Progress of The Michigan Department of Human Services, Period Three Monitoring Report, Dec 7, 2010

Progress of the
Michigan Department of
Human Services
Period Three Monitoring Report for

Dwayne B. v. Granholm
October 1, 2009—March 31, 2010
Issued December 7, 2010

Progress of the Michigan Department of Human Services
Period Three Monitoring Report for
Dwayne B. v. Granholm
October 1, 2009 – March 31, 2010
Contents
I. Introduction & Overview ......................................................................................................... 1
II. Summary of Progress & Challenges Ahead ............................................................................. 2
III. Summary of Commitments...................................................................................................... 7
IV. Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 27
V. Demographics ........................................................................................................................ 28
A. Complaints, Investigations, and Substantiations of Abuse and Neglect ....................... 28
B. Population of Children in Custody ................................................................................. 29
VI. Building the Organizational Capacity to Support Reform ..................................................... 32
A. Building a Children’s Services Organization and Structure ............................................ 32
B. Strengthening Contract Oversight ................................................................................. 36
C. Assessing the Adequacy of Resources for Reform ......................................................... 38
D. Assessing the Needs of Children and Families ............................................................... 39
VII. Developing the Workforce to Deliver High Quality Services ................................................. 40
A. Increasing Worker Qualifications ................................................................................... 40
B. Expanding Training to Strengthen the Workforce ......................................................... 41
C. Lowering Caseloads ........................................................................................................ 44
D. Challenges Ahead ........................................................................................................... 50
VIII. Developing the Capacity for Assessment & Implementation ............................................... 51
A. Accessing and Utilizing Data........................................................................................... 51
B. Federal Outcome Reporting ........................................................................................... 55
C. Implementing Quality Assurance ................................................................................... 62
IX. Improving Safety .................................................................................................................... 66
A. Establishing a Statewide Child Abuse Hotline ................................................................ 66
B. Assessing CPS Capacity & Performance ......................................................................... 67
i
C. Building a Robust CPS Quality Assurance System .......................................................... 68
X. Addressing Abuse and Neglect in Placement ........................................................................ 69
A. Structure and Reporting ................................................................................................. 71
B. Coordination................................................................................................................... 74
C. Deploying New Accountability Tools ............................................................................. 75
D. Special Reviews .............................................................................................................. 78
XI. Improving Placement Practice ............................................................................................... 79
A. Implementing a Child Placement Process ...................................................................... 79
B. Changing Specific Placement Practices .......................................................................... 80
XII. Recruitment, Retention & Licensing Capacity ....................................................................... 88
A. Relative, Foster and Adoptive Homes ............................................................................ 88
B. Developing Placement Resources .................................................................................. 89
C. Needs Assessment.......................................................................................................... 90
D. Adoptive Home Recruitment ......................................................................................... 92
XIII. Achieving Permanency for Children and Youth ................................................................... 102
A. Permanency Planning Goals ......................................................................................... 103
B. Concurrent Permanency Planning ............................................................................... 105
C. Assessments and Service Plans .................................................................................... 106
D. Team Decision Making/Permanency Planning Conferences ....................................... 107
E. Permanency Tracking System ...................................................................................... 109
F. Caseworker Contacts and Visitation ............................................................................ 110
G. Adoption ....................................................................................................................... 113
H. Improving the Adoption Process .................................................................................. 115
I. Supporting Adoptive and Guardianship Families ......................................................... 116
J. Focusing on Waiting Youth in Need of Permanency: The Backlog Cohorts ................ 118
K. Focusing on Youth Who Do Not Achieve Permanency: Youth Aging Out of Care ...... 121
XIV. Improving the Well-Being of Children in DHS Custody ....................................................... 124
A. Ensuring the Physical and Mental Health of Children in Custody................................ 124
B. Provision of Educational Services................................................................................. 124
ii
Appendices
Appendix A - Plaintiffs’ Notice of Non-Compliance and Related Documents ............................. A-1

Appendix B - Complaints, Investigations, Substantiations, and Timeliness .............................. A-25
Appendix C - Ages of Children in Custody by County ................................................................ A-30
Appendix D - Length of Stay by County ..................................................................................... A-33
Appendix E - CPS Caseloads by County ...................................................................................... A-36
Appendix F - Foster Care Caseloads by County/Agency ............................................................ A-41
Appendix G - Adoption Caseloads by County/Agency ............................................................... A-46
Appendix H - Licensing Caseloads by County/Agency ............................................................... A-51
Appendix I - POS Caseloads by County ...................................................................................... A-55
Appendix J - Supervisory Staff Ratios by County/Agency .......................................................... A-58
Appendix K - Foster Homes Licensing Targets by County .......................................................... A-62
Appendix L - Reunification Permanency Backlog Cohort Progress by County .......................... A-65
Appendix M - Legally Free Permanency Backlog Cohort Progress by County ........................... A-68
iii
Tables
Table 1 – Comparison of Pre-Service Training in Period Two and Period Three .......................... 41
Table 2 – Implementation Schedule for In-Service Training ........................................................ 43
Table 3 – CPS Caseloads ................................................................................................................ 45
Table 4 – Foster Care Caseloads ................................................................................................... 47
Table 5 – Adoption Caseloads ....................................................................................................... 48
Table 6 – Licensing Caseloads ....................................................................................................... 49
Table 7 – POS Monitor Caseloads ................................................................................................. 49
Table 8 – Supervisor to Staff Ratios .............................................................................................. 50
Table 9 – CFSR Measures .............................................................................................................. 57
Table 10 – Period Three Special Reviews ..................................................................................... 64
Table 11 – Licensing FTEs .............................................................................................................. 99
Table 12 – Licensing Training ...................................................................................................... 102
Table 13 – Federal Goals ............................................................................................................. 104
Table 14 – Permanency Goal Approval Requests ....................................................................... 105
Table 15 – Permanency Planning Conferences........................................................................... 108
Table 16 – Subsidy Expenditures ................................................................................................ 117
Table 17 – Backlog Cohort Performance .................................................................................... 119
iv
Figures
Figure 1 – Ages of Children in Custody ......................................................................................... 30

Figure 2 – Race of Children in Custody ......................................................................................... 30
Figure 3 – Placement of Children in Custody ................................................................................ 31
Figure 4 – Length of Stay in Custody............................................................................................. 32
Figure 5 – Foster and Relative Homes Licensed ........................................................................... 89
Figure 6 – Children Remaining in Relative Backlog Cohort........................................................... 96
Figure 7 – Children Newly Placed with Relatives .......................................................................... 97
Figure 8 – Children Placed with Unlicensed Relatives .................................................................. 97
Figure 9 – Worker Contacts with Parents (First Month)............................................................. 111
Figure 10 – Worker Contacts with Parents (Subsequent Months) ............................................. 112
Figure 11 – Parent and Child Visits ............................................................................................. 113
Figure 12 – Ages of Older Youth in Care ..................................................................................... 121
v
I. Introduction & Overview
This document serves as the third report to the Honorable Nancy Edmunds of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in the matter of Dwayne B. v. Granholm. On
July 3, 2008, the parties, the State of Michigan, the Michigan Department of Human Services
(DHS), and Children’s Rights (CR), signed an Agreement to resolve pending litigation regarding
Michigan’s child welfare system. DHS is a statewide multi-service agency providing cash
assistance, food stamps, and child protection, prevention and placement services for the State
of Michigan. Children’s Rights is a national advocacy organization with more than two decades
of experience in class action reform litigation on behalf of children involved in child welfare
systems. The court formally approved the Agreement on October 24, 2008, and appointed
Kevin Ryan of the Public Catalyst Group as the monitor charged with overseeing and reporting
on DHS’ progress implementing its commitments. In turn, he assembled the Michigan
monitoring team composed of members of Public Catalyst with experience with child welfare
reform in other jurisdictions, both as former administrators and advocates. The monitoring
team is responsible for assessing the State’s performance under the Agreement. The parties
have agreed that the monitoring team shall take into account timeliness, appropriateness, and
quality in reporting on DHS’ performance.
