Texas Department of Family and Protective Services Self-Evaluation Report (Sep 2013)

TABLEOFCONTENTS
I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. AGENCYCONTACTINFORMATION...............................................................................3 KEYFUNCTIONSANDPERFORMANCE..........................................................................4 HISTORYANDMAJOREVENTS ....................................................................................30 POLICYMAKINGSTRUCTURE ......................................................................................33 FUNDING ....................................................................................................................40 ORGANIZATION..........................................................................................................48 GUIDETOAGENCYPROGRAMS..................................................................................58 NARRATIVES OFFICEOFTHEDFPSCOMMISSIONER..................................................................................... 58 DEPUTYCOMMISSIONERDIVISION......................................................................................... 58 INTERNALAUDIT................................................................................................................. 59 LEGALSERVICES.................................................................................................................. 59 OPERATIONS...................................................................................................................... 59 FINANCE............................................................................................................................ 60 STATEWIDEINTAKE................................................................................................................. 62 CHILDPROTECTIVESERVICES.................................................................................................... 71 PREVENTIONANDEARLYINTERVENTION................................................................................119 ADULTPROTECTIVESERVICES................................................................................................. 136 CHILDCARELICENSING .......................................................................................................... 158 VIII. IX. STATUTORYAUTHORITYANDRECENTLEGISLATION................................................191 MAJORISSUES..........................................................................................................227 ISSUE1:HOWSHOULDCHILDPROTECTIVESERVICESINHARRISCOUNTYBESTRUCTUREDAND
ADMINISTEREDTOENSUREOPTIMALOUTCOMESFORCHILDRENANDFAMILIES?................................227
ISSUE2:WHATCANBEDONETOIMPROVETHEQUALITYANDCONSISTENCYOFLEGALREPRESENTATIONIN CPSSUITS?......................................................................................................................... 230 ISSUE3:HOWCANDFPSIMPROVEINTAKESOFREPORTSOFABUSE,NEGLECT,ANDEXPLOITATIONAND ................................................................................................................ 232 OTHERINQUIRIES? ISSUE4:WHATCHANGESWOULDHELPDFPSKEEPSIBLINGSINFOSTERCARETOGETHERANDCLOSETO HOME?.............................................................................................................................. 234 ISSUE5:HOWCANADULTPROTECTIVESERVICESTARGETSERVICESTOREDUCEFUTUREHARM?..........236 ISSUE6:HOWCANTHEDEPARTMENTOFFAMILYANDPROTECTIVESERVICESWORKWITHOTHERAGENCIES, STAKEHOLDERSANDFAMILIESTOPREVENTCHILDFATALITIESDUETOABUSEANDNEGLECT?................238 ISSUE7:WHATCANBEDONETOMOVECHILDRENINDFPSCONSERVATORSHIPINTOSAFE,PERMANENT HOMESMOREQUICKLY?........................................................................................................ 242 X. OTHERCONTACTS....................................................................................................246
1 DFPS
TableofContents
XI. XII.
ADDITIONALINFORMATION....................................................................................251 AGENCYCOMMENTS ................................................................................................261 ALTERNATEEXHIBITPROVIDEDFORSECTIONVII.ITEMG........................264 ALTERNATEEXHIBITPROVIDEDFORSECTIONXI.ITEMA.........................277
APPENDIXA. APPENDIXB.
TableofContents
DFPS
I.
AGENCY A CO ONTACTINFORMA I ATION

TexasDepa artmentofFamily F andP ProtectiveS Services Exhibit1: AgencyCon ntacts Telep phone & Fa ax Num mbers 424 5124 6502
cutive HHSExec Commiss sioner
Name yleJanek, Ky M.D.
Address s BrownHea atly Building 4900N. LamarBlvd d. Austin,TX 78751231 16 701West51 5 st Street Austin,Tex xas 78751 BrownHea atly Building 4900N. LamarBlvd d. Austin,TX 78751231 16 701West51 5 st Street(MC CE 654) Austin,Tex xas 78751
EmailAddress Kyle e.Janek@hhsc.state.tx.u us
AgencyHead H
JohnJ. Sp pecia,Jr.
HHSSunset Liaison
Ke ellyGarcia
(O)51 12 4384 4119 (F)512 3395 5580 5124 487 3395
John.Specia@dfps.state.tx.us
Kell ly.Garcia@hhsc.state.tx us
nset DFPSSun Liaison
Pe eter Ha ajmasy
12 (O)51 4384 4124
Peter.Hajmasy@ @dfps.state.tx.us
I.AgencyContact C Inform mation
DFPS
II.
KEYFUNCTIONSANDPERFORMANCE
A. Provideanoverviewofyouragencysmission,objectives,andkeyfunctions. MISSION Department of Family and Protective Services(DFPS) operates within acoordinated Healthand Human Services (HHS) System. In 2003, the Legislature consolidated a fragmented health and human services delivery structure consisting of 12 separate agencies into five restructured agencies. The resulting HHS System improved client services by clearly defining individual agency responsibilities to implement clientfocused services. The Health and Human Services Commission provides oversight and consolidated administration services to eliminate duplication and ensure the five agencies operate as one integrated health and human services system. Within this structure, DFPS works to protect children, persons aged 65 or older, and people with disabilities from abuse, neglect, and exploitation by involving clients, families, and communities. OBJECTIVES DFPS has a broad range of objectives and goals related to children, persons who are 65 years andolder,andpersonswhoaredisabledasdetailedinstatelaw.Theagencysmainobjectives includethefollowing: ReduceChildAbuseandNeglect.Protectchildrenfromabuseandneglectbyworkingwith public and private entities to provide an integrated service delivery system. Provide professionals and the public the ability to report abuse, neglect, or exploitation 24 hours a day,sevendaysaweek,viaphone,fax,emailortheInternet. Reduce Adult Maltreatment. Protect the persons aged 65 years or older and adults with disabilities from abuse, neglect,and exploitation by investigating reports in certainfacilities andinhomesettings,andworkingwithpublicandprivateentitiestoprovideorarrangefor servicestoalleviateorpreventmaltreatment. ChildCareRegulation.Protectthehealth,safety,andwellbeingofchildreninoutofhome care through a system of licensing, regulation, and enforcement of minimum standards of care.
KEYFUNCTIONS By working with communities to protect children, persons aged 65 years and older, and people with disabilities from abuse, neglect, and exploitation, DFPS protects the unprotected. The Department also works to protect the health and safety of children in daycare, aswell as foster care and other types of 24hour care, by regulating such facilities, andprovidingservices,referrals,andpreventionprograms.DFPShasthreemajorprograms thatdothisimportantwork:
4 DFPS
II.KeyFunctionsandPerformance
o ChildProtectiveServices, o AdultProtectiveServices,and o ChildCareLicensing. In addition, the Statewide Intake division operates the Texas Abuse and Neglect hotline and website.Thesemaindivisionsperformthefollowingkeyfunctions. ChildProtectiveServices TheChildProtectiveServices(CPS)divisionprotectschildrenfromabuseandneglectandworks with families to prevent future abuse and neglect. DFPS does this in several ways. The most common is investigating complaints of abuse or neglect, which can require getting involved in thedecisionsoffamiliesandparents. State law requires anyone who suspects child abuse or neglect to report it to DFPS, if the suspectedabuseinvolvesapersonresponsibleforthecare,custody,orwelfareofachild. CPS works with families in several ways to protect the safety and welfare of children. Through the investigation process, CPS identifies atrisk parents and takes steps to protect those children from possible abuse and neglect. For services needed beyond investigation, DFPS caseworkersservethefamilythroughoneoftwoprograms:FamilyBasedSafetyServices(FBSS) or Substitute Care. FBSS is an option in cases when children do not appear to be in immediate danger. FBSS caseworkers try to improve the home environment and parents skills so their childrencanstayhomewithoutfutureabuseorneglect.CPSopensasubstitutecarecasewhen a court decides the safety risk is so great that children must be removed from their homes. Caseworkers try to improve the home environment and the skills of parents so children can safely rejoin their families. If a home cannot be made safe, the agency may ask a court to permanently remove that child from the parents custody. DFPS then seeks an adoptive family orotherlongtermplacementforthechild. AdultProtectiveServices The Adult Protective Services (APS) division protects adults and persons aged 65 or older or have disabilities, from abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation. More than 4.5 million Texans areolderthan65yearsorhaveadisability.Muchoftheagencysworkisdoneduringinhome investigations. APS conducted 87,487 inhome investigations in FY 2012 and confirmed 59,601 victims of abuse, neglect, or financial exploitations. APS investigations are different from CPS investigations, as they involve adults who presumably have the capacity to make their own decisions. Also, APS cases often involve victims who neglect themselves when they are either unable or unwilling to obtain food, medicine, or other basic necessities. APS caseworkers specializeinhelpingclientsfindtheresourcestheyneed,oftenfromcommunityorganizations. APS also protects people with disabilities by investigating complaints of abuse, neglect, and exploitationincontractedorstateoperatedsettingsthatservechildrenandadultswithmental illness or mental disabilities. APS acts as an independent investigator of allegations in facilities
II.KeyFunctionsandPerformance 5 DFPS
such as StateSupported Living Centers and state hospitals, and turns its findings over to the facility administrator. In the case of settings operated or contracted by the Department of Aging and Disability services (DADS), APS also provides the case findings to DADS for appropriateaction(exceptforcasesincommunitycenters). ChildCareLicensing The agencys Child Care Licensing (CCL) division licenses and regulates daycare operations, childplacing agencies, and 24hour residential childcare facilities. The agency licenses and regulates daycare operations ranging from smallhome daycare to large licensed childcare centers. Together these daycare operations have the capacity to care for more than 1,000,000 children. TheCCLdivisionperformsthefollowingmainactivities: Conductsinitiallicensinginspectionsonalllicensedandregisteredchildcareoperations. Preforms criminal background and central registry (database of confirmed abuse and neglectfindings)checksonallpersons14yearsofageandolderwhoareworkingorlivingin childcareoperations. Investigatesallegationsofabuseorneglectandminimumstandardviolationinchildcare.
Conductsregularunannouncedinspectionsatalllicensedandregisteredchildcarecenters. In addition, CCL creates, announces, and enforces minimum standards for childcare facilities to helpensurethesafetyandwellbeingofchildreninoutofhomecare.
B. Do your key functions continue to serve a clear and ongoing objective? Explain why each of these functions is still needed. What harm would come from no longer performingthesefunctions? Yes, each of DFPSs key functions serves a clear and ongoing objective. The need to protect Texass children from abuse and neglect continues to be an important State priority, and DFPS serves as the States primary agency responsible for responding to such allegations. The populations that DFPS protects and serves (children, adults with disabilities, and persons aged 65 or older) continue to grow, as do the number of allegations of abuse, neglect, and exploitation. For example, the increasing number of confirmed child abuse victims clearly indicates that abuse and neglect remains a prominent problem in our state. While much of this increase can be attributed to an increased child population and longterm trends of better reporting and public awareness of child abuse, some of the increase is related to societal trends such as increasing poverty and generational patterns of drug abuse. Studies show that adults who were abused and neglected when they were children perform worse in nearly every social measurement, from poverty rates to teen pregnancies to drug use to incarceration. As the agency that intervenes in this cycle of abuse, DFPSs role is central to preventing children from
suffering maltreatment and then repeating these destructive behaviors when they become adults. While other agencies contribute to the Texas child welfare system, DFPS is the sole agencychargedwithfindingandprotectingchildrenwhoarebeingabusedorneglected. Similarly, the population of people in Texas who are persons aged 65 or older or have disabilities also continues to grow. From 2002 to 2012, abuse, neglect, and exploitation investigations for people living at home grew substantially. If DFPS did not investigate such allegationsofabuse,theStatewouldbeunabletoprotectthesevulnerablegroupsfromabuse, neglect,andexploitation. DFPS is the only state agency in Texas that regulates childcare and the demand for childcare within the state continues to grow. Picking a quality daycare facility can be a difficult choice; however, DFPS supports working parents by ensuring that childcare facilities meet minimum standardsthatpromotethesafetyofchildreninchildcare. If the agency no longer performed these functions, there would be no regulation and little, if any,oversightofdaycareandfostercarehomesandfacilitiestopromotethehealthandsafety ofchildreninoutofhomecare. Finally, contracting for prevention services is an important part of the agencys efforts to break thecycleofchildabuseandpooroutcomesdescribedearlierinthissection.Theneedforthese services will continue to grow as the Texas child population soars. The Texas Legislature created the Prevention and Early Intervention (PEI) division at DFPS to consolidate prevention and early intervention programs in one agency and eliminate fragmentation and duplication of contracted services for atrisk children, youth, and families. PEI oversight provides accountability and efficiency. Without coordinated prevention programs it is likely that atrisk families would become less stable, more atrisk youth would dropout of school and run away fromhome,andabuseandneglectwouldincrease.

C. What evidence can your agency provide to show your overall effectiveness and efficiencyinmeetingyourobjectives? InadditiontotheLegislativeBudgetBoardapprovedperformancemeasures,DFPSusesvarious means to determine its effectiveness and efficiency in meeting objectives. The following informationdescribessomeofthosemethods. Surveys DFPS uses a number of surveys to collect stakeholder and employee feedback, which help evaluate effectiveness. For example, DFPS participated in the 2010 HHS Report on Customer Service, which focused on clients who are children with special healthcare needs. Through this report, DFPS identified 13,950 youth with special healthcare needs in the agencys care (foster care or other forms of substitute care). The biennial State Employee Engagement (SEE) also offers insights from an internal perspective. In the 2012 survey, DFPS scored well on quality of supervision, teamwork, working well with other organizations, and for delivering the services
that match the needs of clients. In 2012, Child Care Licensing conducted a website survey on childcare center ratio and group size, and a review of the potential impact on stakeholders of reducingchildcaregiverratiosandmaximumgroupsizes.CCLalsoheldastakeholderforumto get input from childcare providers, parents who use childcare services, and others. The purpose of both the survey and the forum was to offer an opportunity for parents, childcare providers, and other stakeholders to share their ideas, concerns, and recommendations about currentratiosandgroupsizesandassesstheneedforanychanges. FederalReviews The Childrens Bureau of the U.S. Health and Human Services Department reviews the child welfare systems in all states to ensure they are providing effective, quality services to children and families. States develop and implement program improvement plans after each review. ThelatestTexasProgramImprovementPlanwasnegotiatedduring2009andtheapprovedplan was implemented in 2010. The Texas Program Improvement Plan focused on four key cross cuttingthemes: Strengtheningcriticaldecisionmakingskills; Removingbarrierstopermanency; EnhancingplacementcapacitybyredesigningtheTexasfostercaresystem;and
StrengtheningtheFamilyBasedSafetyServicesprogram. AuditFindings Internal Audit is an independent, objective function that provides a systematic, disciplined approach to evaluating the effectiveness of agency controls. Internal audits include findings and recommendations that help agency management address potential risks and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of internal controls. DFPS Internal Audit conducted 14 audits of programprocessesinFY2011and2012,whichgavemanagementopportunitiestoimprovethe efficiencyandeffectivenessofagencyprocesses. The State Auditors Office also performed audits on CPS caseload and staffing analysis, CPS expenditures for direct delivery staff, and residential childcare providers. These audits gave DFPS management additional opportunities to improve the effectiveness of policies and procedures. PerformanceManagementReview DFPS uses a performance management system to enhance employee and manager performance and, ultimately, improve outcomes for clients. This system includes performance planning, monitoring, mentoring, and evaluating. The process includes routine manager employeeconferencing,usingemployeedevelopmentnotesthroughouttheevaluationperiod.
DFPS
ComplaintsandQualityAssurance The DFPS Office of Consumer Affairs (OCA) reviews casespecific complaints against agency programs, including Child Protective Services, Adult Protective Services, and Child Care Licensing.ConsumerAffairshandlescomplaintsinanunbiasedmanneranddeterminesifDFPS staff followed policy and procedures. The Office also performs a quality assurance role by providingfeedbacktoprogramsonthequalityoftheirinvestigationsandservices. Also, the HHSC Office of the Ombudsman compiles complaint data for the entire HHS System and reports such information to the Executive Commissioner on a monthly basis. Beyond addressing agencyspecific issues, this systemwide reporting process allows HHSC, in its leadership and oversight role, to identify trends or systemic issues that may need to be addressedcomprehensivelyacrosstheHHSSystem. StatisticsandManagementReports The agency publishes the DFPS Annual Report and Data Book, an extensive description of DFPS programs and statistics on the services DFPS provides to the people of the Texas. This publication covers the most frequently asked statistical questions about DFPS programs and helps measure the agencys effectiveness. Also, DFPS systematically runs a wide array of other statistical management reports that allow it to analyze how it is performing key functions and services.Thesereportsdemonstratebotheffectivenessandefficiencyandenablemanagement tomakeadjustmentstoimproveboth.Thesereportsincludeeverythingfromthetimelinessof completinginvestigationstohowsafechildrenareinfostercare.
D. Does your agencys enabling law continue to correctly reflect your mission, objectives, and approach to performing your functions? Have you recommended changes to the Legislature in the past to improve your agencys operations? If so, explain. Were the changesadopted? Yes, created in Chapter 40, Human Resources Code, the Departments enabling law correctly reflects its mission, objectives, and functions. Section 40.002 summarizes the agencys core functions. The Departments core mission (to protect children and vulnerable adults from abuse, neglect, and exploitation and to regulate childcare providers) has not changed since the 1996 Sunset review, although state and federal law have significantly reshaped the agencys approachtoperformingsuchfunctions.Beforeeachlegislativesession,lawmakersaskDFPSto identify barriers to the efficient and effective operation of its programs, and together with the Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC), the agency makes legislative recommendations.Thefollowingisasummaryofthemostsignificantdevelopmentsrelatedto DFPSorHHSCrecommendationsinthe79th,80th,and81stLegislativeSessions. 79thLegislativeSession Senate Bill 6 is the most comprehensive legislation affecting DFPS over the past decade. AlthoughS.B.6includeschangesthatoriginatedfromothersourcesaswell,keyHHSCandDFPS recommendationscontainedinS.B.6includethefollowingmajorinitiatives:
SystemicCPSprogramreformby: o Restructuringinvestigations; o Improvingcaseworkerperformance; o Increasingthenumberofkinshipcare(familiesandfamilyfriends)placements; o Supportingyouthagingoutofthefostercaresystem; o Improvingmedicalservicesforchildreninstatecare;and o Requiring review of CPS actions to identify disproportionate effects on certain racial andethnicgroups.
SystemicReformoftheAPSprogramby: o Transferring the APS guardianship program to the Department of Aging and DisabilityServices(DADS); o ImprovingclientsafetythroughanewAPSriskassessmenttool; o Improvingcaseworkerperformance;and o Improving outcomes in complex cases through use of specialized experts and increasedcommunitypartnerinvolvement.
Strengthenedprotectionsforchildreninregulatedchildcareby: o Mandatingrandomlicensinginspectionsoffosterhomes; o Requiringbackgroundchecksfor24hourcarefacilities; o Creatinganewlicenserequirementforchildplacingagencyadministrators; o Requiring 24hour care providers to report certain serious incidents involving childrenincare;and o EnhancingCCLenforcementtools.
80thLegislativeSession Senate Bill 758 contained many DFPS recommendations that built on the successes of S.B. 6 of the 79th Legislature. While S.B. 6 focused primarily on improving investigations, this round of DFPS recommendations improved other services to children and families. While S.B. 758 includes changes originating from other sources, key DFPS recommendations enacted in S.B. 758includethefollowing. Requiring DFPS to develop and implement a plan for improving services for children and familiesthatwill: o keep families together through an enhanced InHome Support program and other measures; o include a new post psychiatric hospitalization stepdown rate for certain foster youth;
o improvethequalityandaccountabilityoffostercare;and o reducetherateofgrowthoffostercare,aswellasthelengthoftimechildrenspend infostercare. MandatingaccessbyCPStomedicalandotherrecordsrelatingtoareportofchildabuseor neglect. ImprovingtheChildCareLicensing(CCL)functionby: o adding safety specialists, risk analysts, and a performance management unit to improveaccountability; o requiring agency representatives to meet, facetoface, with daycare directors duringannualunannouncedinspections;and o requiring all daycare center applicants to get a fingerprintbased criminal history check. Additional recommendations made by DFPS and enacted by the 80th Legislature were as follows. Authorizing DFPS to designate the childs parent or foster parent to approve medical care (medicalconsenter)whenDFPShastheauthoritytoconsentforachildsmedicalcare(H.B. 2580). AmendingChapter263oftheTexasFamilyCodeonnotice,attendance,andparticipationby children and other interested parties at required court hearings in order to satisfy federal fundingrequirements(S.B.759).
81stLegislativeSession DFPS recommended numerous changes to implement portions of the federal Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008. Key recommendations enacted underbothS.B.2080andH.B.1151,wereasfollows. Creating a guardianship assistance program, named the Permanency Care Assistance Program, which provides benefits similar to adoption assistance for extended family members who become verified foster parents for at least six months before assuming permanentcustodyofafosterchild. Extending foster care eligibility to age 21. Expanding adoption and permanency care assistance eligibility until a youths 21st birthday for youth who left DFPS custody after turning16.
Inaddition,DFPSrecommendednumerouschanges,enactedinS.B.939,inresponsetofindings inTexas2008federalChildandFamilyServicesReview(CFSR),includingthefollowing. Expanding eligibility for the college tuition waiver benefit to youth who are placed in permanent custody of a person other than the parent and increasing the maximum age for enrollmentuptoage25.
11 DFPS
Requiringthatachildspermanencyplanincludeconcurrentpermanencygoalsandthatthe Departmentshowsacompellingreasonwhyadoptionortransferringpermanentcustodyto anotherindividualisnotinthechildsbestinterests. Modifying requirements for judicial findings in various hearings conducted under Chapter 263oftheTexasFamilyCodetoensureconformitywithfederalfundinglaws.
Finally, the agency recommended a number of initiatives to improve its Licensing functions, enactedinS.B.68,including: creatingstatutoryexemptionstoexempttheseprogramsbyrule; enhancingtheagencysinvestigatorypowers;and providing a clear statutory framework for fingerprint based criminal history background checks for childcare workers and other persons, including those required to undergo such checksunderthefederalAdamWalshAct.
82ndLegislativeSession Senate Bill 218, sought to redesign the fostercare system.The systemwas structurally flawed, so in January 2010, DFPS joined other child welfare leaders to redesign Texas foster care system and improve outcomes for children and their families. Senate Bill 218 streamlined and enhanced the foster care system, focusing on changing the ways that DFPS contracts and pays forservices.DFPSrecommendationscontainedinS.B.218includethefollowinginitiatives. SystemicRedesignoftheFosterCaresystemby: o having a flexible funding plan that neither precludes nor requires additional foster carefunding,exceptforwhatisnecessaryfornormalcaseloadgrowth; o usingcompetitivelyprocuredSingleSourceContinuumContractors(SSCC)toprovide afullrangeofpaidfostercareservicesineachofseveralgeographicareas; o being open to both instate and outofstate forprofit and notforprofit entities withpreferenceforprovidersthatalreadyofferqualityservicesinTexas; o holding contractors accountable for wellbeing and permanency outcomes by using performancebasedcontractsthatincludefinancialincentivesandremedies; o allottingpurchasedservicesfundstoeachSSCCtocoordinateanddeliverservicesto thefamiliesofthechildrenintheircare; o implementingablendedratethatissimilartoanaverageperdiempaymentratefor allchildreninpaidfostercareregardlessofservicelevelorplacementtype; o implementingastagedrolloutoftheredesignedfostercaresystemacrossthestate andastagedimplementationwithineachgeographicarea;and o allowingCPScaseworkerstoretaintheresponsibilityofcasemanagementinsteadof privatizingcasemanagement. Enhancedplacementoptionsforchildrenby:
12 DFPS
o increasing the number of children and youth placed with their siblings and in their homecommunities; o increasingthenumberofchildrenwhoremainintheirschooloforigin; o decreasing the average time children spend in foster care before achieving permanency (such as adoption or living with relative who accepts legal responsibility,andsoon); o decreasingthenumberoftimeschildrenmovetonewhomeswhileinfostercare; o decreasing the duration and intensity of services that children need while in foster careduetoimprovedwellbeingandbehavioralfunctioning; o creatingincentivesforcontinuousimprovementoftheservicesofferedbytheSSCC; and o creating robust and sustainable service continuums in communities throughout Texas. 83rdLegislativeSession During the 83rd Legislature, DFPS recommended numerous changes to ensure the safety of children, train and retain staff, and strengthen our infrastructure to improve service delivery. An important recommendation enacted this session was the creation of the alternative responsetrack(S.B.423)forChildProtectiveServices(CPS). KeypointsofS.B.423include: allowingCPStocreateanalternatetrack,calledalternativeresponse,forlowriskcases; allowing CPS to conduct an assessment rather than an investigation, when responding to lessseriousallegationsofabuseorneglect; ensuring that DFPS does not designate an alleged perpetrator in alternative response cases butdoeslinkthesefamiliestotheappropriateservices;and permitting DFPS to implement and study this system in certain regions before deploying statewide.
The agency also recommended a number of Child Care Licensing (CCL) initiatives that were enactedinS.B.427,includingthefollowing. Creating a new exemption for certain emergency shelters that provide shelter, care, or servicestoallegedvictimsofhumantrafficking. Allowing for certain licensed childcare centers or homes with good compliance histories to receivebiennialinspections. Requiring the same fingerprint criminal history checks for general residential operations, childplacing agencies, licensed foster homes, and licensed administrators as for all other childcareoperationslicensedbyDFPS.
13
DFPS
Allowing DFPS to impose immediate monetary penalties on operations that fail to take certainactionsrelatedtobackgroundchecks. Adding new grounds for remedial action against an administrators license to prevent a person from being a licensed administrator if the person is ineligible to be a controlling personatanoperation.
AdditionalrecommendationsmadebyDFPSthatwereenactedbythe83rdLegislatureSession: Senate Bill 886 clarifies the Family Code regarding young adults who remain in foster care and must be under the extended jurisdiction of a court to qualify for Title IVE foster care reimbursement. The bill clarifies provisions that are essential to maximizing federal funding. Senate Bill 1236 allows emergency orders for protective services obtained by the APS programtostayinplaceforupto70days,comparedtothecurrentmaximumof60days.
RecommendationsNotEnactedinthe83rdLegislativeSession Clarifying the federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA). These recommendations were included in S.B. 768, which was a technical cleanup bill that ensuredthecomplianceofTexascodewithCAPTAbyamendingcurrentlawrelatingtosuits affectingtheparentchildrelationship. Enhancingcertainagencyregulatoryenforcementactionsdesignedto: o improveagencyaccesstofinancialrecordsinfinancialexploitationcases; o clarify agency authority to purchase services for relatives and other caretakers of APSclientsinordertoprotecttheclient; o clarifyagencyauthoritytoinvestigateselfneglectwithoutaclientspermission;and
o
provide greater flexibility for obtaining emergency orders for protective services for vulnerableadults.
E. Doanyofyouragencysfunctionsoverlaporduplicatethoseofanotherstateorfederal agency? Explain if, and why, each of your key functions is most appropriately placed within your agency. How do you ensure against duplication with other related agencies? While DFPS interacts and coordinates with many state agencies, its protective services functions do not overlap and are not duplicated by any other state agency. For example, federal law requires, funds, and guides protective services, and DFPS is the primary state agency charged with protecting both children and persons aged 65 or older or persons with disabilitiesfromabuse,neglect,andexploitation.Althoughmanyotherfederal,state,andlocal agenciesareinvolvedinagencyfunctions,DFPSistheprimaryentityrequiredbylawtoprotect thesepopulations.
For example, at a local level, DFPS works closely with law enforcement agencies and prosecutors across Texas, coordinating investigations. When allegations of abuse or neglect that result in death, serious injury, sexual abuse, or other crimes occur, DFPS handles the civil side of the case and law enforcement handles the criminal side. These functions complement, but do not duplicate, each other. While the criminal justice system determines innocence or guiltofaccusedpersons,DFPSprotectschildrenandyouthfromabuseandneglect. Also, at the state level, DFPS also works closely with the Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS) and the Department of State Health Services (DSHS). DFPS serves as the only investigative arm for alleged cases of abuse and neglect occurring in StateOperated facilities, including: StateSupportedLivingCenters; StateHospitals; StateCenters; privately operated intermediate care facilities (ICFs) for those with intellectual or developmentaldisabilities(IDD); communitycentersforpeoplewithintellectualordevelopmentaldisabilities;and facility and community center contractors, including home and communitybased waiver programs.
In addition to this interagency coordination effort, the Legislature, through H.B. 2292, reorganizedthestatehealthandhumanservicessystemtoimproveclientservices,consolidate organizational structures and functions, eliminate duplicative administrative systems, and streamline processes and procedures to maximize efficiencies across the agencies. This legislation realigned operations of the existing 12 health and human services agencies by consolidatingsimilarfunctionsintofiveagencies.Thepurposewastocenterservicedeliveryin afewagenciesratherthanofferingfragmentedservicesacrossmanyagencies. DFPS also guards against duplication of services by other state and federal agencies through memorandums of understanding and by building close working relationships through its communityengagementmodel. For Child Care Licensing, no other state agency regulates, inspects, and investigates complaints toassurethesafetyandqualityofcareprovidedineitherdaycareorresidentialchildcare.DFPS coordinates with state and local fire and sanitation officials, as well as law enforcement when DFPSstaffuncoverevidenceofpossiblecrimes.However,noduplicationofservicesexists. Finally, DFPS contracts for certain prevention services. No other state or federal agency contracts for services directly intended to reduce delinquency, abuse, and neglect of children andyouth.
F. Ingeneral,howdootherstatescarryoutsimilarfunctions? Allstatesprotectchildrenandadultsfromabuseandneglectthroughsimilarfunctionsofthose housedatDFPS;however,themethodsandorganizationalstructuresofdoingsovary. ChildProtectiveServices Some states, like Florida and Texas, have centrally administered statebased child welfare systems. Other states, like California and Pennsylvania, have countybased systems for protectingchildrenandworkingwithfamiliestopreventabuseandneglectinthefuture.Some areas even use citybased welfare systems, like the one in New York City. However, all states have child protective services within their borders in one form or fashion, and must follow the samefederalstandardstoreceiveasubstantialportionoftheirbudgets. AdultProtectiveServices Somestateshavecentrallyadministeredsystemstoprotectpeoplewhoarepersonsaged65or olderorwhohavedisabilitiesfromabuse,neglect,andexploitation.Otherstateshavecounty based systems. For example, Minnesota and Colorado counties provide protective services for adults,whileMichiganandTennesseehavestateadministeredprogramslikeTexas. ChildCareLicensing Childcare regulation and licensing is administered at different levels of government in different states. For example, in Colorado, the regulation of childcare is statesupervised and county administered. In California, Florida, and Texas, the regulatory program is located in the states protectiveserviceagencies.InKansasandUtah,theregulatoryprogramislocatedinthestates department of health. And, in Ohio, the childcare regulatory program is located within the departmentofjobsandfamilyservices.
G.Whatkeyobstaclesimpairyouragencysabilitytoachieveitsobjectives? The Department faces a variety of obstacles that impair its ability to most effectively and efficientlyachieveitsstrategicobjectives.Theseincludethefollowing. 1. GAPSINMENTALHEALTHRESOURCESANDOTHERCOMMUNITYSERVICES Child Protective Services (CPS) and Adult Protective Services (APS) provide services to certain children,youth,andadultsbecauseother,moreappropriateavenuesareunavailabletothem. ChildProtectiveServices CPSandtheDepartmentofStateHealthServices(DSHS)arepartneringtoaddresstheneedfor mental health services for Texas children without turning to CPS to obtain placement for residential treatment. DSHS received substantial funding, in the 83rd Regular Legislative Session,toimprovementalhealthservices,whichshouldpositivelyimpactAPSandCPSclients.
Sometimes parents of children with serious emotional disorders cannot access mental health services for their child because of waiting lists for communitybased services or because they either (1) lack health insurance that covers comprehensive mental health treatment, or (2) becausetheirhealthinsurancecapstheamountofmentalhealthcareprovided.Somefamilies findthemselveswithnootheroptionsthantoturntoCPStoobtainplacementfortheirchildin a residential treatment center, or as a way to receive other intensive mental health services. Unfortunately, for a child in such circumstances to receive those services from the State, CPS musttakecustodyofthechild,basedonafindingofabuseorneglect.Inaddition,thejuvenile justicesystemoftendischargestheirclientstoCPS. Such cases strain an already taxed State system and county budgets, as the county must fund legalrepresentationandcourttime. AdultProtectiveServices The vast majority of APS investigations involve allegations of client selfneglect. Many older Texans, often socially isolated, do not connect with social services until their situation deteriorates to the point someone calls APS because they notice potential selfneglect. For adultswithmentalillnessorotherdisabilities,thelocalsocialserviceagencies,suchasamental health authority, often depend on APS to help meet the basic living or other needs of their clients.Inessence,inmanycommunities,APSisaserviceprovideroflastresort. 2. UPFRONTDUEPROCESSFORCPSANDAPSINVESTIGATIONS DFPSs ability to share information outside the agency to protect children and vulnerable adults ishamperedbythelackoftimelydueprocessinfindingsofabuse,neglect,orexploitation. Statutory gaps and inconsistencies related to due process exist between CPS and APS cases. When CPS makes a finding that a person committed abuse or neglect that person is a designated perpetrator (DP). Statute entitles the DP to an administrative review of the finding, but not to a dueprocess hearing to contest the finding. The administrative review is primarily a desk review conducted by a CPS employee not involved in the initial investigation. SomecasesalsoreceiveasecondaryreviewbytheOfficeofConsumerAffairs(OCA).Whilethe administrativereviewhelpsensureevidencesupportsthefinding,itdoesnotincludeimportant procedural protections afforded in a due process hearing, such as the right to present and crossexamine witnesses. In contrast, statute provides that some APS cases DPs receive a due processhearing. The lack of upfront due process in CPS and some APS cases delay DFPSs ability to share findings outside the agency for the protection of children or vulnerable adults. Under most circumstances,theDepartmentmustprovideadueprocesshearingbeforereleasingthefinding to an outside entity, such as an employer. For example, a designated perpetrator might apply to work in a childcare facility years after the finding; however, the passage of time unfairly disadvantages both the Departments ability to present evidence to support the finding as well astheDPsabilitytodefendthemselves.
Inresponsetoalawsuitin2009,andinasecondopinionissuedinAugust2013,theThirdCourt of Appeals urged the Legislature to fix this problem by requiring that due process be offered moretimely.Thesedecisionshavesignaledthatafuturechallengeonsomewhatdifferentfacts may result in the Departments process being declared constitutionally invalid. DFPSs current strategic plan lays out a longterm strategy for providing upfront due process hearings to address this barrier, but this strategy is dependent upon the Legislature to appropriate additionalresources. 3. IMBALANCEINGEOGRAPHICDISTRIBUTIONOFSERVICES Many Texas communities lack services for both children and adults who have been abused or neglected. The CPS and APS programs are frequently called upon to serve children, families, and vulnerable adults, either because communities lack local resources or services. For example, finding services for children in their own communities can be difficult. Too often, CPS must move children in foster care to far away cities because the services they need do not exist in their local communities. These children leave behind siblings, peers, families, schools, churches, and other support networks. To a large extent, the current foster care system structure does not encourage providers to establish services where the services are needed. DFPS uses an open enrollment process to procure residential childcare (foster care) services forspecificplacementtypes. While DFPS does enlist a sufficient number of qualified providers, the process offers no assurancethatproviderswilllocateincommunitieswhereresidentialservicesareneeded.Asa result, there is an imbalance in the geographic distribution of foster care services throughout the state. For example,one area ofTexas may have a largenumber of basic fostercare homes but few, if any, therapeutic settings such as residential treatment centers. This is problematic for DFPS caseworkers who want to place children close to home, for providers who must care forchildrenfromothercommunitiesand,mostimportantly,forthechildrenbeingserved. DifferencesinresourcesinruralandurbancommunitiesalsoaffectbothCPSandAPS.ForAPS, rural communities tend to have fewer resources available to support older Texans, APS service maybe the only resource available. In urban communities, services for adults with mental illness or other disabilities may exist but are often overwhelmed by the demand. When a community lacks resources, APS intakes often increase, as does the demand for APS to purchaseclientservicestocompensateforthelackofservicesinthecommunity. 4. USEANDDETECTIONOFILLEGALANDLEGALSUBSTANCES DFPS faces obstacles in dealing with clients and caregivers with substance abuse problems due to the difficulty of detecting new illegal substances, the high cost of testing, and the need for ongoingtraining. DFPS serves many families who have substance abuse problems, as using alcohol and drugs is also one way that families and youth try to cope with the trauma of abuse, neglect, removal,
andseparation.Substanceabuse,includingsyntheticsubstances,posesathreattochildsafety and can lead to serious harm. While drug testing continues to improve and advance, new substances are continually introduced into the drug culture that either cannot be detected or are expensive and difficult to detect. DFPS continues to face obstacles related to the difficulty of detecting new substances, the ways the substances are packaged, and the cost of drug testingforawidevarietyofsubstances. Some APS clients are also affected by the medical and psychiatric effects of longterm substanceabuse.ThisusuallymanifestsinselfneglectormedicalneglectandAPSstaffarenot sufficientlytrainedorversedintheeffectsofalcoholanddrugsonpersonsage65 orolderand persons with disabilities, nor is there any specific funding to provide treatment to family or significant others who provide care. While APS is allowed to purchase treatment for family members, it rarely does so because of the high cost and need to prioritize the limited amount ofAPSservicefunding. 5. LACKOFNEEDEDINFORMATIONANDTECHNOLOGYSKILLS The competition for technology workforce is an obstacle to DFPSs ongoing efforts to give frontlinestaffthetoolsandrelatedservicestheyneedtoworkmostefficiently. Competition in both the private and public sectors and less desirable state salaries are compounded by the fact that DFPS salaries are, on average, more than 13.5 percent below otherstateagenciesforthesamejobdescription. 6. RURALNETWORKCONNECTIVITY ManyDFPSofficeslackthenetworkbandwidthtomeetthedailybusinessneedsofstaff. DFPS has 293 office locations across the state of Texas. Approximately 40 percent, or 120 mostly rural offices, do not have sufficient network bandwidth, which reduces staff productivity. For example, one person attending a small multimedia distance learning training session on their computer at a low bandwidth site will use all the bandwidth for that location, whichpreventsanyothernetworktrafficforotherworktobeperformed.
H. Discuss any changes that could impact your agencys key functions in the near future (suchaschangesinfederallaworoutstandingcourtcases). One pending court case has the potential to significantly impact agency operations. In March 2011, Childrens Rights of New York, a national child welfare advocacy group, filed a federal class action lawsuit against the Texas Governor, the Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC), and the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS). Childrens Rights seeks to establish a superclass and four smaller subclasses of children for whom Texas has permanent managing conservatorship (PMC), totaling more than 12,000 children. Specifically, ChildrensRightsseekstoestablishthefollowing.
1. A class on behalf of all children in Texass PMC,alleging that Texasmaintains an insufficient numberofcaseworkers. 2. A subclass on behalf of PMC children in licensed foster care, alleging that Texas has an insufficient number, geographic distribution, and array of placements for children, fails to oversee and monitor its licensed foster care placements, and children are denied the right offamilialassociationbecausesiblinggroupsareseparatedandchildrenaremovedfarfrom familymembers. 3. A subclass of PMC children in foster group homes, alleging that Texas fails to ensure that foster group homes meet accepted professional standards of staffing ratios, caregiver training,andrequiringwakingcaregivers(caregiversawakearoundtheclock). 4. AsubclassofPMCchildrenatabasiclevelwhoareplacedinageneralresidentialoperation (GRO), alleging that placing basic level children in a nonemergency GRO does not provide themtheleastrestrictiveenvironment. 5. AsubclassofPMCchildreninunverified,kinshipplacements,allegingthatTexasdecisionto not require kinship placements to be verified deviates from accepted professional standards of licensing and verification, caregiver training, and providing monthly foster carefinancialsupport. As a remedy for their complaint, Childrens Rights seeks broad injunctive relief against DFPS. ThespecificreliefChildrensRightsseeksconsistsofrequiring:
1.
Texas to ensure that all PMC children have a Child Protective Services (CPS) caseworker whose caseload does not exceed standards established by the Child Welfare League of AmericaortheCouncilonAccreditation(lowerthanCPSscurrentcaseloadlevels). Anassessmentbyunknownqualifiedprofessionalstodeterminetheaggregateneedofall PMC children in licensed foster care for additional placements that will provide the necessary number, geographic distribution, and array of placement options, the time periodbywhichtheseplacementswillbedeveloped,andthestepsnecessarytoimplement thoseplacementoptions. An assessment by unknown qualified professionals to determine the resources and processes necessary to ensure that [Texas] has the capacity to monitor and enforce compliance with licensing standards for licensed foster care placements, the time period by which the resources and processes will be developed and implemented, and the steps necessarytodevelopandimplementtheresourcesandprocesses. Texas to stop placing children in foster group homes until they comply with accepted professionalstandards. Texastostopplacingbasiclevelchildreningeneralresidentialoperations. Texas to license, train, and pay all kinship homes in the same manner that it does other licensedfostercareproviders.
2.
3.
4.
5. 6.
20
DFPS
Childrens Rights also seeks the appointment of a court monitor to oversee implementation of thisreliefandattorneysfees. If the court grants the relief requested by Childrens Rights, agency operations will be affected inanumberofways,dependingon theorder.Theagencywouldlikelybesubjecttolongterm oversight by the court, as well as unknown expert panels empowered to make recommendations regarding agency operations. In the 19 or so states Childrens Rights sued before Texas, the average length of litigation exceeds 15 years. Only one state has exited its consentdecreewithChildrensRightsinlessthantenyears.
I. Whatareyouragencysbiggestopportunitiesforimprovementinthefuture? 1. MAINTAININGHIGHQUALITYWORKFORCE Additional resources provided by the Texas Legislature provide unique opportunities to increase staffretentionandimprovethequalityoftheDFPSworkforce. Recruiting and retaining highquality talent remains one of the largest challenges for DFPS. Thankstoasignificantinfusionofresourcesbythe83rdTexasLegislature,theagencyhasanew opportunitytobeginaddressingthislongstandingconcern. 2. IMPROVINGSTAKEHOLDERENGAGEMENTANDCOMMUNITYPARTNERENGAGEMENT The Department should engage stakeholders to assist the agency in serving clients more effectively. The Department works to engage and include stakeholders in identifying agency operations, programs,orpoliciesthatcouldbestrengthenedinordertobetterserveclients.Stakeholders, including advocates, law enforcement, judges, family members, providers, philanthropic foundations,nonprofit organizations,therapists,andlegislators,caredeeplyaboutissuestheir communityfacesandthewellbeingofthefamiliesinthosecommunities. The Department has worked to improve communication with stakeholders by proactively releasinginformationontheagencyspublicwebsite,regularlyvisitingwithstakeholdergroups, and developing public education campaigns. The Department has improved its responsiveness to inquiries and provides many ways for stakeholders to influence rulemaking and policy, including participation in workgroups, stakeholder forums, and by joining regional advisory groups,aswellasbysubmittingpubliccommentsviatheTexasRegister. The Department also puts a high priority on State Office interaction with regional staff and stakeholdersthroughmeetingsandforumsacrossthestate.Theagencyhastheopportunityto enhanceitseffectivenessthroughtheengagementofthesestakeholders,somewithsubstantial expertiseandresources,intheworkoftheDepartmentandwithfamiliesintheircommunities.
21
DFPS
3. CLARIFYJURISDICTIONSINAPSINVESTIGATIONS Clarification of state law to give the APS Facility program responsibility for investigating all providersofservicesforpersonswithIDD. Chapter 48 of the Human Resources Code authorizes APS to investigate abuse, neglect, and exploitation through two distinct programs: the APS InHome program and the APS Facility program. The purpose of the APS InHome program is to determine ifolder adults (age 65 and older) or adults with disabilities who live in their own homes and communities are suffering abuse, neglect, or exploitation, and to provide or arrange for services to protect them. The purpose of the APS Facility program is to investigate abuse, neglect, or exploitation of individualswithintellectualanddevelopmentaldisabilities(IDD)whoarereceivingstatefunded services. Under an APS Facility investigation, the agency provides investigative reports to the service provider with operational authority of the facility and can take action to protect the individualclient. TheAPSFacilityprogramwasinitiallyestablishedtoprovideindependentinvestigationsinstate facilitiesoperatedbytheformerTDMHMR.AsTDMHMRsservicesexpandedbeyondthestate run facilities, the Facility programs investigative scope expanded to include providers of services in the community. However, APSs authorizing language has not evolved along with themovetocommunitybasedIDDservicesprovidedbytheDepartmentofAgingandDisability Services (DADS). As a result, there are now providers of services to individuals with IDD (such as through the Consumer Directed Services model, among others) that are investigated by the APSInHomeprograminsteadoftheFacilityprogram.Therefore,theserviceproviderdoesnot receive the investigative report that would provide information necessary for the service providertotakepersonnelactionthatmaybeappropriatetoprotecttheclient. In addition, there are two waiver programs for persons with IDD, which originated in the Texas Department of Human Services (TDHS), that the APS Facility program has never had authority to investigate. The InHome program currently conducts investigations of providers in these waiverprograms. State law could clarify that the APS Facility program investigates all providers of services for persons with IDD, including communitybased services such as waiver programs, to ensure appropriateactionscanbetakentoprotecttheseclients. 4. CONTINUEDIMPROVEMENTINADULTPROTECTIVESERVICES APSshoulddevelopamoreeffectiveassessmenttoolstohelpAPScaseworkersmakebettercase decisions. The APS State Office obtains direct input from field staff through two program improvement committeesandconductsperiodicregionalreviewsofeachAPSregion.APSalsoparticipatesin activities with the National Association of Adult Protective Services, and the APS management team develops an annual business plan to determine improvement projects. Two current prioritiesofparticularnotearethefollowing.
APSidentifiedtheneedtobettertargetwhoitserves,inpart,tohelpaddressthetensionin its safety net function and to get ahead of the demographic curve of rapidly increasing targetpopulations. APS Inhome caseworkers currently use the IMPACTbased Client Assessment and Risk Evaluation (CARE) tool to assess client risk. After using the CARE tool for six years, APS determined caseworkers needed a new assessment model to best protect APS clients from theriskofongoingabuse,neglect,andexploitation(ANE).APSisimplementingaprocessto develop new assessment tools. (This is described further in the major issues section of the reportbecauseofaneededlegislativechangetofullyimplementthenewcaseworkpractice model.) New assessment tools will help APS caseworkers, particularly the less experienced workers,makebetterdecisionsatcriticalpointsinacase.
5. ENHANCINGINTERAGENCYPARTNERSHIP,COORDINATION,ANDINFORMATIONSHARING While interagency partnerships, coordination, and information sharing improved greatly since HHSconsolidation,therearestillopportunitiesforimprovement. Effective collaborations help align goals, priorities, and resources between agencies; minimize the duplication of efforts; and provide increased protection and support for vulnerable Texans. DFPS has identified the following ways to enhance interagency partnership,coordination,andinformationsharing. The APS program works with the Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS) to ensure compliance with a Department of Justice settlement agreement on State Supported Living Centers. Improved communications are needed between APS, DADS, the Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC), and the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) on the status of the monitoring process and the evolving nature of the interpretations of the settlementrequirements. The APS program collaborates with DADS, the Department of State Health Services (DSHS), and Disability Rights Texas to improve APS facility investigations. This includes a Process Improvement workgroup to address issues and coordinate effective service delivery. APS has and will continue to talk with the workgroup about the scope of facility investigations and sharing reported information with other agencies. The APS program, DADS, and HHSC need to work together to clarify jurisdiction in APS abuse, neglect, and exploitation investigations as they relate to the implementation of S.B. 7, 83rd Legislature, Regular Session,2013,sincethiswasnotspecificallyaddressedinthelegislation. The APS program works with DADS on issues related to regulatory responsibilities. An example is the problem of investigating allegations of abuse, neglect or exploitation in unlicensed boarding homes. Unlicensed boarding homes fall into an area of overlapping responsibility. APS handles abuse, neglect, and exploitation investigations and DADS licenses boarding homes under certain criteria. Meanwhile, some cities and counties regulate such homes and others do not. APS makes referrals to DADS on a casebycase basis, but also has the opportunity to improve coordination and communication with DADS toensuretheprotectionofpeoplelivinginthesesettings.
23 DFPS
DFPS and the Texas Juvenile JusticeDepartment (TJJD) serve youth whoarejointly involved with both agencies to ensure coordination of services for CPS youth involved with the TJJD. There is a monthly automated exchange of data to assist the staff of both agencies in monitoring the CPS youth involved with TJJD. In 2010, the Georgetown Universitys Center for Juvenile Justice Reform began a pilot project with Travis County Juvenile Probation Department and the local CPS office to implement the Crossover Youth Practice Model. Since then, the pilot effort has expanded into five more counties: Bexar, Dallas, Tarrant, McClennan,andElPaso.Othercountieswithpopulationsoftheseyouthhaveexpressedan interestinimplementingthepracticemodel. DFPS relies on agency and community collaboration in the area of substance abuse treatment to improve child safety and support families. DSHSs success in an effort to expandabuseandprovidertreatmentcapacityiscriticaltokeepingfamiliesoutofthechild welfaresystemandreunifyingfamilies.Otheropportunitiesinclude: o working with the Texas Office for Prevention of Developmental Disabilities to developtrainingforCPScaseworkersonfetalalcoholspectrumdisorders; o collaborating with the Texas Alliance for Drug Endangered Children to create and maintainDrugEndangeredChildrenTeams;and o workingwithDSHSandtheTexasSupremeCourtChildrensCommissiontoestablish newfamilydrugtreatmentcourts.
DFPS collaborates with DADS to ensure the wellbeing and safety of youth with special needsandwhoareagingoutoffostercarebyreferringtheyouthtotheDADSguardianship program and helping the youth to secure benefits such as a Home and Communitybased Services Medicaid waiver. In fiscal year 2013, DADS allocated 10 waivers for DFPS children with intellectual and developmental disabilities in General Residential Operations facilities. Access to services and supports enabled these children to relocate into familylike settings in the community such as HCS foster family homes. DADS will increase the allocation ofHome and Communitybased Services waivers for DFPS children in general residential operations to 25 in the FY 20142015 biennium. This collaboration is an ongoing opportunityandDFPSwillcontinuallydeterminetheneedforadditionalHCSGROslots. Maintaining communication about services, issues, andareas for improvement has beenan ongoing hallmark of STAR Health stakeholders, which include the CPS program, HHSC and theircontractors.Maintainingahighlevelofcommunicationandinputiscriticaltomeeting the unique needs of children in foster care as additional services are offered, such as increasing medical transportation, benefits for children dually eligible for Medicaid and Medicare,andcontinuingMedicaideligibilityforyouthtransitioningoutoffostercare. For almost three decades, DSHS has conducted sanitation inspections at licensed childcare centers in areas where there was no local health inspector. DSHS will no longer conduct these inspections due to resource constraints. So, DFPSs day care licensing program will now evaluate a centers compliance with minimum standards relating to health and sanitation in these situations. DFPS sees an opportunity for enhanced collaboration with DSHS to ensure the people who conduct sanitation inspections have specific education and
24 DFPS
experience. This would result in better outcomes in licensed childcare centers and ultimatelybenefitchildren. Due to funding limitations and policy changes, DFPS launched an initiative to manage the expenditureoffundsfordaycareservicestoensuretheyfallwithinbudgetandareproperly authorized.ElectronicinterfacebetweenDFPSandtheTexasWorkforceCommission(TWC) is necessary to replace the current process, which relies on manually entering information from a form that DFPS staff email to TWC. Efficiency is dependent on the Texas Workforce Commission giving DFPS input on TWC system requirements and TWCs commitment to supporting the interface. Once the interface is completed, DFPS sees a need for regular communication to ensure ongoing collaboration and communication between regional daycare coordinators and local workforce development boards on issues such as data corrections and notifying DFPS when children are absent. Joint training is one way to addresstheseissues. DFPS is on the cutting edge of mobile casework and technology. DFPS sees an opportunity for greater efficiencies and less administrative burdens on frontline staff. This opportunity lies in updating the Comptroller of Public Accounts requirements on accounting for state property (Statewide Accounting Requirements) to meet todays technology landscape. Specifically there is a need to adjust the negligencereview processes and thresholds to fit highervolumescenarios.Thecurrentrequirementsfitanoldmodelofagencyorganization and assets (e.g. TVs, desks, and single office locations) and do not take into account a modern workforce with multiple pieces of mobile technology assigned to thousands of caseworkersstatewide.
6. IMPROVEDREVENUEGENERATIONANDFEECOLLECTION: StatutelacksneededflexibilityinsettingChildCareLicensingfees. Statute requires Child Care Licensing (CCL) to collect licensing and background check fees and deposit them into the General Revenue Fund. Fee amounts are set in statute and DFPS does not have authority to adjust fees to support the cost of childcare regulation. Fees on childcare operationshavenotincreasedinmorethan25yearsandfeecollectionsdonotmeetorexceed appropriations for the CCL program. If specific licensing fee amounts were removed from statute, DFPS could adjust fees so that the childcare industry would pay a greater share of its regulatorycostsandpotentiallymakemorerevenuesavailabletoprovidegreaterprotectionto thepublic. 7. TECHNOLOGYINNOVATIONANDINTEGRATION Investmentintechnologywouldincreaseoperationalefficiencyandimproveservices. GoMobileInitiative TheDFPSGoMobilehelpsfrontlinestaffworkmoreflexiblyandefficiently.Directdeliverystaff has several tools that allow them to update their cases on the go. These tools include tablet PCs,laptops,printers,scanners,andcopiers,aswellastoolsthatkeepthemconnected(suchas smart phones, WiFi) and mobile applications that let them access documentation, resources,
and tools. DFPS also revised its office space template to incorporate mobility concepts and reduce the agencys footprint by combining or closing small offices and saving space when feasible. UsingVideoConferencing,VirtualDesktopInfrastructureandSocialMedia DFPS is currently expanding the agencys video conference capability to assure it works with iPhone 4S smartphones and other consumergrade video conference technologies to enable facetofaceconversationswithclients,serviceproviders,andcourts anywhere,anytime,and onanydevice. Another possible innovative technology DFPS could leverage is Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI), the practice of hosting a desktop operating system within a virtual machine running on a centralized server. By leveraging VDI, caseworkers could access training and perform informationrelatedworkefficientlyandquickly. IMPACTModernization Information Management Protecting Adults and Children in Texas system (IMPACT) is the core casework application used byeveryprogram within DFPS. This application is used to record an intake, and then document the investigation and all other subsequent case actions from placement in foster care through adoption. A fouryear modernization initiative (the first two years of which were funded by the 83rd Legislature) will transform this 17yearold system into a modern web application, and enable DFPS and approximately 12,000 external partners (Judicial, CASA, Law Enforcement, CPAs, and so on) to efficiently and effectively enter, process, andanalyzecaseinformation.ThebenefitsofamodernizedIMPACTincludethefollowing. Lesstrainingfornewstaff. Quickerentryandaccesstocasedata. Dashboardstoquicklyidentifytimesensitivetasks. Anewsecurityframeworkthatallowsexternalpartnerstoaccessappropriatedata. An application that is easier to modify as changes occur in Department policy or state and federallaw.
UpdatingTechnologyasStatewideIntake Statewide Intake (SWI) uses an automatic call distributor (ACD) system to route all incoming calls for the contact center. This system routes according to skillset (such as Englishspeaking, Spanishspeaking, Administrative Line, and so on), and chooses an available employee who has been ready to take a call for the longest period of time. DFPS purchased the ACD in 2006 and thesesystemsaretypicallydesignedtolastfor10years.
26
DFPS
J. In th he following g chart, pro ovide inform mation rega rding your agencys ke ey performa ance mea asures inclu uded in your appropr riations bill pattern, including ou utcome, input, effic ciency,andexplanatory e ymeasures. Departm mentofFam milyandProt tectiveServ vices Ex xhibit2: Key yPerformanc ceMeasure sFiscalY Year2012 FY2012 Target 8.7 96.70% 59.90% 23.80% 98.00% 80.70% 5.1 18.00% 43.60% 229,382 171,371 39,347 4,868 27.4 17.5 FY2012 2 FY2 2012 Percent of ActualPe erformance AnnualTarget 8 8.5 97.10% 59.60% 26.10% 98.10% 80.90% 5 5.4 19.50% 43.60% 206 6,200 166 6,211 38, ,725 5,0 040 24 4.7 14 4.3 97.7% % 100.4% % 99.5% % 109.7% % 100.1% % 100.3% % 105.9% % 108.1% % 100.0% % 89.9% % 97.0% % 98.4% % 103.5% % 90.0% % 81.6% %
Ke eyPerforma anceMeasur re Average eHoldTime:SWI(English) Percent tAbsenceRe epeat Maltrea atment6Mo onths(CPS) Percent tLegalResolutionin12Months M CPSCaseworkerTur rnoverRate Percent tCYDYouthNotReferredto JPC Percent tAbusedAdu ultsServed Incidenc ceofMHMR RAbuseper1,000 Served APSCas seworkerTurnoverRate Percent tValidatedOccurrences O Placing Children natHighRisk Number rofCPSChildAbuseand d NeglectReports Number rofComplet teCPS Investig gation Number rofConfirmedCPSCase es Number rofFPSChild drenAdopte ed CPSDailyCaseload:Investigatio on CPSDailyCaseload:FamilyBase ed
II.KeyFun nctionsandPer rformance
27
DFPS
Departm mentofFam milyandProt tectiveServ vices Ex xhibit2: Key yPerformanc ceMeasure sFiscalY Year2012 FY2012 Target 29.2 27,948 $21.46 35,968 $20.13 517,455 16,966 $3 32,357,956 $1,907.25 $ 35,722 211 $425.01 $418.15 706 $857.40 5,359 $284.32 FY2012 2 FY2 2012 Percent of ActualPe erformance AnnualTarget 33 3.7 42, ,616 $21 1.94 34, ,829 $20 0.71 500 0,324 16, ,404 $31,160,924 $1,899.56 35, ,973 420 $42 29.09 $39 97.59 1,0 080 $72 27.80 5,8 863 $24 43.84 115.4% % 152.5% % 102.2% % 96.8% % 102.9% % 96.7% % 96.7% % 96.3% % 99.6% % 100.7% % 199.2% % 101.0% % 95.1% % 153.0% % 84.9% % 109.4% % 85.8% %
Ke eyPerforma anceMeasur re CPSDailyCaseload:SubstituteCare C Average eNumberof fDaysTWCFoster F Daycare e Average eCostPerDa ay:TWCFos ster Daycare e Average eNumberof fDaysTWC Relative eDaycare Average eCostPerDa ay:Relative Daycare e Average eMonthlyFo osterCareDays D Average eMonthlyNumberofFo oster CareFTES Average eMonthlyFo osterCare Expendi itures Average eMonthlyPa aymentforFoster F CareFTE Average eMonthlyNumberof Adoptio onSubsidies Average eMonthlyNumberof Children n:Permanen ncyCareAssistance Average eMonthlyPa ayment:Adoption Subsidy Average eMonthlyPa ayment: PermanencyCareAssistance A Average eMonthlyNumberofChildren Caregive erMonetary yAssistance Average eMonthlyCo ostPerChild d Caregive erMonetary yAssistance Average eMonthlyNumberofST TAR YouthServed Average eMonthlyCo ostofSTARYouth Y
28
DFPS
Departm mentofFam milyandProt tectiveServ vices Ex xhibit2: Key yPerformanc ceMeasure sFiscalY Year2012 FY2012 Target 4,136 $101.53 87,605 56,778 35.1 9,854 3.3 46,377 3,969 FY2012 2 FY2 2012 Percent of ActualPe erformance AnnualTarget 5,5 530 $69 9.91 87, ,487 59, ,595 29 9.6 10, ,803 3 3.6 40, ,491 3,9 970 133.7% % 68.9% % 99.9% % 105.0% % 84.2% % 109.6% % 108.5% % 87.3% % 100.0% %
Ke eyPerforma anceMeasur re Average eMonthlyNumberofCY YD YouthServed Average eMonthlyCo ostofCYDYouth Number rofComplet teAPS Investig gations Number rofConfirmedAPS Investig gations APSDailyCaseload:InHome Number rofMH&IDInvestigations APSDailyCaseload:MHandID D Number rofComplet tedInspectio ons Number rofComplet tedChildAbuse andNeg glectInvestig gations
29
DFPS
III.
HISTORYANDMAJOREVENTS
Provideatimelineofyouragencyshistoryandkeyevents,including: theoriginalpurposeandresponsibilitiesofyouragency; majorchangesinresponsibilitiesorstatutoryauthority; changestoyourpolicymakingbodysnameorcomposition; significantchangesinstate/federallegislation,mandates,orfunding; significant state and federal litigation that specifically affects your agencys operations;and key changes in your agencys organization (such as a major reorganization of the agencysdivisionsorprogramareas). The Legislature established the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) by renamingtheDepartmentofProtectiveandRegulatoryServices. The following history contains major events related to the programs delivered by DFPS today, as well as organizational changes that lead up to its creation. Events relating to the establishmenttodaysHealthandHumanServicessystemarehighlightedinbold. 1939 SenateBill26,knownasthePublicWelfareActof1939,createstheTexasDepartmentofPublic Welfare. 1977 The Legislature renames the Texas Department of Public Welfare the Texas Department of HumanResources. 1991 The Legislature creates the Department of Protective and Regulatory Services (PRS). PRS assumes all responsibilities for child and adult protective services and Child Care Licensing from the Department of Human Services (DHS). In addition, investigations of abuse and neglectinTDMHMRfacilitiesaretransferredfromMHMRtoPRS. The Legislature abolishes the Health and Human Services Coordinating Council and creates theTexasHealthandHumanServicesCommission(HHSC),tooverseethestatesmajorhealth and human services agencies: Texas Department on Aging, Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse,CommissionfortheBlind,CommissionfortheDeafandHearingImpaired,Interagency Council on Early Childhood Intervention, Department of Health, Department of Human Services, Juvenile Probation Commission, TDMHMR, Department of Protective and Regulatory Services, and the Rehabilitation Commission. The Legislature originally placed the TexasYouthCommissionunderHHSC,butremoveditin1993.
III.HistoryandMajorEvents 30 DFPS
1992 The Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services assumes all responsibilities for child and adult protective services and Child Care Licensing from the Department of Human ServicesonSeptember1,1992. 1995 The Legislature transfers responsibility for investigations of abuse, neglect, and exploitation in community MHMR centers from MHMR to the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services. 2003 As part of H.B. 2292, the Legislature renames the Department as the Department of Family and Protective Services and places it under the oversight of the Health and Human Services Commission. 2004 The Governor directs HHSC to review and reform DFPS Adult Protective Services (APS) and ChildProtectiveServices(CPS)programs. 2005 The Legislature substantially reforms CPS and APS, as well as changes the Child Care Licensing (CCL)program,focusingonstrengtheninginvestigativeprocesses. 2007 The Legislature continues to improve the CPS program, by directing the agency to hire more caseworkers, improve response to reports of abuse, and form a pilot program to privatize 10 percentofcasemanagement(adirectivethatdidnotreceivefunding). 2009 TheLegislaturechargesAPSwithinvestigatingabuse,neglect,andexploitationinanewsetting privateintermediatecarefacilities. TheLegislaturealsocodifieslicensingexceptionsinstatutethathadpreviouslybeenhandledby ruleandexpandsservicesandbenefitsforyouthinfostercare. 2011 TheLegislaturesignificantlyreducesfundingformanyDFPSprogramsandPreventionandEarly Intervention(PEI)servicesareparticularlyaffected. TheLegislaturedidsupportCPSFosterCareRedesignproject,whichauthorizesDFPStochange the way it contracts with and pays for foster care services so as to create incentives for improvingoutcomesforchildren.
III.HistoryandMajorEvents
31
DFPS
2013 The 83rd Legislature provides funding to DFPS targeted to improve the safety of children, strengthen staff retention, expand prevention services, improve kinship services, and enhance agency infrastructure. DFPS receives an additional 1000 staff to lower caseloads for CPS Investigations, Conservatorship, and Kinship workers, maintain caller hold time in Statewide Intake, and investigate illegal childcare. The Legislature also funds an update to the DFPS automated casework systems, changes in the caseworker career ladder program andan increase in relative caregiver monetary assistance onetime integration payments for sibling groups. The Legislature also passes several large initiatives to improve outcomes for children, and enhancesafetyatresidentialchildcarefacilities.
III.HistoryandMajorEvents
32
DFPS
IV.
POLICYMA P AKINGSTR RUCTURE

