Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Texas Foster Care Lawsuit: Special Masters' Report
Texas Foster Care Lawsuit: Special Masters' Report
Recommendations
to the Court
Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document
471
Filed in TXSD
on 11/04/16 Page 1 of 13
The
Special
Masters,
Kevin
Ryan
and
Francis
McGovern,
present
these
recommendations
in
accordance
with
the
various
orders
of
the
Court
in
M.D.
et
al.
v.
Abbott
et
al.,
CA
2:11-CV-00084.
This
report
is
designed
to
help
the
State
implement
the
Goals
outlined
in
the
Courts
Memorandum
Opinion
and
Verdict
of
the
Court
of
December
17,
2015.
More
specifically,
this
report
is
designed
to
help
craft
the
reforms
and
oversee
their
implementation
and
are
viewed
as
recommendations.
This
report
does
not
address
any
legal
issues;
legal
issues
are
reserved
for
the
Court.
This
report
is
based
on
the
evidentiary
record
presented
in
the
trial
of
this
case
and
presentations
and
discussions
by
and
with
the
parties.
The
parties
have
cooperated
fully
in
providing
information
requested
and
in
consulting
with
the
Special
Masters.
All
recommendations
are
made
with
respect
only
to
children
in
the
PMC
class,
and
those
assigned
to
them.
Implementation
Steps/Processes/Tasks
Implementation Dates
Monitoring Methodology
1.
Since
the
Court
concluded,
"When
DFPS
staff
visit
or
call
a
foster
child,
the
caregiver
must
allow
the
staff
member
and
the
child
to
speak
privately,
unless
the
staff
member
agrees
that
it
would
be
unsafe.
If
the
meeting
was
not
conducted
in
private,
the
staff
must
explain
why
in
the
childs
case
files,"
1.1
We
recommend
to
reduce
the
risk
of
this
harm
to
PMC
children
that
DFPS
policy
require
that
caseworkers
visits
with
children
include
quality
time
with
the
child
separate
from
the
caregiver(s)
and
other
children,
if
the
child
is
verbal,
such
as,
for
example,
language
that
is
already
in
part
included
by
DFPS
in
Section
6311.2
of
the
CPS
Policy
Manual.
Former
PMC
children
testified
to
not
seeing
their
caseworkers
privately
and
regularly,
even
as
they
suffered
in
placement
and
experienced
abuse.
We
recommend
the
policy
be
effective
3
We
recommend
this
include
review
of
the
CPS
Policy
Manual
and
a
months
following
the
case
record
review
by
the
Special
Masters.
Court's
Order.
1.2
We
recommend
to
reduce
the
risk
of
harm
to
PMC
children
that,
as
part
of
its
caseworker
training
program
for
new
employees,
DFPS
provide
adequate
training
on
its
child
visitation
policies
to
all
caseworkers
with
responsibility
for
visiting
children
in
the
PMC
class,
specifically
requiring
that
visits
with
PMC
children
include
quality
time
with
the
child
separate
from
the
caregiver(s)
and
other
children,
if
the
child
is
verbal,
such
as,
for
example,
language
that
is
already
in
part
included
by
DFPS
in
the
CPS
Policy
Manual,
Section
6311.2.
We
recommend
the
policy
be
effective
3
We
recommend
DFPS
report
semi-annual
performance
detail
on
months
following
the
caseworkers'
training
to
the
Court.
Court's
Order.
1.3
We
recommend
to
reduce
the
risk
of
harm
to
PMC
children
that
DFPS
ensure
that
monthly
face-to-face
visits
between
CVS
caseworkers
and
children
in
the
PMC
class
occur
as
required
and
that
DFPS
report
on
same
to
the
Court
semi-annually.
Former
PMC
children
testified
to
not
seeing
their
caseworkers
privately
and
regularly,
even
as
they
suffered
in
placement
and
experienced
abuse.
We
recommend
the
policy
be
effective
3
We
recommend
the
methodology
be
developed
by
the
Special
months
following
the
Masters
following
consultation
with
DFPS
and
approved
by
the
Court.
Court's
Order.
2.
Since
the
Court
concluded,
"DFPS
paperwork
and
electronic
filing
system,
including
IMPACT,
CLASS,
and
the
External
files,
must
become
more
efficient.
Each
child
should
have
a
readily
accessible
and
organized
case
file,
comprised
of
all
records
pertaining
to
that
child.
The
Court
was
routinely
frustrated
at
the
disorganization,
duplication,
and
inconsistency
in
the
foster
childrens
case
files.
Caseworkers
should
be
able
to
spend
more
than
26%
of
their
time
with
foster
children,"
2.1
We
recommend
to
reduce
the
risk
of
harm
to
PMC
children
that
DFPS
submit
a
plan
with
specific
timeframes,
subject
to
Court
approval,
to
ensure
that
DFPS
staff
and
contractors
working
with
PMC
children
have
access
to
all
the
case
information
they
need
to
serve
children
in
one
centralized
place.
As
the
Court
observed
in
the
December
2015
Opinion,
based
in
part
on
more
than
358,000
pages
of
case
record
material
contained
in
Defendants
Exhibit
120,
"The
problems
of
inadequate
and
incomplete
caseworker
documentation
are
considerably
magnified
by
the
way
in
which
DFPS
maintains
foster
childrens
case
files.
Childrens
records
are
not
kept
in
a
single
location
nor
are
they
consistently
maintained
in
chronological
order.
The
DFPS
plan
should
ensure
that
DFPS
caseworkers
and
supervisors
serving
PMC
children,
as
well
as
CASA
staff
and
volunteers,
and
SSCC
staff
in
Foster
Care
Redesign
regions,
have
access
to
an
integrated,
current,
complete
and
accurate
case
record
for
PMC
children
on
their
caseloads,
including,
for
example,
the
child's
current
status
and
permanency
goal;
the
child's
Transition
Plan
(where
applicable);
the
child's
placement
information
and
all
safety-related
and
licensure/verification
information
about
the
child's
placement,
including
investigation
and
inspection
reports,
enforcement
actions
and
internal
reviews
conducted
by
CPAs;
the
child's
historic
and
current
caseworker(s)
and
supervisor(s),
with
corresponding
contact
information;
the
child's
complete
medical,
dental,
educational
and
mental
health
information
and
records.
3.
Since
the
Court
concluded,
"DFPS
shall
include
an
updated
portrait
photograph
of
each
child
in
their
respective
case
files.
The
Special
Master
will
recommend
how
frequently
the
photograph
must
be
updated.
Each
photograph
shall
include
the
date
it
was
taken,
and
be
organized
and
easily
retrievable
in
the
case
files,"
Page 1 of 13
We
recommend
DFPS
submit
the
plan
to
the
We
recommend
the
Special
Masters
confer
with
DFPS
and
develop
a
Court
within
3
months
monitoring
methodology
once
the
plan
is
approved
by
the
Court.
of
the
Court's
Order.
Special Master
Recommendations
to the Court
Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document
471
Filed in TXSD
on 11/04/16 Page 2 of 13
Implementation
Steps/Processes/Tasks
Implementation Dates
Monitoring Methodology
3.1
We
recommend
to
reduce
the
risk
of
harm
to
PMC
children
that
DFPS
policy
require,
when
a
child
comes
into
the
PMC
class,
a
photograph
We
recommend
the
must
be
taken
of
the
child
and
placed
in
the
childs
case
record
promptly.
We
recommend
at
least
one
updated
photograph
be
taken
each
year
the
provision
become
We
recommend
a
policy
review
and
a
case
record
review
by
the
child
remains
in
care
and
placed
in
the
file,
such
as
is
already
required
by
DFPS,
for
example,
in
Section
6316
of
the
CPS
Policy
Manual.
We
effective
upon
issuance
Special
Masters
to
verify
implementation.
recommend
the
policy
require
the
date
of
the
photograph
be
recorded
in
the
childs
case
record,
such
as,
for
example,
is
already
required
by
DFPS
of
the
Court's
order.
in
Section
6316
of
the
CPS
Policy
Manual.
We
recommend
DFPS
implement
the
policy.
3.2
We
recommend
to
reduce
the
risk
of
harm
to
PMC
children
that
DFPS
policy
require
for
PMC
children
under
the
age
of
3
updated
photos
be
taken
of
the
child
at
least
semi-annually,
and
the
date
of
the
photograph
be
recorded
in
the
childs
case
record.
We
recommend
DFPS
implement
the
policy.
We
recommend
the
policy
be
effective
3
We
recommend
the
methodology
be
developed
by
the
Special
months
following
the
Masters
following
consultation
with
DFPS
and
approved
by
the
Court.
Court's
Order.
We
recommend
the
3.3
We
recommend
to
reduce
the
risk
of
harm
to
PMC
children
that
as
part
of
its
new-worker
training
program,
DFPS
provide
adequate
training
on
provision
become
We
recommend
the
Special
Masters
undertake
a
review
of
training
how
caseworkers
can
use
their
DFPS-issued
smart
phones
to
photograph
a
child
and
upload
the
photograph
to
the
DFPS
child
welfare
IMPACT
effective
in
new
worker
materials
and
training
classes.
database.
training
upon
issuance
of
the
Court's
order.
4.
Since
the
Court
concluded
"DFPS
shall
establish,
staff,
and
maintain
a
24-hour
hotline
for
receiving
and
responding
to
reports
of
abuse
and
neglect.
The
hotlines
phone
number
must
be
readily
available
and
displayed
prominently
in
all
foster
care
residential
facilities.
Foster
children
must
be
allowed
telephone
access
to
reach
out
to
this
24-hour
system,
free
from
observation,"
4.1
We
recommend
to
reduce
the
risk
of
harm
to
PMC
children
that
DFPS
operate
a
statewide
reporting
system
for
allegations
of
child
abuse
and
neglect,
such
as,
for
example,
the
Texas
Abuse
Hotline
that
is
currently
administered
by
Statewide
Intake
(SWI)
24
hours
a
day,
7
days
a
week.
We
recommend
the
provision
become
We
recommend
a
review
of
hotline
operations
by
the
Special
effective
upon
issuance
Masters.
of
the
Court's
Order.