The Agreement is structured into six-month periods with public reporting by the monitoring
team following each period. This report is for Period Three – October 1, 2009 through March
31, 2010. Reports issue approximately every six months until such time as DHS complies with
the terms of the Agreement and Court jurisdiction ends.
The Agreement reflects the parties’ joint desire to improve outcomes for children and families
in Michigan’s child welfare system as quickly as possible. The parties stressed several goals in
the Agreement:
 Achieving permanent homes for more than 6,000 legally free children and youth;
 Safely reuniting more than 4,000 children and youth with their families;
 Investing in infrastructure and developing practices designed to improve safety,
permanency and well-being outcomes for children in foster care;
 Enhancing investigative practice to better identify, address and reduce instances of child
abuse and neglect in the community and in foster care; and
 Providing increased supervision, services and support to children in foster care who are
placed with relatives, rather than non-relative foster families.
1
In order to accomplish these goals, the Agreement also provides for a series of necessary
foundational elements, including:
 Supporting the workforce by lowering caseloads and enhancing training;

 Expanding and focusing services for children and families;
 Building planning, data, and continuous quality improvement capacity; and
 Developing an organizational structure to better support child welfare service delivery
and to build stronger links and improved accountability among the public offices in the
counties, the private agencies, and central office leadership.
On March 10, 2010, after issuance of the Period Two monitoring report, plaintiffs filed a notice
of non-compliance alleging that DHS was not in substantial compliance with the Agreement.
DHS responded to that notice on March 25, 2010, and the parties met with the monitoring
team to confer in good faith regarding those allegations. During that process, DHS leadership
made a number of commitments regarding efforts they would undertake going forward to
ensure that they achieved the Agreement’s requirements, which were documented in a
memorandum drafted by the monitoring team. Plaintiffs did not accept those commitments as
a resolution of the issues raised in their notice of non-compliance; instead, plaintiffs expressly
reserved their right to institute legal action and seek strict compliance with the terms of the
Agreement after receipt of the monitoring report for Period Three. Plaintiffs’ notice of non-
compliance, DHS’ response, the monitoring team’s memorandum documenting DHS’
commitments, and plaintiffs’ comments regarding that document are attached as Appendix A.
As will be discussed later in this report, during verification for Period Three the monitoring
team discovered significant issues with the quality of DHS’ data reporting for the period.
Because of those issues, DHS was unable to produce Period Three data they represented as
complete until August, more than 120 days after the end of the reporting period and well
outside of the 60-day period authorized by the Agreement. This caused a significant delay in
the issuance of this report. Due to that delay the monitoring team has, in some instances,
included relevant and material information that post-dates Period Three.
II. Summary of Progress & Challenges Ahead
Highlights
In FY 2009, DHS and the Michigan Judiciary achieved permanency through adoption for 3,030
foster children and youth, the highest number of adoptions in a single year on record in
Michigan. This data became available in Period Three and represents a significant achievement
2
resulting in an award of $3.5 million from the federal government that can be utilized to
develop services to support children, youth and families.
DHS has maintained its commitment to place children in family settings, while apparently1
continuing to reduce the use of institutional care.
 At the close of Period Three, 85 percent of children and youth in DHS custody lived in
family settings, including foster families (30 percent), with relatives (32 percent), with
their own parents (16 percent), and with families who intend to adopt the child (seven
percent).
 At the same time, 891 children and youth lived in institutional settings, including
residential treatment and other congregate care facilities, which appears2 to be a
significant decline from the beginning of the reform effort.
DHS has implemented a Treatment Home program to offer intensive services in a family-like
setting to children and youth with special needs, and at the conclusion of Period Three reported
utilizing at least 100 new Treatment Home beds since the beginning of the reform effort.
DHS has maintained foster care caseload standards and, for the first time, reported on and
achieved a number of new caseload standards.
 DHS maintained its performance achieving caseload standards for foster care workers,
with 95 percent of staff with 30 or fewer children, 92 percent of staff with 25 or fewer
children, and 84 percent of staff with 22 or fewer children.
 For the first time, DHS reported on caseloads for licensing workers, with 81 percent of
those staff managing 36 or fewer cases, exceeding the target of 60 percent.
 Also for the first time, DHS reported on purchase of service monitoring caseloads, with
89 percent of those staff with 55 or fewer cases, exceeding the target of 60 percent.
 DHS also reported on the ratios of supervisors to staff for the first time, with 63 percent
of supervisors having responsibility for five or fewer caseload-carrying staff, exceeding
the target of 50 percent.
1
Because of data issues for Periods One and Two that surfaced for the first time in Period Three, the monitoring
team does not have baseline data to establish this trend with sufficient certainty.
2
See n.1, supra.
3
Challenges
As documented in the Period Two report, one year into the reform, DHS leadership had fallen
behind on delivering some critical, core aspects of the reform effort. The Honorable Nancy
Edmunds, U.S.D.J., gathered the parties in March 2010 and emphasized the need for
improvement in four core areas where DHS had made commitments but performance was
lacking. Those areas included achieving all agreed-upon caseload standards, including those for
child protective services and adoptions; ensuring adequate training for staff; identifying and
reporting maltreatment in care accurately; and achieving permanency for thousands of the
longest-waiting legally free children. Unfortunately, DHS’ performance in most of these areas,
and several others, stalled or eroded during Period Three.