Departm mentofFam milyandProt tectiveServ vices Exhibit3: Policymaking P gBody Term m/ Appointmen A ntDates/ Ap ppointedby___(Such AsGovern nor,Lt. Governor, G Speaker) S Appointe edon Se eptember1, ,2012,by GovernorPerry. Te ermexpiresFebruary 1,201 15. Qualifi ication (SuchA AsPublic Member, ,Industry Represe entative) Boardc certified anesthes siologist. FormerSta ateSenator andforme ermember oftheTexa asHouseof Representatives. Austin n
MemberNam me Kyle eL.Janek,M.D. M ExecutiveCommiss sioner
City Austin n
GigiEdwardsBry yant (Chair)
Fam milyandProt tectiveServ vicesCouncil l Ap ppointedbyGovernor PublicMem mber,also Perry P on07102006 meetsHuman Resourc ceCode, Term T Date:212013 Section40.021 mandatethatone personbe eaperson whowasachildin foster rcare PublicM Member
Imo ogenSherman Ap ppointedbyGovernor Papadopoulos(Vice eChair) Perry P on07282004 Term T Date:212015 Patricia P Cole Ap ppointedbyGovernor Perry P on05262011 Term T Date:212017 Ap ppointedbyGovernor Perry P on03262007 Term T Date:212013 Ap ppointedbyGovernor Perry P on04062009 Term T Date:212015 Ap ppointedbyGovernor Perry P on05262011 Term T Date:222017
33
Houston
PublicM Member
FortWor rth
Deb bbieEpperso on
PublicM Member
Dallas
Christ tinaTinaRawls R Martin Benny B Morris s
PublicM Member
Mission n
PublicM Member
Cleburn ne
IV.PolicyMaking M Structu ure
DFPS
Departm mentofFam milyandProt tectiveServ vices Exhibit3: Policymaking P gBody Term m/ Appointmen A ntDates/ Ap ppointedby___(Such AsGovern nor,Lt. Governor, G Speaker) S Ap ppointedbyGovernor Perry P on11092004 Term T Date:212013 Ap ppointedbyGovernor Perry P on04062009 Term T Date:212015 Qualifi ication (SuchA AsPublic Member, ,Industry Represe entative) PublicM Member
MemberNam me LindaBellRobinson
City Houston
Sco ottRosenbac ch
PublicM Member
Amarillo
VACANT
Appointe ed by the Governor, G with w the adv vice and co onsent of th he Senate, nine Family y and ms, with the terms of t Protectiv ve Services Council C mem mbers serve staggered sixyear term three members s expiring Fe ebruary 1 of f each oddnumbered n y year. While Council me embers repre esent the gene eral public, individuals i eligible e for appointmen a nt must dem monstrate an n interest in n and knowledg geofprogra amsadminist teredbythe eDepartmen ntofFamilyandProtectiveServices.
B. Desc cribethepri imaryroleand a responsi ibilitiesofyo ourpolicym makingbody. . Appointe ed by the Governor, with w the ad dvice and c consent of the Senate e, the Exec cutive Commiss sioner is the e rulemaking g and policy ymaking auth hority for th he entire He ealth and Hu uman Services (HHS) syste em. The fo ollowing five e HHS system agency c councils assi ist the Exec cutive Commiss sionerinthis ssystemove ersightrole: Healt thandHuma anServicesCouncil, C Aging gandDisabilityServicesCouncil, Assist tiveandReh habilitativeServices S Council, FamilyandProtectiveService esCouncil,and a
State eHealthServ vicesCouncil. Statutorily created by b the 78th Legislature L as a part of th he H.B. 2292 reorganiza ation, the Family and Protective Services Council supports the Executive Commissioner in devel loping policy y and in rulemaking decisions specific c to the func ctions of th e Departme ent of Family and Prote ective Services.
IV.PolicyMaking M Structu ure 34 DFPS
In addition to the Policy Council, the Executive Commissioner selects a Commissioner to act as an Executive Director of the agency. The DFPS Commissioner provides regular briefings to the Family and Protective Services Council at each quarterly meeting and works with the Council Chairtocallsubcommitteemeetingsasappropriate. Another primary role and responsibility of the Family and Protective Services Council is providing an effective forum for public input into the Department of Family and Protective Services rules, policies, and budget priorities. Open public comments are a standing agenda itemforeachCouncilmeeting. Rules and policies affecting service delivery and programs originate within the Department. Once drafted, the DFPS Commissioner vets the change, seeking guidance from the Family and Protective Services Council; forwarding final recommendations to the HHSC policy advisor for reviewandfinalrecommendationtotheExecutiveCommissioner.TheExecutiveCommissioner maymakechangestothedraftpolicyorruleandultimatelyadoptsthefinalproduct.
C. Howisthechairselected? TheGovernorappointsamemberoftheFamilyandProtectiveServicesCouncilasthepresiding officer (Council Chair) who serves in that capacity at the pleasure of the Governor. DFPS Council has chosen to nominate a vice chair annually, in January. Per Council bylaws, the Council may also elect other officers, such as a secretary or committee chairs when they are necessary.
D. List any special circumstances or unique features about your policymaking body or its responsibilities. The Executive Commissioner serves as the ultimate rule and policymaking authority for the entire HHS system. However, as previously discussed, five advisory councils support this decisionmaking process. This structure a single Commissioner overseeing an enterprise of five system agencies is unique in Texas government. The approach of having standing advisorycouncilsthatrepresenteachagencysfunctionsisalsounique. Accordingtostatute,oneofthemembersoftheFamilyandProtectiveServicesCouncilmustbe a person who was a child in the foster care system under DFPS.If, after conducting a search, the Governor determines that no qualified individual under this subsection is available, the Governormayappointanotherqualifiedperson.
E. Ingeneral,howoftendoesyourpolicymakingbodymeet?Howmanytimesdiditmeet inFY2012?InFY2013?
IV.PolicyMakingStructure 35 DFPS
Statute requires the Family and Protective Services Council to meet at last quarterly. The Council met quarterly in fiscal year 2012. In addition to regular meetings, Council members attended a variety of other meetings and agency events, and the chairs of each council met twice,andmembersfromallfivecouncilsattendedanannualcoordinationmeeting.
F. Whattypeoftrainingdomembersofyouragencyspolicymakingbodyreceive? Statute requires Family and Protective Services Council members to complete training before participating as an official Council member. Training program consists of information on the followingsubjectareas: enablinglegislationfortheCouncil; roles and functions of the Department and the Council, including its advisory responsibilities; divisions of responsibility between the Executive Commissioner and the other HHS system agencies;and
agencyprograms,rules,budget,andauditfindings. In addition, to agencyspecific subject matter training, each Council member completes ethics training,aswellasareviewofproceduresrelatingtotheOpenMeetingAct,PublicInformation Act,andtheAdministrativeProceduresAct.
G. Does your agency have policies that describe the respective roles of the policymaking bodyandagencystaffinrunningtheagency?Ifso,describethesepolicies. The Legislature created the Family and Protective Services Council to assist the DFPS Commissioner and Executive Commissioner in developing rules and policies for DFPS, including policies and rules governing the delivery of services and the rights and duties of individuals servedbyDFPS. Purely advisory in nature, and unlike the boards that oversaw the legacy agencies pre consolidation, the Family and Protective Services Council does not have a direct role in agency operations. To ensure Council members understand this unique role, training covers guiding principles,operatingprocedures,aswellasrolesandresponsibilities.
H. What information is regularly presented to your policymaking body to keep them informedofyouragencysperformance? During each regularly scheduled quarterly meeting, the DFPS Commissioner and senior agency staff brief the Family and Protective Services Council on a variety of subject matters, including the agencys performance, current priorities, and ongoing projects. Agency staff also apprises
theCouncilofchangesinfederallawthataffectserviceandprogramdeliveryatthestatelevel. These briefings occur as part of the items presented for Council action or as items strictly for thepurposeofinformingtheCouncil. The Council also reviews and recommends the agencys annual operating budget and audit plans developed by the Internal Audit division. Council members also receive email updates, weeklyatminimum,informingthemofagencyactivitiesorissues,aswellaslegislativeupdates asneeded.
I. How does your policymaking body obtain input from the public regarding issues under the jurisdiction of the agency? How is this input incorporated into the operations of youragency? NegotiatedRulemakingandStakeholderGroups All rulemaking initiatives include a comment period wherein the agency receives comments on proposeddraftrulesorrulerevisions.Often,asapartofthisprocess,theagencymayinitiatea stakeholder working group to solicit feedback before actual draft rules, and the formal public input comment period, begins. Before implementing a major new initiative, staff may conduct stakeholder meetings across the state to gain additional feedback. For example, the Department utilized the Public Private Partnership advisory group, held multiple public meetings, and met with additional stakeholder groups to receive input on development of the FosterCareredesignmodel.Also,theagencyformallyrespondstoallcommentssubmitted. AdvisoryCommitteesandTaskForces An advisory committee assists in developing policy and rule. A complete listing of all advisory committeesislistedonthefollowingpage. OpenCouncilMeetings Obtaining input from the public and stakeholders is a primary Family and Protective Services Council responsibility. The input presented to the Council by the public and stakeholders informs the advice the Council provides on rules and policymaking. The Councils guiding principles include a focus on the concerns and interests of consumers and constituents. The Councils guiding principles include a focus on hearing theconcerns and interests of consumers andconstituents. To ensure stakeholder input is included in all Council functions, open public testimony, includingwrittentestimony,isastandingagendaitem. Since the DFPS Commissioner and senior staff members attend Family and Protective Services Council meetings, they also directly benefit from hearing public and stakeholder input. So public input not only helps the council shape its final advice and recommendations but also allows the DFPS Commissioner and senior staff to work with stakeholders to address their concerns.
J. If yo our policyma aking body uses subcom mmittees or r advisory c committees to carry out its duties,fillinthe efollowingchart. c Departm mentofFam milyandProt tectiveServ vices Exhibit4: Subcommitte eesandAdv visoryComm mittees Nameof Subc committeeor o Adviso oryCommitt tee on/How Size/Compositio AreMemb bers Appointed d? LegalBasis sfor Committe ee HouseBill 2468,74th Legislative Session
Purpose/ /Duties
Advisory yCommittee eon 12me embersappointedby PromotingAdoption nof theEx xecutive Minority yChildren Comm missioner;at tleastsix ofthe e12membe ersmust beordainedclerg gy.
Parenta alAdvisory Commit ttee
Facilitateinc creased adoptionso ofAfrican A Americanan ndother minoritychi ildren; lop,and study,devel evaluatepro ograms andprojects srelating t tocommuni ity awarenessa and education,f family support,cou unseling, parentingsk killsand education,a and reformofth hechild w welfaresyst tem. Thenumber n ofmembers m T TheParenta al andmembership m is A AdvisoryCommittee deter rminedbyth he shalladvisethe Governor.When nthe ton Department comm mitteelastmet, m there policiesaffe ecting weresixmember rs.The parentsand dtheir comm mitteewillre econvene involvement twiththe when ntheGovern nor Department t appoi intsachair. including: (1)investiga ationsof allegationso ofabuse orneglect; tionsof (2)designat alternative placementsfor children;and dsfor (3)standard
38
TX.Human n Resources Code;Title2, SubtitleD, , Chapter40, 40.073
DFPS
Departm mentofFam milyandProt tectiveServ vices Exhibit4: Subcommitte eesandAdv visoryComm mittees Nameof Subc committeeor o Adviso oryCommitt tee Size/Compositio on/How AreMemb bers Appointed d? LegalBasis sfor Committe ee
Purpose/ /Duties personswho o investigater reportsof abuseorneglecton thestateorlocal t level.
39
DFPS
V.
FUNDING
A. Prov videabriefdescription d ofyouragen ncysfundin ng. The Texa as Departme ent of Family y and Protec ctive Service es (DFPS) op perates almo ost exclusive ely on federal funds and St tate General l Revenue. Less than on ne percent o of the Departments fun nding ources.TheDFPSappro opriationfor FY2012con nsistedof52 2percentfe ederal comesfromotherso funds, 47 7.4 percent General Rev venue and General G Rev venueDedic cated funds, and 0.6 percent otherfun nds.
Federal Funds. $692,456,445: DFPS re eceives both h entitlemen nt funding a and block g grants from the U.S. De epartment of o Health and Human Se ervices. DFPS receives funding from 15 alDomesticAssistance(CFDA) ( prog grams.Allbu utoneisund dertheauth hority CatalogofFedera ration for Ch hildren and Families (AC CF). ACF pr rograms include entitlement of the Administr ing for fost ter care, ad doption assi istance, gua ardianship a assistance, and block grant fundi fundi ing such asTemporary T Assistance A fo or Needy Fa milies, Socia al Services B Block Grant, Child Care and Develo opment Fun nd, and various child w welfare prog grams. Med dicaid is ano other fundi ing source. DFPS is not a Medicaid operating a agency but i is allowed to o claim Med dicaid administrationfo orcertainactivities.Mo ostofthesef federalprog gramsrequir restatematching funds sorastatemaintenance m eofeffort. State eFunds.$63 30,878,707:DFPSreceiv vesGeneralR Revenuefun ndstosatisfy ythestatem match requi irements for r federal fun nds as wellas a to fund co osts that exc ceed block g grant funding g and to co over costs th hat federal funds f are no ot allowed t to cover. DFPS also rec ceives dedicated Gene eral Revenue e funds from m the Child Abuse and Neglect Prev vention Trust Fund account. This account com mes from co ounty fees on o marriage e licenses an nd recording g declarations of inform malmarriag ge.$20ofth he$60marri iagelicense feeand$12 2.50ofthe$25declarationof
40 DFPS
V.Funding g
informal marriage fee must be sent to the Comptroller who deposits the money into the trust fund account. This trust fund (Account 5085) is dedicated to child abuse prevention programs. Appropriated amounts are transferred to the Child Abuse and Neglect PreventionOperatingAccount5084,fromwhichexpendituresaremade. Other Funds. $7,753,547: Other funds consist primarily of interagency contract receipts, receipts from counties who augment appropriated child welfare staff by funding extra positions,andaportionofthechildsupportcollectedbytheOfficeoftheAttorneyGeneral.
B. Listallridersthatsignificantlyimpactyouragencysbudget. The FY 20122013 General Appropriations Act contain riders that affect DFPS. Below is a summary of those that significantly contribute to or affect the Departments budget. For a completelistingofallagencyspecificriders,pleaseseetheGeneralAppropriationsAct. Rider3.LimitationonExpendituresforConservatorshipSuits.Prohibitsgeneralrevenuefrom being used to pay for legal representation for children or their parents in suits in which the Department is seeking to be named conservator, unless the Governor has declared it an emergency. Without this rider, DFPS may be expected to pay for such costs by county governments. Rider 6. Foster Care Rates. Restricts the Departments ability to transfer funds out of the fostercarestrategybyrequiringpriorwrittenapproval.FortheFY20142015biennium,italso includeslegislativeintentthatfostercareredesignratesmaynotresultintotalexpendituresfor anyfiscalyearthatexceedtheappropriation,exceptforcaseloadgrowth. Rider 15. Limitation on Transfers: CPS and APS Direct Delivery Staff. Restricts the Departments ability to transfer funds or FTEs out of the two direct delivery staff strategies (B.1.1 CPS Direct Delivery Staff and D.1.1 APS Direct Delivery Staff) by requiring prior written approval. Rider 18. Medicaid and Title IVE Federal Funds. Restricts the Departments ability to spend general revenue and TANF federal funds that are freed up when federal entitlement revenues exceedtheamountsappropriatedbyrequiringpriorwrittenapproval. Rider20.CPSInvestigativePay.AuthorizestheDepartmenttopayasupplementalamountto ChildProtectiveServicesprograminvestigativecaseworkersandsupervisorstohelprecruitand retainstaffforthosejobs. Rider 30. Limitation on Appropriations for Daycare Services. Prohibits the Department from spending more than the amounts appropriated for Child Protective Services daycare without priorwrittenapproval.
V.Funding 41 DFPS
C. Show wyouragen ncysexpend dituresbyst trategy. Departm mentofFam milyandProt tectiveServ vices Exhibit E 5: Exp pendituresby b StrategyFY2012( (Actual) Goal/Str rategy A.1.1Sta atewideInta akeServices B.1.1CP PSDirectDeliveryStaff B.1.2CP PSProgramSupport S B.1.3TW WCFosterDa aycare B.1.4TW WCRelativeDaycare D B.1.5TW WCProtectiv veDaycare B.1.6Ad doptionPurc chasedServic ces B.1.7Po ostAdoption nPurchased Services B.1.8PA ALPurchased dServices B.1.9SubstanceAbu usePurchase ed Services B.1.10Other O CPSPu urchasedSer rvices B.1.11FosterCarePayments P B.1.12Adoption A Sub bsidyPayme ents B.1.13Relative R Care egiverMonet tary Assistance C.1.1STA ARProgram C.1.2CY YDProgram C.1.3TexasFamilies sProgram C.1.4ChildAbusePr reventionGr rants C.1.5OtherAtRiskPrevention P Program ms C.1.6AtRiskPreven ntionProgram m Support D.1.1AP PSDirectDel liveryStaff D.1.2AP PSProgramSupport S D.1.3MHandMRIn nvestigations s E.1.1ChildCareReg gulation
V.Funding g
Amo ountSpent $18 8,127,344 $41 12,205,667 $43 3,541,394 $11 1,786,827 $9 9,100,605 $18 8,574,704 $6 6,245,863 $2 2,446,100 $8 8,868,194 $4 4,873,960 $22 2,684,200 $38 81,926,525 $19 93,981,339 $7 7,859,926 $17 7,284,083 $4 4,815,652 $2 2,549,382 $4 4,183,643 $2 2,092,770 $848,180 $50 0,981,192 $5 5,196,635 $9 9,569,572 $32 2,871,973
42
Percento of Total 1.36% 30.97% 3.27% 0.89% 0.68% 1.4% 0.47% 0.18% 0.67% 0.37% 1.70% 28.69% 14.57% 0.59% 1.30% 0.36% 0.19% 0.31% 0.16% 0.06% 3.83% 0.39% 0.72% 2.47%
Contrac ctExpenditu ures Inclu uded(Actual l) N/A N/A $4 432,400 N/A N/A $37,064,4531 $5, ,713,000 $2, ,415,179 $8, ,304,867 $2, ,848,759 $22 2,684,200 $359,124,423 N/A $40,998 $16 6,792,154 $4, ,692,711 $2, ,281,924 $3,845,2672 $2, ,092,770 N/A $7, ,248,497 N/A N/A N/A
DFPS
Departm mentofFam milyandProt tectiveServ vices Exhibit E 5: Exp pendituresby b StrategyFY2012( (Actual) Goal/Str rategy F.1.1CentralAdministration F.1.2OtherSupportServices F.1.3RegionalAdministration F.1.4ITProgram P Sup pport F.1.5AgencywideAutomated A s Systems GRANDTOTAL:
Notes: 1. twherenoted,contractexpe endituretotals sareFY2012a actualdollarse extractedfromHCATS(seeno ote2). Except Expenditure data is interfaced into o HCATS from the HHSC HHS SAS system. N Note that dayc care strategies B.1.3, a B.1.5aretotaled t togethe er. B.1.4and Contra act expense to otals are taken n from the 8/1 16/2012 Legisllative Appropr riations Reque est projection where HCATS S dollars are not cleanly trac ced to a single e strategy. Thiis may be due e to timing diff ferences in billing or progra amexpensethatisattributed dtomultipleprogramaccoun ntcodes. Contra act dollars for Strategy F.1 1.1, Central Administration A fice supply co osts attributab ble to , includes off strateg giesF.1.1andF.1.3.Theent tireamountisshown s inStrat tegyF.1.1. Total contract dolla ars for all stra ategies includes both clien t service contracts and ad dministrative s service acts. The tota al includes $5 540,553 in var rious small ad dministrative c contracts unde er $25,000 that are contra attribu utable to vario ous strategies. One example is electronic c work paper software for internal audit total contra actamountisunder u $12,000.
Amo ountSpent $14 4,253,012 $5 5,388,226 $355,366 $23 3,715,309 $14 4,761,056 $1,331,088,699
Percento of Total 1.07% 0.40% 0.03% 1.78% 1.11% 100%
Contrac ctExpenditu ures Inclu uded(Actual l) $3,625,4833 $2,713,0982 N/A $2, ,690,305 $14 4,761,056 $518 8,935,6744
2.
3. 4.
V.Funding g
43
DFPS
D. Show w your ag gencys sources of revenue. In nclude all local, state e, and federal appr ropriations, all profess sional and operating o fe ees, and all other sour rces of reve enue colle ectedbythe eagency,inc cludingtaxe esandfines. Departm mentofFam milyandProt tectiveServ vices Exhibit6: SourcesofReve enueFisca alYear2012 2(Actual) Sourc ce App propriatedReceipts R Ch hildSupportCollections Appro opriatedRec ceiptsOthe er In nteragencyContracts C GeneralRe evenue GeneralRevenueDedicated d FederalFunds F TOTA AL
Amo ount $1,239 9,613 $5,452 2,277 $1,061 1,657 $625,18 81,407 $5,697 7,300 $692,45 56,445 $1,331,0 088,699
E. If yo ou receive fu unds from multiple m federal program ms, show th he types of federal fund ding sour rces. Departm mentofFam milyandProt tectiveServ vices Exhibit7: Federal F Fund dsFiscalY Year2012(A Actual) State/ Federal F Match Ratio
CFDATitle e
StateShare e $40,487 $683,225 $9,769,902 $
Federa alShare $40, ,487 $952 2,067 $29,30 09,706
TotalFundi ing $80,974 $1,635,292 2 $39,079,608
TitleIVEGuardians ship 5 Assistan nceAdmin nistration 50/50 FMAP F TitleIVEGuardians ship (FFY) ( Assistan nceFMAP TitleIVB,Part2Pro omoting 25/75 2 SafeandStableFam milies TitleIVB,Part2Pro omoting SafeandStableFam milies 25/75 2 Casewo orkerVisits Tempor raryAssistan ncefor NeedyFamilies
V.Funding g
$542,070
$1,626,211 $232,348,853
$2,168,281 1 $ $232,348,85 53
44
DFPS
Departm mentofFam milyandProt tectiveServ vices Exhibit7: Federal F Fund dsFiscalY Year2012(A Actual) State/ Federal F Match Ratio
CFDATitle e Refugee eandEntran nt Assistan nceState Adminis steredProgr rams ChildCa areand Develop pmentBlock kGrant Commu unityBasedChild AbusePrevention P Grants G TitleIVEChafeeEd ducation andTra ainingVouch hers Program m(ETV) Adoptio onIncentive Paymen nts ChildrensJusticeGrants G to States TitleIVB,PartIChi ild Welfare eServicesSt tate Grant Adoptio onOpportun nities TitleIVEFosterCare TitleIVEFosterCare Adminis stration
StateShare e
Federa alShare
TotalFundi ing
$3,66 62,485 $30,05 50,098 $4,17 79,622
$3,662,485 5 $30,050,098 $4,179,622 2
20/80 2
$914,391
$3,657,563 $5,60 00,000 $41, ,229
$4,571,954 4 $5,600,000 0 $41,229
25/75 2 25/75 2 50/50 5 FMAP F (FFY)
$6,246,686 $ $5,754 $88,025,694 $86,073,025 $2,514,150 $ $7,280,205 $ $62,478,294 $16,576
$18,74 40,058 $274 4,963 $17, ,262 $88,02 25,694 $119,9 941,874 $7,54 42,450 $7,28 80,205 $87,06 62,859 $49, ,727 $33,58 85,895 $3,210,939
$24,986,744 4 $274,963 $23,016 $ $176,051,38 88 $ $206,014,89 99 $10,056,600 $14,560,410 $ $149,541,15 53 $66,303 $33,585,895 $3,210,939 9
DFPS
TitleIVEFosterCare FMAP TitleIVEFosterCare 25/75 2 Training g75% TitleIVEAdoption 5 Assistan nceAdmin nistration 50/50 FMAP F TitleIVEAdoption (FFY) Assistan nceFMAP TitleIVEAdoption 2 Assistan nceTrainin ng75% 25/75 TitleXX XSocialSer rvices BlockGrant G ChildAb buseandNe eglect
V.Funding g
45
Departm mentofFam milyandProt tectiveServ vices Exhibit7: Federal F Fund dsFiscalY Year2012(A Actual) State/ Federal F Match Ratio
CFDATitle e StateGrants ChafeeFosterCare Indepen ndentLiving g TitleXIX XMedicaid MedicalAssistance Program m TOTAL
Notes: 1. 2.
StateShare e
Federa alShare
TotalFundi ing
20/80 2
$1,982,619 $
$7,930,475
$9,913,094 4
50/50 5
$7,325,723 $ $2 273,898,800 0
$7,325,723 $692,4 456,445
$14,651,446 $ $966,355,24 45
onfederal share for this program is met by y the statefun nded cost of tu uition for form mer foster care youth The no instat tesupportedin nstitutionsofhigher h educatio on(reportedb bytheHigherE EducationCoor rdinatingBoard d) Title IV VB regulation ns allow a state to use state e fund expend itures that are e not used to satisfy the req quired state funding f match h for any other federal title (but not to ex xceed the amo ount used for match in fede eral FY 2005). . Expenditures at theFMAP ratio ina given statefiscal yearwou uld be subject to two FMAP rates,depending on m of the expenditure. e Federal F FY 201 11 FMAP ratio o 39.44/60.56. Federal FY Y 2012 FMAP ratio the month 41.78/ /58.22. State or nonfederal share amoun nts above are based on proj jected collectio ons in appropr riation year2012 2 andassum mearateof41 1.78. The nonfederal sha are of this pro ogram is met in part by stat te General Rev venue and also o by cash or inkind esreportedby ycontractedse erviceprovider rsasallowedb yfederalstatu ute. service
3.
4.
V.Funding g
46
DFPS
F. Ifap pplicable,pr rovidedetail ledinformat tiononfees scollectedb byyouragen ncy. Departm mentofFam milyandProt tectiveServ vices Exhibit t8: FeeRev venueFisc calYear201 12 Number of Persons or o Entities Paying theFee NA N
FeeDescription/ D / Program/ Statut toryCitation n ChildcareFacilityor ChildPla acingAgency y/ HRCode e42.054 ChildCareInstitution Administ trator/ HRCode e43.006 AdoptionRegistry/ FamilyCode C 162.41 11 FeesforCopiesor FilingofRecords/ General Appropr riationsAct, st 81 Leg.,RS2009,Art. A IX12.02 CriminalHistory Checks/ e42.056 HRCode Conference,Seminars, andTraining RegistrationFees/ General Appropr riationsAct, st 81 Leg.,RS2009,Art. A IX8.08
Curre entFee/ Stat tutory Max ximum 100 $20$1
FeeR Revenue $1,852,289.00
WhereFee ueis Revenu Deposited General Revenue Fund General Revenue Fund General Revenue Fund General Revenue Fund
$20$5 50
NA N
$51,712.00
$15
NA N
$195.00
Variou us
NA N
$2,662.00
$2$24 4
NA N
$283,862.00
us Variou
NA N
$49,799.00
General Revenue Fund General Revenue Fund
V.Funding g
47
DFPS
VI.
ORGANIZATION
A. Provide an organizational chart that includes major programs and divisions, and shows the number of FTEs in each program or division. Detail should include, if possible, Department Heads with subordinates, and actual FTEs with budgeted FTEs in parenthesis. ThefollowingchartshowstheHealthandHumanServicesSystemorganization.
VI.Organization
48
DFPS
The following chart depicts the Department of Family and Protective Services organizational structure, including the number of fulltime equivalent (FTE) positions as of June 1, 2013 and thenumberofbudgetedFTEsinparenthesis.
VI.Organization
49
DFPS
B. If ap pplicable, fill in the ch hart below listing field d or region nal offices. See Exhib bit 9 Exam mple Departm mentofFam milyandProt tectiveServ vices Exhibit9: 9 FTEsbyLo ocationFi iscalYear20 012 Headq quarters, Region norField Office Co C N Numberof Loca ated? Bud dgetedFTEs, , Yes s/No FY2013 Mi ixed No N Yes Y No N Yes Y Yes Y Yes Y Mixed No N Yes Y Mi ixed Yes Y Yes Y No N Mi ixed No N Yes Y Yes Y Yes Y Yes Y Yes Y Yes Y Yes Y Yes Y Yes Y No N Yes Y Mi ixed Mi ixed
50
Locatio on
rofActualF FTEs Number asofJ June1,2013 3 259.8 179.5 14.0 6.0 5.0 1.0 5.0 9.0 12.0 7.0 15.0 20.0 1.0 4.0 136.0 7.0 14.0 3.0 40.0 1.0 16.0 14.0 8.0 2.0 7.0 10.0 15.0 102.0 184.0
DFPS
Region1Lubbock 01Lubb bock Lubboc ck 01Lubb bock Amarill lo 01Lubb bock Borger 01Lubb bock Brownfie eld 01Lubb bock Childress 01Lubb bock Dimmit tt 01Lubb bock Dumas s 01Lubb bock Herefor rd 01Lubb bock Levellan nd 01Lubb bock Littlefie eld 01Lubb bock Pampa a 01Lubb bock Plainvie ew 01Lubb bock Tulia 01Lubb bock Wellingt ton Region2Abilene 02Abile ene Abilene 02Abile ene Ballinge er 02Abile ene Bowie e 02Abile ene Breckenri idge 02Abile ene Brownwo ood 02Abile ene Colema an 02Abile ene Eastlan nd 02Abile ene Graham m 02Abile ene Haskel ll 02Abile ene Seymou ur 02Abile ene Snyder 02Abile ene Sweetwa ater 02Abile ene Vernon n 02Abile ene WichitaFalls F Region3Arlington 03Arlin ngton Arlingto on
VI.Organization
256.4 178.5 14.0 6.0 5.0 1.0 5.0 9.0 12.0 7.0 15.0 20.0 1.0 4.0 133.0 5.0 14.0 3.0 41.0 0.0 16.0 14.0 7.0 2.0 7.0 10.0 15.0 104.3 181.9
Departm mentofFam milyandProt tectiveServ vices Exhibit9: 9 FTEsbyLo ocationFi iscalYear20 012 Headq quarters, Region norField Office 03Arlin ngton 03Arlin ngton 03Arlin ngton 03Arlin ngton 03Arlin ngton 03Arlin ngton 03Arlin ngton 03Arlin ngton 03Arlin ngton 03Arlin ngton 03Arlin ngton 03Arlin ngton 03Arlin ngton 03Arlin ngton 03Arlin ngton 03Arlin ngton 03Arlin ngton 03Arlin ngton 03Arlin ngton 03Arlin ngton 03Arlin ngton 03Arlin ngton 03Arlin ngton 03Arlin ngton 03Arlin ngton 03Arlin ngton 03Arlin ngton 03Arlin ngton 03Arlin ngton 03Arlin ngton Region4Tyler 04Tyler r 04Tyler r 04Tyler r 04Tyler r 04Tyler r
VI.Organization
Locatio on Bonham m Carrollto on Cleburn ne Corsican na Dallas s Decatu ur Denton n Ennis FortWorth Gainesville Granbury GrandPra airie Greenville Hurst t Irving g Kaufma an LakeWo orth Lewisvil lle Mansfie eld McKinney MineralWells W Plano o Richards son Rockwa all Rowlet tt Sherma an Stephenv ville Wataug ga Waxahac chie Weatherf ford Athens Atlanta a Canton n Carthag ge Clarksville
Co C N Numberof Loca ated? Bud dgetedFTEs, , Yes s/No FY2013 Yes Y No N No N Yes Y Mi ixed Yes Y Mi ixed Yes Y Mi ixed Yes Y No N Yes Y Mi ixed No N No N Yes Y No N No N No N Mi ixed Yes Y Mi ixed No N No N No N Mi ixed Yes Y No N No N Yes Y No N Yes Y Mi ixed Yes Y Yes Y
51
rofActualF FTEs Number asofJ June1,2013 3 6.0 20.0 70.0 21.0 669.5 19.0 99.5 7.0 340.5 20.0 20.0 26.0 49.5 61.0 8.0 36.0 16.0 27.0 1.0 12.0 13.0 112.0 1.0 15.0 1.0 44.0 12.0 81.0 22.0 36.0 34.0 6.0 27.0 8.0 5.0
DFPS
6.0 20.0 70.0 21.0 669.5 19.0 99.5 7.0 340.5 20.0 20.0 26.0 49.5 61.0 8.0 36.0 16.0 27.0 1.0 12.0 13.0 112.0 1.0 15.0 1.0 44.0 12.0 81.0 22.0 36.0 34.0 6.0 27.0 8.0 5.0
Departm mentofFam milyandProt tectiveServ vices Exhibit9: 9 FTEsbyLo ocationFi iscalYear20 012 Headq quarters, Region norField Office Co C N Numberof Loca ated? Bud dgetedFTEs, , Yes s/No FY2013 Yes Y Yes Y Yes Y Mi ixed Yes Y No N Yes Y Yes Y Yes Y Yes Y Yes Y Yes Y Yes Y Yes Y Yes Y Mi ixed Yes Y Yes Y Yes Y Yes Y Yes Y Yes Y Yes Y Yes Y Yes Y No N Yes Y Yes Y Yes Y Yes Y Yes Y Yes Y Yes Y No N
52
Locatio on
rofActualF FTEs Number asofJ June1,2013 3 5.0 17.0 19.0 27.0 10.0 56.0 26.0 15.0 5.0 23.0 25.0 20.0 12.0 16.0 36.0 103.0 88.0 3.0 13.0 5.0 6.0 4.0 13.0 21.0 44.0 10.0 47.0 34.0 35.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 9.0 42.0
DFPS
04Tyler r Daingerfi ield 04Tyler r Gilmer 04Tyler r Henders son 04Tyler r Jacksonv ville 04Tyler r Linden n 04Tyler r Longvie ew 04Tyler r Marsha all 04Tyler r MountPlea asant 04Tyler r MountVernon 04Tyler r Palestin ne 04Tyler r Paris 04Tyler r Quitma an 04Tyler r Rusk 04Tyler r SulphurSp prings 04Tyler r Texarkana 04Tyler r Tyler Region5Beaumont 05Beau umont Beaumo ont 05Beau umont Buna 05Beau umont Center 05Beau umont Coldspri ing 05Beau umont Crockett 05Beau umont Hemphill 05Beau umont Jasper r 05Beau umont Livingsto on 05Beau umont Lufkin n 05Beau umont Lumbert ton 05Beau umont Nacogdoc ches 05Beau umont Orange e 05Beau umont PortArth hur 05Beau umont Silsbee e 05Beau umont Trinity y 05Beau umont Woodville Region6Houston 06Hous ston Alvin 06Hous ston Angleto on
VI.Organization
5.0 17.0 19.0 27.0 10.0 55.0 26.0 15.0 5.0 23.0 25.0 20.0 12.0 16.0 35.0 105.5 89.0 3.0 13.0 5.0 6.0 4.0 13.0 21.0 42.0 10.0 41.0 34.0 30.1 7.0 7.0 7.0 9.0 42.0
Departm mentofFam milyandProt tectiveServ vices Exhibit9: 9 FTEsbyLo ocationFi iscalYear20 012 Headq quarters, Region norField Office 06Hous ston 06Hous ston 06Hous ston 06Hous ston 06Hous ston 06Hous ston 06Hous ston 06Hous ston 06Hous ston 06Hous ston 06Hous ston 06Hous ston 06Hous ston 06Hous ston 06Hous ston Region7Austin 07Aust tin 07Aust tin 07Aust tin 07Aust tin 07Aust tin 07Aust tin 07Aust tin 07Aust tin 07Aust tin 07Aust tin 07Aust tin 07Aust tin 07Aust tin 07Aust tin 07Aust tin 07Aust tin 07Aust tin 07Aust tin 07Aust tin 07Aust tin
VI.Organization
Locatio on BayCit ty Bellville Columbus Conroe e Crosby y Galvesto on Hempste ead Housto on Humble Huntsville Liberty y Pearlan nd Rosenbe erg TexasCity Wharto on Austin n Bastrop Belton n Brenham Bryan n Burnet Camero on Centervi ille CopperasCove C Georgeto own Gidding gs Hamilto on Hearne e Hillsbor ro Killeen n Lampasas Lockhart Madisonv ville Marlin n Mexia a
Co C N Numberof Loca ated? Bud dgetedFTEs, , Yes s/No FY2013 Yes Y Yes Y Yes Y No N Yes Y Mi ixed No N Mi ixed No N Yes Y Yes Y No N No N Yes Y No N Mi ixed Yes Y No N Yes Y Mi ixed Yes Y Yes Y Yes Y Yes Y No N No N Yes Y Yes Y Yes Y No N Yes Y No N Yes Y Yes Y Yes Y
53
rofActualF FTEs Number asofJ June1,2013 3 12.0 12.0 2.0 130.0 9.0 60.0 5.0 1,363.0 28.0 13.0 31.0 48.0 88.0 31.0 9.0 438.5 31.0 87.0 20.0 57.0 22.0 3.0 3.0 26.0 36.0 4.0 5.0 2.0 8.0 86.0 13.0 19.0 3.0 3.0 24.0
DFPS
12.0 12.0 2.0 130.0 9.0 60.0 5.0 1,389.4 28.0 13.0 31.0 48.0 88.0 31.0 9.0 455.2 31.0 87.0 20.0 57.0 22.0 3.0 3.0 26.0 36.0 4.0 5.0 2.0 8.0 86.0 13.0 19.0 3.0 3.0 24.0
Departm mentofFam milyandProt tectiveServ vices Exhibit9: 9 FTEsbyLo ocationFi iscalYear20 012 Headq quarters, Region norField Office Co C N Numberof Loca ated? Bud dgetedFTEs, , Yes s/No FY2013 Yes Y Yes Y Yes Y Mi ixed Mi ixed Yes Y Yes Y Yes Y Yes Y Yes Y Yes Y Yes Y Yes Y No N Yes Y Yes Y Yes Y No N Mi ixed Yes Y Yes Y Yes Y Yes Y Yes Y Yes Y Yes Y Yes Y Mi ixed Yes Y No N Yes Y No N Yes Y
54
Locatio on
rofActualF FTEs Number asofJ June1,2013 3 31.0 38.0 23.0 130.0 12.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 11.0 9.0 7.0 3.0 27.0 21.0 33.0 38.0 15.0 3.0 1,026.0 38.0 11.7 57.0 4.0 17.0 9.0 4.0 6.0 65.0 4.0 74.0 108.0 1.0 3.0
DFPS
07Aust tin RoundRo ock 07Aust tin SanMarc cos 07Aust tin Taylor r 07Aust tin Waco o Region8SanAnton nio 08SanAntonio A Boerne e 08SanAntonio A CarrizoSprings 08SanAntonio A Cuero o 08SanAntonio A DelRio o 08SanAntonio A EaglePa ass 08SanAntonio A Floresville 08SanAntonio A Gonzale es 08SanAntonio A Hallettsv ville 08SanAntonio A Hondo o 08SanAntonio A Jourdant ton 08SanAntonio A Kerrvill le 08SanAntonio A NewBraunfels 08SanAntonio A Pearsall 08SanAntonio A PortLava aca 08SanAntonio A SanAnto onio 08SanAntonio A Seguin n 08SanAntonio A Uvalde e 08SanAntonio A Victoria Region9Midland 09Midland Andrew ws 09Midland BigSpring 09Midland Brady y 09Midland FortStock kton 09Midland Lamesa 09Midland Midlan nd 09Midland Monaha ans 09Midland Odessa a 09Midland SanAnge elo 09Midland Semino ole Region10ElPaso 10ElPa aso Alpine e
VI.Organization
31.0 38.0 23.0 130.0 12.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 11.0 9.0 7.0 3.0 27.0 21.0 33.0 38.0 15.0 3.0 1,034.7 38.0 11.8 57.0 4.0 17.0 9.0 4.0 6.0 65.0 4.0 74.0 138.5 1.0 3.0
Departm mentofFam milyandProt tectiveServ vices Exhibit9: 9 FTEsbyLo ocationFi iscalYear20 012 Headq quarters, Region norField Office Co C N Numberof Loca ated? Bud dgetedFTEs, , Yes s/No FY2013 238.2 4.0 2.0 24.0 1.0 10.0 29.0 20.0 23.0 85.0 226.1 171.5 88.0 21.0 107.0 97.0 10.0 16.0 9.0 19.0 26.0 1,170.0 10,901.1 rofActualF FTEs Number asofJ June1,2013 3 244.5 4.0 2.0 24.0 1.0 10.0 29.0 20.0 23.0 85.0 217.0 171.5 88.0 21.0 109.0 97.0 10.0 16.0 9.0 19.0 26.0 1,098.1 1 10,767.6
Locatio on
10ElPa aso ElPaso o Mi ixed 10ElPa aso Marfa a No N 10ElPa aso Presidio Yes Y 10ElPa aso Socorro Yes Y 10ElPa aso VanHorn Yes Y Region11Edinburg g 11Edinburg Alamo o Yes Y 11Edinburg Alice Yes Y 11Edinburg AransasPass P Yes Y 11Edinburg Beeville Yes Y 11Edinburg Brownsv ville No N 11Edinburg CorpusCh hristi Yes Y 11Edinburg Edinburg Mi ixed 11Edinburg Harlinge en Yes Y 11Edinburg Kingsvil lle Yes Y 11Edinburg Laredo o Mi ixed 11Edinburg McAlle en Mi ixed 11Edinburg Raymondville Yes Y 11Edinburg RioGrande eCity Yes Y 11Edinburg Robstow wn Yes Y 11Edinburg Sinton n Yes Y 11Edinburg Weslac co Yes Y Headqu uarters Austin n Mi ixed Total
C. Wha atareyouragencys a FTE Ecapsforfis scalyears20 0122015? FY2012:11,175.3 FY2013:11,175.3 FY2014:12,251.5 FY2015:12,305.1
VI.Organization 55 DFPS
D. How w many tem mporary or contract c em mployees did d your agen ncy have as s of August 31, 2012 2? DFPShad d7.1contrac ctemployee esasofAugu ust31,2012. .
E. Listeach of you ur agencys key k program ms or functio ons, along w with expend ditures and F FTEs byprogram. p TexasDepa artmentofFamily F andP ProtectiveS Services Exhibit10: ListofProgramFTEsandEx xpenditures FY2012 Averag ge FilledFT TEs Asof August3 31, 2012 3.8 47.9 10.9 156.7 7.9 95.2 11.9 148.6 6 140.4 4 12.3 64.2 54.8 6.6 2.1 71.9 29.0 7.8 406.9 2,671.7 7 1,112.7 7 2,706.6 6
Program Commis ssioner DeputyCommission ner Internal lAudit LegalSe ervices Operati ions: ChiefOp peratingOff ficer Centerfor f Learningand OrganizationalExc cellence Contrac ctOversightandSupport t Informa ationResour rceManagem ment Manage ement/Oper rationsSupport Procure ement Program mSupport CriminalBackgroundCheckUni it DataInt tegrity Finance e: ChiefFinancialOffic cer Account ting Budget FederalFunds StatewideIntake ChildPr rotectiveServices: Investig gations FamilyBased B Safety yServices Substitu uteCare
VI.Organization
Budgeted B FTEs FY2012 4.8 51.3 11.5 164.4 9.9 98.6 12.4 165.3 143.5 13.8 70.7 58.8 6.7 1.9 80.4 31.3 7.6 423.5 2,820.7 1,181.9 2,874.9
56
FY2012 xpenditures s Ex $823,646 $ $3,468,766 $858,288 $ $12,484,889 $ $1,021,409 $ $11,425,326 $804,566 $ $40,319,373 $ $10,701,732 $837,737 $ $3,636,039 $ $4,292,654 $394,971 $241,845 $ $3,864,540 $ $1,947,001 $554,268 $ $19,712,433 $1 149,959,691 1 $ $55,766,813 $1 142,474,872 2
DFPS
TexasDepa artmentofFamily F andP ProtectiveS Services FY2012 Exhibit10: ListofProgramFTEsandEx xpenditures Averag ge FilledFT TEs Asof August3 31, 2012 1,213.9 9 14.9 815.4 182.5 391.4 184.8 11,071.8 13.0 780.2 175.2 367.1 171.3 10,490. .6
Program Program mOperations FosterCare C Paymen nts Adoptio on/PermanencyCare Assista ancePaymen nts Relative eCaregiverMonetary M Assista ance Purchas sedClientSe ervices Prevent tionandEarl lyIntervention AdultProtectiveSe ervices: APSInHome H APSFac cilityInvestig gations ChildCa areLicensing g: DayCar reLicensing Residen ntialChildCa areLicensing g TOTAL
Budgeted B FTEs FY2012 1,248.9
FY2012 xpenditures s Ex $ $74,342,014 $3 381,926,525 5 $1 193,981,339 9 $ $7,859,926 $ $84,580,454 $ $31,569,019 $ $52,344,306 $ $10,010,572 $ $19,240,991 $ $9,642,694 $1,331,088,69 99
VI.Organization
57
DFPS
VII. GUIDETOAGENCYPROGRAMS
NarrativeDescriptions OfficeoftheDFPSCommissionerJudgeJohnJ.Specia,Jr. 4FTEs A fulltime Commissioner, appointed by the Health and Human Services Executive Commissioner with the approval of the Governor, oversees operations of the Department of Family and Protective Services. The Commissioners responsibilities include establishing goals and objectives as well as overseeing the development and implementation of strategic plans; policy development; performance monitoring; and executive level reporting. The CommissioneralsoassiststheExecutiveCommissionerinpolicyandrulechangesspecifictothe Departmentsfunctions. The Commissioners Office also houses the DFPS Medical Director and the Associate Commissioner. The DFPS Medical Director provides leadership, direction, and oversight on health issues that affect DFPS clients and services. The Medical Director integrates knowledge of the agencys mission with best healthcare practices to help shape DFPS policies and ensure comprehensive health care to the children DFPS serves. For example, one of the Medical Directorsmajortasksisoverseeingpsychotropicmedicationusebychildreninfostercare. The Associate Commissioner works with staff to implement the Commissioners executive direction, ensuring that policy, programs, and operations of the agency are strategically focused,properlyalignedwiththegoalsandprioritiesofstateleadership,andresponsivetothe needsofclientsandstakeholders. DeputyCommissionerDivisionJenniferSims 48.5FTEs The Deputy Commissioner works with the Commissioner on the daytoday operations of the agency, providing vision, leadership, and strategic direction to the Department in administration, operations, and budget decisionmaking processes. The Deputy Commissioner also provides leadership and oversight to the Departments Center for Consumer and External Affairs (CCEA) and the Center for Policy, Innovation, and Program Coordination (CPIPC). CCEA coordinates consumer and external affairs activities with elected officials, HHSC offices, community stakeholders, the media, clients and members of the public who have complaints. CCEA also coordinates DFPSs compliance with the customer service functions required in the Texas Government Code, Chapter 2114. CCEA consists of four offices: the Office of Consumer Affairs, Office of External Relations, Office of Communications, and Office of Media Relations. CPIPC coordinates the rule development process for the Department. CPIPC also coordinates crossprogram activities, conducts management reviews, and ensures the Departments critical projectsarealignedwiththemission,vision,andvaluesoftheDepartment.
VII.GuidetoAgencyPrograms AdministrativeServices
58
DFPS
InternalAuditEdPier 9FTEs The Internal Audit division provides an independent appraisal function within DFPS, objectively providingindependentassessmentonriskmanagement,control,andgovernanceprocessesfor the organization and its unique clientele. Internal Audit provides management with recommendations designed to strengthen and improve internal controls and agency operations. For example during fiscal year 2013, Internal Audit conducted audits of the Development of Information Resources Projects, Budget Processes, Child Death Investigations and Reporting, Reporting of Missing Children, and Search Texas Child Care website, in addition to other reviews and consulting engagements requested by the Commissioner and DFPS management. LegalServicesCynthiaOKeeffe 156.5FTEs LegalServicesprovideslegalcounsel,training,andservicestosupporttheagencysmissionand to ensure that the agency complies with all applicable state and federal laws. Legal Services contains two units: the Office of General Counsel and Program Litigation. While the Office of General Counsel performs the legal support tasks that are typical of most state agency legal divisions, the Program Litigation unit serves a somewhat unique role within state government byprovidingdirectincourtrepresentationinCPSlawsuitsand,toalesserextent,APSlawsuits, underdeputationbytheOfficeofAttorneyGeneral. OperationsTerriWare 545.7FTEs The Operations division includes Information Resource Management (IRM), the Program Support unit (PS), the Management Support unit (MSD), the Center for Learning and Organizational Excellence (CLOE), Contract Oversight & Support (COS), and the Centralized Background Check Unit (CBCU). The Operations division also includes Statewide Intake. Due to the size and complexity of the Statewide Intake program, it is addressed in its own Section VII report. InformationResourceManagement IRM supports the agencys information technology (IT) needs by providing the technology and services required to enable DFPS staff to fulfill the agencys mission around the clock, 365 days a year. The agencys information includes case and noncase related work products that are storedandsecuredindatabases,applications,orcomputingandmobiledevices. ProgramSupport PS is responsible for multiple functions that directly support DFPS programs, including testing andensuringsecurityoftheagencysautomatedcasemanagement,licensingsupportsystems, andothercoreapplications.
59
DFPS
ManagementSupportDivision MSD provides daytoday direction, guidance, and coordination for the agencys management activities. This group works with DFPS executives and management to identify and resolve crossagency operational issues, coordinate internal communication to the agencys mission andoperationalgoals,andgivedirectsupporttothefieldthroughmanyservices.MSDsmajor areas of responsibility include: Human Resources; Management Reporting and Statistics; PerformanceManagement;andRecordsManagement. CenterforLearningandOrganizationalExcellence CLOE works with DFPS programs and divisions to provide staff with training and professional development opportunities. CLOE plays a key role in equipping staff with the knowledge and skillsneededtoprotecttheunprotected. ContractOversightandSupport COS develops and maintains the internal DFPS Contract Handbook, which is the central organizational framework for all agency policies and procedures for administrative and client services contracting. Additionally, COS coordinates with the Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) to promote standardization and efficiencies across Enterprise agencies for both contractors and clients. In FY 2012, the Department had 2,791 contracts to assist us with achievingtheagencysmissionandgoals. CentralizedBackgroundCheckUnit CBCUisresponsibleforinternalagencyorrequestedbackgroundchecksthatsupportChildCare Licensing, client service contracts, internal and external volunteers, instate and outofstate requestsforcentralregistrychecksandagencynewhires.CBCUintegratescrossdivisionaland program background check policies, procedures, staff, and related resources to provide improved quality, more efficient service, and greater consistency of agency performed or requested background checks. Between June 2012 and June 2013, CBCU processed 914,147 backgroundchecks. FinanceCindyR.Brown 111.8FTEs TheOfficeofFinancesprimaryobjectivesareto: Provide DFPS with support in the three areas of budget, federal funds management, and accounting. Ensure that DFPS complies with the oversight regulations of other state and federal agencies, including the maintenance of internal controls to safeguard DFPSs resources and assets. HelpDFPSobtainfundingandmanageitsresourceseffectively. Serve as the agencys fiscal liaison to external leadership offices such as the Legislative BudgetBoard,theGovernorsOffice,andtheComptrollerofPublicAccounts.
60 DFPS
Activities are organized in separate divisions within the Office of Finance. An explanation of eachdivisionsprimaryresponsibilitiesisdescribedbelow. BudgetDivision The Budget division develops and monitors the agencys annual operating budget, prepares DFPSs biennial legislative appropriations request, prepares fiscal impact analysis on proposed legislation and agency rule changes, and provides management insight critical for agency divisionstooperatewithinallocatedresourcelevels. FederalFundsDivision TheFederalFundsdivisionprovidesanalyticalsupport,consultation,andtechnicalassistanceto agency program areas to maintain current federal funding initiatives, and to seek out and work with programs to design new initiatives. The Federal Funds division reviews and analyzescosts, programs,andfederalclaimstoensurereimbursementforalleligiblefederalcosts.Thedivision tracks and analyzes federal legislation related to funding and participates in the design and reviewofcostallocationmethodologies. AccountingDivision The Accounting division manages the agencys financial transactions and ensures the integrity of all accounting records. The Accounting division processes travel claims, provides travel support, processes payments to vendors, processes requisitions, and provides cash management,costallocation,andfinancialsystemsupport.
61
DFPS
VII. GUIDETOAGENCYPROGRAMSCONTINUED
STATEWIDEINTAKE
A. Providethefollowinginformationatthebeginningofeachprogramdescription. NameofProgramorFunction Location/Division ContactName ActualExpenditures,FY2012 NumberofActualFTEsasofJune1,2013 StatewideIntake(SWI) 2401 Ridgepoint Drive, Austin, Texas/ Operations RicZimmermanDirector SherrieHardieProgramAdministrator $19,712,433 411.5 Chapters 40, 42, and 48, Human Resources Code;Chapter261,FamilyCode TexasYouthandRunawayHotline: Chapter265,FamilyCode
StatutoryCitationforProgram
B. What is the objective of this program or function? Describe the major activities performedunderthisprogram. StatewideIntake(SWI),asubdivisionofDFPSOperations,servesasthefrontdoortothefront line for all DFPS programs. Through a multichannel contact center, SWI processes all intakes of reports of abuse, neglect, or exploitation and then routes reports to the appropriate local programoffice.Thiscentralizedprocessallowsforconsistency,accountability,andefficiencyin intakeandreferralforalltypesofreports,including: abuseorneglectofchildren; abuse,neglect,andexploitationofpersonsaged65orolderoradultswithdisabilities;and abuse, neglect, and exploitation of person in State Supported Living Centers, State Hospitals,statecenters,andcommunitybasedcenterslicensedbytheDepartmentofAging and Disability Services (DADS) or Department of State Health Services (DSHS) when employeesinthosefacilitiesareallegedperpetrators.
SWIisalsoresponsiblefor: assessingreportedinformation,basedonstatelaw; determiningthecorrectDFPSprogramwithjurisdictiontoinvestigate; entering the information into a specialized computer application, IMPACT (Information ManagementProtectingAdultsandChildreninTexas),whichisusedbyallDFPSprograms; routingthereporttothecorrectlocation;
62 DFPS
VII.GuidetoAgencyPrograms StatewideIntake
servingasareferralcenterwheninformationreportedisnotwithinDFPSjurisdiction;and completing emergency background checks when requested by CPS staff without access to IMPACT.
SWI operates the tollfree, nationwide, Texas Abuse Hotline, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, including holidays. SWI also provides a prioritized tollfree hotline number that is solely for the use of law enforcement personnel and another line dedicated for individuals in facilities for mental health or intellectual and developmental disabilities. For all calls, translation services are available whenever needed. To assist those who are hearing or speech impaired, intake specialists can also access the Relay Texas interpreter service. SWI also receives reports via an internetreportingsystemandbyfaxormail. Separate from Abuse Hotline, the SWI division also operates a tollfree Texas Runaway Hotline andTexasYouthHotline.Theseservicesoffercrisiscounselingandreferralsfortroubledyouth and families. Volunteers answer the phones and interact with callers facing a variety of problems including family conflict, delinquency, truancy, and abuse and neglect issues. The programalsoincreasespublicawarenessthroughmediaeffortsandprintedmaterials.In2013, thetwohotlinesandtheirwebsitesweremergedintotheTexasYouthandRunawayHotline.
C. What evidence can you provide that shows the effectiveness and efficiency of this program or function? Provide a summary of key statistics and performance measures thatbestconveytheeffectivenessandefficiencyofthisfunctionorprogram. DFPSmeasuresSWIprogramsuccessinavarietyofways.Statisticsincludemeasuresofquality as well as the average number of calls handled per hour, total number of calls handled, and time engaged in various activities including breaks, email, training, technical problems, unit meetings, and so on. Intake specialists can compare their performance to their peers and the statisticsforeachspecialistisavailableforallofDFPStoview.Thefollowingtableshighlightkey performancemeasures. TotalNumberofContactsReceived FY 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 HoldTimeIn Minutes* 11.4 10.6 8.9 7.3 8.5 NumberofTotal Contacts** 678,330 690,430 748,277 780,023 773,577 PercentChangeinTotalContacts (FromPriorFY) 4.7% 1.8% 8.4% 4.2% 0.8%
*PhonecallsEnglishqueueonly. **Includesallcontacts(phone,internet,fax,mailandwalkin).
63
DFPS
The Texas Legislative Budget Board (LBB) has set the measure for SWI performance on the Englishqueueatanannualaverageholdtimeof8.7minutes(+/5percent). TotalNumberofContactsReceivedbyMethodofReceiptFY2012 ContactType Phone Internet Mail/Fax Other Walkin TOTAL NumberofContacts 618,422 120,802 33,099 1,200 54 773,577 PercentofTotal 79.9% 15.6% 4.3% 0.2% 0.0% 100.0%
In 2010, DFPS purchased an improved system for call recording and scoring (Telstrat Engage COACH). Two COACH tools are used to measure the quality of work performed by those who answer hotline calls. For most evaluations, a tool with 21 questions is used to focus on the outcome of the contact. For newer staff and when more indepth evaluations are needed, a tool with 120 questions is used. InterRater Reliability Exercises are conducted on a quarterly basis,toensurethatthetoolisbeingscoredconsistently.
D. Describe any important history regarding this program not included in the general agency history section, including how the services or functions have changed from the originalintent. 1974 The Legislature requires all 254 Texas counties to have 24hour reporting capability for cases involvingchildabuseorneglect;theagencynowknownasDFPSrespondsbycreatingtheTexas AbuseHotline. 1984 The Legislature mandated that the Adult Protective Services also have 24hour reporting capability. SWI added staff and trained them to handle calls concerning abuse, neglect, and exploitationofpersonsaged65orolderandadultswithdisabilities. 1993 SWIbeganapilotprograminRegion7(Austin)designedtotesttheeffectivenessofcentralizing theintakesystemthroughoutthestate. 1999 SWI began handling all intake functions for the Child Protective Services, Child Care Licensing, andAdultProtectiveServicesprogramsfortheentirestateofTexas.
64
DFPS
2002 SWI launched a secure agency website for professionals to report abuse and neglect. The website was developed by DFPSs Information Technology (IT) division in partnership with Statewide Intake leadership management, allowing professionals to make nonemergency reportstoSWIwithoutaphonecall. 2004 At the request of Texas legislators, DFPS and the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) agreed on a plan to give DFPS employee access to crime records in order to assist workers in determining the appropriateness of kinship placements. In 2005, the Statewide Intake Expedited Background Check (EBC) unit began providing a centralized service to CPS caseworkersforcertainemergencychildplacements. 2005 The internet reporting site was expanded to allow nonemergency reports from the general public. 2008 DFPS launched a redesigned internet reporting website called the Texas Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation Reporting System; commonly known as the Texas Abuse Hotline website (www.TxAbuseHotline.org). 2012 The DFPS Texas Youth and Runaway Hotlines were transferred from Child Protective Services divisiontoStatewideIntake.
E. Describe who or what this program or function affects. List any qualifications or eligibilityrequirementsforpersonsorentitiesaffected.Provideastatisticalbreakdown ofpersonsorentitiesaffected. Anyone can report concerns about the safety of a child, person with disabilities or person who is elderly in Texas whether they reside in Texas or not. No restrictions exist relating to such reports.However,statuterequirescertainprofessionalstoreportsuspectedinstancesofabuse or neglect. Specifically, pursuant to Chapter 261 of the Texas Family Code all persons are required to report child abuse and neglect. Professionals are mandated to report within 48 hours. Pursuant to Chapter 48 of the Human Resources Code, all person are required to report abuse,neglect,andexploitationofapersonwithdisabilitiesorpersonwhoiselderly. The following table shows the source of all reports as combined for CPS, both APS programs, andChildCareLicensingduringFY2012.
65
DFPS
FY2012ReportingSource Total(FY2012)SourceofReport MedicalPersonnel Relative School LawEnforcement Other Parent CommunityAgency FriendNeighbor Victim Anonymous DFPSStaff Provider Legal/Court InstitutionalPersonnel DaycareProvider StateAgency FinancialInstitution UnrelatedHomeMember ParentsParamour 24HourCareProvider ReligiousEntity Blank/Unknown TOTAL
Number 66,023 45,913 44,381 40,107 27,586 25,704 23,505 20,849 18,853 16,380 11,234 7,906 4,209 3,953 2,844 2,203 1,312 1,110 1,066 739 649 277 366,803
PercentofTotal 18.0% 12.5% 12.1% 10.9% 7.5% 7.0% 6.4% 5.7% 5.1% 4.5% 3.1% 2.2% 1.1% 1.1% 0.8% 0.6% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 100.0%
F. Describe how your program or function is administered. Include flowcharts, timelines, or other illustrations as necessary to describe agency policies and procedures. Indicate howfieldandregionalservicesareused,ifapplicable. The Chief Operating Officer manages SWI. The Statewide Intake management team includes a SWIdirector,fourintakeprogramadministrators,adivisionadministratorforqualityassurance, a division administrator for operations, and a division administrator for training. The Youth and RunawayHotlinesaremanagedbyaprogramspecialist. The public can access multiple avenues to contact SWI phone, secure internet, mail, fax, and walkin.Thefollowingflowchartillustratesanoverviewoftheintakeprocess.
66
DFPS
SWIIntakeProcess
VII.GuidetoAgencyPro ograms wideIntake Statew
67
DFPS
G. Identify all funding sources and amounts for the program or function, including federal grants and passthrough monies. Describe any funding formulas or funding conventions. For state funding sources, please specify (such as general revenue, appropriationsrider,budgetstrategy,feesanddues). PleaseseeAppendixA.
AlternateExhibitProvidedForSectionVII.ItemG.
H. Identify any programs, internal or external to your agency, that provide identical or similar services or functions to the target population. Describe the similarities and differences. The Department of State Health Services (DSHS) and the Department of Aging and Disability Services(DADS)performintakefunctionswithinthescopeoftheirlicensingorregulatoryroles. Neither agency provides intake services 24hours a day, 365 days a year or for the types of caseshandledbyDFPS.
I. Discusshowtheprogramorfunctioniscoordinatingitsactivitiestoavoidduplicationor conflict with the other programs listed in Question H and with the agencys customers. If applicable, briefly discuss any memorandums of understanding (MOUs), interagency agreements,orinteragencycontracts. SWIdoesnotreplicateservicesperformedbyanyotheragency.NootherentityinTexasserves as the single point of contact for the reporting and referral of all allegations of abuse, neglect, and exploitation of children, persons aged 65 or older, adults with disabilities, persons in State Supported Living Centers, State Hospitals, State Centers, and communitybased centers licensed by the Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS) or the Department of State HealthServices(DSHS).
J. If the program or function works with local, regional, or federal units of government, includeabriefdescriptionoftheseentitiesandtheirrelationshiptotheagency. Statewide Intake does not work with local, regional, or federal units of government in ways otherthanwhathasalreadybeendiscussed. SWI coordinates with other state agencies to receive intakes through the methods described above and sends information to the Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS) and DepartmentofStateHealthServices(DSHS)whenitisnot withinDFPSjurisdiction andappears tobewithintheresponsibilityofthoseagencies.
VII.GuidetoAgencyPrograms StatewideIntake 68 DFPS
K. Ifcontractedexpendituresaremadethroughthisprogrampleaseprovide: ashortsummaryofthegeneralpurposeofthosecontractsoverall; theamountofthoseexpendituresinFY2012; thenumberofcontractsaccountingforthoseexpenditures; topfivecontractsbydollaramount,includingcontractorandpurpose; themethodsusedtoensureaccountabilityforfundingandperformance;and ashortdescriptionofanycurrentcontractingproblems. SWIhadnocontractsforFY2012.
L. Provideinformationonanygrantsawardedbytheprogram. StatewideIntakedoesnotawardgrants.
M.What statutory changes could be made to assist this program in performing its functions?Explain. StatewideIntake(SWI),thecentralizedDFPSdivisiondesignatedtoreceiveallreportsofabuse orneglect,isoneofthelargestcontactcentersofitskindnationallyandexperiencesahigh volumeofcalls.CurrentperformancemeasuresestablishedbytheLegislativeBudgetBoard forSWIrequireSWInottoexceedanaverageholdtimeof8.7minutes,andappropriationsto DFPSarecalculatedtoachievethatperformancemeasure.However,thehighertheaverage holdtime,thegreatertheabandonmentratefrompersonsattemptingtoreportabuseor neglect,whichmayresultinurgentlyneededreportsofsuspectedabuseorneglectnotbeing madeorinvestigated.HouseBill304,introducedinthe83rdsession,proposedtheadditionof Section40.0529,HumanResourcesCode,tomandatethataverageholdtimesforSWInot exceedfiveminutes,andabandonmentratesnotexceed25%,which,iffullyfunded,would havesignificantlyimprovedSWIsabilitytoprovidepromptassistancetoreporters,thereby enhancingsafetyforchildrenandvulnerableadults.Toaddressthisconcern,thelegislature mightconsideramendingChapter40,HumanResourcesCode,inamannersimilartothe proposedamendmentsinHB304,ormightdirecttheLBBtorevisetheperformancemeasures associatedwiththisfunction.Foradditionaldiscussion,seeSectionIX,MajorIssue#3.
N. Provide any additional information needed to gain a preliminary understanding of the programorfunction. Notapplicable.
VII.GuidetoAgencyPrograms StatewideIntake 69 DFPS
O. Regulatoryprogramsrelatetothelicensing,registration,certification,orpermittingofa person,business,orotherentity.Foreachregulatoryprogram,ifapplicable,describe: Whytheregulationisneeded; Thescopeof,andproceduresfor,inspectionsorauditsofregulatedentities; Followupactivitiesconductedwhennoncomplianceisidentified; Sanctionsavailabletotheagencytoensurecompliance;and Proceduresforhandlingconsumerandpubliccomplaintsagainstregulatedentities. Statewideintakedoesnotperformlicensing,registration,norcertificationduties.
P. For each regulatory program, if applicable, provide the following complaint information. The chart headings may be changed if needed to better reflect your agencyspractices. Notapplicable.
70
DFPS
VII. GUIDETOAGENCYPROGRAMSCONTINUED CHILDPROTECTIVESERVICES

NameofProgramorFunction Location/Division ContactName ActualExpenditures,FY2012 NumberofActualFTEsasofJune1,2013 StatutoryCitationforProgram
A. Providethefollowinginformationatthebeginningofeachprogramdescription. ChildProtectiveServices 701West51stStreet,Austin,Texas/ ChildProtectiveServices AudreyDeckinga,AssistantCommissioner ChildProtectiveServices $1,090,891,634 7,963.3 Chapter40,HumanResourcesCodeandTitle5, FamilyCode
IntroductiontoChildProtectiveServices Responsibilities TheresponsibilitiesofChildProtectiveServicesareto: conductcivilinvestigationsofreportsofchildabuseandneglect; protectchildrenfromabuseandneglect; promotethesafety,integrity,andstabilityoffamilies;and provide permanent homes or living arrangements for children who cannot safely remain withtheirfamilies.
InvestigationandPlacements State law requires anyone who believes a child is being abused or neglected to report the situation so that CPS can investigate. CPS interviews children, parents, and others who know aboutthefamily.CPSdeterminesifchildabuseorneglectoccurred,ifthechildrenaresafe,and iftheyareatriskoffutureharm. CPS may refer families for services in the community, such as individual or family therapy, parenting classes, medical assistance, mental health services, substance abuse assessment and treatmentfacilities,orprogramsofferingfinancialassistanceforutilities,rent,orchildcare. When CPS is concerned about a childs ongoing safety, it refers the family to one of two types of ongoing services. If a child can remain safely in the home while issues are resolved, the family is referred for family based safety services. If services cannot ensure the childs safety in the home, CPS may petition the court to remove the child from the parents custody and place the child in a relatives care or foster care. When this occurs, CPS provides a variety of substitutecareservicestailoredtoachievethepermanencygoalsforthechild.
VII.GuidetoAgencyPrograms ChildProtectiveServices 71 DFPS
WhatHappensinaCPSCase? Generally,aCPScasefollowsoneofthreemainpathsdescribedbelowaftertheinvestigation. Case Closed CPS closes the case when there is no future risk to the child or risk can be managedwithoutservicesfromtheagency. Family Based Safety Services CPS works with parents and refers them to services to help keepfamiliestogetherandchildrensafeintheirhomes. SubstituteCareAcourtremovesachildfromhomeandgivesCPSlegalcustody.Thechild usually lives in foster care or with a relative until permanency goals are achieved. Permanencyisachievedwhenthechild: o returnshomewhenitissafe; o liveswitharelativelongterm; o isadoptedbyanewfamily;or o livesinfostercareuntilbecominganadult. Theflowchart,shownonthefollowingpage,illustratesthemanypossiblepathsofaCPScase.
VII.GuidetoAgencyPrograms ChildProtectiveServices
72
DFPS