4.2
We
recommend
to
reduce
the
risk
of
harm
to
PMC
children
that
DFPS
ensure
PMC
children
have
the
right
to
report
abuse,
neglect,
exploitation,
or
violation
of
personal
rights
without
fear
of
punishment,
interference,
coercion,
or
retaliation,
such
as,
for
example,
is
already
expressed
in
the
DFPS
Minimum
Standards
for
Child-Placing
Agencies
(CPAs)
(currently
Section
G,
Childrens
Rights).
We
recommend
the
We
recommend
this
include
a
review
of
Minimum
Standards
for
Child
provision
become
Placing
Agencies
and
any
other
related
materials
by
the
Special
effective
upon
issuance
Masters.
of
the
Court's
Order.
4.3
We
recommend
to
reduce
the
risk
of
harm
to
PMC
children
that
DFPS
ensure
PMC
children
have
the
right
to
report
abuse,
neglect,
exploitation,
or
violation
of
personal
rights
anonymously
and
privately
to
a
24-hour
hotline
for
receiving
and
responding
to
reports
of
abuse
and
neglect,
such
as,
for
example,
language
contained
in
the
proposed
DFPS
amendments
to
RCCL
Minimum
Standards
for
CPAs
and
GRO.
4.4
We
recommend
to
reduce
the
risk
of
harm
to
PMC
children
that
DFPS
ensure
all
reports
to
the
24-hour
hotline,
referenced
by
the
Court
above,
regarding
children
in
the
PMC
class
be
appropriately
screened
and,
where
warranted,
investigated
thoroughly.
The
Court
concluded
in
the
December
2015
Opinion
that
DFPS'
"approach
to
child
abuse
keeps
the
confirmed
reports
of
abuse
in
care
findings
artificially
low."
We
recommend
that
DFPS
commence
and
complete
investigations
of
maltreatment
of
PMC
children
timely,
consistent
with
DFPS
policy.
We
recommend
DFPS
report
maltreatment
to
PMC
children
on
a
semi-annual
basis
to
the
Court.
Testimony
during
the
trial
indicated
that
DFPS
could
not
accurately
report
from
the
IMPACT
system
on
the
timely
closure
of
abuse
and
neglect
investigations,
so
we
recommend
DFPS
submit
to
the
Court
a
data
plan
to
track
and
report
accurately
the
commencements,
extensions
and
closures
of
maltreatment
investigations.
4.5
We
recommend
to
reduce
the
risk
of
harm
to
PMC
children
that
DFPS
ensure
its
contracted
CPA
residential
providers
(such
as
residential
treatment
centers
and
group
homes,
but
not
including
foster
homes
or
therapeutic
foster
homes)
maintain
in
each
facility
where
PMC
children
are
housed,
a
landline
phone
that
connects
directly
to
the
DFPS
24-hour
hotline,
such
as,
for
example,
the
blue
phone
system
currently
used
by
Texas
for
children
in
its
juvenile
justice
system.
We
recommend
DFPS
require
that
all
foster
homes,
foster
group
homes
and
therapeutic
foster
homes
housing
children
in
the
PMC
class
maintain
a
landline
phone
accessible
to
the
child
in
the
home,
with
the
toll-free
hotline
number
appended
to
the
landline.
Page 2 of 13
We
recommend
the
We
recommend
this
include
a
review
of
Minimum
Standards
for
Child
provision
take
effect
Placing
Agencies
and
any
other
related
materials
by
the
Special
upon
issuance
of
the
Masters.
Court's
Order.
We
recommend
these
provisions
take
effect
upon
issuance
of
the
Court's
Order.
We
recommend
the
data
plan
be
submitted
within
2
months
of
the
Court's
Order.
Special Master
Recommendations
to the Court
Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document
471
Filed in TXSD
on 11/04/16 Page 3 of 13
Implementation
Steps/Processes/Tasks
Implementation Dates
4.6
The
Court
found
multiple
occasions
where
children
alleged
physical,
sexual,
and
verbal
abuse
to
DFPS
staff
but
the
allegations
were
not
relayed
We
recommend
the
to
the
hotline
and
investigated.
Therefore
to
reduce
the
risk
of
harm
to
PMC
children
we
recommend
DFPS
develop,
publish
and
train
all
affected
policy
be
effective
3
individuals
on
policy
that
requires
all
DFPS
staff,
foster
parents,
and
staff
of
SSCCs,
CPAs,
GROs
and
RTCs
to
report
all
allegations
of
abuse
and
months
following
the
neglect
of
children
in
the
PMC
class
to
the
hotline
for
investigation.
Court's
Order.
Monitoring
Methodology
We
recommend
the
Special
Masters
verify
the
policy
and
training,
and
review
additional
data
and
information,
including
licensing
reviews,
to
assess
whether
allegations
of
PMC
child
abuse
and
neglect
are
being
referred
to
the
hotline
for
investigation.
5.
Since
the
Court
concluded
"DFPS
shall
improve
its
programs
and
outreach
for
children
who
will
age
out
of
foster
care
so
that
more
children
take
advantage
of
these
programs,"
5.1
We
recommend
to
reduce
the
risk
of
harm
to
PMC
children
that
DFPS
submit
and
implement
a
plan
with
specific
timeframes,
subject
to
Court
approval,
to
provide
services,
programs,
and
benefits
through
an
individualized
case
management
model
to
prepare
youth,
age
14
and
older
in
the
PMC
class,
for
life
after
they
emancipate
from
DFPS
custody.
The
goal
is
to
assist
youth
avoid
the
heightened
risk
of
homelessness
and
re-
victimization,
described
in
the
trial
transcript
repeatedly,
which
was
encountered
by
youth
who
aged
out
of
DFPS
custody
without
a
forever
family
and
without
having
developed
the
skills
needed
to
transition
into
adulthood.
DFPS
reported
to
the
Special
Masters
that
1,180
children
emancipated
from
DFPS
custody
in
2015.
We
recommend
the
DFPS
plan
include:
A.
The
commitment
to
begin
individualized
case
planning
with
youth
beginning
We
recommend
the
at
age
14,
such
as,
for
example,
ensuring
that
youth
have
a
first
Circles
of
Support
(COS)
or
Transition
Planning
meeting
upon
turning
14
years
old.
plan
be
submitted
to
DFPS
could
decide
that
COS
or
Transition
Planning
meetings
will
then
take
place
in
conjunction
with
a
permanency
planning
meeting
every
4
months
We
recommend
the
Special
Masters
confer
with
DFPS
and
develop
a
the
Court
within
3
until
the
youth
exits
the
PMC
class.
B.
Developing
a
youths
Transition
Plan,
and
periodically
re-assessing
the
youth
to
determine
progress
toward
monitoring
methodology
once
the
plan
is
approved
by
the
Court.
months
of
the
Court's
goals.
C.
A
schedule
for
monitoring
and
updating
youths'
case
plans
with
an
eye
toward
building
skills
over
the
span
of
time
a
PMC
youth
is
receiving
Order.
independent
living
preparation
services.
D.
Providing
drivers
education
classes
for
PMC
youth
who
are
old
enough
to
receive
a
learners
permit
and
opt
to
take
drivers
education.
E.
Working
with
the
youths
Attorney
Ad
Litem
(AAL)
to
facilitate
having
any
eligible
criminal
or
juvenile
records
for
offenses
for
which
the
youth
was
adjudicated
or
convicted
sealed
or
expunged.
F.
Ensuring
every
PMC
youth
who
exits
the
class
has
a
copy
of
his
or
her
birth
certificate.
G.
Ensuring
that
DFPS
assesses
youth
for
individual
disabilities
and
eligibility
for
corresponding
benefits
and
submits,
as
appropriate,
applications
for
federal
Supplemental
Security
Income
(SSI)
on
behalf
of
PMC
children
deemed
eligible.
H.
Committing
that
PMC
youth
have
safe,
stable
housing
upon
emancipation.
Once
approved
by
the
Court,
we
recommend
DFPS
implement
the
plan.
5.2
We
recommend
within
6
months
of
a
child
entering
the
PMC
class
that
DFPS
ensure
the
child's
birth
certificate
has
been
secured
and
placed
in
the
child's
case
record.
We
recommend
the
provision
become
We
recommend
a
case
record
review
by
the
Special
Masters.
effective
upon
issuance
of
the
Court's
order.
We
recommend
the
DFPS
email
program
policy
take
effect
within
5.3
We
recommend
to
reduce
the
risk
of
harm
to
PMC
youth
that,
when
they
do
not
opt
to
extend
care
and
are
eligible
to
exit,
prior
to
their
exiting
2
months
of
the
Court's
the
PMC
class,
DFPS
policy
require
the
agency
to
assist
emancipating
youth
in
creating
e-mail
accounts
(as
described
on
DFPS'
website
here:
We
recommend
verification
of
email
accounts
and
document
Order.
We
recommend
https://www.dfps.state.tx.us/txyouth/legal/personal_docs.asp)
so
that
they
may
receive
encrypted
copies
of
personal
documents
and
records,
in
transmission
through
records
review
by
the
Special
Masters.
We
DFPS
submit
the
plan
addition
to
receiving
copies
of
originals.
If
PMC
youth
do
not
opt
to
extend
care,
we
recommend
that
DFPS
develop
a
plan
with
specific
timeframes,
recommend
the
Special
Masters
develop
a
monitoring
methodology
within
6
months
of
the
subject
to
Court
approval,
to
ensure
youth
know
about,
and
can
access,
benefits
the
youth
is
eligible
to
receive
once
they
emancipate,
including,
for
for
the
plan
once
reviewed
and
approved
by
the
Court.
Court's
Order
and
example,
a
transitional
living
allowance,
aftercare
room
and
board
assistance,
and
the
DFPS
Education
and
Training
Voucher
Program.
implement
the
plan
upon
approval
by
the
Court.
6.
The
Court
concluded
"All
PMC
children
shall
be
entitled
to
an
attorney
ad
litem
and
a
CASA
volunteer,
as
well
as
any
other
representative
appointed
to
TMC
children
that
the
Special
Master
determines
is
necessary
for
PMC
children's
safety
and
well-being,"
and
we
have
no
further
recommendations.
