by Raymond Mancuso,. Total Time: 1 hours(Court Reporter S. Baldwin.) (Sanders, C.) (Entered: 03/13/2006)
Motions Taken Under Advisement: 506 MOTION for Approval of Budget (Sanders, C.) (Entered: 03/13/2006)
510 ORDER granting 506 Motion for Approval of Budget . Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 3/13/2006. (Sanders, C.) (Entered: 03/13/2006)
Set Hearings: Status Conference set for 4/13/2006 10:00 AM in Courtroom Three−Annex, 915 Lafayette Blvd., Bridgeport, CT before Judge Alan H. Nevas. (Sanders, C.) (Entered: 03/13/2006)
511 NOTICE Of Filing Substituted Corrected Budget by DCF Court Monitor's Office (Sanders, C.) (Entered: 03/13/2006)
512 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE.ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. Hearing on Budget set for 4/13/2006 10:00 AM in Courtroom Three−Annex, 915 Lafayette Blvd., Bridgeport, CT before Judge Alan H. Nevas. (Montz, A.) (Entered: 03/17/2006)
513 ORDER Accepting the Exit Plan Progress Report for the 10/1/05−12/31/05 period. Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 3/24/06. (Attachments: # 1 Exit Plan − Quarterly Report# 2 Exit Plan − Summary Report)(Simpson, T.) (Entered: 03/29/2006)
514 STIPULATED ORDER granting attorneys' fees & expenses in this matter for the 22−month period from 4/1/04 to 1/31/06 in the amount of $230,522.65 in fees and $7,210.88 in out−of pocket expenses. Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 5/17/06. (Simpson, T.) (Entered: 05/19/2006)
515 ORDER Accepting the Exit Plan Quarterly Report 1/1/06−3/30/06. Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 6/8/06. (Attachments: # 1 Monitors quarterly exit plan report# 2 Status of work# 3 Quarterly table)(Simpson, T.) (Entered: 06/09/2006)
516 MOTION for Order for Approval of Budget by Raymond Mancuso. (Sanders, C.) (Entered: 06/12/2006)
517 MOTION for Approval of Budget by Raymond Mancuso.Responses due by 7/5/2006 (Simpson, T.) (Entered: 06/14/2006)
518 ORDER granting 516 Motion for Order, granting 517 Motion for Approval of Budget . Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 06/15/2006. (Brooks, L.) (Entered: 06/15/2006)
519 STIPULATED ORDER granting plaintiffs' application. . Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 7/6/06. (Simpson, T.) (Entered: 07/10/2006)
520 STIPULATED Modification to the revised exit plan of July 1,2004 (EXHIBITS A−G SUBMITTED IN PAPER FORM) by J., Florence, By Friends Michael Rohde & Judith Hyde, M. Jodi Rell, Dept Children & Families, F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero, M., Becky, By Next Friends Morris Wessel, M.D. & Nancy Orsi, B., Benjamin, By Next Friends Barry Kasdan & Edythe Latney, B., Jason, By Friends George Pipkin & John Leventhal, R., Anna, By Friends Cesar Batalla & Julia Ramos Grenier, S., Dominique, By Friends Nancy Humphreys & Margaret Penn, S., Patrick, By Friends Jerry Reisman & Julia Hamilton, C., Daniel, By Friends Patrick Bologna & Cynthia McKenna (Attachments: # 1 Ntc of manual filing)(Simpson, T.) (Entered: 07/10/2006)
521 MOTION for Approval of Revised Budget by Raymond Mancuso.Responses due by 7/31/2006 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Office Budget 7/1/06−6/30/07)(Simpson, T.) (Entered: 07/10/2006)
522 ORDER granting 521 Motion for Approval of Revised Budget . Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 07/12/2006. (Brooks, L.) (Entered: 07/12/2006)
523 ORDER granting re 520 STIPULATED Modification to the revised exit plan of July 1,2004 filed by B., Benjamin, By Next Friends Barry Kasdan & Edythe Latney, B., Jason, By Friends George Pipkin & John Leventhal, C., Daniel, By Friends Patrick

09/11/2006 11/30/2006 12/01/2006
12/08/2006
01/04/2007
01/05/2007 01/17/2007 01/18/2007 01/18/2007
04/04/2007

Bologna & Cynthia McKenna, F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero, J., Florence, By Friends Michael Rohde & Judith Hyde, M., Becky, By Next Friends Morris Wessel, M.D. & Nancy Orsi, R., Anna, By Friends Cesar Batalla & Julia Ramos Grenier, S., Dominique, By Friends Nancy Humphreys & Margaret Penn, S., Patrick, By Friends Jerry Reisman & Julia Hamilton, M. Jodi Rell,Dept Children & Families, . Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 7/11/06. (Simpson, T.) (Entered: 07/12/2006)
524 ORDER Accepting the Exit Plan Quarterly Report April 1,2006−June 30,2006. Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 9/11/06. (Attachments: # 1 2nd Quarter 2006 Monitors Report# 2 Appendix 1# 3 Appendix 2)(Simpson, T.) (Entered: 09/13/2006)
525 ORDER Accepting the Exit Plan Quarterly Report July 1,2006−September 30,2006.. Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 11/30/06. (Attachments: # 1 Court Monitor's Quarterly Report# 2 Appendix 1# 3 Appendix 2)(Simpson, T.) (Entered: 12/05/2006)
526 STIPULATION by J., Florence, By Friends Michael Rohde & Judith Hyde, M. Jodi Rell, Dept Children & Families, F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero, M., Becky, By Next Friends Morris Wessel, M.D. & Nancy Orsi, B., Benjamin, By Next Friends Barry Kasdan & Edythe Latney, B., Jason, By Friends George Pipkin & John Leventhal, R., Anna, By Friends Cesar Batalla & Julia Ramos Grenier, S., Dominique, By Friends Nancy Humphreys & Margaret Penn, S., Patrick, By Friends Jerry Reisman & Julia Hamilton, C., Daniel, By Friends Patrick Bologna & Cynthia McKenna. (Simpson, T.) (Entered: 12/06/2006)
527 ORDER granting 526 Stipulation,, filed by C., Daniel, By Friends Patrick Bologna & Cynthia McKenna, M., Becky, By Next Friends Morris Wessel, M.D. & Nancy Orsi, F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero, B., Benjamin, By Next Friends Barry Kasdan & Edythe Latney, M. Jodi Rell, J., Florence, By Friends Michael Rohde & Judith Hyde, S., Patrick, By Friends Jerry Reisman & Julia Hamilton, Dept Children & Families, B., Jason, By Friends George Pipkin & John Leventhal, R., Anna, By Friends Cesar Batalla & Julia Ramos Grenier, S., Dominique, By Friends Nancy Humphreys & Margaret Penn. Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 12/7/06. (Simpson, T.) (Entered: 12/12/2006)
528 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Attorney Jessica Polansky. Filing Fee $25.00. Receipt Number B013451. by J., Florence, By Friends Michael Rohde & Judith Hyde, F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero, M., Becky, By Next Friends Morris Wessel, M.D. & Nancy Orsi, B., Benjamin, By Next Friends Barry Kasdan & Edythe Latney, B., Jason, By Friends George Pipkin & John Leventhal, R., Anna, By Friends Cesar Batalla & Julia Ramos Grenier, S., Dominique, By Friends Nancy Humphreys & Margaret Penn, S., Patrick, By Friends Jerry Reisman & Julia Hamilton, C., Daniel, By Friends Patrick Bologna & Cynthia McKenna. (Simpson, T.) (Entered: 01/05/2007)
529 ORDER granting 528 Motion for Attorney Jessica Polansky to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Clerk on 1/5/07. (Simpson, T.) (Entered: 01/05/2007)
530 MOTION for Approval of Revised Budget by Raymond Mancuso.Responses due by 2/7/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Simpson, T.) (Entered: 01/17/2007)
531 ORDER granting 530 Motion for Approval of Revised Budget. Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 01/18/2007. (Brooks, L.) (Entered: 01/18/2007)
532 NOTICE of Appearance by Jessica E. Polansky on behalf of J., Florence, By Friends Michael Rohde & Judith Hyde, F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero, M., Becky, By Next Friends Morris Wessel, M.D. & Nancy Orsi, B., Benjamin, By Next Friends Barry Kasdan & Edythe Latney, B., Jason, By Friends George Pipkin & John Leventhal, R., Anna, By Friends Cesar Batalla & Julia Ramos Grenier, S., Dominique, By Friends Nancy Humphreys & Margaret Penn, S., Patrick, By Friends Jerry Reisman & Julia Hamilton, C., Daniel, By Friends Patrick Bologna & Cynthia McKenna (Simpson, T.) (Entered: 01/23/2007)
533 ORDER Accepting the Exit Plan Quarterly Report October 1, 2006 − December 31, 2006. Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 4/3/07. (Simpson, T.) (Entered: 04/05/2007)

06/04/2007 06/05/2007 06/22/2007 10/01/2007 10/01/2007 10/01/2007 10/01/2007
10/01/2007
10/30/2007
10/30/2007 10/30/2007
10/30/2007