VII.GuidetoAgencyPro ograms P Serv vices ChildProtective 73 DFPS
CPSPrograms Child Protective Services has the following three major programs and many smaller ones, to processthethousandsofreportsitreceiveseachyear. Investigations FamilyBasedSafetyServices SubstituteCare o KinshipCare o FosterCareandPlacementServices o ConservatorshipServices(casemanagement) o FosterandAdoptionDevelopment o TransitionalLivingServicesandExtendedFosterCare o PermanencyCareAssistance CPSdoesnotprotectchildrenallbyitself.TheDepartmentworkswithinachildwelfaresystem. Only a court can issue an order to remove a child from home. Once that happens, the courts play a critical role in determining their future and make the final decisions on what happens to them. No child enters or leaves foster care without a court order. A judge decides where the childwillliveandforhowlong.Everyday,Texascourtsdecidewhetherachildgoeshomeorto live with a relative, visits a sibling, or becomes eligible for adoption. In addition to the courts, CPSworkswithmanyotherpeopleandorganizations,includingbutnotlimitedto: lawenforcementagenciesstatewide; fosterparentsandprivatechildplacingagencies; variousserviceprovidersandserviceorganizations; HHSC(healthcareservicesforchildreninfostercare); U.S.DepartmentofHealthandHumanServices;and
childandfamilyadvocatesandstakeholders. The remainder of this section will look at each of these three programs (investigations, family basedsafetyservices,andsubstitutecare)ingreaterdetailandexplainhowCPSstaffineachof theseprogramsworktogetthebestpossibleoutcomesforchildrenandfamilies.
74
DFPS
B. What is the objective of this program or function? Describe the major activities performedunderthisprogram. FTEnumbersprovidedinthefollowingsectionareAverageFilledFTEsasof6/1/2013. Investigation2,708.9FTES Whenever suspected child abuse or neglect by parents, caregivers or household members is reported to DFPS and meets the statutory definitions of abuse or neglect, it becomes an investigation intake that is the responsibility of CPSs Investigation staff. CPS is responsible for conducting civil investigations of reported child abuse and neglect. The objectives of the investigationareto: ensurechildsafety; determinewhetherabuseorneglectoccurred; assesswhetherthechildmaybeatriskofabuseorneglectinthefuture; providethefamilyorchildwithneededsafetyservices;and refer the family for services available in the community or through the agency that reduce theriskofabuseandneglectandenhancethewellbeingofthefamily.
Since the primary purpose of the investigation is the protection of children, investigators seek toidentifywhetherthechildissafe,howvulnerablethechildis,andwhetherornotanyparent hasthecapacitytoprotectthechild.CPSdeterminesthisearlyintheinvestigatoryprocessand endstheinvestigationonceitispossibletodeterminethechildissafe. Investigation intakes are either routed through a screening process or sent directly to investigationunits. ScreenedIntakes Mandated by S.B. 6, the main CPS Reform bill from 2005, investigation screeners review a subset of reports received at intake. To be eligible for screening, the intake must be a report in whichthevictimsareagessixandolderandinvolveafamilywithnoopencasesinotherstages of service, and the intake does not require an immediate CPS response (these are Priority 2 intakes). Screeners review the case information received at intake as well as information availableintheIMPACTsystemforpriorCPSandcriminalhistory.Additionalcallsmaybemade todetermineifatraditionalinvestigationisnecessary.Screenersmustcontactaprofessionalor other credible source that can provide additional information on the childs situation. The intake is closed if the childs safety can be assured without further investigation, and the screener refers the family to community resources. Screening allows caseworkers to only investigate cases that warrant CPS involvement. In FY 2012, approximately 41 percent of the Priority 2 intakes were formally screened. Of those, approximately 27 percent were closed after the screening process and the remaining 73 percent were assigned to receive an investigation.
TraditionalInvestigations Foranyintakesinvolvingchildrenundertheageofsixoranyintakesthatinvolveseriousabuse or neglect allegations which are not eligible for screening, these intakes are immediately sent for a traditional investigation. CPS uses a flexible approach to investigations that provides for differentmethodsofinvestigationbasedonthesafetyconcernsforthechild. Thorough Investigations incorporate the full range of investigative procedures and outcomes. Abbreviated Investigations begin as thorough investigations but are shortened and do not include the full range of investigation procedures due to casespecific reasons consistent with child safety. For example, an abbreviated investigation may be used when initial contactswiththeallegedvictimorfamilyprovideenoughinformationtoclearlyindicatethe abuse or neglect allegations will be ruled out even before all investigative steps in policy wouldhavebeenfinished. Preliminary Investigations are administratively closed because it is determined that CPS lacks jurisdiction. For example, an initial interview conducted by the CPS caseworker could yield information that the alleged perpetrator was a neighbor and that there are no concernsabouttheparentssupervisionofthechild.Inthisinstance,theworkerwouldtell lawenforcementaboutthenewinformationandclosetheinvestigation.
CPS investigates reports of child abuse and neglect to determine whether any child has been abused or neglected, is unsafe, or is at future risk of being abused or neglected by a parent or householdmember.Ifthereportallegesachildhasbeenormaybethevictimofacrimeandis inimmediatedangerofphysicalorsexualabusethatcouldresultindeathorseriousharm,CPS mustrequestajointinvestigationwithlawenforcement. The investigator must complete investigation actions within 30 days from the date the report was received by the agency, unless the supervisor approves an extension. At the end of the investigation, the investigator must assign a disposition to each allegation identified in the investigation. A disposition is a finding that states whether an allegation of abuse or neglect occurred. Each disposition that the investigator gives to an individual allegation is considered when finalizing the overall investigation disposition. There are four categories of findings: reasontobelieve,ruledout,unabletocomplete,andunabletodetermine.ForFY2012,overall investigationdispositionsincludedthefollowing: FiscalYear2012InvestigationDisposition Disposition Number ReasontoBelieve 38,725 RuledOut 107,757 UnabletoComplete 3,534 UnabletoDetermine 16,195 TotalCompletedInvestigations 166,211
If the investigator concludes that the children are safe and not at risk of future harm, then the case may be closed. However, if the investigator concludes that the children are not safe, the investigator may refer the case to ongoing services. If the child can remain safely in the home while the services are provided, the case is referred to Family Based Safety Services. If the investigator determines that the children are in immediate danger, the investigator may file a petition to initiate civil court action to protect the children which may include removal of children from the home. If a child is removed from the home, Substitute Care services are provided. FamilyBasedSafetyServices(FBSS)1,138.2FTEs WhenacasecomestoFBSSfrominvestigations,thegoaloftheservicesistoensurechildsafety and reduce risk while helping families remain intact. When a case comes to FBSS from substitute care, the goal of the services is to help reunite the family and to ensure that the conditions that led to the childs removal no longer pose a threat to that childs safety. There aretwotypesofservices:FamilyBasedSafetyServices(formerlyknownasFamilyPreservation Services) and Family Reunification Services. Both types of services can be voluntary or court ordered, although courtordered Family Based Safety Services occur without DFPS having conservatorship of the child. Typically, Family Reunification Services occur during a monitored return while the child remains in DFPS conservatorship. In FY 2012, of the cases opened for services after a completed investigation, 69.7 percent received either Family Based Safety ServicesorFamilyReunificationServices. FamilyBasedSafetyServices In most cases opened for services after a CPS investigation, children remain with the family. Consistent with federal regulations, CPS works with families to improve conditions to keep a child safe in the childs own home. Family based safety services are childsafety centered, family focused, and homebased and most often involve children who are not in the legal conservatorship of DFPS. At all times, the safety and welfare of children are of paramount concern. If at any point staff determine the safety of a child can no longer be ensured, CPS implements an immediate plan for the childs safety, including courtordered services or, if necessary,removal. FamilyReunificationServices CPS provides reunification services to families immediately before and after a child returns home from an outofhome placement, while DFPS still has legal conservatorship of the child. Thepurposeofreunificationservicesistoprovidesupporttothefamilyandthechildduringthe childstransitionfromhavingbeenpreviouslyremovedandlivingelsewheretoonceagainliving athome.CPSprovidesfamilyreunificationservicesdirectlyorthroughcontractedproviders. All of the following criteria must be met for a family to be eligible for family reunification services. Atleastonechildhasbeenremovedfromthehome.
77 DFPS
Theparentshaveareasonablystablelivingarrangement. Theparentsareworkingtocompletegoalslistedonthefamilyserviceplan. A target date has been set for the child to make his or her transition to the home, or the transitionprocesshasbegun. GoalsandObjectivesofFBSSandFamilyReunificationServices Goals Objectives Ensurechildhealthand Ongoingassessmentoffactorsthatimpactchildhealth safety andsafety. Servicestargetissuesthatimpactfamilyviolence. Ongoingassessmentandprovisionofbasicneeds. Providefamilyfocused services Strengthsbasedassessmentandservices. Respectandworkinpartnershipwithfamilies. Culturallysensitive. Meetthefamilysuniqueneeds. Impactthefamilysystem. Primarilyprovideservicesinthehome,whenpossible. Linkfamilieswithformalandinformalcommunity resources. Increasefamilysupportsystems. Increasefamilystabilityandselfsufficiency. Establishpermanencywhensafetycanbeensured: o bykeepingchildrenwiththeirfamilies,and o byreunitingthemwiththeirparents Worktowardsotherplannedlivingarrangementsfor childrenwhenfamiliesarenotwillingorabletoensure thesafetyoftheirchildren.
Strengthenfamilies throughhomeand communitybased services Establishpermanency(a permanentliving arrangementorhome) forchildren
AFamilyBasedSafetyServicescaseworkerconductsafamilyassessmentanddevelopsaservice plan with the family to identify the services needed to ensure the longterm safety and well beingofthechildandfamily.Eachfamilyisprovidedwithafamilyserviceplanthatdetailsthe specific services discussed during the family assessment. Services may be provided to any member of the family responsible for the childs safety including parents, paramours, or caregivers. Additionally, services can be provided to the child to address their needs. Services available may include purchased client services (such as daycare, counseling, parenting classes orhomemakerservices)orreferraltocommunityresources. SubstituteCare2,775.9FTEs If, during the course of an investigation or during the provision of family based safety services, CPS determines it is not safe for a child to live with his or her own family, CPS petitions the court to remove the child from the home. Although DFPS is the entity provided the
78
DFPS
conservatorship role and referenced in statute, it is CPS staff that provide the substitute care services(unlessotherwisestatedinthissection). There are two types of legal custody typically granted by the courts to DFPS: temporary (TMC) and permanent managing conservatorship (PMC). Both are granted to DFPS as a result of a court hearing and written court order and continue until a judge issues another court order changing the legal status of the child. Most often, children enter conservatorship when DFPS is awarded temporary managing conservatorship. In TMC cases, a final order must be determined within 12 months, although statute allows for a six month extension. Permanent managing conservatorship is considered one type of final order. Other final orders can include dismissal of conservatorship (occurs with reunification or when a child enters adulthood), transfer of permanent managing conservatorship to another (such as a relative), or (if termination of parental rights has already occurred) adoption. The legal status for children typically progresses from TMC to PMC. The judicial review process and responsibilities are guidedbystateandfederalstatute. Ingeneral,therearespecificcourtreviewsandhearingsforchildreninDFPSconservatorship,of whichthefollowingprovidesmoredetail. TemporaryManagingConservatorship
An ex parte order may be granted prior to the first hearing in the event of circumstances requiring emergency involuntary removal of a child from their parent or caretaker. If the circumstances do not allow a full adversary hearing prior to removal, CPS is authorized to obtain a courtordered removal after an emergency ex parte hearing or conduct the emergencyremovalwithoutacourtorder. The adversary hearing is the first hearing. In it,the judgemakes decisions about whethera childshouldberemoved(eitherbeforeremovalor,ifemergencyremovaltookplace,within thefirst14daysafterremoval). A status hearing is held within 60 days of the child being placed in temporary managing conservatorship. In this hearing, the judge reviews the service plan and makes findings regardingreasonableeffortsmadebyparties,progressmadeandotheractions. Permanency hearings are held regularly in which the judge reviews the conservatorship appointment, status of the child and circumstances, placement, and makes other determinations.Statuteoutlinesaschedule,butjudgesmayholdhearingsmorefrequently. Permanencyhearingscontinueuntilafinalorderaboutthecaseisdetermined.
PermanentManagingConservatorship IfthefinalorderappointsDFPSasthepermanentmanagingconservator,placementreview hearings are held. Statute requires the court to hold such hearings for each child in the PMC of DFPS. The purpose is to review the legal status, consider whether DFPS has taken actionstoachievepermanencyforthechild,reviewtheappropriateplacement,andreview otherinformationcentraltothechildssafety,permanencyandwellbeing.
79 DFPS
CPSsubstitutecarestaffparticipateinthehearings,providingrequiredinformationtothejudge andotherpartiesasrequiredinstatute. In cases where DFPS has temporary managing conservatorship, two permanency planning meetings are typically scheduled. The first is within 45 days of a child entering DFPS care and the second within five months. A meeting is also held within three months of DFPS assuming permanent managing conservatorship and then annually. At a minimum, the following people arenotifiedofapermanencyplanningmeeting: thechildsparentsandtheparentsattorney(invitedatthesametime), familyandextendedfamilymembers, thechild, thechildscaretaker, thechildsattorneyandguardianadlitem, thechildscourtappointedspecialadvocate(CASA),and relevant professionals and other persons who can contribute to identifying and securing a permanentplacementthatmeetsthechildsneedsandisinthechildsbestinterest.
Permanencyisnotachieveduntilallofthefollowingoccur. Thechildisinasafelivingsituation. Thechildisinaplacementintendedtobeapermanentlivingsituation. Thechildiswithafamilycommittedtothechild. Thereisanenduring,nurturingfamilyrelationshiptomeetthechildsneeds. Thechildhasasenseofsecurity. A legal status has been achieved for the child that protects the rights of the child without DFPSmaintainingconservatorship. In the case of a youth whose permanency goal is another planned, permanent living arrangement, the youth has a connection to a caring adult who will be supportive into adulthood,duringandafterthetransitiontoindependentliving.
During the time a child is in the conservatorship of CPS, CPS staff rely on the substitute care settingbestsuitedtoaparticularchildsneeds.Substitutecareplacementscanincludekinship care, fostercare, placement inresidential carefacilities, adoption, or transition to independent living. When courts put a child in DFPSs TMC, CPS evaluates the familys situation and the parents ability to care for the children. The family and CPS then have 12 months to resolve the case.
During this time, substitute care staff must find the best placement for that child while also attempting to help repair the family. Services may include kinship assessments and home studies,behavioralhealthassessments,therapeuticservicesforchildrenandfamilies,parenting classes, substance abuse counseling, substance abuse testing, placement services, and more. Many of these services are court ordered, and their affordability and statewide availability are continuouschallenges. The goals of substitute care are to ensure that children are protected and get the care they needtoachieve.Substitutecareisatemporarylivingarrangementandprovidesorarrangesfor socialandremedialservicesappropriatetoeachchildsneeds;andmakesreasonableeffortsto reunite children with their families by assessing each childs and familys situation. CPS develops and implements a timelimited, reunification service plan to change the conditions that have placed the child at risk, and to prepare the child and the family for the childs return homeortofindalternativepermanentplacementsforchildrenwhocannotsafelygohome. When a child cannot safely return home, CPS may recommend to the court that the parent child relationship be terminated and the children be placed with permanent families or caregivers. The parental rights of both parents must be relinquished or terminated before a child is free for adoption. If the court does not terminate the parental rights of a child but it is unsafe for the child to return home, DFPS or a kinship family may be named permanent managing conservator of the child. If there are not appropriate alternatives, the child remains infostercare. In addition to services described above that are provided directly to the child in conservatorship, substitute care staff provide important services to these children and their families.Theservicesprovidedduringthesubstitutecarestageinclude: KinshipCareServices Kinship care is an important option for children in DFPS conservatorship. Kinship care is when relatives or other fictive kin care for a child who cannot live safely with a parent. Kinship placements meet childrens needs for safety while preserving connections to family, community, and culture. Children in kinship placements have shorter stays in substitute care, fewer placement disruptions, and better outcomes compared with children in traditional, paid foster care. Financial assistance is available to eligible relative caregivers to help support the integration of their relative child into their home. Available funds include an integration payment when the placement first occurs and reimbursements for specific expenses. Additionally, relative and fictive kin are told of the ability to become verified foster parents. That means the relative or fictive kin, upon verification, is trained and paid as other foster parents.Ifeligiblerelativeorkinshipcaregiversbecomeverifiedandtakepermanentcustodyof the child, Permanency Care Assistance can be provided. Kinship care services are typically providedbyCPSKinshipDevelopmentWorkers.
81
DFPS
FosterCareServices Foster parents provide children with a safe, nurturing environment and receive a daily reimbursement for the costs of caring for children. CPS substitute care staff and foster parents arrange all educational, medical, dental, and therapeutic services needed by the child. CPS provides services to the biological parents until the family is reunited or the courts approve another permanent living arrangement for the children. The court has ongoing oversight while a child is in foster care and will ask CPS to place the child temporarily in a foster care setting suchasa: fosterhomeorfostergrouphomeverifiedbyalicensedchildplacingagency; generalresidentialoperationlicensedbyDFPS;or
facilityundertheregulatoryauthorityofanotherstateagency. FosterandAdoptiveHomeDevelopmentServices CPS substitute care staff verify foster and adoptive families to help ensure there are enough foster and adoptive homes for children in CPS custody. CPS develops an annual recruitment plan to address the need for homes based on the child population each region serves. Substitutecarestaffandfosterparentsworkasateamtodevelopandfindthebestpermanent home possible for children in substitute care. Foster parents may also become approved as an adoptive home. Substitute care staff verify CPS foster homes while private childplacing agencies verify their foster homes. Each of the 11 CPS administrative regions holds a license issued by Residential Child Care Licensing to operate as a childplacing agency. As a child placingagency,CPSadherestothesameminimumstandardsandismonitoredinthesameway as any other childplacing agency. Currently, DFPS has 1,375 homes while private childplacing agencies have 7,574 homes (as of July 2013). DFPS adoptive families who are willing to accept childrenwhoarenotlegallyfreeforadoption,butwhosepermanencyplanisadoption,arealso requiredtomeetfosterhomeminimumstandardsandbeverifiedasafosterhome. TransitionalLivingServices AlthoughCPStriestofindapermanenthomeforeverychild,sometimesthatisnotpossible.In those cases, substitute care staff provide Transitional Living Services, including the Preparation for Adult Living (PAL) program. These services help youth prepare for adult life and assist with theinitialtransitiontoadultliving. PALservicesensurethatDFPSfosteryouthandthoseaging out of care receive the tools, resources, supports, and personal and community connections they need to become selfsufficient adults. Supportive services and benefits are provided to eligible youth ages 16 to 21, and in some cases up to age 23 for certain educational/vocational needs,toassistyouthwhentheyleavefostercare. ExperientialLifeSkillsTrainingforYouth14andOlder Foster parents and other childcare or residential providers are required to include training in independent living skills through practical activities such as meal preparation, use of public transportation, money management, and basic household tasks for youth ages 14 and older. ProvidershaveaccesstoresourceguidesandothertraininginformationattheDFPSResidential
Contracts website. The youths experiential learning while in care and PAL activities complementoneanotherandarediscussedandaddressedineachcorelifeskillareawithinthe youthsserviceandtransitionplan. PreparationforAdultLiving(PAL)Program PAL helps older youth in foster care prepare for their departure and transition from DFPS care andsupport.Supportiveservicesandbenefitsareprovidedtoeligibleyouthuptoage21.PAL is funded by the federal Chafee Foster Care Independence Program, state general revenue funds and community match (20 percent). The PAL program includes the PAL Life Skills AssessmentandLifeSkillsTraininginthefollowingcoreareas. Healthandsafety. Housingandtransportation. Jobreadiness. Financialmanagement. Lifedecisionsandresponsibility.
Personalandsocialrelationships. MedicalServices In addition to the services discussed above, DFPS ensures all medical, behavioral and dental health needs are met for children in DFPS conservatorship. The CPS Medical Services division works in concert with CPS substitute care staff to ensure that each child in substitute care receives accessible, coordinated, comprehensive, and continuous health care. CPS wellbeing specialistscoordinatewithSTARHealthrepresentativestotroubleshootcomplexcases,analyze processeffectiveness,andrecommendsolutionsandtoprovidetrainingforCPSstaff.Regional nursesconsultwithCPScaseworkers.RepresentativesfromSTARHealthparticipatewithCPSin the Trauma Informed Care initiative, including a workgroup to identify trauma screening and assessment measures for use in psychosocial assessments STAR Health would provide for childreninDFPSconservatorship. RecruitmentServices The Texas Adoption Resource Exchange (TARE) is one tool substitute care staff use to find adoptive homes for children who are not adopted quickly. TARE is a webbased referral and photolistingservicethatCPSoperatestoprovideinformationonchildrenwaitingforadoption. It is also contains a free, selfregistration listing of adoptive families and individuals across the United States that are approved for adoption. TARE was established so that children with special needs and families who wish to adopt them are brought together in an expeditious manner. TheDFPSWhyNotMecampaigndirectsthepublictoTAREwebsiteusingaredirectedURLof www.adoptchildren.org. DFPS launched this campaign in FY 2007, featuring TV and radio ads designed to inspire Texans to adopt older and minority children. CPS also participates with
other adoption organizations during national recruitment campaigns and promotes children registeredonTAREonorganizationalwebsites,includingtheAdoptUSKidsnationalwebsite. The Adoption Family Network brings approved adoptive families with a current and approved home study to the attention of substitute care staff and increases placement options for children. The Adoption Family Network is an extension of TARE. It is a quick and easy way for adoptive families in Texas and throughout the United States to tell CPS about their adoption preferences and interest in adopting Texas children. CPS substitute care staff may consider thesefamiliesforadoptionofchildrenwhomayormaynotyetbephotolistedonTARE. Monthly adoption assistance payments and Medicaid coverage are provided on behalf of children who would not be adopted in a timely fashion without assistance. In addition to the monthly subsidy, nonrecurring payments are provided after consummation of the adoption to reimburse families for certain adoption related expenses. Those expenses include home study costs, attorney fees, court costs and travel expenses related to the placement. CPS normally reimburses the family for their allowable expenses but can reimburse the attorney directly when requested by the family. Intercountry adoption of special needs children qualify for the nonrecurring program when the parents have an adoption assistance agreement with DFPS beforelegalcompletionoftheadoption. DFPSProvidesEnhancedAdoptionAssistance,whichincreasesthemonthlyadoptionassistance DFPS pays for families who are adopting a child who would otherwise remain in foster care through age 18. The maximum amount of enhanced assistance is the amount that DFPS would payfosterparentsforcareofachildbasedonthatspecificchildsfostercareservicelevel.The purpose of Enhanced Adoption Assistance is to create an incentive for increasing adoptions of childrenwithsuchpervasiveandintensiveneedsthattheyarenotexpectedtoexitstatecare. ExtendedadoptionbenefitswereaddedinOctober2010foryouthwho were16orolderwhen theadoptionagreementwassigned. PostAdoptionServices Postadoption services support adoptive families by helping with the periodic and ongoing adjustments to adoption, helping the child cope with a background of abuse. These services are designed to increase the success of adoptions and have been available since 1990. CPS supportsadoptionofspecialneedschildrenthroughtheadoptionassistanceprograms. CPS contracts service providers throughout Texas to provide postadoption services. Currently, there are four primary providers, and several providers serve more than one region. Available services include service planning and casework services, inpatient and outpatient therapeutic treatment, parent training, support groups, and intermittent alternate care. Intermittent alternate care comes in in a variety of settings, both in and out of the adoptive family home, includingsummercamps.Intermittentalternatecareissometimesusedinacrisisintervention. Postadoption service providers report that families who can access and routinely use intermittent alternate care are better able to cope with the special stresses the children
presentthefamily.Residentialtreatmentthroughpostadoptionservicesisnormallylimitedto 12months. CPSSupportFunctions In addition to the three main program areas of investigation, family based safety services, and substitute care, there are other areas within CPS that help facilitate the casework involving childrenandfamilies. PurchasedClientServices Purchased Client Services (PCS) is a division within CPS that assists in purchasing direct servicesforCPSchildrenandfamiliesservedbyCPS.PCSplansforservices,assistswiththe procurement of services, manages and monitors contracts, and resolves contracting issues. PCS includes the Regional Contracts, Residential Contracts, Prevention and Early Intervention,andContractPerformanceDivisions. PCS monitors contractor performance based on risk and document monitoring activity in the Statewide Monitoring Plan. Contract monitoring may include onsite visits, desk reviews,andbillingreviews.Fiscalmonitoringincludesareviewofthecontractorsfinancial operations, which may include a review of internal controls for program funds in accordance with state and federal requirements, an examination of principles, laws and regulations, and a determination of whether costs are reasonable and necessary to achieve program objectives. Programmatic monitoring includes a review of a contractors service delivery system to determine if it is consistent with contract requirements, including the qualityandeffectivenessofprograms.
ResidentialContracts The Residential Contracts division manages contracts with 24hour residential childcare facilities that provide substitute care to children in DFPS conservatorship. Through these contracts, DFPS establishes the qualifications, standards, services, expectations, and outcomes for24hourchildcarefacilitiesandchildplacingagenciesacrossthestate.Residentialcontracts work with CPS staff, Residential Child Care Licensing, and a thirdparty service level system contractor to ensure compliance and oversight. Residential contract managers are regionally based CPS staff and are responsible for assessing, monitoring, and managing residential contracts. Residential contract managers serve as liaisons between CPS field staff and providers. RegionalContracts The Regional Contracts division manages purchased client services contracts throughout the state. DFPS enters into regional contracts to provide clients additional protective services and tosupportandexpandDFPSscapacitytoservethecommunity.Regionalcontractstaffmanage direct and support service contracts. Examples of direct services include: postadoption services, evaluation and treatment services, Preparation for Adult Living (PAL) services, and adoption services. DFPS enters into Support Services contracts to improve the effectiveness of direct client services and to support organizations that provide indirect assistance to clients.
Examples of support services contracts include memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with otherstateagencies,TitleIVEcountyanduniversitycontracts,andburialservicesfordeceased children in the managing conservatorship of DFPS. One centralized unit at the DFPS headquarters in Austin manages state office contracts for CPS. These contracts may provide direct services for CPS clients, support services, or grantsupported demonstration projects. Theseagreementscanbecontractsorinteragencyagreementswithotherstateagencies. ContractPerformance Contract Performance supports performancebased contracting practices for all client services contracts. Contract Performance seeks to improve contract accountability and theoversight of agency client service contracts by establishing performance outcomes and quality of service standards. While Contract Performance is organizationally under CPS, it also provides support for purchased client services supporting Adult Protective Services clients. Contract Performance also provides external client service contractor staff with technical assistance and training on PCSspecific Internetbased applications, including the Performance Management EvaluationTool(PMET)andthePEIandSTARDataSystems. ResearchandEvaluation The Research and Evaluation unit informs CPS leadership about practice and policy outcomes through evaluative assessment of legislative initiatives and pilot projects. The unit also conducts research on child welfare outcomes related to policy. Staff also coordinates and manages requests from external entities for CPS research data as well as coordinates with external entities and internal staff interested in applying for grant funding opportunities. Research and Evaluation conducts systemic data, policy and process analyses at the state, regionalandlocalleveltobetterunderstandhowchildrenandfamiliesaremovingthroughthe CPS system. The analyses assist CPS divisions in identifying ways to streamline and improve policiesandprocesses. ContinuousQualityImprovement To make sure CPS is as effective as it can be working the thousands of cases it receives each year, there are two support functions in place designed to ensure the quality of CPS casework across all three major program areas (investigations, family based safety services, and substitutecare). ChildandFamilyServicesReview(CFSR) The Child and Family Services Review team is a part of the Accountability division under the Director of CPS Services and consists of a team of 18 Quality Assurance Specialists, five Quality Assurance Leaders, one Program Specialist, one Child and Family Services team lead and one Division Administrator. CPS models this quality assurance process after the federal review process, in which Texas has experienced two federal reviews (2002 and 2008). After each federal review, Texas and each other state, has participated in the required program improvement plan process to address areas needing improvement. The CPS Accountability staff perform quarterly case reviews using the federal onsite instrument (a statisticallyvalid, randomly selected sample of Family Based Safety Services and Substitute Care cases). Each
caseisdebriefedwithstaffandregionalandstatewidereportsareproduced.CPSdisseminated the reports to all applicable staff and posted them on DFPS employee website. These reviews and feedback allow regional staff to continuously learn about how casework actions affect outcomes to children and families. The team is also responsible for implementing the federal onsitereviews,whichapproximatelyeveryfiveyears. InvestigationQualityAssurance(INVQA) The Investigation Quality Assurance teamconsists of six staff who conduct quarterly reviews of closedinvestigationsthatdidnotmoveontoongoingservices.Theteamusesaguideprimarily based on child safety and investigation policy to reinforce consistent application of investigationpracticesacrossthestateandtoregularlyidentifyareasthatareworkingwelland areas that need improvement. The team reviews a random, statisticallysignificant sample of approximately 4,000 closed investigations annually. The team also reviews a sample of screened intakes where priority levels were downgraded and the intake not progressed for traditionalinvestigation.Thereviewanalyzesdecisionsforadherencetopolicyandassessment of child safety. This process provides quarterly reports with feedback to regional staff on both compliance and quality issues, and it notes investigation trends specific to individual regions. Anycasesthatrequireimmediateactionarereferredbacktotheregion.
C. What evidence can you provide that shows the effectiveness and efficiency of this program or function? Provide a summary of key statistics and performance measures thatbestconveytheeffectivenessandefficiencyofthisfunctionorprogram. Investigations: InFY2012,CPSreceived241,681reportsthroughStatewideIntakewith275,961allegedvictims ofchildabuseorneglect,confirming64,366uniquevictimsinFY2012. CPSTotalInitialIntakesandScreenedOutCases FiscalYear2012 Priority1 Priority2 PriorityNone Total TotalP2Intakes Noteligibleforscreening EligibleandassignedtoScreeners Total TotalInitialIntakesNumber 65,203 171,182 5,296 241,681 TotalP2Intakes Number 100,700 70,482 171,182 Percentage 58.8% 41.2% 100% TotalInitialIntakesPercentage 27.0% 70.8% 2.2% 100%
87
DFPS
EligibleandAssignedtoScreeners EligibleandAssignedtoScreeners NotScreenedOut ScreenedOut(P2toPN) Total ChildProtectiveServicesCompletedInvestigations,FY2012 Region Region1Lubbock Region2Abilene Region3Arlington Region4Tyler Region5Beaumont Region6Houston Region7Austin Region8SanAntonio Region9Midland Region10ElPaso Region11Edinburg Unknown Total CompletedInvestigations 7,244 4,370 41,455 8,881 6,207 30,473 21,136 20,592 4,276 4,561 16,984 32 166,211 Number 51,273 19,209 70,482 Percentage 72.7% 27.3% 100%
88
DFPS
Percentageofallegedvictimswithacompletedinvestigationand dispositionofReasontoBelieve(ConfirmedAbuse/Neglect)orRuledOut 88%
81%
Since 2002, enhanced practices with engaging families, collateral contacts and community resources has increased the ability of staff to find clear evidence to confirm or negate allegationsofabuseandneglectonthemajorityofinvestigations.Theremaining12percentare unabletocompleteorunabletodetermineinvestigations. ConfirmedAllegationsofChildAbuseorNeglectbyType,FY2012 TableIncludesAbuseorNeglectTypes:PhysicalAbuse,SexualAbuse,EmotionalAbuse, Abandonment,MedicalNeglect,andPhysicalNeglect Region 1Lubbock 2Abilene 3Arlington 4Tyler 5Beaumont 6Houston 7Austin 8SanAntonio 9Midland 10ElPaso Physical Abuse 629 396 3,328 577 424 1,756 1,305 1,320 421 425 Sexual Abuse 299 175 1,528 325 186 998 645 727 159 143 Emotional Abandon Abuse ment 28 30 77 25 26 60 46 55 35 22 7 8 48 4 8 25 13 25 5 2 Medical Neglect 48 49 336 69 65 245 138 236 56 68 Physical Neglect 349 222 1,057 251 215 557 347 593 219 164
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
89
DFPS
ConfirmedAllegationsofChildAbuseorNeglectbyType,FY2012 TableIncludesAbuseorNeglectTypes:PhysicalAbuse,SexualAbuse,EmotionalAbuse, Abandonment,MedicalNeglect,andPhysicalNeglect Region 11Edinburg Unknown StateTotal ConfirmedAllegationsofChildAbuseorNeglectbyType,FY2012 TableIncludesAbuseorNeglectTypes:NeglectfulSupervision,RefusaltoAcceptParental Responsibility,TotalConfirmedAllegationsofChildAbuseorNeglect,PercentofChildAbuse orNeglect,and*UnduplicatedConfirmedVictims Total Confirmed Refusalto Allegations Percentof Accept ofChild ChildAbuse *Unduplicated Neglectful Parental Abuseor or Confirmed Region Supervision Responsibility Neglect Neglect Victims 1Lubbock 2,849 49 4,258 5.7% 3,654 2Abilene 1,696 13 2,589 3.5% 2,212 3Arlington 11,985 114 18,473 24.9% 15,930 4Tyler 2,213 31 3,495 4.7% 2,951 5Beaumont 1,792 16 2,732 3.7% 2,375 6Houston 5,826 112 9,579 12.9% 8,358 7Austin 6,204 105 8,803 11.9% 7,831 8San 7,043 64 10,063 13.6% 8,931 Antonio 9Midland 1,493 15 2,403 3.2% 1,983 10ElPaso 1,615 25 2,464 3.3% 2,116 11Edinburg 6,269 96 9,383 12.6% 8,009 Unknown 14 0 16 0.0% 16 StateTotal 48,999 640 74,258 100.0% 64,366
*Victimshavebeenunduplicatedbyinvestigationstage.
Physical Abuse 1,207 1 11,789
Sexual Abuse 745 1 5,931
Emotional Abandon Abuse ment 74 0 478 14 0 159
Medical Neglect 273 0 1,583
Physical Neglect 705 0 4,679

FamilyBasedSafetyServices: The annual number of families receiving FBSS increased 20 percent from 22,767 families in FY 2005 to 33,258 families in FY 2012, demonstrating the cultural shift to a more familyfocused practicemodel.InFY2012,FBSSstaffmadeover265,123visitswithfamiliesacrossthestateof Texas. FamilyBasedSafetyServices:AnnualNumberofFamiliesReceivingPreservationServicesin FY2012 Region Regular Moderate Intensive Contracted Total 1Lubbock 1,158 478 9 0 1,645 2Abilene 540 498 0 0 1,038 3Arlington 3,788 1,807 19 3 5,617 4Tyler 867 201 0 0 1,068 5Beaumont 557 129 3 0 689 6Houston 3,584 897 118 0 4,599 7Austin 1,626 593 46 0 2,265 8SanAntonio 4,480 168 4 0 4,652 9Midland 559 331 3 0 893 10ElPaso 800 108 0 0 908 11Edinburg 3,927 982 20 1 4,930 OutofState 1 1 0 0 2 Total 21,887 6,193 222 4 28,306
AnnualNumberofFamiliesReceivingReunificationServicesinFY2012 Region Regular Moderate Intensive Contracted 1Lubbock 292 2 0 0 2Abilene 203 2 0 0 3Arlington 934 3 0 0 4Tyler 248 2 0 0 5Beaumont 170 2 0 0 6Houston 722 4 2 0 7Austin 751 3 3 0 8SanAntonio 693 1 0 0 9Midland 157 0 0 0 10ElPaso 108 2 0 0 11Edinburg 574 62 5 0 OutofState 6 1 0 0 Total 4,858 84 10 0
Total 294 205 937 250 172 728 757 694 157 110 641 7 4,952
91
DFPS
FBSSIsSuccessfulatPreventingaRemoval
ChildreninFBSS FBSSremovals 76,808
48,667
2,096 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
4,099 2012
In Family Based Safety Services (FBSS), CPS works more collaboratively with families making it possible for the parents to retain legal custody. In 2012, about 70 percent of the new children coming into CPS were served by this type of service. FBSS is usually successful at preventing a removal. SubstituteCare: WheneverCPSdeterminesthatachildcannotremainsafelyathome,CPSpetitionsthecourtto remove that child. For children who have beenremoved, CPS provides substitute care services that best meet a particular childs needs. On August 31st, 2012, there were 27,919 children in DFPSsubstitutecare. SubstituteCareNumberofChildrenRemovedfromHomeasaResultofCPS Abuse/NeglectInvestigation Fiscal AsaResultofan FromFamilyBased FromFamilySubstitute Year Investigation SafetyServices* CareServices Total 2012 12,538 4,220 214 16,972
*RemovalsfromFamilyBasedSafetyServicesincludesFamilyPreservationandFamilyReunification.
92
DFPS
LegalStatusofChildreninDFPSLegalResponsibilityasofAugust31,2012 Type Number Percent Care,Custody&Control* 49 0.2% TemporaryManagingConservatorship(TMC) 17,332 58.2% PermanentManagingConservatorship(PMC) 12,368 41.5% PossessoryConservatorship** 26 0.1% Total 29,775 100.0%
* Care, Custody and Control In some counties in Texas, this type of custody is given rather than appointing a temporary managing conservator. This provides legal authority for DFPS to ensure a childs safety and meet a childsbasicneedsforshelter,food,andeducation. ** Possessory Conservatorship A judge appoints a parent as Possessory Conservator who is not appointed as a sole or joint managing conservator, unless this appointment is not in the best interest of the child. Possessory Conservatorsareprovidedwithvisitationorders,unlessaccesswouldendangerthechildphysicallyoremotionally.
WhenReunificationisnotPossible,MoreChildrenAreGoingtoaRelative ChildrenExitingFosterCaretoLivewithaRelative
64%
49%
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Children*inSubstituteCarePlacementsbyLivingArrangementCategoriesasofAugust31, 2012
CPAFoster Group Homes& Independent Homes DFPS Foster & Foster Group Homes
Region
DFPS Adoptive Homes
Private Adoptive Homes
Kinship
General Residential Operation
Emergency Shelters
Residential Treatment
Other
Total
Lubbock (1) Abilene (2) Arlington (3) Tyler(4) Beaumont (5)
506 341 2,412 593 349
150 97 294 114 162
11 3 20 33 8
22 4 81 13 4
518 256 1,848 506 277
148 10 55 59 29
53 17 47 26 19
137 37 246 92 39
56 15 118 43 19
1,601 780 5,121 1,479 906
93
DFPS
Children*inSubstituteCarePlacementsbyLivingArrangementCategoriesasofAugust31, 2012
CPAFoster Group Homes& Independent Homes DFPS Foster & Foster Group Homes
Region
DFPS Adoptive Homes
Private Adoptive Homes
Kinship
General Residential Operation
Emergency Shelters
Residential Treatment
Other
Total
Houston 2,442 305 180 184 2,188 42 81 302 176 (6) Austin(7) 1,137 249 21 29 1,255 37 37 224 73 San 1,728 179 27 67 2,040 237 195 209 173 Antonio (8) Midland 425 99 8 9 325 13 41 68 42 (9) ElPaso 202 73 1 1 140 1 21 26 13 (10) Edinburg 1,044 99 11 19 629 63 59 120 61 (11) Outof 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 State Total 11,179 1,821 323 433 9,982 694 596 1,500 789 *Excludes602youngadultsover18whohaveagedoutofDFPSconservatorshipbutremaininDFPScare.
5,900 3,062 4,855
1,030 478 2,105 0 27,317
PermanencyGoalofChildreninSubstituteCareforWhomDFPShadLegalResponsibility FiscalYearEnd2012 Goal Count Percent Adoption 10,893 48.8% Reunification 7,213 32.3% PermanentPlacementwithRelatives/OtherCaregivers 2,030 9.1% AlternativeLongTermLiving 1,206 5.4% AdultLiving 966 4.3% TotalChildren 22,308 100%
94
DFPS
ChildrenAreMoreLikelytoExittoPermanency ExitstoPermanentHome (Reunify,RelativeorAdoption)