DHS did not achieve critical commitments with respect to ensuring there were sufficient staff to
conduct timely and thorough investigations, work with families in homes where safety issues
were identified or meet all adoption standards. Nor did DHS meet all of its commitments with
respect to ensuring training for new workers before they had responsibility for children and
families or for supervisors before they began to supervise caseworkers.
 DHS again failed to achieve – by a wide margin – caseload standards for child protective
services workers, both those who investigate allegations of child abuse and neglect and
those who provide ongoing services to children and families. DHS’ performance
worsened from Period Two to Period Three, and continued to decline through June
2010. As this report was being finalized, DHS indicated that more than 1,300 staff will
be retiring from the agency. DHS reports that one impact of this wave of retirements
will be to slow their attempts to fill staff positions. As a result, they do not anticipate
that they will achieve compliance with child protective services caseload standards in
Periods Four or Five. DHS also failed to achieve two of the three adoption caseload
standards, with performance on each of those two standards eroding compared to
Period Two.
 DHS has been unable to ensure that all newly hired workers are being adequately
prepared to investigate child abuse and neglect and advance children’s safety and well-
being before they are fully deployed to the field. DHS was unable to provide data
demonstrating that newly-hired workers had responsibility for no more than three cases
while in pre-service training and notified the monitoring team the data provided in the
prior monitoring period was incorrect.
DHS’ performance in the recruitment, retention, and licensing of foster and relative homes for
children in placement declined during Period Three.
4
 DHS licensed 189 fewer foster homes in Period Three than in Period Two, a 15 percent
decline in performance that further exacerbated the lack of an adequate number of
placements for children in DHS’ custody. DHS closed more homes than were licensed in
Period Three, leading to a net loss of 75 homes for children.
 DHS has been unable to license most new relative placements, only licensing or waiving
licensure for seven percent of the relative homes in which 1,918 children were placed
during the period. This failure deprives those relative homes of the support and
resources available to non-kin foster homes.
 In the Agreement, DHS committed to complete the licensing process within 90 days.
Currently, DHS reports the licensing process is taking an average of six and a half
months, more than twice the 90-day period.
The monitoring team identified significant issues with basic – and critical – data reporting by
DHS leadership that undermine the completeness of much of the data reported by DHS in the
prior two monitoring periods.
 When DHS produced data regarding the number of children in care at the end of Period
Two, children who had entered and exited care during Period Three, and the number of
children in care at the end of the period, the monitoring team immediately noticed a
basic math problem. Beginning with the number of children in care at the end of Period
Two, adding the number of all children entering care during Period Three, and
subtracting all children who left care during Period Three, should have equaled the
number of children in care at the end of Period Three. It did not. When questioned,
only then did DHS identify a series of data issues that implicate the completeness of the
data proffered by DHS in prior reporting periods.
 For the first time, DHS identified significant time delays in the entry of data, ranging
from 106 days to enter 95 percent of adoption finalizations to as much as 225 days to
enter 95 percent of placement data. These data lags prevented DHS from reporting
data within 60 days, as required by the Agreement.
 After analysis, DHS revised the number of children they previously reported as being in
care at the end of Period Two upward, adding more than one thousand additional
children and youth, including a group of key concern in the Agreement, several hundred
children in the adoption program.
DHS has not made the strides envisioned by the Agreement to improve permanency practices
to better help youth achieve timely permanency.
5
 DHS’ performance on the backlog of children who are legally free and awaiting adoption
was woefully inadequate during this period. DHS did not achieve permanency for the
target of 50 percent of these children that was due by September 30, 2009, even with
the six additional months of Period Three. By the end of Period Two, DHS had achieved
permanency for 33 percent of children, and added only six percent of children in Period
Three. This performance does not bode well for the likelihood of DHS achieving the
target of 85 percent of these children achieving permanency by the end of Period Four.
 DHS did not achieve the targets for visitation between caseworkers and parents and
parents and children, missing by a wide margin.
 Despite the commitments in the Agreement, DHS has not yet seen an expansion in the
number of older youth whose cases are kept open past age 18. DHS’ data shows a 28
percent increase in the number of youth aging out without permanency. DHS is in part
reducing the population of children in foster care by closing cases of older youth who
have not achieved permanency despite committing to keep those cases open longer to
provide supportive services.
As forecast in the Period Two monitoring report, Period Three presented significant challenges
for DHS in its effort to reform Michigan’s child welfare system. DHS leadership faced the
formidable task of launching reforms for the first time during the period while at the same time
attempting to catch up with reforms that were targeted during earlier periods but not yet
achieved. Unfortunately, DHS leadership has increasingly fallen behind and, worse, lost ground
on important fronts.
The scope of DHS’ non-compliance with the Agreement is substantial, and recorded in detail in
this report. There is a palpable sense of disappointment with the reform effort across the
system, which has only grown over time. Child welfare managers and staff across Michigan, in
both the private and public sector, are working very hard, but their best efforts are often
undone by poor planning and a lack of adequate coordination. Public and private child welfare
managers who expected that the reform era would usher forth manageable child protection
and adoption caseloads, an expanded pool of available foster homes, well-coordinated training
and enhanced services for families have often been sorely disappointed. Adolescents in care
who hoped for permanency or, at the least, the skills to help them survive on their own, often
aged out with neither. Most of the children in the legally free backlog cohort – the longest
waiting children in the Michigan child welfare system – languished through Period Three, still
waiting for their forever families. DHS leadership has not been able to offer sufficient support,
guidance, and resources necessary to focus, prioritize, and sequence the work. Unless there is a
fundamental adjustment in their approach to this undertaking, it is unlikely this reform will
6
reach most of the children and families of the Michigan child welfare system in the foreseeable
future.
III. Summary of Commitments
Due
Settlement Agreement Commitment Date Completed Comment
I.H & I Funding: Defendants shall request State requested
funds sufficient to effect the provisions in additional but
this Agreement in connection with any insufficient support
budget, funding, or allocation request to the from the Michigan
executive or legislative branches of State Legislature.
government. See page 38 Ongoing Partially
III.D Maltreatment in Foster Care: By the end
of Reporting Period Two, the percentage of
children not maltreated while in foster care
will be 99.68% or higher. See page 56 9/30/09 No
III.E.1 Timely and Permanent Reunification:
DHS shall meet an interim CFSR target score
of 99 by Reporting Period Two and report on
each of the individual component measures
for Composite One. See page 56 9/30/09 Yes
III.E.2 Timeliness to Adoption: DHS shall
meet an interim CFSR target score of 93 by
Reporting Period Two and report on each of
the individual component measures for
Composite Two. See page 56 9/30/09 Yes
III.E.3 Permanency for Long-waiting Children
in Foster Care: DHS shall meet an interim
CFSR target score of 118 by Reporting Period
Two and report on each of the individual
component measures for Composite Three.