Page 3 of 13
Special Master
Recommendations
to the Court
Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document
471
Filed in TXSD
on 11/04/16 Page 4 of 13
Implementation
Steps/Processes/Tasks
Implementation Dates
Monitoring Methodology
7.
Since
the
Court
concluded,
"The
Special
Master
shall
recommend
any
provision
beyond
the
Courts
Goals
that
are
deemed
necessary
to
cure
the
States
constitutional
violations
outlined
in
this
Opinion,"
recommend
the
following:
7.1
The
Court
observed
in
the
December
2015
Opinion
that
"rape,
abuse,
psychotropic
medication
and
instability
are
the
norm"
for
PMC
children,
and
many
children's
records,
which
were
made
available
to
the
Special
Masters
as
exhibits
to
the
case,
were
missing
important
health
information.
The
children's
records
include
serious
concerns
of
physical
and
sexual
abuse
but
the
records
indicate
children
were
not
timely
(or
ever)
examined
by
doctors
to
determine
if
they
had
been
assaulted.
Injuries
went
untreated.
Necessary
medical
follow
up
did
not
occur.
Incomplete
and
missing
healthcare
information
was
a
common
feature
in
the
records.
In
order
to
reduce
the
risk
of
these
harms
to
children,
we
recommend
that
DFPS
develop
and
implement
a
HealthCare
Plan
for
PMC
children
with
specific
timeframes
subject
to
the
review
and
approval
of
the
Court.
We
We
recommend
the
recommend
DFPS
consult
"Fostering
Health:
Healthcare
for
Children
and
Adolescents
in
Foster
Care,"
by
the
American
Academy
of
Pediatrics
and
HealthCare
Plan
be
include
in
the
HealthCare
Plan:
A.
Annual
medical
examinations
for
children
in
the
PMC
class;
B.
The
establishment
of
a
medical
home
for
all
submitted
to
the
Court
children
in
the
PMC
class;
C.
The
provision
of
necessary
follow
up
treatment
and
medical
care,
including
for
acute
and
chronic
illnesses;
D.
The
within
6
months
We
recommend
the
Special
Masters
confer
with
DFPS
and
develop
a
provision
of
up-to-date
immunizations;
E.
The
provision
of
annual
dental
examinations
for
PMC
children
3
years
and
older;
F.
The
provision
of
following
the
Court's
monitoring
methodology
once
the
plan
is
approved
by
the
Court.
mental
health
assessments
by
a
qualified
professional
for
all
PMC
children
within
60
days
of
entry
to
the
PMC
class,
and
the
delivery
of
necessary
Order
and
implemented
follow
up
care
as
needed;
G.
Establishment
of
a
complete
medical
record
(also
known
as
a
medical
passport)
in
the
child's
case
record,
which
is
upon
approval
of
the
updated
timely
and
shared
with
the
child's
caregivers
at
the
time
of
placement
and
re-placement;
H.
The
establishment
of
Informed
Consent
Court.
protocols
for
the
administration
of
psychotropic
medication
by
a
prescribing
physician
to
a
PMC
child,
based
upon
documented
evaluation
and
diagnosis,
and
the
routine,
independent
review
of
psychotropic
medications
by
a
qualified
physician.
(In
the
December
2015
Opinion,
the
Court,
recounting
one
of
the
children's
histories,
wrote,
"In
January
2006,
two
months
after
making
physical
abuse
outcry,
five-year-old
J.V..
had
his
first
of
many
visits
to
a
psychiatrist
to
address
behaviors
of
kicking,
hitting,
and
defiance.
He
was
prescribed
Focalin
for
ADHD,
although
there
is
no
record
of
an
evaluation.")
We
recommend
the
7.2
We
recommend
to
reduce
the
risk
of
harm
to
PMC
children
that
DFPS
propose
to
the
Court
a
plan,
with
specific
timeframes
and
activities,
to
provision
become
We
recommend
the
Special
Masters
develop
a
monitoring
identify
and
address
PMC
children's
exposure
to
traumatic
events
such
as,
for
example,
abuse,
neglect,
removal
from
their
birth
families,
placement
effective
within
2
methodology
for
the
plan
once
reviewed
and
approved
by
the
Court.
moves
and
sibling
separation.
months
of
the
Court's
Order.
8.
Since
the
Court
concluded,
"CVS
Caseworkers:
(1)
DFPS
must
track
primary
CVS
caseworker
caseloads
on
a
child-only
basis.
The
Special
Master
shall
recommend
whether
tracking
should
be
categorized
separately
for
full-time
and
part-time
primary
CVS
caseworkers,
and
how
tracking
should
be
categorized
on
a
region
and
county-level.
The
State
cannot
include
in
the
calculations
secondary
workers,
workers
in
training,
or
fictive
workers
created
out
of
overtime.
The
State
is
welcome
to
continue
tracking
caseloads
by
stages,
but
not
in
lieu
of
child-only
tracking,"
And...
9.
Since
the
Court
concluded,
"CVS
Caseworkers:
(2)
DFPS
must
complete
a
Workload
Study
to
determine
the
time
required
for
caseworkers
to
adequately
perform
their
tasks.
DFPS
will
specify
how
long
it
takes
to
complete
each
task.
The
Special
Master
shall
recommend
how
frequently
DFPS
must
complete
additional
workload
studies.,"
And...
10.
Since
the
Court
concluded
"CVS
Caseworkers:
(3)
The
Special
Master
shall
recommend
the
point
at
which
caseloads
are
manageable
for
full-
time
and
part-time
CVS
caseworkers,
taking
into
account
times
of
crises.
What
is
manageable
is
to
be
understood
as
the
level
at
which
caseworkers
are
able
to
perform
their
basic
functions
and
not
compelled
to
quit
at
an
unreasonable
rate.
In
other
words,
a
manageable
caseload
is
the
level
at
which
children
are
free
from
an
unreasonable
risk
of
harm,"
And...
11.
Since
the
Court
concluded,
"CVS
Caseworkers:
(4)
DFPS
must
hire
and
maintain
enough
primary
CVS
caseworkers
to
ensure
that
caseloads
are
manageable
in
each
county
in
the
State,"
we
report
and
recommend
the
following:
Page 4 of 13
Special Master
Recommendations
to the Court
Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document
471
Filed in TXSD
on 11/04/16 Page 5 of 13
Implementation
Steps/Processes/Tasks
Implementation Dates
11.1
DFPS
produced
to
the
Special
Masters
an
Executive
Summary
of
a
Work
Measurement
Study
conducted
from
August
1,
2015
through
March
31,
2016,
for
caseworkers
engaged
in
certain
tasks,
including
case
profiles
most
often
associated
with
childrens
PMC
cases.
DFPS
noted,
It
is
important
to
emphasize
this
type
of
study
only
addresses
the
quantitative
measure
of
how
much
time
was
actually
spent
on
various
casework
activities
and
does
not
address
any
qualitative
measures
or
address
the
issue
of
how
much
time
should
be
spent
on
these
activities.
The
Work
Study
methodology
blended
the
work
experiences
of
I
See
You
Workers
with
the
work
experiences
of
CVS
Workers,
even
though
DFPS
defines
their
responsibilities
to
children
differently
in
their
job
descriptions.
This
inclusion
of
the
I
See
You
Workers
may
have
had
the
effect
of
decreasing
the
actual
average
case
time
spent
on
case
profiles
most
often
associated
with
childrens
PMC
cases
because
DFPS
expects
less
time
to
be
expended
per
child
by
I
See
You
Workers
than
by
CVS
Workers.
Nonetheless,
the
DFPS
Executive
Summary
concludes,
and
the
DFPS
study
author
confirmed
to
the
Special
Masters,
that
DFPS
caseworkers
expended
an
average
of
9.7
hours
per
month
on
case
profiles
most
often
associated
with
PMC
children,
and
that
these
workers
had
an
average
of
137.9
hours
per
month
to
spend
on
their
casework.
The
study's
author
reported
to
the
Special
Masters
that
dividing
the
average
number
of
case
hours
(137.9)
by
the
average
number
of
hours
per
month
spent
on
case
profiles
most
often
associated
with
PMC
cases
(9.7)
yields
the
average
caseload
for
CVS
workers
serving
children
in
the
PMC
class
based
on
the
amount
of
time
available
to
them:
14
cases.
This
number,
which
represents
DFPS'
reported
average
PMC
caseload,
strongly
informs
our
recommendation
to
the
Court.
The
Special
Masters
did
not
independently
verify
whether
CVS
caseloads
for
workers
serving
PMC
children
were,
in
fact,
averaging
14
children
per
worker.
The
December
2015
Opinion
of
the
Court
concluded,
based
on
evidence
presented
at
trial,
that
CVS
caseloads
are
unmanageable.
Although
we
do
not
recommend
a
fixed
caseload
cap,
which
would
inhibit
DFPS'
ability
to
assign
cases,
we
do
recommend
the
Court
adopt
DFPS'
own
finding
and
we
recommend
DFPS
implement
a
caseload
standard
in
the
range
of
14
to
17
PMC
cases
for
CVS
caseworkers
who
are
assigned
to
the
role
of
serving
PMC
children
and
who
work
full-time
in
that
role.
Monitoring Methodology
12.1
We
recommend
in
order
to
reduce
the
risk
of
harm
to
PMC
children
that
DFPS
propose
and
implement
a
plan
to
the
Court
with
specific
timeframes
to
reduce
CVS
caseworker
turnover,
subject
to
Court
approval,
which
includes:
A.
A
model
of
graduated
caseloads
for
newly
hired
and
qualified
caseworkers
through
the
first
9
months
of
their
onboarding
and
training.
B.
Phasing
in
a
mentorship
program
for
newly
hired
caseworkers
by
more
experienced
CVS
staff,
such
as,
for
example,
the
program
described
in
the
CPS
Mentor
Handbook
from
December
2015,
which
affords
the
We
recommend
DFPS
assigned
mentors
reduced
case
assignments
in
consideration
for
the
time
they
devote
to
mentoring,
coaching
and
supporting
newly
assigned
CVS
We
recommend
the
Special
Masters
develop
a
monitoring
submit
the
plan
to
the
staff,
and
co-locates
mentors
and
protges
whenever
possible
in
the
same
unit.
C.