534 MOTION for Approval of Budget by Raymond Mancuso.Responses due by 6/25/2007 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Budget)(Simpson, T.) (Entered: 06/04/2007)
535 ORDER granting 534 Motion For Approval of Budget. The DCF Court Monitor's Office Budget for July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008 is hereby APPROVED. Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 06/05/2007. (Brooks, L.) (Entered: 06/05/2007)
536 Juan F. v. Rell Exit Plan Quarterly Report January 1,2007 − March 31,2007 by DCF Court Monitor's Office (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 1# 2 Appendix 2)(Simpson, T.) (Entered: 06/22/2007)
537 ORDER accepting the Exit Plan Quarterly Report April 1,2007 through June 30,2007. Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 10/1/07. (Attachments: # 1 Exit Plan Quarterly Report)(Simpson, T.) (Entered: 10/02/2007)
538 ORDER accepting the 2006 Comprehensive Targeted Review. Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 10/1/07. (Attachments: # 1 Comprehensive Targeted Review)(Simpson, T.) (Entered: 10/02/2007)
539 ORDER accepting the 2006 Comprehensive Targeted Review Executive Summary. Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 10/1/07. (Attachments: # 1 Comprehensive Targeted Review Executive Summary)(Simpson, T.) (Entered: 10/02/2007)
540 STIPULATION for Approval of attorneys' fees and expenses in this matter for the period from 9/1/06 to 5/31/07 by J., Florence, By Friends Michael Rohde & Judith Hyde, M. Jodi Rell, Dept Children & Families, F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero, M., Becky, By Next Friends Morris Wessel, M.D. & Nancy Orsi, B., Benjamin, By Next Friends Barry Kasdan & Edythe Latney, B., Jason, By Friends George Pipkin & John Leventhal, R., Anna, By Friends Cesar Batalla & Julia Ramos Grenier, S., Dominique, By Friends Nancy Humphreys & Margaret Penn, S., Patrick, By Friends Jerry Reisman & Julia Hamilton, C., Daniel, By Friends Patrick Bologna & Cynthia McKenna. (Simpson, T.) (Entered: 10/02/2007)
541 ORDER granting re 540 Stipulation, filed by C., Daniel, By Friends Patrick Bologna & Cynthia McKenna, M., Becky, By Next Friends Morris Wessel, M.D. & Nancy Orsi, F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero, B., Benjamin, By Next Friends Barry Kasdan & Edythe Latney, M. Jodi Rell, J., Florence, By Friends Michael Rohde & Judith Hyde, S., Patrick, By Friends Jerry Reisman & Julia Hamilton, Dept Children & Families, B., Jason, By Friends George Pipkin & John Leventhal, R., Anna, By Friends Cesar Batalla & Julia Ramos Grenier, S., Dominique, By Friends Nancy Humphreys & Margaret Penn. Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 10/1/07. (Simpson, T.) (Entered: 10/02/2007)
542 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Attorney Gena E. Wiltsek. Filing Fee $25.00. Receipt Number B014993. by J., Florence, By Friends Michael Rohde & Judith Hyde, F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero, M., Becky, By Next Friends Morris Wessel, M.D. & Nancy Orsi, B., Benjamin, By Next Friends Barry Kasdan & Edythe Latney, B., Jason, By Friends George Pipkin & John Leventhal, R., Anna, By Friends Cesar Batalla & Julia Ramos Grenier, S., Dominique, By Friends Nancy Humphreys & Margaret Penn, S., Patrick, By Friends Jerry Reisman & Julia Hamilton, C., Daniel, By Friends Patrick Bologna & Cynthia McKenna. (Simpson, T.) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
543 ORDER granting 542 Motion for Attorney Gena E. Wiltsek to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Clerk on 10/30/07. (Simpson, T.) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
544 MOTION for Jessica E. Polansky to Withdraw as Attorney by J., Florence, By Friends Michael Rohde & Judith Hyde, F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero, M., Becky, By Next Friends Morris Wessel, M.D. & Nancy Orsi, B., Benjamin, By Next Friends Barry Kasdan & Edythe Latney, B., Jason, By Friends George Pipkin & John Leventhal, R., Anna, By Friends Cesar Batalla & Julia Ramos Grenier, S., Dominique, By Friends Nancy Humphreys & Margaret Penn, S., Patrick, By Friends Jerry Reisman & Julia Hamilton, C., Daniel, By Friends Patrick Bologna & Cynthia McKenna. (Simpson, T.) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
545 MOTION for Erik S. Pitchal to Withdraw as Attorney by J., Florence, By Friends Michael Rohde & Judith Hyde, F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero, M., Becky, By Next Friends Morris Wessel, M.D. & Nancy Orsi, B.,

10/30/2007
10/30/2007
10/31/2007 10/31/2007 10/31/2007 10/31/2007 12/26/2007 03/24/2008 04/02/2008 05/05/2008 05/21/2008 05/21/2008

Benjamin, By Next Friends Barry Kasdan & Edythe Latney, B., Jason, By Friends George Pipkin & John Leventhal, R., Anna, By Friends Cesar Batalla & Julia Ramos Grenier, S., Dominique, By Friends Nancy Humphreys & Margaret Penn, S., Patrick, By Friends Jerry Reisman & Julia Hamilton, C., Daniel, By Friends Patrick Bologna & Cynthia McKenna. (Simpson, T.) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
546 MOTION for Stephen Wizner to Withdraw as Attorney by J., Florence, By Friends Michael Rohde & Judith Hyde, F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero, M., Becky, By Next Friends Morris Wessel, M.D. & Nancy Orsi, B., Benjamin, By Next Friends Barry Kasdan & Edythe Latney, B., Jason, By Friends George Pipkin & John Leventhal, R., Anna, By Friends Cesar Batalla & Julia Ramos Grenier, S., Dominique, By Friends Nancy Humphreys & Margaret Penn, S., Patrick, By Friends Jerry Reisman & Julia Hamilton, C., Daniel, By Friends Patrick Bologna & Cynthia McKenna. (Simpson, T.) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
547 MOTION for Jeffrey B. Gracer to Withdraw as Attorney by J., Florence, By Friends Michael Rohde & Judith Hyde, F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero, M., Becky, By Next Friends Morris Wessel, M.D. & Nancy Orsi, B., Benjamin, By Next Friends Barry Kasdan & Edythe Latney, B., Jason, By Friends George Pipkin & John Leventhal, R., Anna, By Friends Cesar Batalla & Julia Ramos Grenier, S., Dominique, By Friends Nancy Humphreys & Margaret Penn, S., Patrick, By Friends Jerry Reisman & Julia Hamilton, C., Daniel, By Friends Patrick Bologna & Cynthia McKenna. (Simpson, T.) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
548 ORDER granting 544 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Jessica E. Polansky terminated. Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 10/31/2007. (Brooks, L.) (Entered: 10/31/2007)
549 ORDER granting 545 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Erik S. Pitchal terminated. Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 10/31/2007. (Brooks, L.) (Entered: 10/31/2007)
550 ORDER granting 546 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Stephen Wizner terminated. Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 10/31/2007. (Brooks, L.) (Entered: 10/31/2007)
551 ORDER granting 547 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Jeffrey B. Gracer terminated. Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 10/31/2007. (Brooks, L.) (Entered: 10/31/2007)
552 ORDER approving the Revised Exit Plan Quarterly Report for the period of July 1, 2007 through September 30, 2007. Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 12/21/07. (Attachments: # 1 Exit Plan Quarterly Report July 1, 2007−September 30, 2007)(Simpson, T.) (Entered: 01/02/2008)
553 ORDER accepting the 2007−2008 Temporary Overstay Review Report. Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 3/20/08. (Attachments: # 1 2007−2008 Temporary Overstay Review)(Simpson, T.) (Entered: 03/26/2008)
554 ORDER approving the Revised Exit Plan Quarterly Report for the period of October 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007. Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 4/1/08. (Attachments: # 1 Exit Plan Quarterly Report October 1, 2007 − December 31, 2007)(Simpson, T.) (Entered: 04/02/2008)
555 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE.ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. Status Conference set for 5/21/2008 AT 2:00 PM in Chambers Room 240 − Annex, 915 Lafayette Blvd., Bridgeport, CT before Judge Alan H. Nevas (Montz, A.) (Entered: 05/05/2008)
556 MOTION for Order for Approval of Budget by Raymond Mancuso. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Budget)(Sanders, C.) (Entered: 05/21/2008)
557 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Alan H. Nevas: Status Conference held on 5/21/2008. Total Time: 2 hours and 5 minutes (Montz, A.) (Entered: 05/22/2008)

05/21/2008 05/22/2008 06/05/2008 06/19/2008 07/17/2008
07/17/2008
09/25/2008 11/19/2008 11/19/2008 11/20/2008 11/21/2008 12/16/2008 01/05/2009 01/15/2009

559 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Alan H. Nevas: Status Conference held on 5/21/2008. Total Time: 2 hours and 5 minutes (Jaiman, R.) (Entered: 05/23/2008)
558 ORDER granting 556 Motion for Order Approving Budget. Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 05/22/2008. (Brooks, L.) (Entered: 05/22/2008)
560 STIPULATED ORDER granting plaintiffs' application. Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 6/4/08. (Simpson, T.) (Entered: 06/05/2008)
561 ORDER approving the Revised Exit Plan Quarterly Report for the period of January 1, 2008 through March 31, 2008. Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 6/19/08. (Attachments: # 1 Exit Plan Quarterly Report January 1, 2008 − March 31, 2008)(Simpson, T.) (Entered: 06/23/2008)
562 STIPULATION Regarding Outcome Measures 3 and 15 by J., Florence, By Friends Michael Rohde & Judith Hyde, M. Jodi Rell, Dept Children & Families, DCF Court Monitor's Office, F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero, M., Becky, By Next Friends Morris Wessel, M.D. & Nancy Orsi, B., Benjamin, By Next Friends Barry Kasdan & Edythe Latney, B., Jason, By Friends George Pipkin & John Leventhal, R., Anna, By Friends Cesar Batalla & Julia Ramos Grenier, S., Dominique, By Friends Nancy Humphreys & Margaret Penn, S., Patrick, By Friends Jerry Reisman & Julia Hamilton, C., Daniel, By Friends Patrick Bologna & Cynthia McKenna. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Simpson, T.) (Entered: 07/17/2008)
563 ORDER approving re 562 Stipulation Regarding Outcome Measures 3 and 15 filed by C., Daniel, By Friends Patrick Bologna & Cynthia McKenna, M., Becky, By Next Friends Morris Wessel, M.D. & Nancy Orsi, F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero, B., Benjamin, By Next Friends Barry Kasdan & Edythe Latney, M. Jodi Rell, J., Florence, By Friends Michael Rohde & Judith Hyde, S., Patrick, By Friends Jerry Reisman & Julia Hamilton, Dept Children & Families, DCF Court Monitor's Office, B., Jason, By Friends George Pipkin & John Leventhal, R., Anna, By Friends Cesar Batalla & Julia Ramos Grenier, S., Dominique, By Friends Nancy Humphreys & Margaret Penn. Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 7/16/08. (Simpson, T.) (Entered: 07/17/2008)
564 ORDER approving the Revised Exit Plan Quarterly Report for the period of April 1, 2008 through June 30, 2008.. Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 9/25/08. (Attachments: # 1 Quarterly Report 4/1/08−6/30/08, # 2 Family Foster Care Action Plan 2008−2009)(Simpson, T.) (Entered: 09/26/2008)
565 ENTERED IN ERROR − STIPULATION for Court Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses from 1/1/08 to 6/30/08 by Dept Children & Families. (Rubin, Ann) Modified on 11/20/2008 (Simpson, T.). (Entered: 11/19/2008)
566 PROPOSED ORDER by Dept Children & Families. [REPLACING DOC #565] (Simpson, T.) (Entered: 11/20/2008)
Docket Entry Correction re 565 Stipulation MODIFIED TO NOTE ENTERED IN ERROR AND REDOCKETED AS DOC #566 (Simpson, T.) (Entered: 11/20/2008)
567 STIPULATED ORDER approving the attorneys' fees and expenses in this matter, for the period from January 1, 2008 to June 30, 2008. Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 11/21/08. (Simpson, T.) (Entered: 11/24/2008)
568 ORDER approving the Revised Exit Plan Quarterly Report for the period of July 1, 2008 through September 30, 2008. Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 12/16/08. (Attachments: # 1 Exit Plan Quarterly Report July 1, 2008−September 30, 2008, # 2 DCF & TAC Review of Treatment Planning Final)(Simpson, T.) (Entered: 12/18/2008)
569 ORDER approving the Revised Exit Plan dated July 1, 2004 and filed, nunc pro tunc to July 1, 2004. Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 1/5/09. (Attachments: # 1 Revised Exit Plan July 1, 2004)(Simpson, T.) (Entered: 01/07/2009)
570 MOTION of Approval of Budget by Raymond Mancuso. Responses due by 2/5/2009 (Simpson, T.) (Entered: 01/15/2009)