91%
85%
OfallchildrenwhoexitedDFPScustodyin2012,91percentexitedtoreunification,relative PMCoradoption.Allofthistranslatesintomorechildrenfindingforeverhomes,primarily becauseoftheincreaseinusingrelativeswhetherforadoptionorpermanentcustody. AdoptionIncentiveFunds In FY 2005, CPS undertook Operation Placing Us in Safe Homes (or Operation PUSH) to clear a backlog of adoptions by eliminating legal roadblocks and other obstacles delaying finalizing adoptions. As a result, adoptions increased 26.3 percent in FY 2005, prompting national recognition and an adoption incentive award in FY 2006 from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Texas has received this award annually since 1998 when the Adoption Incentives Program began as part of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA). The Department reauthorized the award to continue through September 2013. The award recognizesinnovativeprogramsthatareimplementedbystatestoremovebarrierstoadoption. Tobeeligibleforadoptionincentiveawards,astatemustexceeditsbaselineperformanceinat least one of the following three categories: total adoptions placed by the agency; older youth publicagencyadoptions;orexceedingtheirhighesteverfosterchildadoptionrate. CPS experienced a large and sustained increase in adoptions after the launch of the Why Not Me? media campaign in FY 2007. The campaign included radio and TV public service announcements aired statewide, along with billboards and direct mail that targeted predominantly minority neighborhoods in key markets. The broadcast ads were aired through acontractwiththeTexasAssociationofBroadcastersforthreemonthseachin2007,2008,and 2009. In the first year of the ads, public interest soared and adoptions increased 19.2 percent, and another 12.3 percent the following year. Overall, between 2002 and 2012, the number of childrenadoptedhasmorethandoubled.
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
NumberofAdoptions 5040
2512
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
NationalYouthinTransitionDatabase(NYTD) The National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD) is another indicator of the effectiveness of substitute care in CPS. In 1999, Congress established the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program, giving states flexible funding to assist youth in transitioning out of foster care. The law required the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) to develop a data collection system. The National Youth in Transition Database (NYTD) was created in February2008,byfederalregulation(45CFR1356.80through1356.86).Itrequiresstatesto: Trackbasicdemographicdataandtheindependentlivingservicesprovidedtoyouth. Collect data on outcome measures that may be used to assess state performance in operatingindependentlivingprograms.
Texas conducts a baseline survey ofyouth who are in foster care within45 days after their 17th birthday and conducts a follow up survey for some of those youth at age 19 and again at age 21. During the initial baseline year, any youth in foster care reaching their 17th birthday from October 1, 2010 to September 30, 2011 were surveyed. Subsequent baseline surveys of 17 yearolds will be conducted every three years thereafter (for example, October 1, 2013 to September30,2014).
D. Describe any important history regarding this program not included in the general agency history section, including how the services or functions have changed from the originalintent. Investigations Following the passage of Senate Bill 6 that resulted in the CPS Reform of 2005, investigation units moved to a uniform unit structure. Currently, each investigation unit consists of six
caseworkers and one supervisor. Each investigations unit also has one position, depending on local needs, that is used as a casework assistant or as clerical support, to assist caseworkers in meeting the workload demands of their jobs. Each uniform unit is led by an investigation supervisor. SpecialInvestigatorpositionswerecreatedtoprovidesupportandassistancetoinvestigatorsin the methods of forensic interviewing of victims and suspected perpetrators in gathering evidence and coordination of criminal or civil case actions. The special investigators role focuses on the forensic components of the investigation and coordinating with law enforcement. When working with other CPS investigators the special investigator takes on a mentoring role, ensuring that they are training and developing the investigators forensic investigation skills. Special Investigators may mentor new investigators or other investigators who would benefit from further skill development. Because Special Investigators do not conductentireinvestigations,theyareabletoaccompanyandpartnerwithinvestigatorsduring certainportionsofhighrisk,highprofileinvestigations. FamilyBasedSafetyServices In 2009, the 81st Texas Legislature allocated resources to expand the use of family group decisionmakinginFBSScases.CPSbeganutilizingfamilygroupdecisionmakinginFBSSin2010. FamilygroupdecisionmakingisusedintheFBSSstageofservicetoaddresstwoprimaryneeds: Increasing the parents participation in safety and service planning, and strengthening an extendedfamilysabilitytoprovidesafeandpermanentlivingarrangements. Family group decision making describes a variety of practices within CPS to work with, and engage families in, problem solving and case resolution. Specialized Family Group Decision Making staff provide the service, tailored to the individual circumstances, to engage families andguidesafetyandserviceplanning.Theseinclude: Family team meetings are a rapid response to child safety and placement concerns used to achieve positive outcomes for children in the earliest stages of a case. It is used with families when a child is at risk of removal and, though used in all stages, is most common duringInvestigationandFamilyBasedSafetyServices. Family group conferences occur after a child has been removed and are used for case planning. In the conference, families join with relatives, friends, and others in the community to develop a plan to ensure children are cared for and protected from future harm. This more broadly defined family convenes with caseworkers and others in a unique partnership that empowers the family group with a high degree of decision making authority and responsibility. A permanency conference is held, when it is not possible or appropriate to hold a Family Group Conference, for the purposes of case planning.Familygroupdecisionmakingstrategiesareused,totheextentpossible.
97
DFPS
Circles of support are held soon after a youth who has been removed from the home reaches age 16. It is directed by the youth and focuses on the development of a transition plan to help the youth be prepared for adulthood and to connect the youth to supportive andcaringadultswhocanhelpwhentheyouth agesout of care.Atransitionplan meeting (shorter and more DFPSdriven, with fewer participants) is used as an alternative to a circle ofsupport.
SubstituteCare CPS reforms that started in 2005 targeted the educational outcomes for children and youth in fostercarewiththedevelopmentofaneducationalportfolio,thecreationofregionalandState Office education specialist positions, and collaboration with community stakeholders, including judiciaryandeducation. TheCentralizedPlacementteamstructurewascreatedinSeptember2005.Theteamsfacilitate andexpeditefostercareplacements,whileensuringplacementsmeetbestpractice,policy,and minimum standards. The teams consider the childs individual needs to identify placement optionsthatwillbestmeetthoseneedstoassuresafetyandwellbeing. In 2007, the Legislature created the Intensive Psychiatric Transition Program, which is a step down program for youth transitioning from psychiatric hospitals to residential treatment, and subsequentplacementinlessrestrictiveenvironments. Congress passed the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008. Thislegislationincludedcomponentsthat: Provide a state option for a subsidized kinship guardianship program (known in Texas as PermanencyCareAssistance). GivestatestheoptiontoprovideTitleIVEfostercaremaintenancepaymentsforyouththat want to stay in extended foster care up to their 21st birthday. Youth must meet certain educational or employment related requirements unless a medical condition makes that impossible.
In 2009, the Texas Legislature passed legislation and funding to allow Texas to implement the optional subsidized guardianship program, and provide Title IVE foster payments of youth up totheir21stbirthday. PermanencyCareAssistance,theTexaskinshipguardianshipassistanceprogram,allowseligible kinship caregivers to receive financial and health benefits for a child when they are granted permanent managing conservatorship by a court of a relative child who has been in the temporary or permanent managing conservatorship of DFPS. Since 2010, more than 1,000 childrenhavebeenthesubjectsofaPermanencyCareAssistanceagreementwherethekinship familyretainedlegalcustodyofthechildren.
98
DFPS
Also in 2009, the Texas Legislature amended the Texas Family Code to further define the Transitional LivingServicesProgram foryouthin fostercare.Thegoalis toensurethatstarting at age 14, each youth has an individualized transition plan, and receive experiential handson life skills training in the foster care placement. The legislation also set requirements to make sure youth have access to important personal documents. Further, the legislation required DFPS to develop a comprehensive transitional living services plan to describe the efforts DFPS will make to continue to help foster youth make the transition to adulthood successfully. The comprehensive transition plan addressed required elements laid out in H.B. 1912, include the following. Effortstofurtherindividualizeindependentlivingskillsassessmentandtransitionplanning. Modifying the Preparation for Adult Living (PAL) program training curriculum to include onlinetrainingoptionsthatmeettheindividualneedsofeachyouth. Ensuring that transitional living services are appropriate and meet the needs of each youth infostercarewithdisabilities.
In 2010, as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (P.L. 111148), DFPS implementedpolicytoensurethatyouthagingoutoffostercarereceiveinformationaboutthe importance of having a healthcare power of attorney and the importance of designating an individual to make healthcare treatment decisions on behalf of the youth. Discussion of this information is incorporated into permanency planning meetings for youth or other meetings such as circles of support, the transition plan meeting, or a regular meeting between the youth andthecaseworker.
E. Describe who or what this program or function affects. List any qualifications or eligibilityrequirementsforpersonsorentitiesaffected.Provideastatisticalbreakdown ofpersonsorentitiesaffected. Investigation Investigation services are provided to all children determined to be alleged victims of abuse or neglectasdefinedintheTexasFamilyCode,Chapter261.Thereisnowaitinglistmaintainedor other eligibility criteria, such as age, race/ethnicity or income. CPS investigations has jurisdiction if the alleged abuse occurred within a family or household or allegations refer to a volunteerorstaffmemberofaprivateorpublicschool. ProfileofConfirmedChildAbuse/NeglectVictimsFiscalYear2012AgeandGender Age <1yr 13yrs 46yrs 79yrs 1012yrs 1317yrs Unk Allages Female 4,654 7,480 6,526 4,971 4,215 5,219 7 33,072 Male 4,976 8,193 6,737 4,794 3,458 2,988 15 31,161 Unknown 31 39 34 13 10 6 0 133 Total 9,661 15,712 13,297 9,778 7,683 8,213 22 64,366
ProfileofConfirmedChildAbuse/NeglectVictimsFiscalYear2012Race/Ethnicity Race/Ethnicity Anglo African Hispanic Native Asian Other All American American Total 20,095 10,151 30,034 41 306 3,739 64,366 FamilyBasedSafetyServices AllofthefollowingcriteriamustbemetforafamilytobeeligibleforFBSS. Atleastonechildisatriskofabuseorneglectintheforeseeablefutureormaybeatriskof removalfromthehome. ServicesarelikelytoprovideasafealternativetoDFPSobtainingconservatorship. Awritten,timelimited,realisticsafetyplanisinplace. Servicesarelikelytoprotectthefamilyschildrenfromabuseorneglectintheimmediateor shorttermfuture. Reducing the risk of abuse or neglect to a child is likely to be achieved with CPS services within60to270days.
The annual number of families receiving FBSS increased 20 percent from 22,767 families in FY 2005 to 33,258 families in FY 2012, demonstrating the cultural shift to a more familyfocused practicemodel.InFY2012,FBSSstaffmadeover265,123visitswithfamiliesacrossthestateof Texas. SubstituteCare Therewere27,919childreninDFPSsubstitutecareonthelastdayofFY2012. 16,697childrenwereinfostercare. 11,222childrenwereinothertypesofsubstitutecare. Ofthe16,697childreninfostercare: 11,552wereinCPAfosterhomes; 1,839wereinDFPSfosterhomes; 765wereplacedinbasicchildcaretypicallycottageandcampustypesettings; 1,527 were placed in residential treatment centers (RTC), a structured setting for children withseriousemotionaldisturbanceormentalhealthissues; 620childrenwereplacedinemergencysheltersintendedforstaysoflessthan30days;and 394 were placed in other types of foster care such as camps, maternity homes hospitals, juvenile detention, intermediate care facilities for individuals with intellectual disabilities (ICFIID), home and communitybased services (HCS) homes, State Supported Living Centers,andhospitals.
Ofthe11,222childreninothertypesofsubstitutecare:
9,982wereplacedinkinshipcare; 433wereinpendingadoptionsinCPAadoptivehomes; 323wereinpendingadoptionsinDFPSadoptivehomes;and 484 were placed in other substitute care which includes independent living programs, unauthorizedabsences(runaways),andcourtorderedplacements. DemographicsofChildreninFosterCareatEndofYearAgeandGender,FiscalYear2012 Age <2yrs 35yrs 69yrs 1013 1417 1821 Grand Female Male yrs yrs yrs Total Total 3,614 2,766 2,948 2,820 3,947 602 16,697 7,667 9,030 Percent 21.6% 16.6% 17.7% 16.9% 23.6% 3.6% 100% 45.9% 54.1%
DemographicsofChildreninFosterCareatEndofYearRace/Ethnicity,FiscalYear2012 Race/Ethnicity Anglo African Hispanic Native Asian Other All American American Total 5,048 3,825 6,813 22 38 951 16,697 Percent 30.2% 22.9% 40.8% .1% .2% 5.7% 100%
Once a child is removed from their home and it is determined that the child cannot return home, parental rights may be terminated by the courts, making the child eligible for adoption. CPS provides adoption services to those eligible children regardless of age, race, ethnicity, or special needs when a child in DFPS managing conservatorship needs to be adopted or a district court appoints DFPS to complete a home study when a petition is filed to adopt a child. CPS also provides selected adoption services to children in the managing conservatorship of other states when CPS receives requests for services under the Interstate Compact on the Placement ofChildren. EligibilityCriteriatoReceiveAdoptionAssistance CPS provides adoption assistance to children who qualify as special needs. The qualification for eligibility for adoption assistance begins the day before the date of the adoptive placement agreement is signed. The child must be in the managing conservatorship of DFPS or an authorizedentity,andmeetatleastoneofthefollowingconditions. Thechildisatleast6yearsold. The child is at least 2 years old and a member of a racial or ethnic group that exits foster careataslowerpacethanotherracialorethnicgroups. The child is being adopted with a sibling or joining a sibling who has been adopted by the parents or for whom the parents already have permanent managing conservatorship or an equivalentarrangementinanotherstate.
101
DFPS
The child has a verifiable physical, mental, or emotional handicapping condition, as established by an appropriately qualified professionals diagnosis that states what the conditionisandthatitishandicapping. ThechildhasbeendeterminedbytheSocialSecurityAdministrationtomeetallthemedical or disability requirements with respect to eligibility for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits.
DemographicsofChildreninConsummatedAdoptionsFY2012 Therewere5,079childrenplacedinanadoptivehomeFY2012and33.7percentofthechildren had a disabling condition. This means a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of an individuals major life activities including emotionally disturbed, drug or alcoholabuse,physicalhandicaps,medicallyinvolved,andlearningdisabled.
F. Describe how your program or function is administered. Include flowcharts, timelines, or other illustrations as necessary to describe agency policies and procedures. Indicate howfieldandregionalservicesareused,ifapplicable. When it comes to the three main program areas of CPS (investigations, family based safety services, and substitute care), the vast majority of positions are in the field, spread across the 11 Health and Human Service regions that comprise the state of Texas. Each of these CPS regions is headed by a Regional Director. These field operations are overseen by a Director of Field position located in State Office in Austin. Many of the specialist positions that support fieldoperationsarealsooverseenbystaffinStateOfficeinanattempttoensureconsistencyin thedeliveryofthesupportservices. InvestigationStaff Texas Human Resources Code Section 40.031 establishes an Investigations division, to be headed by a director with a background in law enforcement. The CPS Investigations division ensures that policy and practice methods incorporate the use of forensic investigation techniques into CPS investigations and improve working relationships with law enforcement entitiesthroughoutthestate. In addition to investigation screeners, screener supervisors, investigators, supervisors, case aides, and clerical staff, CPS has several positions and programs to assist caseworkers and supervisors with the knowledge, skills and abilities to ensure child safety and to make sound caseworkdecisionsininvestigations. Child safety specialists and lead child safety specialists provide expert consultation and review of cases that involve a high risk to the health or safety of achild to ensure that risk assessment toolsarecorrectlyusedandbestpracticeisfollowed.
102
DFPS
TheForensicAssessmentCenterNetworkwasimplementedinFY2006asajointprojectofDFPS and the University of Texas Health Science Center Houston. There are numerous medical center sites in the network. The network provides 24hour support for CPS investigative staff via a tollfree number and a webbased system. Physicians have expertise in determining whetherillnessesandinjuriesaretheresultofabuseorneglectandprovideongoingeducation toCPSworkers. Resolution specialists conduct the administrative reviews of investigative findings, preponderance reviews, legal and factual sufficiency reviews, and aid in the administrative hearingsprocess,includingtestifyingwhennecessary.Theyhelptoidentifytrendsanddevelop recommendations to improve the developmental and training needs of CPS investigation staff toachieveandenhancequalityinvestigations. Risk managers were created in FY 2008 and placed in the regions to collaborate with CPS program and the child safety specialists to develop and implement strategies to enhance child safety across all stages of service. These 13 staff members are also responsible for working withalllevelsofstafftobuildskillsinsafetyknowledge,decisionmaking,andmethodstofocus onchildsafetyissues. Timeframes Reports of child abuse or neglect are classified in one of two priority groups and the priority of the intake determines how quickly an investigation begins. Trained intake staff at DFPS StatewideIntake(SWI)assigntheappropriateprioritybasedontheinformationavailableatthe time they get the report. A CPS field supervisor or investigation screener may specify a more exacttimeframeforstartingtheinvestigation. PriorityIReports Priority I reports include all reports of children who appear to face an immediate risk of abuse orneglectthatcouldresultindeathorseriousharm.Investigationsofthesereportsmuststart within24hoursofreceivingthereport. PriorityIIReports PriorityIIreportsincludeallreportsofabuseorneglectthatarenotassignedasPriorityI.These investigations must start within 72 hours of receiving the report. Reports that are formally screened must either be progressed to investigations within 72 hours of receiving the report (which willprovide theinvestigator an additional 72 hours to make initial contact),or closed as aPriorityNonewithin72hoursofreceivingthereport. PriorityNoneReports Some reports do not meet the legal definition of abuse or neglect, as defined in the Texas Family Code, and are not assigned for investigation. Reasons for not assigning a report for investigationinclude:
103
DFPS
situations that do not appear to involve a reasonable likelihood that a child will be abused orneglectedintheforeseeablefuture; allegations that are too vague to determine if a child has been or is likely to be abused or neglected; reportswithtoolittleinformationtolocatethechildorthechildsfamilyorhousehold;and situationsthatarealreadyunderinvestigation.
FamilyBasedSafetyServices Family Based Safety Services (FBSS) are designed to maintain children safely in their homesor make it possible for children to return homeby strengthening the familys ability to protect their child and reduce threats to their childs safety. FBSS staff are specialized to provide this serviceandmostregionshaveFBSSProgramAdministratorstosuperviseallregionalFBSSunits. If the region is not large enough to warrant a specialized FBSS Program Administrator, an Investigations or FBSS Program Administrator supervises specialized Investigation or FBSS ProgramDirectorswhosuperviseFBSSunits. FBSS services can be provided either directly by CPS FBSS staff, through contracted service providers, or through referrals to communitybased providers. Currently, FBSS caseworkers mayalsoprovideoneononeparentingandhomemakerskillsinareaswherecommunitybased servicesarenotavailable. Three levels of familybased safety services (regular, moderate and intensive) are offered to families, based on the familys level of need, as assessed by CPS staff. The level of service a family receives is determined by the degree of risk to the child based on the identified safety threats, the childs vulnerability to those safety threats, and the sufficiency of parental protectivecapacities. When determining how many regular family based safety services cases to assign to a caseworker, the supervisor tries to limit the caseworkers caseload to a size that gives the caseworker enough time to address each familys needs. On average, counting all casework activities, an FBSS caseworker spends two to four hours per month on each familys case for regular services; most FBSS cases require regular services. At least once a month, the visits must address issues regarding needed medical, social, educational, and other services. Moderate FBSS services require four to seven hours per month while Intensive FBSS services requireseventotenhourspermonthoneachfamilyscase. At a minimum, the FBSS caseworker sees, at least once a month, each child at risk (including those children in parental child safety placements); and each parent or caregiver who receives services.Themajorityofcontactsmustoccurinthehome.
104
DFPS
In FBSS, permanency is considered achieved when the family is able to care for the child safely with risk factors controlled, and DFPS can close its case; or finalizes arrangements to have someone other than DFPS, care for the child on a permanent, legal basis. DFPS closes FBSS cases if CPS services are no longer needed or there is a basis for administrative closure. The case is not closed until the threats to the childs safety have been mitigated or eliminated; or the parents capacity to protect the child is sufficient to control the safety threats. Before closing an FBSS case, the caseworker must hold a final meeting with the family, through a Family Group Conference (if possible); or a facetoface contact with the family in the home. Duringthefinalmeetingwiththefamily,thecaseworkermustaddressthefollowingitems. Thecommunityresources,theculturallyrelevantsupportsystems,andtheservicesthatare availabletothefamilywithoutCPSassistance. Thefamilysachievements,strengths,andprotectivecapacities. Thefamilysplanstohandlecurrentorfuturesafetyissues. Thefamilymembersfeelingsaboutthecaseworkerspendingdeparture.
SubstituteCareStaff Substitute care staff perform specialized roles, determined by regional need, including the following. Conservatorship staff are responsible for case management and primary casework duties requiredtoensuresafety,permanency,andwellbeing. Foster and Adoptive Home Development staff, who recruit, verify and provide resources to fosterandadoptiveparentsprovidingcaretochildrenandyouthinconservatorship. PreparationforAdultLivingstaff,whoprovidetransitionallivingservicestoolderyouthand serveasaresourceforyoungadultswhohaveagedoutofcare. Kinship Development workers, who train, support and assess relative and kinship caregivers. ISeeYoustaff,whoserveassecondarycaseworkersinproximitytochildrenwhoareplaced outside of their home region. I See You staff provide an accessible caseworker to a child (meetingfacetofacewiththechildandcaregiver,supervisingvisitation,attendingrequired medicalappointmentswhenneeded,andotherservices)whilereducingtravelcosts. Adoption or Adoption Preparation staff, who help identify a potential family and prepare a childforadoptionconsummationoncethechildislegallyfreeforadoption.
Additionally, specialized staff provide consultation or technical assistance, or provide a specialized function typically without carrying an assigned caseload. These include the followingpositions. Centralized Placement Team staff assist workers in obtaining placements that match the childsindividualneeds.ResidentialTreatmentPlacementcoordinatorsaremembersofthe
105
DFPS
Placement team that focus specifically on obtaining residential treatment center placementsforchildrenwhoneedthem. Family Group DecisionMaking staff convene and facilitate family group conferences and circlesofsupport. Eligibility staff determine individual eligibility of children in substitute care in order to complywithfederalfundingrequirements. Accounting and Bookkeeping staff, as well as daycare coordinators, monitor regional expendituresanduseofregionalresources. Education Specialists serve as regional experts for issues associated with schools, special education,andresourcesformeetingeachchildseducationalneeds. Developmental Disability Specialists serve as regional experts regarding children with developmental disabilities. Some Developmental Disability Specialists carry a small caseload of children with specialized needs placed in facilities to ensure their medical requirementsareaddressed. Youth Specialists serve as the youth voice for staff and community stakeholders, articulating the view of youth who are in conservatorship and assisting with youth development. Permanency Practitioners who serve as regional experts and facilitators for Permanency Roundtables. Regional Nurses, who, in partnership with Well Being Specialists, serve as regional experts forissuesrelatedtoachildsphysicalandbehavioralhealthneeds. Permanency Care and Adoption Assistance Negotiators who work with potential families to determineeligibilityforfinancialassistanceavailableafterthechildexitstotheirpermanent home. On the Job Training Supervisors who provide supervision for staff in training prior to assignmenttotheirnewunit. Volunteer Coordinators and Community Initiative Specialists who recruit and liaise with volunteers and community stakeholders who work closely with CPS; they also assist in obtainingresourcestomeetindividualizedneedsofchildrenincare.
Substitutecareisprovidedfromthetimeachildisremovedfromhisorherhomeandplacedin DFPS conservatorship until the child returns home safely or is placed in another living arrangement that does not require DFPS supervision. Specifically, substitute care consists of the residential care and support provided to the child; and the supportive and therapeutic servicesprovidedtothechild,thechildsparents,andthechildssubstitutecaregiver. When a child is removed from the home and placed in DFPS conservatorship, DFPS legally assumes parental responsibility for the child. When CPS places the child in substitute care, the childs substitute caregiver works with CPS to help the Department meet its parental
responsibility. The Departments parental responsibility for the child does not end until the childleavesDFPSconservatorship. As a result, the childs permanency goal, child and family needs, and unique circumstances require development of a childs plan of service and, unless rights have been terminated, a family plan of service to guide the steps to be taken while the child or youth is in substitute care. While efforts are continuous to ensure a childs safety, there are also specific time requirementsforcaseworkactionssuchas: facetofacecontactswitheachchild,parent,andcaregiver; assessmentandservicestoaddressphysical,mentalandbehavioralhealthneeds; assessmentandservicestoaddresseducationalneeds; courtandlegalactions; placementreview; serviceplandevelopment;and
contactandvisitationwithsiblingsandparents, The childs permanency goals determine additional services. For example, a child with a permanency goal of adoption would have casework efforts dedicated to adoption preparation or recruitment and matching to a potential adoptive home. A child for whom reunification is the permanency goal would experience casework focused on strengthening the parents ability toprovideasafehomeforthechildandtoreduceriskoffutureharm.
G. Identify all funding sources and amounts for the program or function, including federal grants and passthrough monies. Describe any funding formulas or funding conventions. For state funding sources, please specify (e.g., general revenue, appropriationsrider,budgetstrategy,fees/dues). PleaseseeAppendixA.
H. Identify any programs, internal or external to your agency, that provide identical or similar services or functions to the target population. Describe the similarities and differences. Investigations LawEnforcementAgencies Law enforcement agencies routinely receive reports and perform criminal investigations of child abuse and neglect. Law enforcement agencies refer appropriate reports to CPS for civil investigations and may conduct joint investigations with CPS. While both entities may
investigate circumstances regarding child abuse and neglect, the jurisdiction and law are different. ChildrensAdvocacyCenters Childrens Advocacy Centers are communitybased programs that coordinate the activities of agencies responsible for the investigation and prosecution of child abuse cases, and the delivery of services to child abuse victims and their families. At the heart of the mission of the Childrens Advocacy Centers of Texas is a commitment to support the sustainability of local centers so that they may continue to help young victims rebuild their lives. CPS supports the philosophy of Childrens Advocacy Centers and encourages the expansion of new centers throughout Texas. CPS works collaboratively as a member of the child protection team coordinatedbyChildrensAdvocacyCenters. MilitaryBases Military bases have social work departments that conduct their own investigations of child abuse and neglect. The departments also provide counseling and other resources to the military families they serve. CPS liaisons coordinate with military bases to ensure effective coordinationofinvestigationactivities. FamilyBasedSafetyServices PurchasedClientServices CPS contracts for most services provided to children and families served in the family based safety services stage. Examples of these services include psychological evaluations, group counseling, and protective daycare. Additionally, caseworkers may locate private and non profit organizations to offer some of the specific services needed to address child safety. Traditionally, families are linked to these providers through CPS and their progress is then monitored through collaboration with the provider and the caseworker. In areas where a neededserviceisnotavailableorcannotbepurchased,someFBSSstaffareabletoprovidethe needed service. Examples of services provided by staff include assessments, homemaker services,orparentingskillstraining. ReferraltoEarlyChildhoodIntervention(ECI)Services If abuse or neglect is substantiated (Reason to Believe) and the case is open for FBSS, caseworkers refer all designated victims younger than three to ECI for screening within 10 business days of the case being transferred to the FBSS unit to determine the need for a full evaluation. If a disability or developmental delay of a child younger than three is suspected at any time during the course of FBSS, caseworkers refer to ECI within two business days of identifying the need. By federal law, there is a twoday timeline for referring a child with a disability or developmentaldelay.
108
DFPS
SubstituteCare ChildPlacingAgency ChildplacingagencieslicensedbyDFPSofferadoptionservicesandactivitiesincluderecruiting, training, and verifying, approving, monitoring, and admitting children for placement in foster and adoptive homes. The DFPS Child Care Licensing division is responsible for issuing permits toandregulatingtheactivitiesofallchildplacingagenciesinTexas(publicandprivate).Private childplacing agencies may or may not have a contract with DFPS to provide foster care and adoptionservicesforchildreninDFPSconservatorship. TransitionalLivingServices There are private providers in the community that offer differing degrees of transitional living services. Some require fees or may be funded through foundations or grants. The Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) provides funds to several transition centers in some parts of the state.Thesecentersprovideacentralclearinghouseofonestopservicesthatservethediverse needs of older foster youth. Some of the transition centers offer a housing component and contractwithCPSforPALservices. AmericanIndianTribes There are three federally recognized American Indian Tribes in Texas: the Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas, the Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo/Tigua Tribe, and the AlabamaCoushatta Tribe of Texas.Federallaw(IndianChildWelfareAct)requiresCPStoprovide:
1. 2.
identificationofIndianchildren; notification of Indian parents and Tribes of CPS proceedings involving Indian children and theirrighttointervene; specialplacementpreferencesforplacementofIndianchildren; activeeffortstopreventthebreakupoftheIndianfamily;and use of Tribal courts in child welfare matters, Tribal right to intervene in state proceedings, ortransferproceedingstothejurisdictionofthetribe.
3. 4. 5.
OtherSituations State agencies, other than DFPS, are also authorized to provide residential substitute caretype services for selected populations of children (children involved in the criminal justice system and children with developmental and intellectual disabilities, for example). In these circumstances, the other state agency also performs their own investigations of children under their authority who report incidents of abuse or neglect while in facilities operated, licensed, certified, or registered by the agency. To avoid overlap or duplication, roles are clearly delineated. The state agency that controls the facility usually makes the placement but DFPS remains responsible for meeting the obligations of a managing conservator. As an example, juvenile courts may adjudicate children in DFPSs managing conservatorship as delinquent and commit them to the Texas Juvenile Justice division. When this occurs, while the child is
committed to the custody of the Texas Juvenile Justice division, DFPS continues to monitor the childsplacement.AndassoonasthechildisdischargedfromthecustodyoftheTexasJuvenile Justice division, DFPS must resume its responsibilities for the childs placement and service planning.
I. Discusshowtheprogramorfunctioniscoordinatingitsactivitiestoavoidduplicationor conflict with the other programs listed in Question H and with the agencys customers. If applicable, briefly discuss any memorandums of understanding (MOUs), interagency agreements,orinteragencycontracts. Investigations JointInvestigationswithLawEnforcement DFPS strengthens investigations with the use of forensic investigation techniques and forensic training and works to ensure that there is increased collaboration and joint investigations with lawenforcementinappropriatecases. Texas Family Code Section 261.3011 requires DFPS to collaborate with law enforcement to develop guidelines for conducting joint investigations and training. Special Investigators with law enforcement investigation experience were hired by CPS to assist in the investigation of serious child abuse cases and help support investigation caseworkers in forensic investigation techniques. CPS recognizes that joint investigations of child abuse result in higherquality investigations, improved protection of children and services to families, and increased prosecutionofperpetrators. Memoranda of understanding have been signed by DFPS and hundreds of local law enforcementagencies.Theseagreementsspelloutthecommitmenttojointinvestigationsand collaborationfrombothentities. ChildrensAdvocacyCenters CPS supports the philosophy of childrens advocacy centers and encourages the expansion of newcentersthroughoutTexas.Childrensadvocacycentersuseacooperative,multidisciplinary team approach to handling child abuse cases that is built on a partnership that includes representatives from CPS, lawenforcement, prosecution, mental health providers, and medical services providers. CPS has established memoranda of understanding with local childrens advocacy centers in order to clearly delineate roles. Other entities participating in the centers teamapproachalsotypicallyareapartofthememorandumofunderstanding. MilitaryBases CPSestablisheswrittenagreementswiththebasecommandergivingCPSstaffaroundtheclock access to the base to investigate reports of child abuse and neglect, coordinate counseling and other services for CPS clients, and discuss sharing information and maintaining confidentiality. Theseagreementsarereviewedperiodicallyandasneeded.
FamilyBasedSafetyServices PurchasedClientServices CPSutilizesthecontractprocessinordertoappropriatelyprocureandpurchaseclientservices. Regionalcontractmonitorsreviewandoverseethecontracttoensurecompliance. ReferraltoEarlyChildhoodIntervention(ECI)Services Federal law (the Child Abuse Protection and Treatment Act) requires that all children younger than 3 who are confirmed victims of abuse or neglect are referred to Early Childhood Intervention (ECI). In Texas, the ECI program is administered by the Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services (DARS). DFPS and DARS signed a revised memorandum of understanding (MOU) in August 2011, outlining new procedures for referring children under the age of three to ECI for services. This MOU aligned both agencies practices for reporting and makingreferrals for ECI screenings and services, and clarified information sharing between theagencies. SubstituteCare ChildPlacingAgency FamiliesseekingtobecomeapprovedadoptivehomesmaychoosetobeapprovedbyDFPSora private child placing agency. The approving agency is responsible for the adoptive applicants training and home screening process. The private agency also works with DFPS to identify children who may be a good match for the family. When DFPS has an adoption contract with theprivatechildplacingagency,thenthecontractoutlinestherolesandresponsibilitiesrelated toadoptiveplacementandsupervisionoftheplacement. TransitionalLivingServices DFPS renewed an interagency memorandum of understanding with the Texas Workforce CommissionforFY20112016.TheTexasWorkforceCommissionreportsthenumberofyouth referred and receiving a workforce service in calendar years. The first report was for 2012 and included youth counted has being served in Transition Centers receiving funds from the Texas Workforce Commission. According to the Statewide Preparation for Adult Living staff, an estimated 1,125 youth in calendar year 2012 received employment services through local workforcecentersandTransitionCentersasaresultofaPreparationforAdultLivingreferral. Providers who serve CPS youth ages 14 and older. These contracts include provisions for caregivers to help CPS youth and young adults with experiential life skills trainings and transitionallivingservicesandavailableresources. AmericanIndianTribes Current policy details specific childplacing requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act and related guidelines and regulations to ensure compliance in any court action involving an American Indian child. Training is periodically presented to staff on these issues. Caseworkers are given an overview of the legal implications of the Indian Child Welfare Act and a checklist
summarizingthemajorpoints,andareadvisedtoimmediatelynotifytheattorneyrepresenting DFPS if a case may involve an American Indian child subject to the Indian Child Welfare Act. DFPS caseworkers are trained to ask about possible American Indian heritage both initially and as a case progresses and new family members become known. An Indian Child and Family Questionnaire has been distributed in training to facilitate getting the critical information a Tribe needs to verify a childs status under the Indian Child Welfare Act. This information is obtained through selfdisclosure from the parent, any child old enough to report, or other relative. In order to track which CPS cases are subject to the Indian Child Welfare Act, caseworkers must document if any, and which, family member reports or denies American Indianheritage. DFPShasamemorandumofunderstandingwithboththeYsletaDelSurPueblo/Tiguatribeand AlabamaCoushatta tribe of Texas. These agreements delineate the procedures that must be taken when CPS receives referrals involving tribal members. When a referral is received involvingachildresidingonareservation,DFPSstaffcontactthetribesdesignatedIndianChild Welfare Worker to inquire how the tribe wishes to proceed. If the tribe wants to handle the referral,DFPSgivesthetribetheinformationprovided. Withthelocationofthethreefederallyregisteredtribes,aformalliaisonprocesswithspecified CPSstaffareestablishedinRegion5(containingLivingston,locationfortheAlabamaCoushatta tribe of Texas), Region 8 (containing Eagle Pass, location for the Kickapoo Traditional tribe of Texas),andRegion10(containingElPaso,locationfortheYsletaDelSurPueblo/Tiguatribe).In addition, the CPS state office Indian Child Welfare Manager acts as a liaison to the three Texas tribesandrepresentativesfromtribesfromotherstates. DFPSworkswiththedesignatedIndianChildWelfareWorker,employedbythetribe,toensure thefollowing. Indian parents and the tribe receive proper notification of CPS involvement, and staff work with DFPS regional attorneys to ensure statutory notices required under Indian Child WelfareActareproperlyservedonallappropriatepersonsandentities. Indian parents and thetribe participate in thedevelopment of a service plan withculturally appropriateandeffectiveservicestoresolvethereferralissues. Activeeffortsaremadetopreventachildsremovalifthechildssafetycanbemaintained. If a child must be removed, active efforts are made by DFPS staff to work with tribal representatives and family members to have the child returned to the family; this includes identifyingspecifichurdlesandimpedimentstoreunificationanddevelopinganappropriate serviceplanasnotedabove.
112
DFPS
J. If the program or function works with local, regional, or federal units of government, includeabriefdescriptionoftheseentitiesandtheirrelationshiptotheagency. AdministrationforChildrenandFamilies(ACF) The Administration for Children and Families is a federal agency that funds state, territory, local, and tribal organizations to provide child welfare services. This includes DFPS. The Administration for Children and Families assists DFPS with funding, policy direction, and information services. It audits and reviews of the actions and outcomes of the organizations it funds. Under Title IVE, DFPS administers federal matching funds for adoption assistance paymentsforchildrenwithspecialneeds. In response to a Family Connection No Place Like Home grant from ACF, DFPS entered into a partnership with Casey Family Programs, the Kempe Center for the Prevention of Child Abuse andNeglect,andtwochildwelfareagencies(ColoradoandSouthDakota)inOctober2011.This grantisone ofseventhreeyearfederalgrantsfromtheU.S.DepartmentofHealthandHuman Services, Administration for Children & Families, to implement and evaluate Family Group DecisionMakinginchildwelfare. CourtSystem CPS works with local county and district courts for judicial review and approval of decisions made in investigations that are needed to ensure child safety. Depending on the circumstances,CPSseekscourtordersforremoval. In order to remove a child from the home, DFPS must file a suit affecting the parent child relationshipwithacourthavingfamilylawjurisdiction,requestingmanagingconservatorshipof the child. If the court grants conservatorship to DFPS, the suit affecting the parent child relationship remains pending with the court, with periodic hearings conducted under the FamilyCode,untilthechildisreunitedwithparents,managingconservatorshipistransferredto anotherperson,thechildisadopted,orthechildreachesadulthood. Unless the court indicates that it does not want to be notified, DFPS staff must notify the court orthecourtsdesigneeofthefollowingactionsandeventsinvolvingachildinDFPSsmanaging conservatorship: circumstances that may be harmful to the child, temporary care in a CPS office,changeofjurisdiction,subsequentremoval,andmedicalconsenter. ChildrensCommission The Texas Supreme Courts Permanent Judicial Commission for Children Youth and Families or Childrens Commission is a multidisciplinary executivelevel group led by judges created by The Supreme Court of Texas in 2007 to develop and coordinate efforts to improve court performance in child abuse and neglect cases. The Childrens Commission administers the federal Court Improvement Program (CIP) grant that funds its projects and staff. Under the leadership of Justice Eva Guzman, members include officials from CPS, nonprofit foundation
113
DFPS
and state bar leaders, private attorneys, legislators, judges and other elected officials, and otherchildwelfarestakeholders. The Childrens Commission includes a 40plusmember, general advisory group called the Collaborative Council. Members include foster families, attorneys, CASAs, parent advocates, and former foster youth. Representatives from institutions of juvenile justice, mental health and education are also included, as well as representatives from the private provider community, childrens advocacy centers and many other childprotection and child and family advocacygroups. Three standing committees Basic Projects, Technology and Training oversee issuespecific workgroupsandprojects.InJune2010,theSupremeCourtformedanEducationCommitteeto worktowardimprovingeducationoutcomesforfosterchildren.InadditiontoCIPgrantfunded projects, the Commission directs several other ad hoc committees and workgroups and numerousstaffledprojects. ChildWelfareBoards The commissioners court of a county may appoint a child welfare board for the county. A countychildwelfareboardisanentityofDFPSforpurposesofprovidingcoordinatedstateand local public welfare services for children and their families and for the coordinated use of federal, state, and local funds for these services. The commissioners court of a county may appropriatelocalfundsfortheadministrationofitscountychildwelfareboard. NationalResourceCenterforYouthDevelopment CPS is currently working with the federal National Resource Center for Youth Development (NRCYD) for technical assistance as the state implements Supervised Independent Living (SIL) living arrangement options for CPS young adults who have volunteered to stay in extended fostercareinalesssupervisedsetting. ResponsestotheDepartmentsrequestforproposalregardingSILplacementswerereceivedin August 2012. Tentative awards were announced in January 2013, and the first two SIL contracts with providers became effective in April 2013 and placements began in May 2013. Work continues in expanding the program and looking at ways to find additional SIL placement optionsforyoungadults.
114
DFPS
K. Ifcontractedexpendituresaremadethroughthisprogrampleaseprovide: Ashortsummaryofthegeneralpurposeofthosecontractsoverall; TheamountofthoseexpendituresinFY2012; Thenumberofcontractsaccountingforthoseexpenditures; Topfivecontractsbydollaramount,includingcontractorandpurpose; Themethodsusedtoensureaccountabilityforfundingandperformance;and Ashortdescriptionofanycurrentcontractingproblems.
CPS contracts for direct, administrative and support services through a wide variety of goods and services for children, families and adults. The contracted services are administered on a central (state office) and regional basis. Contracted services consist of: substitute care by licensedresidential childcare providers to children in DFPSs managing conservatorship; residential care for unaccompanied refugee minors; independent living services; home screenings and assessments; substance abuse testing; evaluation and treatment; diagnostic consultation;childcareservices;supervisedvisitation;supervision;homemaker;communityand parent groups; family group decision making; diligent recruitment (kinship placement); parent caregiver training; adoption (post, instate and outofstate); and reimbursement of administrativeservicesofacountygovernmentassociatedwithchildwelfareservices. For Fiscal Year 2012, CPS purchased client services expenditures were $554,217,644, which accounted for 3,378 contracts. This total includes 1,348 CPS managed contracts with $83,546,115 in total expenditures for Fiscal Year 2012 and 2,030 Residential Child Care managedcontractswith$470,671,529intotalexpendituresforFiscalYear2012. The top five contracts were with child placing agencies who recruit foster families to provide 24hour residential childcare (substitute care) to children in DFPSs managing conservatorship asfollows: TopFiveContractsbyDollarAmountFiscalYear2012 Contractor Purpose Expenditures* TheBairFoundation 24hourresidentialchildcare $50,508,659.31 AWorldForChildren 24hourresidentialchildcare $46,427,288.26 LutheranSocialServicesofTheSouth,Inc. 24hourresidentialchildcare $41,181,198.65 Life Support Counseling and Research, 24hourresidentialchildcare $37,541,615.51 Inc. ArrowChildandFamilyMinistries 24hourresidentialchildcare $35,550,410.96
* The "Total Contract Value" is based on either the Maximum Contract Budget Amount for the full contract term or, for contracts without a specified budget, the Total Expenditures across the life of the contract (FY 2006 forward).
Contract Oversight and Support (COS) is the designated division responsible for developing the infrastructuretosupportcontractmanagementstaffandtopromotecompliancewithspending
federal and state dollars appropriately, in adherence to applicable statutes and rules. Contract management staff are responsible for conducting ongoing contract management and monitoring activities to promote accountability for funding and performance of CPS purchased goods and services. Contract management staff monitor for programmatic and fiscal accountability using performance measurement and specific processes with associated risk assessment and monitoring instruments. Identification of risk is primarily achieved by utilization of an agencywide risk assessment tool and internal control questionnaire, evaluationofperformancemeasuresandsurveillanceofevolvingconditionsthatrepresentrisk. Contract monitoring may include onsite, desk, or billing reviews of fiscal, programmatic and administrative areas. Deterrents for contracting with DFPS include constraints created when meeting the unique needs of the population served and funding restraints; and insufficient quantityofcontractorsforneededservicesinregionsofthestatewheretheyareneeded.
L. Provideinformationonanygrantsawardedbytheprogram. CPSdoesnotawardgrants.
M.What statutory changes could be made to assist this program in performing its functions?Explain. CPSinHarrisCounty.CPShasidentifiedseveralstatutorychangesthatmightimproveworkload managementinHarrisCountyandresultinbetterpermanencyoutcomesforchildrenin conservatorship.ChangescouldbemadetoChapter264,FamilyCode,toestablishspecialty courtsthathandleallchildabuseandneglectcasesinHarrisCounty.Additionalamendments maybeneededtoChapter24,GovernmentCode,whichestablishesthestatedistrictcourts andassignscertainpreferencestothosecourts,aswellasChapter155andSection262.203, FamilyCode,relatingtodiscretionaryandmandatorytransferofcasesamongcourtswith familylawjurisdiction.Inaddition,CPSconservatorshipcaseworkerscoulddevotemoreof theirtimetoworkingdirectlywithchildrenandfamiliestoachievemoretimelypermanencyif changesweremadetoChapter263,FamilyCode,toexpresslypermittheassigned conservatorshipworkerinacasetobeoncallforallnoncontestedhearingsconductedunder Chapter263,ratherthanwaitinginthecourtroomtotestify,providedaCPScourtliaisonwas presentinallsuchhearings.Foradditionaldiscussion,seeSectionIX,MajorIssue#1. LegalRepresentationinCPSSuits.ToimprovelegalrepresentationinallCPSlegalsuits, revisionstoSection264.009,FamilyCode,couldbeenactedtonolongerallowcountiesovera certainthresholdpopulationtodeclinetorepresentthedepartmentbycitingspecial circumstances,andtoprohibitanycountyfromdecliningtohandlerepresentationwithout sufficientadvancewarningtothestate.Foradditionaldiscussion,seeSectionIX,MajorIssue #2.
116
DFPS
PreventingChildFatalities.CPShasidentifiedanumberofpossiblestatutorychangesthat mightservetoreducechildfatalitiesinTexas.Foradditionaldiscussion,seeSectionIX,Major Issue#6.Possiblechangesincludethefollowing. Ensure a stable source of funding for child abuse and neglect prevention programs by creating a dedicated funding source in Chapter 265, Family Code, or in Subchapter D, Chapter40,HumanResourcesCode. Reducetheincidenceofchildfatalitiesfromphysicalabuseandshakenbabysyndromewith amendmentstosomeorallofthefollowing: o Subchapter T, Chapter 161, Health and Safety Code, concerning information to be provided to newborn parents by hospitals and other providers concerning shaken babysyndrome,postpartumdepression,andothertopics. o Subchapter G, Chapter 264, Family Code, concerning the duties and responsibilities ofthestatewideChildFatalityReviewTeamCommittee; o Section 40.0523, Human Resources Code, concerning the Infant Mortality PreventionEducationProgram; o Section29.085,EducationCode,concerninglifeskillsprogramsforstudentparents. Expand the scope of the Child Safety Check Alert List with amendments to Sections 261.3022and261.3033,FamilyCode. Strengthen the duty to report certain child deaths to medical examiners with amendments toSection264.513,FamilyCode. Mandate the creation of additional Child Fatality Review Teams in counties not presently servedbyateamwithamendmentstoSection264.505,FamilyCode.
IncreasingPermanency.CPShasidentifiedseverallegislativechangesthatmightshortenthe lengthoftimethatchildrenspendinsubstitutecare.Foradditionaldiscussion,seeSectionIX, MajorIssue#7. Expand eligibility for adoption assistance by amending Section 162.304, Family Code, to direct the department to ensure that rules defining a child with special needs include consideration of whether placement in substitute care, in and of itself, makes it less likely thatachildwillbeadopted. Promote reunification of children with parents whose rights were previously terminated by amending Chapter 161, Family Code, to allow reinstatement of parental rights for certain parents. Promote more timely reunification of children with their parents by amending Section 263.403, Family Code, to clarify that a case whose deadline for dismissal was extended by 180 days for purposes of monitoring a return to the parent may be dismissed before the
117
DFPS
expirationofthe180dayperiodwhenadditionalmonitoringisnolongerdeemednecessary toensurethesafetyofthechild. UpFrontDueProcessforCPSinvestigations.Tobetterensurethesafetyofchildrenandto betterprotectthedueprocessrightsofpersonsfoundtohavecommittedabuseorneglectofa child,amendmentscouldbemadetoSection261.309,FamilyCodetorequirethatperpetrators beofferedadueprocesshearingatthetimethefindingismade.Foradditionaldiscussion,see SectionII,SubsectionG,Obstacles.
O. Regulatoryprogramsrelatetothelicensing,registration,certification,orpermittingofa person,business,orotherentity.Foreachregulatoryprogram,ifapplicable,describe: whytheregulationisneeded; thescopeof,andproceduresfor,inspectionsorauditsofregulatedentities; followupactivitiesconductedwhennoncomplianceisidentified; sanctionsavailabletotheagencytoensurecompliance;and proceduresforhandlingconsumer/publiccomplaintsagainstregulatedentities.
CPSisnotaregulatoryprogram.
P. For each regulatory program, if applicable, provide the following complaint information. The chart headings may be changed if needed to better reflect your agencyspractices. Notapplicable.
118
DFPS
VII. GUIDETOAGENCYPROGRAMSCONTINUED PREVENTIONANDEARLYINTERVENTION
A. Providethefollowinginformationatthebeginningofeachprogramdescription. NameofProgramorFunction Location/Division ContactName ActualExpenditures,FY2012 NumberofActualFTEsasofJune1,2013 StatutoryCitationforProgram
PreventionandEarlyIntervention(PEI),CPS 2401RidgepointDrive,Austin,Texas/ ChildProtectiveServices SashaRasco $31,569,019 14 Chapter 40, Human Resources Code and Title 5, FamilyCode
B. What is the objective of this program or function? Describe the major activities performedunderthisprogram. Unlike investigations, family based safety services, or substitute care, the Prevention and Early Intervention (PEI) division within CPS does not work cases. Instead the focus of their activities istoreduceandpreventintakesfromcomingintothechildwelfareandjuvenilejusticesystems in the first place. The Texas Legislature created the PEI division within CPS to consolidate prevention and early intervention programs into a single state agency. The goal is to eliminate fragmentationandduplicationofpreventionandearlyinterventionservicesforatriskchildren, youth,andfamilies.PEIcontractswithcommunitybasedagenciesandorganizationstoprovide services designed to prevent the abuse, neglect, delinquency, and truancy of Texas children. Services are voluntary and are provided at no cost to participants, however all services are not availablestatewide.ThefollowingprovidesanoverviewofPEIprograms. CommunityYouthDevelopment The Community Youth Development (CYD) program contracts with community based organizationstoprovidejuveniledelinquencypreventionservicesin15areasofthestatewitha high incidence of juvenile crime. Communities prioritize and develop prevention services according to local needs. Approaches include youthleadership development, lifeskills classes, character education, conflict resolution, tutoring, mentoring, career preparation, and recreation. Client Eligibility: Youth ages 617, with a focus on youth 1017, who live in or attend school in oneofthedesignatedZIPcodes.
VII.GuidetoAgencyPrograms PreventionandEarlyIntervention
119
DFPS
ServicestoAtRiskYouth The Services to AtRisk Youth (STAR) program contracts with community agencies to offer family crisis intervention counseling, shortterm emergency respite care, and individual and familycounseling. These services are available in all 254 Texas counties. Each STAR contractor also provides universal child abuse prevention services, such as informational brochures and parentingclasses. Client Eligibility: Youth and children younger than 18 who are runaways or truant, are living in family conflict, or have been accused of delinquency or misdemeanor or state felony offenses buthavenotbeenadjudicatedbyacourt. TexasFamilies:TogetherandSafe Texas Families: Together and Safe (TFTS) funds evidence and communitybased programs designed to alleviate stress and promote parental competencies and behaviors that increase the ability of families to become selfsufficient and successfully nurture their children. The goalsoftheprogramareto: improveandenhanceaccesstofamilysupportservices; increasetheefficiencyandeffectivenessofcommunitybasedfamilysupportservices; enablechildrentoremainintheirownhomesbyprovidingpreventativeservices;and
increasecollaborationamonglocalprograms,governmentagencies,andfamilies. Client Eligibility: Any family in Texas within a service area that has a child (or children) younger than 18 living in the household or whom is expecting a child (or children) and are assessed as having multiple issues and risk factors may be served. Targeted families may include teen parents, firsttime parents, parents with young children, and parents with children who have disabilities,developmentaldelays,emotional,schoolorhealthproblems,orwhoareathighrisk ofabuse,neglect. CommunityBasedChildAbusePrevention The CommunityBased Child Abuse Prevention (CBCAP) program seeks to increase community awareness of existing prevention services, strengthen community and parental involvement in child abuse prevention efforts, and encourage families to engage in available services. CBCAP funds communitybased organizations to provide a variety of child abuse and neglect preventionservices.TheFamilySupportprogramfocusesoncountieswithahigherthanstate average rate of child abuse and neglect, with special focus on rural counties. The program includes home visiting, case management, crisis intervention, and an evidencebased parent education component. This program targets families with children ages birth through 5 years, as these children are statistically at greater risk for abuse and neglect. The Family Support programbeganprovidingservicesinTomGreen,Runnels,Crockett,andConchoCountiesinJuly 2009 and in Atascosa, Bandera, Frio, Karnes, and Real counties in August 2009 and continued throughFY2012.
VII.GuidetoAgencyPrograms PreventionandEarlyIntervention 120 DFPS
In FY 2012, the Respite/Parent Education program began providing services through two contractors serving El Paso and Bexar counties. The program provides emergency day and overnight respite to children of atrisk families, as well as parent education to mitigate the risk ofchildabuseandneglect. The Basic Parent Education program began in late FY 2012. Currently provided by once contractor serving Bexar County, the program focuses on providing parent skills training to at risk families. CBCAP also funds various special initiatives and public awareness campaigns as notedinothersectionsofthisreport. StatewideYouthServicesNetwork These are evidencebased, prevention services provided by established statewide networks of communitybased prevention programs that must work to prevent juvenile delinquency and createpositiveoutcomesforyouthbyincreasingprotectivefactors. Client Eligibility: Atrisk youth between the ages of 617 years of age, with an emphasis on youth1017years. SpecialInitiatives Thedivisionalsodevelopsandimplementsavarietyofinitiativestopreventchildmaltreatment andjuveniledelinquencyandtosupportcontractedserviceproviders. OutreachandAwarenessEfforts The FY 2012 outreach focus was the launch of a new Child Abuse Prevention campaign, Help for Parents, Hope for Kids. The goal of the campaign is to prevent abuse from ever occurring byhelpingparentsdealwiththestressesthatcontributetochildabuseandneglect. PublicEducationEfforts Prevention and Early Intervention develops and supports specific projects and initiatives that focus on preventing child abuse and juvenile delinquency. PEI launched a new Child Abuse Prevention campaign, Help for Parents, Hope for Kids on July 1, 2012. This included a new websiteinbothEnglishandSpanish(HelpandHope.orgorAyudayEsperanza.org).Thecampaign featured: A statewide advertising campaign involving television, radio, billboard, transit, movie theatres,andonlineads. AsocialmediacampaignthatincludedapresenceonFacebook,Pinterest,andYouTube. Video testimonials from parents who had abused or neglected their children and sought helptochange. Outreach to other organizations to participate by distributing campaign materials or providingservicesorresourcestoparentsthroughHelpandHope.org.
121
DFPS
AnnualConference Each year, DFPS hosts the annual Partners in Prevention training conference. The conference brings together social services professionals, parents, advocates, educators, law enforcement professionals, childcare professionals, community leaders, and faith leaders interested in improvingprogramsandsharingexpertise. EvaluationandResearch The University of Texas at San Antonio initiated research on family and youth resiliency to help PEI continually improve its assessment of outcomes for youth and families using prevention services.Tocompletethisearlierwork,PEIcontractedwithPrairieViewA&MUniversityto: 1. Develop and validate survey instruments that PEI will use to determine the effectiveness of itsjuveniledelinquencypreventionprograms. 2. EvaluatetheCommunityYouthDevelopment(CYD)program. PrairieViewA&MUniversitywillcontinueitsworkthroughFY2013. The University of Houston conducted an evaluation of child abuse and neglect prevention and early intervention programs and services in the state, including research on streamlining funding and improving service delivery. The University of Houston team analyzed the cost effectiveness and efficiency of statefunded child abuse and neglect prevention and early interventions programs, which are key elements to implementing performancebased client servicecontracting.
C. What evidence can you provide that shows the effectiveness and efficiency of this program or function? Provide a summary of key statistics and performance measures thatbestconveytheeffectivenessandefficiencyofthisfunctionorprogram. PerformanceMeasures PEI requires every provider to meet two types of performance measures, outputs and outcomes, while delivering contractuallyspecified program services. Both types of measures reflect the criteria a provider must meet on a monthly and annual basis to successfully administerPEIfundedprograms. Outputs are concerned with reaching certain quantitative goals. PEI employs outputs that measureaprogramscapacitytorecruitandretainclients,andtodeliverservicesoveraperiod of time to ensure effective client participation. For example, on a monthly basis, PEI contractors track and report the number of unduplicated clients served, as well as the number ofclientsthatcompletethepreandpostprotectivefactorssurvey. Outcome measures are used to assess whether participation in a PEIfunded program result in changes for clients. By completing the child maltreatment prevention program, for example,
122
DFPS
didclientsshowmeasureablechangeintheirknowledgeofchilddevelopmentortheirattitudes towardparenting?ThisismeasuredthroughtheProtectiveFactorsSurveydiscussedbelow. ProtectiveFactorsSurvey Protective factors are conditions that, when present in families and communities, increase the health and wellbeing of children and families. An increase in protective factors help parents who might otherwise be at risk of abusing their children to find resources, support, or coping strategies that help them parent effectively while under stress. Research shows successful interventions must both reduce risk factors and promote protective factors. The goal of Prevention and Early Intervention child abuse prevention programs is to prevent child abuse and neglect by increasing protective factors and decreasing risk factors in atrisk families. Therefore, one of the outcome measures PEI uses within its programs is tracking whether caregiversexperienceanincreaseinprotectivefactorsrelatedtochildabuseandneglect. The Protective Factors Survey (PFS) is a prepost evaluation tool used with caregivers who receive prevention services. The survey measures protective factors in five areas 1) Family functioningandresiliency2)Socialsupport3)Concretesupport4)Nurturingandattachment5) Knowledgeofparentingandchilddevelopment PEI played an active role in the development of the Protective Factors Survey. The survey has undergone four national field tests for establishing reliability and validity. It is also recognized as an evidencebased tool by the California Clearinghouse on Evidence Based Practices. The surveyresultsaredesignedtohelpagenciesmeasurechangesinprotectivefactorsandidentify areaswherepractitionerscanfocusonincreasingindividualfamilyprotectivefactors. PEI currently requires all child abuse prevention contractors to administer a preservice and postservice Protective Factors Survey to caregivers. Contractors enter Protective Factors Survey data into the PEI Database along with client registration information. The PEI Database allows both contractors and DFPS to observe at the individual and program level the increase byeachprotectivefactor. SamplePerformanceMeasures In addition to protective factors, PEI employs other outcome measures such as the number of children served by contracted providers that enter the child welfare system after program discharge. Following are examples of output and outcome measures for some PEI programs. AdditionalinformationisavailableintheDFPSDatabook.
123
DFPS
JuvenileDelinquencyPreventionPrograms CommunityYouthDevelopment(CYD) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 PercentofCYDyouthnotreferredtojuvenile 98.0 97.8 98.3 98.8 98.1 probation Annualnumberofyouthserved 18,074 19,390 17,799 19,731 16,900 AveragemonthlynumberCYDyouthserved AveragemonthlycostperCYDyouthserved 4,563 5,668 5,930 6,158 5,530 $138.97 $84.06 $75.14 $82.77 $69.91
ChildAbuseandNeglectPreventionPrograms TexasFamilies:TogetherandSafe (TFTS) 2008 2009 2010 2011 Annualnumberoffamiliesserved 3,136 3,040 3,410 2,110 Average monthly number of 1,061 991 1,087 573 familiesservedbyTFTSProgram Average monthly cost per family $289.49 $275.62 $249.52 $433.71 servedintheTFTSProgram Childrenwillremainsafe N/A N/A N/A N/A Increase in Protective Factors for N/A N/A N/A N/A familiescompletingtheprogram
2012 1,870 586 $362.54 99% 67%of families hadan increasein theFamily Functioning subscale
ChildAbusePreventionOutreachandAwareness OutputMeasures: NumberofCalendarsdistributedinFY2012 535,000
AnnualPartnersinPreventionTrainingConference OutputMeasures: NumberofpeopleattendingtheFY2012 conference
300
D. Describe any important history regarding this program not included in the general agency history section, including how the services or functions have changed from the originalintent. WhilemuchoftherecenthistoryofCPSappliestothePEIdivisionaswellsincetheyarepartof thelargerCPSprogram,therearesomeuniqueelementstoPEIshistorythatareworthnoting.
In 1999, the Legislature created PEI as a new division of DFPS to consolidate prevention and earlyinterventionprogramswithinthejurisdictionofasinglestateagency. By 2002, PEI administered 18 programs, managed a division budget of $63 million, and supported69staffpositions. In2003,theLegislatureeliminatedfundingforsixoftheseprogramsandreducedtheremaining prevention program funding by approximately 16 percent. The Communities in Schools (CIS) programwastransferredtotheTexasEducationAgencyduringthesamelegislativesession. In2005,theLegislatureincreasedpreventionfundsfortheremainingPEIprograms,inaneffort to restore them to their prior funding levels. However, instead of funding individual programs ashadbeendonebefore2003,theLegislaturecombinedfundsintoanewpreventionstrategy, A.2.16OtherAtRiskPreventionServices. With the addition of the Family Strengthening and Youth Resiliency programs, funded through budget strategy A.2.16, PEI shifted from a focus on defined program models to a broader approach of seeking effective services capable of achieving the desired outcomes in participants (prevention of child abuse and neglect, and prevention of juvenile delinquency, respectively). This allows communities to determine which program approach is best suited to theirneedsandpopulationandthebestfitfortheorganizationdeliveringtheservices.PEInow funds a combination of programs ranging from the diverse model described above, to those that provide great latitude within a prescribed program model (such as Texas Families: Together and Safe and Community Youth Development) and those with more specific requirements(suchasServicestoAtRiskYouth[STAR]). Inaddition,PEIismovingtowardincreasedfundingofevidencebasedprogramsandservicesin responsetothefollowinglawsandfactors: TexasFamilyCode265.004requiringfundingofevidencebasedservices. Changing federal requirements for the Community Based Child Abuse Prevention program (fundedthroughCAPTAII)toincreaseevidencebasedservices.
In 2007, the Legislature increased prevention funds by appropriating $3 million for evidence based programs that are now called the Statewide Youth Services Network (SYSN) and $1.6 million for the CommunityBased Family Support program. In 2009, the Legislature further increasedfundsfortheSYSNprogram,to$4.5millionforthebiennium,andincreasedfundsfor OtherAtRiskPreventionServicesby$2,850,086forthebiennium. The budget constraints of the 2011 Legislative Session resulted in funding cuts to prevention programs that provide an array of services to alleviate stress and factors leading to child abuse and neglect and delinquency. Overall, this group of programs was reduced by 32 percent from the FY 2011 appropriated funding level. Individually, the reductions ranged from 13 percent to 74 percent. The STAR program received a 13 percent reduction of $6.2 million, the CYD
program received a 36 percent reduction of $5.9 million, and the Texas Families program receiveda37percentreductionof$3.2million.Inaddition,fundingcutsin2011eliminatedthe threefollowingPEIprograms: Tertiary Prevention Services program provided communitybased, volunteerdriven prevention, intervention, and aftercare services to children who have been or are at risk of being,abusedorneglected.Thegoalsoftheprogramincludedreducingchildmaltreatment andthenumberoffamiliesreenteringtheChildProtectiveServicessystem. The Family Strengthening program offered a variety of evidencebased services that had been evaluated and proven to effective in the prevention of child abuse and neglect. The strengthsbased focus was aimed at increasing protective factors while reducing risk for child maltreatment by building upon caregiver knowledge and resiliency. Programs fosteredstrongcommunitycollaborationtoprovideacontinuumoffamilyservices. Youth Resiliency Services offered a variety of evidencebased services that have been evaluated and proven effective in the prevention of juvenile delinquency. The strengths based focus was aimed at increasing known protective factors while reducing risk for juvenile delinquency by building upon caregiver or youth knowledge and resiliency. Programs fostered strong community connections with other service providers in the area to provide a continuum of needed services and supports for the youth and families that theyserve.
In April 2012 the DFPS Texas Youth and Runaway Hotlines were transferred from the PreventionandEarlyInterventiondivisionofChildProtectiveServicestoStatewideIntake.The purpose of the transfer was to promote improved efficiency and effective service delivery including allowing the Youth and Runaway Hotlines access to more modern technological such astheabilitytoworkfromaremotelocation.
E. Describe who or what this program or function affects. List any qualifications or eligibilityrequirementsforpersonsorentitiesaffected.Provideastatisticalbreakdown ofpersonsorentitiesaffected. PEI prevention programs are available across the state, although not all programs are available in all areas. The STAR program provides services to every county in Texas. Services are provided to children less than 18 years of age and to families with at least one primary caregiver and one child under 18 as well as to families who are expecting a child or are in the processofadopting.
126
DFPS
NumberofFamilies(PrimaryCaregivers)ServedintheChildAbuseandNeglectPrevention ProgramsFY2012 Unduplicated Families Servedby 2009 2009 2010 2010 2011 2011 2012 2012 Program n % n % n % n % Community 699 13.8% 372 6.4% 461 12.0% 577 21.7% BasedChild Abuse Prevention (CBCAP) Community 110 2.2% 337 5.8% 280 7.3% 206 7.8% BasedFamily Services(CBFS) TexasFamilies: 3,040 59.8% 3,410 58.8% 2,110 55.0% 1,870 70.5% Togetherand Safe(TFTS) Family 1,200 23.6% 1,616 27.9% 938 24.5% 0 0.0% Strengthening Program(FSP) TertiaryChild 32 0.6% 61 1.1% 44 1.1% 0 0.0% Abuse Prevention (TPP) Total 5,081 100.0% 5,796 100.0% 3,833 100.0% 2,653 100.0% NumberofYouthServedintheJuvenileDelinquencyPreventionPrograms,FY2012 2009 2009 2010 2010 2011 2011 2012 2012 Program n % n % n % N % ServicestoAt 29,406 51.6% 30,042 54.8% 30,168 53.2% 26,834 54.8% RiskYouth (STAR) Community 19,390 34.0% 17,799 32.5% 19,731 34.8% 16,900 34.5% Youth Development (CYD) Statewide 6,548 11.5% 5,513 10.1% 5,720 10.1% 5,273 10.8% YouthServices Network(SYSN) Youth 1,654 2.9% 1,445 2.6% 1,066 1.9% 0 0.0% Resiliency Program(YRP) Total 56,998 100.0% 54,799 100.0% 56,685 100.0% 49,007 100.0%
AgeofYouthServedintheJuvenileDelinquencyPreventionPrograms,FY2012 AgeGroup STAR CYD SYSN YRP Total Percent Under6 2,343 27 305 0 2,675 5.5% 69 4,889 2,136 135 0 7,160 14.6% 1017 19,602 14,025 4,833 0 38,460 78.5% Over17 0 712 0 0 712 1.5% Total 26,834 16,900 5,273 0 49,007 100.0%
F. Describe how your program or function is administered. Include flowcharts, timelines, or other illustrations as necessary to describe agency policies and procedures. Indicate howfieldandregionalservicesareused,ifapplicable. PEI delivers prevention services through contracts. PEI Staff manages contracts, processes contractor reimbursements, develops programmatic policies and procedures, and provides training and technical assistance to contractors. The work follows the contracting lifecycle outlined in the DFPS Contract Handbook and is conducted in accordance with agency policies and state and federal regulations. PEI staff members are located in DFPSs State Office in Austin.PEIstaffincludesprogramspecialists,contractmanagers,andcontracttechnicians.
H. Identify any programs, internal or external to your agency, that provide identical or similar services or functions to the target population. Describe the similarities and differences. DFPS is the primary agency that delivers prevention programs designed to prevent child abuse and neglect and juvenile delinquency. There are other state agencies that deliver prevention services (for example, substance abuse prevention). However, the prevention of child abuse and neglect or juvenile delinquency is not the primary function of these programs. While not the primary function of Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC), it implements the Nurse Family Partnership (NFP) program in eight communities for pregnant women who are Medicaid eligible. NFP is an evidencebased, nurse homevisitation program aimed at preventing child abuse and neglect. The HHSC also oversees the Texas Home Visiting program, funded through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Health Resources and Services Administration Maternal, Infant and Early Childhood Home Visiting grant. The grant
supports the development and implementation of home visiting program in communities selected through a needs assessment. One objective of the program is improving the prevention of child injuries and reduction in child maltreatment among program participants. There are also private, nonprofit entities within the state that deliver services such as Healthy Families,ParentsasTeachers,HomeInstructionforParentsofPreschoolYoungsters,andother programs that affect child abuse and neglect and receive funding from sources other than throughDFPS. DFPSwasidentifiedasthekeystateagencyworkingtopreventchildabuseandneglectthrough an inventory of policies, programs, and activities undertaken by the Interagency Coordinating Council for Building Healthy Families. Created in 2005 by the Legislature, part of the Councils charge was to create an inventory of statefunded child abuse and neglect prevention efforts. The Councils inventory report, published June 1, 2006, summarized results from 269 surveys submitted by entities delivering family services with either a direct or indirect effect on the prevention of child maltreatment, using funding from state agencies. Of the 83 surveys reporting programs directly related to the prevention of child abuse and neglect, 77 identified DFPS/PEIasthefundingsource. CommunityBasedOrganizations The most common types of services provided by the identified directimpact programs were parent education and training, home visitation, public awareness campaigns, and life skills development. The majority of the programs supported by Council agencies, represented by 167 survey respondents, are indirectimpact programs or services. These programs include services such as child health insurance, food stamps, housing, domestic violence shelters, juvenile delinquency prevention programs, life skills programs for youth, school dropout prevention,employment,casemanagement,andsubstanceabusetreatmentprograms. TexasJuvenileJusticeDepartment For juvenile justice programs, early intervention and treatment programs are funded through the Texas Juvenile Justice Department. There are other programs, such as 21st Century, Weed and Seed, and Communities in Schools that have some common ground with PEI juvenile delinquency prevention programs as they address truancy and school dropout, but these focus moreonacademicachievementratherthanjuveniledelinquencyprevention.TheCommunities in Schools program was formerly administered through PEI and transferred to the Texas EducationAgencyasaresultoflegislationpassedduringthe2003legislativesession. 21stCenturyProgram The21stCenturyprogramisagrantprogramfundedthroughtheU.S.DepartmentofEducation that provides academicbased enrichment opportunities during nonschool hours for children who attend high poverty and lowperforming schools. The program helps students meet state and local student standards in core academic subjects, such as reading and math, offers students a broad array of enrichment activities that complement their regular academic programs, and offers literacy and other educational services to the families of participating children. The focus is on schoolaged youth and there is a greater focus on middle to high
school students because of their risk factors. The majority of the program is based on recreational type of services for youth to improve basic life skills such as social skills, decision makingskillsandpeerpressurerefusalskills,aswellastutoringandparentingclasses. WeedandSeed Weed and Seed is a communitybased strategy sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)focusedonlawenforcement,crimeprevention,andcommunityrevitalization.Astrategy, rather than a grant program, Weed and Seed aims to prevent, control, and reduce violent crime, drug abuse, and gang activity in designated highcrime neighborhoods across the country. The strategy involves a twopronged approach: law enforcement agencies and prosecutorscooperateinweedingoutviolentcriminalsanddrugabusersandpublicagencies and communitybased private organizations collaborate to seed muchneeded human services, including prevention, intervention, treatment, and neighborhood restoration programs. A communityoriented policing component bridges the weeding and seeding elements. CommunitiesinSchools Communities in Schools helps students stay in school and make right choices by connecting schools with needed community resources. By bringing resources, services, parents, and volunteers into schools, the program creates a community of caring adults who work handin hand with educators. Plans are made to meet student needs, using existing resources. Young people are connected with services in a variety of ways. Services are made available to all students and their families in some schools, while in other schools CIS connects services with particular students in need, either on a onetime basis or as part of a carefully monitored case management system. CIS also brings community resources to students and families through afterschoolprograms
I. Discusshowtheprogramorfunctioniscoordinatingitsactivitiestoavoidduplicationor conflict with the other programs listed in Question H and with the agencys customers. If applicable, briefly discuss any memorandums of understanding (MOUs), interagency agreements,orinteragencycontracts. At the local level, PEI works to ensure that duplication or conflict is avoided by requiring all potential service providers to address this issue in their proposal as part of the procurement process. They are asked to specify how they will ensure that services to not duplicate those already provided in the community through other funding sources, as well as how they would enhance, compliment, or fill gaps in other services. In addition, PEI providers are required to address ongoing collaboration with local social service providers to provide effective referrals for clients served through the PEI contract to other service providers as appropriate. PEI providers are also required to register their services with the 211 referral system and to keep thisinformationupdatedtobettersupportaccesstoservicesandappropriatereferrals.
130
DFPS
At the state level, PEI led the Interagency Coordinating Council for Building Healthy Families. This Council is charged with ensuring services and programs for preventing child abuse and neglect and building healthy families are coordinated at the state level and complement one another to ensure families get the support they need. Eleven agencies have participated, including all HHS agencies. While the Council itself expired at the close of FY 2009, the effort continued through a memorandum of understanding between the agencies. To further prevention duplication and promote collaboration PEI staff participates in several interagency workgroupsandinitiatives.
J. If the program or function works with local, regional, or federal units of government, includeabriefdescriptionoftheseentitiesandtheirrelationshiptotheagency. PEI contracts with many units of government, such as cities, counties, and independent school districtstoprovidepreventionandearlyinterventionservicesintheirlocalcommunities.Atthe federal level, PEI staff has participated on several committees and workgroups for the CommunityBasedChildAbusePrevention(CBCAP)Program,oneofPEIsfundingsources.
K. Ifcontractedexpendituresaremadethroughthisprogrampleaseprovide: ashortsummaryofthegeneralpurposeofthosecontractsoverall; theamountofthoseexpendituresinFY2012; thenumberofcontractsaccountingforthoseexpenditures; topfivecontractsbydollaramount,includingcontractorandpurpose; themethodsusedtoensureaccountabilityforfundingandperformance;and ashortdescriptionofanycurrentcontractingproblems.
The PEI program delivers prevention and early intervention services through contracts. In FY 2012, total expenditures were $27,862,496.26. The number of contracts accounting for expenditureswas62.Thetopfivecontractsbydollaramountareasfollowsinthechartbelow. TopFiveContractsbyDollarAmountFiscalYear2012 HHSASLegal Contract Contract TotalContract Contractor Begin End Value* Program Name Subject Date Date (asof6/17/2013) BigBrothersBig DFPSStatewide PEI SistersofNorth YouthServices 6/1/2008 8/31/2012 $7,433,685.00 Texas Network(SYSN) TexasAlliance DFPSStatewide PEI ofBoysand YouthServices 6/1/2008 8/31/2012 $7,036,692.00 Girls Network(SYSN) Connections DFPSServicesto PEI 9/1/2008 8/31/2012 $5,678,565.02 Individual& AtRiskYouth
Program
TopFiveContractsbyDollarAmountFiscalYear2012 HHSASLegal Contract Contract TotalContract Contractor Begin End Value* Name Subject Date Date (asof6/17/2013) FamilySvcsInc NorthTexas Youth Connection HighSky Childrens Ranch DFPSServicesto AtRiskYouth DFPSServicesto AtRiskYouth 9/1/2008 8/31/2012 $4,976,806.68
PEI
PEI
9/1/2008 8/31/2012
$4,176,900.43
* The Total Contract Value is based on either the Maximum Contract Budget Amount for the full contract term or, for contractswithoutaspecifiedbudget,theTotalExpendituresacrossthelifeofthecontract(FY2006forward).
There is a system in place to ensure the accountability of contracted service providers in terms of both funding and performance. The system includes a competitive procurement process, risk assessment, and ongoing, formal onsite monitoring of fiscal, administrative and programmaticoperationsanddaytodaycontractmanagement. In addition, program service data is collected through the Prevention and Early Intervention Services database (PEIS), a webbased system that contractors are given access to in order to submit information on client registrations and monthly services. Data reports allow both the individualcontractorsandPEIstafftomonitorperformanceonanongoingbasis.
L. Provideinformationonanygrantsawardedbytheprogram. PEIdoesnotawardgrants.
M.What statutory changes could be made to assist this program in performing its functions?Explain. Statutory changes related to data sharing between agencies to support assessment of client outcomes would assist the division in more thoroughly determining the impact of prevention servicesonthechildren,youth,andfamiliesthatareserved.PEIreceivesanannualdatareport from the Texas Juvenile Justice Department with client outcomes for the STAR and CYD program. The report indicates the number of participants of the programs referred to juvenile probation. A report indicating the number of participants in all PEI programs referred to juvenile probation would assist the division in evaluating the long term effect of child abuse preventionservicestojuveniledelinquencyoutcomes. In addition, sharing of client level data from the Texas Education Agency and Department of StateHealthServiceswouldhelpassesspreventionoutcomes.DatamatchingPEIclientsserved
by these entities would give insight on outcomes across areas closely related to child abuse preventionsuchassubstanceabuse,mentalhealthanddomesticviolence.
N. Provide any additional information needed to gain a preliminary understanding of the programorfunction. Investmentinwellplannedandeffectivelyimplementedpreventioneffortsiscostefficient,and PEIworkstoensurethatthepreventionfundsauthorizedbytheLegislaturearewellspent. The costs of child abuse and neglect are high and increasing. According to an assessment conducted by the University of Houston, child maltreatment cost Texas more than $6.3 billion in 2007. Direct costs associated with child welfare system costs, mental health care, hospitalization, law enforcement, and judiciary costs totaled $1.1 billion. The remaining $5.2 billion included indirect costs related to special education, juvenile delinquency and juvenile probation, mental and physical health care, substance abuse, adult criminal system and lost productivity. Prevention programs can be costeffective. If Texas prevented or even reduced the incidence of child maltreatment, this would result in better short and longterm outcomes for children and families and would produce significant cost savings to the state. For example, for FY 2013, homevisiting programs for an atrisk mother and child have an average annual cost of approximately $1,592.00. In addition, the average annual costs of parent education and skill buildingprogramsareapproximately$830perfamily. In contrast, the costs to provide remedial care are much higher as illustrated by the chart on the following page. For example, in Texas the average annual cost of foster care per full time equivalent (FTE) in FY 2012 was $22,794, while the cost to incarcerate a youth for one year in theformerTexasYouthCommission(TYC)wasapproximately$131,400.
133
DFPS
VII.GuidetoAgencyPro ograms ntionandEarly yIntervention Preven
134
DFPS
O. Regulatoryprogramsrelatetothelicensing,registration,certification,orpermittingofa person,business,orotherentity.Foreachregulatoryprogram,ifapplicable,describe: whytheregulationisneeded; thescopeof,andproceduresfor,inspectionsorauditsofregulatedentities; followupactivitiesconductedwhennoncomplianceisidentified; sanctionsavailabletotheagencytoensurecompliance;and proceduresforhandlingconsumer/publiccomplaintsagainstregulatedentities.
PEIisnotaregulatoryprogram.
P. Foreachregulatoryprogram,ifapplicable,providethefollowingcomplaintinformation. Thechartheadingsmaybechangedifneededtobetterreflectyouragencyspractices. Notapplicable.
135
DFPS
VII. GUIDETOAGENCYPROGRAMSCONTINUED ADULTPROTECTIVESERVICES
A. Providethefollowinginformationatthebeginningofeachprogramdescription. AdultProtectiveServices InHomeInvestigationsandServices FacilityInvestigations 701West51stStreet,Austin,Texas/ AdultProtectiveServices BethEngelking,AssistantCommissioner AdultProtectiveServices InHome$52,344,306 Facility$10,010,572 InHome795.5 Facility185.5 Chapters40and48,HumanResourcesCode; SubchapterE,Chapter261,FamilyCode
NameofProgramorFunction Location/Division ContactName ActualExpenditures,FY2012 NumberofActualFTEsasofJune1,2013 StatutoryCitationforProgram
B. Whatistheobjectiveofthisprogramorfunction?Describethemajoractivities performedunderthisprogram. Adult Protective Services (APS) consists of two program areas: InHome Investigations and Services (InHome), and Facility Investigations. Statute requires that anyone who believes that a person age 65 or older or adult with a disability is being abused, neglected, or financially exploitedtoreportit. InHome The APS InHome program protects adults in the community, as opposed to a facility setting, who are 65 and older or who have disabilities. APS does this by investigating reports of abuse, neglect,andfinancialexploitationandprovidingorarrangingforservicestoalleviateorprevent further maltreatment. APS works with vulnerable adults who reside in their own homes or in unregulated roomandboard homes. APS also investigates allegations of financial exploitation of vulnerable adults living in nursing homes who may be financially exploited by someoneoutsidethefacility. TheAPSInHomeprogramperformsthefollowingmajoractivities. Investigatesreportsofabuse,neglect,andfinancialexploitation.
VII.GuidetoAgencyPrograms AdultProtectiveServices
136
DFPS
Refers reports to other state agencies when DFPS is not the appropriate investigating agency. Provides or arranges for services to prevent or alleviate abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation. Assesses factors that may indicate an adults lack of capacity to consent to services and pursueamedicalevaluationifindicated. Refers adult victims to the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS) for guardianship services when they appear to lack the capacity to consent to services and whenguardianshipistheleastrestrictivealternativetoensuretheirsafetyandwellbeing. Usestheleastrestrictivealternativewhenprovidingprotectiveservices. Seekscourtorders(whennecessary)togainaccesstoindividuals,preventinterferencewith voluntary protective services, provide emergency protective services, and to access records ordocuments. Initiatesemergencyprotectiveservices(e.g.,removal)afterhoursandonholidayswithouta courtorderwhennecessary. Notifies law enforcement if APS suspects the client is the victim of a crime, or if an APS client is removed from their home under a court order and the clients home is left unattended. MakesreferralstotheEmployeeMisconductRegistryofcertainvalidatedperpetrators. Enhances and develops community resources in an effort to increase awareness of abuse, neglect,andfinancialexploitationandtoaddressincreasingneedsofAPSclients. ConductsacommunitysatisfactionsurveytosolicitinformationregardingtheDepartments performanceinprovidingprotectiveservicesforadults.
APS also organizes a public awareness campaign (www.EveryonesBusiness.org) to address important issues in protecting persons age 65 or older and people with disabilities in Texas. The program targets law enforcement, judiciary partners, and service providers to increase theirknowledgeofAPSprogramsandtheneedsofvulnerableadults. FacilityInvestigations The APS Facility Investigations program investigates allegations of abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation of persons receiving services in state operated or contracted programs that serve adultsandchildrenwithmentalillnessorintellectualdisabilities. APSroleinprotectingfacilityclientsfromabuse,neglect,andfinancialexploitationisto: notify the provider of the allegations and conduct an unbiased investigation of reported allegations;and
137
DFPS
notify the provider of the objective findings of the investigation so the provider can take appropriateactiontoprotectclients.
APSdoesnot: proactivelyinvestigateorregulateproviders;or haveoperationalauthorityovertheproviders. MajoractivitiesperformedbytheFacilityInvestigationsprograminclude: Investigating reports of abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation allegations in appropriate facilitysettings; Initiating investigations by notifying the facility or provider agency within one hour of receivingthereport;and Referring reports to other state agencies when APS is not the appropriate investigating agency (e.g., the allegation does not meet the definition of abuse, neglect or financial exploitation). Notifying local law enforcement when an investigation indicates that a crime may have beencommitted. NotifyingtheHHSOfficeofInspectorGeneral(OIG)iftheinvestigationindicatesaclientina State Hospital or State Supported Living Center has been abused, neglected, or exploited in amannerthatmayconstituteacriminaloffense. Completes an investigative report with findings for the facility or provider and, if appropriate,lawenforcement,theOIG,andDADS.
MakesreferralstotheEmployeeMisconductRegistryofcertainconfirmedperpetrators. Investigationsareconductedinthefollowingsettings: StateSupportedLivingCenters; StateHospitals; Rio Grande State Center that provides mental health and intellectual and developmental disabilityservices; privately operated intermediate care facilities for individuals with intellectual disabilities (ICF/IID); community centers that contract with DADS and DSHS to provide mental health and intellectualanddevelopmentaldisabilityservices;and facility and community center contractors, including Home and Communitybased Services (HCS)andTexasHomeLivingwaiverprograms.
138
DFPS
C. Whatevidencecanyouprovidethatshowstheeffectivenessandefficiencyofthis programorfunction?Provideasummaryofkeystatisticsandperformancemeasures thatbestconveytheeffectivenessandefficiencyofthisfunctionorprogram. InFY2012,theAPSInHomeaveragedailycaseloadwas29.6,with540caseworkerscompleting 87,487investigations,validatingabuse,neglect,orfinancialexploitationin59,595cases,and providingservicesin46,083cases.InFacilityInvestigations,121caseworkerscompleted10,803 investigationsandconfirmed1,259casesofabuse,neglect,orfinancialexploitation. MonthlyReports In addition to the required LBB performance measures, executive management receives and reviews a monthly highlevel report that provides information for both InHome and Facility Investigations,includingthefollowingmeasures. AdditionalAPSPerformanceMeasures ProgramArea Measure InHome AveragenumberofInHomeintakesassignedforinvestigationper month InHome AveragedailycaseloadofAPScaseworkers InHome MonthlyaveragenumberofcompletedInHomeinvestigations InHome PercentageofInHomeinitialfacetofacecontactscompletedon time InHome PercentageofinvestigationstandardsmetduringQuality AssuranceCaseAnalysis InHome PercentageofclientoutcomestandardsmetduringQuality AssuranceCaseAnalysis InHome Averagenumberofdaysthatinvestigationstagesremainopen InHome Percentageofinvestigationstagesprogressedtoservicedelivery InHome Averagenumberofdaysthatservicestagesremainopen InHome Percentageofinvestigationandservicedeliverycontactsthatare documentedtimely(caseinitiation,initialfacetoface,and monthlystatuscontacts) InHome MonthlyaveragenumberoffilledAPSInHomecaseworkerFTEs Facility Averagenumberoffacilityintakesassignedpermonth Facility Averagedailycaseloads Facility Percentageofinitialfacetofacecontactscompletedtimely Facility Monthlyaveragenumberofcompletedinvestigations Facility Percentageoffacilityinvestigationscompletedtimely(excludes investigationshavingextensions) Facility Percentageofstatesupportedlivingcenterinvestigations completedwithin10Days(notincludingextensionrequests) Facility Percentageofcontactsdocumentedtimely
VII.GuidetoAgencyPrograms AdultProtectiveServices 139 DFPS
ProgramArea Facility InHomeandFacility InHomeandFacility
AdditionalAPSPerformanceMeasures Measure MonthlyaveragenumberoffilledAPSfacilitycaseworkerFTEs APScaseworkervacancies(InHomeandFacility) APSworkerannualizedturnoverrate
CaseReadingandQualityAnalysis APS assesses casework quality through case reading and ad hoc quality analysis. Through this process, APS quality assurance analysts select a sampling of cases to review whether caseworkers followed DFPS policy and verify appropriate case outcomes. A comprehensive reporting system and database provides management with timely performance updates on caseworkqualityandenablesthecentralofficetoreviewqualityofworkstatewide. RegionalReviews In addition, APS conducts two regional reviews each year in coordination with the DFPS Center for Policy, Innovation, and Program Coordination, focusing on program effectiveness and efficiency. CommunitySatisfactionSurvey DFPS conducts a community satisfaction survey every two years for feedback on APSs performance. In 2011, DFPS sent the survey to 2,477 APS stakeholders, including 400 judiciary members, 552 law enforcement agents, 1,282 community organizations, and 243 APS community board members. The Community Satisfaction Survey Results Reports are available forreviewonlineat: http://www.dfps.state.tx.us/Adult_Protection/About_Adult_Protective_Services/survey.asp
Source:2011CommunitySatisfactionSurveyResultsReport
D. Describe any important history regarding this program not included in the general agency history section, including how the services or functions have changed from the originalintent. The APS program began in Texas in the mid1970s when amendments to the Title XX (Social Services Block Grants) portion of the Social Security Act required that states using these funds assure protection of children, persons age 65 or older, and adults with disabilities from abuse andneglect,andfinancialexploitation.In1981,theLegislaturepassedHumanResourcesCode, Chapter 48 (HRC 48), establishing the states authority and responsibility for protecting vulnerable adults age 65 and older from maltreatment. Lawmakers amended Chapter 48 in 1983toextendprotectiontoyoungeradults(age18to64)whohavedisabilities. The APS program has experienced many changes to its mandate since 1983. Below is a descriptionofsomeoftherecentchangesthataffectthewaytheprogramoperates.
140
DFPS
BusinessPlan APSstartedaformalannualbusinessplanprocesswiththegoalofcontinuingtoimprove servicestotheAPSclientpopulation.Recentbusinessplanprojectsinclude: qualityassuranceandperformancemanagementchanges; evaluationofandadjustmentstosupervisorconsults; evaluationofandchangestotheAPStrainingmodel;and developmentofnewassessmenttoolsfortheInHomeprogram.
InHome AsYouGoDocumentation In recent years APS has made other efforts to enhance its effectiveness and efficiency, such as the As You Go Initiative. The As You Go Initiative grew out of recommendations from APS CaseManagementEfficiencyWorkgroupinFY2008.Thegoalwastoimprovethemanagement of APS documentation, including more efficient and effective use of mobile technology, and to provide tools for supervisors to support and encourage more efficient methods. DFPS developedandlaunchedatrainingprogramtoteachworkershowtomaximizethepotentialof tablet PCs and more efficiently manage workloads. DFPS trained caseworkers to document their cases on their tablet PCs in real time, which improves the timeliness of documentation andthequalityoftheinformationgathered.Italsoallowsworkerstospendmoretimeworking directlywithclients.Thestandardfortimelydocumentation,formerly14days,waschangedto oneday.InFY2012,88.6percentofInHomecasedocumentationwasbeingcompletedwithin one day, and 91.1 percent of facility investigations documentation was completed within one day. DefiningAbuse,Neglect,andFinancialExploitation In2011,the82ndLegislaturepassedS.B.221.ItgavetheHHSCExecutiveCommissioner authoritytodefineabuse,neglect,andfinancialexploitationfortheInHomeprograminrule ratherthanlaw.APSaskedforthisauthorityfortworeasons.First,APSwantedtotargetIn Homeservicestothepeoplewhoneededthemthemostandreduceduplicationwithother communityserviceproviders(suchasfirstresponders).Second,APSwantedtoholdpaid caretakerstoahigherstandardofdutythanunpaidcaretakers.APSdevelopedtherule changeswithstakeholderinputandHHSCadoptedthemonSeptember1,2012.APSworked withcommunitypartnerstocarefullyputthechangesintoeffectandhascarefullyassessedand monitoredtheaffect. Facility The 81st and 83rd Legislatures passed several bills that directly affected the APS Facility Investigationsprogram. SSLC Investigations S.B. 643 (81st Legislature) This bill focused primarily on the programs overseen by the Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS) for persons with intellectual disabilities. A significant portion of the bill dealt with abuse, neglect, and financial
exploitation investigations in statesupported living centers (SSLCs) and the Rio Grande State Center. The bill established an independent ombudsman for SSLCs. It formalized the role of the HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) in abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation investigations that rise to the criminal level and it transferred the responsibility for investigations in privately operated ICF/IID to DFPS beginning in June 2010. It required an interagency memorandum of understanding among the Health and Human Services Commissioner,DFPS,DADS,HHSOIG,OfficeofIndependentOmbudsman,andtheDepartment of State Health Services (DSHS) regarding abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation investigations. It also required a combined database of DADS regulatory data and APS investigation data for SSLCs, privately operated ICF/IID, ICF/IID operated through community MH/MR centers, and HCS settings (that are not adult foster care programs), which would be maintainedbyDADS. DOJ Settlement S.C.R. 77 (81st Legislature) This resolution formalized the settlement between the State of Texas and the U.S. Department of Justice regarding the protection of residents of SSLCs from abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation. The agreement specified threemajorchangestoAPSfacilityinvestigations: 10Day SSLC investigations All SSLC investigations were required to be completed within 10 days, rather than the previous 14 and 21day timeframes. APS successfully began 10 dayinvestigationsinJune2010. Supervisor review of all facility investigations Supervisors were required to review and approveallfacilityinvestigationsinSSLCsandRioGrandeStateCenterbeforeclosingcases. APSimplementedthisinallfacilityinvestigationsinJune2010. PriorHistoryReviewAPSwasrequiredtoreviewthepastcasehistoryoftheallegedvictim and alleged perpetrator in an APS investigation. APS began reviewing and recording past casehistoryinthecasefilesinJune2010.
Employee Misconduct Registry Changes S.B. 806 (81st Legislature) This bill made State employees working in SSLCs, state centers, state hospitals, and community centers who are confirmedasperpetratorsofseriousabuse,neglect,orfinancialexploitationsubjecttolistingin the Employee Misconduct Registry (EMR). This would bar them from direct care employment for life. APS investigators, effective September 2010, began referring designated perpetrators to the registry as they were already doing in home and communitybased services cases. DFPS Legal Services works together with HHSC to process the EMR appeal cases in conjunction with thecurrentstateemployeegrievancehearingprocess. APS continues to work with DADS and DSHS to improve the quality of investigations. APS is committed to continuing and expanding its efforts to improve the quality of facility investigations. While APS received resources to implement the legislatively mandated changes, APS continues to examine and monitor workload to determine whether the resources are sufficient to
successfully implement the changes. APS is concerned that the cumulative effect of the changes fundamentally altered program dynamics in a way that has only become clear over time. Discussions with APS field staff, key stakeholders, and internal reviews and appeals provide anecdotal information that the program is struggling to find a balance between timeliness and quality. The DOJ requirements, particularly 10day investigations, combined with the addition of processes (like review of video evidence) and increased numbers of cases involving EMR referrals (which are usually more involved investigations) and increased investigations in community settings, have created workload stress for APS Facility employees. The program continues to be concerned that investigators may shortcut some investigations. APSisworkingwithDFPSOfficeofFinancetoconductatimemanagementstudyofactivitiesin theprogramtoseeifbetterindicatorsofworkloadcanbedeveloped. State Hospitals Investigations S.B. 152 (83rd Legislature) This bill was filed as a result of the findingsinanHHSCInteragencyFacilityWorkgroup.Itexpandsprotectionsforpatientsatstate hospitals by increasing oversight, improving employee training (including specialized training), and strengthening abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation reporting requirements. It authorizestheOfficeofInspectorGeneral(OIG)toinvestigatecriminaloffenses.Italsopermits federal background checks based on risk assessments, and requires professional boards to reportsuspectedallegationsofabuse,neglect,andfinancialexploitation. Facility Investigations are managedthrough the regional DFPS structure. This structure creates accountability at the local level, but creates challenges for ensuring consistency in investigations.Toaddressthesechallenges,APS: created a Program Improvement Committee consisting of staff from all levels of the Facility programandfromallregions; institutedquarterlyFacilitysupervisormeetings; worked on additional ways to enhance communication about casework decisions and to provideconsultationoncomplexcases;and initiatedrevisionofqualityassurancestandardstofocusmoreonqualityofinvestigations.
E. Describe who or what this program or function affects. List any qualifications or eligibilityrequirementsforpersonsorentitiesaffected.Provideastatisticalbreakdown ofpersonsorentitiesaffected. InHome APS InHome program clients areadults age 65and older or who have a disability and reside in the community. The population base served by APS is growing significantly. Based on the Texas State Data Centers estimates for 2012, Texans who are aged 65 or older or who are adults with a disability made up about 17.2 percent of the states population. In 2012, there weremorethan2.8millionTexans65yearsofageorolderandnearly1.7millionTexanswitha
143
DFPS
disability between 18 and 64 years old. Many of these individuals live alone and depend on othersforcare. Chapter48oftheTexasHumanResourcesCodeauthorizesAPStoinvestigatereportsofabuse, neglect, and financial exploitation of persons age 65 and older, and adults with disabilities. Validated victims of abuse, neglect, or financial exploitation are eligible for services to alleviate themaltreatment. In2012,APScompleted87,487InHomeinvestigations.Ofthose,APSvalidated59,595casesof abuse, neglect, or financial exploitation. 49.8 percent of these validated victims were adults with disabilities and 50.2 percent were adults age 65 or older. For all cases, 60.5 percent were womenand39.4percentweremenandethnicgroupswererepresentedasfollows: 51.0percentAnglo, 22.9percentAfricanAmerican, 22.7percentHispanic, 0.2percentNativeAmerican, 0.6percentAsian,and 2.6percentwerelistedasOther
Facility Chapter 48 of the Texas Human Resources Code and Chapter 261 of the Texas Family Code authorizes APS to investigate reports of abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation of persons age 65 and older, adults with disabilities, and persons receiving mental health or intellectual disabilities services from a State Supported Living Center, State Hospital, community center, statecenter,orHomeandCommunitybasedServicesandTexasHomeLivingwaiverprograms. InFY2012,APScompleted10,803FacilityInvestigations:2,693wereinstatehospitals,3,724in state supported living centers, 179 in Rio Grande state center, 1,048 in privately operated ICF/IID,2,623inHomeandCommunitybasedServicesandTexasHomeLivingwaiverprograms, and536incommunitycenters.