A
model
of
training
that
balances
field-based
experiential
methodology
for
the
Plan
once
it
has
been
reviewed
and
approved
by
Court
within
4
months
learning
with
classroom-based
learning,
such
as,
for
example,
the
current
DFPS
CPD
model
which,
according
to
researchers
at
the
University
of
the
Court.
of
the
Court's
Order.
Texas-Austin,
is
beginning
to
have
a
discernable,
positive
impact
on
CVS
worker
retention.
D.
A
plan
to
complete
implementation
of
the
DFPS
Child
Protective
Services
Salary
Study
2012
recommendations.
E.
A
plan
to
implement
a
ratio
of
1
supervisor
for
5-6
CVS
caseworkers
within
18
months
of
the
Court's
Order.
F.
An
updated
DFPS
Child
Protective
Services
Salary
Study
with
proposals
to
address
inadequate
compensation
as
one
of
the
main
causes
for
caseworker
turnover.
Page 5 of 13
Special Master
Recommendations
to the Court
Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document
471
Filed in TXSD
on 11/04/16 Page 6 of 13
Implementation
Steps/Processes/Tasks
Implementation Dates
Monitoring Methodology
13.
Since
the
Court
concluded,
"CVS
Caseworkers:
(6)
The
Special
Masters
shall
evaluate
and
recommend
whether
secondary
CPU
and
I
See
You
Workers
should
be
maintained.
If
so,
the
Special
Masters
shall
recommend
provisions
to
make
them
more
effective
at
protecting
foster
children
from
an
unreasonable
risk
of
harm,"
13.1
We
recommend
to
reduce
the
risk
of
harm
to
PMC
children
that
DFPS
decrease
the
significant
number
of
PMC
child
placements
out
of
children's
home
regions
and
catchment
areas.
Testimony
during
the
trial
indicated
that
"39%
of
PMC
children
are
placed
out
of
region."
As
the
Court
We
recommend
DFPS
semi-annually
report
the
number
of
PMC
observed
in
the
December
2015
Opinion,
"Regional
Director
Bowman
agreed
that
placing
children
far
from
home
negatively
affects
the
bonds
and
children
placed
out
of
region;
the
number
of
PMC
children
placed
out
connections
that
children
need
to
be
emotionally
healthy.
Yet
...
60%
of
children
are
placed
out
of
their
home
county.
The
combined
effects
of
the
We
recommend
DFPS
of
county
(and
not
placed
in
an
adjacent
county);
the
number
of
pmc
inadequate
array
and
frequent
moves
means
that
any
stability
a
PMC
child
may
gain
in
her
initial
placement
is
destroyed
when
she
is
relocated.
For
submit
the
Placement
children
placed
out
of
catchment
area;
and
the
number
of
PMC
example,
the
Court
counts
at
least
four
occasions
where
J.S.
was
sent
over
200
miles
to
new
placements.
Likewise,
K.E.
was
twice
moved
over
250
Plan
to
the
Court
within
children
assigned
an
I
See
You
Worker.
We
recommend
the
Special
miles.
Because
K.E.s
27
placement
changes
took
her
all
over
Texas,
she
attended
at
least
12
schools
in
ten
years.
Like
many
of
the
Named
Plaintiffs,
6
months
of
the
Court's
Masters
annually
verify
the
placements
of
PMC
children
relative
to
K.E.
had
to
repeat
grades
and
functions
academically
well
below
her
age."
Similarly,
the
Court
wrote
in
the
December
2015
Opinion,
"Many
of
Order.
their
home
regions
and
counties.
We
recommend
the
Special
M.D.s
placements
moved
her
far
from
her
siblings,
who
were
not
in
foster
care,
and
her
home
community.
She
had
16
different
primary
and
Masters
develop
a
monitoring
methodology
for
this
plan
once
it
has
secondary
caseworkers."
We
recommend
DFPS
propose
a
Placement
Plan
to
the
Court,
(also
mentioned
in
Recommendation
24.2
below),
with
been
reviewed
and
approved
by
the
Court.
specific
timeframes,
to
substantially
improve
the
percentage
of
PMC
children
placed
in-region
and
in-catchment
areas,
over
the
next
24
months.
Upon
Court
review
and
approval,
we
recommend
DFPS
implement
that
plan.
13.2
We
recommend
the
Court
order
and
review
a
Work
Study
of
I
See
You
Workers
before
determining
whether
I
See
You
Workers
should
be
maintained.
DFPS
reported
to
the
Special
Masters
that
77
I
See
You
Workers
were
responsible
for
serving
3,406
children
(both
TMC
and
PMC)
on
June
30,
2015,
for
an
average
caseload
of
44
children
per
worker.
That
is
a
very
high
number
of
children
given
the
complexity
of
the
role
designed
by
DFPS.
According
to
the
position
description
for
the
I
See
You
Specialist
provided
to
the
Special
Masters,
they
must
[m]ake
monthly
contact
with
We
recommend
the
children
in
conservatorship
of
DFPS
who
are
placed
outside
of
their
home
region
and
enter
contacts
in
IMPACT,
attending
monthly
medication
Special
Masters
retain
reviews
for
children
placed
in
residential
treatment
settings,
assist
primary
workers
with
family
visits
and
subsequent
placement
moves
as
needed.
an
expert
to
conduct
The
courtesy
worker
will
assure
the
child's
needs
are
being
met
appropriately
by
the
placement.
The
courtesy
worker
will
also
provide
the
primary
the
I
See
You
Worker
worker
with
written
information
of
any
meeting/staffing
and
provide
information
to
assist
in
the
completion
of
the
child's
plan
of
service,
common
Workload
Study
and
application
and
court
report.
The
courtesy
worker
will
facilitate
parent
and/or
sibling
visitation.
The
courtesy
worker
will
provide
resources
to
share
the
study's
relative
placements.
To
be
effective
in
the
position,
I
See
You
Workers
must
be
familiar
with
PMC
childrens
records,
which
are
dense.
As
the
findings
with
the
Court
We
recommend
the
Special
Masters
following
consultation
with
DFPS
Court's
December
2015
Opinion
notes,
"it
took
the
Court
462
hours
just
to
read
the
358,102
pages"
from
the
20
children's
case
files
in
the
record.
and
the
parties
within
9
develop
a
methodology
to
track,
verify
and
report
on
the
caseloads
of
Twenty
cases
represents
less
than
half
the
average
caseload
for
I
See
You
Workers
reported
by
DFPS
as
of
June
2016.
Many
of
the
childrens
records
months
of
the
Court's
I
See
You
Workers
who
serve
PMC
children
once
the
Court
issues
the
are
tens
of
thousands
of
pages
long;
even
guided
by
the
Court's
detailed
analysis
of
each
child's
experiences
in
the
December
2015
Opinion,
it
took
Order.
We
recommend
Order.
the
Special
Masters
and
staff
more
than
225
hours
to
review
those
records.
For
example,
M.D.s
case
record
was
32,401
pages
long
and
included
45
that
the
DFPS
plan
to
audio
files
and
3
video
files.
S.A.s
record
was
33,636
pages
long,
A.M.s
record
was
33,432
pages
long
and
J.S.s
record
was
40,923
pages
long.
It
implement
the
interim
would
be
very
difficult,
if
not
impossible,
for
I
See
You
Workers
to
read,
digest
and
update
this
amount
of
information
for
44
children
at
any
given
caseload
standard
for
I
time.
Given
the
Court's
conclusions
in
the
December
2015
Opinion
about
the
poor
quality
of
I
See
You
Workers'
interactions
with
PMC
children,
we
See
You
Workers
be
recommend
the
Court
authorize
the
Special
Masters
to
retain
an
expert
to
conduct
a
Workload
Study
and
recommend
to
the
Court
whether
to
submitted
to
the
Court
maintain
I
See
You
Workers
and,
if
so,
at
what
point
their
PMC
caseloads
are
manageable.
Until
the
submission
to
the
Court
of
the
Study,
and
in
within
3
months
of
the
light
of
the
substantial
responsibilities
assigned
to
I
See
You
Workers
in
the
DFPS
job
description,
we
recommend
that
DFPS
adopt
an
interim
Court's
Order.
caseload
standard
for
I
See
You
Workers,
to
reduce
the
risk
of
harm
to
PMC
children,
in
the
range
of
22
to
25
children
per
I
See
You
Worker,
and
submit
to
the
Court
a
plan
for
implementing
same.
Upon
approval
by
the
Court,
we
recommend
DFPS
implement
the
plan.
We
do
not
recommend
a
fixed
caseload
cap.
13.3
To
reduce
the
risk
of
harm
to
PMC
children
and
enhance
the
quality
of
contacts
between
I
See
You
Workers
and
PMC
children,
we
recommend
We
recommend
the
DFPS
develop
and
implement
a
contact
guide,
which
I
See
You
Workers
would
complete
during
monthly
visits
with
a
child.
We
recommend
the
Contact
Guide
be
guide
include
the
I
See
You
Workers
assessment
of
the
childs
safety,
including
an
assessment
of
the
placement;
a
confirmation
that
the
child
was
produced
and
We
recommend
a
case
record
review
by
the
Special
Masters.
interviewed
individually,
separately
and
privately
from
the
caregiver
and
other
children;
a
discussion
of
the
form(s)
of
discipline
being
used
in
the
implemented
in
the
placement;
a
review
of
the
child's
medical,
mental
health,
dental
and
educational
needs;
and
other
DFPS
expectations
of
its
staffs
interactions
with
field
within
6
months
of
the
PMC
children
they
supervise.
the
Court's
Order.
Page 6 of 13
Special Master
Recommendations
to the Court
Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document
471
Filed in TXSD
on 11/04/16 Page 7 of 13
Implementation
Steps/Processes/Tasks
Implementation Dates
Monitoring Methodology
13.4
The
Court
wrote
extensively
in
the
December
2015
Opinion
about
children
who
infrequently,
or
never,
saw
some
of
their
CVS
caseworkers,
despite
the
enormous
responsibilities
assigned
to
those
workers
for
the
child's
safety,
care
and
permanency.