01/16/2009 01/22/2009
01/26/2009 01/27/2009 03/25/2009 04/28/2009 06/25/2009 06/29/2009 06/30/2009 07/01/2009 09/03/2009 09/23/2009 09/23/2009 09/28/2009 12/08/2009

571 ORDER granting 570 Motion of Approval of Budget. Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 1/15/09. (Jaiman, R.) (Entered: 01/16/2009)
572 ORDER granting 562 STIPULATION Regarding Outcome Measures 3 and 15 filed by C., Daniel, By Friends Patrick Bologna & Cynthia McKenna, M., Becky, By Next Friends Morris Wessel, M.D. & Nancy Orsi, F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero, B., Benjamin, By Next Friends Barry Kasdan & Edythe Latney, M. Jodi Rell, J., Florence, By Friends Michael Rohde & Judith Hyde, S., Patrick, By Friends Jerry Reisman & Julia Hamilton, Dept Children & Families, DCF Court Monitor's Office, B., Jason, By Friends George Pipkin & John Leventhal, R., Anna, By Friends Cesar Batalla & Julia Ramos Grenier, S., Dominique, By Friends Nancy Humphreys & Margaret Penn. Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 1/22/09. (Simpson, T.) (Entered: 01/23/2009)
573 ORDER OF TRANSFER. Case reassigned to Judge Christopher F. Droney for all further proceedings. Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 1/23/09. (Simpson, T.) (Entered: 01/27/2009)
574 CORRECTED ORDER OF TRANSFER. Signed by Judge Alan H. Nevas on 1/23/09. (Simpson, T.) (Entered: 01/29/2009)
575 ORDER approving the Revised Exit Plan Quarterly Report for the period of October 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008. Signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney on 3/24/09. (Attachments: # 1 4th Qtr Report 2008)(Simpson, T.) (Entered: 03/26/2009)
576 Minute Entry for proceeding held before Judge Christopher F. Droney: Status Conference meeting with all counsel and parties held on 4/28/2009; Total Time: 2 hours. (Szczygiel, G.) (Entered: 04/28/2009)
577 Minute Entry for proceeding held before Judge Christopher F. Droney: Meeting with Attorney Raymond Mancuso re: Quarterly Report held on 6/25/2009; 45 minutes. (Szczygiel, G.) (Entered: 06/25/2009)
579 ORDER accepting the Revised Exit Plan Quarterly Report for the period of January 1, 2009 through March 31, 2009. Signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney on 6/25/09. (Attachments: # 1 !st Qtr Report 2009)(Simpson, T.) (Entered: 06/30/2009)
578 STIPULATION Re: Attorneys' Fees for the Period July 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008 by F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero. (Frederick, Steven) (Entered: 06/30/2009)
580 ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER − PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER: Signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney on 07/01/09. (Grady, B.) (Entered: 07/01/2009)
581 Minute Entry for proceeding held before Judge Christopher F. Droney: Status Conference meeting with all counsel and parties held on 9/3/2009; Total Time: 1.5 hours. (Szczygiel, G.) (Szczygiel, G.) (Entered: 09/03/2009)
582 Revised Exit Plan Quarterly Report by Raymond Mancuso. (Grady, B.) (Entered: 09/23/2009)
583 ORDER accepting 582 Revised Exit Plan Quarterly Report. Signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney on 09/22/09. (Grady, B.) (Entered: 09/23/2009)
584 STIPULATED ORDER 578 approving the attorneys' fees and expenses in this matter, for the period from July 1, 2008 to December 31, 2008. Signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney on 9/28/09. (Szczygiel, G.) (Entered: 09/28/2009)
585 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order, MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Responses due by 12/29/2009, ), MOTION for Permanent Injunction (Responses due by 12/29/2009, ) by J., Florence, By Friends Michael Rohde & Judith Hyde, F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero, M., Becky, By Next Friends Morris Wessel, M.D. & Nancy Orsi, B., Benjamin, By Next Friends Barry Kasdan & Edythe Latney, B., Jason, By Friends George Pipkin & John Leventhal, R., Anna, By Friends Cesar Batalla & Julia Ramos Grenier, S., Dominique, By Friends Nancy Humphreys & Margaret Penn, S., Patrick, By Friends Jerry Reisman & Julia Hamilton, C., Daniel, By Friends Patrick Bologna & Cynthia McKenna. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order to show cause, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Memorandum in Support, # 4

12/10/2009
12/15/2009 12/15/2009 12/15/2009 12/16/2009 12/16/2009
12/23/2009 12/23/2009 12/23/2009 01/11/2010 01/14/2010
01/14/2010 01/21/2010

Exhibit A, # 5 Exhibit B, # 6 Exhibit C, # 7 Exhibit D, # 8 Exhibit E, # 9 Exhibit F, # 10 Exhibit G, # 11 Exhibit H, # 12 Exhibit I, # 13 Exhibit J, # 14 Exhibit K, # 15 Affidavit of Martha Stone (Exhibit L))(Frederick, Steven) (Entered: 12/08/2009)
586 NOTICE TO COUNSEL OF E−FILE CALENDAR: HEARING RE: PLAINTIFFS MOTIONS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER is set for 12/16/09 at 2:00 PM in North Courtroom, 2nd Floor, 450 Main St., Hartford, CT before Judge Christopher F. Droney. ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. (Szczygiel, G.) (Entered: 12/10/2009)
587 Appearance Pro Se by Sheila Matthews (Grady, B.) (Entered: 12/15/2009)
588 Amici Curiae by Sheila Matthews (Grady, B.) (Entered: 12/15/2009)
589 Memorandum in Opposition re 585 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION for Permanent Injunction filed by Dept Children & Families. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Unreported Cases)(Rubin, Ann) (Entered: 12/15/2009)
590 NOTICE TO COUNSEL OF E−FILE CALENDAR: HEARING RE: CLASS DEFINITION is set for 1/28/10 at 10:00 AM in North Courtroom, 2nd Floor, 450 Main St., Hartford, CT before Judge Christopher F. Droney. ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. (Szczygiel, G.) (Entered: 12/16/2009)
591 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Christopher F. Droney: taking under advisement 585 Motion for TRO; taking under advisement 585 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; taking under advisement 585 Motion for Permanent Injunction; Motion Hearing held on 12/16/2009 re 585 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION for Permanent Injunction filed by C., Daniel, By Friends Patrick Bologna & Cynthia McKenna, M., Becky, By Next Friends Morris Wessel, M.D. & Nancy Orsi, F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero, B., Benjamin, By Next Friends Barry Kasdan & Edythe Latney, J., Florence, By Friends Michael Rohde & Judith Hyde, S., Patrick, By Friends Jerry Reisman & Julia Hamilton, B., Jason, By Friends George Pipkin & John Leventhal, R., Anna, By Friends Cesar Batalla & Julia Ramos Grenier, S., Dominique, By Friends Nancy Humphreys & Margaret Penn. 9 minutes(Court Reporter Martha Marshall) (Gothers, M.) (Entered: 12/16/2009)
592 ORDER, See for further details: Signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney on 12/23/09. (Grady, B.) (Entered: 12/28/2009)
593 ORDER accepting the Revised Exit Plan Quarterly Report for the period of 07/01/09 through 09/30/09. Signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney on 12/23/09. (Grady, B.) (Entered: 12/28/2009)
594 Quarterly Report by DCF Court Monitor's Office. (Grady, B.) (Entered: 12/28/2009)
595 NOTICE TO COUNSEL OF E−FILE CALENDAR: TELEPHONIC STATUS CONFERENCE (Re: HEARING: Class Definition ) is set for 1/19/10 at 11:00 AM before Judge Christopher F. Droney. Counsel are requested to participate in this conference via telephone. Once all parties are on the line, please telephone chambers at (860) 240−2635.(Szczygiel, G.) (Entered: 01/11/2010)
596 Supplemental Memorandum in Support re 585 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION for Permanent Injunction filed by F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero. (Frederick, Steven) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/28/2010: # 1 Exhibit M − Part 1, # 2 Exhibit M Part 2, # 3 Exhibit N, # 4 Exhibit O, # 5 Exhibit P, # 6 Exhibit Q, # 7 Exhibit R, # 8 Exhibit S, # 9 Exhibit T, # 10 Exhibit U, # 11 Exhibit V, # 12 Exhibit W, # 13 Exhibit X, # 14 Exhibit Y, # 15 Exhibit Z) (Grady, B.). (Entered: 01/14/2010)
597 NOTICE by F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero re 596 Memorandum in Support of Motion (Frederick, Steven) (Entered: 01/14/2010)
598 Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition re 585 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION for Permanent

01/28/2010
01/28/2010
03/30/2010 03/31/2010 03/31/2010 03/31/2010 04/12/2010 04/13/2010 04/13/2010 04/13/2010 04/13/2010 04/13/2010 04/14/2010 04/14/2010

Injunction filed by M. Jodi Rell, Dept Children & Families. (Rubin, Ann) (Entered: 01/21/2010)
599 Docket Entry Correction: Document 596 Supplemental Memorandum in Support of 585 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order; MOTION for Preliminary Injunction; MOTION for Permanent Injunction (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit M − part 2, # 2 Exhibit N, # 3 Exhibit O, # 4 Exhibit P, # 5 Exhibit Q, # 6 Exhibit R, # 7 Exhibit S, # 8 Exhibit T, # 9 Exhibit U, # 10 Exhibit V, # 11 Exhibit W, # 12 Exhibit X, # 13 Exhibit Y, # 14 Exhibit Z) (Grady, B.) Modified on 1/28/2010 to add text (Grady, B.). (Entered: 01/28/2010)
600 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Christopher F. Droney: taking under advisement 585 Motion for TRO; taking under advisement 585 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; taking under advisement 585 Motion for Permanent Injunction; Motion Hearing held on 1/28/2010 re 585 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION for Permanent Injunction filed by C., Daniel, By Friends Patrick Bologna & Cynthia McKenna, M., Becky, By Next Friends Morris Wessel, M.D. & Nancy Orsi, F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero, B., Benjamin, By Next Friends Barry Kasdan & Edythe Latney, J., Florence, By Friends Michael Rohde & Judith Hyde, S., Patrick, By Friends Jerry Reisman & Julia Hamilton, B., Jason, By Friends George Pipkin & John Leventhal, R., Anna, By Friends Cesar Batalla & Julia Ramos Grenier, S., Dominique, By Friends Nancy Humphreys & Margaret Penn. Total Time: 2 hours and 0 minutes(Court Reporter M. Marshall.) (Johnson, D.) (Entered: 01/28/2010)
601 Minute Entry for proceeding held before Judge Christopher F. Droney: Telephonic Conference held on 3/30/2010; 1 hour and 15 minutes. (Szczygiel, G.) (Entered: 03/30/2010)
602 NOTICE: ENTERED IN ERROR − Docket Entry #601. Signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney on 3/31/2010. (Szczygiel, G.) (Entered: 03/31/2010)
603 ORDER − The Monitor's Office submits the Revised Exit Plan Quarterly Report for the period of October 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009. Signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney on 3/31/2010. (Gothers, M.) (Entered: 04/01/2010)
604 Quarterly Report from October 1, 2009 − December 31, 2009 by DCF Court Monitor's Office. (Gothers, M.) (Entered: 04/01/2010)
605 MOTION of Approval of Budget by DCF Court Monitor's Office.Responses due by 5/3/2010 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Budget)(Shearin, James) (Entered: 04/12/2010)
606 NOTICE of Appearance by Anne D. Peterson on behalf of Dept Children & Families, M. Jodi Rell (Peterson, Anne) (Entered: 04/13/2010)
607 MOTION to Vacate Consent Decree and Exit Plan Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(5) by Dept Children & Families, M. Jodi Rell. (Rubin, Ann) (Entered: 04/13/2010)
608 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Dept Children & Families, M. Jodi Rell. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support of Defendants' Motion to Vacate Consent Decree and Exit Plan Pursuant to Federal Rule 60(b)(5))(Rubin, Ann) (Entered: 04/13/2010)
609 EXHIBIT List to Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Vacate dated April 13, 2010 (#608−1) by Dept Children & Families, M. Jodi Rell re 608 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages. (Rubin, Ann) (Entered: 04/13/2010)
610 EXHIBIT Notice of Manual Filing of Exhibits A − I to Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Vacate dated April 13, 2010 (#608−1) and Exhibit List (#609) by Dept Children & Families, M. Jodi Rell re 609 Exhibit, 608 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages. (Rubin, Ann) (Entered: 04/13/2010)
611 ORDER Granting 605 MOTION of Approval of Budget by DCF Court Monitor's Office. Signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney on 4/14/2010. (Szczygiel, G.) (Entered: 04/14/2010)
612 ORDER granting 608 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney on 4/14/10. (Droney, Christopher) (Entered: 04/14/2010)