F. Describe how your program or function is administered. Include flowcharts, timelines, or other illustrations as necessary to describe agency policies and procedures. Indicate howfield/regionalservicesareused,ifapplicable. APS is administered through two major functional areas: Field Operations and Performance and Policy Development, a central office support program for both APS Inhome and Facility Investigationcases.
144
DFPS
APSFieldOperations APSisadministeredinelevenregionsthroughnineregionaloffices.Nineregionaldirectorsand 18 program administrators supervise field staff. The regional program administrators manage supervisors. InHome The APS InHome program protects the unprotected through a statewide investigation and servicedeliverysystem.Thedivisionemployedmorethan540caseworkersand85supervisors in FY 2012. Caseworkers investigate reports of abuse, neglect, or financial exploitation and coordinatesupportserviceswithinthecommunitytoalleviateorpreventfurthermaltreatment. APS may provide or arrange for emergency services to alleviate abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation. This includes shortterm assistance with shelter, food, medication, health services,heavycleaning,financialassistanceforrentandtorestoreutilities,transportation,and minor home repair. APS also refers clients to other social or community services, and APS refers cases that may require guardianship services to the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services or local guardianship programs (Houston/Galveston). Individuals with the capacitytodosomayrefuseAPSservicesbuttheymaynotrefuseaninvestigation. TheflowchartshownonthenextpageisahighlevelInHomecasediagram,whichisauseful referencebutdoesnotshowalldetailsoftheflowofanInHomecase.
145
DFPS
APS InHome program supervisors consult with caseworkers at specific points during the investigationanddeliveryofservices.Supervisorsreviewandapproveallcasesbeforeclosure. APS has specialized staff in each region that have expertise in financial exploitation and self neglect cases. These experts provide a critical resource for staff in gathering key evidence that may lead to legal action and in addressing complex medical and social factors to ensure the safetyofclients.Staffspecializingincommunityengagementincreasecommunitypartnerships and collaborations with service providers, law enforcement agencies, the judicial community, civic organizations, and volunteers. These staff members interact with the community on a daily basis and foster an environment of positive relationships between the community and all APSstaff. Facility The APS Facility Investigations program included more than 121 caseworkers and 22 supervisors in FY 2012. Facility Investigations staff in the regions investigate abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation of clients receiving services in state operated or contracted settings andprogramsthatserveadultsandchildrenwithmentalillnessorintellectualdisabilities.
ThefollowingflowchartisahighlevelFacilityinvestigationdiagram,whichisausefulreference butdoesnotshowalldetailsoftheflowofaFacilityinvestigation.
APS Facility Investigations supervisors direct investigative teams, mentor investigators, and approve all investigations before they are closed. Each region has subject matter experts in evidencedriven investigation, and in the investigation of risk and exploitation. While these staffprimarilyfocusonInHomeinvestigations,theyareavailabletoassistwithcomplexFacility investigations.
APSStateOffice Headquarters provides professional expertise, program support, policy and performance management, strategic planning, and management of field operations. The State Office supports field services through these main divisions: Performance and Policy Development Division,theFieldOperationsDivision,andtheProgramSupportunit. ThePerformanceandPolicyDevelopmentDivisionisresponsiblefor: developing, interpreting, and maintaining policy handbooks for InHome and Facility investigations; conductingpolicytrainingandstaffdevelopmentactivities; providingcasereadingandqualityassuranceanalysis; conductingreviewsandappealsofFacilitycases;and
providingcaseconsultationtofieldstaffonpolicyissues. FieldOperations: providesoverallstatewidemanagementofregionalactivities; coordinatesregionalstrategicplanningefforts; facilitatescommunicationwithnineregionaloffices; assistswiththepurchaseofdirectservicesforAPSclients; managesandcoordinatesgrantstotheDepartment;and
coordinatescommunityengagementactivities. TheProgramSupportunit: providessupportinlegislativeeffortsandresponsetoexternalrequests; managesprojectsandconductsresearchactivities; coordinatesprofessionaldevelopmentandtrainingopportunitiesfortheprogram; providessupportinreportsanddataanalysisbasedontheclientcasemanagementsystem; and leadsdevelopmentofAPScontentinagencypublications.
148 DFPS
H. Identify any programs, internal or external to your agency, that provide identical or similar services or functions to the target population. Describe the similarities and differences. The APS program conducts investigations of abuse, neglect, and exploitation for defined target populations, described below, in the InHome and Facility Investigations programs. APS may alsoprovideorarrangeservicesinInhomecases. FacilityInvestigations The APS Facility Investigations program investigates reports of abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation of clients receiving services in state operated and/or contracted programs that serve adults and children with mental illness or intellectual disabilities. Although other programs provide investigations, there are no other programs at the state or local level that providethesamefunctionasAPS. The APS Facility Investigations program reports allegations of abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation that may constitute a criminal offense to local law enforcement. APS also notifies and coordinates investigations in State Supported Living Centers (operated by DADS) with the HealthandHumanServicesOfficeofInspectorGeneral(OIG)whenabuse,neglect,andfinancial exploitation allegations are possibly criminal in nature. APS works in tandem with local law enforcementandtheOIG. The Office of the Attorney General (OAG) protects senior Texans and other healthcare service consumersfromabuse,neglect,andfinancialexploitationbypursuingcivilactionsagainstlong termcarefacilitiesandinvestigatingincidentsforcriminalprosecution.TheAttorneyGenerals Consumer Protection and Public Health Division takes civil legal action to ensure quality treatmentinnursinghomes,assistedlivingfacilities,andhomehealthagencies. The federal ICF/IID program requires investigation of all serious incidents. Serious incidents can include abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation. The provider investigates incidents not investigatedbyAPS.ICF/IIDproviders(bothstateandprivatelyoperated)usetheresultsofthe APS investigation to meet federal requirements as well as any additional internal investigation or review of the incident investigated by APS. DADS regulatory staff oversees compliance with thefederalrequirements. InHomeInvestigations TheAPSInHomeprogramperformstwomajorfunctions:investigatingallegationsofabuseand providing or arranging for services. Other state agencies or programs also investigate allegations,althoughnotforthesamepopulation. DADS has the responsibility to investigate activities in assisted living, adult foster care facilities with four or more residents, and nursing homes. When APS discovers boarding homes
providing services that appear to meet the definition of an assisted living facility, APS makes a referral to DADS regulatory for investigation of the licensure status. APS InHome investigates allegationsoffinancialexploitationinvolvingvulnerableadultslivinginnursinghomeswhomay be financially exploited by someone outside the facility who has an ongoing relationship with theclient. InHomeServiceDelivery The service delivery function performed by APS InHome caseworkers often involves clients of area agencies on aging, local MHMR authorities, domestic violence programs, and other community organizations. These programs, however, are not providing protective services. As described in the following section,APS refersclients to or coordinates with these organizations to connect or reconnect them to address the root cause of abuse, neglect, or exploitation, while providing service necessary for their immediate health, safety, and protection. APS communicates and coordinates with these organizations to avoid duplication or conflict wheneverpossible. Senate Bill 6 (79th Legislature) transferred the Guardianship program from DFPS to DADS. APS refers victims of abuse, neglect, or exploitation to DADS for guardianship services when the client appears to lack the capacity to consent to services, there is no other potential guardian available, and guardianship is the least restrictive alternative that will ensure the clients safety and wellbeing. Guardianship is a legal decision that establishes a relationship between a person who can no longer make effective decisions for themselves (ward) and a person or entitynamedbythecourt(guardian)toassistthewardbymakingdecisionsfortheward.
I. Discusshowtheprogramorfunctioniscoordinatingitsactivitiestoavoidduplicationor conflict with the other programs listed in Question H and with the agencys customers. If applicable, briefly discuss any memorandums of understanding (MOUs), interagency agreements,orinteragencycontracts.
DFPS has established several memorandum of understanding to avoid duplication and conflict with programs conducting similar investigations or providing similar service, and coordinates servicesinthebestinterestsofclients. FacilityInvestigations To reduce duplication, APS maintains MOUs with HHSC OIG, DADS, DSHS, and the Office of IndependentOmbudsmantodefinerolesandresponsibilitiesinfacilitiesoperatedbyDADSand DSHS. To reduce duplication, APS has MOUs with DADS and the OAG, clarifying roles and responsibilitiesininvestigationsinvolvingMedicaidfraud,wasteandabuseinvestigations. Forpotentiallyoverlappingabuse,neglect,orexploitationandseriousincidentinvestigationsin State Supported Living Centers and privately operated ICF/IIDs, in general, incident management staff let APS staff take the lead on serious incidents involving ANE and then usually rely on the APS investigation to comply with federal requirements. If the facility
disagrees with the APS abuse, neglect, or exploitation finding, it may investigate the abuse, neglect, or exploitation aspect of the incident further. It will also investigate the nonabuse, neglect,orexploitationaspectsoftheincident. APS coordinates a meeting every quarter with staff from DADS, DSHS, and Disability Rights Texas to discuss policy and operational issues in the Facility Investigations program. Disability Rights Texas is the federally designated legal protection and advocacy agency for people with disabilitiesinTexas.APScommunicatesonanasneededbasiswithstafffrombothagenciesto address issues. APS works closely with DADS and DSHS on communication and training issues forcontractedproviders. InhomeServiceDelivery Toavoidduplicationandconflicts,APScommunityengagementstaffworkcloselywithavariety of other service organizations and agencies such as local MHMR authorities, domestic violence shelters, hospital social work and discharge planning departments, and area agencies on aging to build sound working relationships, clarify mutual roles and responsibilities, and address conflicts. At the state level APS participates with CPS, HHSC, and the Texas Council on Family Violence on an interagency steering committee to address concerns related to domestic violence against CPS and APS clients. DFPS maintains and periodically renews MOUs with domestic violence shelters. APS staff members participate at the state and local level in numerous regional or local groups when current or potential APS clients have needs that require coordination across multiple organizations. Examples include APS Special Task Units, HHSC Community Resource Coordinating Groups for Adults, the HHSC Colonias Initiative, and MoneyFollowsthePersonsmeetings,amongothers. TheorganizationthatmostcloselymirrorstheAPSservicedeliveryfunctionisareaagencieson aging.APSandareaagenciesmakereferralstoeachotherbasedonabilitytomeetclientneeds inaspecificcaseand,onoccasion,willworktogethertodevelopanddeliveraserviceplanfora client.
DFPS and DADS have a MOU outlining the coordination of policies and procedures, clarifying operational issues, and the formation of a joint workgroup to continue discussing policy and procedural concerns affecting the referral of clients, assessment processes, and the delivery of guardianship services. Representatives from both agencies served on a joint committee set up to ensure services were coordinated to effectively serve and protect clients. The MOU establishes a joint staffing and appeal process for cases in which DFPS makes a referral for guardianshipbutDADSdoesnotagreeaguardianshipisneeded.

J. If the program or function works with local, regional, or federal units of government, includeabriefdescriptionoftheseentitiesandtheirrelationshiptotheagency. The APS program does not have a federal partner. As part of healthcare reform, Congress passed the Elder Justice Act but has yet to appropriate funds for implementation. Until the
Elder Justice Act is implemented, there is no direct federal involvement in the APS program. APSstaffmembershaveproactivelyworkedwiththefederalGovernmentAccountabilityOffice ontheplanningforimplementationoftheElderJusticeAct. The APS program works with regional quasi units of government to coordinate services for clients with multiple needs as described in Question I. Regional governments include local MHMRauthoritiesandtheCouncilsofGovernmentsthatarehometoareaagenciesonaging. The APS program coordinates services with many parts of local governments for services for clients, ranging from housing authorities to health and human services departments. APS may make referrals to various regulatory functions of local governments if it discovers code violations during the course of an investigation. APS works closely with many local law enforcement jurisdictions, coordinating investigations as appropriate. Finally, APS works with local probate and other courts when seeking an emergency order for protective services or othernecessarylegalactiontoprotectclients. Chapter 48 of the Texas Human Resources Code instructs APS to conduct a community satisfaction survey of members of the judiciary, law enforcement agencies, community resource groups, and APS community boards to solicit feedback on APS performance in their communities.
K. Ifcontractedexpendituresaremadethroughthisprogrampleaseprovide: ashortsummaryofthegeneralpurposeofthosecontractsoverall; theamountofthoseexpendituresinFY2012; thenumberofcontractsaccountingforthoseexpenditures; topfivecontractsbydollaramount,includingcontractorandpurpose; themethodsusedtoensureaccountabilityforfundingandperformance;and ashortdescriptionofanycurrentcontractingproblems. InHome In coordination with the DFPS Contract Oversight and Support (COS) and the Procurement Divisions, APS identified 22 core services. Some of the services procured to date include: money management/representative payee, mental and medical health assessments, heavy cleaning, mental health services (counseling), claims processing, and ongoing services support. Another service procured is nursing facility care in which APS utilizes provider enrollment to contractwithlicensednursinghomesthattakeMedicaidpatients. APS services are clientspecific and varied. Due to the very targeted nature of the APS purchased services, it is often difficult to procure and contract for services, and this problem results in a need to use procurement cards or claims processing for multiple small purchases within a region. APS continues to make efforts to procure and contract for services where feasible.
In FY 2012, APS had 350 clientservices contracts that expended $2,684,578.03. The table below contains information about the top five contracts by dollar amount, includingcontractor andpurpose. HighestValueAPSClientServicesContractsFiscalYear2012 Legal Contract TotalContract Contract Contractor Purpose End Value* BeginDate Name Date (asof6/17/2013) Texas PersonalAssistanceCare(APS) 9/1/2010 8/31/2014 $244,503.46 Visiting Regular,nonskilled,non Nurse technicalserviceprovidedina ServiceInc. clientshomebyalicensed homeandcommunitysupport servicesagency.Tasks performedfortheclientmay involvebasictasks,which includepersonalcare, housekeeping,meal preparation,andother activitiesofdailyliving;high riskclientsmayalsoneed assistancewithtransferring intooroutofbed,chair,or toilet,eating,gettingtoor usingthetoilet,takingself administeredmedication, preparingameal,etc. Additionally,ifthecaseworker determinesthatthereisahigh likelihoodthattheclients health,safety,orwellbeing wouldbejeopardizedifthe serviceswerenotprovidedon asinglegivenshift,andifno oneelsecanbeidentifiedby thecaseworkerasbeing capableorwillingtoprovide theneededassistance, servicesforhighriskclients mayberequiredoutside normalworkhours. U.T.Health MedicalandMentalHealth 9/1/2009 8/31/2014 $198,000.00
HighestValueAPSClientServicesContractsFiscalYear2012 Legal Contract TotalContract Contract Contractor Purpose End Value* BeginDate Name Date (asof6/17/2013) Science AssessmentsContracted Centerat homeorofficevisitsbya S.A. physician,psychiatrist, registerednurse,orother healthprofessionalto evaluateaclientscapacityto consent,mentalhealth condition,andneedfor treatment.Mayalsoinclude homeand/orofficevisitsbya psychologisttoevaluatethe clientsmentalstatusand competency.Theservicemust includeprovisionofawritten assessment,consultationto thecaseworker,andcourt testimony. BioKlenz HeavyCleaning(APS) 5/5/2012 8/31/2013 $190,000.00 LLC Restorationofasafeliving environmentbyclearingtrash, debris,accumulatedgrime, insects,rodents,animalfeces, anddeadanimalsfrominside oroutsideaclientshome. Doesnotincludenormal housekeepingorhome maintenanceservices. Ignacio MedicalandMentalHealth 11/1/2008 5/31/2013 $185,000.00 Valdez AssessmentsContracted homeorofficevisitsbya physician,psychiatrist, registerednurse,orother healthprofessionalto evaluateaclientscapacityto consent,mentalhealth condition,andneedfor treatment.Mayalsoinclude homeand/orofficevisitsbya psychologisttoevaluatethe
HighestValueAPSClientServicesContractsFiscalYear2012 Legal Contract TotalContract Contract Contractor Purpose End Value* BeginDate Name Date (asof6/17/2013) clientsmentalstatusand competency.Theservicemust includeprovisionofawritten assessment,consultationto thecaseworker,andcourt testimony. U.T.Health MedicalandMentalHealth 9/1/2007 8/31/2012 $175,697.00 Science AssessmentsContracted Centerat homeorofficevisitsbya Houston physician,psychiatrist, registerednurse,orother healthprofessionalto evaluateaclientscapacityto consent,mentalhealth condition,andneedfor treatment.Mayalsoinclude homeand/orofficevisitsbya psychologisttoevaluatethe clientsmentalstatusand competency.Theservicemust includeprovisionofawritten assessment,consultationto thecaseworker,andcourt testimony.
*TheTotalContractValueisbasedoneithertheMaximumContractBudgetAmountforthefullcontractterm or,forcontractswithoutaspecifiedbudget,theTotalExpendituresacrossthelifeofthecontract(FY2006 forward).
DFPS contract staff monitors contractor performance based on risk and document monitoring activity in the Statewide Monitoring Plan. Contract monitoring may include onsite visits, desk reviews, and billing reviews. Fiscal monitoring includes a review of the contractors financial operations, which may include a review of internal controls for program funds in accordance with state and federal requirements, an examination of principles, laws and regulations, and a determination of whether costs are reasonable and necessary to achieve program objectives. Programmatic monitoring includes a review of a contractors service delivery system to determine if it is consistent with contract requirements, including the quality and effectiveness ofprograms.
155
DFPS
Facility Unlike APS InHome, the APS Facility Investigations program area only conducts investigations, anddoesnotprovideservicestoclients.Asaresult,theFacilityInvestigationprogramdoesnot contractoutfunctionsorservices.
L. Provideinformationonanygrantsawardedbytheprogram. APSdoesnotawardgrants.

M.What statutory changes could be made to assist this program in performing its functions?Explain. ProvisionofAPSServicesBasedonClientRiskofFutureHarm.APSisintheprocessofdesigning newassessmenttoolsforInhomecases.Section48.002(5),HumanResourcesCode,allows APStoprovideprotectiveservicestovictimsofabuse,neglectandexploitationandtheir caretakersonlyafteravalidfindingismadeinaninvestigation.APSwouldlikethestatutory authoritytoprovideservicestotheseindividualsbasedontheallegedvictimssafetyneedsand riskofrecidivismregardlessofwhetherafindingismadeinaparticularinvestigation.For additionaldiscussion,seeSectionIXMajorIssue#5. FunctionsandPurposeofAPSSpecialTaskUnits.Section48.1521,HumanResourcesCode, requirestheestablishmentofSpecialTaskUnits(STUs)incountieswithapopulationof250,000 ormoretomonitortheinvestigationofcomplexAPScases.Thestatutespecifiesthe membershipforthesegroupsandtasksthecountieswithappointingSTUmembers;however, manycountieshavebeenunabletoenlisttheparticipationofthestatutorilymandated members.Moreover,sincetheenactmentofSection48.1521in2005,APShassignificantly increaseditsuseofadhocmultidisciplinaryteamstoaddresscomplexcases,themembership ofwhicharetailoredtothelocationandissuespresentedintheparticularcase.Thelegislature maywishtoexaminethecontinuedviabilityandeffectivenessoftheSTUsandmakestatutory changes,asneeded,torepealtheseprovisions,limitthemtomorepopulouscounties,orallow alternativemechanismsofaccomplishingthesamegoals.
ClarifyJurisdictioninAPSInvestigations.TheAPSFacilityprogramwasinitiallyestablishedto provideindependentinvestigationsofabuse,neglect,orexploitationinstatefacilitiesoperated bythelegacyTDMHMR.AsTDMHMRsservicesexpandedbeyondthestaterunfacilities,the Facilityprogramsinvestigativescopeexpandedtoincludeprovidersofservicesinthe community.However,asthecommunitybasedsystemofservicesforpersonswithintellectual anddevelopmentaldisabilities(IDD)hasevolved,theauthorizinglanguagefortheAPSFacility programhasnot.Asaresult,therearenowprovidersofservicestoindividualswithIDDsuch asthroughtheConsumerDirectedServicesmodeloperatedbytheDepartmentofAgingand DisabilityServices,amongothersthatareinvestigatedbytheAPSInHomeprograminstead oftheFacilityprogram.AmendmentstoChapter48,HumanResourcesCode,areneededto
ensureauniformsystemforinvestigationofabuse,neglect,andexploitationacrosssimilar settingsandprograms.Foradditionaldiscussion,seeSectionII,SubsectionG,Obstacles. UpFrontDueProcessforAPSinvestigations.Tobetterensurethesafetyofvulnerableadults andtobetterprotectthedueprocessrightsofpersonsfoundtohavecommittedabuse, neglect,orexploitationofanadult,amendmentscouldbemadetoChapter48,Human ResourceCode,torequirethatperpetratorsbeofferedadueprocesshearingatthetimethe findingismade.Foradditionaldiscussion,seeSectionII,SubsectionG,Obstacles.
N. Provide any additional information needed to gain a preliminary understanding of the programorfunction. Foradditionalprograminformation,pleasevisittheAPSwebsite: http://www.dfps.state.tx.us/Adult_Protection/About_Adult_Protective_Services/
O. Regulatoryprogramsrelatetothelicensing,registration,certification,orpermittingofa person,business,orotherentity.Foreachregulatoryprogram,ifapplicable,describe: whytheregulationisneeded; thescopeof,andproceduresfor,inspectionsorauditsofregulatedentities; followupactivitiesconductedwhennoncomplianceisidentified; sanctionsavailabletotheagencytoensurecompliance;and proceduresforhandlingconsumer/publiccomplaintsagainstregulatedentities. APSInHomeandFacilityInvestigationsprogramsarenotregulatoryprograms.
P. For each regulatory program, if applicable, provide the following complaint information. The chart headings may be changed if needed to better reflect your agencyspractices. APS InHome and Facility Investigations programs are not regulatory programs. While APS Facility investigations are not a regulatory program, they contribute to state compliance with federal regulatory requirements for ICF/IID providers. The Department of Aging and Disability Servicesregulatestheseproviders.
157
DFPS
VII. GUIDETOAGENCYPROGRAMSCONTINUED CHILDCARELICENSING
A. Providethefollowinginformationatthebeginningofeachprogramdescription. NameofProgramorFunction Location/Division ContactName ActualExpenditures,FY2012 NumberofActualFTEsasofJune1,2013 StatutoryCitationforProgram

ChildCareLicensing 701West51stStreet,Austin,Texas/ ChildCareLicensing PaulMorris,InterimAssistantCommissioner DayCareLicensing$19,240,991 ResidentialChildCareLicensing$9,642,694 DayCareFTEs363.3 RCCLFTEs173.0 Chapters40,42,and43HumanResourcesCode
B. What is the objective of this program or function? Describe the major activities performedunderthisprogram. Child Care Licensing (CCL) program protects the health, safety, and wellbeing of children, ages birth through 17 years of age, who attend daycare or reside in residential childcare operations. CCLconsistsoftwoprogramareas:DayCareLicensingandResidentialChildCareLicensing. Majorprogramactivitiesincludethefollowing: developing minimum standards which daycare and residential childcare operations must comply with in order to promote the health, safety, and wellbeing of children in outof homecare; inspecting daycare and residential childcare operations to ensure compliance with minimumstandards; investigating allegations of violations of minimum standards or licensing law to assess if childcareoperationsareincompliance; investigating allegations of abuse and neglect in daycare and residential childcare operations;and ensuringappropriateenforcementactionistaken.
To oversee outofhome daycare and residential childcare, CCL responsibilities and activities include,butarenotlimitedtothefollowingactivities.
VII.GuidetoAgencyPrograms ChildCareLicensing
158
DFPS
Regulating childcare through the development and monitoring of statewide rules and minimum standards to regulate daycare and residential childcare operations. Minimum standards are the baselevel health and safety requirements below which no regulated operationsshouldfall. Processingapplicationsandissuingpermitstooperationsthatmeetminimumstandards. Inspecting daycare and residential childcare operations for compliance with minimum standards. Investigating complaints alleging violations of minimum standards and reports of abuse or neglectindaycareandresidentialchildcareoperations. Ensuring criminal background checks (both FBI if applicable and DPS) and DFPS abuse and neglect Central Registry checks are conducted on all owners, directors and employees of daycare and residential childcare operations prior to permit issuance and every two years thereafter. These checks are also performed on anyone 14 years old or older who will regularlybepresentatanoperationwhilechildrenareincare. Educating parents and other caregivers on how to choose daycare through publications, public service campaigns, and by providing the specific compliance histories of daycare and residential childcare operations through the DFPS web site: www.txchildcaresearch.org and atollfreeinformationline:18008625252. Providing technical assistance to daycare and residential childcare operations to help them complywithminimumstandards. Licensing childcare administrators and child placing agency administrators who manage the differenttypesofresidentialchildcareoperations. Takingremedialactionsagainstdaycareandresidentialchildcareoperationsasnecessary.
DayCareLicensing TheDayCareLicensing(DCL)programisresponsibleforprotectingthehealth,safety,andwell beingofchildrenfrombirththrough13yearsofagewhoattendchildcarecentersandchildcare homesforpartofthe24hourday.Thisprogramregulatesoperationsthatcareforchildrenon adailybasiswhiletheirparentsareworking,goingtoschool,etc. In FY 2012, approximately 5.5 million children, from birth through 13 years of age, lived in Texas. Many of these children were in the care of a daycare provider on a regular basis for a substantial part of the day. The chart below provides a description of each type of setting for whichDCLhasstatutoryoversight. DCL is responsible for regulating 9,601 licensed childcare centers (which includes before and afterschool programs and schoolage programs), 1,774 licensed childcare homes, 5,837 registered childcare homes, and 6,774 listed family homes, with a combined capacity to serve more than one million Texas children. CCL also issued a combined 4,488 new licenses, registrations,andlistingsandconducted35,755inspectionvisitsindaycareoperations.
VII.GuidetoAgencyPrograms ChildCareLicensing 159 DFPS
DaycareOperations LicensedChildcare Center DaycareOperationsandPermitType DescriptionofOperation Anoperationprovidingcareata locationotherthanthepermitholders home,forsevenormorechildren under14yearsofage,forlessthan24 hoursperday,butatleasttwohoursa day,threeormoredaysaweek.A licensedchildcarecenterisalso referredtoasadaycarecenter. TypeofPermit License. Applicantsforalicense mustcompletean orientationonregulation, clearbackgroundchecks, andhaveaDCLonsite inspectionpriortopermit issuance. DCLinspectslicensed operationsatleast annuallyormoreoftenif therearereportsof allegedabuse,neglector violationsofminimum standards. Licensedprovidershave specificminimum standardstheymust followandincreased trainingrequirements. License
LicensedChildcare Home
BeforeorAfter SchoolProgram
SchoolAgeProgram
Theprimarycaregiverprovidescarein thecaregiversownresidencefor childrenfrombirththrough13years. Thetotalnumberofchildrenincare varieswiththeagesofthechildren, butthetotalnumberofchildrenin careatanygiventime,includingthe childrenrelatedtothecaregiver,must notexceed12.Licensedchildcare homesareknowninstatuteasgroup daycarehomes. Anoperationthatprovidescare License before,and/orafterthecustomary schooldayandduringschoolholidays, foratleasttwohoursadayandthree daysaweek,tochildrenwhoattend prekindergartenthroughgradesix. Anoperationthatprovidessupervision License
160
DFPS
ListedFamilyHome
andrecreation,skillsinstruction,or skillstrainingforatleasttwohoursa dayandthreedaysaweektochildren attendingprekindergartenthrough gradesix.Aschoolageprogram operatesbeforeorafterthe customary schooldayandmayalsooperate duringschoolholidays,thesummer period,oranyothertimewhenschool isnotinsession. Acaregiveratleast18yearsoldthat providescareinherownhomefor compensation,forthreeorfewer childrenunrelatedtothecaregiver, birththrough13years,foratleastfour hoursaday,threeormoredaysa week,andmorethannineconsecutive weeks.Thetotalnumberofchildren in care,includingchildrenrelatedtothe caregiver,maynotexceed12.
RegisteredChildcare Home
Listing. Listedfamilyhome providersmustbeatleast 18yearsoldandpassa criminalbackground check. Theseprovidersdonot havetomeetminimum standardsortaketraining. WhileDCLdoesnot inspectlistedhomes,it doesinvestigate allegationsorabuse, neglect,caringfortoo manychildren,or immediaterisktoachilds healthorsafety. Theprimarycaregiverprovidescarein Registration. thecaregiversownresidencefornot Applicantsmustcomplete anorientationon morethansixchildrenfrombirth regulation,beclearedby through13years,andmayprovide backgroundchecks,and careafterschoolhoursfornotmore thansixadditionalelementaryschool haveaDCLonsite children.Thetotalnumberofchildren inspectionpriortopermit incareatanygiventime,includingthe issuance. childrenrelatedtothecaregiver,must notexceed12. Theseprovidershave fewerminimumstandards tomeetandfewer traininghoursrequired.
161 DFPS
EmployerBased Childcare
Asmallemployerprovidingcareforup to12oftheemployeeschildrenthat areunder14yearsofage,forless than24hoursperday.Thecareis locatedontheemployerspremises andinthesamebuildingwherethe parentswork.
TemporaryShelter Childcare
Achildcareprogramatatemporary shelter,suchasafamilyviolenceor homelessshelter,providingcarefor sevenormorechildrenunder14years ofagewhiletheresidentparentis awayfromtheshelter.Thechildcare programoperatesforatleastfour hoursadaythreedaysaweek.
DCLinspectsthese operationseveryoneto twoyearsandwillconduct aninvestigationifthere areallegationsofabuse, neglect,ornon compliancewithminimum standards. ComplianceCertificate. Applicantsmustcomplete anapplication,clear backgroundchecks,and passanonsiteinspection conductedbyDCL. Theseoperationsdonot havetocomplywith minimumstandardsand arenotinspectedafter receivingtheircertificate. DCLwillinvestigate allegationsofabuse, neglectorviolationof statuteoradministrative rules. ComplianceCertificate
ResidentialChildCareLicensing The Residential Child Care Licensing (RCCL) program is responsible for protecting the health, safety, and wellbeing of children birth through 17 years of age who reside in residential childcare operations. This program regulates operations responsible for the care, custody, supervision, assessment, training, education, or treatment of an unrelated child or children through 17 years of age, for 24 hours a day in a place other than the childs own home across theStateofTexas.
In FY 2012, the number of Texas children ages birth through 17 years was over seven million. Someofthesechildrenlivedinresidentialchildcareoperationsduetobeingabused,neglected, or because of other family circumstances that didnt permit the child to live in his or her own home. The chart below provides a description of each type of setting for which DCL has statutoryoversight. Texashasthecapacitytoserveover41,000childrenneedingplacementinresidentialchildcare operations regulated by RCCL. The RCCL program was responsible for regulating 237 general residential operations, 209 child placing agencies (plus 153 branch offices), and five independent foster or foster group homes. RCCL issued 41 new permits and conducted 4,736 totalinspectionvisits. ResidentialChildcareOperationsandPermittype ResidentialChildcare DescriptionofOperation TypeofPermit Operations GeneralResidential Anoperationthatprovideschildcare License.Applicantsfora Operation for13ormorechildrenuptotheage licensemustcompletean of18years.Thecaremayinclude orientationonregulation, clearbackgroundchecks, treatmentoremergencyservices. andhaveanRCCLonsite Residentialtreatmentcentersand emergencysheltersareexamplesof inspectionpriortopermit generalresidentialoperations. issuance. RCCLinspectslicensed operationsatleast annuallyormoreoftenif therearereportsof allegedabuse,neglector violationsofminimum standards. Licensedprovidershave specificminimum standardstheymust followandincreased trainingrequirements. License ChildPlacingAgency Achildplacingagencyisabusiness thatplacesorplansfortheplacement ofachildinagencyfosteroragency adoptivehomesthatarestudied, verified/approved,andmonitoredby thechildplacingagency.Achild placingagencyisresponsiblefor ensuringthatitsagencyfosterand/or
agencyadoptivehomescomplywith allapplicablelicensinglawsand minimumstandards.Childplacing agenciesmaybelicensedtoprovide anytypeofservices,except emergencycareandtherapeuticcamp services.Achildplacingagencyisthe onlyfacilitytypelicensedtoprovide adoptionservices. IndependentFosterand IndependentFosterHomesare License FosterGroupHomes independentbusinesseslicensedby RCCLthatcareforchildreninahome likesetting.Independentfoster homesmayofferchildcare,treatment, and/orprogrammaticservices,except foremergencycareandtherapeutic campservices.Theymaynotprovide adoptionservices.Mostindependent fosterhomesarestaffedbyemployees ratherthanfosterparentsthatlivein thehome.Therearetwocategoriesof fosterhomes:(1)fosterfamilyhomes thatmaycareforuptosixchildren, and(2)fostergrouphomesthatmay careforupto12children.Thereare veryfewoftheseoperationsasthe vastmajorityoffosterhomesinTexas areverifiedandmonitoredbychild placingagencies. LicensedAdministrators: Inadditiontolicensingentities,RCCLalsolicensesindividualsknownaslicensedadministrators. Licensed child placing administrators manage child placing agencies and licensed childcare administratorsmanagegeneralresidentialoperations. ChildPlacingAdministratorsandPermitType PersonLicensed DescriptionofPersonLicensed TypeofPermit LicensedChildcare Alicensedchildcareadministratorisan License. Administrator individualwhomanagesageneral Applicantsmustmeet residentialoperation. highereducation requirements,cleara backgroundcheck,passan exam,maintain15
LicensedChildPlacing AgencyAdministrator
Alicensedchildplacingagency administratorisanindividualwho managesachildplacingagency.
traininghoursannually, andrenewthelicense everytwoyears. License
C. What evidence can you provide that shows the effectiveness and efficiency of this program or function? Provide a summary of key statistics and performance measures thatbestconveytheeffectivenessandefficiencyofthisfunctionorprogram. In addition to the LBBrequired performance measures, both the DCL and RCCL programs use additionalmeasurestoreviewperformanceandprovidequalityassurance. Surveys To improve the inspection process, DCL and RCCL solicit feedback from caregivers about the most recent licensing inspection at their operation. Questions relate to the professionalism, fairness, and helpfulness of the inspector. Respondents may include general comments about the inspector or inspection process. In addition, the survey provides an outlet, other than the administrative review process, for caregivers to document any nonregulatory concerns about an inspection or investigation. Results are monitored on a monthly basis and comments about specific inspectors are shared with their managers. The survey is located on the DFPS Public Website and caregivers are provided with the web address on each inspection report and may complete the survey at their convenience after each inspection. The raw data for FY 2012 shows that, for both programs, caregivers are generally satisfied with their inspector or investigatorandthatinspectionsandinvestigationsarepositiveexperiences. Unique to RCCL and as required by statute, in addition to inspecting general residential operations, child placing agencies, and independent foster homes, RCCL inspects a random sample of foster homes affiliated with a child placing agency. The Human Resources Code directs RCCL to periodically conduct inspections of a random sample of child placing agency foster homes, and this gives RCCL the opportunity to assess the child placing agencys effective oversight of its foster homes. RCCL asks foster home caregivers to fill out a survey, which is different than the survey for all operations described above, and includes such questions as whether the inspection helped improve an understanding of minimum standards, whether the inspector was professional, and whether the provider feels the inspector assessed the foster homefairly.ForFY2012,atotalof2,470surveysweresentout.Ofthe2,470surveyssent,586 surveyswerereturnedandofthose,570reportedpositiveexperiences. StatewideReview In November 2012, the DCL and RCCL programs expanded efforts to look at program outcomes at both a regional and statewide perspective. Each month, field staff provides specific information designed to help identify trends and patterns related to the LBB measures,
performance compliance, and quality. Examples of these reports include timely initiation and completion of investigations, average time spent by staff conducting inspections, and percent of technical assistance provided. These reports are now compiled by field staff monthly with the results sent to CCL State Office staff. CCL is currently developing a process for how results from these monthly reports can be rolled up on a regular basis to allow for an ongoing, thoroughassessmentofstatewideperformancerelatedtrendsandpatterns.
D. Describe any important history regarding this program not included in the general agency history section, including how the services or functions have changed from the originalintent. 1997 With legislative approval, DCL begins listing family homes. The Legislature also approves using administrative penalties or fines as if an operation is deficient in meeting minimum standardsorviolatesadministrativerulesorstatute. 1998 DCLbeginsconductingcriminalbackgroundandCentralRegistry(abuse/neglect)historychecks on all licensed daycare staff and persons living in a registered childcare home. The new law requires namebased criminal background checks every two years and providers must pay for thecostofthenewbackgroundchecksunlessotherwiseexempted. 2003 DFPS revises several hundred minimum standards for daycare operations. The rules in the Texas Administrative Code (TAC) were written in plain language using a question and answer format. Relevant administrative codes are: TAC Chapter 746 Minimum Standards for Licensed ChildcareCentersandTACChapter747MinimumStandardsforRegisteredChildcareHomes. 2005 Senate Bill 6 adds the requirement for RCCL to license child placing agency administrators. Priortothis,onlyadministratorsofgeneralresidentialoperationswererequiredtobelicensed. 2006 Congress enacts the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, prohibiting child placingagenciesfromplacingachildinDFPSconservatorshipinafosteroradoptivehomeuntil the foster or adoptive parents and all adult (18 years old and older) residents of the home completeaFederalBureauofInvestigations(FBI)fingerprintcheck. 2007 Senate Bill 758 strengthens RCCL oversight of residential childcare operations through more thorough,objective,andspecializedmonitoringandinvestigations.
166
DFPS
RCCL completes the first major evaluation and revisions of minimum standards for residential childcareinmorethan18years. 2008 The Legislature revises the Human Resources Code to require FBI fingerprint checks, in daycare operations,foreachpersonrequiredtohaveanamebasedcheck. CCL implements its weighted enforcement system along with its mobile technology system. Each of the DFPS minimum standards were evaluated and assigned a weight (high, medium high,medium,mediumlow,orlow)basedontherisktochildren. 20092011 CCL makes significant enhancements from 2009 through 2011 through a series of initiatives. CCL invested $4,000,000 in federal economic stimulus funds to enhance highquality daycare programsforinfantsandtoddlersthroughthefollowinginitiatives. Technical Assistance (TA) Library Topics include best practices and ways to comply with minimumstandardsandpromotethehealth,safety,andwellbeingofchildreninchildcare. CCL staff use tablet PCs to download helpful documents from the library and share them with providers during onsite inspections. The TA Library is continuously updated and is available to everyone via the DFPS public website. Tutorials: Working with AgriLife Texas Cooperative Extension (Texas A&M University system), CCL develops comprehensive online tutorials for childcare providers, parents, caregivers, and CCL staff on the health and safe careofinfants.ThesetutorialsareavailableontheTexasA&MUniversitywebsite. Public Awareness Campaigns DFPS revamps two CCL campaigns featuring radio and TV publicserviceannouncements,socialmedia,andnewsmediacoverage. o Dont Be in the Dark Educates the public on the importance of selecting regulated daycareandimprovingcommunicationwithcaregivers(www.DontBeInTheDark.org) o Baby Room to Breathe Educates parents and caregivers on ways to minimize the risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) and cosleeping deaths, and improve the health, safety, and development of infants and toddlers (www.BabyRoomToBreathe.org) PreApplication Online Course In July 2011, CCL releases an online preapplication course that is an introduction to becoming a daycare provider. The course is for prospective registeredandlistedfamilyhomes.
2010 The81stLegislaturepassesS.B.68in2009,DCLbeginsregulatingthreenewcaretypes: beforeandafterschoolcareprograms; schoolageprograms;and temporarysheltersprovidingdaycareservices.

167 DFPS
RCCLrevisesstandardsto: clarifythatsuspectedabuse,neglect,orexploitationmustbedirectlyreportedtoDFPS;and specify that foster homes with lower risk can now have a safety evaluation conducted by child placing agency staff rather than a fire inspection by a certified fire inspector or local fireauthority.
DCL conducts its statutorily required sixyear review of minimum standards for licensed childcarecentersandlicensedchildcarehomesandrevisesnumerousstandardsincluding: limiting the amount of screen time (which includes television, video, and computers) to no morethantwohoursadayforchildrentwoyearsoldandolder;and requiring all children younger than 8 years old (unless taller than 49) to be restrained in theappropriatechildsafetyseatsystemwhenridinginapassengervehicle.
TheeApplicationisatoolavailableontheDFPSwebsitethatletsadaycareapplicantsubmitan online application to become a licensed daycare home, registered childcare home, or listed familyhome. 2011 The 82nd Legislature passes S.B. 1178, which expands controlling persons to apply to daycare operations. Until then, this only applied to residential childcare operations. A controlling person is the person at a daycare or residential childcare operation responsible for keeping children safe, complying with CCL standards and regulations, and accountable for actions that leadCCLtorevokeachildcarepermit. 2012 To better meet the statutory requirement to collect licensing fees and deposit the fees in the General Revenue fund, CCL creates new fee forms, enhances manual workflow processes and strengthens procedural controls to help ensure permits are not issued without a daycare or residentialchildcareoperationpayingtheirrequiredfees. RCCLrespondstoanemergencyrequestfromthefederalOfficeofRefugeeResettlement(ORR) to increase the allowed capacity of ORRcontracted facilities due to an unforeseen influx in the numberofunaccompaniedandundocumentedimmigrantchildrenintotheUnitedStates. RCCLparticipatesasakeystakeholderinaunitedpublic/privateefforttodeveloparedesigned foster care system to address problems with the current system and support improved outcomesforchildren,youth,andfamilies. 2013 CCL receives funding from the 83rd Legislature for 40 additional staff to address the risk to children in unregulated care settings. Additional staff provides the resources needed to
proactively find, investigate, and regulate illegal childcare operations, as well as provide technicalguidancetoindividualswishingtobecomelicensed,registeredorlisted. The 83rd Legislature passes S.B. 427, and creates the possibility of biennial inspections for licenseddaycarecentersanddaycarehomesthathaveagoodcompliancehistory.Thisbillalso allows CCL to immediately impose a fine on an operation for failing to take certain actions relatedtobackgroundchecks,withoutfirstresortingnonmonetaryadministrativepenalties.
E. Describe who or what this program or function affects. List any qualifications or eligibilityrequirementsforpersonsorentitiesaffected.Provideastatisticalbreakdown ofpersonsorentitiesaffected. DCL regulates the following categories of daycare operations: licensed childcare centers and licensedchildcarehomes,registeredchildcarehomes,listedfamilyhomes,andoperationswith a compliance certificate (small employerbased childcare and temporary shelter daycare). Please see Section B for a description of each daycare operation and Section O for information onthescopeofregulation. DaycareOperationsinTexas FY2011 FY2011 FY2012 FY2012 DaycareOperations Count Capacity Count Capacity LicensedChildcareCenters 9,519 965,718 9,601 975,868 LicensedChildcareHomes 1,743 20,771 1,774 21,147 ListedFamilyHomes 7,477 14,124 6,774 12,831 RegisteredChildcareHomes 6,302 73,221 5,837 68,126 SmallEmployerBasedChildcare 4 48 6 72 TotalDaycareOperations 25,045 1,073,882 23,992 1,078,044 RCCLregulatesthreecategoriesofresidentialchildcareoperations: generalresidentialoperations; childplacingagencies;and independentfosterandfostergrouphomes.
PleaseseeSubsectionBforadescriptionofeachresidentialchildcareoperationandSubsection Oforinformationonthescopeofregulation. ResidentialChildcareOperationsinTexas FY2011 FY2011 FY2012 LicensedResidentialOperations Count Capacity Count GeneralResidentialOperations 245 11,007 237
VII.GuidetoAgencyPrograms ChildCareLicensing 169
FY2012 Capacity 11,268

DFPS
ResidentialChildcareOperationsinTexas FY2011 FY2011 FY2012 LicensedResidentialOperations Count Capacity Count IndependentFosterFamilyHomes 1 6 1 IndependentFosterGroupHomes 3 32 4 Total 249 11,045 242 ResidentialChildcareOperationsinTexas FY2011 FY2011 FY2012 ChildPlacingAgencies* Count Capacity Count MainOffices 205 NA 209 BranchOffices** 145 NA 153 Total 350 NA 362 ResidentialChildcareOperationsinTexas FY2011 FY2011 FY2012 ChildPlacingAgenciesHomes* Count Capacity Count AgencyFosterHomes*** 7,138 22,392 7,240 AgencyGroupHomes*** 429 3,781 404 CPSFosterHomes 1,822 5,300 1,525 CPSFosterGroupHomes 20 116 12 CPSAdoptiveHomes 758 NA 668 Total 10,167 1,589 9,849
FY2012 Capacity 6 38 11,314
FY2012 Capacity NA NA NA****
FY2012 Capacity 21,849 3,547 4,525 73 NA 29,994
*Includes11DFPSRegionalChildPlacingAgencies. **BranchOfficesoperateunderthelicenseauthorityofthemainoffice. ***Adoptiveonlyhomesarenotincludedinthenumberofprivateagencyhomes. ****CCL does not capture total capacity for child placing agencies as the child placing agency verifies its own homesanddeterminescapacityforeach.
RCCL is also responsible for regulating licensed childcare administrators (individuals who manage general residential operations and independent foster homes), and licensed child placing agency administrators (individuals who manage child placing agencies). In FY 2012, there were 746 active licensed childcare administrators and 465 active licensed child placing agencyadministrators. F. Describe how your program or function is administered. Include flowcharts, timelines, or other illustrations as necessary to describe agency policies and procedures. Indicate howfield/regionalservicesareused,ifapplicable. Through two programs, Day Care Licensing and Residential Child Care Licensing, CCL regulates operations that care for children in outofhome care. Both of these programs are supported
170
DFPS
by three State Office divisions, which are the Policy and Program Operations division, the PerformanceManagementunit,andtheCCLProfessionalDevelopmentdivision. PolicyandProgramOperations ThePolicyandProgramOperationsdivisionisresponsibleforoverallleadershipinpromulgating minimum standards, developing policies and procedures, and providing oversight of program operations.Functionsincludethefollowing. Promulgatingminimumstandardsforallregulatedoperationtypes. Developingconcise,userfriendlypoliciesandprocedures. Developing and maintaining forms and automated processes to facilitate the work of both directdeliverylicensingstaffandmanagementstaff. ActingasaliaisonbetweenCCLdivisionsandtheDFPSInformationTechnology. Developing, maintaining, and sharing knowledge and expertise internally and with program stakeholders. Monitoring and providing oversight of program operations through quality assurance reporting,casereading,andsolutionbasedapproachestoprogramchallenges. Developingtechnicalassistancematerialsforchildcareproviders. Developingconsumereducationmaterialsforparents,caregivers,andotherstakeholders.
PerformanceManagementUnit ThePerformanceManagementUnitisdedicatedtoreducingrisktochildrenincarethrough: assistinginprogramaccountability; identifyingissueswithqualitativeandquantitativeprogramperformance; conductingneutralassessmentsofoperationalcompliance; makingrecommendationsonactionsinaccordancewithlicensingpolicyandlaw; identifyinggapsinCCLtrainingorpolicyandprocedures;and makingrecommendationsforchange.
CCLProfessionalDevelopmentDivision TheCCLProfessionalDevelopmentdivision(PDD)isacentralizedprogramdesignedtoprovide: standardizedtrainingpracticestopromoteconsistentprogramexpectationsstatewide; quality, comprehensive training programs for CCL staff to ensure training material is consistentwiththeLicensingPolicyandProceduresHandbook(LPPH);and opportunitiestorefreshorimprovetheirjobperformanceandprofessionalskills.
171
DFPS
ChildCareLicensingFieldOperations Daycare and residential childcare operations must complete the following process in order to provideregulatedchildcareinTexas.MoredetailcanbefoundinSubsectionOofthissection. PermitApplicationandIssuance DCL or RCCL inspectors evaluate the applicants staffing and operational plans to determine if they meet required standards according to the type of childcare operation for which they are applying. Uniquetotheresidentialchildcareprogram,certainapplicantsseekingaresidentiallicenseina countywithapopulationoflessthan300,000arestatutorilyrequiredtoprovideapublicnotice and comment period as well as hold a public hearing. The notice must include the following information. Thenameandaddressoftheapplicantorpermitholder. The name and address of the childcare operation or where the applicant proposes to provideservices. Thedate,time,andlocationofthepublichearing. Thename,address,andtelephonenumberoftheinspectortocontactwithcomments. A statement that a person may submit written comments to the inspector concerning the applicationortherequesttoamendthepermittoincreasecapacity. A description of the population to be served, the services to be provided, and the licensed capacityrequested.
Theapplicantorpermitholdersubjecttopublicnoticeandhearingrequirementsmust: hold the hearing no later than one month after the date the application is accepted, if applying for a license. If the hearing is for a request to amend the permit to increase capacity,holdthehearingafterRCCLhasevaluatedtherequestforanamendment; hold the hearing in a location in or easily accessible to the community where the services areorwillbeprovided; schedule the hearing and open it for at least four hours during the normal business day (MondaythroughFriday)orearlyeveninghours; facilitatethehearing; provideacopyofthenoticetotheschooldistrictsuperintendent,thegoverningbodyofthe community,andthelocallawenforcementagencyatleast10workdaysbeforethehearing; publish the notice at least 10 days before the date of the public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the community where the childcare services are or will be provided; and
172
DFPS
notify the inspector of the time, date, and location of the hearing at least 10 days before thehearing.
Both DCL and RCCL programs conduct background checks, provide technical assistance to help the applicant understand applicable minimum standards, and conduct an inspection (for all types except the DCL programs listed family homes) to determine the applicants compliance with minimum standards. CCL must either issue or deny the permit within 60 days from acceptingtheapplication. When the applicant passes inspection, the DCL or RCCL program issues an initial permit for a period of six months. If the operation is still compliant with minimum standards, the DCL or RCCL program issues a nonexpiring permit (which does not require renewal other than paying licensingfeesasapplicable).Ifthe applicantisnotcompliantattheendofthe sixmonths,and dependingonnatureoftheapplicantsnoncompliance,theDepartmentmayextendtheinitial permit period for an additional six months or deny the application and the operation must close. OngoingMonitoring Inspectors in both programs conduct more frequent inspections of new operations, during the first 12 months after issuing a permit, offering technical assistance and establishing a record of compliance with minimum standards, rules and licensing laws. The DCL and RCCL programs continue to inspect operations to evaluate ongoing compliance with minimum standards. Minimum standards are assigned a weight, from low to high, based on the risk to children and this information is contained in CLASS, which is CCLs automated case management system. Inspectorsthenuseariskbasedinspectionschedule,basedontheoperationsabilitytostayin compliance.ThefrequencyforanoperationsnextinspectionisrecommendedbyCLASSbased on the operations violations from the most recent inspection as well as the operations overall compliancerecord. At minimum, DCL and RCCL inspectors conduct statutorily required annual inspections in their respective licensed operations. DCL inspectors conduct inspections of registered childcare homes every two years. When daycare or residential childcare operations are cited for serious or a significant number of deficiencies, cited for repeat deficiencies, or fail to make corrections in a timely fashion, DCL and RCCL inspectors conduct inspections more frequently to monitor the level of risk to children. In FY 2012, DCL conducted 35,755 total inspections and RCCL conducted4,736totalinspections. When operations are cited for deficiencies, DCL and RCCL inspectors provide a time frame to correct each deficiency based on reasonable judgment and direction from their supervisors as needed. After the time limit to correct a minimum standard deficiency expires, DCL and RCCL inspectors reinspect the operation either in person, by phone, or by mail as appropriate, to determine if corrections were made. In FY 2012, the DCL program conducted over 9,000 followup inspections in regulated daycare operations. For this same time period, the RCCL programconducted300followupinspectionsinregulatedresidentialchildcareoperations.
Investigations The DCL and RCCL programs investigate reports alleging abuse, neglect, or alleged violations of minimum standards, administrative rules, or licensing law. In FY 2012, the DCL program conducted 13,127 investigations in regulated daycare operations. For this same time period, the RCCL program conducted 5,139 investigations in regulated residential childcare operations. Both programs have clear policies and procedures that specify timeframes for initiating investigationsbasedonrisktochildrenandforfinishinginvestigationsinatimelymanner. EnforcementActions/RemedialActions Remedial Actions are actions the DCL or RCCL program may impose if an operation is deficient in complying with a minimum standard, administrative rule, statute, specific term of a permit, orconditionsrelatedtocorrectiveoradverseactiontakenagainsttheoperation.Dependingon the seriousness of the deficiencies and on the operations compliance history, an operation may voluntarily make corrections or DCL and RCCL staff, in conjunction with the DFPS Legal division, may impose remedial actions. The Human Resources Code specifies a range of penalties. TechnicalAssistanceandConsumerEducation During the inspection and investigation process, DCL and RCCL inspectors and investigators provide ongoing technical assistance promoting longterm compliance by helping providers understandhowtomeetandexceedminimumstandardsrequirements.Inadditiontooffering explanations about the standards or suggestions for how to comply, DCL and RCCL staff relies on a Technical Assistance Library as a centralized source of approved technical assistance documents. DFPS also provides detailed results of inspections in daycare and residential childcareoperationsontheDFPSwebsite(www.txchildcaresearch.org)alongwithmoregeneral informationforconsumersonhowtosearchandchooseappropriateandsafechildcare.
174
DFPS
ThefollowingflowchartshowstheprocessthatCCLusestoregulatechildcareoperations.
G. Identify all funding sources and amounts for the program or function, including federal grants and passthrough monies. Describe any funding formulas or funding conventions. For state funding sources, please specify (e.g., general revenue, appropriationsrider,budgetstrategy,fees/dues). PleaseseeAppendixA. AlternateExhibitProvidedForSectionVII.ItemG.
175
DFPS
H. Identify any programs, internal or external to your agency, that provide identical or similar services or functions to the target population. Describe the similarities and differences. No other state or local programs regulate daycare and residential childcare operations. However,Texaschildrenmayalsoliveinfacilitiesregulatedbyotherstateagencies,suchasthe Texas Juvenile Justice Department or the Department of State Health Services (chemical dependencyprogramsandprogramsforchildrenwithintellectualdisabilities). CCL staff does not monitor operations for compliance with minimum standards when another state agency or political subdivision has inspected it for compliance with equivalent or similar standards (for instance, a fire inspection conducted by a local fire authority). However, CCL always investigates reports of alleged violations of minimum standard rules, regardless of whetheranotherstateagencyorlocalentityhasinspectedtheoperation. The entities that may inspect daycare and residential childcare operations, as applicable, for compliancewithstandardsthataresimilartoLicensingsminimumstandardsareasfollows. TheGeneralSanitationProgramoftheDepartmentofStateHealthServicesmayinspectthe kitchen areas in childcare operations that receive federal dollars for serving meals to children. The Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) of the Texas Department of Agriculture, regarding whether nutritious food, subsidized by TDA, is being appropriately utilized by daycareprogramsparticipatingintheprogram. Local Fire Marshal/Fire Authorities, regarding fire inspections conducted in daycare and residentialchildcareoperations. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) regulates some educational aspects of a licensed childcarecenter,suchasthecurriculumbeingoffered. The Texas Workforce Commission (TWC), when assessing the performance of TWC subsidizedchildcareindaycareoperations.
I. Discusshowtheprogramorfunctioniscoordinatingitsactivitiestoavoidduplicationor conflict with the other programs listed in Question H and with the agencys customers. If applicable, briefly discuss any memorandums of understanding (MOUs), interagency agreements,orinteragencycontracts. InFY2002,theLegislatureamendedtheHumanResourcesCode42.0442torequirethatDFPS coordinate monitoring inspections that might be performed by another state agency to eliminate redundant inspections. As the law required, DFPS, the Department of State Health Services, and the Texas Workforce Commission formed an interagency task force and developed a protocol for the inspections, including fire and health inspections to eliminate the
redundancy. In FY 2003, the Legislature required DFPS to provide a data base of information collected by the Department to other state agencies regarding the inspections of childcare operations.ThisdatabaseisavailablethroughtheDFPSwebsite(www.txchildcaresearch.org). The RCCL program coordinates activities with other DFPS divisions to avoid duplication or potentialconflictinthefollowingways. RCCLnotifiesChildProtectiveServices(CPS)ifachildinCPSconservatorshipisinvolvedina RCCLinvestigation. CPS Purchased Client Services (PCS) staff notifies RCCL of concerns found during contract monitoringinspections. RCCL coordinates with CPS and PCS regarding placement holds or removals, or the need to movechildrenwhenseriousminimumstandardviolationsorabuseandneglectfindingsare made.
J. If the program or function works with local, regional, or federal units of government, includeabriefdescriptionoftheseentitiesandtheirrelationshiptotheagency. CCLworkswiththefollowingagenciesonspecificactivitiessuchasthefollowing. Local Law Enforcement collaboration and coordination of investigations involving allegationsofabuseandneglectofchildrenbyadaycareorresidentialchildcareoperation. Local Health Departments collaboration and technical assistance regarding local health codesandstandards. LocalFireMarshal/FireDepartments collaborationandtechnicalassistanceregardinglocal firesafetystandards. Texas Workforce Commission and Local Workforce Boards provide information regarding corrective or adverse actions taken by DCL against childcare operations receiving Texas WorkforceCommissionChildcareManagementfunds. Department of State Health Services policies related to developing childcare training, TB elimination, immunizations, general sanitation and environmental health, childhood lead prevention programs, infectious disease control, injury prevention, public awareness of infantcosleepingandSIDS,andcomprehensivedisasterresponse. Early Childhood Intervention collaboration and coordination on policies related to early childhooddevelopmentandminimumstandards. DepartmentofPublicSafetycarseatsafety,bus,andmultipurposebussafety. TexasDepartmentofInsurance/StateFireMarshalsOfficecoordinationandcollaboration on statewide policies related to fire inspections in daycare and residential childcare operations.
177
DFPS
Texas Department of Agriculture collaboration and coordination of statewide policy and procedures related to daycare operations participating in the Child and Adult Care Food Program. CCL also provides information regarding corrective or adverse actions taken by DCL against childcare operations receiving funds from the Child and Adult Care Food Program. Texas AgriLife Cooperative Extension (a part of the Texas A&M University system) developing childcarerelated training and additional training opportunities for providers, staff,andparents. Office of Attorney General represents both DCL and RCCL in litigated cases in which the Department took corrective or adverse action against a daycare or residential childcare operation. Texas Education Agency Coordination and collaboration on standards and rules related to childcare operations in schools, schoolage programs, and before and afterschool programs. HHSC Office of Early Childhood Coordination and HHSC Family Violence Program coordination and collaboration on standards and rules related to daycare operations in familyviolenceshelters. The federal governments Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), Immigration and Customs Enforcement(ICE),orDivisionofUnaccompaniedChildrensServices(DUCS)addressingthe residential care needs of unaccompanied and undocumented children coming into the UnitedStates. ashortsummaryofthegeneralpurposeofthosecontractsoverall; theamountofthoseexpendituresinFY2012; thenumberofcontractsaccountingforthoseexpenditures; topfivecontractsbydollaramount,includingcontractorandpurpose; themethodsusedtoensureaccountabilityforfundingandperformance;and ashortdescriptionofanycurrentcontractingproblems.
K. Ifcontractedexpendituresaremadethroughthisprogrampleaseprovide:
TherewerenocontractedexpendituresmadethroughtheDCLprograminFY2012. InFY2012,theRCCLprogramhadtwocontractswiththeUniversityofTexasatArlington(UTA), totaling$29,091,fordevelopingandadministeringlicensedadministratorexams. Contract Oversight and Support (COS) is the DFPS division responsible for developing the infrastructuretosupportcontractmanagementstaffandtopromotecompliancewithspending federal and state dollars appropriately, in adherence to applicable statutes and rules. Contract management staff and CCL program staff are responsible for conducting ongoing contract
management and monitoring activities to promote accountability for funding and performance ofDFPSpurchasedgoodsandservices. To ensure accountability, the CCL program support officer receives invoices submitted by UTA and verifies with RCCL staff that the service reflected in the invoice was delivered satisfactorily beforeauthorizingpaymentfortheservice.Contractmanagementstaffareresponsibleforthe ongoing management of the contract, assessing contractor performance, and completing amendments when needed. For example, in July 2012, contract management staff executed amendments to reflect new requirements for the contractor to inform applicants of their right to request reasonable modifications, if needed, to help the applicant in the examination process for the licensure or certification sought. The contractor has performed its responsibilities under the interagency contracts and there are no associated contracting problems.