To
reduce
the
risk
of
harm
to
children
We
recommend
the
in
the
PMC
class,
we
recommend
that
DFPS
require
that
when
a
child
is
assigned
an
I
See
You
or
secondary
worker,
the
child's
primary
CVS
provision
become
We
recommend
the
methodology
be
developed
by
the
Special
caseworker
must
visit
the
child
in-person
or
via
available
technology
such
as,
for
example,
Skype,
Facetime,
and
video
conferencing,
separate
and
effective
upon
issuance
Masters
following
consultation
with
DFPS
and
approved
by
the
Court.
apart
from
other
children
and
caregivers,
at
least
quarterly,
in
addition
to
the
regular,
in-person
visits
between
the
child
and
other
assigned
of
the
Court's
order.
secondary
caseworkers.
14.
The
Court
concluded
"CVS
Caseworkers:
(7)
The
Special
Master
shall
recommend
other
provisions
deemed
necessary
to
ensure
that
primary
CVS
caseworkers
are
able
to
protect
foster
children
from
an
unreasonable
risk
of
harm,"
and
we
have
no
additional
recommendations.
15.
Since
the
Court
concluded
"CCL
Investigations,
Inspections,
and
Licensing:
(1)
DFPS
must
complete
a
Workload
Study
to
determine
the
time
requires
for
investigators
and
inspectors
to
adequately
perform
their
tasks.
DFPS
will
specify
how
long
it
takes
to
complete
each
task.
The
Special
master
shall
recommend
how
frequently
DFPS
must
complete
additional
workload
studies,"
And...
16.
Since
the
Court
concluded
"CCL
Investigations,
Inspections,
and
Licensing:
(2)
The
Special
Master
shall
recommend
the
point
at
which
caseloads
are
manageable
for
investigators
and
inspectors.
What
is
manageable
is
to
be
understood
as
the
level
at
which
investigators
and
inspectors
are
able
to
perform
their
basic
functions.
In
other
words,
a
manageable
caseload
is
the
level
at
which
children
are
free
from
an
unreasonable
risk
of
harm."
If
the
Court
orders
the
Special
Masters
to
retain
an
expert
to
16.1
DFPS
has
not
commenced
a
Workload
Study
of
RCCL
Investigators
and
Inspectors,
indicating
to
the
Special
Masters
the
agency's
belief
that
conduct
the
Workload
caseloads
for
these
staff
are
now
manageable
and
that
this
function
will
transfer
to
the
Texas
Health
and
Human
Services
Commission
next
year.
Of
Study,
we
recommend
the
36
RCCL
Investigators
(I
and
II)
as
of
June
30,
2016,
DFPS
reported
9
Investigators
were
responsible
for
more
than
17
child
abuse
and
neglect
the
expert
submit
investigations.
Absent
a
Workload
Study,
we
cannot
offer
a
data-informed
recommendation
to
the
Court
at
what
point
RCCL
Investigators'
and
conclusions
to
the
Court
Inspectors'
caseloads
are
manageable.
We
recommend
a
Workload
Study,
which
will
be
even
more
valuable
should
investigative
workloads
grow
if
within
8
months
of
the
We
recommend
a
Workload
Study
be
completed
and
submitted
to
DFPS
establishes
accessible
landline
phones
as
described
in
Recommendation
4.5
above,
giving
PMC
children
a
way
to
reach
the
hotline.
In
addition
Court's
Order.
If
the
the
Court
within
8
months
of
the
Court's
Order.
to
the
Courts
directive
above
to
DFPS,
the
Court
may
wish,
in
order
to
reduce
the
risk
of
harm
to
PMC
children,
to
order
the
Special
Masters
to
Court
also,
or
retain
an
expert
as
part
of
their
team
to
commence
a
Workload
Study
of
RCCL
Investigators
and
Inspectors
to
inform
at
what
point
RCCL
alternatively
orders
Investigators
and
Inspectors
caseloads
are
manageable.
DFPS
to
conduct
this
Workload
Study,
we
recommend
it
deliver
the
study
results
to
the
Court
within
8
months
of
the
Court's
Order.
We
recommend
the
establishment
of
16.2
Because
the
investigation
of
child
abuse
and
neglect
among
children
in
the
PMC
class
is
among
DFPS'
most
important
responsibilities,
we
specialized
staff
recommend
to
reduce
the
risk
of
harm
to
PMC
children
that
DFPS
identify
a
discrete
cohort
of
staff,
for
example
a
selection
of
RCCL
staff,
and
assigned
exclusively
to
We
recommend
the
Special
Masters
verify
case
assignments,
meet
exclusively
assign
them
to
the
work
of
maltreatment
investigations,
except
for
remote,
rural
or
substantially
less
populated
areas
of
the
State
where
investigate
abuse
and
with
staff
and
supervisors.
exclusive
assignment
is
impractical.
neglect
take
effect
6
months
following
the
Court's
Order.
17.
Since
the
Court
concluded,
"CCL
Investigations,
Inspections,
and
Licensing:
(3)
PMU
must
conduct
case
readings
to
assess
RCCL
investigations
in
a
manner
and
at
a
frequency
deemed
appropriate
by
the
Special
Master.
The
Special
Master
will
recommend
the
appropriate
method
to
correct
dispositions
and
order
corrective
actions
when
PMU
identifies
deficiencies,"
Page 7 of 13
Special Master
Recommendations
to the Court
Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document
471
Filed in TXSD
on 11/04/16 Page 8 of 13
Implementation
Steps/Processes/Tasks
17.1
We
recommend
to
reduce
the
risk
of
harm
to
PMC
children
that
PMU
conduct
case
readings,
and
report
results
to
the
Court
semi-annually,
using
a
tool
developed
in
consultation
with
the
Special
Masters.
Implementation Dates
Monitoring Methodology
We
recommend
DFPS
begin
the
PMU
case
readings
within
6
months
of
the
Court's
Order,
using
as
the
sample
all
PMC
maltreatment
investigations
for
the
final
six
months
of
2016.
18.
Since
the
Court
concluded
"CCL
Investigations,
Inspections,
&
Licensing:
(4)
The
Special
Master
shall
recommend
provisions
to
solve
RCCLs
unwillingness
to
institute
corrective
actions
against
violating
facilities,"
18.1
We
recommend
to
enhance
transparency,
and
reduce
the
risk
of
harm
to
PMC
children,
that
DFPS
make
public
on
the
agencys
website
all
of
the
completed
licensing
inspections
conducted
by
RCCL
and/or
its
successive
entities,
redacting
child
identifying
information
and
other
information
deemed
confidential
under
law
and
regulation.
We
recommend
DFPS
post
the
full
licensing
inspection
report,
including:
information
regarding
the
reason
for
inspection,
the
full
narrative
inspection
report,
the
outcome
of
the
inspection
including
violations
and
whether
RCCL
implemented
corrective
or
adverse
action
as
the
result
of
violations
identified
during
the
inspection.
We
recommend
DFPS
make
public
on
its
website
all
corrective
action
plans,
required
by
RCCL
and/or
other
successive
entities,
submitted
by
violating
agencies.
We
recommend
to
enhance
transparency
and
accountability
that
DFPS
make
public
on
its
website
the
dates
when
RCCL
accepts
corrective
action
plans
submitted
by
violating
agencies
and
the
status
of
corrective
active
plans.
We
recommend
DFPS
submit
the
plan
to
the
We
recommend
the
Special
Masters
review
RCCL
data
and
Court
within
3
months
information,
and
agency
website
information.
of
the
Court's
Order.
18.2
We
recommend
to
reduce
the
risk
of
harm
to
PMC
children
that
DFPS
develop
a
plan
with
specific
timeframes,
subject
to
Court
approval,
to
We
recommend
DFPS
expand
the
array
of
enforcement
actions
available
to
DFPS
for
identified
violations,
including
the
ability
of
DFPS
to
suspend
and
close
foster
homes,
submit
the
plan
to
the
We
recommend
the
Special
Masters
develop
a
monitoring
foster
group
homes
and
therapeutic
foster
homes
directly,
even
when
verified
and
maintained
by
CPAs.
We
recommend
upon
Court
approval,
DFPS
Court
within
3
months
methodology
for
the
Plan
once
reviewed
and
approved
by
the
Court.
implement
the
plan
and
make
public
on
its
website
all
enforcement
actions
undertaken
by
the
agency.
of
the
Court's
Order.
19.
Since
the
Court
concluded,
"CCL
Investigations,
Inspections,
and
Licensing:
(5)
DFPS
shall
track
child-on-child
abuse,
and
categorize
it
as
such.
The
Special
Master
shall
recommend
the
most
appropriate
fashion
to
track
child-on-child
abuse
bearing
in
mind
that
the
information
should
be
easy
to
retrieve
and
should
be
used
to
inform
all
placements
and
treatments.
The
Special
Master
shall
also
recommend
how
to
categorize
the
initiators
of
child-on-child
abuse,
sensitive
to
the
consequences
of
labeling
children
as
perpetrators.
The
Special
Master
shall
also
recommend
if
child-on-child
abuse
should
simultaneously
be
categorized
as
neglectful
supervision
by
the
caregiver,"
19.1
We
recommend
to
reduce
the
risk
of
harm
to
PMC
children
that
DFPS
require
all
CPAs
report
to
DFPS,
and
document,
allegations
of
sexual
abuse
committed
by
a
child
against
another
child,
such
as,
for
example,
is
already
required
by
DFPS
in
the
current
Minimum
Standards
for
Child-
Placing
Agencies
(currently
Section
749.503).
DFPS
defines
sexual
abuse
in
this
context
as:
"conduct
harmful
to
a
childs
mental,
emotional
or
physical
welfare,
including
nonconsensual
sexual
activity
between
children
of
any
age,
and
consensual
sexual
activity
between
children
with
more
We
recommend
the
than
24
months
difference
in
age
or
when
there
is
a
significant
difference
in
the
developmental
level
of
the
children;
or
failure
to
make
a
reasonable
provision
become
effort
to
prevent
sexual
conduct
harmful
to
a
child.