See page 56 9/30/09 Yes
III.E.4 Placement Stability in Foster Care:
DHS shall maintain a CFSR score of 101.5 or
higher for all Reporting Periods, and report
on each of the individual component
measures. See page 56 Ongoing Yes
IV.A.5 CSA Oversight: The Children’s Services
Administration shall hold responsibility for
evaluating the performance of contract
providers of children’s services. See page 36 Ongoing Yes
7
Due
IV.A.6 Bifurcation: Individuals within the
Children’s Services Administration shall not
hold responsibility for any of DHS’ other
functions, such as cash assistance, Medicaid,
and adult services. See page 32 Ongoing Yes
IV.B CSA Structure: DHS, plaintiffs, and the Although DHS
Monitor will meet to review the progress of complied with this
implementation of the organizational commitment during
changes from the organizational structure Period Three, DHS
section. See page 32 changed the
organizational
structure during Period
Four in a manner that
is not compliant with
Ongoing Yes the Agreement.
V.A CA/N System: DHS shall ensure that its
system for receiving, screening, and
investigating reports of child abuse and
neglect is adequately staffed and that
investigations of all reports are initiated and
completed within the time periods required
by state law. See page 67 Ongoing No
V. B Hotline-Wayne County Pilot: DHS shall
pilot a 24-hour hotline in Wayne County that
is adequately staffed and equipped for the
receipt, screening, and assignment for
investigation of reports of abuse and neglect.
See page 66 10/31/09 No
V.C CPS QA: DHS shall establish and Yes, as to
implement a quality assurance process to implementing a local
ensure that reports of abuse and neglect are QA process; no as to
competently investigated and addressed. implementing a
See page 68 Ongoing Partially statewide process.
V.D Specialized Investigative Units: DHS
shall establish separate units to investigate
all allegations of abuse or neglect relating to
any child in the foster care custody of DHS in
the Designated Counties by October 2009.
See page 71 10/31/09 Yes
VI.A.1 & 4 BSW Requirement: Entry level
caseworkers in both DHS and private
agencies will have a bachelor’s degree in
social work or a related human services field.
See page 40 Ongoing Yes
8
Due
VI.A.2 & 4 Pre-service Training: All entry
level DHS and CPA caseworkers will complete
an eight week pre-service training that
includes a total of 270 hours of competency-
based classroom and field training followed
by a competency-based examination. See
page 41 Ongoing No
VI.A.2 & 4 Pre-service Training: As part of
pre-service training, a trainee may be
assigned specific tasks or activities with an
experienced worker & may have a “training
caseload” not to exceed three cases. See
page 41 Ongoing No
VI.B.2 & 6 Supervisor Training: All newly
hired or promoted supervisors in both the
public and private agencies shall complete
the supervisory training program and pass a
competency-based performance evaluation
within three months of assuming the
supervisory position. See page 43 Ongoing No
VI.B.4 MSW Requirement: All staff hired
from outside DHS or promoted from within
DHS to fill positions including responsibility
to supervise child welfare casework will have
earned a master’s in social work from an
accredited school of social work or a master’s
or higher degree in a comparable/equivalent
field or receive an approved waiver as a
condition for such hiring or promotion. See
page 40 Ongoing Yes
VI.B.5 University Based Training No, DHS has not
Opportunities: DHS shall encourage staff to implemented tuition
pursue master’s level work under a tuition reimbursement; Yes,
reimbursement program. DHS shall develop DHS has developed
relationships, joint programs and other relationships with
programs with universities to enhance and universities.
improve existing training opportunities. See
page 43 Ongoing Partially
VI.C Licensing Worker Training: DHS shall
ensure all staff responsible for conducting
home studies, licensing inspections, annual
evaluations & other activities related to
licensing of foster homes or residential
facilities are trained. See page 101 Ongoing No
9
Due
VI.D Training Oversight: There will be a
designated individual within the DHS central
office who is solely responsible for
overseeing and ensuring compliance with all
training requirements for both DHS and
private agency workers and supervisors. Ongoing Yes
VI.E.2.a. Supervisor Staff Ratios: By January
2010, 50% of Foster Care, Adoption, and CPS
supervisors will supervise no more than five
caseworkers. See page 50 1/31/10 Yes
VI.E.3.a. Foster Care Worker Caseloads:
95% of Foster Care workers will have
caseloads of no more than 30 children and
60% of Foster Care workers will have
caseloads of no more than 25 children. See
page 46 Ongoing Yes
VI.E.3.b. Foster Care Worker Caseloads: 70%
of Foster Care workers will have caseloads of
no more than 22 children. See page 46 10/31/09 Yes
VI.E.4.a. Adoption Caseloads: 60% of
Adoption workers will have caseloads of no
more than 25 children. See page 47 Ongoing Yes
VI.E.4.b. Adoption Caseloads: 95% of
more than 30 children. See page 47 Ongoing No
VI.E.4.c. Adoption Caseloads: 70% of
more than 22 children. See page 47 10/31/09 No
VI.E.5.a.(i) CPS Investigations Caseloads: 95%
of CPS workers will have caseloads of no
more than 16 open cases. See page 45 Ongoing No
VI.E.5.a.(ii) CPS Investigations Caseloads:
60% of CPS workers will have caseloads of no
more than 14 open cases. See page 45 10/31/09 No
VI.E.5.b.(i) CPS On-Going Services Caseloads:
more than 30 families. See page 45 Ongoing No
VI.E.5.b.(ii) CPS On-Going Services Caseloads:
more than 25 families. See page 45 10/31/09 No
VI.E.6.a. POS Monitoring Caseloads: 60% of
POS monitoring workers will have a caseload
of no more than 55 cases. See page 49 10/31/09 Yes
10
Due
VI.7 Licensing Caseloads: 60% of Licensing
Workers will have a caseload of no more
than 36 cases. See page 48 10/31/09 Yes
VI.E.9 Caseload Tracking and Reporting: DHS
will provide regular reporting, at least
quarterly, on the percentage of supervisors
and workers in each of the categories whose
workloads meet the standards. Ongoing Yes
VII.C Team Decision Making: A TDM shall be Yes, DHS implemented
held to make or recommend critical case team decision making
decisions; shall be led by a trained facilitator; and trained facilitators;
and shall include the parent(s) from whom No, DHS did not meet
the child has been or may be removed, foster their commitment to
parent(s), child(ren) if of age to participate, hire all of the full-time,
family, friends, or other supports identified non-caseload carrying
by the parent(s) and child(ren); other service facilitators in the 14
providers as appropriate, and the caseworker largest counties.
with supervisory participation when
necessary. For children placed with a private
CPA, the private CPA caseworkers, and the
private CPA supervisor when necessary, shall
also be present. See page 107 3/31/10 Partially
VII.F.1-7 Permanency Planning Goals (All): A
child shall be assigned only one permanency
goal at any time and this goal shall be a
federally-recognized permanency goal.