L. Provideinformationonanygrantsawardedbytheprogram. CCLdoesnotawardgrants.
M.What statutory changes could be made to assist this program in performing its functions?Explain. Keeping Siblings in Foster Care Together and Close to Home. Federal and state laws generally require that children who must be removed from their homes be placed together, as close to their home as possible, because this minimizes trauma to children and promotes better permanency outcomes. Federal and state laws also require that a child be placed in the least restrictive, most familylike setting that can meet the needs of the child. However, CPS often has difficulty placing large sibling groups together in the desired location because there is no foster home or foster group home who can serve the group without exceeding their capacity limits, which are statutorily set in Section 42.002, Human Resources Code. Amendments to Chapter 42, Human Resources Code, could be made to specifically authorize foster homes and foster group homes to exceed capacity when approved to do so in order to accommodate placementofasiblinggroup.Foradditionaldiscussion,seeSectionIX,MajorIssue#4. Improved Revenue Generation and Fee Collection in Child Care Licensing. Chapter 42, Human Resources Codes, authorizes the collection of fees from childcare operations to help defray the costs of state regulation. DFPS sets the fees for conducting background checks by rule, per Section 42.056(c), but other fees are set by statute in Section 42.054 and have not been increased in over 25 years. Changes to Section 42.054 to increase these fees would provide needed revenue to the state to better fund childcare regulatory oversight. For additional discussion,seeSectionII,SubsectionI,Opportunities.
179
DFPS
Increasing Compliance with Background Check Requirements. Although statutory law and CCL minimum standards require the timelycompletion of background checks on persons present in childcareoperations,someoperationsdonotsubmitbackgroundcheckstimelyorfailtosubmit checks on all persons who need them. Failure to comply with background check requirements poses significant risk to children in the care of the operation and carries the potential for significant federal financial penalties when the noncompliant operation is a residential childcare operation. Compliance could be enhanced with the use of an online tracking system that would alert childcare operations to resubmit required checks when due. Assuming sufficient resources for the development of an online tracking system, a statutory change to Chapter42,HumanResourcesCode,wouldbeneededtorequirechildcareoperationstoutilize thistrackingsystem. Meeting Immediate ShortTerm Demand for Child Care During an Emergency. Currently, CCL does not have statutory authority to issue temporary permits when a natural disaster or other emergency creates a critical, shortterm need for additional daycare or residential childcare services.Chapter42,HumanResourcesCodecouldbeamendedtoauthorizeanexpeditedand streamlined process for issuing a temporary license that will enable providers to address immediate and urgent needs for child care that result from a hurricane or other unanticipated catastrophe. The streamlined process would allow the childcare provider to begin serving children after certain critical health and safety criteria are met such as a fire inspection, staffing plan, and background checks while the provider continues the regular application process and comes into full compliance with all minimum standards within a reasonable time frame.
N. Provide any additional information needed to gain a preliminary understanding of the programorfunction.
The expected state population growth presents a continuing challenge to CCL to support and improve capacity and quality, while maintaining availability and affordability of daycare and residential childcare services. It is vital that CCL continues to ensure stakeholder participation in the process of identifying licensing outcomes for children in outofhome care and use these asguidingprincipleswhenproposingchangestominimumstandards. UniquetoRCCL RCCLisresponsibleforregulatingtheresidentialchildcareoperationsitlicenses.RCCLdoesnot regulate or license the foster or adoptive homes that are verified or approved by child placing agencies.Eachchildplacingagencyisresponsibleforregulatingthefosterandadoptivehomes it verifies (approves) for compliance with CCL minimum standards, law, and the child placing agencys own policies. However, RCCL is responsible for regulating licensed child placing agencies. This includes a child placing agencys oversight of its verified foster and adoptive homes.Aspartofregulatingachildplacingagency,RCCL: reviews foster and adoptive home records during child placing agency monitoring inspections;
180
DFPS
reviewsfosterandadoptivehomerecordsatothertimesdeemednecessary;and conductsrandominspectionsofchildplacingagencyfosterhomesasrequiredbylaw. O. Regulatoryprogramsrelatetothelicensing,registration,certification,orpermittingofa person,business,orotherentity.Foreachregulatoryprogram,ifapplicable,describe: whytheregulationisneeded; thescopeof,andproceduresfor,inspectionsorauditsofregulatedentities; followupactivitiesconductedwhennoncomplianceisidentified; sanctionsavailabletotheagencytoensurecompliance;and proceduresforhandlingconsumer/publiccomplaintsagainstregulatedentities.
Whyregulationisneeded Daycare has become part of the daily routine for families. Daycare is provided during a childs most vulnerable developmental stages, so that the regulation of those providing this care is critical to ensuring healthy development. State regulation also protects the health and safety ofchildrenwhoaremostvulnerableduringearlyyearstoillnessandinjury. Residential childcare providers have increased in numbers and in size, resulting in a capacity of 41,420 children to live in regulated, residentialchildcare inTexas atany given time. Therefore, the quality of that care is critical and many of the children in residential childcare are healing frompastabuseandneglect. InitialInspections Human Resource Code Chapter 42 requires daycare operations to become licensed, certified,registered,orlisted. HumanResourcesCodeChapter42requiresresidentialchildcareproviderstobelicensed. As part of the application process, CCL completes an inspection (for all operation types exceptlistedfamilyhomesinthedaycareprogram)todeterminecompliancewithminimum standards.Thismustbedonewithin60daysofreceivingacompleteapplication. o DCL does not complete an inspection of listed family homes during the application process as the Human Resources Code does not grant DCL the authority to inspect thesehomes,onlytoinvestigatethem. When the applicant passes inspection, CCL issues an initial permit for a period of six months.Duringthosesixmonths,CCLinspectstheoperationatleastthreetimes. o The exception to this is in the DCL program, as while DCL investigates allegations of abuseandneglectinlistedfamilyhomes,itdoesnothaveauthoritytoinspectthem. Iftheoperationisstillcompliantwithminimumstandards,CCLissuesanonexpiringpermit (which does not require renewal other than paying annual licensing fees unless otherwise exempt).
181 DFPS
If the operation is not in compliance, CCL may extend the initial permit period for an additionalsixmonthsordenytheapplicationandtheoperationmustclose.
OngoingInspections During the first 12 months of a nonexpiring permit for a daycare or residential childcare licensed operation, statute requires the operation be inspected once every six months with alloftheminimumstandardsevaluatedwithinthe12monthperiod. o Inthedaycareprogram,theseinspectionsareonlydoneonlicenseddaycarecenters and licensed daycare homes; and not Listed family homes, registered childcare homes,employerbasedchildcare,ortemporarysheltercareoperations. After the first 12 months, CCL must conduct at least one unannounced inspection annually andevaluateallstandardswithinatwoyearperiodforlicensedoperations. o TheDCLprogrammustconductoneunannouncedinspectiononregisteredchildcare homeseverytwoyearsandevaluateallstandardswithineachtwoyearperiod. CCL determines the monitoring frequency based on the operations history of deficiencies with minimum standards using the weighted standards enforcement recommendation containedinCLASS,theagencysautomatedcasemanagementsystem. CCL cites deficiencies when violations of minimum standards are found and provides a specific time frame in which to correct each deficiency. Followup inspections are made in person,phone,orbymailifappropriate,todetermineifcorrectionsweremade. Both programs continually assess the daycare or residential childcare performance and the monitoringfrequencyisadjustedaccordinglyforthedurationofthepermit.Ifadaycareor residential childcare operation is not performing well and meeting minimum standards, theyareinspectedmorefrequentlyuntilperformanceimproves. DCL staff must meet with the designated director of a licensed daycare or residential childcare operation at least once annually to determine if the director meets qualifications and complies with minimum standards. This requirement does not apply to the RCCL program.
UniquetotheRCCLProgram TeamInspectionsofResidentialChildcareOperations RCCLisstatutorilyrequiredtoconductanunannouncedteaminspectionatleastonceannually, withatleasttworesidentialchildcaremonitoringstaff. RandomSampleMonitoringofChildPlacingAgencyFosterHomes RCCL primarily inspects a child placing agency to determine if the child placing agency itself is complying with minimum standards. In turn, the childplacing agency is responsible for approving and monitoring its own foster and foster group homes to ensure the homes are complying with Licensings minimum standards, applicable law, and the childplacing agenciesownpolicies.
182 DFPS
The Human Resources Code requires the RCCL program to periodically conduct inspections ofarandomsampleofchildplacingagencyfosterandfostergrouphomes.Thepercentage of homes is not defined in statute, and RCCL inspects 25 percent of child placing agency foster homes each year to determine compliance with applicable law, administrative rules, andLicensingsminimumstandards. During these inspections, the RCCL inspector ensures the child placing agency has correctly determined that an agency foster home meets verification requirements and that the child placingagencyhasmadeappropriatedecisionsaboutthefollowingissues. o Fosterhomesabilitytoworkwithchildrenofacertainageorgender. o Foster homes ability to care for children who have special needs or supervision requirements. o Servicesthefosterhomeisabletoprovide. o Fosterhomescapacity.
RCCL primarily inspects active homes, where children in foster care are currently placed. BeginninginFY2011,theRCCLprograminspectsapercentage(upto,butnotmorethan10 percent) of inactive homes. RCCL conducted 3,125 agency home random sample inspectionsinFY2011and2,470inFY2012.
EnforcementTeamConferences Enforcement team conferences are conducted on child placing agencies and residential treatmentcentersatleastannually. The purpose of the conference is to monitor a child placing agency and residential treatmentcenterscompliancewiththelaw,rules,andminimumstandardrules. The team consists of the inspector and supervisor assigned to the residential treatment center or main childplacing agency, the inspector or supervisor assigned to each of the childplacingagencysbranchoffices,andaninvestigationsupervisororinvestigatorifthere have been any investigations related to the residential treatment center or childplacing agency. The team conducts a comprehensive assessment based on a review of all inspections and investigations of the residential treatment center, main childplacing agency, the child placing agencys branch offices, and the foster homes it verifies. At the conclusion of the conference, the team recommends an enforcement plan for the residential treatment centerorchildplacingagencybasedontheresultsoftheassessment.
InvestigationsOverview CCL investigates reports alleging violations of the law, administrative rules, or minimum standard rules by inspecting operations, interviewing children, parents, childcare staff or any persons who may have knowledge of the situation. CCL monitoring representatives routinely conduct investigations of allegations of standard violations. CCL investigators,
183 DFPS
whoaretrainedinforensicinvestigationtechniques,conductinvestigationsofallegationsof abuseandneglect. CCLinvestigatescomplaintsthatallegeabuseorneglectorcontainsallegationsofminimum standards violations. The investigation determines whether a violation of rule or statute occurredand,ifso,thedegreeofriskoffurtherharm.Suchreportsallegingpossibleriskto children come from many different sources: parents, caregivers, children, the media, law enforcement, and the general public. Also, childcare operations are required by minimum standards to selfreport serious incidents, such as when a child falls at a daycare or residentialchildcareoperationandrequiresstitches.
TypesofComplaintsagainstRegulatedEntities Licensing investigates two types of reports that fall into two categories: allegations of abuse andneglectandreportsofallegationsofminimumstandardviolations.Allreportsareassigned a priority based on the severity and immediacy of alleged harm or risk to children. Specially trained investigators conduct abuse and neglect investigations in childcare operations. The followinginformationdetailstheprioritizationscheduleandmaximumtimeallowedtorespond toareport,accordingtoCCLpolicyandadministrativerule.
184
DFPS
Priority1Reports Priority1isassignedtoanyreportaboutaregulatedorillegaloperationthatalleges: achildsdeath; immediateriskofdeath,seriousinjury,orlifethreateningabuseorneglectofachild;or deficienciesincompliancewiththelaworminimumstandardrulesthatposeanimmediate risktochildren.
Priority 1 reports are assigned for investigation after a supervisors review. Licensing staff initiate Priority 1 investigations as soon as possible, but no later than 24 hours after the date andtimeontheintake.Anunannouncedinspectionoftheoperationinitiatestheinvestigation. In an abuse/neglect investigation, the alleged victim must be observed or interviewed as soon as possible but within five days of the date on the intake. Other acceptable initiation methods include: facetoface contact with a child, an interview by a local child advocacy center or law enforcement agency, or contact with a professional or individual who can provide additional information about the current state of the health and safety of the victim child. If the investigationstartswithoutaninspection,thenaninspectionmustbeconductedwithin15days oftheintake. Priority2Reports Assigned to any report about a regulated or unregulated operation that alleges one of the followingscenarios. Abuse or neglect of a child that does not indicate an immediate risk of death or serious harm. Serious supervision problems that do not indicate an immediate risk of death or an immediateriskofseriousharm.Example:Twochildrenwithin2yearsofagewereinvolved inaphysicalaltercationwitheachotherandonesustainedablackeyeasaresult.Thechild that caused the injury has been moved to another setting and a safety plan has been implementedforthechild. Seriousaccidentalinjurythatdoesnotindicateanimmediateriskofdeathoranimmediate riskoffurtherseriousharm.Example:Achildhasbrokenhislegfromfallingoffoftheslide on the playground, has received medical attention and there is no danger in any further harmoccurringtothechild. Serious safety or health hazards that do not indicate an immediate risk of death or serious harm, including that a person listed on the sex offender database has the same address as anoperationorhome.Example:whentheaddressisthatofanapartmentcomplexbutnot thespecificunit. Injury or serious mistreatment of a child that does not indicate an immediate risk of death oranimmediateriskofseriousharm.Example:Achildwasinjuredbythedaycareprovider inanonvitalareaofthebody,however,thechildsustainedaminorinjuryandthedaycare
185
DFPS
operation has placed the provider on administrative leave pending the outcome of the investigation. After a supervisors review, Priority 2 reports are assigned for investigation. CCL staff initiate Priority 2 reports that allege abuse or neglect as soon as possible but no later than 72 hours of the date and time of the intake report. Initiation should be made by an unannounced inspection to the operation. Licensing staff must observe or interview the alleged victim as soon as possible but within seven days of the date on the report. Other acceptable initiation methods include: facetoface contact with a child, an interview conducted by a local child advocacy center or law enforcement agency, or contact with a professional or individual who can provide additional information about the current state of the health and safety of the victim child. If the investigation starts without an inspection, an inspection must be conducted within15daysoftheintake. For Priority 2 reports that allege minimum standards violations and are assigned for investigation, the initiation must be as soon as possible but no later than five days of the date oftheintakereport.Initiationshouldbemadebyanunannouncedinspectiontotheoperation. Other acceptable initiation methods include facetoface contact with a child, or contact with an individual who can provide additional information about the report. If the initiation is conducted by a method other than inspection, then an inspection of the operation must be conductedwithin15daysoftheintake. Priority3Reports Priority3isassignedtoanyreportthatalleges: minor violations of the law or minimum standard rules that involve low risk to children in care; illegal operations when there are no allegations of violations of minimum standard rules, noranyallegationsorindicationsofabuseorneglect;or apersonlistedonthesexoffenderdatabaseliveswithinproximityofachildcareoperation orhome.
After a supervisors review and assignment, a Priority 3 investigation is initiated as soon as possible but no later than 15 days of the date on the report. Initiation can be made by an unannounced inspection of the operation; however an inspection is not always required. If an inspection is required, the inspections must be completed within 30 days of the date of the intakereport. For Priority 1 and Priority 2 reports of both abuse/neglect and minimum standards violations, DFPS must complete investigation actions within 30 days and send notifications to the operationandanyallegedperpetratorwithin30days. Investigatorsareexpectedtodocument the inspection and contacts related to the investigation within the following day. However, investigators must complete all investigation documentation within 45 days of the intake for
Priority 1 and Priority 2 reports. For Priority 3 reports, investigators must complete the investigation within 60 days of the date of intake and notify the operation and complete documentationoftheinvestigationwithin60daysofthedateoftheintake. RiskAnalysts The Texas Human Resources Code, Chapter 42, 42.0211 was revised by the 80th Legislaturetorequirespeciallytrainedinvestigationanalyststoreviewandevaluateintakes with allegations associated with a higher risk of harm to children, and to consult with the investigator assigned to the case to provide specialized guidance to assist in the investigation. There is currently one lead investigation analyst housed in the CCL Policy and Program Operations division. Other analysts are located in the DCL and RCCL district offices who are responsibleforconsultingandreviewinghigherriskinvestigations.
SanctionstoEnsureComplianceandDueProcess Before issuing a sanction, CCL gives all noncompliant operations an opportunity to comply. If operations continue to be noncompliant, CCLs next action could range from asking the operation to voluntarily develop a plan for correcting deficiencies to imposing corrective or adverse actions for more serious deficiencies or failure to correct a deficiency within the given time limit. CCL may notify an operation of a corrective or adverse action when one of the followingsituationsisfound. Asingleseriousdeficiency,suchasachilddeathorseriousinjury. Severaldeficienciesthatcreatearisktochildren. A repetition or pattern of deficiencies that demonstrate that compliance is not being maintained. An operation with an initial permit is cited for failure to comply with law or minimum standardrules.
Depending on the seriousness of the situation and the operations compliance history, an operation may voluntarily make corrections or CCL staff may recommend or impose remedial action.Actionsandremediesincludethoselistedinthetablebelow. ChildCareLicensingActionsandRemedies ActionType: VoluntaryActionsbyanOperation Explanation: CCL may recommend that an operation voluntarily take an action or develop a plan for correcting deficiencies to reduce the risk to the health and safety of children in care. There is no consequence for an operation not completing a voluntary action, however if the operation continues to experiencenoncompliance,correctiveoradverseactionsmayfollow.
187
DFPS
ActionType: Possible Outcomes:
ActionType: Explanation:
Possible Outcomes:
Possible Outcomes:
ChildCareLicensingActionsandRemedies VoluntaryActionsbyanOperation Withdrawapplication Applicant has the option to withdraw at any time beforeissuance. TemporaryrelocationOperationmovestoatemporarylocation. VoluntarysuspensionOperationceasesoperatingforalimitedtime. VoluntaryclosureOperationvoluntarilycloses. OperationplanofactionVoluntaryplantocorrectdeficiencies. CorrectiveActions Conditions placed on an operation when the operation is repeatedly deficient in complying with minimum standard rules that do not endanger the health and safety of children. If an operation does not comply with conditions imposed as part of evaluation CCL may seek to extend the evaluation period or may move to probation or adverse action. If the operationisonprobationandfailstofollowconditions,theoperationmay besubjecttoadverseactions. Evaluation Conditions placed on an operation for 30 days to six months withthepossibilityofrenewingonceforamaximumofoneyear. Probation Conditions placed on an operation for 30 days to 12 months. Failuretofollowtheconditionscouldresultinanadverseaction. MonetaryActions Fines to operations that violate Chapter 42 of the Human Resources Code (HRC) or rule adopted under chapter 42 HRC. Administrative penalties do not apply to listed homes. If penalties are not paid the matter is referred to the Attorney General of CCL may revoke the permit or implement an adverseamendment. AdministrativepenaltyFinesimposedforviolationofminimumstandards orlaw.Penaltiesrangefrom$1to$150peraday. Civil penalty Fines imposed on an individual ranging from $50 to $100 peraday. AdverseActions Actions that CCL may impose on an operation due to violation of law, minimum standard rules or failure to correct a deficiency. This action removes an operations ability legally operate. If the operation continues tooperatetheyaretreatedasanillegaloperation. DenialofpermitPermitisnotissuedtoapplicantduetoconcernsforthe healthandsafetyofchildren. RevocationofpermitOperationspermittooperatelegallyisrevoked. Suspension of permit Operations permit to operate legally is suspended foradefinedamountoftime.
Possible Outcomes:
188
DFPS
ActionType: T
ChildCare C LicensingActionsa andRemedi ies Voluntary V Actions A byan nOperation n Adverse A amendment to o permit O Operations p permit is am mended to af ffect itsoperating gcapacityor rotherfacto orssuchasag georgender.
Regulated entities may m appeal an a administr rative penalt ty, adverse action of de enial, revoca ation, suspensio on, or an ad dverse amendment to a license, ce ertification, or registration, to the State Office of f Administrative Hearing gs (SOAH). For cases in nvolving abu use or neglect, the indiv vidual mayrequ uestaReleaseHearing,heldbySOA AH.
P. For each regu ulatory pro ogram, if applicable, provide the follow wing complaint information. The T chart headings h ma ay be chang ged if need ded to bett ter reflect y your agen ncyspractic ces. Departm mentofFam milyandProt tectiveServ vices Exhibit t11: InformationonComplaintsAg gainstRegula atedDaycar reOperation nsFiscalYe ear 201 11and2012 Measurement Totalnu umberofreg gulatedentit ties Totalnu umberofins spectionsco onducted Abuse/N NeglectCom mplaints(bythe t public) NonAbuse/Neglect tComplaints s(bythepub blic) Abuse/N NeglectCom mplaints(initiatedbyDCL L) NonAbuse/Neglect t(initiatedby yDCL) Number rofcomplaintspendingfromprioryears y Abuse/N NeglectCom mplaints(foundnonjuris sdictional) NonAbuse/Neglect tComplaints s(foundnonjurisdiction nal) Abuse/N Neglect(jurisdictionalco omplaintswithoutmerit t) NonAbuse/Neglect t(jurisdiction nalcomplain ntswithoutm merit) Abuse/N NeglectCom mplaintsReso olved(citatio onsand abuse/n neglect) NonAbuse/Neglect tComplaints sResolved(c citationsand d abuse/n neglect) Abuse/N Neglect(Ave erage#ofda aysforcomp plaintresolu tion) NonAbuse/Neglect t(Average#ofdaysforcomplaint c resolution) ComplaintsResultin nginDisciplinaryAction Adm ministrativepenalty p Repr rimand Prob bation Evaluation
VII.GuidetoAgencyPro ograms C Licensing ChildCare 189
FY2011 25,045 35,771 3,309 14,943 2,754 14,900 1 216 432 1,822 7,516 2,061 14,276 109.7 31.4 0 N/A 83 142
FY201 12 23,992 35,755 5 3,132 2 12,746 2,475 5 12,654 4 1 198 365 1,516 6 7,271 1 1,799 9 12,147 7 107.8 8 30.7 0 N/A 62 146
DFPS
Departm mentofFam milyandProt tectiveServ vices Exhibit t11: InformationonComplaintsAg gainstRegula atedDaycar reOperation nsFiscalYe ear 201 11and2012 Measurement Susp pension Revo ocation Othe erdenialof o permit Departm mentofFam milyandProt tectiveServ vices Exhibit11: 1 InformationonCom mplaintsAga ainstRegulat tedbyResid dentialChild dCareLicensing Measur rement Total nu umber of re egulated per rsons with active Admin nistrator Licenses s Totalnu umberofreg gulatedentit ties Totalnu umberofins spectionsconducted Number rofcomplaintspendingfromprioryears y Abuse/N NeglectCom mplaints(bythe t public) NonAbuse/Neglect tComplaints s(bythepub blic) Abuse/N NeglectCom mplaints(initiatedbyRCC CL) NonAbuse/Neglect t(initiatedby yRCCL) Abuse/N NeglectCom mplaints(foundnonjuris sdictional) NonAbuse/Neglect tComplaints s(foundnonjurisdiction nal) Abuse/N Neglect(jurisdictionalco omplaintswithoutmerit t) NonAbuse/Neglect t(jurisdiction nalcomplain ntswithoutm merit) Abuse/N Neglect Complaints C Resolved (citations s and abuse/n neglect) Non Abuse/Neglec ct Complaints Resolved (citation ns and abuse/n neglect) Abuse/N Neglect(Ave erage#ofda aysforcomp plaintresolu tion) Non Abuse/Neglec ct (Average e # of da ays for co omplaint resolution) ComplaintsResultin nginDisciplinaryAction Adm ministrativepenalty p Reprimand Prob bation Evaluation Susp pension Revo ocation Othe erdenialof o permit
VII.GuidetoAgencyPro ograms C Licensing ChildCare 190
FY2011 2 742 198
FY201 12 1 52 122
FY2011 1,177 10,774 5,374 3 3,689 9,527 2,862 2,983 288 6,366 1,997 2,165 2,066 2,774 79.1 46.3 0 NA 3 13 1 0 1
FY201 12 1,211 1 10,459 9 4,736 6 11 3,447 7 10,394 4 2,849 9 3,211 1 240 6,780 0 2,079 9 2,327 7 2,171 1 2,997 7 88.8 46 0 NA 3 13 0 0 0
DFPS
VIII. STATUTOR S RYAUTHO ORITYAND DRECENT TLEGISLAT TION
A. Fill in i the follow wing chart, listing citat tions for all state and f federal statutes that gr rant auth horitytoorotherwise o significantlyimpactyour ragency.D Donotinclud degeneralst tate statutes that apply a to all l agencies, such as th he Public In nformation Act, the O Open Mee etings Act, or o the Administrative Procedure P A Act. Provide e informatio on on Attor rney GeneralOpinion nsfromFY2009 2 2013 3,orearliers significantA AttorneyGe eneralOpinio ons, that taffectyour ragencysop perations. Departm mentofFam milyandProt tectiveServ vices Exhibit12 2: Statutes/A AttorneyGe eneralOpini ions
Statutes S
Citati ion/Title A Authority/Im mpactonAg gency (e.g.,pro ovidesautho oritytolicens seandregul late n nursinghome eadministra ators)
Titles IV VB and IVE of the Social Security Provide f federal funding to st tates with an approveds Act;42U.S.C.621et e seq. stateplanfo orprovisionofchildwelfare services. T The IVE and d IVB state plans must also ensure c ompliance with the Child Ab buse Prevention n and T Treatment Act (CAP PTA) (discussed below). To ogether with CAPTA, th hese federal law ws impose very signifi icant manda ates that the s states must t comply with in order to retain eligiibility for fed deral fundin ng, and man ny of theprovisiionsintheT TexasFamilyCode,Chap pters 261264a reintendedtoensurec compliancew with erallaws. thesefede Child Abuse A Preve ention and Treatment Provides f federal funding to a state with an Act (CAPTA), as amended; 42U.S.C. U 5101 approved state plan that compli ies with CA APTA etseq;42 4 U.S.C.5116etseq. TitleIVB,a andIVEreq quirements. TheU.S S.Constitutio on Many of the provisions in the e Family C Code applicable to DFPS are intend ded to ens sure constitutio onalrights mostparticularly: the co onstitutional protections applicable e to the pa rentchild relationship under the F First dment. Amend httobefree therigh efromunrea asonablesea arch and se eizure under the Fourt th Amendment, and
191 DFPS
VIII.Statut toryAuthorityandRecentLe egislation
Departm mentofFam milyandProt tectiveServ vices Exhibit12 2: Statutes/A AttorneyGe eneralOpini ions
Statutes S
Citati ion/Title A Authority/Im mpactonAg gency (e.g.,pro ovidesautho oritytolicens seandregul late n nursinghome eadministra ators) the rights to proce edural and s substantive due process and to eq qual protec ction under the Fourtee enthAmend dment.
HumanResourcesCode, C Chapte er40.
Recentcou urtdecisions sundertheFirstandFou urth amendmen nts have h had significa ant impact on DFPS. This chapt ter is the primary enab bling legislation forDFPS.T Thischapter r: creates s DFPS and s sets forth Department c core duties(42.002); establis shes DFPS a as the single state agen ncy respon nsible for ad dministering Titles IVB and rityAct; IVEofthefederalSocialSecur shestheFam establis milyandPro otectiveServ vices Counci l to make recommendations to the HHSC Executive C Commissione er (EC) and the DFPS Commission ner on management and operat ion of the e Departme ent (40.0 021 7); 40.027 to be appoin nted shes a Commissioner, t establis by HHS SC EC and to o serve as t the CEO sub bject tocont troloftheHHSCEC;and d
HumanResourcesCode, C Ch.42 2
provide es misce ellaneous administra ative provisio onsfortheo organization nandstaffin ngof the De partment, the use of fu unds, deliver ry of service es, and inter raction with other agen ncies andthe epublic. Establishes s the autho ority of DF FPS to regu ulate residentiall and n nonresident tial childc care hild placing g agencies and facilities, including ch fosterhom mes.
192
DFPS
Statutes S
Citati ion/Title HumanResourcesCode, C Ch.43 3 A Authority/Im mpactonAg gency (e.g.,pro ovidesautho oritytolicens seandregul late n nursinghome eadministra ators) Establis shes licen nsure qualifications for childca are adminis strators and d child placing agency yadministrat tors.
Require es DFPS to issue and administer the require edlicense. The subsi dized daycare program m created un nder this chap ter is adm ministered by the Te exas Workforce e Commiss sion (TWC), not DFPS. However,p programseligibletocon ntractwithT TWC under Ch. 44 must m meet Child Care Licensing standardspromulgatedunderCh.42byDFPS. . Establishes stheauthor rityofDFPSt to: conduc ct investiga ations of alleged abuse, neglect t, and explo oitation (a/n n/e) of pers sons ults, aged 65 or old der and disabled adu includi ng the d duty to c conduct a/ /n/e investig gations of persons se erved by state hospita als, state supported living cent ters, MHMR R authorities, community cent ters, private e Intermedia ate Care Fa acilities for the Intellec ctually Disa abled (ICFID Ds), home and commu unitybased services (H HCS) progra ams, and ho ome and co ommunity support serv vices agencie es(HCSSAs); ;and
Chapter r531,Gover rnmentCode e
also pr rovides auth hority to pro ovide protec ctive service es to adult v victims of a/ /n/e who liv ve in thecom mmunity. Creates t the Health h and Hu uman Serv vices Commissio on, establish hing DFPS as one of five healthand dhumanserv viceagencie essubjectto othe controloft theHHSCEx xecutiveCom mmissioner. In addition n to the gen neral provisions in Ch. 551 applicable to all HHS a agencies, pro ovisions specific cludethefollowingsect tions: toDFPSinc
193 DFPS
Statutes S
Citati ion/Title A Authority/Im mpactonAg gency (e.g.,pro ovidesautho oritytolicens seandregul late n nursinghome eadministra ators) 531.0162 2. Use of te echnology t to improve the ProtectiveSe ervices(APS)program; AdultP 531.047 7 .049. Outcome measures in ntracts;case eloadstanda ards; substit utecarecon adstandards sadvisoryco ommittee; caseloa 531.088.Poolsfundsforprevent tionservices; 531.165. Referrals by y the Depar rtment of Ag ging rvices (DAD DS) to DFPS S of and D isability Ser abando oned childre en in certain n longterm c care facilitie es; 531.0244 47. Creates s Employm mentFirst T Task Force( (effective1/ /1/2014),ofwhichDFPS Sisa membe er;and 531.802. DFPS a member of t the Council on Childre enandFamil lies. Subchapte er D1. Establishes a ro ole for mult tiple state agencies, including g DFPS, in perman ning for per rsons in cer rtain nency plann institut tions. Subchapte er U. Requir res DFPS co ooperation w with mortal ity review ws of cert tain decea ased ns. person Provides d definitions fo or child abu use and negl lect, and requir res reportin ng of same. . It delinea ates responsibi lities for investigation of child ab buse and negle ect among various st tate and local agencies most partic cularly DFPS S and contains guidelinesforinvestiga ations. Describes circumstanc ces and leg gal proceedings for taking possession a and legal cu ustody of a c child nforcement or DFPS; it t also contains by law en Baby Mos ses provisio ons for abandoning a c child up to 60 0 days of age with a designa ated
194 DFPS
FamilyCode, C Chapter261
Statutes S
Citati ion/Title A Authority/Im mpactonAg gency (e.g.,pro ovidesautho oritytolicens seandregul late n nursinghome eadministra ators) emergency yinfantcare eprovider. Sets forth a schedule of period dic hearings s to review the e circumstan nces and per rmanency plans for childre en in the cus stody of DFPS, with a o one year legal permanenc cy deadline (subject to one sixmonth extension); provides for contin nued hearings f for current and forme er foster yo outh betweenth heagesof1 18and21. Provides general pr rovisions re elating to the ation of the e childwelf fare system m by administra DFPS, inclu uding provis sions on pay yment of fo oster care and o other benefi its, provision of service es to children a nd families, , legal repre esentation, etc. It also con tains miscel llaneous pro ovisions rela ating k (STAR) yo outh prevention to Service s To AtRisk pointed Spe ecial Advoca ates programs; CourtApp hildrensAdv vocacyCente ers(CACs),C Child (CASA);Ch Fatality Re eview Teams s (CFRTs), and Family D Drug CourtProg grams. Establishes s Preventio on and Ear rly Intervention (PEI)servic ces,administeredbyDFPS Provides s special prov visions relat ting to med dical care, inclu uding medic cal consent issues. It also requires the establ lishment o of the He ealth Passporta ndEducatio onPassport. Requires llaw enforce ement to c cooperate w with DFPS in inv vestigation of certain abuse or neg glect reports (S See also rel lated provis sions in Family Code,Chap pter261.) Creates a s system for r reporting to DFPS when law enforceme ent respond ds to a dom mestic viole ence callintheh homeofafo osterparent t. Authorizes s DFPS to o consider r a deferred adjudicatio on when considering g whether to license a p person to op perate a childcare facilit ty or childplacin ngagency.
195 DFPS
FamilyCode, C Chapter265 FamilyCode, C Chapter266
Codeof fCriminalPr rocedure,Art.2.27
Codeof fCriminalPr rocedure,Art.42.12 (Sec.5)
Statutes S
Citati ion/Title Codeof fCriminalPr rocedure,Art.56.06 A Authority/Im mpactonAg gency (e.g.,pro ovidesautho oritytolicens seandregul late n nursinghome eadministra ators) Requires l aw enforce ement to re equest a sexual ctim if requ uested by D DFPS assault ex am of a vic undercert tainconditio ons. Exempts DFPS from m requireme ent to use e a m in Depar rtment reco ords relating g to pseudonym certainvict timsoffamilyviolence. Requires l aw enforce ement to transfer to D DFPS possession n of a missin ng child listed d in the missing person cle earinghouse e who is lo ocated by law enforceme ent. The Educa tion Code contains man ny provision ns of interest t to DFPS in n its role as manag ging conservato or of childr ren and you uth enrolled d in public sch ools and higher education. Provisions ofspecialn noteinclude ethefollowing: 7.029. M MOU between DFPS and TEA on educat tionaloutcom mesforfosterchildren; 25.001. Special prov visions for admiss sion/continu uity of attendance of fo oster child; 25.002. Includes special procedures for ment of fo oster child dren in pu ublic enrollm schools s; 25.007. S Special pro ovisions to support fo oster childre en transferr ring from one school l to anothe er; 29.08. C Contracts w with residen ntial placem ment facilitie es for educ cational ser rvices; required interag gencyMOU; 29.015. F Foster paren nts as surr rogate parents forspe ecialeducatio onpurposes s; 29.081. Compensato ory education/accelera ated ction for at risk students, the instruc
VIII.Statut toryAuthorityandRecentLe egislation 196 DFPS
Codeof fCriminalPr rocedure,57 7B.04
TheEdu ucationCode e
Statutes S
Citati ion/Title A Authority/Im mpactonAg gency (e.g.,pro ovidesautho oritytolicens seandregul late n nursinghome eadministra ators) definitiion of which h includes st tudents in D DFPS conserv vatorship (see other provisions throug hout Ch. 29 designed to benefit at tudentsasdefinedin29.081(d)); riskst 29.153. M Makes childr ren in DFPS custody elig gible for fre e prekinde ergarten (an nd see 29.15 532, requiri ng private p preK contra acted programs to mee et Child Care e Licensing (CCL) minim mum standa rdsforchild dcare; 29.160. R Requires DFP PS to coope erate with State Center r for Early C Childhood D Developmen nt in developing a qu uality rating g system and waiversofminimumstandards s,ifapplicab ble; 38.04. R Requires TEA to deve elop policy for reportiing child abuse and d neglect and requiri ng coopera ation with DFPS in the gationofchildabusean ndneglect;and investig 54.211 & 54.2111. Tuition wa aiver provisions for hig gher education costs of former fo oster youth. Contains p provisions re elating to consent by a n non parentfor medicaltreatmentofachild,includ ding special pro ovisions for y youth in the e Texas Juve enile Justice De epartment (TJJD) and for suspec cted victims of f abuse or neglect. It also describes DFPS role e in assisting g minors se eeking abor rtion services a and investigating sus spected sexual abuse. Contains general pro ovisions ap pplicable to all suits affe ecting the parent child relationship (SAPCRs), including SA APCRs to w which DFPS is a party. The ese subtitles cover issues relating g to possession n, access, and custod dy of a ch hild, parental r rights, adop ption, and child supp port.
197 DFPS
FamilyCode, C Chapters32and33 3
FamilyCode, C TitleV, V SubtitlesAD
Statutes S
Citati ion/Title A Authority/Im mpactonAg gency (e.g.,pro ovidesautho oritytolicens seandregul late n nursinghome eadministra ators) Provisions of partic cular note e include the following: Ch. 102 2 specifies w who has st tanding to sue for c ustody, te ermination or adopt tion, includi ng numero ous provisio ons specific c to DFPS; Ch. 107 mandates s appointme ent of guard dian ad lite em (GAL, can includ de CASA) and attorne ey ad litem (AAL) for child, and AAL L for parent in DFPS suit seekin ng terminat tion. Specifie es requirem ments for soc cial studies and require es DFPS to o adopt rules relating g to certain nsocialstudi ies; Ch. 15 53 contain ns provision ns relating to conserv vatorship, possession and acc cess; includi ng the ri ights of a nonparent conserv vator(e.g.,DFPS); 156.1 101 confers the ability y to modif fy a custody y order due to material and substan geofcircums stances; ntialchang 156.1 102 grants s standing to a sibling o of a who is separ rated from t the child due to child w actions s of DFPS in a suit for m modification of a custody yorder. Ch. 16 60 provides for the es stablishment t of patern ity and the creation of f the pater rnity registry y; Ch. 16 61 provides s for the termination n of parent al rights, in ncluding gro ounds that are cally directe ed at DFPS, a and others t that specific DFPS f requently uses. It outlines the duty of on with DSH HS, to adopt the DFPS, iin conjunctio form c currently in n use to provide med dical
198 DFPS
Statutes S
Citati ion/Title A Authority/Im mpactonAg gency (e.g.,pro ovidesautho oritytolicens seandregul late n nursinghome eadministra ators) history y of a child who is volunta arily relinqu uishedbyap parent; Ch.162 2 contains general p procedures for adoptio on and the adoption of the Interstate Compa act on the e Placemen nt of Child dren (ICPC)/ /Interstate C Compact on n Adoption and Medica al Assistance, both of which are adminiistered by DFPS for Texas. It also creates s the adop ption assist tance program operat ed by DFPS, imp plements the manda atory federa al MultiEth hnic Placem ment authorizes D DFPS Act (M EPA) in 162.308, and a y an adopti ion incentiv ve to a priv vate to pay childp placingagenc cy(162.601 1); Ch. 20 01 establish hes a system m of assoc ciate judgestohearDFP PSSAPCRcas ses;and
GovernmentCode,402.035
GovernmentCodeChapter C 411 1, 411.08 81,411.114 4 GovernmentCode,651.004 GovernmentCode,662.054 GovernmentCodeChapter, C Cha apter 2155
231.0 010 requires s cooperatio on between the Child S Support division of the e Office of the Attorne eyGenerala andDFPS. Makes DFP PS a membe er of the Human Trafficking Taskforce and assigns s certain du uties to DFPS in connection nwiththista askforce. GrantsDFP PSaccesstocriminalhis storyrecords sfor certainpur rposes. Exempts D DFPS from ce ertain managementtos staff ratiosappllicabletooth herstateage encies. RequiresD DFPStoprom moteTexasA AdoptionDay. Outlines: elegation o of authority y to 2155.144.The de gencies to purchase goo ods and serv vices HHS ag (2155 5.144);and 2155.1442. Spec cial procedu ures relating g to foster care resid dential cont tract manag gers
199 DFPS
Statutes S
Citati ion/Title A Authority/Im mpactonAg gency (e.g.,pro ovidesautho oritytolicens seandregul late n nursinghome eadministra ators) (2155 5.1442). Establishes s a task forc ce on domes stic violence e, of which DFP PS is a mem mber, effect tive 6/14/20 013, andexpirin ng1/1/2016 6. 81.010 r requires DF FPS membe ership on the Interag gency Coord dinating Council for HIV and Hepatit tis. 81.023re equirestheD DepartmentofStateHe ealth Service es (DSHS) to o cooperate e with DFPS S in developing immunization req quirements for childre eninchildcar re. 161.0101 1 requires D DSHS to wor rk with DFPS S to increas se immun nization aw wareness and particip pation amo ong parents of children n in childca arefacilities. Creates th he Interagen ncy Task For rce for Child dren with Speciial Needs, o of which DFP PS is a required member. Requires DFPS mem mbership on the E Early Childhood Health and Nutritio on Interage ency Council, which studies and ma akes ndations o on improving childh hood recommen nutritiona ndhealth. Requires a DSHS MO OU and cooperation w with DFPSinfur rnishingbirt thinformatio onandcerti ified birth certiificates to D DFPS for ch hildren in D DFPS conservato orship. Contains p provisions o of DFPS du uty that are e in addition to those in Chapter 48, Hum man Resources Code, to investigate allegations s of abuse, neg glect, and e exploitation in private ICF IDs. Contains p provisions relating to DFPS duty y to submit the e names of f certain ind dividuals to the EmployeeMisconduct tRegistry.
200 DFPS
Healthand a SafetyCode; C Subcha apterC
Healthand a SafetyCode; C 81.01 10; 81.023 3;161.0101 1
Healthand a SafetyCode, C Chapter r115 Healthand a SafetyCode, C Chapter r116
Healthand a SafetyCode, C 191.0 0047
Healthand a SafetyCode, C Chapte er252
Statutes S
Citati ion/Title Healthand a SafetyCode, C Chapte er254 A Authority/Im mpactonAg gency (e.g.,pro ovidesautho oritytolicens seandregul late n nursinghome eadministra ators) Defines a new type of Boarding g Home Fac cility t subject to o regulation as a longterm that is not care agenc cy by DADS, but may be e regulated b by a county or r municipal lity. It requires DFPS S to investigate e abuse, ne eglect, and exploitation n in suchfacilit ties. Establish p parents of fo oster childre en as a prio ority population n for drug g and alco ohol treatm ment services an nd make DF FPS a memb ber of the D Drug DemandR eductionAd dvisoryComm mittee. Requires D DFPS to est tablish a Dr rug Endange ered Child initia ative (it mir rrors provis sions in Hum man ResourcesCode,40 0.071&40.0 072). Creates th he Independ dent Ombud dsman for state supported living centers and re equires cer rtain cooperatio on and sha aring of inf formation w with DFPS. Requires a an MOU and d interagency collaborat tion, including D DFPS, to ens sure continu uity of care and services fo or offenders with med dical or me ental impairmen nts. Authorizes s the creatio on of Adult Fatality Rev view Teams at the county y level, whic ch may incl lude DFPS as a member, and biennial reporting g of suchteams stoDFPS. Requires participation by the DFPS med dical director or r designee o on the MED DCARES advis sory committee e, which aw wards gran nts to impr rove assessmen nt, diagnosis s, and treatment of c child abuseandneglect. Defines a dependent t child for p purposes of Aid to Families s with Depe endent Child dren to incl lude certain fo oster childr ren up to age 19. This definition, in combina ation with T Title IVE of the Social Secu urity Act, ma akes foster c children elig gible for IVE re imbursemen nts categoric cally eligible e for
201 DFPS
Healthand a SafetyCode, C 461.0 0124; 461.01 17
Healthand a SafetyCode, C Chapte er468, Subchap pterC Healthand a SafetyCode, C Chapte er555, Subchap pterC
Healthand a SafetyCode, C 1001.153
HumanResourcesCode, C 31.00 02
Statutes S
Citati ion/Title A Authority/Im mpactonAg gency (e.g.,pro ovidesautho oritytolicens seandregul late n nursinghome eadministra ators) Medicaid under 32 2.024, Hum man Resources ter children n not eligib ble for IVE are Code. Fost eligible fo or Medicaid under t the medic cally needypro ogramautho orizedunder r32.024. Authorizes s children w who aged ou ut of foster c care at age 18, , but who h have not yet turned 21 1, as eligible fo or Medicaid; and makes these sa ame youth elig gible betwee en 21 and 23 if attend ding higheredu ucation. Requires D DFPS to help p coordinate the provision ofviolence eprevention nservicesfor rchildren. Relates to protective orders soug ght by DFPS S on behalfofc childabusev victims. Contains p provisions r relating to youth in D DFPS conservato orship, most particular rly the sections beginning at 61.0766 6, concernin ng collabora ative service pla anning, repo orting, sharing of data, and the role of f TJJD in fam mily court he earings involv ving fosteryout th. Creates t the Interag gency Council on E Early Childhood Intervention and m makes DFPS S a member o of the Board d. [Although h the statutory authorizatiion for this s council is still in current law,theCo ouncilnolon ngerexists.] Makes DFP PS a membe er of the Te exas Council on Autismand dPervasiveDevelopmen ntalDisorders. Contains p provisions (c correspondin ng to provisions in HRC Cha apter 48) re elating to th he DFPS duty to investigate e allegation ns of abuse e, neglect, and exploitatio on of adul lt clients b by Home and Communit ty Support Services A Agency (HCS SSA) workers. Contains numerous s provisio ons regard ding onbetweenDFPSandDA ADS,including: cooperatio
HumanResourcesCode, C 32.02 247; 32.024 471
HumanResourcesCode, C 51.012 HumanResourcesCode, C Chapte er54 HumanResourcesCode, C Ch.61 1
HumanResourcesCode, C Chapte er73
HumanResourcesCode, C 114.0 003 HumanResourcesCode, C Chapte er142
HumanResourcesCode, C Chapte er161
161.0 077 require es the deve elopment, w with

202 DFPS
Statutes S
Citati ion/Title A Authority/Im mpactonAg gency (e.g.,pro ovidesautho oritytolicens seandregul late n nursinghome eadministra ators) DFPSin nput,ofaninvestigation ndatabase; Subcha apter E, Ch. 161 which, in combination with provisions in Chapte er 48, Hum man rces Code, r reflects the 2005 legisla ative Resour transfe er of the guardianshi ip program to DADS, which had pre eviously b been DFPS (S.B. 6 6, 79 RS 20 005. adminiistered by D referrals to o DADS for DFPS makes r anship of b both CPS and APS clie ents guardia undert theseprovis sions. Creates th he Childcar re Resource e and Refe erral Networka ndrequiresDFPSassista ance. Contains general pro ovisions ap pplicable to all agencies t that issue a professio onal license e to require s special con nsiderations for licensing applicants who are mi ilitary memb bers, spouse es of militaryme ember,andveterans. Establishes s DFPS a as a mem mber on the Interagenc cy Advisory Committee to the Cou uncil onSexOffe enderTreatment. Creates a s specialty lice ense plate, t the proceed ds of which mus st be deposited into a fund with D DFPS to be used d for service es to abused d and neglec cted children. Adds DFPS to the m membership p of the Te exas Coordinati ng Counci il for Vet teran Serv vices (effective9 9/1/2013)
LaborCode,Chapte er310 OccupationsCode,Chapter55
OccupationsCode,110.202
Transpo ortationCode,504.642 2
GovernmentCode,434.153
AttorneyGeneral G Op pinions
At ttorneyGeneralOpinion nNo. OR2006 613929 Impact tonAgency y Held that decisions and orders issued by SO OAH ngs in Child Care Licensing regarding DFPS hearin mattersar renotconfid dential. Affirmed t the right of f DFPS to w withhold cer rtain
203 DFPS
OR2004 45599
Statutes S
Citati ion/Title A Authority/Im mpactonAg gency (e.g.,pro ovidesautho oritytolicens seandregul late n nursinghome eadministra ators) ChildCare Licensingab buseornegl lectinformation publicbased onconfiden ntialityrules sthe fromthep agency ad dopts in com mpliance w with the fed deral ChildAbus sePreventionandTreatm mentAct. Established d a previo ous determ mination un nder Governme ent Code 552.301(a) th hat the reco ords concerning gaCPSinves stigationofanallegatio onof abuse or n neglect of a child and th he records u used or develop ped in providing service es as a resul lt of that inves stigation are confiden ntial, and the agencynee ednotaskfo oradecision nfromtheO OAG each time e they receive a req quest for s such records. Held that informatio on that wo ould identif fy a foster care e provider is s confidentia al and must not bereleased dtothepub blic. Held that a local scho ool district c cannot interfere with a ch ild abuse o or neglect investigation n by prohibiting gaCPSwork kerinvestiga atingarepor rtof abuse or neglect fro om interview wing a stud dent ed victim) in the school, or by requi iring (the allege schoolper sonneltobe epresentattheintervie ew. Held that t DFPS ma ay not co ontract with h a governmen ntalentityto oprovidesu ubstitutecar reor case man nagement s services ex xcept in so ome circumstan nces. Held that while DFPS S authority to make rules concerning g the regu ulation and d licensing of childcare f facilities, to the extent t the agency rule exempts a certain kind dof childcar reprograms not expressly exempted under Se ection 42.0 041, Human Re esources Co ode, the rule e conflicts w with thestatute eandisther reforeinvalid d. Held that DFPS has t the authority to make e an initial fact determinat tion regardi ing whether r an program tha at is agency is operating a childcare p
204 DFPS
OR2003 35590
OR1999 93779
Opinion nDM476
Opinion nGA0476
Opinion nGA0649
Opinion nGA0678
Statutes S
Citati ion/Title A Authority/Im mpactonAg gency (e.g.,pro ovidesautho oritytolicens seandregul late n nursinghome eadministra ators) subjectto, orexemptf from,licensure. Held that D DFPS rulem making autho ority allows i it to adopt min imum stand dards establi ishing minim mum training ho ours for staff f in certain d daycare cen nters that excee eds the num mber of hou urs specified d in 42.0421,HumanReso ourcesCode e. Heldthata lawenforc cemententit tyisrequired dby the Family y Code to furnish info ormation in n its records re lating to alleged abuse or neglect of a ponsible for t the childs c care, child by a person resp custody,orwelfaretoDFPS. Held that under Subs section 261 1.101(b), Family Code, a p professional is not requ uired to rep port abuse or n neglect that t the profes ssional belie eves occurredd duringanadultpatients schildhood.
Opinion nGA0815
Opinion nGA0879
Opinion nGA0944
205
DFPS
B. Prov vide a summ mary of recent legislati ion regardin ng your age ency by filling in the ch hart belo ow or attac ching inform mation alre eady availab ble in an a agencydeve eloped form mat. Briefly summarize the key provisions. For bills tha at did not pa ass, briefly explain the key prov visionsandissues i thatresulted r infailure f ofthe ebilltopass s(e.g.,oppo ositiontoan new fee, or high cos st of implem mentation). Place an as sterisk next t to bills tha at could hav ve a majo orimpacton ntheagency y. Departm mentofFam milyandProt tectiveServ vices Exhibi it13: 83rdLe egislativeSe essionChart t
Legislati ionEnacted d83rdLeg gislativeSes ssion

BillNum mber Au uthor H.B.748 8* Raym mond Summa aryofKeyPr rovisions The bill directs s DFPS to pu ursue a Title e IVE waive er as authorized by the Child and a Family S Services Improvement and Innovation Act, which, un nder that law w, must be revenue ne eutral and m must acc complish on ne of the fo ollowing goa als: increasin ng permanency, inc creasingpositiveoutcom mes,andpre eventingabu useandneglect. Thisbillamend dstheFamil yCodetore equirethatc childreninD DFPS conservatorship be prov ided with a at least 10 0 days adva ance no otice of eve ery permane ency and p placement r review hear ring, pro ovided the child c is at lea ast 10 years s of age or th he court directs tha atsuchnotic cebegiven. Thisbilladdsnew n dutiesr relatedtothereviewofmedicalcare eby a guardian ad d litem, att torney ad litem, and the court, for children in DFPS conserva atorship. The e bill directs s CPS to ens sure at a youths s transition plan includ des provision ns to assist the tha youth in managing medic cation usage e after exiting foster c care. ew requirem ments are added to the trainin ng for med dical Ne consenters. Th he bill outlin nes requirem ments for inf formed cons sent r psychotrop pic medicati ons. Notification of the e childs pare ents for at the next visit is requi red upon th he initial pr rescription o of a psy ychotropic medication, , or any c change in dosage of the me edication. HHSC is direc cted to use Medicaid pr rescription d drug data to monitor the pr rescribing o of psychotropic drugs for children who are under the supervi ision of DFP PS through the Int terstateCom mpactonthe ePlacementofChildren(ICPC). This bill provides CASA w with electro onic access to certain d data sto ored in the DFPS D IMPAC CT database system, as provided un nder rul les to be ado opted by th e HHSC Exec cutive Comm missioner. CASA mu ust maintain n the confiidentiality o of the data. With fund ding rd appropriatedinthe83 S ession,DFPS Swillundert takeafoury year
206 DFPS
H.B.843 3*
Lucio oIII
H.B.915 5*
Kolkh horst
H.B.122 27*
Duke es
Departm mentofFam milyandProt tectiveServ vices Exhibi it13: 83rdLe egislativeSe essionChart t

BillNum mber Au uthor Summa aryofKeyPr rovisions pro oject to prov vide externa al access to key stakeho olders, includ ding CA ASA. This bill cont tinues the existence o of the Hum man Trafficking Pre evention Ta ask Force he eaded by the Office o of the Attor rney Ge eneral. In addition to o continuin ng the Tas sk Force u until September 1, 2015, the b bill would ad dd a new duty to the T Task nt list of re esponsibilitie es, and wou uld require the Forces curren DFPS, the Te exas Education Agency and Task Force to work with D HSC. HH nduct a stud dy to determ mine This bill directs DFPS and DSHS to con wh hethercertaindataisav vailabletoid dentifytheu useofalcoho olor controlled sub bstances by y children and parents involved in n an inv vestigation by DFPS. It also requires that if neither age ency collects this data d that th ey then det hich agency can termine wh compile the in nformation m most effectiv vely and at the lowest cost and to provid de a report t on this st tudy to the e governor and leg gislativelead dership. This bill provid des a confid entiality pro ovision for a any photogra aph, vid deotape,aud diotape,ora anyothersu uchaudioorvideodepiction tha at DFPS ma ade of a c hild during a licensing g inspection n or inv vestigation conducted c b by DFPS. DF FPS may on nly release s such ite emsifrequiredbystate orfederalla aworaruleadoptedby ythe HH HSCexecutiv vecommissio oner. This bill requir res licensed childcarece enters to hav ve an electro onic child safety alarm system in a vehicle e designed t to seat eigh ht or mo ore persons that is used d to transpo ort children in the cent ters car re, if the vehicle is purc chased or leased on or a after Decem mber 31,2013. This bill req quires that t experient tial lifeski ills for yo outh tra ansitioning out o of foste r care be st trengthened d in the area of nutrition education, in ncluding g grocery sh hopping, m meal eparation and a cooking g, performin ng basic ho ousehold ta asks, pre balancing a ch heck book, a nd using public transpo ortation. The e bill als so requires contracted c p providers of f transitiona al living serv vices to offer nutrit tion educatiion and to assist youth h in develop ping ski illsinfoodpreparation. This bill expa ands educat tionrelated responsibi ilities for D DFPS sta aff, guardian ns ad litem, , attorneys ad litem, an nd school st taff.
207 DFPS
H.B.127 72*
Thom mpson ofHa arris
H.B.139 96*
Kingof Taylo or
H.B.164 48*
Raym mond
H.B.174 41
Naish htat
H.B.211 11*
Stram ma
H.B.261 19*
Naish htat

BillNum mber Au uthor Summa aryofKeyPr rovisions The bill requires DFPS to identify the person n who will be for making education decisions fo or a delegated responsibility f childinconser rvatorship,fiilethatinfor rmationwith hthecourt,and pro ovide a co opy to the childs sch hool and c courtappoin nted advocates. Th he bill outli nes the ap ppointment of a surrog gate parent for children in sp pecial educa ation progra ams, adds n new duties to the e guardian and attor rneys ad li item regard ding rep portingtoth hecourtonw whetherthe eyouthseducationalne eeds are e being ad ddressed, an nd requires s each chil ld to have an education sta ability plan. Additionally, the bill outlines w what otices and information n schools or TEA sh hould send to no educational decisionma akers and d adds m mental he ealth appointments, , family v visitations, and appo ointments w with healthcarepro ofessionalst othelistofexcusedabs sences. Thisbillcreate esanewtaskforceond domesticviolence,includ ding a representati ve of the D r DFPS prevent tion and early intervention pro ogram. The task force w will focus on n topics such h as the imp pact of domestic violence on c children. Th he task force e is directed d to pro oduce a rep port by Sept tember 1, 20 015 and exp pires Januar ry 1, 2016. This bill relate es to emplo oyment in c certain consumer direc cted ser rvices(CDS)programsa ndbycertai infacilitiesa andtothenu urse aid d registry an nd the emp ployee misco onduct registry. It ensu ures tha atemployee eshiredthro oughtheCDS Sprogramareeligibleto obe list tedontheemployeemiisconductre egistry. This bill conc cerns center rs that pro ovide shelter to trafficking vic ctims, provi iding an e exception to o the public information req quirement. The bill alllows a gov vernment b body to red dact certainperson nalinformatiionmaintain nedbyoneo ofthesecen nters for r an employ yee, volunte eer worker, or board member. The e bill als so requires the t adoptio n of minimu um standard ds applicable e to general residential oper rations that provide comprehen nsive res sidential an nd nonresid dential services to per rsons who are vic ctimsoftraff ficking. The bill requires a State e Supported d Living Cen nter to allow w a sident to ins stall electronic monitor ring in the residents ro oom, res sub bject to agreement of f any roomm mates also present in the sam me room. APS A will inve estigate any resulting re eports of abuse,
208 DFPS
H.B.262 20*
Collie er
H.B.268 83
Price e
H.B.272 25
S.B.33* *
Zaffirini

BillNum mber S.B.44* * Au uthor Zaffirini, West t Summa aryofKeyPr rovisions neglect,andex xploitationb basedonatapeorrecor rding. sDFPSandD DSHStostud dywaystop preventfam milies Thisbilldirects fro om relinquishing a child to DFPS in order to get mental he ealth car re, and requires DFPS to collect c certain data related to the number of ch hildren who suffer from m a mental illness and for wh hom DFPS is appointe ed managin ng conserva ator becaus se a person voluntarily relinqu uished posse ession of the e child solely to btain mental health serv vices for the e child. The b bill requires the ob Co ouncil on Children and F Families to make recom mmendations to HH HSC to eliminate the pr actice of inc cluding in th he DFPS cen ntral reg gistrythena ameofaper rsonwhorelinquishesp possessionof fhis or her child to o DFPS solelly to obtain mental hea alth services s for the echild. This bill make es changes t to the composition and d duties of the Childrens Poli icy Council a and adds m mental healt th to the is ssue are eas the Co ouncil may study. Rec commendat tions from the Co ouncil will influence se ervice provi isions for longterm c care, health service es, and men ntal health services to o children w with dis sabilities.DF FPScontinue esasamemb beroftheCo ouncil. This bill requir res the vacc cination of c childcare fac cility employ yees for r certain dise eases identi fied by the C Centers for DiseaseCon ntrol andPrevention nandbased dontheriskofexposure etothechild dren incare. This bill adds two t addition nal member rs to the Stat te Child Fata ality Review Team an emerg gency medic cal services provider; an nd a pro ovider of se ervices to, o or an advocate for, victims of family vio olence.Thebill b alsochan ngesthelan nguageabou utthefreque ency of the report that t is produ uced by the State Child Fatality Rev view ther than an nnual. Addit tionally, this s bill Team to be biannual rat inc cluded langu uage to crea ate the Pro otect Our Kid ds Commission wh hichwillfocu usonreduci ngchildfata alities. The bill expan nds protecti ons for patients at Sta ate Hospitals s by inc creasing oversight, increasing g employ yee train ning, str rengthening abuse and neglect reporting requirements, and authorizing the HHSC Offiice of Inspector Genera al to investig gate criminal offen nses in Sta te Hospital ls. The bill also (1) a adds ofessional licensing boa ards to the list of profe essionals wit th a pro duty to repor rt, and (2) clarifies tha at a profess sional or ot ther
209 DFPS
S.B.50* *
Zaffirini
S.B.64
Nelso on
S.B.66* *
Nelso on
S.B.152 2
Nelso on

BillNum mber Au uthor Summa aryofKeyPr rovisions person with reason r to b believe that t an adult was abused d or ortiftherep portwillpro otect neglectedasachildmust makearepo the e health or safety of an nother child, , persons ag ged 65 or older, orpersonwith hadisability . This bill codifie es new stan ndards for C Childrens Ad dvocacy Centers (CA ACs) which were agre ed upon by y stakehold ders and which ref flectevidenc cebasedsta andardsofbestpracticesinthefield dfor the edeliveryof fcenterserv vices. This bill amend ds the Fami ly Code, con ncerning the e preparation of soc cial studies for purpose es of assistin ng the court t in determin ning the e issues of possession, p access, and d custody of f a child in s suits aff fecting the parentchild d relationship. Under t the bill a so ocial stu udy evaluato or may hav ve access to o a comple ete, unredac cted copy of the child c abuse or neglect t investigation regardin ng a person who is s a resident of the home that is the e subject of the soc cial study. The T informat tion obtaine ed by the eva aluator remains confidential and a is not subject to release un nder the Pu ublic Inf formationAc ct. This bill conce erns visitatio on between parents an nd children w who are e in the tem mporary man naging conse ervatorship (TMC) of DFPS, and for whom m the perm manency goa al is reunification. DFP PS is req quired to en nsure that th he parent w who is otherw wise entitled d to po ossession of the child h has an opp portunity to visit the c child wit thin three days after r DFPS is n named TMC unless D DFPS determines vis sitation is no ot in the childs best interest or wo ould conflictwithacourtorder r.Atempora aryvisitation nschedulem must nation with the parent ts prior to the be developed in coordin adversary hea aring and re emains in ef ffect until D DFPS develop ps a vis sitationplanoruntilmod difiedbycou urtorder. This bill exemp pts from lice ensure certa ain emergen ncy shelters t that pro ovide care to t an unacc companied minor and any children n of tha atminor,providedthef facilitycontr ractswithastateorfed deral agency or me eets the re equirements s to contract as a family vio olenceshelte er. ThisbillmodifiestheFamiilyCodetob broadensDF FPSauthorit tyto use e a flexible response sy ystem (AKA Alternative e Response ) to ma akethemostefficientu seofresour rces.ThebillallowsDFP PSto use e an asse essment, ra ather than an invest tigation, w when
210 DFPS
S.B.245 5
West t
S.B.330 0*
Huffm man
S.B.352 2*
West t
S.B.353 3
West t
S.B.423 3*
Nelso on

BillNum mber S.B.425 5* Au uthor Nelso on Summa aryofKeyPr rovisions res spondingtolessseriouscasesofrep portedabuse eorneglect. This bill stren ngthens the requiremen nt that DFP PS consult w with certain entities in a child s case in making placement decisio ons. Specifically, th he bill requi res DFPS to o consult wit th the attor rney ad litem, gua ardian ad liitem, and courtappointed volunt teer advocate when making g placemen nt decision ns, unless the acement is an emergen ncy that do oes not allow pla w time for the req quiredconsu ultations. Thisbill: addresses inspectio ons, back kground checks, and administrativepenaltie es,andtheg groundsfortakingreme edial actionagai instanadmiinistratorsp permit; createsanew n exempt ionforcerta ainemergen ncyshelterst that provideshelter,care,o orservicest toallegedvictimsofhum man trafficking; ; creates the possibility y of biennia al inspections for licen nsed childcare centers c or homes that t have a go ood complia ance history; requires the same fiingerprint c criminalhist tory checks for general residential r operations, childplacing agenc cies, licensed fo oster homes s, and licensed administ trators as fo or all otherchild dcareoperat tionslicensedbyDFPS; allows fo or the im mmediate i imposition of monetary administrative penalt ties, before e imposing g nonmonetary administrative penaltie es for the fa ailure of ope erations to t take certainact tionsrelated dtobackgrou undchecks;and
S.B.427 7*
Nelso on
S.B.428 8*
Nelso on
adds new w grounds for reme edial actio on against an administrators license e to preven nt a person n from bein ng a licensed administrato r if the pe erson is ine eligible to b be a controlling gpersonata anoperation n. This bill elimi inates redu ndant background che ecks that m might ake it more e difficult for CPS to o implemen nt a mento oring ma pro ogram by which w foster care provide ers help to mentor pare ents wh ho are ant ticipated to o be reunited with their children. Specifically, th his bill reliev ves residenti ial childcare facilities of f the
211 DFPS

BillNum mber Au uthor Summa aryofKeyPr rovisions duty to conduct a back kground che eck on a parent or ot ther lative of a ch hild in care a at the facilit ty if:(1) DFPS has on file e for rel the e parent or relative a b background and crimina al history check; and (2) the backgroun d and crim minal histo ory check was conducted wit thin the tw oyear perio od precedin ng the date the parentorrelat tivevisitsthe eclientatth hefacility. This bill directs DFPS to im mplement a process to v verify that e each ster parent seeking mo onetary assi istance to p pay for dayc care fos has attempted to find d daycare ser rvices throu ugh commu unity ser rvices.DFPSmayprovid detheassista ancewithou utfirstrequi iring verificationifDFPS D determ minestheve erificationwo ouldpreventan em mergencypla acementtha atisinthech hildsbestin nterest. Thisbillrequir resDFPStoc conducta preplacemen ntvisitbetw ween a child c and a proposed kinship care egiver and to provide the car regiver with h a form co ontaining pe ertinent info ormation ab bout the e child, inc cluding edu cational, m medical, den ntal, and so ocial his story. The bill also allow ws DFPS to increase kins ship integration payments from m $1,000 p per sibling g group to up p to $1,000 per child, subject to the avai lability of fu unds. DFPS is developin ng a kin nshippayme entplanbase edonfundsappropriate ed. Thisbilldirects sDFPStoco onductaPer rmanencyPlanningMee eting (PP PM) at 45 days after the award d of Tempo orary Manag ging Co onservatorsh hip (TMC) a and five m months post tTMC. If D DFPS determines th hat a multiidisciplinary PPM will assist DFPS S in cilitating permanency f for a child, DFPS can conduct the e 5 fac mo onth PPM as s a multidisc ciplinary PPM M. The bill a also directs t that DF FPS include the t child in t the PPM, if the child is at least 7 ye ears old d. This bill also a requires s DFPS to am mend its pla acement rev view rep port to iden ntify placem ment change es and describe barriers to sus staining the e placement and requir res contracte ed provider rs to inc cludetherea asonandrec commendat tionsforafu utureplacem ment inthedischarg genotice. This bill allows s certain chi ldren to con nsent to hou using or care e for the emselves and their of ffspring thr rough a tra ansitional liv ving pro ogram at an n operation regulated by y DFPS. To c consent to s such ho ousing or care, the child d must be 1 16 years old d and either r (1) res side indepen ndently and d be financia ally indepen ndent, or (2) be unmarriedand dbepregnan ntorbeapa arent.
212 DFPS
S.B.430 0*
Nelso on
S.B.502 2*
West t
S.B.534 4*
West t
S.B.717 7*
West t

BillNum mber Au uthor S.B.769 9* Uresti Summa aryofKeyPr rovisions This bill man ndates a p pilot progra am in Bex xar County for ecialized tra aining of fost ter parents of children who have b been spe tra aumatized or o have seriious mental l health nee eds, if DFPS S or another state agency ca n provide s such training with exis sting res sources, or local govern nment or ch haritable or rganizations can pro ovide the tr raining at n no cost. The e training is s to be par rt of communityba ased servic ces and s support pr rovided by y a wraparound individualiz zed planning g process as prescribed d by w the e Texas Inte egrated Fun ding Initiative Consortium. DFPS m must eva aluatethepilot p andsub bmitareport tbyDecemb ber1,2016. This bill mand dates that C Child Protec ctive Service es develop and implement a training pr rogram that t all staff n newly hired d or pro omotedtoamanageme entposition musttakeb beforeassum ming suc chaposition n.Thetraini ngmustpro omotedevelopmentofs skills in communica ation, decisi onmaking and strateg gic thinking and pre epare the employee to manage wo orkloads, co onduct effec ctive unit meetings, , manage a m mobile work kforce, implement program andoperationalpolicies,a andcomplet teperforman nceplans. Thisbillmakes samendmen ntstoclarify ytheFamilyCoderegard ding young adultswho w remain in fostercare, and who o must be un nder the eextendedjurisdiction j o ofacourtto oqualifyforTitleIVEfo oster car re reimbursement. Th he bill clar rifies provis sions that are t attorneys and ess sential to maximizing m fe ederal fundi ing, but that courtshaveindicatedare notsufficien ntlyclearun nderthecurrent law w. This bill amen nds the Educ cation Code e to explicitly delineate the andatory ab buse and neglect rep porting requirements and ma address training require ements for mandatory y reporting for em mployees at t open enr rollment ch harter schoo ols and hig gher education inst titutions. Th e bill requir res every pu ublic school and op penenrollme entcharters schooltopostEnglishan ndSpanishsigns dis splaying the e DFPSope erated abus se hotline. The bill also req quireslicens sedchildcare efacilitiesto omaintainverificationo ofan em mployees attendance a at training sessions on repor rting req quirements. The bill establishes an Em mploymentF First Task Fo orce to prom mote competitive employment e for individ duals with d disabilities w who rec ceive public benefits. D DFPS will hav ve a represe entative on the
213 DFPS
S.B.771 1*
Uresti
S.B.886 6*
Uresti
S.B.939 9*
West t
S.B.122 26*
Zaffirini