04/15/2010
04/15/2010
04/16/2010 04/16/2010 05/06/2010 05/11/2010 06/02/2010
06/25/2010 06/25/2010 06/29/2010

613 NOTICE of Appearance by Adam J. Blank on behalf of B., Benjamin, By Next Friends Barry Kasdan & Edythe Latney, B., Jason, By Friends George Pipkin & John Leventhal, C., Daniel, By Friends Patrick Bologna & Cynthia McKenna, F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero, J., Florence, By Friends Michael Rohde & Judith Hyde, M., Becky, By Next Friends Morris Wessel, M.D. & Nancy Orsi, R., Anna, By Friends Cesar Batalla & Julia Ramos Grenier, S., Dominique, By Friends Nancy Humphreys & Margaret Penn, S., Patrick, By Friends Jerry Reisman & Julia Hamilton (Blank, Adam) (Entered: 04/15/2010)
614 MOTION for Extension of Time until July 9, 2010 to file an opposition brief in response to Defendants Motion to Vacate Consent Decree and Exit Plan and Memorandum of Law in support thereof (Dkts. 607−608). 607 MOTION to Vacate Consent Decree and Exit Plan Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(5), MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by B., Benjamin, By Next Friends Barry Kasdan & Edythe Latney, B., Jason, By Friends George Pipkin & John Leventhal, C., Daniel, By Friends Patrick Bologna & Cynthia McKenna, F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero, J., Florence, By Friends Michael Rohde & Judith Hyde, M., Becky, By Next Friends Morris Wessel, M.D. & Nancy Orsi, R., Anna, By Friends Cesar Batalla & Julia Ramos Grenier, S., Dominique, By Friends Nancy Humphreys & Margaret Penn, S., Patrick, By Friends Jerry Reisman & Julia Hamilton. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, Proposed Order)(Blank, Adam) (Entered: 04/15/2010)
615 ORDER Granting 614 MOTION for Extension of Time until July 9, 2010 to file an opposition brief in response to Defendants Motion to Vacate Consent Decree and Exit Plan and Memorandum of Law in support thereof; Granting 614 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney on 4/16/10. (Szczygiel, G.) (Entered: 04/16/2010)
Set Deadlines as to 607 MOTION to Vacate Consent Decree and Exit Plan Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(5). Responses due by 7/9/2010 (Johnson, D.) (Entered: 04/23/2010)
616 STIPULATION Re Attorneys' Fees by F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero. (Frederick, Steven) (Entered: 05/06/2010)
617 ORDER re 616 Stipulated Order filed by F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero. So Ordered. Signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney on 5/11/2010. (Gothers, M.) (Entered: 05/11/2010)
618 ORDER To address the pending impasse on the Motion for Noncompliance, counsel for each of the parties will: (1)send Judge Fitzsimmons an exparte letter addressing the following issues: the party's goals for the mediation; a list of the most pressing issues (not to exceed 10) now presented by the consent decree; and what counsel believes would be the most effective process to address these issues. This letter should be delivered to the judge by email or fax on or before June 9; (2) call chambers to schedule an exparte discussion with the judge (counsel only for the first discussion, not clients). The letter may be emailed to the Court through its law clerk, Alyssa Esposito, at alyssa_esposito@ctd.uscourts.gov. Signed by Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons on 6/2/10. (Esposito, A.) (Entered: 06/02/2010)
621 ORDER − Revise Exit Plan Quarterly Report for the period of January 1, 2010 through March 31, 2010. Signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney on 6/24/2010. (Gothers, M.) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/30/2010: # 1 Quarterly Report) (Gothers, M.). (Entered: 06/30/2010)
Docket Entry Correction re 621 Order modified: attached the Quarterly Report (Gothers, M.) (Entered: 06/30/2010)
619 Memorandum in Opposition re 607 MOTION to Vacate Consent Decree and Exit Plan Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(5) filed by B., Benjamin, By Next Friends Barry Kasdan & Edythe Latney, B., Jason, By Friends George Pipkin & John Leventhal, C., Daniel, By Friends Patrick Bologna & Cynthia McKenna, F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero, J., Florence, By Friends Michael Rohde & Judith Hyde, M., Becky, By Next Friends Morris Wessel, M.D. & Nancy Orsi, R., Anna, By Friends Cesar Batalla & Julia Ramos Grenier, S., Dominique, By Friends Nancy Humphreys & Margaret Penn, S., Patrick, By Friends Jerry Reisman & Julia Hamilton. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit

06/30/2010 07/02/2010
07/02/2010 07/12/2010 08/03/2010 08/03/2010 08/05/2010
08/06/2010 08/06/2010 08/06/2010
08/06/2010 08/06/2010
08/09/2010 08/09/2010

L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N)(Blank, Adam) (Entered: 06/29/2010)
620 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Reply Brief as to 607 MOTION to Vacate Consent Decree and Exit Plan Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(5) until August 6, 2010, MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Dept Children & Families, M. Jodi Rell. (Rubin, Ann) (Entered: 06/30/2010)
622 ORDER Granting 620 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Reply Brief as to 607 MOTION to Vacate Consent Decree and Exit Plan Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(5) until August 6, 2010; Granting MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney on 7/2/10. (Szczygiel, G.) (Entered: 07/02/2010)
Set Deadlines as to 607 MOTION to Vacate Consent Decree and Exit Plan Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(5). Responses due by 8/6/2010 (Johnson, D.) (Entered: 07/06/2010)
623 ORDER denying 585 Motion for TRO, as moot. Signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney on 7/12/10. (Droney, Christopher) (Entered: 07/12/2010)
624 Amicus Curiae APPEARANCE entered by Christina D. Ghio on behalf of Jeanne Milstein. (Ghio, Christina) (Entered: 08/03/2010)
625 MOTION for Leave to File An Amicus Brief by Jeanne Milstein. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Amicus Brief)(Ghio, Christina) (Entered: 08/03/2010)
626 ENTERED IN ERROR... MOTION for Leave to File Amici Curiae by Center for Children's Advocacy. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit)(Stone, Martha) Modified on 8/5/2010 to edit text of attachment #12 to reflect as an Exhibit (Ferguson, L.). Modified on 8/6/2010 − to be be efiled by attorney as memorandum in support (Gothers, M.). (Entered: 08/05/2010)
Docket Entry Correction re 626 MOTION for Leave to File Amici Curiae. modified: ENTERED IN ERROR. To be efiled as a memorandum in support. (Gothers, M.) (Entered: 08/06/2010)
627 REPLY to Response to 607 MOTION to Vacate Consent Decree and Exit Plan Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(5) Reply Brief in Further Support of Their Motion to Vacate Consent Decree and Exit Plan filed by Dept Children & Families, M. Jodi Rell. (Peterson, Anne) (Entered: 08/06/2010)
628 Memorandum in Support re 607 MOTION to Vacate Consent Decree and Exit Plan Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(5) filed by Center for Children's Advocacy. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit)(Stone, Martha) (Entered: 08/06/2010)
629 NOTICE by Jeanne Milstein re: Amended Filing of Amicus Curiae, Child Advocate for the State of Connecticut (Ghio, Christina) (Entered: 08/06/2010)
630 Amended MOTION for Leave to File An Amicus Brief by Jeanne Milstein. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Amended Appendix A (Brief of Amicus Curiae, Child Advocate for the State of Connecticut, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit Exhibit J, # 12 Exhibit Exhibit K, # 13 Exhibit Exhibit L, # 14 Exhibit Exhibit M, # 15 Exhibit Exhibit N, # 16 Exhibit Exhibit O, # 17 Exhibit Exhibit P, # 18 Exhibit Exhibit Q, # 19 Exhibit Exhibit R, # 20 Exhibit Exhibit S, # 21 Exhibit Exhibit T)(Ghio, Christina) (Entered: 08/06/2010)
631 MOTION for Leave to File Amici Brief by Center for Children's Advocacy. (Stone, Martha) (Entered: 08/09/2010)
632 ORDER denying 625 Motion for Leave to File as moot; granting 630 Motion for Leave to File; granting 631 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney on 8/9/10. (Droney, Christopher) (Entered: 08/09/2010)

08/17/2010 08/26/2010
08/31/2010
08/31/2010 09/17/2010 09/20/2010 09/22/2010
09/22/2010 10/08/2010 10/18/2010 12/22/2010
12/22/2010 12/23/2010 01/05/2011 01/06/2011