In
light
of
trial
testimony
that
sexually
abused
children
need
a
placement
with
no
other
We
recommend
DFPS
conduct
the
primary
monitoring
of
CPAs
for
effective
within
2
children,
(the
Court
summarized,
"Defendants
and
Plaintiffs
experts
agreed
that
sexually
abused
children
should
live
in
single-child
placements"),
performance,
and
the
Special
Masters
verify.
months
of
the
Court's
we
recommend
in
Recommendation
23.1
(below)
that
DFPS
provide
a
plan
to
the
Court
with
specific
timeframes
documenting
how
it
will
track
Order.
available
"single
child
homes,"
that
is,
homes
with
no
other
birth,
adoptive,
relative
or
non-relative
kinship
or
foster
children
present,
and
how
it
will
match
those
placements
to
PMC
children
who,
upon
a
thorough
and
documented
assessment,
are
determined
to
need
such
a
home.
We
recommend
if
DFPS
places
a
sexually
abused
child
in
a
setting
with
other
children,
the
agency
must
first
document
in
the
childs
case
record
why
the
child
has
not
been
placed
in
a
single
child
home.
19.2
We
recommend
to
reduce
the
risk
of
harm
to
PMC
children
that
DFPS
require
all
incidents
of
sexual
abuse
by
a
child
against
another
child
be
immediately
reported
by
foster
caregivers,
CPAs
and
GROs
to
a
24-hour
hotline
established
by
DFPS
to
receive,
screen
and
refer
for
investigation
reports
of
child
abuse
and
neglect,
such
as,
for
example,
the
hotline
run
by
DFPS'
Statewide
Intake.
Page 8 of 13
We
recommend
the
provision
become
We
recommend
RCCL
monitor
CPAs
and
GROs
for
performance,
and
effective
within
2
the
Special
Masters
verify
performance.
months
of
the
Court's
Order.
Special Master
Recommendations
to the Court
Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document
471
Filed in TXSD
on 11/04/16 Page 9 of 13
Implementation
Steps/Processes/Tasks
Implementation Dates
19.3
We
recommend
to
reduce
the
risk
of
harm
to
PMC
children
that
DFPS
investigate
all
reported
incidents
of
sexual
abuse
by
a
child
against
a
child
for,
at
least,
Neglect
by
the
caregivers
charged
to
supervise
the
child,
such
as
in
Neglectful
Supervision
and
Neglectful
Placement.
Monitoring Methodology
We
recommend
the
provision
become
We
recommend
a
case
record
review
by
the
Special
Masters.
effective
within
2
months
of
the
Court's
Order.
We
recommend
the
19.4
We
recommend
to
reduce
the
risk
of
harm
to
PMC
children
that
DFPS
ensure
the
child's
case
record
prominently
identifies
PMC
youth
as
provision
become
having
"sexually
aggressive"
behavior
if
the
youth
has
sexually
abused
another
child
or
is
at
high
risk
for
perpetrating
sexual
assault.
The
designation
We
recommend
a
case
record
review
by
the
Special
Masters.
effective
within
6
"sexually
aggressive"
should
be
easy
to
search
and
retrieve
in
the
child's
case
record,
and
easy
for
DFPS
to
track
for
all
PMC
children
so
described.
months
of
the
Court's
Order.
19.5
We
recommend
to
reduce
the
risk
of
harm
to
PMC
children
that
DFPS
ensure
the
child's
case
record
prominently
identifies
a
PMC
youth
as
sexually
abused
if
the
child
has
been
sexually
abused
by
an
adult
or
another
youth.
The
designation
"sexually
abused"
should
be
easy
to
search
and
retrieve
in
the
child's
case
record,
and
easy
to
track
for
all
PMC
children
so
described.
The
Court
observed
in
the
December
2015
Opinion
that
DFPS
had
not
identified
PMC
child
D.I.
as
sexually
abused,
instead
"referring
to
his
rape
in
his
case
files
as
problems
getting
along
with
the
older
foster
kids,
sexual
behavior,
a
sexual
act
with
some
boys,
and
participating
in
sex
with
other
children
in
the
home.
We
recommend
the
provision
become
effective
within
6
We
recommend
a
case
record
review
by
the
Special
Masters.
months
of
the
Court's
Order.
We
recommend
this
be
included
as
part
of
new
worker
training
within
2
19.6
We
recommend
to
reduce
the
risk
of
harm
to
PMC
children
that
DFPS
ensure
all
CVS
caseworkers
serving
PMC
youth
receive
training
on
where
months
of
the
Court's
We
recommend
DFPS
certify
worker
training
compliance
to
the
to
find
and
how
to
make
the
designations
in
PMC
children's
case
records
for
youth
with
sexually
aggressive"
behavior
and
sexually
abused
youth. Order
and
that
all
CVS
Court.
workers
be
trained
within
6
months
of
the
Court's
Order.
We
recommend
DFPS
19.7
We
recommend
to
reduce
the
risk
of
harm
to
PMC
children
that
DFPS
propose
a
plan
to
the
Court,
with
specific
timeframes
and
activities,
Upon
Court
approval
of
DFPS'
plan,
we
recommend
the
Special
propose
the
plan
to
the
informed
by
PMU
case
record
reviews
of
substantiated
and
unsubstantiated
maltreatment
investigations
and
other
data
and
information,
to
reduce
Masters
confer
with
DFPS
and
develop
a
methodology
for
Court
within
6
months
the
incidence
of
maltreatment
of
PMC
children,
and
implement
the
plan
upon
Court
approval.
verification.
of
the
Court's
Order.
We
recommend
these
19.8
We
recommend
to
reduce
the
risk
of
harm
to
PMC
children
that
DFPS
not
place
any
child
determined
to
be
"sexually
aggressive"
or
at
high
risk
provisions
take
effect
for
perpetrating
violence
or
sexual
assault
in
any
foster
care
placement
with
PMC
foster
children
not
so
determined
without
an
appropriate,
upon
issuance
of
the
documented
assessment
concerning
the
safety
of
all
children
in
the
placement.
Court's
Order.
19.9
We
recommend
to
reduce
the
risk
of
harm
to
PMC
children
that
DFPS
conduct
an
individualized
needs
assessment
for
every
PMC
child
who
has
been
sexually
abused
by
an
adult
or
another
youth
to
determine
their
needs,
including
whether
they
need
a
therapeutic
foster
home
and,
if
so,
ensure
the
child
receives
appropriate
services
and
a
placement
matching
his/her
needs.
We
recommend
these
provisions
take
effect
We
recommend
a
case
record
review
by
the
Special
Masters.
upon
issuance
of
the
Court's
Order.
19.10
We
recommend
to
enhance
transparency
and
to
reduce
the
risk
of
harm
to
PMC
children
that
DFPS
publicly
report
the
number
of
substantiated
allegations
of
child
maltreatment
each
month
for
children
in
the
PMC
class.
We
recommend
publication
of
monthly
We
recommend
the
Special
Masters
confer
with
DFPS
to
establish
data
effective
within
2
what,
if
any,
time
lags
in
reporting
are
appropriate
given
agency
months
of
the
Court's
practice
and
agency
data
verification
efforts.
Order.
20.
Since
the
Court
concluded,
"CCL
Investigations,
Inspections,
and
Licensing:
(6)
The
Special
Master
shall
recommend
other
provisions
deemed
necessary
to
ensure
that
RCCL
protects
foster
children
from
an
unreasonable
risk
of
harm,"
Page 9 of 13
Special Master
Recommendations
to the Court
Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document
471
Filed in TXSD
on 11/04/16 Page 10 of 13
Implementation
Steps/Processes/Tasks
Implementation Dates
20.1
We
recommend
DFPS
propose
a
plan
with
specific
timeframes,
subject
to
Court
approval,
which
strengthens
its
monitoring
and
oversight
of
PMC
children's
placements
using
its
full
array
of
regulatory
and
contractual
tools.
We
recommend
the
plan
include,
for
example,
the
requirement
that
DFPS
afford
due
consideration
to
all
incidents
of
abuse,
neglect,
and/or
corporal
punishment
occurring
in
the
placements
administered
or
supervised
by
a
CPA
or
GRO
at
the
time
of
its
inspection/re-inspection
and
processing
its
application
for
verification/renewal.
We
recommend
the
plan
extend
DFPS'
monitoring
of
placement
agencies'
obligation
to
report
suspected
child
abuse
or
neglect
to
DFPS,
by
including,
for
example,
provisions
that
require
an
immediate
investigation
by
DFPS
to
determine
the
appropriate
corrective
action
up
to
and
including
termination
or
modification
of
relevant
portions
of
a
contract
for
failure
to
report.
We
recommend
DFPS
fortify
its
regulatory
and
contractual
enforcement
tools
such
as,
for
example,
establishing
that
a
repeated
failure
by
a
placement
agency
within
one
year
to
report
suspected
child
abuse
or
neglect
shall
result
in
a
review
of
the
contract
agencys
violations
by
DFPS
senior
leadership.
We
recommend
upon
Court
approval,
DFPS
implement
the
plan
on
the
timeline
established
by
the
Court.
Monitoring Methodology
We
recommend
DFPS
submit
the
plan
to
the
We
recommend
the
Special
Masters
develop
a
monitoring
Court
within
6
months
methodology
for
the
plan
once
reviewed
and
approved
by
the
Court.
of
the
Court's
Order.
21.
Since
the
Court
concluded,
"Inadequate
Placement
Array:
(1)
DFPS
shall
not
allow
unrelated
children
that
are
more
than
one
service
level
apart
(e.g.,
Moderate
and
Intense-level
children)
to
be
placed
in
the
same
room
in
any
residential
facility.
The
Special
Master
shall
recommend
if
it
is
appropriate
to
allow
unrelated
children
that
are
only
one
service
level
apart
(e.g.,
Basic
and
Moderate-level
children)
to
be
placed
in
the
same
room
in
any
residential
facility,"
And...
22.
Since
the
Court
concluded,
"Inadequate
Placement
Array:
(2)
The
Special
Master
shall
recommend
what
age
ranges
of
unrelated
children
are
appropriate
to
be
placed
in
the
same
room
in
any
residential
facility.