Where appropriate, a child shall also be
assigned a concurrent goal in conformity
with federal regulations and section VII.F.2 of
this Agreement. See page 103 Ongoing Yes
VII.F.2 Concurrent Planning: Strategic
planning and preparation for possible
adoptive placement of a child shall occur
concurrently with the delivery of
reunification services to the child’s birth
parents unless clearly inappropriate for
documented case-specific reasons. See page
105 Ongoing Yes
VII.F.3 Goal Change to Adoption: If a child’s
goal is changed to adoption, DHS and the
assigned contract agency shall within 30 days
of the goal change: a. Assign a worker with
adoption expertise to the case; b. Determine
whether the child’s foster parents or Ongoing No
11
Due
relatives are prepared to adopt the child and
if so, take appropriate steps to secure their
consent to adopt; c. If no adoptive resource
has been identified, register the child on
adoption exchanges; and d. Develop a child
specific recruitment plan if no adoptive
resource has been identified. See page 115
VII.F.3 Barriers to Adoption or Guardianship: Yes, DHS developed
DHS in consultation with the Monitor shall the process; No, DHS
develop a process that will identify barriers did not implement the
to adoption and guardianship in cases in process during Period
which a permanent home has not been Three.
identified within six months of the child’s
permanency goal becoming adoption or
guardianship. See page 115 Ongoing Partially
VII.F.4 TPR Petition: The process of freeing a State did not provide
child for adoption and seeking and securing requested information.
an adoptive placement shall begin as soon as
the child’s permanency goal becomes
adoption, but in no event later than as
required by federal law. A TPR petition shall
be filed within two weeks of the date on
which the goal is changed to adoption. See
page 115 Ongoing No
VII.F.8 Adoption Subsidies: Notification Yes, DHS developed
process. Upon identification of an adoptive the process; No, DHS
family for a child legally freed for adoption, unable to track
DHS shall within 14 days provide the putative implementation.
adoptive family with an adoption subsidy
application and explanatory material
regarding the adoption subsidy program in
Michigan and related federal Title IV-E
regulations and DHS policies. DHS shall
include a written record of the delivery of
such materials in the child’s file. See page
116 Ongoing Partially
VII.F.9 Tracking Disrupted Pre-Adoptive
Placements: DHS shall track and report on
children whose pre-adoptive placements
disrupt prior to finalization. See page 115 Ongoing Yes
VII.G.4a & b PPS Staffing: DHS shall continue
to employ and/or contract for sufficient
Permanency Planning Specialists, as
required, to pursue legal permanency for 10/1/09 No
12
Due
backlog cohort cases. See page 120
VII.G.4a & b PPS Staffing: DHS shall continue
to assign the Permanency Planning
Coordinator to manage, monitor and report
on the Backlog Project. 10/1/09 Yes
VII.G.3c Permanency Backlog Cohort: DHS
shall achieve legal permanency for at least
50% of the children in the legally free backlog
identified in Section VII.G.1. See page 118 9/30/09 No
VII.G.3c Permanency Backlog Cohort: DHS
shall achieve legal permanency for at least
50% of the children in the reunification
backlog identified in Section VII.G.1. See
page 118 9/30/09 Yes
VII.H.2 Worker-Parent Visits: For each child
with a goal of reunification, the caseworker
will have face-to-face contacts with the
child’s parent(s) at least two times for the
first month in care and at least once every
month thereafter. See page 110 10/31/09 No
VII.H.3 Parent-Child Visits: Every child shall
have at least two monthly visits with parents,
barring the stated exceptions. See page 112 10/31/09 No
VII.H.4 Sibling Visits: Siblings not placed State did not provide
together shall have at least monthly visits, requested information.
barring stated exceptions. See page 110 10/31/09 No
VIII.A.1 Provision of Healthcare Services:
DHS shall take all necessary and appropriate
steps to ensure that each child entering
foster care receives any needed emergency
medical, dental and mental health care and a
full medical examination within 30 days of
the child’s entry into care. See page 124 10/31/09 No
VIII.A.2d Medicaid Card: Each child entering
care will be assigned a Medicaid number and
the foster parent or other placement
provider will receive a Medicaid card, or an
alternative verification of the child’s
Medicaid status and number, within 30 days
of the child’s entry into care. See page 124 Ongoing No
13
Due
VIII.A.3 Mental Health Spending: DHS shall
redirect at least $3 million to fund mental
health services and will analyze services
available in each county to ensure that
children in care have access to necessary
services. If they do not, DHS will reallocate
those funds accordingly as follows: a. By
October 2009, in Wayne, Kent, Oakland,
Genesee, and Macomb Counties; b. By
October 2010, in Berrien, Calhoun, Ingham,
Jackson, Kalamazoo, Muskegon, Saginaw, St.
Clair, and Washtenaw Counties; and c. By
October 2011, in all remaining counties. 10/24/08 Yes
VIII.A.4.a Youth in Transition (YIT) Supports:
DHS will ensure that children age 14 and
older in foster care and youth transitioning
from foster care to adulthood have access to
the range of supportive services necessary to
support their preparation for and successful
transition to adulthood. See page 122 Ongoing No
VIII.A.4.b(i) Michigan Works Referrals: DHS
will refer all children age 14 and older in
foster care and youth transitioning from
foster care to adulthood to Michigan Works!