BillNum mber Au uthor Summa aryofKeyPr rovisions tas sk force. Du uties of the task force include making policy and pro ogramrecom mmendation nsandthesu ubmissionofareport. The bill modifi ies provision ns relating t to extension ns of emerge ency ord ders for pro otective serv vices obtained by the A APS program m so tha at the order r may remaiin in place f for up to 70 0 days from the date it was originally is ssued, as c compared t to the current aximumof60 6 days. ma This bill is int tended to h help student ts in DFPS c conservatorship sec cure course credit for a high school diploma. The bill allows TEA A to develop a system for awardin ng partial cre edit to stude ents in foster care who exper ience schoo ol disruption ns. This bill also allo ows TEA to provide methods f for students to comp plete coursework be efore the b eginning of the next sc chool year, and for r school dist tricts to off fer an intens sive program m which allows stu udents in DFPS conserv vatorship an n opportunity to comp plete req quirements for graduatiion. If a stud dent in foster care satis sfies all graduation n requireme ents from a high scho ool the stud dent pre eviously atte ended, the b bill allows th hat previous s school to is ssue the e student a high schoo ol diploma, even though the stud dent do oes not mee et all diplom ma requirem ments from the school the stu udent is att tending at the time o of graduatio on. School s staff wo ould also have h to info orm studen nts of dual credit college xcused abse courses, and students s are e allowed ex ences to att tend uchasfamilyandsibling gvisitations. . courtorderedactivities,su This bill is des signed to im mprove the independen nt living skills of youth in foste er care by s strengthenin ng the finan ncial literacy y of ansitioning youth y and ex xpanding the e required e experiential life tra ski ills foster care provide ers must de eliver. It als so requires the contractor of transitional t living servic ces to assist the youth w with ob btaining a sa avings or ch hecking acco ount if the youth is 18 8 or old der. This bill requir res attorneys s on an appointment lis st to serveas an att torney ad litem (AAL) f for a child or parent in n a CPS suit to ob btain at leas st three ho ours annually of releva ant training g. In addition, it re equires app pointment o of an AAL f for an indig gent a fathe er in all suit ts where DFPS is seeking to parent or an alleged be appointed as conserv vator, not just when D DFPS is seeking rminationof fparentalrig ghts.Courtsaredirected dtoaddress sthe ter
214 DFPS
S.B.123 36*
West t
S.B.140 04*
Patrick, Uresti
S.B.158 89
Zaffirini
S.B.175 59*
Uresti

BillNum mber Au uthor Summa aryofKeyPr rovisions issue of appo ointment of f the attorn ney ad litem m prior to the adversaryhe earingandto opostponet that commencementofafulla hearing, if nec cessary, to give the AA AL time to p prepare for the hearing. The duties d of an AAL appoint ted to repre esent an alle eged fat ther are clar rified, and t the court ha as an ongoin ng obligation n to inf form an ind digent paren nt who is n not already represented d of the eir right to o an AAL at the stat tus hearing g and at e each permanencyhearing. The bill direct ts the Texas s Juvenile Ju ustice Board d to appoint t an advisory comm mittee to d evelop a pl lan to end the practice e of fingerprinting children c committed to the Ju uvenile Jus stice De epartment fo or delinquen nt conduct, other than felony cond duct. DF FPSisoneofnamedpart ticipantsontheadvisory ycommittee e. The bill adds to the Tex xas Coordin nating Coun ncil for Vete eran Services an ad dditional 17 7 members to include all of the HHS enterprise age encies. The council coo ordinates act tivities to as ssist vet terans, serv vice membe ers, and their families s by facilita ating collaborative relationship ps among state, fede eral, and local agenciesandprivate p organ nizations. SummaryofKey K Provision ns/Reasont theBillDidN NotPass This bill prop posed short ening the t time frame until a fo oster anding to fil e an origina al suit (or in ntervention in a parent has sta pendingsuit)to t sixmonth hsforanych hildplacedbyDFPSwiththe ster parent, and to on ly three mo onths for a child who was fos pla aced with th he foster pa rent when t the child wa as less than two mo onthsofage e. Las st Action: 04/29/2013 3 House Co ommittee r report sent t to Calendars This bill propo osed caseloa ad and call processing standards t that FPS shall wo ork towards s ensuring to the exten nt appropria ated DF mo oney is ava ailable. This s bill relate es to employee casel load sta andards for child and ad dult protect tive services and Child C Care Lic censing serv vices and ca all processin ng standards s for certain n of tho oseservices. Ide entical to S.B B. 1748 by S Senator Ure esti, which did not pass and isincluded i inthis t list.
VIII.Statut toryAuthorityandRecentLe egislation 215 DFPS
S.B.176 69
Rodr riguez
S.B.189 92
Garcia
Legislatio onNotPassed83rdLe egislativeS Session

BillNum mber Auth hor H.B.165 5* Flynn n
H.B.304 4*
Walle

BillNum mber Au uthor Summa aryofKeyPr rovisions Las st Action: 02 2/19/2013 H House Left p pending in H Human Serv vices Co ommittee ThisbillrequiresHHSCand dDFPStoim mplementthefederalAssets for r Independe ence (AFI) Act, which targets fos ster youth and young adults ages 15 to 23. DFPS and HHSC w would develo op a ma atched savi ings accoun nt or IDA program for interes sted em mployed you uth and youn ng adults for expenses related to p post sec condaryedu ucation,buyiingafirstho ome,ortost tartabusine ess. Ide entical to S.B B. 980 by Se enator Davis s, which did not pass an nd is inc cludedinthislist. Las st Action: 05/04/2013 House Considered in Calend dars Co ommittee This bill proposed requir ring each health and h human serv vices agency, except HHSC, to p perform a c cost analysis s comparing the ts of perfo orming a service to the costs of agencys cost outsourcing the t service e before awarding, amending, or ext tending a co ontract that would redu uce state em mployees by 100 fulltimeequiv valentsorwo ouldcost$1 10millionormore. Las st Action: 04 4/23/2013 H House Left p pending in H Human Serv vices Co ommittee This bill propo osed requiri ng DFPS an nd/or license ed child placing agencies to submit pot tential foster and adoptive pare ents ter parents of group h homes) to a psycholog gical (including fost aluation before a child d is placed under thei ir care. It b both eva req quires a ps sychological evaluation n prior to placement and pro ohibitsplace ementwitho outone. Las st Action: 04/09/2013 0 House No o action taken in Hum man ServicesComm mittee This bill amended HRC 42 to rem move the cu urrent licensing exe emptionfor rabeforesc choolorafte erschoolpro ogramopera ated dir rectly by an n accredite ed education facility o or operated d by another entity y under a co ontract with h the educat tional facility. It the en addedanewexempt tion for a be eforeschool l or aftersch hool pro ogram, childcare, or o other exten nded day a activity that is pro ovided direc ctly by a pu blic school w without cha arging tuition n or an enrollment t fee. In ad ddition the annual licen nsing fee fo or a lice ensedchildc carefacilityiincreasedfro om$1to$2perchild. Las st Action: Postponed P o on second r reading until June 3, 20 013,
216 DFPS
H.B.445 5
Duke es
H.B.486 6
Duke es
H.B.604 4
Lozano
H.B.743 3*
Mille erof FortBend

BillNum mber H.B.831 1* Au uthor N. Gonz zalez ofElPaso Summa aryofKeyPr rovisions deadbyproceduralaction n o create new w requireme ents This bill amended Family Code 266 to and new docu umentation o of informati ion, consent t, and inform med consent for th he administr ration of ps sychotropic drugs to fo oster children. Las st Action: In ntroduced a and referred d to committee on Ho ouse Hu umanService es This bill amen nded Family Code 266 t to require t that the per rson authorized to consent to o medical tr reatment for a foster c child pre escribedapsychotropic p drugshalle ensurethatt thechildhasan off fice visit wit th the presc ribing physician at least t once every y 90 days to monitor the sid e effects and determine whether r to continue use of the dru ug. Similar or same p provisions w were cludedinH.B B.915which hreacheden nrollment. inc Las st Action: Referred to o Senate C Committee o on Health and Hu umanService es This bill amen nded Family y Code 264 to require notification n of leg gislators of the t death of f a foster ch hild not later than 48 ho ours aft tertheDepa artmentlear nsofthede eath. Ide entical to S.B B. 728 by Se enator Davis s, which did not pass an nd is inc cludedinthislist. Las st Action:05/14/2013 0 Committee e action p pending Sen nate He ealthandHumanService es This bill amen nded Family y Code 266 by adding a new section entitled Comp plaints Regar rding Medical Care. Und der this sect tion, a parent, fos ster parent t, managing g conservat tor, possess sory g c caretaker, c custodian, c courtappoin nted conservator, guardian, spe ecial advoca ate, or othe er person w with knowledge of med dical car re, including g medication ns, provided d to a foster r child could d file a complaint with the D Department outlining t the individu uals concernsabou utthemedic calcareofth hechild. Las stAction:Co ommitteeac ctionpendingHouseHumanService es Thisbillproposedthateve erychildent teringDFPSc conservatorship to receive a developm mentally ap ppropriate, comprehensive psy ychosocial assessment a w within 45 da ays. The ass sessment wo ould inc clude a trauma screenin ng and inter rviews with individuals w who have knowled dge of the c childs need ds. DFPS wo ould develo op a sch hedule of approved ass sessment to ools that can be used, and
217 DFPS
H.B.838 8
Zerw was
H.B.932 2
Turnerof Harris
H.B.105 58*
Turnerof Harris
H.B.114 43*
Stram ma

BillNum mber Au uthor Summa aryofKeyPr rovisions guidelinesrega ardingtheco ontentsofa anassessmentreport. st Action: Referred R to Senate He ealth and H Human Serv vices Las Co ommittee This bill propo osed that D DFPS consult t with certa ain entities in a childs case in making pla acement dec cisions. Spec cifically, the e bill wo ould amend section 264 4.107(e) of the Texas Family Code (T TFC) to require that DFPS cons sult with the e childs cas seworker in any acement dec cision, regar rdless of wh hether the p placement is s an pla em mergency. DFPS D would also be req quired to co onsult with the childs attorne ey ad litem m (AAL), gua ardian ad litem (GAL) and courtappointe ed volunte eer advocate (CASA A) in making pla acement dec cisions, unle ess the place ement is an emergency t that do oes not allow w time for the require ed consultations. If DFP PS is unable to con nsult with the AAL, G GAL or CASA prior to the acement cha ange, DFPS is required to notify an nd consult w with pla each entity no n later th han one bu usiness day y following the pla acementcha ange. Sim milar, but no ot identical to S.B. 425 5 by Senator r Nelson, which did dpass. Las st Action: Referred R to Senate He ealth and H Human Serv vices Co ommittee This bill man ndates due process p prior to pla acement of an ind dividuals na ame in the e DFPS Cent tral Registry y for abuse e or neglect. It also o contains a variety of f provisions relating to CPS inv dministrativ vestigations, , internal ad ve review p procedures, and ret tentionofre ecords. Las stAction:Re eferredtoHo ouseHuman nServicesCo ommittee This bill propo osed an exem mption for c certain eme ergency shelters tha at provide shelter, car re, or servic ces for up to 15 days for children who are 1317 years old a and are alle eged victims s of humantraffick kingasdefin nedinPenalCode20A.02 2. Las stAction:Re eferredtoSe enateHealth handHumanServices This bill propo osed creatin g a criminal l, misdemea anor penalty y for usi ing a stun gu un, Taser, ha andcuffs or similar restr raints on a c child for rdisciplinary ypurposes. Las st Action: The T bill was s heard and d voted out t of the Ho ouse Cri iminal Jurisp prudence C ommittee, but was ne ever set on the Ho ouseCalenda ar.
218 DFPS
H.B.118 80
Corte ez
H.B.132 23*
Zerw was
H.B.145 52
N. Gonz zalez ofElPaso
H.B.150 02
Raym mond

BillNum mber Au uthor H.B.163 33 Duke es Summa aryofKeyPr rovisions This bill propo osed creatio on of the C Commission to Eliminate a Neglect t Fatalities. The comm mission wou uld Child Abuse and consist of 12 members (s six appointe ed by Gover rnor, three b by Lie eutenant Go overnor, and d three by th he Speaker o of the Hous se) tostudy: the relatio onship betwe een child pr rotective services and c child welfare se ervices and the rate o of child abuse and neg glect fatalities; the effectiveness of t he Departm ments policies and systems aimed at collecting c accurate unifo orm data on n child fatalit ties; and ngbarriers to o preventing g fatalities fr rom child ab buse any existin andneglec ct.
H.B B. 1633 wou uld have dup plicated som me efforts o of the Statew wide Blu ue Ribbon Task Force , enacted by S.B. 2080 in the 81st Leg gislature, to create a str rategic plan to combat child abuse and improvechildwelfare.S.B B.2080wasa authoredby ySen.Uresti. Ple ease note th hat while H.B. 1633 did not pass, s similar langu uage wa as added to S.B. 66 as a House floo or amendme ent, and S.B B. 66 did d pass. The name of th he new entity is the Protect Our Kids Co ommission. The T charge to the new Commission is not exa actly wh hat was in H.B. 1633 b but very sim milar. Rep. Dukes was the authorofboth hthebilland dtheamend dment. Las st Action: 05 51013 Sen nate Referre ed to Senate e Committee e on SenateHealthandHuman nServices This bill propo osed repeali ng all of Family Code 1 107, Subchapter D, titled Social Studies, an nd creating a new Subc chapter E, titled Child Custody y Evaluation n, and a n new Subchapter F, titled Ad doption Eval luation. Ch hild Custody y Evaluation n is a proc cess ord dered by a court. Evaluator would d not be DFPS and wo ould have access to t all relev vant records s held by D DFPS, includ ding inf formation co onfidential under HRC 40. Adoption Evaluati ion ma ay be cond ducted by DFPS, depending on courts or rder. Ad doption eva aluator als so entitled to obtai in confiden ntial inf formationun nderHRC40 0.
H.B.166 61
219
DFPS

BillNum mber Au uthor Summa aryofKeyPr rovisions Ide enticaltoS.B B.1245byS SenatorWes st,whichdid dnotpassan ndis inc cludedinthislist. Las stAction:05 5/04/2013H HouseConsid deredinCale endars H.B.167 73 Perry y This bill propo osed amendiing Family C Code Chapter 2, the chapter garding mar rriages, and adding a n new subjecti ion 2.0105 t that reg wo ould require e DFPS to prepare and provide family viole ence inf formational materials f for marriage e license ap pplicants via a all county clerks across the state. HHS SC, rather t than DFPS, has ceprograms. oversightoffamilyviolenc Las st Action: 04 0 2213 House Commit ttee action pending Ho ouse Jud diciaryandCivil C Jurispru udence This bill prop posed ame ending Family Code 2 264 to require consultation between b the e childs case eworker, att torney ad lit tem, guardian ad lit tem, and an ny courtapp pointed volu unteer advoc cate for r the child prior p to chan nge in placem ment (excep pt when making an emergenc cy placeme ent that do oes not allow time for consultation). milar to S.B. 425 (Nelson n), H.B. 168 81 (Raymond d)and Sectio on 1 Sim ofH.B.1180(C Cortez). Las st Action: 030413 House Intr roduced an nd referred to Co ommitteeonHouseHum manServices s This bill pro oposed cre eating the Office of f Independ dent mbudsman to assist pe ersons with h complaints against D DFPS Om he agencys reg garding case especific ac ctivities of th s programs. The Go overnor wou uld appoint the indepen ndent ombu udsman and the off ficewouldbeadministra ativelyindep pendentfrom mDFPS. Las stAction:04 4/23/2013H HouseLeftpe endingincommittee This bill prop posed amen nding the F Family Code e by addin ng a pro ovision whic ch would confer standin ng on a foste er parent to o file anoriginalsuit tortointerv veneinasuitaffectingt theparentc child rel lationship(S SAPCR)filed bytheDepa artmentinsixmonthsif fthe De epartment has removed d the child fr rom the chil lds home m more tha anonce. Las st Action: 04/23/2013 3 House Co ommittee r report sent t to Calendars This bill propo osed bill am mending the e Health an nd Safety C Code a negle ect, and ex xploitation o of recipients s of defining the abuse,
220 DFPS
H.B.168 86
Farney
H.B.221 18*
Wu
H.B.232 21
Parker
H.B.237 74
Corte ez

BillNum mber Summa aryofKeyPr rovisions ho omehealthservices;crea atinganoffe ense;providingpenalties. Las stAction:03 3/11/2013H HouseReferr redtoHuma anServices Rodr riguez This bill propo osed amend ding Section n 102 of th he Texas Family ofBe exar Co ode to requir re that a ch ild be in a foster parents home for 12 mo onths before e a foster p parent may i intervene. It t also propo osed am mending the e section t to require the contin nuation of the req quirement that t the co ourt must determine that namin ng a parent as a managing g conservat tor to the e child wo ould sig gnificantly im mpair the childs physical health h or emotio onal development. Las st Action: In ntroduced a and referred d to Committee on Ho ouse Jud diciaryandCivil C Jurispru udence. Rodr riguez This bill propo osed amend ding Section n 102 of th he Texas Family ofBe exar Co ode to add 102.0031 1 wh hich states th hat a court may not permit a foster f paren nt to interve ene in a pen nding suit th hat involves the childunlessth hechildhasb beeninthe fosterparen ntshomefo orat lea ast 12 months. The com mmittee sub bstitute was vastly different inthatitdidnotpermitfo osterparents stointerven neinasuitu until 90 days after r terminatio on of paren ntal rights. The timefra ame me eans that all a parental rights will be termin nated AND any int terested rela atives will h have an opp portunity to intervene a after ter rmination before b the foster pa arents are permitted to int tervene. Las st Action: Reported R fro om Commit ttee as sub bstituted Ho ouse Jud diciaryandCivil C Jurispru udence. Rodr riguez This bill propo osed amendiing Sec. 102 2.006(c) of th he Texas Family ofBe exar Co ode so that for 90 days a after a termination of pa arentalright ts in a suit s filed by DFPS a pers son related to the child d within the 4th degree by consanguinity ( (blood relative) may file e an original suit or suit for modification re equesting managing con nservatorship or adoption. DFPS would hav ve to make efforts to lo ocate and no otify the erelativesoftheremov valatremova alandearlyinthecase. diciary and Civil Las st Action: Co ommittee ac ction pendin ng House Jud Jur risprudence. . Hern nandez This bill pro oposed am mending Section 162.302, Adoption Luna a Assistance Pro ogram (Texa as Family Co ode), which currently sta ates tha at it is the intent of th he legislature that DFP PS, in provid ding adoption servi ices, when it t is in the ch hildrens bes st interest, k keep
221 DFPS
Au uthor
H.B.277 73
H.B.277 74
H.B.277 76
H.B.284 44

BillNum mber Summa aryofKeyPr rovisions sib blings togeth her and wh henever pos ssible place siblings in the sam me adoptiv ve home by y adding th hat there is a rebutta able pre esumption that t removi ng a child f from a hom me to place the child in anoth her home w with a sibling g is not in t the childs b best int terest if the e child has never reside ed or had s significant p prior contactwithth hesibling. Las st Action: In ntroduced a and referred d to committee on Ho ouse Jud diciaryandCivil C Jurispru udence. Hern nandez This bill propo osed amendiing Section 1 102.005 of t the Family C Code Luna a tostate that a court shall grant a pers son who has s standing le eave to intervene in a suit a affecting the e parentchild relationship (SA APCR) filed by b an autho orized agenc cy if the pers sons motion to int terveneinclu udesapetiti onforadop ptionofthec child. Las st Action: 03/18/2013 0 House Ref ferred to Ju udiciary & Civil Jur risprudence Raym mond This bill focus sed on plac cement stab bility for ch hildren in D DFPS conservatorship. The bill p proposed an n amendmen nt to the Family Co ode to requi ire contracted substitut te care prov viders to no otify DF FPS of a placement cha ange. It requ uired a plac cement tracking sys stem to monitor placem ment change es with a fo ocus on child dren wit th two or more m placem ment change es during th he preceding g 12 mo onths. There was no s significant f fiscal impac ct, as the d data req quired for a monthly r report is av vailable thro ough existing IT sys stems. Ple ease note that t a mod ified similar r version of f H.B. 3399 9 by Representative e Raymond was amend ded to S.B. 534 by Sena ator We est,whichultimatelydid dpassed. Ide entical to S.B B. 1789 by S Senator Ure esti, which did not pass and isincluded i inthis t list. Las st Action:05 5/13/2013 Senate Refe erred to He ealth & Hum man Services The bill would d have amen nded the Fa amily Code t to require e each entity to which reports of f child abuse e and neglect can be m made to develop an n anonymou us reporting g system. Reporters wo ould rec ceive a unique numbe er or other identifier. The bill ha ad a sig gnificant cos st impact, a s substantiv ve changes to IMPACT are req quired.
222 DFPS
Au uthor
H.B.284 45
H.B.339 99
H.B.340 00
Raym mond

BillNum mber H.B.340 05 Au uthor Raym mond Summa aryofKeyPr rovisions Las stAction:Co ommitteeac ctionpendingHouseHumanService es This bill propo osed to exe empt an em mergency sh helter provid ding ser rvices for children c in t the custody y of the fe ederal Office e of Refugee Reset ttlement (ORR) to the list of childc care operations tha at are not subject to the manda atory license e requireme ents generally applicable to pe ersons oper rating a child dcare facility of man Resour rces Code Sec. childplacing agency in Texas Hum erewasnofiiscalimpactontheagen ncy. 42.041(b).The st Action: In ntroduced a and referred d to Committee on Ho ouse Las Hu umanService es Thisbillproposedamendm mentstothe eFamilyCod deforguardians ad litem and court orde ered service esto addre ess Foster C Care empted to define a Single Sou urce Redesign. The bill atte ontinuum Contractor ( (SSCC), as well as set contract ting, Co mo onitoring,an ndauditingg guidelines.S Significantfis scalimpact. Las st Action: In ntroduced an nd 03/25/20 013 referred d to Commit ttee onHouseHum manServices This bill relate ed to the cre eation of a reportable c conduct cen ntral database for r and hea alth and human se ervices age ency inv vestigations of alleged d abuse, neglect, an nd exploitation vio olations and d rights viola ations at ce ertain facilities operated in thi is state, rem moved the e exemption o of licensed p professionals to be listed on th he Employee e Misconduc ct Registry ( (EMR), required pro ofessional board b reporting, and required D DFPS to rev view personnelfiles sinthecour rseofanAPS Sfacilityinve estigation. Las st Action: 02/13/2013 0 Senate Ref ferred to He ealth & Hum man Services This bill propo osed amend ding sections s of the Tex xas Family C Code garding the administra ation and m monitoring o of psychotro opic reg me edications to o children i n DFPS con nservatorship. Some of the pro ovisionsoutlinedinthebillincludet thefollowing: hat a youth s transition plan includes provision ns to ensuring th assist the youth y in ma anaging med dication usa age after exi iting foster care e, including information n that educ cates the yo outh about the use of the m medication and informa ation about the resources available t o assist the youth in managing the medication n,
223 DFPS
H.B.343 31
Duke es
S.B.419 9*
Zaffirini
S.B.424 4*
Nelso on

BillNum mber Au uthor Summa aryofKeyPr rovisions requiring DFPS to no otify the childs parent ts of the in nitial prescriptio on of a psy ychotropic d drug or of any change e in dosage of the drug at t the first sc cheduled me eeting betw ween the parent ts and the childs case eworker afte er the date the psychotrop pic drug is prescribed or the dosa age is chang ged, and
S.B.429 9*
Nelso on
requiring additional iinformation added to Court Reports tions that w harmacologic cal intervent were related to the nonph ore the ch hild was p prescribed a psychotro opic tried befo medication n, plans for discontinuin ng the medi ication, and the childsprog gnosiswitha andwithout tthemedica ation. Las st Action: In ntroduced a and referred d to committee on Sen nate He ealthandHumanService es. Thisbillproposedthatbef foreapprovi ingadismiss salornonsuitof a suit s to term minate the p parentchild relationship p filed by DFPS, the ecourtmust tconsider(1 1)whethert thedismissalornonsuitisin the e childs best interest t, and (2) whether a any orders for conservatorship, possessio on of or acc cess to, or s support of e each childaffectedbythesuitc continueine effectafterthedismissa alor no onsuit. The bill b also prov vides that be efore approving a dismi issal or nonsuit the court may ren nder an o order for the on of, or access to, or s support of e each conservatorship, possessio c ine alornonsuit t. effectafterthedismissa childthatwillcontinue enticaltoH.B.1684byR Representati iveRaymond d,whichdidnot Ide pass. Las st Action:06 6/14/2013 T The bill was enrolled but vetoed by the Go overnor This bill relate ed to the no otification o of certain le egislators of the deathofachildinfosterc care. Ide entical to H.B. 932 by Representat tive Turner, , which did not passandisincludedinthis slist. Las st Action:02/25/2013 Senate Refe erred to He ealth & Hum man Services This bill propo osed amend dments to th he Family C Code relating g to sui its affecting the parentchild relatio onship. The bill would h have cha anged proce edures by w which appoi intments of f guardians and
224 DFPS
S.B.728 8
Davis s
S.B.768 8
Uresti

BillNum mber Au uthor Summa aryofKeyPr rovisions att torneys ad litem are ma ade.The bill l would have e expended the gro ounds for the invol untary termination o of parentc child rel lationships. The bill atte empted to make techn nical corrections to sections of the Familly Code dealing with case dismis ssals dates, as we mily ell as ident tification and notification of fam me emberswhe enachildisr removed.No ofiscalimpa act. Las st Action: 05/22/2013 0 House Retu urned to Lo ocal & Cons sent CalendarsCom mm. This bill relate ed to the cr reation of the individua al developm ment acc countprogra amtoprovid desavingsin ncentivesan ndopportunities for r certain foster child dren to p pursue hom me owners ship, po ostsecondary yeducation,andbusines ssdevelopm ment. Ide entical to H.B. 445 by Representa ative Dukes, which did not passandisincludedinthis slist. 03/12/2013Se enateReferr redtoHealth h&HumanS Services This bill prop posed amen nding Huma an Resource es Code 42 2 to cha ange minim mum stand dards for stafftochild ratios for no onresidential l,loweringth herationsto o: one staff member m per r nine childr ren who are 2 years of a age; and onestaffmember m per14childrenwhoare3y yearsofage.
S.B.980 0
Davis s
S.B.111 19*
West t
S.B.124 45
West t
st Action: 031213 S Senate Intr roduced an nd referred to Las Co ommitteeonSenateHea althandHum manServices s This bill relat ted to child d custody evaluations and adoption eva aluations co onducted an nd testimony provided in certain s suits aff fecting the parentchiild relations ship; provid ding penalt ties; authorizingfee es. Ide enticaltoH.B.1661byR Representati iveRaymond d,whichdidnot passandisincludedinthis slist. Las stAction:03 3/13/2013Se enateReferredtoJurisp prudence Thisbillproposedamendi ngtheFami ilyCodetop providethat tthe cords a pros spective ado optive paren nt would ha ave the righ ht to rec exa amine includ de any reco ords in which h the child w was an alle eged or confirmed victim of s sexual abuse e while resid ding in a fo oster ho omeorother rresidentialchildcarefa acility.
225 DFPS
S.B.140 02
Carona

BillNum mber S.B.174 48 Au uthor Uresti Summa aryofKeyPr rovisions Las stAction:05 5/21/2013H HousePlaced donGeneralStateCalen ndar This bill relate ed to emplo oyee caseloa ad standard ds for child and adult protectiv ve services and Child C Care Licensin ng services and cal llprocessing gstandardsf forcertaino ofthoseserv vices. Ide enticaltoH.B.304byRe epresentativ veWalle,wh hichdidnotp pass andisincluded dinthislist. Las st Action: 03/25/2013 0 Senate Ref ferred to He ealth & Hum man Services This bill amen nded Gover rnment Cod de 531 by c creating a n new Subchapter X entitled Ta ask Force to o Examine C Child Protec ctive Services Hiring g and Mana gement Practices. The e task force was to examine hiring and m management t practices, develop po olicy rec commendations,andtodesignaco omprehensiv veperforman nce based compen nsation and d recognition n system w with the goa al of inc creasingrete entionandr educingturn noverofcas seworkers. Las stAction:Se etontheHouseCalenda ar This bill propo osed adding new duties to the Coun ncil on Child dren and Families and creates a new comm mittee to adv vise the Cou uncil onchildabuse eprevention . Las st Action: 03/25/2013 0 Senate Ref ferred to He ealth & Hum man Services This bill related to the sta ability of plac cements for r children in the Department of Family and Protec ctive conservatorship of the D Services. enticaltoH.B.3399byR Representati iveRaymond d,whichdidnot Ide passandisincludedinthis slist. Las st Action:03/25/2013 Senate Refe erred to He ealth & Hum man Services
S.B.175 58*
Uresti
S.B.178 88
Uresti
S.B.178 89
Uresti
226
DFPS
IX.
MAJORISSUES
BriefDescriptionofIssue Issue#1:HowshouldChildProtectiveServicesinHarrisCountybestructuredand administeredtoensureoptimaloutcomesforchildrenandfamilies? Discussion The population and size of Harris County present unique challenges to CPS. In addition, outcomes in Harris County are often below the state average. Any effort to improve CPS in HarrisCountywillneedtotakeHarrisCountysuniquecharacteristicsintoconsideration. Harris County, in Region 6, has the largest child population of any county in Texas. Harris County contains 17 percent of the children living in Texas and 16 percent of all children in CPS State custody at the end of the year. As a result, outcomes for children and families involved withCPSinHarrisCountysignificantlyaffectCPSoutcomesforthestateoverall. HarrisCountychildrenstayedinCPSstatecustodyaboutsixmonthslongerthanchildreninthe stateoverall(anaveragetimetoexitof28monthscomparedto22monthsinthestateoverall). This disparity exists for virtually every type of exit from care and across all 12 courts that hear CPScasesinHarrisCounty. ExitsfromStateConservatorshipinFY2012 TypesofExits Number Percent Months Harris State Harris State Harris State Reunification 663 5,873 26% 33% 17 13 PermanencyCareAssistancewitha relative 47 530 2% 3% 21 25 Relative as Permanent Managing Conservator 655 4,605 26% 26% 17 13 RelativeAdoption 482 2,358 19% 13% 33 26 NonRelativeAdoption 460 2,682 18% 15% 36 32 Ageout 218 1,363 9% 8% 64 58 Other 39 214 2% 1% 15 15 TotalExits 2,564 17,625 Attheendof2012,38percentofHarrisCountychildreninstatecustodyhadbeentheretwoor moreyearsascomparedto25percentinthestateoverall.
IX.MajorIssues 227 DFPS
Extended stays in state custody can be both problematic for the child and expensive. In Harris County,62percentofthechildreninstatecustodyareinpaidfostercare,whichcoststheState an average of about $1,800 per month and totals more than $10,000 for every child who stays in paid foster care an extra six months. With more than 4,400 children from Harris County in fostercareduringtheyear,thecostsquicklyaddup. Given the pervasiveness of the problem, the child welfare system in Harris County must be structuredinawaythatsupportsensuringtimelypermanencyonthefrontend. PossibleSolutionsandImpact RestructuretheChildWelfareSysteminHarrisCounty Historically, CPS has treated Harris County like any other county part of a geographic region with a regional director covering all the different counties. CPS allocates the region staff and resources, and regional management largely determines the staff and resource allocation amongthevariouscountiesintheregion. Harris County, however, is not a typical county, as it is one of only a few counties in the nation that have more than one million children in its population a number that surpasses many states. The next largest county in Texas is Dallas County and its child population is almost half that of Harris County. In addition to a large child population, Harris County covers a relatively largegeographicarea.Insquarefootage,HarrisCountyisasbigasDallasandTarrantCounties puttogether. CPS also has a unique relationship with Harris County in that there are both State CPS offices and a countyadministered child welfare agency. The state CPS staff in Harris County perform the same functions as CPS state staff in other counties. The Harris County child welfare agency provides support services to enhance the efficiency of the State CPS program, and provides directservicestochildreninCPSStatecustody. Unfortunately, no existing model seems to be achieving optimal results. National data compiled by Casey Family Programs shows that super counties (Los Angeles, Cook [Chicago], Harris, as well as the five boroughs that comprise New York) all struggle with timely permanencyandhavearelativelyhighrateofchildrenincaremorethantwoyears.Asaresult, Texas may need to construct a new model for how the child welfare system should be structuredandoperatedinHarrisCounty.Thiswillrequireacomprehensiveevaluationofhow to most effectively structure Harris County CPS regional management, staff, case management processes,procurementofservicesforchildrenandfamiliesandcoordinationwiththeservices offeredbythecountyadministeredchildwelfareagency. To improve outcomes, DFPS must also examine other components of the child welfare system such as the courts, attorneys, and service providers, as well as ways to improve case
assignment and docketing in courts, relationships with attorneys and CASAs, availability of fostercareplacements,andcommunitysupportofchildrenandfamilies. AuthorizeHarrisCountytoCreateaChildAbuseandNeglectDivisionwithinItsDistrictCourts Courts play a vital role in the child welfare system. Once CPS removes a child, the court is the ultimate arbiter of what happens. Complying with court requirements (attending hearings, writingcourtreports,etc.)takesupasubstantialamountofcaseworkertime.InHarrisCounty, CPS cases are distributed across 12 different courts and 24 different judges (with each court havingadistrictandassociatejudgewhocanhearCPScases).Thismakesattendingcourtmore time consuming for caseworkers in Harris County, as they often have hearings scheduled in multiple locations on a given day, leaving them less time to be in the field with children and families. To increase efficiency for the judges, caseworkers, attorneys and families, the Legislature may consider creating a new subchapter in the Texas Family Code that authorizes counties with more than 1,000,000 children to create a child abuse and neglect division of district courts to hear all CPS cases. The Texas Family Code sections authorizing the Family Drug Court Program couldserveasastatutoryguideandmodel. The structure of this child abuse and neglect division could be modeled on the Los Angeles County Childrens Court. In Los Angeles, one dedicated courthouse hears CPS cases and its waiting rooms and courtrooms are child and family friendly. This courthouse also has a childcare facility with staff that transport children to and from court and monitor visits with parentsafterthecourthearing. Allow CPS Caseworkers to be On Call for Uncontested Court Hearings where CPS has a Court Liaison To help manage thecourt process in HarrisCounty, CPS currently hascourt liaisons assigned to and physically located in some of the courtrooms that hear CPS cases. Despite the court liaisons, caseworkers (and often supervisors) still attend hearings in these courts. Attending these hearings takes up a significant amount of a caseworkers time, giving them less time to spend in the field with children and families. As caseworkers must prepare and submit a detailedreportaboutthechildandfamilybeforeeverycourthearingandmosthearingsarenot contested,thecaseworkerspresenceoftenaddsnothingofsubstancetothehearing. To help maximize the amount of time caseworkers have to spend in the field with families and children,theLegislaturecouldauthorizecaseworkerswithacaseincourtswithadedicatedCPS court liaison to be oncall, unless the hearing is contested. If a judge or a party needs information at an uncontested hearing that is not in the court report, the CPS court liaison couldcontacttheoncallcaseworkertoobtaintheinformation.
IX.MajorIssues
229
DFPS
BriefDescriptionofIssue Issue#2:Whatcanbedonetoimprovethequalityandconsistencyoflegalrepresentationin CPSsuits? Discussion The quality of legal representation in child welfare cases varies from county to county throughout the state, leading to inconsistent legal outcomes that can negatively affecta childs safety and permanency. Moreover, inconsistency in the drafting of legal pleadings and judicial orders threatens the States ability to receive federal reimbursements for the costs of foster carethataredependent,inpart,onwhetherornotacourtordercontainscertainchildspecific findingsrequiredbyTitleIVEoftheSocialSecurityAct.Inmanycrucialways,thecourtsshape the lives of foster children. The courts decide whether or not the parentchild relationship will be terminated, and where and by whom the child will be raised. Consistency in legal representation for DFPS is essential to ensure that judges making these lifealtering decisions havethenecessaryevidenceandlegalargumentsbeforethemtomakesounddecisions. Currently,county and district attorneys have the primary responsibility for legal representation of the Department. However, if the county or district attorney is unable to represent the Department due to a conflictofinterest or special circumstances, the Office of Attorney General (OAG) has responsibility to represent the Department. If the OAG is unable to represent the Department, the OAG deputizes a DFPSemployed attorney or a contracted attorney. In practice, when the county and district attorney decline to represent the Department for any reason, the OAG routinely authorizes DFPS attorneys to perform this function. At present, DFPS has primary responsibility for representation in 125 counties, and shares responsibility with local prosecutors in another 16 counties. DFPS handles the representation in other countiesonacasebycasebasis,suchaswhenaprosecutoridentifiesaconflictofinterestthat would prevent the prosecutor from handling a particular case in that county. Also, in counties that generally provide DFPS representation at trial, DFPS may handle an appeal when the countylackstheexpertisetohandlecivilappellatematters. In the various county and district attorneys offices a substantial difference exists between the resources, experience level, and subjectmatter expertise available to represent the Department in child welfare cases. The result is that DFPS receives very competent representation in some counties and less competent representation in others. Additionally, a significant number of counties decline representation under the special circumstances provision. While DFPS attorneys have the experience and expertise to provide competent
IX.MajorIssues
230
DFPS
representation, Department resources can be suddenly strained if a county decides to stop representationwithlittleornowarning. This situation was even more problematic before the 1996 Sunset Advisory Commission first lookedattheissue.Inits1996report,theCommissionmaderecommendationstoaddressthis issue. However, the resulting legislation created the current overlapping responsibility for representation described above. Although the statutory clarification resulting from theprevious Sunset Report improved representation in some respects, the current patchwork of representation throughout the state creates multiple risks to DFPS in accomplishing its mission. Additionally, the current structure jeopardizes federal Title IVE funding when court ordersdonotuniformlycontaintherequiredelements. PossibleSolutionsandImpact Below are two steps that the Legislature could take to improve the quality and consistency of representationinchildwelfarecases. Prohibit a county from suddenly declining to handle representation without sufficient advance warning. This would give the state sufficient time to identify additional resources to competently assume the workload and ensure an orderly transition of cases to a departmentattorney. Prohibit counties over a certain population threshold to opt out of representation by citingspecialcircumstances,butallowsmallerpopulationcountiestocontinuetodoso.
Regardless of county size, there will continue to be a need to refer some cases to the OAG (which will likely continue to delegate to the Department) based on a genuine conflict of interestthatmayexistincertainindividualcases.Thesolutionslistedabove,ifcarefullycrafted, wouldachievethefollowingresults. Largely preserve the existing mix of county and state representation but could result in somerealignmentofresourcesbetweenthecountiesandthestate. Remove the uncertainty and grave risk that could result if a large county were to suddenly declinetohandlerepresentation.
Inaddition,toaddressvitalconcernsrelatingtothemaximizationoffederalfundstoTexas,the Legislature may consider amendments that require the legal representative consult with the DepartmenttoensurelegalrepresentationisaccomplishedinamannerthatcomplieswithTitle IVEoftheSocialSecurityAct.
IX.MajorIssues
231
DFPS
BriefDescriptionofIssue Issue#3:HowcanDFPSimproveintakesofreportsofabuse,neglect,andexploitationand otherinquiries? Discussion StatewideIntake(SWI),commonlyknownastheTexasAbuseandNeglectHotline,isoneofthe largest contact centers of its kind in the nation. When hold times are long, more callers hang up. A number of opportunities exist for DFPS to streamline, simplify, and standardize intake functions by changing the responsibilities, organization, and management of SWI. There are also opportunities to fully utilize the presence of a 24/7 operation in supporting field staff. StatewideIntake(SWI),asubdivisionoftheDFPSOperationsDivision,isthefrontdoorforall DFPS programs. SWI handles all intakes of abuse, neglect, or exploitation reports and then routes information to the appropriate programs local office for investigation. SWI is the startingpointforallabuse,neglect,andexploitationinvestigations. The Legislature has funded SWI to meet the Legislative Budget Board measure of 8.7 minutes (+/ 5%) average hold time for the English telephone queue at the SWI call center. SWI fielded 773,577callsintheEnglishQueueinFY2012. In Fiscal Year 2012, the average hold time for the English queue was 8.5 minutes and the abandonment rate was 29.8 percent. Abandonment rates are dependent on hold times. Abandoned calls decline as hold times decrease. SWI is not able to determine if those who abandon a phone call eventually call back or use the Ereport system to make a report. In FY 2012, SWI processed 116,594 internet reports (Ereports), which was an increase of 10 percent from FY 2011. Internet reporting began in 2002 and the system was last upgraded in 2008. The Ereport site allows reporters to meet their obligation to submit nonemergency reports with no phone hold time. Additionally, intake specialists are able to process Ereports more efficiently than reports received by phone. However, the online reporting site has a number of limitationsthatcouldbeaddressedbyaredesign. SWI calls out emergency intakes to investigative field staff after normal business hours and on weekends and holidays. The investigators then usually contact their oncall supervisor for guidance on the case and to let them know where they are going for safety purposes. The investigator must consult with a supervisor before acting to remove a child from their home or pursinganylegalactioninanAPScase.Thisprocessmeansprogramsupervisorsmustbeoncall and available to staff statewide throughout nights, holidays, and weekends, which contributes tostressandburnout.
PossibleSolutionsandImpact CallAbandonmentRates SWI could reduce abandoned callsto the Texas Abuse andNeglect Hotline if DFPSwere able to reduce average hold times to fiveminutes or less on the English queue, instead of 8.7 minutes. Underthisscenario,abandonmentrateswouldlikelydropto20percentorless.HouseBill304, introduced during the 83rd Legislative Session would have mandated five minute average hold times for SWI. DFPS estimated that it would require an additional 67.75 new intake specialists (FTEs) to reach the five minute average hold time for fiscal years 201415. Increasing the utilization of ereporting would likely reduce the number of new specialists needed to reach a fiveminuteaverageholdtime. RedesigntheInternetReportingSystem Use of the Texas Abuse and Neglect Hotline website is increasing steadily. However, as more and more people file reports of abuse and neglect online, the limitations of the website are magnified.Theereportsystemandallitsusers(primarilyprofessionalreporters)wouldbenefit from a redesign to improve reliability, performance, ease of use, and support more types of devices (such as smart phones). A complete redesign of the system will require a significant investment of time and money which may benefit if added to DFPS fouryear IMPACT modernizationproject. ExploreTechnologySolutionstoRouteCasesfromSWItoDirectDeliveryUnits While DFPS regional offices are open (hours vary), SWI sends completed intakes to a regional router. After hours, emergency (Priority 1) intakes are sent to oncall investigators. Each DFPS program (Adult Protective Services, Child Care Licensing, and Child Protective Services or APS, CCL, and CPS) has a designated router for each of the 254 Texas counties. Some routers cover more than one county and are administrative staff with other duties besides routing. It may be possible to use technology that considers factors such as tenure, caseload, geographical location,andleavestatustosimplifytheroutingprocessandequalizetheworkload. CentralizeOvernightSupervisorSupportforInvestigativeFieldStaffatSWI Rather than keeping program supervisors on call nights, weekends and holidays all over the state,itmaybemoreefficientforSWItohouse(onsiteorthroughtelework)qualifiedprogram supervisors who could be available to staff statewide to coordinate afterhours intakes. These SWI supervisors would be need the same education, experience, training, and skills as current programsupervisors. Thischangewouldrelievetheburdenonfieldsupervisorsbutthereareobstaclestorecruitinga sufficient number of qualified supervisors to work primarily nonroutine schedules, as well as concerns on worker safety and local unit cohesion. Centralized supervisors would need to be trained on best practices for worker safety, accessing resources, and assessing both the situation and the investigator's skills and needs. If pursued, it may be best to begin with a pilot foroneormoreDFPSregionswheresupervisorysupportisoverstretched.
BriefDescriptionofIssue Issue#4:WhatchangeswouldhelpDFPSkeepsiblingsinfostercaretogetherandcloseto home? Discussion Child Protective Services (CPS) strives to keep sibling groups together and in their communities when they must be removed from their homes. However, sometimes CPS is unable to find a foster home with enough capacity to keep a sibling group together and close to home. When this happens, siblings are placed in different foster homes, which may be a considerable distance from each other and from their parents home. Often, this means children must change schools and leave familiar surroundings behind. A childplacing agency can ask Residential Child Care Licensing (RCCL) for a variance from minimum standards (authorized in rule)tokeepchildrentogetherinaplacementincertaincircumstances.However,RCCLcannot underanycircumstancesamendorwaivethefollowingstatutorydefinitionsandrequirements. The Human Resource Code, Section 42.002 (6), defines a foster home as a childcare facility that provides care for not more than six children for 24 hours a day. This statutory definition strictly limits a foster home to having no more than six children living in the home and RCCL does not have authority to issue a variance. Human Resources Code, Section 42.002 (5) also defines a foster group home as a childcare facility that provides care for seven to 12 children for24hoursaday.However,challengesexistforCPSinusingfostergrouphomes,ascurrently defined, as this type of placement is generally considered an institutional setting rather than a "least restrictive" setting, particularly if the staff work shifts rather than act as livein foster parents.Asaresult,siblinggroupsmaybeseparatedwhenfosterhomes,whicharestatutorily restrictedfromprovidingcareformorethansixchildren,arenotavailabletoaccommodatethe siblinggroup. Foster homes and foster group homes are both required to follow minimum health and safety standards,althoughthereareafewadditionalrequirementsforfostergrouphomestomitigate risks associated with having seven to 12 children in one home. For instance, there are risks associated with providing appropriate overall supervision, ensuring individualized attention to each childs specific needs, and managing stress when caring for large numbers of children in a foster group home. Therefore, a statutory limit restricts the number of children under age 5 in thehome,andrequiresadditionalcaregiversingrouphomesasopposedtofosterhomes. The service level needs of each individual child are considered when making placement decisions. If a child has a specific need for a service, such as supervision or medical oversight, thatserviceisprovideddespitethenumberofotherchildreninthesameplacement.
PossibleSolutionsandImpact Amend statute to allow a childplacing agency the opportunity to request a variance to allow more than six children to live in the foster home. This change would afford RCCL the ability to assess the agencys request to ensure any risk factors are mitigated. In addition, RCCL could place conditions on the variance to provide additional safeguards beyond what is required under minimum standards. This flexibility would facilitate sibling group placements closer to theirfamilyandcommunitywhilemaintainingRCCLsregulatoryoversighttoensureriskfactors are addressed. Conditions on the variance could also include increased child placing agency oversightorinvolvementwiththeplacedsiblinggroup. Amend statute to add a definition of a foster home specific to sibling groups. This definition would specify that a foster home can exceed the capacity of six children living in the home to accommodateasiblinggroupwithin50milesofthechildrenshomecommunity.Aspartofthis change, statute could also be amended to specify that RCCL may impose certain conditions to address risk factors. For example, conditions could include a time limit for exceeding capacity, not allowing more than three children under age 5 be placed in the home, and requiring the childplacing agency to make additional visits to the home to ensure the health and safety of thechildrenandsupporttheneedsofthefosterparents. TheseproposedsolutionswouldnotresultinafiscaleffectonRCCL,althoughtheywouldresult inminorfiscalimplicationstochildplacingagencies,dependingonconditionsplaced.
IX.MajorIssues
235
DFPS
BriefDescriptionofIssue Issue#5:HowcanAdultProtectiveServicestargetservicestoreducefutureharm? Discussion Caretakers and family members of Adult Protective Services (APS) InHome clients may need services to reduce the risk of future abuse, neglect, or exploitation. However, APS lacks the statutory authority to provide caretakers such services unless there is a finding that abuse, neglect, or exploitation has already occurred. By comparison, Child Protective Services has the authoritytoprovideserviceswhetherabusehasoccurredornot. AdultProtectiveServicesisintheprocessofdesigningnewassessmenttoolsforInHomecases. ThesetoolswillallowAPScaseworkerstotargetprotectiveservicestovictimsofabuse,neglect, and exploitation who are at moderate or high risk of being abused, neglected, or exploited again in the near future. The Assessment and Decision Making project centers around three assessments that are designed to help caseworkers make better decisions at critical points in a case: the Safety Assessment; the Risk of Recidivism Assessment; and the Strengths and Needs Assessment. The Safety Assessment helps caseworkers identify immediate threats to health andsafety.TheRiskofRecidivismAssessmentisanactuariallyvalidatedtoolusedtodetermine the likelihood that an alleged victim will be reinvestigated by APS within the next 12 months. The Strengths and Needs Assessment helps caseworkers identify both the strengths and needs ofallegedvictimsandtheirprimarycaretakers,whichinformsserviceplanning. Texas Human Resources Code 48.002(5) defines protective services as the services furnished by the Department or by a protective services agency to an elderly or disabled person who has been determined to be in a state of abuse, neglect, or exploitation or to a relative or caretaker of an elderly or disabled person if the department determines the services are necessary to prevent the elderly or disabled person from returning to a state of abuse, neglect, or exploitation. This law restricts APS to providing services only if it determines abuse, neglect, or exploitation has occurred. An APS investigation may find that an alleged victim has not yet experienced abuse, neglect, or exploitation, but it may reveal that the client could greatly benefit from protective services to prevent future abuse, neglect, or exploitation. With the changes to the InHome practice model brought on by the Assessment and Decision Making project, APS will have the information needed to target services to alleged victims, their families, and their caretakers based on safety needs and risk of recidivism, regardless of the finding of the investigation.
IX.MajorIssues
236
DFPS
Providing riskbased services alone is not unprecedented. Child Protective Services (CPS) has the ability to provide services to families without determining abuse or neglect occurred. In child welfare, this concept is called differential response. CPS currently has a limited differential response system and is now in the process of implementinga more comprehensive version which will be referred to as Alternative Response. Nationally, a growing body of evidenceexistsindicatingthatdifferentialresponseiscosteffective,reducesrecidivism,creates more positive relationships between the caseworker and the families, and improves job satisfaction for caseworkers. Senate Bill 423, 83rd Legislature, Regular Session, provides statutory authority to implement CPSs Alternative Response for certain reports of abuse and neglect, and the Legislature approved an exceptional item request for associated automation changes. PossibleSolutionsandImpact Amend statute to allow APS to provide services based on safety needs and risk of recidivism. ThischangewouldgrantAPSthestatutoryauthoritytoprovideprotectiveservicestoclients,as well as their families and caretakers, who need these services to prevent future harm. Other opportunities to further align statute with theAssessmentand Decision Making practice model mayalsobeidentified.
IX.MajorIssues
237
DFPS
BriefDescriptionofIssue Issue#6:HowcantheDepartmentofFamilyandProtectiveServicesworkwithother agencies,stakeholdersandfamiliestopreventchildfatalitiesduetoabuseandneglect? Discussion DFPS, specifically Child Protective Services (CPS), is responsible for intervening and potentially preventing child fatalities due to abuse and neglect. This work is equally important for the impact it has on reducing serious injuries thatcan have a lifelong impact on a childs quality of life. Reducing and preventing child fatalities requires comprehensively addressing child abuse and neglect. Recognizing that child fatalities are a communitywide concern, CPS actively collaborates with the Health and Human Services Commission, external review groups, prevention and early intervention service providers, and various stakeholders to continue to improve outcomes for children. DFPS also focuses on continuous prevention services, enhancing processes designed to quickly serve families who are in need before they are in crisis; giving families knowledge and resources to address concerns; and using processes that willreducefutureriskofharmandthelikelihoodofabuse. Additionally,itiscriticaltoleverageinformationbetweenvariousagenciesinTexassuchasCPS, law enforcement, medical examiners, the Department of State Health Services, and child fatality review teams. This helps each group to target and reduce fatalities due to specific causes, recognize or identify trends in child fatalities, and use data to highlight random or systemicissuesthatcanbeaddressedtokeepchildrensafe. Senate Bill 66 (83rd Legislature) created the Protect Our Kids Commission to study the relationship between CPS, child welfare services, and the rate of child abuse and neglect fatalities. The Commission may make recommendations that affect DFPS policy, best practices, andprotocol. Areaslikelytohaverecommendationsinclude: directdeliverycasework; childfatalitydatacollectionandreview; casereviews; stakeholderinvolvement;and preventionandintervention.
238 DFPS
IX.MajorIssues
The Commission will develop recommendations and identify resources necessary to reduce fatalitiesfromchildabuseandneglectthatcanbeimplementedatthelocalandstatelevel.The CommissionsfindingsandrecommendationwillbeavailablebyDecember1,2015. PossibleSolutionsandImpact PreventionContinuum:DesignatePermanentFundingSource Highrisk families, especially thosewith mental health, substance abuse, and domestic violence concerns,canbenefitfrompreventionandearlyinterventionservicesintheircommunity.Also, one of the highest risk groups for child abuse and neglect are children under the age 5. Research suggests a strong correlation between publicly funded prevention services and childcare resources and prevention of child abuse and neglect. By providing services before child abuse or neglect occurs, families are able to address highrisk concerns that would otherwise significantly affect the child and require a more extensive intervention by DFPS and other state agencies such as medical services, juvenile justice, corrections, and court systems. Funding for such prevention and intervention services is vulnerable, as it has no dedicated, permanentfundingsource. AddressingChildFatalitiesfromPhysicalAbuse/ShakenBabySyndrome WhileTexashasaddressedShakenBabySyndromeintheHealthandSafetyCode(TexasHealth and Safety Code 161.501 Resource Pamphlet and Resource Guide Provided to Parents of Newborn Children), this section only requires the hospital or medical caregiver to provide a resource pamphlet and information on preventing Shaken Baby Syndrome. However, many parents who may be illiterate, have low functional literacy, or who may comprehend information best through audio/visual means may not be getting the message about postpartumdepressionorperinataldepressionandthedangersofshakinginfants. Various stakeholder groups have suggested a more comprehensive plan to address child fatalities (or serious injuries) that involve physical abuse and Shaken Baby Syndrome. By creatingacomprehensiveplantoaddressShakenBabySyndrome,childfatalitiesthatoccurdue to a onetime loss of control by the parent can be diminished. By providing the parent, family and general public with information and education on associated triggers, ways to address the infants needs without aggression, and available local supports that the parent can turn to in timeofcrisis,childfatalitiesandgeneralchildabuseandneglectcanbeavoided. Suggestionsincludelegislationthat: Instructs the Department to identify evidencebased models for reducing the incidence of abuserelated head trauma of infants, and develop a plan for implementing a model or modelsstatewidetoimproveinfanthealthoutcomes. RequirescollaborationbetweenCPS,otherstateagenciesservingfamilies,andchildren,the medical community, law enforcement, human service providers, and child advocacy
239 DFPS
IX.MajorIssues
organizations to develop and implement a comprehensive, statewide initiative to reduce deathanddisabilityresultingfromShakenBabySyndrome. Requires every licensed nurse midwife, licensed midwife, or hospital providing maternity care to make information available to mothers (and if possible fathers and other family members) about postpartum blues and perinatal depression and information to increase awareness of Shaken Baby Syndrome and the dangers of shaking infants. Medical professionals would also be required to discuss this information with the mother and the father of the infant, other relevant family members, or caretakers who are present at discharge. This information should include printed and audiovisual materials relating to Shaken Baby Syndrome, including identification and prevention of Shaken Baby Syndrome andtheeffectonbabiessuchas: o thegraveeffectsofshakingorthrowinganinfantoryoungchild; o appropriate ways to manage crying, fussing, or other causes that can lead a person toshakeorthrowaninfantoryoungchild;and o a discussion of ways to reduce the risks that can lead a person to shake or throw an infantoryoungchild. Requires Shaken Baby Syndrome instruction in correctional facility education programs for allinmatesthatcoverstheconsequencesofShakenBabySyndromeandhowtopreventit. RequiresShakenBabySyndromeinstructionaspartofaneducationprogramavailabletoall studentsenrolledinlifeskillsorparentingclasses.
ExpandtheScopeoftheChildSafetyCheckAlertList TheTexasFamilyCodedirectstheTexasDepartmentofPublicSafetytouseachildsafetycheck alert list as part of the Texas Crime Information Center to help locate a family for purposes of investigating a report of child abuse or neglect (Texas Family Code 261.3022 Child Safety Check Alert List). This law applies when CPS is unable to find and has exhausted all means to locateafamilyinaninvestigation. Whenalawenforcementofficermeets(1)apersononthislistwhoisallegedtohaveabusedor neglected a child or (2) a child who is the subject of a CPS investigation, the officer must seek informationaboutthechildswellbeingandcurrentresidenceandinformCPS.Thechildsafety checkalertlistonlyincludescurrentCPSinvestigationsandnotongoingstagesofservicewhere CPS is working with the family and the child may or may not be in the conservatorship of the State. During these stages of service, CPS may also be unable to find the child or family and may have severe safety concerns for the childs wellbeing. Legislatively expanding the Child Safety Check Alert List to cover all stages of service would improve CPSs ability to find these familiesandassumethesafetyofmorechildren. StrengthenReportingofChildDeathstoMedicalExaminersOffice TheTexasFamilyCoderequiresapersonwhoknowsofthedeathofachildyoungerthanage6 to report the death to the medical examiner or to a justice of the peace. However, there is an
exception if the death is a result of a motor vehicle accident. (Texas Family Code 264.513ReportofDeathofChild). Several stakeholder groups and research suggest legislation to require an autopsy for any child 6yearsoryounger,regardlessofthecauseofdeath,ifthedeathwas: theresultoftrauma; unexpectedincludingsudden,unexplainedinfantdeath;or
suspicious,obscure,orotherwiseunexplained. Thesesameguidelinesforunexplaineddeathsshouldapplytoallchildren,includingthosewith chronic diseases. Exceptions would include deaths due to known terminal medical conditions thatwerenotcausedbyabuseorneglect,orchildrenwhowereunderhospicecare.Expanding this definition could result in autopsies that reveal abuse and neglect that would have been missed. Results that suggest child abuse and neglect would be reported to CPS and investigated. These investigations would help protect surviving siblings and help with ongoing effortstopreventchildfatalities. ExpandingChildFatalityReviewTeams(CFRT). The Legislature created the State Child Fatality Review Team Committee in 1995. The law also authorized counties to form local and regional child fatality review teams (Texas Family Code 264.501 264.515). A CFRT is a multidisciplinary, multiagency panel that reviews all child deathsregardlessofthecauseofdeath.Thepurposeofareviewteamisto: decrease the incidence of preventable child deaths by providing assistance, direction, and coordinationtoinvestigationsofchilddeaths; promote cooperation, communication, and coordination among agencies involved in respondingtochildfatalities; develop an understanding of the causes and incidence of child deaths in team's county or counties; recommend changes to agencies (through the agency's team member) that will reduce preventablechilddeaths;and advisethecommitteeonchangestolaw,policy,orpracticethatwillassisttheteamandthe agenciesrepresentedontheteaminfulfillingtheirduties.
Currently, statute permits counties to form CFRTs instead of mandate that every county in Texas have or be included in a CFRT. Also, child fatality review teams lack state funding. As of 2013, only 191 counties out of the 254 counties in Texas were covered by a CFRT. By requiring every county to participate in a CFRT, every child fatality in Texas would have the potential to bereviewedwhichcouldprovidevitalinformationonhowtodecreasechildfatalities.However, thislevelofcoveragewouldrequirededicatedstateandlocalfundingtoaddressthevolumeof childfatalitiesinsomecounties,aswellasensureproperdatacollectionandanalysis.
BriefDescriptionofIssue Issue#7:WhatcanbedonetomovechildreninDFPSconservatorshipintosafe,permanent homesmorequickly? Discussion There are several areas where additional resources, supports, or legislative changes would help DFPS achieve permanency and improve outcomes for children and youth in State care. These include reducing the length of time it takes for a child to be reunified with their family, increasing support to adoptive families and reducing the time it takes to identify and place children and youth in adoptive homes. While DFPS has improved policies, practices, and servicestoreunifychildrenwiththeirfamiliesmorequickly,movechildrentopermanency,or prepare youth for life after foster care, more must be done to reduce the length of time beforeachildisreunifiedorgoestoapermanentfamily.Suchchangesultimatelyreducethe number of youth who grow up in foster care. DFPS believes all children deserve a legal, permanentfamily. Children should remain in theircommunities if they areremoved from their home and placed into a foster home or facility. This increases the likelihood of reuniting families, and improves educational outcomes and overall wellbeing. Conservatorship should be returned to parents assoonaschildsafetyandwellbeingcanbeassured. National research shows youth who grow up in foster care without permanent families and communityconnections are more likely to live in poverty, be unemployed, becomehomeless, haveuntreatedseriousmedicalandmentalhealthissues,andbecomeinvolvedinthecriminal justicesystem. Adoption is a valuable opportunity for children when DFPS and the courts rule out family reunification. While Texas leads the nation in adoptions, there were still 6,452 children in DFPS care waiting for adoption as of June 2013. Adoption assistance is available to eligible adoptive families. To qualify for adoption assistance, a child must meet the criteria of special needs as defined by TAC RULE 700.804. This includes minority children over the age of two, nonminority children over the age of 6, any child being adopted with a sibling or joining a sibling who was previously adopted by the same parents, and children who have a verifiable physical, mental, or emotional handicapping condition, as established by an appropriately qualified professional. Adoption assistance has two tiers. Adoptive families can receive up to $400 a month for a child who has a basic service level need and up to $545 per month for a child who has a moderate or higher service level need. Even with adoption assistance, it is often a struggle to find permanency for some children because of their significant needs and historyoftrauma.
IX.MajorIssues
242
DFPS
PossibleSolutionsandImpact ProvideAdoptionAssistancetoEveryChildWhoisAdoptedFromDFPS Whileapproximately90percentofalladoptiveplacementsinvolvechildrenwhoareeligiblefor adoption assistance, under current Texas law not all children qualify for adoption assistance. Many families cannot afford the medical insurance and other financial strains of caring for a child.Asaresult,adoptionis often delayeduntilthecaregivercanaffordit.When childrendo not meet the criteria for adoption assistance, this can cause caregivers and others to delay permanencyuntiladiagnosiscanbemade,ortodelaypermanencyuntilthechildisoldenough toqualify.Provision ofadoptionassistancetoeverychildadoptedfrom DFPSwould helpoffset costs for adoptive families and is far less expensive than longterm foster care. This change would result in positive outcomes that could help reduce the child or youths need for public services in the future. Providing adoption assistance to every adopted child would also expedite permanency and decrease the amount of time the child spends in foster care. The average monthly cost of an adoption subsidy is $430 or about $1,500 less per month than the costoffostercarewhichaverages$1,937permonth. AllowParentalRightstoBeReinstated Most children whose parents lose parental rights are adopted or achieve permanency with other relatives. Yet in some cases, DFPS reconnects children and youth with birth parents whoseparentalrightswereterminatedifitissafeandinthechildsbestinterest.Sometimes the threat that originally required the childs removal and eventual termination of the parents rights no longer exists. However, statute is silent on this issue and does not allow a courttoreinstateparentalrights,leavingtheonlylegaloptiontonametheparentpermanent managing conservator. Some jurisdictions in Texas use this practice regularly, but others do not.Clearlydefiningthispracticeinstatutewouldraiseawarenessofthispermanencyoption. Otherstatessuccessfullyusethisoption. Provide Flexibility to the Court During the Monitoring Period When A Child Or Youth Is ReturnedHome Currently the Texas Family Code 263.403 allows a court to monitor a family for 180 days afterachildoryouthreturnshome.However,thisisofteninterpretedtomeanthecasemust remain open for the full 180 days. Statute could be clarified to ensure DFPSs involvement lasts no longer than absolutely necessary to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the child. One way to do this is to require a 90day review of the case that is in the returnandmonitor stage, allowing DFPS to assess the need for continued involvement and make recommendations on ending or continuing court oversight. For those families who do not need extended court oversight, conservatorship of their children would be returned more quickly. IncreasetheNumberofDFPSRedactionStaff AnadoptivefamilymustreadthechildsCPScaserecordbeforethechildisplacedinthehome, whichincludesallrecordsrelatedtothechild,asdefinedinSection162.006oftheTexasFamily
Code. First, DFPS must redact these files to exclude confidential information, as required by Section162.006and162.0065oftheTexasFamilyCode.Currently,DFPSredactionunitshavea sixmonth backlog. Additional redaction staff and technology would decrease the time a prospective adoptive parent must wait to read the record and reduce the time the child must spendinpaidfostercarewhilewaitingtoenteranadoptivehome. IncreaseFosterHomeCapacityInTheCommunitiesWheretheChildrenAreRemoved Children who remain in their own community have an increased opportunity for family visitation,improvingthelikelihoodoffamilyreunification,allowingchildrentoremainintheir school, and providing more stability in therapy and other services. The Foster Care Redesign project focuses on these issues, however other efforts will be needed until the Projects statewideimplementation. Somesolutionstoincreasefostercarecapacityareasfollows. Collaborate with faithbased organizations and local schools districts to increase the numberoffosterhomes.CPScurrentlyworkswithmembersoftheAdvisoryCommitteeon Promoting Adoption of Minority Children to increase adoption of children; the committee was established by statute. Subsequent communitybased adoption forums resulting from thatpartnershipwereheld,asaresult,raisingawarenessandinterestinnot onlyadoption, but child welfare work from prevention to permanency. Presently, there is active work in various stages with more than 70 churches building support for families and children involved with CPS. Efforts include support for children at risk of entering care through transitioningservicesforyouthexitingcare. Increaseavailabilityofwraparoundservicesthatprovideafamilycentered,strengthsbased approach to working with children and families where multiple agencies provide communitybased services. The overall intent of this is to increase intervention services in the community for access by families in order to prevent abuse/neglector to assist families as they complete CPS contracted services. More resources across the state would include services such as additional county family preservation programs, legal services, transitional living centers for youth and parents in recovery or reentry from correctional facilities, day care services, church affiliated parenting programs, vouchers for public transportation, slidingscale fee counselor and therapy services, etc. These services are usually not available in rural areas of the state. Increased availability of such resources would help children and youth who age out of foster care and return to the community or a kinship caregivers home. The change would also assist with recidivism by giving families knowledgeofandaccesstocommunityresourcestoassistthemwithspecificneeds.Many times these services target children who have many complex behavioral and mental health issues. Increase the availability of community respite care. Community respite care provides parents and caregivers with shortterm childcare services that offer temporary relief, improve family stability, and reduce the risk of abuse or neglect. Respite care can reduce the number of families that become involved with DFPS. It is a familycentered, strengths
244 DFPS
IX.MajorIssues
based alternative to foster care and allows a family to identify their own needs and seek resourcestoaddressthoseneeds.
IX.MajorIssues
245
DFPS
X.
Other O Contacts
A. Fill in i the follow wing chart with w updated information on peop ple with an i interest in y your agen ncy,andbesuretoinclu udethemos strecentem mailaddress s.
Departm mentofFam milyandProt tectiveServ vices Exhibit14: Contact ts INTER RESTGROUP PS (groupsaffected a byagency a actio onsorthatre epresentoth hersservedbyor affectedby b agencyac ctions) GrouporAssociation Name/ Con ntactPerson n Legislati ive Governo or/Dianna Velasquez Lt.Gov./ /Jamie Dudensing Speaker rs Office/Je enniferDeeg gan Attorney yGeneral/Ja ay Dyer LBB/Sha aniquaJohns son InterestGroups ADAPTBobKafka, Organize er
Address P.O.Box B 12428 Austin n,TX78711 P.O.Box B 12068 Austin n,TX78711 P.O.Box B 2910 Austin n,TX78768 P.O.Box B 12548 Austin n,TX78711 1501N.Congress Austin n,TX78701 1640A AE.2ndStree et Suite100 n,TX78702 Austin 4412 1516PalmValley Blvd.Bldg.C Round dRock,TX 78664 4 2929FM2920 Spring g,TX77388 15892 2CountyRd. . 26 Tyler,TX75707
Telep phone 512463 31830 512463 30001 512463 31000 512463 32100 512463 31200 5124420252
Email lAddress D Dianna.Velasq quez@governor .s state.tx.us Ja amie.Dudens sing@ltgov.s stat e. .tx.us Je ennifer.Deeg gan@house. .stat e. .tx.us Ja ay.Dyer@tex xasattorney ge eneral.gov Sh haniqua.Johnson@lbb.s state .tx.us bo ob.adapt@s sbcglobal.ne et
AWorld dforChildren n Rebecca aAllen
512218 84400
ArrowChildren C and FamilyMinistries M ScottLundy Azleway yChildrens Services s
281210 01500
sc cott.lundy@ @arrow.org
903566 68444
X.OtherContacts C
246
DFPS
Departm mentofFam milyandProt tectiveServ vices Exhibit14: Contact ts INTER RESTGROUP PS (groupsaffected a byagency a actio onsorthatre epresentoth hersservedbyor affectedby b agencyac ctions) GrouporAssociation Name/ Con ntactPerson n Address TheBair rFoundation n 304E. .4thSt.Suite eD Stephan nieGray Lampa asas,TX 76550 0 ACHChildandFamily 3712Wichita W Stre eet Services sWayne FortWorth, W TX Carson BaptistChild C andFamily 1506BexarCrossi ing SanAntonio,TX Services s(BCFS) 78232 Asennet tSegura 2 CalFarle eysBoysRanch 600SW W11thAve, DanAd dams Amari illo,TX7910 01 Centerfor f PublicPo olicy 7020EasyWindDr. D Priorities(CPPP)/Sc cott Suite200 n n,TX78752 McCown Austin CommunityNow/David 1640A AEast2nd Whitton n Street t,Suite100 Austin n,TX78702 Depelch hinChildrens s 4950MemorialDr. Center/ErinFerris ton,TX7700 07 Houst GivingTexasChildre en S Avenu ue, 2801Swiss Promise e(GTCP)/Nik kkee Suite110 Espree s,TX75204 Dallas CaseyFa amilyProgra ams 5201E.RiversideDr. SarahAbrahams Austin n,TX78741 Lutheran nSocialServ vices 8305Cross C ParkDr, D oftheSo outh,Inc./Betsy B Austin n,TX78754 Guthrie MethodistChildren s 1111HerringAve, , Home/Tim T Brown Waco,TX76708 NewHorizonsRanc ch/ 500Chestnut, MichaelRedden Ste.1101 Abilen ne,TX79602 2
Telep phone 512556 64100
Email lAddress sg gray@bair.o org
817886 67103
w wcarson@AC CHservices.org
2108325000
as segura@bcf fs.net
8063722341
da anadams@c calfarley.org g m mccown@cppp.org
713730 02335 214824 44591 5128925890
ne espree@gtc cp.org
SA Abrahams@ @casey.org
512459 91000 Betsy.guthrie e@lsss.org 254753 30181 tb brown@mch hforhope.org g 325437 71852 m mjr@newhor rizonsinc.com m
X.OtherContacts C
247
DFPS
Departm mentofFam milyandProt tectiveServ vices Exhibit14: Contact ts INTER RESTGROUP PS (groupsaffected a byagency a actio onsorthatre epresentoth hersservedbyor affectedby b agencyac ctions) GrouporAssociation Name/ Con ntactPerson n Address ParentGuidance G 9600Escarpment Center/Judy Powe ll Blvd Suite745255 Austin n,TX78749 PegasusSchoolsInc./ 896RobinRanchRd. E 44 RobertEllis Lockhart,TX7864 PreventChildAbuse e 0U.S.183 13740 Texas/Wendell W Telt tow Austin n,TX78750 TexansCare C for 811Tr rinitySt. Children n/ElaineGar rcia Austin n,TX78701 Matthew ws Associat tions TexasAs ssociationof f ChildPla acingAgenci ies/ LarryTo onn TexasAs ssociationfo or P.O.Box B 4997 Educatio onofYoung Austin n,TX78765 Children nJackieTaylor 4997 TexasCA ASA/Andrea a 7701N.LamarBlvd. Sparks Austin,TX78752 TexProte ects/Madeline 2904FloydStreet t, McClure e SuiteC2 s,TX75204 Dallas AARPAmanda A 98San nJacintoBlv vd. Fredrick kson,Manager #750,AustinTX ofAdvoc cacy 1 78701 TexasAs ssociationfo or 1199S. S BeltlineRd, InfantMental M Health/ Ste.10 00 SusanCr raven Coppe ell,TX75019 9 TexasCo ouncilofChild POBo ox42363 WelfareBoards Austin n,TX78704 B)/ Sharon (TCCWB Ireland
Telep phone
Email lAddress ju udy@parentguidancecen nter. org.
512376 62518 512250 08438 w wteltow@pre eventchildab buse te exas.org 512473 32274 eg garcia@txch hildren.org
To onn@austin n.rr.com
512215 58142
Ja ackie.taylor@ @texaseyc.o org
512459 92272
as sparks@texa ascasa.org
2144421672 m madeline@te exprotects.org
512480 02425
af fredricksen@ @aarp.org
512694 48774
sm mcraven@te exas.net sireland@tccwb.org
512484 48598
X.OtherContacts C
248
DFPS
Departm mentofFam milyandProt tectiveServ vices Exhibit14: Contact ts INTER RESTGROUP PS (groupsaffected a byagency a actio onsorthatre epresentoth hersservedbyor affectedby b agencyac ctions) GrouporAssociation Name/ Con ntactPerson n TexasFo osterFamily Associat tion/Irene Clement ts TexasAl llianceofChild andFam milyServices (TSCFS)/ /NancyHolm man TexasNe etworkofYo outh Services s/Christine Gendron n TexasSilverHaired Legislatu ure/C.Bruce e Davis YouthFo orTomorrow w (YFT)/Ja anisLehman Liaisons satothersta ate agencies s TXEducation Agency/ /MJNicchio UT/Laur raHartmann n
Address 18751 1Castellani SanAntonio,TX 78258 8 W 13thSt. 409West Austin n,TX78701
Email lAddress ir reneclements@att.net
5128922683
nholman@tacfs.org CG Gendron@tnoys.org
2525Wallingwoo W d 512328 86860 DrAustin,TX7874 46 y 50031 1071N.JudgeEly 325725 #6464 4 Abilen ne,TX79601 1 817633 624Si ixFlagsDr. 31900 Arling gton,TX7601 11 1701N.Congress, 39682 Suite2110 512463 n,TX78701 Austin W 6thStree et, 210West CTJ1 512499 94717 Austin n,TX78701 1246TAMU T Colleg geStation, 979845 52217 Texas778431246 6 P.O.Box B 12248 Austin n,TX7871 P.O.Box B 12066 Austin n,TX78711 P.O.Box B 12757 Austin n,TX78711 512463 37226
brucedavis@suddenlink.n net Ja anis.lehman@ @yft.org
M MJ.Nicchio@tea.state.tx. .us
lh hartmann@u utsystem.edu
A&M/Da avidRejino TXSupre emeCourt Commission/Tina Amberboy Officeof fCourt Administration/David Slayton TXJuven nileJustice Dept./LindaBrooke
X.OtherContacts C
drejino@tam mus.edu ina.Amberbo oy@txcourts s. Ti go ov D David.Slayton n@oca.state e.tx. us s Li inda.Brooke@tjjd.texas. .gov
512463 31625 512490 07103
249
DFPS
Departm mentofFam milyandProt tectiveServ vices Exhibit14: Contact ts INTER RESTGROUP PS (groupsaffected a byagency a actio onsorthatre epresentoth hersservedbyor affectedby b agencyac ctions) GrouporAssociation Name/ Con ntactPerson n TXDept.ofCriminal l Justice/K KathyMcHargue TXHealt th&Human Services s Commission/Molly Czepiel TXDept.ofAging& Disability Services s/Cindy Nottingh ham TXDept.ofStateHe ealth Services s/Amanda Broden TXDept.ofAssistive e& Rehabilitative Services s/DavidHage erla TXDept.ofHousing& Community MichaelLyttle Affairs/M HeadSta artState Collabor rationOffice e LaShond daBrown
Address P.O.Box B 13084 Austin n,TX78711 P.O.Box B 13247 Austin n,TX78711
Email lAddress Ka athy.Mcharg gue@tdcj.state. tx x.us M Molly.Czepiel l@hhsc.state e.tx. us s
512487 73391
P.O.Box B 149030 Austin n,TX78714 1100W. W 49th Austin n,TX78756
512438 83654
Cindy.Notting gham@dads s.sta te e.tx.us A Amanda.Brod den@dshs.st tate. tx x.us D David.Hagerla a@dars.state.tx. us s M Michael.Lyttle e@tdhca.sta ate. tx x.us
512776 62136
4800N.LamarBlv vd. 512377 70523 Austin n,TX78756 221E. .11thSt. Austin n,TX78701 512475 54542
TheChildrens LearningInstitute e Univ.ofTexas 7000Fannin,Suite e 1920C,Houston,TX 77030 0
X.OtherContacts C
250
DFPS
XI. ADDITIONALINFORMATION
A. Texas Government Code, Sec. 325.0075 requires agencies under review to submit a reportabouttheirreportingrequirementstoSunsetwiththesameduedateastheSER. Include a list of each report that the agency is required by statute to prepare and an evaluation of the need for each report based on whether factors or conditions have changed since the statutory requirement was in place. If the list is longer than one page,pleaseincludeitasanattachment. PleaseSeeAppendixB. AlternateExhibitProvidedforSectionXI.ItemA
B. Has the agency implemented statutory requirements to ensure the use of first person respectful language? Please explain and include any statutory provisions that prohibitsthesechanges. Section531.0227ofthe GovernmentCoderequirestheExecutiveCommissionertoensurethat HHSC and the HHS System agencies use the terms and phrases listed as preferred under the person first respectful language initiative in Chapter 392 [of the Government Code] when proposing, adopting, or amending the commissions or agencys rules, reference materials, publications,andelectronicmedia.Section531.0227waseffectiveSeptember1,2011. This statutory directive has been implemented at HHSC, both through the Executive Commissioners instructions to HHSC and the HHS System agencies and through HHSCs own workdevelopingorrevisingagencymaterials.Specificexamplesincludethefollowing. GuidanceMemorandum The Executive Commissioner issued Health and Human Services (HHS) Guidance Memorandum GM12002, Person First RespectfulLanguage in Communications, in December 2011. In it, the Executive Commissioner directs each agency to use appropriate person first terms and phrases when proposing, adopting, or amending agency rules, reference materials, publications, and electronic media. Executive management at HHSC and the HHS System agencies was notified directly of GM12002. In addition, the release of GM12002 was featured in The Connection, the HHS System newsletter available to staff at HHSC and the HHS System agencies. GM12 002waslastupdatedinJanuary2013. CommunicationstoStaff TheConnectionhighlightedthelegislationunderlyingsection531.0227 HouseBill1481, 82nd Legislature,RegularSession,2011andnotedeffortsofDADSandotheragenciestoencourage person first respectful language. A second article noted the passage of H.B. 1481 and the new requirementsforHHSCandtheHHSSystemagencies.
XI.AdditionalInformation 251 DFPS
RuleRev view Staffusesruledraftin ngguideline esthatinclud deaspecific creferencet toH.B.1481andexamplesof person fi irst respectf ful language e. As HHSC develops ne ew rules or proposes to o amend existing rules,the eoriginating gprograman ndlegalstaff freviewtoe ensuretheu useofprefer rredterms. HHSStyleGuide C tions staff up pdated the HHS Style G Guide for Consumer Materials to inc clude HHSCs Communicat instructio ons on the use of pers son first res spectful lang guage. The e style guide is intende ed to ensure consistency c in the mate erials written n for consu mers of HHS services b by the agency or contracto ors providing those serv vices. Medi icaid manag ged care org ganizations, for example e, are required by HHSCs Uniform U Ma anaged Care Manual to use the style guide in w writing mark keting orothermaterialsfo ortheirmem mbers. snotencoun nteredanystatutory s pro ohibitiononusingperso onfirstrespe ectfullangua age. HHSChas Following g upon the guidance g fro om HHSC, DFPS has app plied personfirst langua age in the ed diting processof o newwebs sitesandage encypublica ationsforma anyyears.Th heOfficeofCommunica ations applies these princip ples to each h webpage and a docume ent edited. However, the DFPS we ebsite contains older histor rical reports s and docum ments that d o not conta ain person first language e and forwhich heditingwouldbeimpra acticalandinsomecase esinappropr riate. In additio on, DFPS policy editors apply personfirst langu uage when e editing new or revised p policy for publi ication. A systematic re eview of all l handbooks s and opera ating policies to confirm m the applicatio on of perso onfirst lang guage began n in Septem mber 2011 and was co ompleted in n July 2013. Ap pproximately 20 handbo ooks and 86 6 operating p policies have e been conf firmed to co ontain personfi irstlanguage e. C. Fill in i the follow wing chart detailing information o on complain nts regardin ng your agency. Do not n include complaints received ag gainst people or entitie es you regul late. The ch hart head dingsmaybe b changedifneededtobetterrefle ectyourage encyspractices. Departm mentofFam milyandProt tectiveServ vices Exhibit15: ComplaintsAgainsttheAgency FiscalYear rs2011and2 2012 FY20 011 FY2012 Numberofcomplain 4,734 ntsreceived 3,78 83 Numberofcomplain 4,691 ntsresolved 3,82 26 Number of complaints unsubstantiated and unable to o 2,28 80 2,236 substant tiate
XI.Additio onalInformatio on 252 DFPS
Departm mentofFam milyandProt tectiveServ vices Exhibit15: ComplaintsAgainsttheAgency FiscalYear rs2011and2 2012 FY20 011 FY2012 57 16businessdays 14 18 8businessd days
Numberofcomplain ntspendingfrom f prioryears y dforresoluti ionofacom mplaint Averagetimeperiod
D. Fill in the follo owing chart detailing your y agency ys Historica ally Underut tilized Busin ness (HUB)purchase es. Departm mentofFam milyandProt tectiveServ vices Exhib bit16: HUBDataFiscal lYear2010 Category C Tota al$Spent 8,101 2,0 034,674 37, ,460,177 13, ,885,850 53, ,358,804 TotalHU UB$ Spen nt 0 0 195 0 10,305,9 946 8,792,6 620 19,098,7 761 Agenc cy Specif fic Goal* 57.2% % 20.0% % 33.0% % 12.6% % Statew wide Goa al 11.9 9% 26.1 1% 57.2 2% 20.0 0% 33.0 0% 12.6 6%
HeavyConstruction BuildingConstructio on SpecialTrade T Professio onalService es OtherSe ervices Commod dities TOTAL
Percent 0 0 2.40 0% 0 27.5 5% 63.4 4% 35.7 7%
XI.Additio onalInformatio on
253
DFPS
Category HeavyConstruction BuildingConstruction SpecialTrade ProfessionalServices OtherServices Commodities TOTAL Category HeavyConstruction BuildingConstruction SpecialTrade ProfessionalServices OtherServices Commodities TOTAL
FiscalYear2011 TotalHUB$ Total$Spent Spent 0 0 36,929 0 4,245,952 0 45,034,182 11,875,522 9,701,251 5,875,456 59,018,316 17,751,010 FiscalYear2012 TotalHUB$ Total$Spent Spent 0 0 17,208 0 1,210,153 0 31,169,551 6,143,410 10,767,270 7,495,685 43,164,184 13,639,096
Percent 0 0 0 0 26.37 60.56 30.08 Percent 0 0 0 0 19.71 69.62 31.60
Agency Goal 57.2% 20.0% 33.0% 12.6% Agency Goal 24.6% 21.0%
Statewide Goal 11.9% 26.1% 57.2% 20.0% 33.0% 12.6% Statewide Goal 11.2% 21.1% 32.7% 23.6% 24.6% 21.0%
E. Does your agency have a HUB policy? How does your agency address performance shortfalls related to the policy? (Texas Government Code, Sec. 2161.003; TAC Title 34, Part1,rule20.15b) Yes, the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) has a policy on the use of HistoricallyUnderutilizedBusinesses(HUBs).DFPShasadoptedtheTexasComptrollerofPublic
Accounts(CPA)HUBrulesbyreference.ThepolicymandatesthatDFPSshallmakeagoodfaith effort to utilize HUBs or minority businesses in contracts for construction, services, and commodities; and to encourage the use of HUBs by implementing these policies through race, ethnic,andgenderneutralmeans. DFPSiscommittedtopromotingfullandequalbusinessopportunitiesforallbusinessesinstate contracting in accordance with the goals specified in the State of Texas Disparity Study, which wereeffectiveSeptember14,2011. 1. *11.29percentforheavyconstructionotherthanbuildingcontracts; 2. *21.1 percent for all building construction, including general contractors and operative builderscontracts; 3. 32.7percentforallspecialtradeconstructioncontracts; 4. 23.6percentforprofessionalservicescontracts; 5. 24.6percentforallotherservicescontracts;and 6. 21.0percentforcommoditiescontracts.
*Duringfiscalyears2008,2009and20010heavyconstructionandbuildingconstructioncategories/goalswerenot applicabletotheDFPSoperations.DFPSdoesnothaveprogramsorstrategiesrelatedtothesecategories.
DFPS and its contractors shall make a good faith effort to meet or exceed the goals and assist HUBs in receiving a portion of the total contract value of all contracts that DFPS expects to award in a fiscal year. It is the policy of DFPS to accomplish these goals either through contracting directly with HUBs or indirectly through subcontracting opportunities. DFPS policy on the utilization of HUBs is related to all contracts with an expected value of $100,000 or more,andwheneverpractical,incontractslessthan$100,000. In order to address performance shortfalls, DFPS monitors its contracts on a monthly basis to determine the level of HUB and minority participation. DFPS strives to eliminate shortfalls by analyzing the expenditures and payments made to its vendors, improve the expertise of DFPS program/division staff in evaluating contract opportunities for HUBs or minority firms, and assist each Program/Division to implement good faith efforts to meet or exceed the goals. Because most of DFPS contracts are highly specialized, DFPS is continuously demonstrating its commitmenttotheuseofHUBsby: attendingandcosponsoringHUBvendorfairs; identifyinganddevelopingopportunitiesforHUBs; identifyingpotentialHUBvendorswhocanprovidethetypesofgoodsandservicesrequired byDFPS; recruiting new HUBs/minority vendors for potential opportunities in the procurement categorieswheretherehasbeenminimalcontractingopportunities; offeringHUBsassistanceandtrainingregardingstateprocurementprocedures;
255 DFPS
XI.AdditionalInformation
advisingHUBsofavailablestatecontracts; assistingandsolicitingminorityfirmsforcurrentandnewcontractopportunities; advising HUBs to apply for registration on the CPA Centralized Master Bidders List (CMBL); and encouraging minority firms to become and maintain their certification status with the CPA as a HUB and a registered bidder on the CMBL, which also increases competition for the DFPScontracts. F. For agencies with contracts valued at $100,000 or more: Does your agency follow a HUB subcontracting plan to solicit bids, proposals, offers, or other applicable expressions of interest for subcontracting opportunities available for contracts of $100,000 or more? (Texas Government Code, Sec. 2161.252; TAC Title 34, Part 1, rule 20.14)
Yes, DFPS has an established process to ensure consideration is given to HUB goals when the agency enters into a contract with an expected value of $100,000 or more. DFPS makes a determination whether or not subcontracting opportunities are probable under the contract before DFPS solicits bids, proposals, offers, or other applicable expressions of interest. DFPS HUBofficereviewsthesolicitationdocumentbeforeadvertisementtoensurethefollowing. Itallowsforthegreatestamountofcompetitionpossible. Thebondingandinsurancerequirementsarereasonable. Itlistspotentialsubcontractingopportunities. ItliststheHUBpercentageparticipationgoal. ItliststheprimecontractorsperformancerequirementsrelatedtotheHUBprogram.
ItincludesintheHUBsubcontractingplan. In addition, the DFPS HUB office works with the division/program staff to establish a comprehensiveHUBsubcontractingplanthatincludes: reviewingtheHUBsubcontractingplanrequirementsduringthepreproposalconference; howandwhentheHUBcompliancescreenswilloccurafterresponsesarereceived; post award meetings with the selected vendor which details the vendor performance expectationsrelatedtofulfillingtheHUBrequirementsofthecontract;and ongoing progress assessment monitoring to ensure the vendor maintains the agreed upon HUBparticipationpercentagecommitment.
Duringthesolicitationprocess,allbiddersorproposersarerequiredtomakeagoodfaitheffort to meet or exceed the HUB goals and submit a HUB subcontracting plan when applicable. If a
good faith effort is not made or a subcontracting plan is not submitted or is incomplete, the proposal/bidwillbedisqualified.IfsubcontractingwillbeusedandaHUBisnotaparticipating subcontractor,thenthevendorwillberequiredtodemonstratewhateffortwasmadetosolicit a certified HUB subcontractor. If the subcontractor selected is not a Texascertified HUB, the respondent must provide written justification of their selection process. After an evaluation of the HUB subcontracting information, the DFPS HUB Program Coordinator determines whether the bidder made a good faith effort. DFPS utilizes the CPA HUB directory for the inclusion of HUBsinitscontractopportunities. In addition to the above efforts, the HHSC centralized Enterprise Contracts and Procurement Services (ECPS) Division (Purchasing Section) which conducts all administrative purchasing for DFPS makes a good faith effort to ensure HUBs are included in the procurement solicitations andresultingPurchaseOrderandContractingprocesses. G. For agencies with biennial appropriations exceeding $10 million, answer the following HUBquestions. HUBQuestion Response/AgencyContact 1. Do you have a HUB coordinator? (Texas Yes, Procurement Director/DFPS HUB Government Code, Sec. 2161.062; TAC Title 34, Program Coordinator: VACANT Part1,rule20.26) POSITION HUBProgramAdministrator: JoySimmons 4405NorthLamarBlvd.,Bldg.#1 Austin,Texas78756 Phone(512)2064618 Fax(512)2064605 joy.simmons@hhsc.state.tx.us 2. Has your agency designed a program of HUB Yes, DFPS and the Health and Human forums in which businesses are invited to deliver services agencies conduct an internal presentations that demonstrate their capability HUB forum on a monthly basis where to do business with your agency? (Texas HUB vendors are invited to attend Government Code, Sec. 2161.066; TAC Title 34, and give a presentation on their products, staff, and core capabilities. Part1,rule20.27) We also discuss potential contracting opportunitieswiththevendors.DFPS invites procurement, program, HUB staff, and related decisionmakers to attendtheseforums. 3. Has your agency developed a mentorprotg Yes, DFPS has a mentorprotg program to foster longterm relationships program. DFPS has sponsored three between prime contractors and HUBs and to (3) mentorprotg agreements thus
HUBQuestion
Respo onse/Agen ncyContact
increase the ability of HUBs s to contrac ct with the far and co ontinues to seek additio onal ceive subcon ntracts unde er a state mentorpro otgrelatio onships. state or to rec tract? (T Texas Gove ernment Co ode, Sec. cont 2161.065;TACTitle T 34,Part t1,rule20.2 28)
H. Fill in the chart t below det tailing your r agencys E Equal Emplo oyment Opp portunity (E EEO) stati istics. The Service/Ma aintenance category includes thr ree distinct t occupational categor ries: Serv vice/Maintenance, Para aProfession nals, and Pr rotective Se ervices. Pro otective Service Wor rkers and Para P Professionals are no n longer r reported as separate g groups. Ple ease subm mitthecom mbinedServic ce/Maintenancecatego orytotals,ifavailable. Departm mentofFam milyandProt tectiveServ vices Exhibit E 17: Equal E Emplo oymentOpp portunitySta atistics Fisca alYear2009 9 JobCa ategory Officials s/ Adminis stration Professi ional Technical Adminis strative Support t Service Mainten nance SkilledCraft C Minority yWorkforcePercentage Black Hispanic Female Total vilian Agency A Civ Age ency Civil lian Agen ncy Civilian Position Lab bor Labo or Labo or For rce Force e Forc ce 161 2,758 406 1,341 6,229 1 14.9% 22.3% 27.1% 25.6% 29.8% 0.0% 7.5% 9.7% 13.9% 1 12.7% 1 14.1% 1 6.6% 1 17.4% 2 22.4% 2 25.1% 3 37.1% 2 26.4% 0.0% 21 1.1% 18 8.8% 27 7.7% 31 1.9% 49 9.9% 46 6.3% 75 5.2% 76 6.5% 78 8.3% 96 6.0% 84 4.4% 100 0.0% 37. .5% 53. .3% 53. .9% 67. .1% 39. .1% 6. .0%
SourceDa ata:FiscalYear2009fromHu umanResource es/PeopleSoft0 08/31/2009 TheServic ce/Maintenanc cecategoryinc cludesthreedistinctoccupat tionalcategorie es:Service/Ma aintenance,Pa ara Professionals,andProtec ctiveServices.ProtectiveSer rviceWorkers andParaProfessionalsaren nolongerreported egroups.Plea asesubmitthecombinedService/Maintena ancecategoryt totals,ifavaila able. asseparate CivilianLa aborForceFigu uresfromTexasWorkforceCommission
XI.Additio onalInformatio on
258
DFPS
JobCategory Officials/ Administration Professional Technical Administrative Support Service Maintenance SkilledCraft
DepartmentofFamilyandProtectiveServices Exhibit17:EqualEmploymentOpportunityStatistics FiscalYear2010 MinorityWorkforcePercentage Black Hispanic Female Total Agency Civilian Agency Civilian Agency Civilian Position Labor Labor Labor Force Force Force 183 1,386 408 1,294 7,845 1 16.4% 18.5% 28.7% 25.8% 28.4% 0.0% 7.5% 9.7% 13.9% 12.7% 14.1% 6.6% 21.3% 23.1% 24.8% 38.3% 26.6% 0.0% 21.1% 18.8% 27.7% 31.9% 49.9% 46.3% 76.5% 67.5% 80.4% 95.4% 84.6% 100.0% 37.5% 53.3% 53.9% 67.1% 39.1% 6.0%
SourceData:FiscalYear2010fromHumanResources/PeopleSoft08/31/2010 TheService/Maintenancecategoryincludesthreedistinctoccupationalcategories:Service/Maintenance,Para Professionals,andProtectiveServices.ProtectiveServiceWorkersandParaProfessionalsarenolongerreported asseparategroups.PleasesubmitthecombinedService/Maintenancecategorytotals,ifavailable. CivilianLaborForceFiguresfromWorkforceCommission
259
DFPS
JobCategory Officials/ Administration Professional Technical Administrative Support Service Maintenance SkilledCraft
DepartmentofFamilyandProtectiveServices Exhibit17:EqualEmploymentOpportunityStatistics FiscalYear2011 MinorityWorkforcePercentage Black Hispanic Female Total Agency Civilian Agency Civilian Agency Civilian Position Labor Labor Labor Force Force Force 178 1,362 396 1,195 7,483 1 19.1% 19.2% 28.3% 26.9% 28.9% 0.0% 8.99% 11.33% 14.16% 13.57% 14.68% 6.35% 20.2% 23.1% 25.3% 38.0% 27.2% 0.0% 19.5% 17.4% 21.63% 30.53% 48.18% 47.44% 75.8% 67.4% 81.8% 95.3% 84.6% 100.0% 39.4% 59.14% 41.47% 65.52% 40.79% 4.19%
SourceData:FiscalYear2011fromHumanResources/PeopleSoft08/31/2011 TheService/Maintenancecategoryincludesthreedistinctoccupationalcategories:Service/Maintenance,Para Professionals,andProtectiveServices.ProtectiveServiceWorkersandParaProfessionalsarenolongerreported asseparategroups.PleasesubmitthecombinedService/Maintenancecategorytotals,ifavailable. CivilianLaborForceFiguresfrom20112012EEOandMinorityHiringPracticesReportpreparedbyWorkforce Commission,01/2013
I. Does your agency have an equal employment opportunity policy? How does your agencyaddressperformanceshortfallsrelatedtothepolicy? Yes. Chapter 16, Equal Employment Opportunity, of the HHS HR Manual contains employment (EEO) policy for all system agencies. Employees who violate the HHS System policy on equal employmentaresubjecttodisciplinaryaction,includingtermination.
260
DFPS
XII. AGENCYCOMMENTS
The passage of House Bill 2292, in 2003, established a clear directive to transform the States approach to the delivery of health and human services, with a particular focus on addressing thefollowingissues. Accesstoservicesforindividualswithcomplexhealthneedsthatrequiredassistancefrom multipleagencies. Lackofintegratedhealthandhumanservicesprogramsandagencypolicies. Redundantand/orinefficientadministrativestructures. Blurredlinesofaccountability. Through the enactment of H.B. 2292, 12 standalone agencies were consolidated into an integrated system of four new departments under the leadership of the Texas Health and HumanServicesCommission(HHSC). Today,nearlyadecadepostconsolidation,acoordinatedHHSSystemservicesexists.Although continued improvements may be needed in areas, progress on addressing the issues originally identifiedcanbeseeninamyriadofways,ashighlightedbythefollowingexamples. ImprovedServiceQualityandAccessibility.Integratedprogramsresultinimproved communityhealth.Forexample,theDepartmentofStateHealthServices(DSHS) developedasingleagencyfocusonphysicalandbehavioralhealthissuesemphasizingmulti programcollaborationtoimproveefficiencyandenhanceservices.Also,througha collaborativeeffort,HHSCandDSHSpromotethebenefitsoftheWomensHealthProgram andDADS,DFPS,andDSHScontinuetoworktogethertoimproveservicesinHHSoperated facilities,suchasStateSupportedLivingCentersandStateHospitals. Integrating service delivery among physical and behavioral health providers improves outcomes. As a means to guide current and future planning and decision making, DSHS, in conjunction with external stakeholder efforts, developed a comprehensive approach to service integration by linking behavioral and physical health services. DSHS actively encourages the use of primary health care provision as a site for early screening and diagnosisofbehavioralhealthproblems. Meeting the demand for services is a perennial challenge facing the HHS System. Although waiting and interest lists for programs and services remains long, the ability to consolidate funding requests to address waiting lists and to request those funds as HHS System priorities has resulted in unprecedented levels of new funding to address interest lists, especiallyforwaiverservices. Managing longterm care services through one agency, the Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS), leads to greater flexibility for individuals and families seeking services. For instance, previously some individuals rose to the top of a waiting list for one program, only to learn that another agencys waiver program was more appropriate for their needs than the waiver service for which they had originally applied. Unfortunately, sometimes that meant that the client would have to start over at the bottom of another
XII.AgencyComments 261 DFPS
programslist.DADSnowidentifies,providesservicesand/orplacesthepersononthemost appropriatewaiverlistformeetingtheirneeds. Better alignment of guardianship responsibilities protects the public. The transfer of guardianship responsibilities to DADS reinforced the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) primary role of investigating and serving adults in need of protection. DADS expertise with longterm services and support programs for persons who are older and for adults with disabilities made it the appropriate agency for assuming guardianship responsibilities. Transferring this program removed any appearance of conflict of interest for DFPS staff in assessing and providing services for individuals in need of guardianship. As a result of coordinated DADS and DFPS efforts, the transfer of the guardianship program wascompletedwithnodisruptioninservicestoindividualsserved. StrengtheningChildrensServices.Anintegratedsystemallowsforacomprehensive approachtoimprovechildrenshealthcare.ThreedivisionswithinDSHS,alongwiththe regionalEducationServicesCenters,combinedeffortsandresourcestopromotea coordinatedapproachtoimprovingchildrensphysicalandbehavioralhealth.The comprehensiveapproachincludescoordinatedschoolhealth,obesityprevention,suicide prevention,mentalhealthawareness,diabetespreventionandcare,andabstinence educationactivities.In2008,DFPSworkedwithHHSCtolaunchSTARHealth,theMedicaid managedcareplanforchildreninfostercare.UndercontractwithHHSC,STARHealth coordinatedoversightofpsychotropicmedicationutilizationanduseofpsychotropic medicationsdecreased.Additionally,theHealthPassportwasdevelopedasanelectronic healthinformationsystemthatprovidesinformationaboutprescribedpsychotropic medicationsandisusedasaprimarysourceforthePsychotropicMedicationsUtilization Reviewprocess. Interagencyeffortsreducepsychotropicmedicationsuseforfosterchildren.Soonafterthe consolidation of HHS agencies, concerns arose about possible overuse of psychotropic medications with the foster care population. DFPS and DSHS worked together using the services of a child psychiatrist to assess prescribing practices, develop prescribing guidelines,andrecommendaprocessforongoingclinicalreviewsoftheuseofpsychotropic medicationsinthetreatmentofchildreninfostercare. Consolidation leads to enhanced support for Early Childhood Intervention (ECI). Before consolidation, ECI, as a small standalone agency, struggled with addressing specialized tasks such as assessing the implications of rules and setting rates. Now, as a division within DARS and the integrated HHS System, ECI receives valuable support on such matters as rules,rates,andstateMedicaidplanamendments. EfficientandEffectiveServiceDelivery.Unifyingwebsupportforblindandrehabilitation servicesreplacedtworedundantlegacyagencysystems,andreducesthetechnicalsupport, needformodifications,andcostsforhardware,software,andrelatedmaintenance.Usinga singlesystemalsoenhancesconsistencyamongprograms,becauseprogramchangesand modificationswillnowbeappliedtoonlyoneapplication,ratherthanthepriormultiple applications.EliminatingtheredundantrulesofDARSlegacyagenciesresultedinthe eliminationofmorethan100redundantorunnecessaryadministrativerulesfromthe
262 DFPS
XII.AgencyComments
legacyagencies. Consolidated pharmaceutical purchasing for the DSHS Pharmacy Branch, DSHS state hospitals, and DADS state schools saves millions of dollars annually in medication and medicalsuppliescosts.Also,consolidatedsupportservicesforsuchfacilitiessavemillionsin personnel,operations,andsupplycostsforbothDADSandDSHS. ImprovingInformationAccessibilityAcrosstheHHSSystem.Coordinatinglongtermcare licensingandregulatoryactivitiesyieldscoordinated,consistent,anddirectoversight. ResponsibilityforlongtermservicesandsupportspreviouslywassplitamongDADSthree legacyagencies.Theservicesandsupportsprovidedbythethreeagenciesservedvarious clientpopulations.Manyofthesameregulatoryissueswereencounteredfortheseservices andsupports.Theagenciesoftenaddressedtheseissuesindifferentwaysandwithlimited coordination. AdoptingMoreCostEffectiveBusinessPractices.HouseBill2292assignedHHSC responsibilityfordeliveringadministrativeservicesfortheHHSSystem.Examplesinclude centralizedHRservices,civilrights,andsupportservicesforregionaloffices.These improvementssavedmillionsinoverheadcostsandresultedinconsistentpolicies, practices,andservices.
XII.AgencyComments
263
DFPS
APPENDIXA. ALTERNATEEXHIBITPROVIDEDFORSECTIONVII.ITEMG
DFPS does not capture funding source information at the departmental level that was used to report expenditures in Section VII. This table shows funding sources and amounts by strategy. Since there are specific strategies for the programs described in Section VII, the reader can get anunderstandingofthetypesandproportion offederalandstatefunds usedbyeachprogram contained in Section VII by looking at this table. Note however that expenditures for the programstrategiesinthistablewillnotmatchtheexpendituresreportedforthoseprogramsin SectionVII.ThisisduetothefactthatSectionVIIseparatedtheagencyadministrativefunctions fromtheprograms,andmanyadministrativefunctionssuchasLegalandBudgetareincludedin programstrategies. ExpendituresbyStrategyandMethodofFinanceFiscalYear2012 FY2012 Strategy StrategyName Expense StatewideIntake A.1.1 GeneralRevenue 5,947,357 Services GRMedicaidMatch 149,348 GRTotal 6,096,705 TemporaryAssistancetoNeedyFamilies 9,668,655 (TANF) ChildCareandDevelopmentBlockGrant 58,166 TitleIVEFosterCareAdministration 33,682 TitleXXSocialServicesBlockGrant 2,120,787 MedicalAssistanceProgram50% 149,349 FederalTotal 12,030,639 A.1.1 18,127,344 Total CPSDirectDelivery B.1.1 GeneralRevenue 206,877,780 Staff GRMedicaidMatch 1,971,835 SpecialtyLicensePlateRevenue 11,598 GRTotal 208,861,213 TitleIVEGuardianshipAssistance 7,417 Administration TitleIVB,Part2PromotingSafeandStable 7,032,585 Families TitleIVB,Part2PromotingSafeandStable 1,546,433 FamiliesCaseworkerVisits TemporaryAssistancetoNeedyFamilies 112,677,444
AppendixA.AlternateExhibitSectionVIIItemG 264 DFPS
ExpendituresbyStrategyandMethodofFinanceFiscalYear2012 Strategy StrategyName (TANF) CommunityBasedChildAbusePrevention Grants AdoptionIncentivePayments TitleIVB,Part1ChildWelfareServices StateGrant TitleIVEFosterCareAdministration TitleIVEFosterCareTraining75% FosterCareTitleIVEStimulus(FMAP) TitleIVEAdoptionAssistance Administration ChafeeFosterCareIndependenceProgram MedicalAssistanceProgram50% FederalTotal AppropriatedReceipts OtherTotal GeneralRevenue GRMedicaidMatch GRTotal TitleIVEGuardianshipAssistance Administration TitleIVB,Part2PromotingSafeandStable Families TemporaryAssistancetoNeedyFamilies (TANF) RefugeeandEntrantAssistanceState AdministeredPrograms TitleIVEChafeeEducationandTraining VouchersProgramETV ChildrensJusticeGrantstoStates TitleIVB,Part1ChildWelfareServices StateGrant AdoptionOpportunities TitleIVEFosterCareOtherFFP 5,600,000 17,008,676 45,410,907 3,660,769 3,367,804 35,198 1,574,926 197,922,159 5,422,295 5,422,295 412,205,667 10,619,672 95,664 10,715,336 6,037 1,083,508 11,194,365 3,662,485 193,537 41,229 25,830 274,963 17,262 FY2012 Expense
B.1.1 Total B.1.2
CPSProgramSupport
AppendixA.AlternateExhibitSectionVIIItemG
265
DFPS
ExpendituresbyStrategyandMethodofFinanceFiscalYear2012 Strategy B.1.2 Total B.1.3 B.1.3 Total B.1.4 B.1.4 Total B.1.5 TWCFosterDaycare TWCRelativeDaycare TWCProtective Daycare StrategyName TitleIVEFosterCareAdministration TitleIVEFosterCareTraining75% FosterCareTitleIVEStimulus(FMAP) TitleIVEAdoptionAssistance Administration TitleIVEAdoptionAssistanceTraining75% TitleXXSocialServicesBlockGrant ChildAbuseandNeglectStateGrants ChafeeFosterCareIndependenceProgram MedicalAssistanceProgram50% FederalTotal AppropriatedReceipts InteragencyContracts OtherTotal GeneralRevenue GRTitleIVE(FMAP) GRTotal ChildCareandDevelopmentBlockGrant TitleIVEFosterCareAdministration TitleIVEFosterCareFMAP FederalTotal GeneralRevenue GRTANFMOE GRTotal ChildCareandDevelopmentBlockGrant FederalTotal GeneralRevenue GRTANFMOE
266
FY2012 Expense 4,938,669 3,881,681 312,254 49,727 455,205 3,210,939 2,439,563 74,738 31,861,992 28,982 935,084 964,066 43,541,394 576,613 3,851,771 4,428,384 1,760,561 230,479 5,367,403 7,358,443 11,786,827 6,676,530
6,676,530 2,424,075 2,424,075 9,100,605 4,255,064 8,124,749