633 RULING granting in part and denying in part 585 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; granting in part and denying in part 585 Motion for Permanent Injunction. Signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney on 8/17/2010. (Gothers, M.)(21 pages) (Entered: 08/17/2010)
634 Memorandum in Opposition Defendants' Memorandum In Opposition To Amicus Curiae Briefs filed by the State of Connecticut Office of The Child Advocate [Doc. No. 630−1] and The Center for Children's Advocacy, Inc., CT Voices for Children, CT Legal Services, Inc., and New Haven Legal Assistance [Doc. No. 628] re 607 MOTION to Vacate Consent Decree and Exit Plan Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(5) filed by Dept Children & Families, M. Jodi Rell. (Peterson, Anne) (Entered: 08/26/2010)
635 NOTICE TO COUNSEL OF E−FILE CALENDAR: ORAL ARGUMENT RE: MOTION TO VACATE CONSENT DECREE [Dkt. #607] is set for 9/22/2010 at 10:00 AM in North Courtroom, 2nd Floor, 450 Main St., Hartford, CT before Judge Christopher F. Droney. Each side will have 1 hour for argument. ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. (Szczygiel, G.) (Entered: 08/31/2010)
636 MOTION for Reconsideration re 633 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Motion for Permanent Injunction by Dept Children & Families, M. Jodi Rell.Responses due by 9/21/2010 (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support)(Rubin, Ann) (Entered: 08/31/2010)
637 ORDER −. Signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney on 9/17/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Juan F. Exit Plan Quarterly Report April 1, 2010 − June 30, 2010)(Gothers, M.) (Entered: 09/17/2010)
638 Memorandum in Opposition re 636 MOTION for Reconsideration re 633 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Motion for Permanent Injunction filed by F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero. (Frederick, Steven) (Entered: 09/20/2010)
639 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Christopher F. Droney: taking under advisement 607 Motion to Vacate ; Motion Hearing held on 9/22/2010 re 607 MOTION to Vacate Consent Decree and Exit Plan Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(5) filed by M. Jodi Rell, Dept Children & Families. Total Time: 1 hours and 10 minutes(Court Reporter M. Marshall.) (Johnson, D.) (Entered: 09/22/2010)
640 RULING denying 607 Motion to Vacate. Signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney on 9/22/10. (Johnson, D.) (Entered: 09/22/2010)
642 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons: Discussion Re: Settlement held on 10/8/2010. Total Time: 3 hours and 15 minutes (Jaiman, R.) (Entered: 11/09/2010)
641 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons: Telephone Status Conference held on 10/18/2010. 20 minutes (Jaiman, R.) (Entered: 11/09/2010)
643 RULING denying 636 Motion for Reconsideration re 636 MOTION for Reconsideration re 633 Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Order on Motion for Permanent Injunction filed by M. Jodi Rell, Dept Children & Families. Signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney on 12/22/2010. (Gothers, M.)(3 pages) (Entered: 12/22/2010)
644 ORDER. Signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney on 12/22/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit − Juan F. Revised Exit Plan Quarterly Report from July 1, 2010 − September 30, 2010)(Gothers, M.) (Attachment 1 replaced on 12/23/2010) (Gothers, M.). (Entered: 12/22/2010)
Docket Entry Correction re 644 Order modified: replaced attachment with quarterly report. (Gothers, M.) (Entered: 12/23/2010)
645 STIPULATION Re Attorneys' Fees by F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero. (Frederick, Steven) (Entered: 01/05/2011)
646 STIPULATED ORDER re 645 Stipulation filed by F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero. So Ordered. Signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney on 1/6/2011. (Gothers, M.) (Entered: 01/07/2011)

02/10/2011
03/22/2011 04/12/2011 05/09/2011 06/24/2011 06/24/2011 07/12/2011 08/04/2011 08/10/2011 10/06/2011 01/09/2012 01/10/2012 01/24/2012 03/13/2012 04/12/2012 04/23/2012

647 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings: Type of Hearing: Motions. Held on January 28, 2010 before Judge Christopher Droney. Court Reporter: Martha Marshall. IMPORTANT NOTICE − REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: To remove personal identifier information from the transcript, a party must electronically file a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction with the Clerk's Office within seven (7) calendar days of this date. If no such Notice is filed, the court will assume redaction of personal identifiers is not necessary and the transcript will be made available through PACER without redaction 90 days from today's date. The transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. The policy governing the redaction of personal information is located on the court website at www.ctd.uscourts.gov. Redaction Request due 3/3/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/13/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/11/2011. (Marshall, M.) (Entered: 02/10/2011)
648 ORDER − Juan F. Quarterly Report Oct. 1, 2010− Dec. 31, 2010. Signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney on 3/22/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Quarterly Report)(Gothers, M.) (Entered: 03/22/2011)
649 MOTION of Approval of Budget by Raymond Mancuso.Responses due by 5/3/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Budget)(Shearin, James) (Entered: 04/12/2011)
650 ORDER granting 649 Motion for Approval of Budget. Signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney on 5/9/11. (Droney, Christopher) (Entered: 05/09/2011)
651 ORDER RE: Pursuant to Juan F. Exit Plan. Revised Exit Plan Quarterly Report for the period of January 1, 2011 through March 31, 2011. Accepted and So Ordered. Signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney on 6/24/2011. (Gothers, M.) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/24/2011: # 1 Exhibit) (Gothers, M.). (Entered: 06/24/2011)
652 Docket Entry Correction re 651 Order. Modified: to Include the Revised Exit Plan Quarterly Report. (Gothers, M.) (Entered: 06/24/2011)
653 Minute Entry for proceeding held before Judge Christopher F. Droney: Quarterly Meeting held on 7/12/2011; 1 hour and 30 minutes. (Szczygiel, G.) (Entered: 07/12/2011)
654 STIPULATION Re Attorney's Fees by F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero. (Frederick, Steven) (Entered: 08/04/2011)
655 ORDER approving stipulated attorneys' fees[#654]. Signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney on 8/10/11. (Droney, Christopher) (Entered: 08/10/2011)
656 ORDER − Juan F. Exit Plan. Signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney on 10/5/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Revised Exit Plan Quarterly Report from April 1, 2011 − June 30, 2011)(Gothers, M.) (Entered: 10/07/2011)
657 ORDER RE Juan F. Exit Plan − Revised Exit Plain Report from July 1, 2011 through September 30, 2011. Signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney on 1/9/2012. (Gothers, M.) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/10/2012: # 1 Final Report) (Gothers, M.). (Entered: 01/10/2012)
658 Docket Entry Correction re 657 Order Re: Juan F. Revised Exit Plan. (Gothers, M.) (Entered: 01/10/2012)
659 ORDER OF TRANSFER. Case reassigned to Judge Stefan R. Underhill for all further proceedings. Signed by Clerk on 1/24/12. (Bauer, J.) (Entered: 01/24/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Stefan R. Underhill: In Person Status Conference held on 3/13/2012. Total Time: 2 hours (Sbalbi, B.) (Entered: 03/19/2012)
660 ORDER re Juan F Exit Plan. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 4/12/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Revised Exit Plan quarterly Report for the period of 10/1/2011 through 12/31/2011)(Lewis, D) (Entered: 04/13/2012)
661 MOTION of Approval of Budget by Raymond Mancuso.Responses due by 5/14/2012 (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1)(Shearin, James) (Entered: 04/23/2012)

04/25/2012
04/26/2012 05/02/2012 06/22/2012 06/25/2012
07/02/2012 07/02/2012 09/10/2012 09/25/2012
10/09/2012 10/09/2012 12/10/2012
01/04/2013 02/05/2013 02/05/2013

662 STIPULATION Re: Attorneys' Fees by B., Benjamin, By Next Friends Barry Kasdan & Edythe Latney, B., Jason, By Friends George Pipkin & John Leventhal, C., Daniel, By Friends Patrick Bologna & Cynthia McKenna, F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero, J., Florence, By Friends Michael Rohde & Judith Hyde, M., Becky, By Next Friends Morris Wessel, M.D. & Nancy Orsi, R., Anna, By Friends Cesar Batalla & Julia Ramos Grenier, S., Dominique, By Friends Nancy Humphreys & Margaret Penn, S., Patrick, By Friends Jerry Reisman & Julia Hamilton, Dept. of Children & Families, M. Jodi Rell. (Frederick, Steven) Modified on 4/26/2012 (Lewis, D). (Entered: 04/25/2012)
Docket Entry Correction re 662 Stipulation, modified to add defendants as filers. (Lewis, D) (Entered: 04/26/2012)
663 ORDER granting 661 Motion for approval of budget. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 5/2/12. (Sbalbi, B.) (Entered: 05/02/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Stefan R. Underhill: Telephone Conference held on 6/22/2012. 10 minutes (Sbalbi, B.) (Entered: 07/13/2012)
664 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE.ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. Telephone Status Conference set for 7/2/2012 10:00 AM before Judge Stefan R. Underhill. Call−in conference call to be set up by counsel. (Sbalbi, B.) (Entered: 06/25/2012)
665 ORDER approving 662 Stipulation. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 7/2/12. (Sbalbi, B.) (Entered: 07/02/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Stefan R. Underhill: Telephone Status Conference held on 7/2/2012. 10 minutes (Sbalbi, B.) (Entered: 08/13/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Stefan R. Underhill: Telephone Status Conference held on 9/10/2012. 15 minutes (Sbalbi, B.) (Entered: 10/10/2012)
666 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE.ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION., Set Deadlines/Hearings: In−Person Status Conference set for 10/9/2012 09:30 AM in Chambers Room 411, 915 Lafayette Blvd., Bridgeport, CT before Judge Stefan R. Underhill (Sbalbi, B.) (Entered: 09/25/2012)
667 ORDER approving the Revised Exit Plan Quarterly Report for the period of January 1, 2012 through March 31, 2012. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 10/9/2012. (Oliver, T.) (Entered: 10/12/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Stefan R. Underhill: In Person Status Conference held on 10/9/2012. 50 minutes (Sbalbi, B.) (Entered: 10/26/2012)
668 STIPULATION Re Fees by B., Benjamin, By Next Friends Barry Kasdan & Edythe Latney, B., Jason, By Friends George Pipkin & John Leventhal, C., Daniel, By Friends Patrick Bologna & Cynthia McKenna, F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero, J., Florence, By Friends Michael Rohde & Judith Hyde, M., Becky, By Next Friends Morris Wessel, M.D. & Nancy Orsi, R., Anna, By Friends Cesar Batalla & Julia Ramos Grenier, S., Dominique, By Friends Nancy Humphreys & Margaret Penn, S., Patrick, By Friends Jerry Reisman & Julia Hamilton. (Frederick, Steven) (Entered: 12/10/2012)
669 ORDER approving 668 Stipulation re fees. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 1/4/13. (Sbalbi, B.) (Entered: 01/04/2013)
670 ORDER approving the Revised Exit Plan Quarterly Report for the period of April 1, 2012 through June 30, 2012. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 2/4/13.(Sbalbi, B.) (Entered: 02/05/2013)
671 ORDER approving the Revised Exit Plan Quarterly Report for the period of July 1, 2012 through September 30, 2012. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 2/4/13.(Sbalbi, B.) (Entered: 02/05/2013)

04/30/2013 05/10/2013 05/21/2013 05/28/2013
06/27/2013 07/12/2013 07/22/2013
10/18/2013
12/02/2013
01/22/2014
01/29/2014
04/08/2014 04/29/2014 05/20/2014 05/22/2014 07/17/2014