Agencies for participation in youth programs
and services administered under the
Workforce Investment Act, 29 U.S.C. 2801 et
seq., designed to assist youth in developing
job skills and career opportunities, and will
refer suitably qualified children for summer
training, mentorship, and enrichment
opportunities. See page 123 11/15/08 No
VIII.A.4.b(ii) Placement to 20/Services to 21:
DHS will develop and implement a policy and
the necessary resources to extend all foster
youths’ eligibility for foster care custody until
age 20 and to make available independent
living services through the age of 21. See
page 122 11/15/08 No
VIII.A.4.b(iii) Medicaid Enrollment for YIT: Significant
DHS will develop and implement a policy and improvement
process by which all children emancipating demonstrated in
from the foster care system at age 18 or Period Three; currently
beyond are enrolled for Medicaid managed Ongoing No 79 percent of children
14
Due
care coverage so that their coverage enrolled.
continues without interruption at the time of
emancipation. See page 122
VIII.A.4.b(iv) Housing Referrals for YIT: DHS
will refer all children without an identified
housing situation at the time of
emancipation from the foster care system at
age 18 or beyond to the Michigan State
Housing Development Authority for rental
assistance and services under the Homeless
Youth Initiative. See page 123 Ongoing No
VIII.A.4.b(v) Education Planners: By October
2009, DHS shall hire 14 regional Education
Planners who shall provide consultation and
support to youth age 14 and older in
accessing educational services and in
developing individualized education plans,
including identifying all available financial aid
resources. See page 124 10/31/09 No
VIII.A.5.a Educational Screening: DHS shall Yes, developed a
ensure that each child is screened for general process. No, process
and educational needs within 30 days of not implemented.
his/her entry into care. See page 124 10/31/09 Partially
VIII.A.5.b School Registration and
Attendance: DHS shall take reasonable steps
to ensure that school-aged foster children
are registered for and attending school
within 5 days of initial placement or any
placement change, including while placed in
congregate care or emergency placement.
No child shall be schooled pursuant to MCL
Section 380.1561(3)(f). See page 124 10/31/09 Yes
Flex Funds: DHS shall implement a system
statewide that designates appropriate and
knowledgeable administrative staff to be
responsible for determining the specific
funding source to be drawn upon for the
provision of goods and services identified as
needed by the case manager/TDM team and
for coding and processing the necessary
paperwork. See page 35 10/31/09 No
VIII.B.1a Foster Home Capacity: DHS shall
ensure that each county has a sufficient
number and adequate array of foster homes Ongoing No
15
Due
capable of serving the needs of those
children coming into care for whom foster
home placement is appropriate. See page 89
VIII.B.1b Foster Home Capacity: DHS shall Yes, as to utilization of
ensure that relatives of children in foster relatives as a
care and non-relatives with whom a child has placement resource;
a family-like connection are identified and No, as to ensuring
considered as potential foster home timely licensure.
placements for children; where a relative or
non-relative with whom the child has a
family-like connection is an appropriate
foster home placement for a child, DHS shall
ensure that appropriate steps are taken to
license the relative or non-relative as a
licensed foster home as set forth in VIII.B.7
See page 93 Ongoing Partially
VIII.B.2 Recruitment Plan for Special Yes, for adolescents;
Populations: By December 15, 2008, DHS No, for sibling groups
shall develop and provide to the monitor and and children with
plaintiffs a recruitment plan to increase the disabilities.
number of available placements for
adolescents, sibling groups, and children with
disabilities. The recruitment plan shall
include, for each category of placements, the
number of placements to be developed; the
strategies to be followed in developing such
placements; and specific timetables with
interim targets. Within 30 days of receiving
the proposed plan, the monitor shall, in
consultation with the parties, either approve
the plan or, if the monitor determines that
the plan is not appropriate, convene the
parties for the purpose of revising the plan so
that the plan can be approved within an
additional 30 days. DHS shall implement the
approved recruitment plan consistent with
the timetable and interim targets set forth
therein. See page 91 9/1/09 Partially
VIII.B.3.b Treatment Home Expansion: DHS
will have 100 treatment foster home beds
available. See page 93 10/31/09 Yes
16
Due
VIII.B.4 Foster Home Needs Analysis: As part
of the Needs Assessment process, DHS will
gather, analyze, and report relevant data and
identify the extent to which its present array
of available foster and adoptive homes is
appropriate to the characteristics and needs
of the foster care population. This review
will focus on issues relating to both
recruitment and retention of foster and
adoptive homes. The assessments of foster
and adoptive home capacity will be
completed for the entire state. See page 90 10/31/09 Yes
VIII.B.5 State Oversight of Foster Home
Recruitment: A designated unit or person
within the central office shall be responsible
for monitoring the development and
implementation of the foster and adoptive
home recruitment and retention plans by
county offices; providing or arranging for
technical assistance to the county offices
concerning recruitment and retention; and
reporting to the Children’s Services Cabinet
on progress and problems in achieving the
goals set forth in the recruitment and
retention plans. Ongoing Yes
VIII.B.6 Determination of Care: In order to
ensure that payments to foster parents are
sufficient to meet the needs of the children
in foster care, DHS shall ensure that the
Determination of Care (DOC) process is
applied consistently and appropriately across
all counties and offices. See page 34 6/12/09 Yes
VIII.B.6 Determination of Care: DHS shall
identify, after consultation with the monitor
and plaintiffs, a state office responsible for
ensuring that Determinations of Care and
decisions regarding payment of a specialized
administrative rate to contract providers are
made uniformly across the state and in
accordance with DHS policy. See page 34 6/12/09 Yes
VIII.B.6 Determination of Care: DHS shall
also establish procedures by which a foster
parent or CPA may obtain review by a
designated official in the central office of a 6/12/09 Yes
17
Due
DOC or administrative rate (general or
specialized) decision. See page 34
VIII.B.7b Placement with Unlicensed Kin:
When placing a child with a relative who has
not been previously licensed as a foster
parent, DHS shall: i. Prior to placement, visit
the relative’s home to determine that it is
safe; ii. Within 72 hours following placement,
check law enforcement and child abuse
registry records for all adults residing in the
home; and iii. Within 30 days, complete a
home study determining whether the
relative should, upon completion of training
and submission of any other required
documents, be licensed as a foster parent.