The
Court
understands
that
larger
age
gaps
may
be
more
appropriate
for
younger
children
(e.g.
a
five-year-old
and
a
ten-year-old
in
the
same
room)
than
for
older
children
(e.g.
a
ten-
year-old
and
a
15-year
old
in
the
same
room),"
22.1
We
recommend
to
reduce
the
risk
of
harm
to
PMC
children
that
unrelated
PMC
children
with
different
service
levels
only
be
placed
in
the
same
room
after
a
thorough
and
documented
assessment
by
DFPS
staff
that
certifies
that
such
placement
is
safe
and
appropriate
for
each
PMC
child.
22.2
We
recommend
to
reduce
the
risk
of
harm
to
PMC
children
that
by
6
months
following
the
Court's
Order,
all
PMC
children
under
two
years
of
age
be
placed
in
family-like
settings;
by
12
months
following
the
Court's
Order,
all
PMC
children
under
six
years
of
age
be
placed
in
family-like
settings;
by
24
months
following
the
Court's
Order,
all
PMC
children
under
13
years
of
age
be
placed
in
family-like
settings.
The
Court
observed
in
the
December
2015
Opinion
that
DFPS
is
second
worst
in
the
nation
at
placing
young
children
in
congregate
care.
We
recommend
that
acceptable
family-like
settings
include,
for
example,
non-relative
foster
care,
tribal
foster
care,
kinship
foster
care,
and
therapeutic
foster
care.
We
recommend
DFPS
allow
exceptions
to
placement
in
a
family-like
setting
for
the
following:
sibling
groups
of
four
or
more
children
who
cannot
otherwise
be
placed
together,
children
whose
individualized
needs
require
inpatient
psychiatric
hospitalization,
treatment
and/or
medical
care,
or
young
children
who
are
placed
with
their
minor
parent.
We
recommend
DFPS
submit
the
plan
to
the
We
recommend
the
Special
Masters
develop
a
monitoring
Court
within
4
months
methodology
for
the
plan
once
reviewed
and
approved
by
the
Court.
of
the
Court's
Order.
As described
22.3
We
recommend
to
reduce
the
risk
of
harm
to
PMC
children
that
by
24
months
following
the
Court's
Order,
PMC
children
ages
13
years
of
age
We
recommend
the
Special
Masters
review
and
verify
PMC
children's
and
older
can
only
be
placed
in
a
shelter
if
a
family-like
setting
is
unavailable
to
meet
their
needs
and
the
appropriate
DFPS
staff
documents
in
the
We
recommend
this
placements.
We
recommend
exceptions
be
approved
by
DFPS
childs
case
record
the
ongoing
efforts
made
to
secure
for
the
child
a
family-like
placement.
We
recommend
DFPS
allow
exceptions
to
placement
in
provision
be
effective
supervisory
authority,
documented
by
DFPS
staff
in
the
child's
case
a
family-like
setting
for
the
following:
sibling
groups
of
four
or
more
children
who
cannot
otherwise
be
placed
together,
children
whose
24
months
following
the
record
and
verified
by
the
Special
Masters
through
case
record
individualized
needs
require
inpatient
psychiatric
hospitalization,
treatment
and/or
medical
care,
or
young
children
who
are
placed
with
their
minor
Court's
Order.
reviews.
parent.
22.4
We
recommend
to
reduce
the
risk
of
harm
to
PMC
children
that
DFPS
not
allow
unrelated
children
more
than
three
years
apart
in
age
to
be
placed
in
the
same
room
in
any
residential
facility
unless
DFPS
after
a
thorough,
documented
assessment
certifies
that
such
placement
is
safe
and
appropriate.
23.
Since
the
Court
concluded
"Inadequate
Placement
Array:
(3)
DFPS
shall
track
how
many
placements
in
its
array
are
designated
as
single-child
homes
(including
biological
and
adopted
children),
and
track
how
many
foster
children
need
single-child
homes.
DFPS
shall
explain
its
criteria
for
determining
which
children
need
single-child
homes.
DFPS
shall
ensure
that
all
children
who
need
single-child
homes
are
placed
in
such
homes,
unless
it
is
in
the
childs
best
interest
to
remain
with
siblings
or
be
supervised
at
a
congregate
care
facility.
If
a
child
who
needs
a
single-child
home
is
not
placed
in
such
a
home,
the
childs
primary
CVS
caseworker
must
explain
why
in
the
childs
case
files,"
And...
Page 10 of 13
We
recommend
this
provision
be
effective
6
We
recommend
DFPS
verify
within
9
months
of
Court's
Order
and
months
following
the
then
include
ongoing
verification
in
regular
inspections.
Court's
Order.
Special Master
Recommendations
to the Court
Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document
471
Filed in TXSD
on 11/04/16 Page 11 of 13
Implementation
Steps/Processes/Tasks
Implementation Dates
Monitoring Methodology
23.1
DFPS
does
not
currently
track
placements
as
"single
child
homes."
In
light
of
trial
testimony
that
sexually
abused
children
frequently
need
a
placement
with
no
other
children,
(the
Court
summarized,
"Defendants
and
Plaintiffs
experts
agreed
that
sexually
abused
children
should
live
in
We
recommend
the
single-child
placements."),
we
recommend
that
DFPS
provide
a
plan
to
the
Court
with
specific
timeframes
documenting
how
it
will
track
available
plan
be
submitted
to
We
recommend
the
Special
Masters
develop
a
monitoring
"single
child
homes,"
that
is,
homes
with
no
other
birth,
adoptive,
relative
or
non-relative
kinship
or
foster
children
present,
and
how
it
will
match
the
Court
within
3
methodology
for
the
plan
once
reviewed
and
approved
by
the
Court.
those
placements
to
PMC
children
who
upon
a
thorough
and
documented
assessment
are
determined
to
need
such
a
home.
We
recommend
if
months
of
the
Court's
DFPS
places
a
sexually
abused
child
in
setting
with
other
children,
the
agency
must
first
document
in
the
childs
case
record
why
the
child
has
not
Order.
been
placed
in
a
single
child
home.
24.
Since
the
Court
concluded,
"Inadequate
Placement
Array:
(4)
DFPS
shall
conduct
a
formal
statewide
needs
assessment
to
determine
an
adequate
placement
array,
including
by
number,
geographic
distribution,
and
placement
type.
DFPS
must
procure
a
placement
array
that
substantially
matches
this
assessment,
and
place
children
appropriately.
The
Special
Master
shall
recommend
how
frequently
DFPS
must
complete
additional
statewide
needs
assessments.
DFPS
shall
take
whatever
steps
are
necessary
to
ensure
that
it
has
available
to
it
at
all
times
an
adequate
placement
array,
including
by
number,
geographic
distribution,
and
placement
type,
and
that
foster
children
are
placed
promptly
in
an
appropriate
facility,"
24.1
We
recommend
in
order
to
reduce
the
risk
of
harm
to
PMC
children
that
DFPS
submit
to
the
Court
its
2016
statewide
Placement
Needs
We
recommend
the
Assessment
(the
Assessment)
which
DFPS
expects
to
produce
by
January
2017.
We
recommend
the
Assessment
include
the
number,
geographic
Needs
Assessment
be
distribution
and
placement
types
in
DFPS
placement
array,
and
the
expected
placement
needs
for
PMC
children
in
2017,
by
catchment
areas.
We
submitted
within
2
recommend
the
Assessment
integrate
the
results
from
DFPS'
April
2016
Residential
Child
Care
Capacity
Survey
which
demonstrated
substantial
months
of
the
Court's
interest
in
expanding
placement
capacity
for
children.
We
recommend
DFPS
submit
to
the
Court
a
Placement
Plan
(also
mentioned
in
We
recommend
the
provision
be
satisfied
by
submission
to
the
Court
Order.
We
recommend
Recommendation
13.1
above),
informed
by
the
Assessment,
to
meet
the
needs
identified
in
the
Assessment
and
expand
the
array
of
safe
family-
of
the
Needs
Assessment.
the
Placement
Plan
be
based
placements
for
PMC
children.
We
recommend
the
Placement
Plan,
whether
administered
directly
or
through
private
agency
contracts,
be
submitted
within
6
performance
and
outcomes
based,
with
specific
timeframes
and
benchmarks,
and
identify
strategies
to
address,
among
other
gaps,
the
need
for
months
of
the
Court's
placements
for
specialized
and
often
hard-to-place
groups
of
PMC
children
such
as,
for
example,
sibling
groups
of
four
or
more,
teenagers,
children
Order.
with
developmental
disabilities
and
children
who
require
placement
in
a
home
with
no
other
children.
24.2
We
recommend,
following
the
Court's
review
of
the
2016
Needs
Assessment
and
the
Placement
Plan
described
in
Recommendation
13.1
and
Recommendation
24.1,
that
the
Special
Masters,
following
consultation
with
DFPS,
propose
to
the
Court
performance
targets
for
DFPS
over
a
12-
month
period
to
expand
the
number
of
foster
homes
and
therapeutic
foster
homes
for
PMC
children.
We
recommend
DFPS
implement
the
Placement
Plan
to
expand
placements
for
children,
and
work
toward
the
12-month
performance
targets,
upon
approval
of
the
Court.
We
recommend
the
proposal
be
submitted
We
recommend
DFPS
periodically,
on
a
schedule
determined
by
the
to
the
Court
due
within
Court,
publicly
report
on
its
progress
toward
achievement
of
the
8
months
of
the
Court's
performance
targets.
Order.
24.3
We
recommend
in
order
to
prevent
the
risk
of
harm
to
PMC
children
that
DFPS
prohibit
the
overnight
placement
of
PMC
children
in
offices.
We
recommend
the
We
recommend
DFPS
prohibit
the
placement
of
PMC
children
in
any
other
facilities
or
locations
that
are
not
regulated
by
DFPS
directly
or
through
a
provision
take
effect
We
recommend
the
Special
Masters
review
PMC
children's
CPA
as
child
welfare
placements,
except
kin
placements
or
where
necessary
to
meet
the
individualized
medical
or
behavioral
and
mental
health
within
3
months
of
the
placement
data
and
conduct
a
case
record
review.
needs
of
PMC
children.
Court's
Order.
24.4
We
recommend
the
Special
Masters
confer
with
DFPS
and
propose
to
the
Court
in
each
subsequent
year,
based
on
an
updated
needs
assessment,
annual
performance
targets
to
ensure
an
adequate
supply
of
foster
homes
and
therapeutic
foster
homes
statewide,
which
DFPS
would
work
to
achieve
upon
Court
approval.