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Stefan R. Underhill: In Person Status Conference held on 4/30/2013. 30 minutes (Sbalbi, B.) (Entered: 05/06/2013)
672 MOTION Approval of Budget by Raymond Mancuso.Responses due by 5/31/2013 (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(Shearin, James) (Entered: 05/10/2013)
673 ORDER granting 672 Motion for approval of budget. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 5/21/13. (Sbalbi, B.) (Entered: 05/21/2013)
674 ORDER approving the Revised Exit Plan Quarterly Report for the period of October 1, 2012 through December 31, 2012. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 5/24/2013. (Attachments: # 1 4th quarter 2012 cover letter, # 2 4th quarter 2012 report final, # 3 cover letter for 4th qtr 2012 report to Judge Underhill) (Oliver, T.) (Entered: 05/28/2013)
675 STIPULATION Re Attorneys' Fees by F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero. (Frederick, Steven) (Entered: 06/27/2013)
676 ORDER approving 675 Stipulation filed by F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 7/12/13.(Sbalbi, B.) (Entered: 07/12/2013)
677 ORDER Approving the Revised Exit Plan Quarterly Report for the period January 1, 2013 through March 31, 2013 Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 7/19/2013. (Attachments: # 1 1st quarter 2013 cover letter, # 2 1st quarter 2013 report final, # 3 cover letter for 1st qtr 2013 report)(Ghilardi, K.) (Entered: 07/22/2013)
678 ORDER approving the Revised Exit Plan Quarterly Report for the period of April 1, 2013 through June 30, 2013 Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 10/17/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Letter, # 2 Cover Letter to 2nd Quarter, # 3 2nd Quarter Final Report, # 4 Text of Proposed Order) (Oliver, T.) (Entered: 10/21/2013)
679 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE.ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION., Set Deadlines/Hearings: In Person Status Conference set for 1/30/2014 11:00 AM in Chambers Room 411, 915 Lafayette Blvd., Bridgeport, CT before Judge Stefan R. Underhill (Sbalbi, B.) (Entered: 12/02/2013)
680 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. RESET FROM 1/30/2014. In−person Status Conference set for 1/23/2014 at 01:00 PM in Chambers Room 411, 915 Lafayette Blvd., Bridgeport, CT before Judge Stefan R. Underhill. (Pannu, C.) (Entered: 01/22/2014)
681 ORDER approving the Quarterly Report for the period of July 1, 2013 through September 30, 2013. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 1/29/2014. (Attachments: # 1 3rd Quarter 2013 Cover Letter, # 2 3rd Quarter 2013 Report Cover Letter to Judge Underhill, # 3 3rd Quarter Report 2013 Final) (Oliver, T.) (Entered: 01/30/2014)
682 STIPULATION by F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero. (Frederick, Steven) (Entered: 04/08/2014)
683 ORDER approving 682 Stipulation filed by F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 4/29/14.(Sbalbi, B.) (Entered: 04/29/2014)
684 MOTION For Approval of Budget by DCF Court Monitor's Office.Responses due by 6/10/2014 (Shearin, James) (Entered: 05/20/2014)
685 ORDER granting 684 Motion for approval of budget. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 5/22/14. (Sbalbi, B.) (Entered: 05/22/2014)
686 ORDER approving the Revised Exit Plan Quartly Report for the period of January 1, 2014 through March 31, 2014

10/14/2014 10/20/2014
01/30/2015
01/30/2015
04/24/2015 05/04/2015 05/07/2015 05/07/2015 05/22/2015 05/29/2015 07/22/2015 07/22/2015 12/01/2015 12/04/2015
01/28/2016 01/28/2016 04/26/2016

Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 7/17/2014. (Attachments: # 1 1st quarter 2014 cover letter, # 2 1st quarter 2014 report to Judge Underhill, # 3 1st quarter report 2014 final, # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(Payton, R.) (Entered: 07/18/2014)
687 STIPULATION Re Attorneys' Fees by F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero. (Frederick, Steven) (Entered: 10/14/2014)
688 ORDER Approving 687 Stipulation filed by F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 10/20/2014.(Freuden, S.) (Entered: 10/20/2014)
689 ORDER approving the Revised Exit Plan Quarterly Report for the period of April 1st though June 30, 2014. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 1/30/2015. (Attachments: # 1 2nd Quarter Cover Letter, # 2 2nd Quarter 2014 Cover Letter, # 3 2nd Quarter Report 2014 Final, # 4 Text of Proposed Order) (Walker, A) (Entered: 02/04/2015)
690 ORDER approving the Revised Exit Plan Quarterly Report for the period of July 1, 2014 through September 30, 2014. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 1/30/2015. (Attachments: # 1 3rd Quarter Cover Letter, # 2 3rd Quarter 2014 Cover Letter, # 3 3rd Quarter 2014 Final Report, # 4 Text of Proposed Order) (Walker, A) (Entered: 02/04/2015)
691 STIPULATION Re Attorneys' Fees by F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero. (Frederick, Steven) (Entered: 04/24/2015)
692 ORDER Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 5/4/2014.(Freuden, S.) (Entered: 05/04/2015)
693 ORDER approving 691 Stipulation filed by F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 5/7/2015.(Freuden, S.) (Entered: 05/07/2015)
694 The Revised Exit Plan Quarterly Report for the period of October 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014 (Oliver, T.) (Entered: 05/08/2015)
695 Consent MOTION for Approval of Budget by DCF Court Monitor's Office.Responses due by 6/12/2015 (Shearin, James) (Entered: 05/22/2015)
696 ORDER granting 695 Motion for Approval of Budget. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 5/29/2015. (Freuden, S.) (Entered: 05/29/2015)
697 ORDER Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 7/22/2015.(Oliver, T.) (Entered: 07/22/2015)
698 The Revised Exit Plan Quarterly Report for the period of January 1, 2015 through March 31, 2015 (Oliver, T.) (Entered: 07/22/2015)
699 STIPULATION Re Attorneys' Fees by F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero. (Frederick, Steven) (Entered: 12/01/2015)
700 ORDER approving 699 Stipulation filed by F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 12/4/2015. (Landman, M) (Entered: 12/04/2015)
701 ORDER Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 1/28/2016.(Oliver, T.) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
702 The Revised Exit Plan Quarterly Report for the period of April 1, 2015 through September 30, 2015 (Attachments: # 1 Quarterly Report for the period of April 1, 2015 through September 30, 2015)(Oliver, T.) (Entered: 01/29/2016)
703 Consent MOTION for Approval of Budget by DCF Court Monitor's Office.Responses due by 5/17/2016 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Budget)(Shearin, James) (Entered: 04/26/2016)

05/04/2016 06/08/2016 06/16/2016
08/10/2016 08/10/2016 08/31/2016 09/28/2016 09/28/2016 09/29/2016
09/29/2016
02/06/2017
02/06/2017 02/08/2017 02/08/2017 02/09/2017

704 ORDER granting 703 Motion for Approval of Budget. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 5/4/2016. (Landman, M) (Entered: 05/04/2016)
705 STIPULATION Re Attorneys' Fees by F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero. (Frederick, Steven) (Entered: 06/08/2016)
706 ORDER approving 705 Stipulation filed by F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 6/16/2016. (Landman, M) (Entered: 06/16/2016)
707 ORDER Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 8/9/2016.(Oliver, T.) (Entered: 08/10/2016)
708 The Revised Exit Plan Quarterly Report for the period of October 1, 2015 through March 31, 2016. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Cover letter, # 3 Status Report) (Oliver, T.) (Entered: 08/10/2016)
709 NOTICE of Appearance by Kimberly P. Massicotte on behalf of Dept Children & Families, M. Jodi Rell (Massicotte, Kimberly) (Entered: 08/31/2016)
710 MOTION for Hearing Date for Consideration of 2016 Revised Exit Plan by DCF Court Monitor's Office, Raymond Mancuso. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Exit Plan)(Shearin, James) (Entered: 09/28/2016)
711 NOTICE of Appearance by Timothy G. Ronan on behalf of DCF Court Monitor's Office, Raymond Mancuso (Ronan, Timothy) (Entered: 09/28/2016)
712 Minute Entry. Proceedings held before Judge Stefan R. Underhill: granting 710 Motion for Hearing; Motion Hearing held on 9/29/2016 re 710 MOTION for Hearing Date for Consideration of 2016 Revised Exit Plan filed by DCF Court Monitor's Office, Raymond Mancuso. Total Time: 0 hours and 18 minutes. (Court Reporter Sharon Montini.) (Landman, M) (Entered: 09/29/2016)
713 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. Hearing on 2016 Revised Exit Plan set for 3/1/2017 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom One, 915 Lafayette Blvd., Bridgeport, CT before Judge Stefan R. Underhill. (Landman, M) (Entered: 09/29/2016)
714 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. In−Person Status Conference (on the record) set for 2/10/2017 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom One, 915 Lafayette Blvd., Bridgeport, CT before Judge Stefan R. Underhill. (Landman, M) (Entered: 02/06/2017)
715 MOTION for ANN H. RUBIN AND ANNE D. PETERSON to Withdraw as Attorney by Dept Children & Families, M. Jodi Rell. (Rubin, Ann) (Entered: 02/06/2017)
716 NOTICE by M. Jodi Rell re 712 Order on Motion for Hearing,, Motion Hearing, (Massicotte, Kimberly) (Entered: 02/08/2017)
717 ORDER granting 715 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Anne D. Peterson and Ann H. Rubin terminated. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 2/8/2017. (Landman, M) (Entered: 02/08/2017)
718 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings: Type of Hearing: Motion Hearing. Held on 9/29/16 before Judge Stefan Underhill. Court Reporter: S. Montini. IMPORTANT NOTICE − REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: To remove personal identifier information from the transcript, a party must electronically file a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction with the Clerk's Office within seven (7) calendar days of this date. If no such Notice is filed, the court will assume redaction of personal identifiers is not necessary and the transcript will be made available through PACER without redaction 90 days from today's date. The transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. The policy governing the redaction of personal information is located on the court website at