DFPS
ExpendituresbyStrategyandMethodofFinanceFiscalYear2012 Strategy B.1.5 Total B.1.6 B.1.6 Total B.1.7 B.1.7 Total B.1.8 B.1.8 Total B.1.9 AdoptionPurchased Services PostAdoption PurchasedServices PALPurchased Services SubstanceAbuse PurchasedServices StrategyName GRTotal ChildCareandDevelopmentBlockGrant FederalTotal GeneralRevenue GRTotal TitleIVB,Part2PromotingSafeandStable Families FederalTotal GeneralRevenue GRTotal TitleIVB,Part2PromotingSafeandStable Families FederalTotal GeneralRevenue GRTotal TitleIVEChafeeEducationandTraining VouchersProgramETV ChafeeFosterCareIndependenceProgram FederalTotal AppropriatedReceipts OtherTotal GeneralRevenue GRTotal TitleIVB,Part2PromotingSafeandStable Families
267
FY2012 Expense 12,379,813 6,194,891 6,194,891 18,574,704 275,000 275,000 5,970,863 5,970,863 6,245,863 2,446,100 2,446,100 2,446,100 114,016 114,016 3,464,026 5,289,152 8,753,178 1,000 1,000 8,868,194 4,819,180 4,819,180
DFPS
ExpendituresbyStrategyandMethodofFinanceFiscalYear2012 Strategy B.1.9 Total B.1.10 B.1.10 Total B.1.11 OtherCPSPurchased Services StrategyName TemporaryAssistancetoNeedyFamilies (TANF) TitleIVB,Part1ChildWelfareServices StateGrant FederalTotal GeneralRevenue GRTitleIVE(FMAP) GRTotal TitleIVB,Part2PromotingSafeandStable Families TitleIVB,Part2PromotingSafeandStable FamiliesCaseworkerVisits TemporaryAssistancetoNeedyFamilies (TANF) ChildCareandDevelopmentBlockGrant TitleIVB,Part1ChildWelfareServices StateGrant TitleIVEFosterCareAdministration TitleIVEFosterCareFMAP FederalTotal FY2012 Expense 54,780 0 54,780 4,873,960 10,657,063 12,953 10,670,016 6,561,235 79,778 3,318,298 11,132 1,705,552 319,851 18,338 12,014,184 22,684,200 79,799,419 81,109,104 160,908,523 76,072,924 29,149,332 114,556,133 219,778,389 1,239,613 1,239,613
FosterCarePayments GeneralRevenue GRTitleIVE(FMAP) GRTotal TemporaryAssistancetoNeedyFamilies (TANF) TitleIVEFosterCareAdministration TitleIVEFosterCareFMAP TitleIVEFosterCareTraining75% FederalTotal ChildSupportCollections OtherTotal
268
DFPS
ExpendituresbyStrategyandMethodofFinanceFiscalYear2012 Strategy B.1.11 Total B.1.12 B.1.12 Total B.1.13 B.1.13 Total C.1.1 C.1.1 Total C.1.2 Adoption/PCA Payments RelativeCaregiver Payments STARProgram CYDProgram StrategyName GeneralRevenue GRTitleIVE(FMAP) GRTotal TitleIVEGuardianshipAssistance Administration TitleIVEGuardianshipAssistanceFMAP TitleIVEAdoptionAssistance Administration TitleIVEAdoptionAssistanceFMAP FederalTotal GeneralRevenue GRTotal TemporaryAssistancetoNeedyFamilies (TANF) FederalTotal GeneralRevenue ChildrensTrustFund GRTotal TitleIVB,Part2PromotingSafeandStable Families TitleXXSocialServicesBlockGrant FederalTotal GeneralRevenue ChildrensTrustFund GRTotal TitleIVB,Part2PromotingSafeandStable Families
269
FY2012 Expense 381,926,525 40,118,005 62,643,968 102,761,973 24,200 952,067 3,180,240 87,062,859 91,219,366 193,981,339 5,816,448 5,816,448 2,043,478 2,043,478 7,859,926 10,714,806 4,835,702 15,550,508 0 1,733,575 1,733,575 17,284,083 1,238,552 750,000 1,988,552 2,827,100
DFPS
ExpendituresbyStrategyandMethodofFinanceFiscalYear2012 Strategy C.1.2 Total C.1.3 C.1.3 Total C.1.4 C.1.4 Total C.1.5 C.1.5 Total C.1.6 C.1.6 Total D.1.1 TexasFamilies Program ChildAbuse PreventionPrograms OtherAtRisk PreventionPrograms AtRiskPrevention ProgramSupport APSDirectDelivery Staff StrategyName FederalTotal GeneralRevenue GRTotal TitleIVB,Part2PromotingSafeandStable Families FederalTotal GeneralRevenue GRTotal CommunityBasedChildAbusePrevention Grants FederalTotal GeneralRevenue ChildrensTrustFund GRTotal GeneralRevenue ChildrensTrustFund GRTotal TitleIVB,Part2PromotingSafeandStable Families CommunityBasedChildAbusePrevention Grants FederalTotal GeneralRevenue
270
FY2012 Expense 2,827,100 4,815,652 35 35 2,549,347 2,549,347 2,549,382 33,366 33,366 4,150,277 4,150,277 4,183,643 2,092,770 2,092,770 2,092,770 496,017 100,000 596,017 223,907 28,256 252,163 848,180 26,354,728
DFPS
ExpendituresbyStrategyandMethodofFinanceFiscalYear2012 Strategy D.1.1 Total D.1.2 D.1.2 Total APSProgramSupport StrategyName GRMedicaidMatch GRTotal TitleIVEGuardianshipAssistance Administration TitleIVB,Part2PromotingSafeandStable Families TemporaryAssistancetoNeedyFamilies (TANF) TitleIVB,Part1ChildWelfareServices StateGrant TitleIVEFosterCareAdministration TitleIVEFosterCareTraining75% TitleIVEAdoptionAssistance Administration TitleXXSocialServicesBlockGrant MedicalAssistanceProgram50% FederalTotal GeneralRevenue GRMedicaidMatch GRTotal TitleIVB,Part2PromotingSafeandStable Families TemporaryAssistancetoNeedyFamilies (TANF) TitleIVB,Part1ChildWelfareServices StateGrant TitleIVEFosterCareAdministration TitleIVEFosterCareTraining75% TitleIVEAdoptionAssistance Administration TitleXXSocialServicesBlockGrant MedicalAssistanceProgram50% FederalTotal
271
FY2012 Expense 2,101,218 28,455,946 20,424,028 2,101,218 22,525,246 50,981,192 1,920,955 409,999 2,330,954 2,441,227 424,454 2,865,681 5,196,635
DFPS
ExpendituresbyStrategyandMethodofFinanceFiscalYear2012 Strategy D.1.3 D.1.3 Total E.1.1 E.1.1 Total F.1.1 StrategyName MHandID Investigations ChildCareRegulation Central Administration GeneralRevenue GRMedicaidMatch GRTotal TitleXXSocialServicesBlockGrant MedicalAssistanceProgram50% FederalTotal GeneralRevenue GRMedicaidMatch GRTotal TitleIVEGuardianshipAssistance Administration TitleIVB,Part2PromotingSafeandStable Families TemporaryAssistancetoNeedyFamilies (TANF) ChildCareandDevelopmentBlockGrant TitleIVB,Part1ChildWelfareServices StateGrant TitleIVEFosterCareAdministration TitleIVEFosterCareTraining75% TitleIVEAdoptionAssistance Administration TitleXXSocialServicesBlockGrant MedicalAssistanceProgram50% FederalTotal InteragencyContracts OtherTotal GeneralRevenue GRMedicaidMatch GRTotal
272
FY2012 Expense 1,918,868 2,242,469 4,161,337 3,165,766 2,242,469 5,408,235 9,569,572 11,399,400 11,399,400 18,137,359 2,332,674 896,743 21,366,776 105,797 105,797 32,871,973 6,926,891 180,106 7,106,997
DFPS
ExpendituresbyStrategyandMethodofFinanceFiscalYear2012 Strategy F.1.1 Total F.1.2 OtherSupport Services StrategyName TitleIVEGuardianshipAssistance Administration TitleIVB,Part2PromotingSafeandStable Families TemporaryAssistancetoNeedyFamilies (TANF) ChildCareandDevelopmentBlockGrant CommunityBasedChildAbusePrevention Grants TitleIVEFosterCareAdministration TitleIVEAdoptionAssistance Administration TitleXXSocialServicesBlockGrant ChafeeFosterCareIndependenceProgram MedicalAssistanceProgram50% FederalTotal InteragencyContracts OtherTotal GeneralRevenue GRMedicaidMatch GRTotal TitleIVEGuardianshipAssistance Administration TitleIVB,Part2PromotingSafeandStable Families TemporaryAssistancetoNeedyFamilies (TANF) ChildCareandDevelopmentBlockGrant CommunityBasedChildAbusePrevention Grants TitleIVEFosterCareAdministration TitleIVEAdoptionAssistance Administration TitleXXSocialServicesBlockGrant
273
FY2012 Expense 438 259,181 3,967,402 492,743 0 1,371,161 104,062 712,943 60,138 177,947 7,146,015 14,253,012 3,554,588 32,736 3,587,324 59 21,739 840,066 99,638 393,257 15,855 365,734
DFPS
ExpendituresbyStrategyandMethodofFinanceFiscalYear2012 Strategy F.1.2 Total F.1.3 F.1.3 Total F.1.4 Regional Administration ITProgramSupport StrategyName ChafeeFosterCareIndependenceProgram MedicalAssistanceProgram50% FederalTotal InteragencyContracts OtherTotal GeneralRevenue GRMedicaidMatch GRTotal TitleIVEGuardianshipAssistance Administration TitleIVB,Part2PromotingSafeandStable Families TemporaryAssistancetoNeedyFamilies (TANF) ChildCareandDevelopmentBlockGrant CommunityBasedChildAbusePrevention Grants TitleIVEFosterCareAdministration TitleIVEAdoptionAssistance Administration TitleXXSocialServicesBlockGrant ChafeeFosterCareIndependenceProgram MedicalAssistanceProgram50% FederalTotal InteragencyContracts OtherTotal GeneralRevenue GRMedicaidMatch GRTotal TitleIVEGuardianshipAssistance Administration
274
FY2012 Expense 11,049 32,729 1,780,126 20,776 20,776 5,388,226 195,121 5,917 201,038 10 78 75,275 11,709 35,554 2,397 23,357 1,435 4,513 154,328 355,366 11,817,366 297,852 12,115,218 556
DFPS
ExpendituresbyStrategyandMethodofFinanceFiscalYear2012 Strategy F.1.4 Total F.1.5 Agencywide AutomatedSystems StrategyName TitleIVB,Part2PromotingSafeandStable Families TemporaryAssistancetoNeedyFamilies (TANF) ChildCareandDevelopmentBlockGrant CommunityBasedChildAbusePrevention Grants TitleIVB,Part1ChildWelfareServices StateGrant TitleIVEFosterCareAdministration TitleIVEFosterCareTraining75% TitleIVEAdoptionAssistance Administration TitleXXSocialServicesBlockGrant ChafeeFosterCareIndependenceProgram MedicalAssistanceProgram50% FederalTotal InteragencyContracts OtherTotal GeneralRevenue GRMedicaidMatch GRTotal TitleIVEGuardianshipAssistance Administration TitleIVB,Part2PromotingSafeandStable Families TemporaryAssistancetoNeedyFamilies (TANF) ChildCareandDevelopmentBlockGrant CommunityBasedChildAbusePrevention Grants TitleIVEFosterCareAdministration TitleIVEAdoptionAssistance Administration
275
FY2012 Expense 334,063 6,333,373 859,824 1,089 2,279,460 153,404 1,246,530 93,940 297,852 11,600,091 23,715,309 6,525,996 210,112 6,736,108 1,770 6,102,793 1,530,668 144,189
DFPS
ExpendituresbyStrategyandMethodofFinanceFiscalYear2012 Strategy F.1.5 Total Grand Total StrategyName TitleXXSocialServicesBlockGrant ChafeeFosterCareIndependenceProgram MedicalAssistanceProgram50% FederalTotal InteragencyContracts OtherTotal FY2012 Expense 245,528 8,024,948 14,761,056 1,331,088,699
276
DFPS
APPENDIXB. ALTERNATEEXHIBITPROVIDEDFORSECTIONXI.ITEMA
MandatoryReportingRequirements ReportName ReportPurpose LegalCitation QAProgram Includesacomprehensive HumanResources forAPS reviewofAPS Code40.0515(g) performanceduringthe precedingquarter;anda summaryofAPS performanceduringthe precedingquarteroneach oftheoutcomemeasures establishedunderthe section. GovernmentCode Advisory Toidentifyadvisory Committee committeestobe 2110.006 Evaluation consideredfor consolidationor abolishment.Theguidance andformatforthisreport comesfromHHSCviaHHS CircularC022;however, theactualstatutory requirementisfoundin GovernmentCode 2110.006.HHSC consolidatesthe recommendationsofall HHSagenciesandmakesa singlereporttoLBB. Evaluation Reportisuseful.APS managementeffectively usestheinformation providedinthisreport.
Itisusefulandefficientto haveaprocessinplaceto regularlyevaluate advisorycommitteesand thisrequirementserves thepurposeofproviding authorityforsucha review.
AppendixB.AlternateExhibitSectionXIItemA
277
DFPS
Obsoleteor Redundant Reporting Requirement sReport
Examinetheagencys reportingrequirements establishedbystate statutebeforeJanuary1, 2009andnotamended sincethatdate,and identifyeachreporting requirementthatthe executivedirector determinesisnot necessary,isredundant,or isrequiredtobeprovided atafrequencyforwhich dataisnotavailable.Each recommendeddeletion mustincludejustification forthedetermination. Licensureand Reportregardingthe Childcare Departmentslicensure Facilities andregulationof childcarefacilities.
GovernmentCode 2052.402(a)(1)and (2)
Reportisuseful.Itis usefulandefficientto haveaprocessinplaceto regularlyevaluate reportingrequirements, andthisrequirement servesthepurposeof providingauthorityfor suchareview.
HumanResources Code42.023
FederalFunds Identifystrategiesto Report maximizethereceiptand useoffederalfundsandto improvefederalfunds management. Information Astateagencyshall Resources completeareviewofthe Deployment operationalaspectsofthe Review agencysinformation resourcesdeployment followinginstructions developedbyDIR. Performance DIR,onNov.15every Reporton evennumberedyear, Information reportsontheuseofIR Resource technologiesinstate Technologies government.
GovernmentCode 531.028(c)
Reportisuseful.The informationisreportedas partoftheDataBook. Efforttoprepareis minimalandwouldlikely beincludedinDataBook withorwithoutthis requirementso recommendthatitbe retained. Reportisuseful.Thedata isofgreatinterestand theefforttoprepareis minimal. Thisreportisunderthe authorityofDIRbutitis deemedtobeauseful toolforagencies.
GovernmentCode 2054.0965
GovernmentCode 2054.055
Thisreportisunderthe authorityofDIRbutitis deemedtobeauseful toolforagencies.

DFPS
278
Recruitment and Retentionof Caseworkers
S.B.758 Capacity Building Progress Report
TheDepartmentshall studythesalariesofeach typeofchildprotective servicescaseworkerto determinetherolesalary playsintherecruitment andretentionof caseworkersandinthe turnoverrateforeachtype ofcaseworker.The Departmentshallreport theresultsofthestudy andany recommendations. Detailsactivitiesin implementingthe recommendations describedinSubdivision (8)ofImprovementPlan. Mustincluderegional numbersofchildrenin fostercarewhoareplaced intheirhomeregion separatedinto classificationsbasedon levelsofcare.
HumanResources Code40.0328
Thisisaonetimereport thatcamefromH.B.753, 82RbyRep.Raymond (Zaffirini).Ithasan expirationdatealready builtin.PerHRC 40.0328(d),section expiresSeptember1, 2013.
S.B.758,80R,SEC. 51(c)
DFPSrecommendsrepeal ofthisreporting requirementastheFoster CareRedesigncanreplace andserveasimilar purposeandavoid redundantreportingof samedata.This requirement,foundina sectionofS.B.758,80R bySen.Nelson(Rose)is relatedtoexpandingand improvingprovider capabilitiestoincrease capacity.DFPShasmoved pastthereformphase thatwasunderwayatthe timeofthisbillandthis workhasbeeninfused into,anddeveloped through,fostercare redesign,authorizedin H.B.1,82R,ArticleII, Rider25.ThisRider requiresareporton expendituresand progresswhichwill becomeduplicativeof thisS.B.758requirement.
DFPS
279
StrategicPlan Astateagencyshallmake astrategicplanforits operations.Eacheven numberedyear,the agencyshallissueaplan coveringfivefiscalyears beginningwiththenext oddnumberedfiscalyear. Advisory Reportonthe Committee recommendationsofthe onPromoting DepartmentsAdvisory Adoptionof CommitteeonPromoting Minority AdoptionsofMinority Children Children.
GovernmentCode 2056
Reportisuseful.This requirementisapplicable toallstateagenciesand shouldberetained.
FamilyCode 162.309(j)
Reportisuseful.This reportservestoadvise DFPSonpoliciesand practicesthataffectthe recruitmentandlicensing offamiliesforminority childrenwaitingfor adoption.TheAdvisory Committeesreporthasa directimpacton continuingfaithbased effortsinthechild welfaresystemtohelp improveoutcomesfor minoritychildrenwhoare waitingforapermanent homethroughadoption.
280
DFPS
Community Basedand Residential Based Placements
Eachhealthandhuman servicesagencyshall reportthenumberof communitybasedservice placementsand residentialcare placementstheagency makes.
GovernmentCode 531.042(d)
Thisannualreportwhich camefromS.B.367,77R bySen.Zaffirini(Naishtat) isredundantinregardsto certaininformation reportedinthesemi annualreporton permanencyplanning whichcamefromS.B. 368,77RbySen.Zaffirini (Maxey/Naishtat).The informationintheS.B. 367reportisa subcategoryofthe informationintheS.B. 368reportandtherefore thesamepurposecould beservedbyeliminating thisreportandretaining theother.Wehave recommendedthisreport fordeletioninthepast buthavenotbeen successfulin accomplishingthat perhapspartlybecauseof certaincomplexities involvedindoingso.The reportingrequirementis embeddedbothinstatute andalsoinHHSCrule (TACPart15,HHSC 351.15(d))andis intertwinedwithother requirementsincluding datatobereportedby otherHHSagencies.Both statuteandrulewould needamendmentin ordertofullyrepealthis reportingrequirement.
281
DFPS
Permanency Planningfor ChildrenS.B. 368,77R
Reportonthenumberof GovernmentCode childrenresiding 531.162(b) institutionswhohavebeen recommendedfor communitybased residence,thenumberof permanencyplans developedforchildren residingininstitutions, progressandbarrierson implementingthoseplans.
Foster Childrenin Drug Research Programs
Reportonthenumberof FamilyCode fosterchildrenwho 266.0041(l) participatedinadrug researchprogramduring thepreviousfiscalyear; thepurposeofeachdrug researchprogram;andthe numberoffosterchildren participatinginadrug researchprogrambycourt order.
Thisreportisuseful.This reportcontainssameor similardataasfoundin theCommunitybased andResidentialbased PlacementsReport(S.B. 367,77R)whichis recommendedforrepeal. Thisreporton PermanencyPlanning (S.B.368,77R)shouldbe retainedanditwillserve bothitsintendedpurpose andalsoserveasa replacementfortheS.B. 367reportwhichbasically reportsonasubsetof thesamepopulation. Repealingoneand keepingtheotherwill avoidduplicative reportingwhilestill providingrecipientsof thereportwiththesame informationcurrently required. Thisreportisuseful.This dataisofgreatinterest andefforttopreparethe reportisminimal.
282
DFPS
LocalLevel Interagency Staffing Groups Biennial Report
HHSCCRCGprepares.The GovernmentCode receivingagenciesshall 531.055(e) adoptajointMOUto promoteasystemoflocal levelinteragencystaffing groupstocoordinate servicesforpersons needingmultiagency services.Theagenciesshall ensurethatastatelevel interagencystaffinggroup providesabiennialreport totheexecutivedirector ofeachagency,the legislature,andthe governorthatincludes:(1) thenumberofpersons servedthroughthelocal levelinteragencystaffing groupsandtheoutcomes oftheservicesprovided; (2)adescriptionofany barriersidentifiedtothe statesabilitytoprovide effectiveservicesto personsneeding multiagencyservices;and (3)anyotherinformation relevanttoimprovingthe deliveryofservicesto personsneeding multiagencyservices.
HHSCisresponsiblefor thisreport.DFPS providesminimalinput andinformationandhas servedasreviewerofthe draftreportinthepast.
283
DFPS
Placements ThatFailfor Financial Reasons
Reportonplacementsthat FamilyCode werenotmadeduringthe 264.759 previousfiscalyeardueto financialreasons(the relativeorcaregiver cannotaffordtocarefor thechild).Reportshould alsoinclude,ifpossible, theamountofmonetary assistancethatwouldbe neededtomakethe placementaffordable. [Thisreportmaybe combinedwithother reportstheDepartmentis requiredtosubmittothe legislature.]
Servicesto TheexecheadofeachHHS GovernmentCode YoungTexans agencyshallreportto 531.02492(a) Under6 HHSConeffortstoprovide healthandhumanservices tokidsyoungerthan6, includingdevelopmentof newprogramsor enhancementofexisting programs.
DFPSrecommendsrepeal ofthisreporting requirementwhichcame fromS.B.723,80Rby Sen.Lucio(Rose).With implementationofthe PermanencyCare Assistance/Fostering Connections(PCA) program,kinship caregiversarebecoming verifiedasfosterparents athigherratesthan before.Therefore,kin caregiverswhomayhave saidinthepastthatthey couldnotcareforachild becauseoffinancial constraintsarenowable toapplytobecomefoster parentsand,ifthey satisfytherequirements, receivemonthlyfoster carereimbursements. Basedonthesmall numberofreported placementsthatfailedfor financialreasons(10inFY 2011)andthenew resourcesavailableto relativesandcaregivers, werecommendrepeal. HHSCisresponsiblefor compilingthisreport, originatingfromS.B.54, 77RbySen.Zaffirini (Noreiga/Naishtat).
284
DFPS
Statistical Reportonthe Abuseand Neglectof Children
Statisticalreportderived Familycode frominformationcollected 261.004(c) intheDepartments centralregistryon reportedcasesofchild abuseandneglect. StateAuditorprepares. GovernmentCode 2155.1442(a) Managementreviewof theresidentialcontract managementemployees ofHHSCandDFPS; including recommendations regardingtheorganization of,andskillsand educationalrequirements for,thoseemployees.The stateauditorshallalso makerecommendations regardingthe implementationof financialaccountability provisionsandprocesses toensureeffectiveand efficientexpenditureof stateandothercontract funds.
FosterCare Residential Contract Management
Thisdataisofgreat interesttostakeholders. Requirementtoreport thisinformationismet throughthepublication oftheannualDFPS Databook. TheauditprovidesDFPSa valuablefunctionin reviewingasmallsample ofcontractorseachyear.
285
DFPS

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services Self-Evaluation Report (Sep 2013)

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services Self-Evaluation Report (Sep 2013)

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

TABLEOFCONTENTS

AGENCY A CO ONTACTINFORMA I ATION

cutive HHSExec Commiss sioner

Name yleJanek, Ky M.D.

EmailAddress Kyle e.Janek@hhsc.state.tx.u us

(O)51 12 4384 4119 (F)512 3395 5580 5124 487 3395

nset DFPSSun Liaison

12 (O)51 4384 4124

I.AgencyContact C Inform mation

II.KeyFun nctionsandPer rformance

II.KeyFun nctionsandPer rformance

II.KeyFun nctionsandPer rformance

POLICYMA P AKINGSTR RUCTURE

MemberNam me Kyle eL.Janek,M.D. M ExecutiveCommiss sioner

GigiEdwardsBry yant (Chair)

Christ tinaTinaRawls R Martin Benny B Morris s

IV.PolicyMaking M Structu ure

Parenta alAdvisory Commit ttee

TX.Human n Resources Code;Title2, SubtitleD, , Chapter40, 40.073

IV.PolicyMaking M Structu ure

Purpose/ /Duties personswho o investigater reportsof abuseorneglecton thestateorlocal t level.

IV.PolicyMaking M Structu ure

Percento of Total 1.07% 0.40% 0.03% 1.78% 1.11% 100%

StateShare e $40,487 $683,225 $9,769,902 $

Federa alShare $40, ,487 $952 2,067 $29,30 09,706

TotalFundi ing $80,974 $1,635,292 2 $39,079,608

$3,66 62,485 $30,05 50,098 $4,17 79,622

$3,662,485 5 $30,050,098 $4,179,622 2

$3,657,563 $5,60 00,000 $41, ,229

$4,571,954 4 $5,600,000 0 $41,229

25/75 2 25/75 2 50/50 5 FMAP F (FFY)

$6,246,686 $ $5,754 $88,025,694 $86,073,025 $2,514,150 $ $7,280,205 $ $62,478,294 $16,576

$7,325,723 $692,4 456,445

Curre entFee/ Stat tutory Max ximum 100 $20$1

FeeR Revenue $1,852,289.00

General Revenue Fund General Revenue Fund

Budgeted B FTEs FY2012 1,248.9

VII.GuidetoAgencyPro ograms wideIntake Statew

VII. GUIDETOAGENCYPROGRAMSCONTINUED CHILDPROTECTIVESERVICES

Strengthenfamilies throughhomeand communitybased services Establishpermanency(a permanentliving arrangementorhome) forchildren

Percentageofallegedvictimswithacompletedinvestigationand dispositionofReasontoBelieve(ConfirmedAbuse/Neglect)orRuledOut 88%

Physical Abuse 1,207 1 11,789

Sexual Abuse 745 1 5,931

Emotional Abandon Abuse ment 74 0 478 14 0 159

Medical Neglect 273 0 1,583

Physical Neglect 705 0 4,679

DFPS Adoptive Homes

Private Adoptive Homes

General Residential Operation

Lubbock (1) Abilene (2) Arlington (3) Tyler(4) Beaumont (5)

506 341 2,412 593 349

150 97 294 114 162

518 256 1,848 506 277

1,601 780 5,121 1,479 906

DFPS Adoptive Homes

Private Adoptive Homes

General Residential Operation

5,900 3,062 4,855

1,030 478 2,105 0 27,317

ChildrenAreMoreLikelytoExittoPermanency ExitstoPermanentHome (Reunify,RelativeorAdoption)

VII.GuidetoAgencyPrograms ChildProtectiveServices 95 DFPS

VII.GuidetoAgencyPrograms ChildProtectiveServices 100 DFPS

VII. GUIDETOAGENCYPROGRAMSCONTINUED PREVENTIONANDEARLYINTERVENTION

A. Providethefollowinginformationatthebeginningofeachprogramdescription. NameofProgramorFunction Location/Division ContactName ActualExpenditures,FY2012 NumberofActualFTEsasofJune1,2013 StatutoryCitationforProgram