We
recommend
an
annual
process.
25.
Since
the
Court
concluded
"Inadequate
Placement
Array:
(5)
DFPS
shall
track
how
many
children
are
in
each
residential
facility,
including
biological
and
adopted
children,
as
well
as
each
facilitys
licensed
capacity.
DFPS
shall
make
this
information
easy
to
retrieve,"
25.1
We
recommend
DFPS
publish
this
information
on
its
website
and
update
the
information
quarterly
until
such
time
as
DFPS
operationalizes
its
Placement
Portal.
26.
Since
the
Court
concluded,
"Inadequate
Placement
Array:
(6)
DFPS
can
continue
to
pursue
Foster
Care
Redesign,
but
only
if
the
Special
Master
recommends,
and
the
Court
agrees,
that
Redesign
meets
the
statewide
needs
assessment.
The
Special
Master
can
evaluate
Foster
Care
Redesign,"
And...
Page 11 of 13
We
recommend
this
provision
take
effect
We
recommend
the
Special
Masters
review
the
DFPS
website.
upon
issuance
of
the
Court's
Order.
Special Master
Recommendations
to the Court
Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document
471
Filed in TXSD
on 11/04/16 Page 12 of 13
Implementation
Steps/Processes/Tasks
Implementation Dates
Monitoring Methodology
27.
Since
the
Court
concluded,
"Inadequate
Placement
Array:
(7)
The
Special
Master
shall
recommend
provisions
to
solve
the
problem
of
children
being
removed
from
placements
where
they
are
succeeding
because
their
level
of
care
has
altered.
The
Special
Master
shall
also
recommend
provisions
to
solve
the
perverse
incentive
of
DFPS
providing
additional
funds
to
caregivers
for
children
at
increased
levels
of
care,"
27.1
Foster
Care
Redesign
has
not
yet
been
implemented
fully
in
any
region
of
the
State.
Its
first
regional
roll-out,
as
described
in
the
Courts
December
2015
Opinion,
was
not
successful,
and
its
subsequent
implementation
in
the
first
catchment
area
continues
to
offer
lessons
to
DFPS
leadership
on
the
models
strengths
and
challenges.
We
recommend
DFPS
submit
to
the
Court
a
Foster
Care
Redesign
plan,
taking
into
consideration
the
findings
of
the
2016
Placement
Needs
Assessment.
We
recommend
the
plan
include
DFPS
analysis
of
the
resources
required,
main
strategies
and
actions
to
be
taken,
key
benchmarks,
and
any
known
challenges
to
achieve
statewide
implementation
as
DFPS
intends.
The
challenges
the
plan
should
address
include,
among
others,
the
capacity
of
providers
across
Texas
to
serve
as
the
identified
SSCC;
the
service
array,
including
the
recruitment
and
development
of
foster
homes
that
meet
the
individualized
needs
of
PMC
children;
how
and
on
what
schedule
DFPS
will
implement
a
statewide
transition
to
a
blended
placement
funding
model
as
DFPS
preferred
way
to
address
the
incentives,
described
in
the
Court's
December
2015
Opinion,
associated
with
greater
compensation
to
providers
for
increased
levels
of
residential
care;
and
the
statewide
adoption
of
a
child
placement
system
that
will
match
children's
individualized
needs
to
placements
and
services.
We
recommend
the
plan
also
include
proposed
timelines
for
staged,
statewide
implementation
through
the
end
of
FY
2021,
as
proposed
by
DFPS.
We
recommend
the
plan
be
submitted
to
the
Court
due
within
12
We
recommend
the
Court
review
and
consider
the
plan.
months
of
the
Court's
Order.
28.
Since
the
Court
concluded
"Inadequate
Placement
Array:
(8)
The
Special
Master
shall
recommend
other
provisions
deemed
necessary
to
ensure
that
DFPSs
placement
array
no
longer
causes
an
unreasonable
risk
of
harm
to
foster
children,"
We
recommend
the
We
recommend
the
Special
Masters
following
consultation
with
DFPS
first
report
by
DFPS
be
develop
a
methodology
to
track,
verify
and
report
on
the
placement
made
within
6
months
moves
of
PMC
children.
of
the
Court's
Order.
28.1. We recommend DFPS report to the Court semi-annually on PMC children's placement moves.
29.
Since
the
Court
concluded
"Foster
Group
Homes:
(1)
The
Special
Master
shall
recommend
if
FGHs
should
continue
to
operate
based
on
whether
FGHs
can
be
improved
to
the
extent
that
they
will
not
cause
an
unreasonable
risk
of
harm
to
foster
children,"
And...
30.
Since
the
Court
concluded,
"Foster
Group
Homes:
(2)
If
the
Special
Master
determines
that
FGHs
should
continue
to
operate,
the
Special
Master
shall
recommend
necessary
provisions,
including
awake-night
supervision,
additional
staff
training,
and
more
appropriate
staff-to-child
ratios,"
we
report
and
recommend:
30.1
The
Court
described
extensively
the
harm
endured
by
children
in
certain
foster
group
homes
in
the
December
2015
Opinion.
DFPS
reported
to
We
recommend
this
the
Special
Masters
that
as
June
30,
2016,
there
were
219
foster
group
homes
housing
584
children
(TMC
and
PMC)
across
Texas.
Following
the
We
recommend
DFPS
monitor
and
certify
to
the
Court.
We
provision
take
effect
6
Court's
December
2015
Opinion
ordering
awake-night
supervision
in
these
homes,
7
foster
group
homes
had
more
than
8
DFPS
children
placed
in
recommend
verification
of
PMC
children's
placements
by
the
Special
months
following
the
them
as
of
June
30,
2016,
according
to
DFPS.
We
recommend
to
reduce
the
risk
of
harm
to
PMC
children
that
no
more
than
8
children
(cumulative,
Masters,
including
case
record
review,
DFPS
data
and
information.
Court's
Order.
including
foster,
birth
and
adoptive)
reside
in
a
foster
group
home
effective
6
months
following
the
Court's
Order.
We
recommend
that
within
9
months
of
the
30.2
As
of
June
30,
2016,
DFPS
reported
to
the
Special
Masters
that
219
foster
group
homes
housed
584
children
(TMC
and
PMC),
including
345
Court's
Order,
the
siblings
in
123
sibling
groups.
Only
26
of
these
219
foster
group
homes
housed
more
than
6
DFPS
children
(TMC
and
PMC)
though
the
number
of
limitation
to
sibling
other
children
in
the
home
(adoptive,
birth)
is
not
included.
We
recommend
to
reduce
the
risk
of
harm
to
PMC
children,
effective
9
months
from
placement
exception
We
recommend
DFPS
monitor
and
certify
to
the
Court.
We
the
Court's
Order,
DFPS
only
exceed
6
children
(cumulative,
including
foster,
birth
and
adoptive)
in
a
foster
group
home
for
the
purposes
of
placing
take
effect.
Within
18
recommend
the
Special
Masters
verify
PMC
children's
placements,
siblings
together.
This
would
permit
a
ceiling
of
8
children
(cumulative,
including
foster,
birth
and
adoptive)
for
the
purposes
of
placing
siblings
months
of
Order,
we
including
case
record
reviews,
DFPS
data
and
information.
together.
Within
18
months
of
the
Court's
Order,
we
recommend
DFPS
end
the
use
of
foster
group
homes.
Since
existing
foster
group
homes
are
recommend
complete
eligible
for
verification
consideration
by
DFPS
as
either
foster
homes
or
group
homes,
we
recommend
DFPS
require
re-verification
of
foster
group
conversion
of
eligible
homes
as
group
homes
or
foster
homes
within
18
months
of
the
Court's
Order.
Foster
Group
Homes
to
Foster
Homes
or
Group
Homes.
31.
Since
the
Court
concluded
"Further,
the
State
shall
immediately
stop
placing
PMC
foster
children
in
unsafe
placements,
which
include
foster
group
homes
that
lack
24-hour
awake-night
supervision.
Foster
group
homes
that
immediately
require
24-hour
awake-night
supervision
may
continue
to
operate
while
the
Special
Master
and
the
State
craft
and
enforce
the
Implementation
Plan,"
Page 12 of 13
Special Master
Recommendations
to the Court
Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document
471
Filed in TXSD
on 11/04/16 Page 13 of 13
Implementation
Steps/Processes/Tasks
Implementation Dates
31.1
DFPS
represented
to
the
Special
Masters
that
many
foster
group
homes
have
been
converted
to
verified
foster
homes
since
the
Courts
December
2015
Opinion,
effectively
reducing
their
maximum
capacity
to
6
children.
As
of
June
30,
2016,
DFPS
reported
to
the
Special
Masters
there
were
still
219
foster
group
homes
housing
584
children
(TMC
and
PMC),
including
345
siblings
in
123
sibling
groups.
Only
26
of
these
219
foster
group
homes
housed
more
than
6
DFPS
children
(TMC
and
PMC)
though
DFPS
did
not
count
the
number
of
other
children
in
the
home
(adoptive,
kin,
birth).
The
Court
ordered
DFPS
to
ensure
24-hour
awake-night
supervision
in
foster
group
homes
to
prevent
harm
to
children.
The
record
Effective
by
Order
of
includes
examples
of
children
being
harmed
in
foster
group
homes
including
conclusions
of
child
sexual
assaults
while
caregivers
were
sleeping.
the
Court,
December
Following
the
Court's
December
2015
Order,
it
is
unclear
how
24-hour
awake-night
supervision
is
now
provided
in,
for
example,
a
single
parent
2015.
foster
group
home,
if
any,
or
a
two
parent
foster
group
home
where
one
of
the
parents
works
outside
the
home
during
the
day
and
the
other
is
responsible
for
child
care
in
the
home
during
the
day.
In
those
settings,
a
central
question
that
begs
inquiry
is
who
stays
awake
all
night
and
when
do
they
sleep?
We
recommend
that
DFPS
verify
and
certify
semi-annually
to
the
Court
that
all
foster
group
homes
have
24-hour
awake-night
supervision
until
such
time
as
there
are
no
more
foster
group
homes.
Page 13 of 13
Monitoring Methodology