02/10/2017 02/12/2017
02/27/2017 03/01/2017 03/01/2017 03/09/2017 03/13/2017 04/13/2017 04/18/2017 05/01/2017 05/01/2017

www.ctd.uscourts.gov. Redaction Request due 3/2/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/12/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/10/2017. (Montini, S.) (Entered: 02/09/2017)
719 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Stefan R. Underhill: Status Conference held on 2/10/2017. Total Time: 0 hours and 55 minutes. (Court Reporter Sharon Masse.) (Landman, M) (Entered: 02/10/2017)
720 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings: Type of Hearing: Status Conference. Held on 2−10−2017 before Judge Stefan R. Underhill. Court Reporter: Sharon Masse. IMPORTANT NOTICE − REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: To remove personal identifier information from the transcript, a party must electronically file a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction with the Clerk's Office within seven (7) calendar days of this date. If no such Notice is filed, the court will assume redaction of personal identifiers is not necessary and the transcript will be made available through PACER without redaction 90 days from today's date. The transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. The policy governing the redaction of personal information is located on the court website at www.ctd.uscourts.gov. Redaction Request due 3/5/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/15/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/13/2017. (Masse, S.) (Entered: 02/12/2017)
721 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. RESET FROM 3/1/2017 Status Conference set for 4/20/2017 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom One, 915 Lafayette Blvd., Bridgeport, CT before Judge Stefan R. Underhill. (Landman, M) (Entered: 02/27/2017)
722 ORDER. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 3/1/2017. (Landman, M) (Entered: 03/01/2017)
723 STATUS REPORT re 722 ORDER by Raymond Mancuso. (Attachments: # 1 order for Status Report 2nd & 3rd Qtr 2016, # 2 Status Report 2nd and 3rd Quarter 2016 final, # 3 Status Report Report 2nd & 3rd Qtr 2016 cover letter) (Oliver, T.) (Entered: 03/03/2017)
724 STIPULATION Re Attorneys' Fees by F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero. (Frederick, Steven) (Entered: 03/09/2017)
725 ORDER approving 724 Stipulation filed by F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 3/13/2017. (Landman, M) (Entered: 03/13/2017)
726 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. RESET FROM 4/20/2017 Status Conference set for 5/25/2017 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom One, 915 Lafayette Blvd., Bridgeport, CT before Judge Stefan R. Underhill. (Landman, M) (Entered: 04/13/2017)
727 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. RESET FROM 5/25/2017 at 2pm Status Conference set for 5/31/2017 at 02:00 PM in Courtroom One, 915 Lafayette Blvd., Bridgeport, CT before Judge Stefan R. Underhill. (Landman, M) (Entered: 04/18/2017)
728 NOTICE by DCF Court Monitor's Office DCF COURT MONITOR'S RECOMMENDED 2017 REVISED EXIT PLAN (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A, # 2 Appendix B Part 1, # 3 Appendix B Part 2)(Shearin, James) (Entered: 05/01/2017)
729 NOTICE by DCF Court Monitor's Office, Raymond Mancuso FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF COURT MONITOR (Shearin,

05/02/2017
05/11/2017 05/11/2017 05/15/2017 05/15/2017 05/15/2017 05/16/2017 05/19/2017 05/19/2017 05/22/2017 05/22/2017 05/25/2017
05/25/2017 05/30/2017

James) (Entered: 05/01/2017)
730 SCHEDULING ORDER: The Court has received the Court Monitor's 728 RECOMMENDED 2017 REVISED EXIT PLAN and 729 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The parties shall submit simultaneous position statements regarding the Court Monitor's filings on or before 5/15/2017. The parties may respond to the opposing party's position statement on or before 5/22/2017. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 5/2/2017. (Landman, M) (Entered: 05/02/2017)
731 NOTICE of Appearance by Mark F. Kohler on behalf of Dept Children & Families, M. Jodi Rell (Kohler, Mark) (Entered: 05/11/2017)
732 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael Skold on behalf of Dept Children & Families, M. Jodi Rell (Skold, Michael) (Entered: 05/11/2017)
733 NOTICE of Appearance by Perry A. Zinn Rowthorn on behalf of Dept Children & Families, M. Jodi Rell in addition to Kimberly Massicotte (Zinn Rowthorn, Perry) (Entered: 05/15/2017)
734 OBJECTION re 729 Notice (Other), 728 Notice (Other) Defendants' Objection to the Court Monitor's Findings & Recommended 2017 Revised Exit Plan filed by Dept Children & Families, M. Jodi Rell. (Skold, Michael) (Entered: 05/15/2017)
735 RESPONSE to Court Monitor's Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations, and the Monitor's Recommended 2017 Revised Exit Plan filed by F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Frederick, Steven) (Entered: 05/15/2017)
736 NOTICE of Appearance by Joseph Rubin on behalf of Dept Children & Families, M. Jodi Rell in addition to Perry Zinn−Rowthorn and Kimberly Massicotte (Rubin, Joseph) (Entered: 05/16/2017)
737 MOTION For Approval of Budget by Raymond Mancuso.Responses due by 6/9/2017 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Budget)(Shearin, James) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/19/2017: # 2 REPLACEMENT PDF) (Oliver, T.). (Entered: 05/19/2017)
738 Docket Entry Correction re 737 MOTION For Approval of Budget MODIFIED TO ADD REPLACEMENT PDF TO THE DOCKET ENTRY (Oliver, T.) (Entered: 05/19/2017)
739 RESPONSE re 735 Response, filed by Dept Children & Families, M. Jodi Rell. (Skold, Michael) (Entered: 05/22/2017)
740 RESPONSE re 734 Objection Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Objection filed by F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero. (Lustbader, Ira) (Entered: 05/22/2017)
741 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. RESET FROM 5/31/2017 Status Conference set for 6/29/2017 at 01:00 PM in Courtroom One, 915 Lafayette Blvd., Bridgeport, CT before Judge Stefan R. Underhill. (Landman, M) (Entered: 05/25/2017)
742 ORDER granting 737 Motion for Approval of Budget. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 5/25/2017. (Landman, M) (Entered: 05/25/2017)
743 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. Telephone Settlement Conference set for 6/1/2017 at 04:00 PM before Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons. This case has been referred to Judge Fitzsimmons for a settlement conference. She will hold a pre−conference telephone call with counsel on June 1, 2017 at 4:00 PM. A date for the settlement conference will be set during the telephone call. As the Court requires parties or their representatives with settlement authority to attend the settlement conference, counsel should obtain dates of unavailability from their clients over the next 90 days and have their own calendars available to aid in the scheduling. During

05/30/2017 06/01/2017 06/01/2017
06/01/2017
06/13/2017
06/13/2017
06/29/2017 07/07/2017 07/07/2017 11/09/2017

the telephone call, counsel should be prepared to discuss what information needs to be exchanged and anything else that needs to be accomplished prior to the settlement conference for the discussions to be productive. This telephone conference will not be rescheduled based on requests from counsel. If counsel is not available at the scheduled time, please arrange for coverage by another lawyer, who will have the necessary background knowledge to participate. The parties will call the Conference Line: (641) 715−3580; Access Code: 851−398 at the appointed time. (Esposito, A.) (Entered: 05/30/2017)
744 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons for Settlement Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 5/30/2017.(Jaiman, R.) (Entered: 05/31/2017)
745 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons: Telephone Scheduling/Settlement Conference held on 6/1/2017. 15 minutes. (Esposito, A.) (Entered: 06/01/2017)
746 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE.ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. Settlement Conference with Plaintiffs set for 6/5/2017 at 04:00 PM in Chambers Room 266 − Annex, 915 Lafayette Blvd., Bridgeport, CT before Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons. Please contact chambers if the parties would prefer to meet by phone. PLEASE FORWARD THIS CALENDAR TO ALL THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE JUNE 1, 2017 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WHO HAVE NOT FILED AN APPEARANCE IN THIS CASE. (Esposito, A.) (Entered: 06/01/2017)
747 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. Telephone Settlement Conference with Defendants set for 6/8/2017 at 04:00 PM before Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons. Please call the conference line at (641) 715−3580; Access code: 851−398 at the appointed time. PLEASE FORWARD THIS CALENDAR TO ALL THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE JUNE 1, 2017 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WHO HAVE NOT FILED AN APPEARANCE IN THIS CASE. (Esposito, A.) (Entered: 06/01/2017)
754 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. Status/Case Management Conference set for 6/29/2017 at 02:00 PM in Chambers Room 266 − Annex, 915 Lafayette Blvd., Bridgeport, CT before Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons. The monitor and his counsel are excused from attending this conference. (Esposito, A.) (Entered: 06/13/2017)
755 NOTICE: The status conference previously set for 6/29/2017 at 01:00 PM in Courtroom One, 915 Lafayette Blvd., Bridgeport, CT before Judge Stefan R. Underhill has been cancelled. The parties shall attend the Status/Case Management Conference set for 6/29/2017 at 02:00 PM in Chambers Room 266 − Annex, 915 Lafayette Blvd., Bridgeport, CT before Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons. The monitor and his counsel are excused from attending this conference. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 6/13/2017. (Landman, M) (Entered: 06/13/2017)
757 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons: Case Management Conference held on 6/29/2017. Total Time: 4 hours (Gould, K.) (Entered: 06/30/2017)
761 ORDER Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 7/7/2017. (Oliver, T.) (Entered: 07/07/2017)
762 The Revised Exit Plan Status Report for the period of October 1, 2016 through March 31, 2017. (Attachments: # 1 Order for Status Report 4th Qtr 2016 & 1st Qtr 2017, # 2 Status Report 4th Quarter 2016 and 1st Quarter 2017 final, # 3 Status Report Report 4th Qtr 2016 & 1st Qtr 2017 cover letter) (Oliver, T.) (Entered: 07/07/2017)
771 STIPULATION Re Attorneys' Fees by F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero. (Frederick, Steven) (Entered: 11/09/2017)

11/20/2017 12/05/2017
12/13/2017 12/13/2017 12/22/2017
01/19/2018 01/19/2018 04/26/2018 05/15/2018 05/30/2018 08/22/2018 08/22/2018 10/22/2018

772 ORDER re 771 Stipulation Re Attorneys' Fees by F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero. Approved and so ordered. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 11/20/2017. (Schneider, K) (Entered: 11/20/2017)
776 NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. Execution and Judicial Review of Revised Exit Plan set for 12/13/2017 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom One, 915 Lafayette Blvd., Bridgeport, CT before Judge Stefan R. Underhill. (Esposito, A.) (Entered: 12/05/2017)
777 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Stefan R. Underhill: Execution and Judicial Review of Revised Exit Plan Hearing held on 12/13/2017. 15 minutes(Court Reporter Masse, S.) (Jaiman, R.) (Entered: 12/13/2017)
778 ORDER − 2017 REVISED EXIT PLAN Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 12/13/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A, # 2 Appendix B, # 3 Appendix C)(Jaiman, R.) (Entered: 12/13/2017)
779 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings: Type of Hearing: Execution and Review of Revised Exit Plan. Held on 12−13−2017 before Judge Stefan R. Underhill. Court Reporter: Sharon Masse. IMPORTANT NOTICE − REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: To remove personal identifier information from the transcript, a party must electronically file a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction with the Clerk's Office within seven (7) calendar days of this date. If no such Notice is filed, the court will assume redaction of personal identifiers is not necessary and the transcript will be made available through PACER without redaction 90 days from today's date. The transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. The policy governing the redaction of personal information is located on the court website at www.ctd.uscourts.gov. Redaction Request due 1/12/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/22/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/22/2018. (Masse, S.) (Entered: 12/22/2017)
780 ORDER Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 1/19/2018. (Schneider, K) (Entered: 01/19/2018)
781 The Revised Exit Plan Status Report for the period of April 1, 2017, through September 30, 2017 (Attachments: # 1 Status Report 2nd & 3rd Quarter 2017) (Oliver, T.) (Entered: 01/22/2018)
782 NOTICE by Raymond Mancuso re 781 Notice (Other) (DCF Court Monitor's Notice of Filing Strategic Plan) (Attachments: # 1 Juan F. Strategic Plan)(Shearin, James) (Entered: 04/26/2018)
783 MOTION for Approval of Budget by Raymond Mancuso.Responses due by 6/5/2018 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Budget)(Shearin, James) (Entered: 05/15/2018)
784 ORDER granting 783 Motion for Approval of Budget. Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 5/30/2018. (Jaiman, R.) (Entered: 05/30/2018)
785 ORDER Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 8/22/2018. (Oliver, T.) (Entered: 08/23/2018)
786 The Revised Exit Plan Status Report for the period October 1, 2017 through March 31, 2018 (Attachments: # 1 Status Report Fourth Quarter 2017 and First Quarter 2018 final, # 2 Text of Proposed Order) (Oliver, T.) (Entered: 08/23/2018)
787 ENTERED IN ERROR...NOTICE OF E−FILED CALENDAR: THIS IS THE ONLY NOTICE COUNSEL/THE PARTIES WILL RECEIVE. ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE COURTHOUSE MUST PRESENT PHOTO IDENTIFICATION. Execution and Judicial Review of Revised Exit Plan set for 10/22/2018 04:30 PM in Courtroom One, 915 Lafayette Blvd., Bridgeport, CT before Judge Stefan R Underhill. (Caldero, M.) Modified on 10/22/2018 (Jaiman, R.). (Entered: 10/22/2018)