VIII.B.7b Placement with Unlicensed Kin:
Other than pursuant to a waiver, no child
shall be placed in an unlicensed foster home
unless there is an order of the juvenile court
that the child be so placed. See page 93 Ongoing No
VIII.B.7c Foster Care Rates-Licensed Kin: All
licensed relative foster care providers shall
receive the same foster care maintenance
rates paid by DHS to similarly-situated
unrelated foster care providers, including the
ability to qualify for enhanced DOC rates. Ongoing Yes
VIII.B.7d Foster Care Rates-Permanent
Wards: All permanent wards living with
relative caregivers shall be provided foster
care maintenance payments equal to the
payments provided to licensed foster
caregivers. Ongoing Yes
VIII.B.7e Relative Licensing Waiver: If it is in
a child’s best interest to be placed with a
relative who desires to forego licensing, the
exceptional circumstances for waiving
licensing must be documented in the child’s
record, and must be approved by the county
child welfare director in the designated
counties or the Children’s Services Field
Manager for any other county. See page 93 Ongoing Yes
18
Due
VIII.B.7j(ii) Licensing: DHS shall designate
sufficient licensing staff to review all current
unlicensed foster homes and to complete the
licensing process for each family within 90
days. See page 95 Ongoing No
VIII.B.7k Relative Licensing - New: Beginning
October 1, 2008, with regard to all children
entering DHS foster care custody as of that
date, relatives providing foster care for
children in DHS foster care custody will be
licensed unless exceptional circumstances
have been documented and approved. See
page 96 Ongoing No
VIII.B.7o(i & ii) Relative Licensing: DHS shall
continue to employ or contract for relative
licensing staff as necessary and to maintain
licensing teams, as required, to address all
remaining cases within the relative caregiver
backlog cohort; and continue to assign the
relative licensing coordinator to oversee
implementation of the backlog review and to
monitor and report on progress. 10/1/09 Yes
VIII.B.8. Child Placement Process-Statewide:
DHS shall submit for review and approval by
the monitor plans for implementation of
adequate child placement processes in the
remainder of the state, along with any
modifications to the CPN process in Wayne
County. See page 79 9/30/09 No
VIII.B.8.a Child Placement Process-Statewide:
DHS shall fully implement an adequate
placement process in Oakland, Genesee,
Kent, and Macomb counties. See page 79 10/31/09 No
VIII.B.9 Post Adoption Services: DHS shall
develop and implement a full range of post-
adoption services to assist all eligible special
needs children adopted from foster care and
their permanent families and shall maintain
sufficient resources to deliver such post-
adoption services to all children and families
who qualify. See page 116 Ongoing Yes
IX.D, E Needs Assessment: DHS shall develop
services in accordance with the timeline
established by the monitoring team in the Ongoing No
19
Due
Needs Assessment recommendations. See
page 38
X.B.1 Limitations on Out of County No, all children
Placements: DHS shall place all children requiring an exception
within their own county or within a 75 mile were not reviewed. Of
radius of the home from which the child those remaining,
entered custody (whichever is greater) insufficient
except as provided in the Agreement. See information to
page 82 evaluate whether all of
those children were
placed according to the
7/7/09 No terms of this provision.
X.B.2 Limitations on Separation of Siblings: DHS did not provide
Siblings who enter placement at or near the requested information
same time shall be placed together, unless to evaluate.
doing so is harmful to one or more siblings,
one of the siblings has exceptional needs
that can only be met in a specialized program
or facility, or the size of the sibling group
makes placement impractical despite diligent
efforts to place the group together. See page
83 Ongoing No
X.B.3 Limitations on Number of Children in DHS did not provide
Foster Home: For children entering the requested information
foster care system, no child will be placed in to evaluate.
a foster home if that placement will result in
more than three foster children in that foster
home, or a total of six children, including the
foster family’s natural and/or adopted
children. No placement will result in more
than three children under the age of three
residing in a foster home. Exceptions to
these limitations may be made in a child’s
best interest by the county Administrator of
Children’s Services in a “Designated County”
and in any other county by the Children’s
Services Field Manager. See page 84 7/7/09 No
X.B.4 Limitations on Use of Emergency or
Temporary Facilities: Children shall not
remain in emergency or temporary facilities,
including shelter care, for more than 30 days
or more than one time within a 12-month
period, barring stated exceptions. See page
87 10/31/09 No
20
Due
X.B.5 Detention, Jail, Correctional Facility:
No child in DHS foster care custody will be
placed, by DHS or with knowledge of DHS, in
a jail, correctional, or detention facility unless
such child is being placed pursuant to a
delinquency charge. Within 90 days of the
signing of this Agreement, DHS will notify the
State Court Administrative Office and the
Michigan State Police of this prohibition, and
provide written instructions to immediately
notify the local DHS office of any child in DHS
foster care custody who has been placed in a
jail, correctional, or detention facility. See
page 84 Ongoing No
X.B.6 Limitations on Placement of High Risk
Youth: DHS shall not place any child
determined by a DHS assessment to be at
high risk for perpetrating violence or sexual
assault in any foster care placement with
foster children not so determined. See page
85 Ongoing No
X.B.7 Limitation on New Residential Care
Placements: No child shall be placed in an
RTC or any other group care setting with a
capacity in excess of 8 children (campus
wide) without express written approval by
the designated county director or children’s
services field manager. The need for a
residential placement shall be reassessed
every 90 days. Children may not be placed in
a residential placement for more than six
months without express authorization. No
child may be placed in a residential
placement for more than 12 months without
the express authorization of the Director of
the CSA or a higher-ranking official. See page
85 7/7/09 No
XI.A.1 Prohibition on Psychotropic
Medications: Psychotropic medication shall
not be used as a method of discipline or
control for any child. See page 70 Ongoing Yes
21
Due
XI.A.2 Psychotropic Med Policies &
Procedures Review: Within six months of the
signing of this Agreement, DHS will
undertake a review of the policies and
procedures surrounding the use of
psychotropic medications. This evaluation
will be designed in close collaboration with
the monitor and any additional experts on
the use of psychotropic medication for
children it deems appropriate. See page 70 1/3/09 No
XI.A.5 Psychotropic Medication
Documentation: DHS shall establish and
implement processes to ensure
documentation of psychotropic medication
approvals, documentation by contract
agencies of all uses of psychotropic
medication, and review of such
documentation by appropriate DHS staff,
including the Medical Director, on an
ongoing basis. See page 70 1/15/09 No
XI.B.1 Prohibition on Physical Discipline: DHS The reporting system
shall prohibit the use of Positive Peer was not in place at the
Culture, peer-on-peer restraint, and any close of Period Three.