10/22/2018 10/30/2018 11/05/2018 02/26/2019 02/26/2019
03/11/2019 04/11/2019 04/26/2019

788 Docket Entry Correction...MODIFIED as document 787 Calendar Entry was ENTERED IN ERROR. (Jaiman, R.) (Entered: 10/22/2018)
789 STIPULATION Re Attorneys' Fees by F., Juan, By Next Friends Brian Lynch & Isabel Romero. (Frederick, Steven) (Entered: 10/30/2018)
790 ORDER approving 789 Stipulation re: Attorneys' Fees. Signed by Judge Stefan R Underhill on 11/5/2018. (Kaas, E.) (Entered: 11/05/2018)
791 ORDER Signed by Judge Stefan R Underhill on 2/26/2019. (Oliver, T.) (Entered: 02/26/2019)
792 The Revised Exit Plan Status Report for the period of April 1, 2018, through September 30, 2018 (Attachments: # 1 Status Report Report 2nd Qtr 2018 & 3rd Qtr 2018 cover letter, # 2 Status Report−2nd Quarter 2018 & 3rd Quarter 2018 final, # 3 Text of Proposed Order) (Oliver, T.) (Entered: 02/26/2019)
793 NOTICE by Raymond Mancuso re 792 Notice (Other), of Filing Correction to Report (Attachments: # 1 Corrected Table)(Shearin, James) (Entered: 03/11/2019)
794 MOTION for Approval of Budget by DCF Court Monitor's Office.Responses due by 5/2/2019 (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Budget)(Shearin, James) (Entered: 04/11/2019)
795 ORDER granting 794 Motion for Approval of Budget by DCF Court Monitor's Office. Signed by Judge Stefan R Underhill on 4/26/19. (Kaas, E.) (Entered: 04/26/2019)


[CONTENT] Connecticut | Department of Children and Youth Services | December 19, 1989 | the U.S. District Court | Connecticut ||| the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union Foundation | the American Civil Liberties Union ||| the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act | 1980 | the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act | First | Fourteenth Amendments ||| DCYS | custody.</ul ||| January 7, 1991 ||| Court | Probate Court Ordered Studies | the Consent Decree ||| the DCYS Monitoring Panel ||| December 19, 1996 ||| October 2003 | $1 million | first |||  ||| December 23, 2003 ||| three years later ||| May 5, 2008 ||| Two months later ||| December 2009 | Voluntary Services Program |||  ||| A year later | Voluntary Services Program ||| August 17, 2010 ||| August 31, 2010 | four months later ||| 2010 | U.S. ||| 2010 | 5376224 ||| April 13, 2010 | the Consent Decree | Exit Plan | the Consent Decree | Exit Plan ||| September 22, 2010 |||  ||| 2010 | U.S. ||| 2010 | 5590094 ||| the next seven years | quarterly ||| May 1, 2017 ||| Magistrate | Holly B. Fitzsimmons | later that year ||| one | December 13, 2017 | Court | 2017 ||| 14 ||| the Court Monitor | at least two quarters ||| The Court Monitor ||| Court Monitor |||  ||| DCF | at least two consecutive quarters | the Court Monitor |||  ||| February of 2019 | the Revised Exit Plan Status Report | April 1, 2018 | September 30, 2018 ||| ten | five ||| A year later | February of 2020 | April 1, 2019 to September 30, 2019 ||| one | DCF | four ||| October 7, 2020 | the Court Monitor | 2017 | Revised Exit Plan [SUMMARY] This class action brought by children placed in Connecticut's Department of Children and Youth Services (DCYS) was filed on December 19, 1989, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The plaintiffs were represented by the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the state to redress deficiencies in the child welfare system, claiming that the state violated the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, and the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. 

The complaint alleged that the defendants failed to: <ul> <li>provide adequate protective services to abused, neglected, or at risk children;
<li>provide adequate medical care, mental health treatment, substance abuse treatment, sexual abuse treatment to children in DCYS care;
<li>ensure that all children in DCYS care receive appropriate and least restrictive placements;
<li>ensure that all reports regarding these children are investigated and responded to promptly by caseworkers;
<li>provide sufficient and trained staff;
<li>provide adequate records and information systems;
<li>make reasonable efforts to keep families together by providing threatened families with reasonable and appropriate services to prevent placement into out-of-home care;
<li>provide minimally adequate and appropriate care to all of the children, placed by DCYS, into foster homes or similar settings;
<li>move children into adoptive or other permanent homes when reunification is impossible; and
<li>develop and implement appropriate case plans that will assure permanent placements for all children in their custody.</ul> On January 7, 1991, the parties reached a settlement agreement mandating broad scale reform. The Court entered a consent decree reflecting their agreement and requiring the defendants to: <ul><li>establish a training academy and statewide computerized data system; <li>appoint an advisory board; <li>design and implement a management structure that delineates reporting relationships; <li>establish a health management unit for children under the supervision, care or custody of the department; <li>increase staff by hiring qualified and experienced individuals; <li>establish comprehensive guidelines and regulations to facilitate the uniform intake and investigation of reports of suspected child abuse or neglect; <li>institute standards for treatment, case management, and family training, <li>implement objectives and goals for adoptions, <li>establish regional resource groups for consultations and evaluations; <li>develop procedures to complete Probate Court Ordered Studies within the timeframes specified by state law; and <li>establish a DCYS Monitoring Panel to determine, promulgate, or approve standards and procedures to fulfill the mandates of the Consent Decree, to implement reasonable timetables, and to establish mandatory funding amounts to ensure compliance.</ul> The Consent Decree could be modified, amended, or changed by the trial judge, but only upon the filing of an appropriate motion by a party or the DCYS Monitoring Panel. 

On December 19, 1996, the plaintiffs filed a motion for contempt. The defendants admitted to noncompliance and after extended negotiations the defendants agreed in October 2003 to: require the monitor to develop a definitive exit plan with specific outcomes; establish a Transition Task Force to assume all decisionmaking authority having substantial impact on the plaintiffs' safety and welfare; establish funds of $1 million for meeting emergency needs of class members; and to ensure that the governor would not replace the Commissioner during the term of this order without consulting the monitor first. Shortly thereafter, the monitor developed an exit plan detailing the necessary reforms and benchmarks that the defendants would have to meet. This plan was entered as a court order on December 23, 2003. It was modified three years later.

Despite some improvements made by the defendants, the plaintiffs formally reported noncompliance again on May 5, 2008. Two months later, the plaintiffs withdrew their assertions of noncompliance pursuant to another stipulated agreement in which the defendant's agreed to comply with the foster-care recruitment and retention plans, administrative case reviews and treatment planning conferences plans, and health-care requirements.

In December 2009, the plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and a permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from suspending new intakes to one of their programs, the Voluntary Services Program. The defendants responded by arguing that the children receiving treatment or assistance in that program were not members of the plaintiff class. A year later, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, stating that children in the Voluntary Services Program were indeed members of the class. On August 17, 2010, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion for preliminary injunction and motion for permanent injunction. The defendants filed a motion for reconsideration on August 31, 2010, but the court denied the motion four months later. 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135238; 2010 WL 5376224. 

In the meantime, while that motion for injunctive relief was pending, on April 13, 2010, the defendants sought to vacate the Consent Decree and Exit Plan, claiming that the objectives of the Consent Decree and Exit Plan had been achieved and that factual and legal changes would make continued enforcement unfair. The court denied the defendant’s motion to vacate on September 22, 2010. The court also directed the parties to meet immediately with the court monitor to discuss new methods of evaluating the state's performance. 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99455; 2010 WL 5590094.

For the next seven years, the monitor periodically provided the court with revised exit plan quarterly reports. The most recent exit plan was submitted by the court monitor's office on May 1, 2017. The parties were then given an opportunity to respond to the recommended exit plan, and when both did, the court scheduled settlement talks with Magistrate Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons for later that year. 

It's not clear if the parties agreed on a revised exit plan or if the court adopted one on its own, but on December 13, 2017, the Court entered a 2017 Revised Exit Plan and it appears that since then the case has continued by reference to compliance with that. That exit plan identified 14 relevant outcome measures. The plan also required the Court Monitor to conduct what it referred to as "Certification" reviews to ensure that defendants were in compliance with all of the outcome measures, and in sustained compliance with all of the outcome measures for at least two quarters prior to asserting compliance. The Court Monitor would then conduct a review of a statistically significant valid sample of cases to determined whether the defendants were in compliance.

The parties and Court Monitor later created a "Pre-Certification" review process. This intended to obviate the need to implement the full certification review for certain outcome measures after sustained compliance had been achieved for all outcome measures. Under this process, if DCF achieved sustained compliance for at least two consecutive quarters, the Court Monitor could, in his discretion, conduct a pre-certification review. The purpose of this review was to identify and provide a prompt and timely opportunity to remedy any problem areas. 

In February of 2019, the Court Monitor released the Revised Exit Plan Status Report, covering the period from April 1, 2018, to September 30, 2018. It found that of the ten remaining outcome measures, there were five that had not been pre-certified.

A year later, in February of 2020, the Court Monitor released another Exit Plan Status Report, covering the period from April 1, 2019 to September 30, 2019. The monitor found one more of the outstanding outcome measures, relating to the caseloads of DCF social workers, had been pre-certified, leaving four outcome measures awaiting pre-certification.

As of October 7, 2020, the Court Monitor has continued to assess compliance under the 2017 Revised Exit Plan, and the litigation is ongoing, presumably until the outcome measures required by the exit plan are met.