other forms of physical discipline in all foster
care placements. All uses of physical
restraint for children in any placements, and
all uses of seclusion/isolation in group,
residential, or institutional placements, shall
be reported to the QA unit. Such reports
shall be made available to the licensing unit
and the Medical Director for appropriate
action. See page 70 Ongoing No
XI.B.2 Restraint & Seclusion Policies &
Procedures Review: DHS shall undertake a
review of the policies and procedures
surrounding all forms and use of physical
restraint and seclusion/isolation of children
in foster care. This evaluation will be
designed in close collaboration with the
monitor and any additional experts on the
use of physical restraint and
seclusion/isolation of children it deems
appropriate. See page 70 7/7/09 Yes
22
Due
XII.B Performance Based Contracting: All
DHS contracts with CCIs or private CPAs that
provide placements and child welfare
services to plaintiff class members shall be 6/1/09
performance-based contracts that require an for CPAs;
annual review of the CPAs’ and CCIs’ 7/31/09
performance. See page 37 for CCIs Yes
XII.B Performance Based Contracting: DHS
shall incorporate all applicable performance
outcome goals set forth in Section III and
process requirements in the Agreement into
the performance-based contracts; and
develop a set of enforcement measures to be
imposed in the event that a contract agency
fails to comply with material terms or
requirements of the performance-based
contract. See page 37 10/31/09 Yes
XII.C Maltreatment in Care & CPAs: DHS will
give due consideration to any and all
substantiated incidents of abuse, neglect,
and/or corporal punishment occurring in the
placements licensed and supervised by a
contract agency at the time of processing its
application for licensure renewal. See page
77 Ongoing No
XII.C Maltreatment in Care & CPAs: The
failure of a contract agency to report
suspected abuse or neglect of a child to DHS
will result in an immediate investigation to
determine the appropriate corrective action
up to and including termination of the
contract or placement of the provider on
provisional licensing status, and a repeated
failure within one year will result in
termination of the contract. See page 76 Ongoing No
XII.D CPA Data Reporting: DHS will ensure
that all CCIs or private CPAs that provide
placements and child welfare services to
plaintiff class members report to DHS
accurate data on at least a six-month basis in
relation to the requirements of this
Agreement. 3/31/09 Yes
XII.F DHS Staffing Capacity for Contract
Oversight: DHS shall maintain sufficient Ongoing Yes
23
Due
resources to permit its staff to undertake
timely and competent contract enforcement
activities. See page 36
XII.G POS Function Review: DHS will, in
coordination with the monitor, review the
effectiveness of the DHS POS monitoring
function in providing case-level oversight of
private CPAs. See page 34 Ongoing No
XIII.A Data Reporting: DHS shall generate
from an automated system accurate and
timely data reports regarding each of the
requirements and outcome measures set
forth in this Agreement and regarding those
other requirements of this Agreement for
which automated reporting is reasonable and
appropriate, as determined by the monitor in
consultation with the parties. Extensions
allowing additional time during which DHS
may supply particular reports based upon
manual counts may be granted by the
monitor after consultation with plaintiffs.
See page 51 10/31/09 No
XIII.B Permanency Tracking: In consultation
with the Monitor and in coordination with
Children’s Services Administration, Field
Operations Administration, private CPA
representatives, and Local/Regional DHS
office representatives, DHS will design a
permanency tracking system and associated
reports. The system will, at a minimum, be
capable of reporting pertinent status
information sorted by individual child, DHS
worker/CPA, and county, for all children in
foster care. See page 109 9/30/09 No
XIII.C Federal Data Reporting: Both leading
up to and subsequent to the full
implementation of a SACWIS, DHS shall at all
times satisfy all federal reporting
requirements and shall maintain data
integrity and accuracy on a continuous basis.
See page 51 Ongoing No
XIV.A QA Program: DHS shall, in consultation
with and subject to the approval of the
monitor, develop and implement a statewide Ongoing Yes
24
Due
QA program that will be directed by a QA
unit established within the DHS central
office. See page 62
XIV.C QA Capacity: The QA unit shall be
adequately staffed, and its staff shall receive
specialized training to fulfill all unit
responsibilities. See page 62 Ongoing Yes
XIV.D Public Reporting: All reports provided
by the QA unit shall become public record so
long as any individually identifying
information in relation to the temporary or
permanent wards in DHS foster care custody
is redacted from such report consistent with
applicable state and federal confidentiality
laws. See page 62 Ongoing Yes
XIV.E Performance Reporting: The QA unit
shall, within 60 days following the end of
each reporting period, compile and provide,
in consultation with the monitor, all
pertinent data regarding statewide
performance in relation to the requirements
and outcome measures in the Agreement.
See page 51 Ongoing No
XIV.F.1.a Maltreatment-Single Allegation:
DHS shall conduct reviews designed to assess
and meet the needs of children who have
been the subject of an allegation of abuse or
neglect in a residential care setting or a
licensed or unlicensed foster home between
June 2007 and September 2008, and who
remain in the facility or home in which the
maltreatment is alleged to have occurred.
XIV.F.1.b Maltreatment-Multiple Allegations:
and meet the needs of children who have
been the subject of three or more reports
alleging abuse or neglect in a foster home,
the most recent of which was filed during or
after July 2007, and who remain in the foster
home in which maltreatment is alleged to
have occurred. See page 63 Ongoing Yes
XIV.F.1.c Multiple Placements: DHS shall
conduct reviews designed to assess and meet Ongoing Yes
25
Due
the needs of children who, at the time of
review, have been in three or more
placements, excluding return home, within
the previous 12 months. See page 63
XIV.F.1.d Long-term Residential Care: DHS
shall conduct reviews designed to assess and
meet the needs of children who, at the time
of review, have been in residential care for
one year or longer. See page 63 Ongoing Yes
XIV.F.1.e Unrelated Unlicensed Caregivers:
and meet the needs of children who, at the
time of review, are in unrelated caregiver
placements, defined as an unlicensed home
in which the caregiver is not a relative of the
child but has been approved as a placement
resource because of prior ties to the child
and/or the child’s family. See page 63 Ongoing Yes
XIV.F.2 Special Review Plan: DHS shall
develop, subject to the approval of the
monitor and in consultation with the
plaintiffs, a plan setting forth: a. The dates
and processes by which DHS shall have
compiled an accurate list of children subject
to review; b. The number and type of special
reviews DHS proposes to undertake in the
upcoming 90-day period, and the rationale
for these choices; and c. The data to be
reported at the conclusion of the 90-day
period. See page 63 Ongoing Yes
XIV.F.3 Special Review Reporting: At the DHS did not report
conclusion of the initial 90-day period, DHS every 90 days but did
will report to the monitor and plaintiffs the report at the end of six
results of the reviews conducted during the months.
period, and will develop and implement a
corrective action plan, as appropriate, to
address the findings. See page 63 Ongoing Partially
XIV.G Fatalities: DHS shall ensure that a
review, conducted by qualified and
competent individuals and independent of
the county in which the fatality occurred, has
been conducted, and the findings and
recommendations of that review conveyed
to the monitor and plaintiffs, of each child Ongoing Yes
26
Due
who died while in the foster care custody of
DHS, as follows: 1. For such children who
died during the three-year period ending
March 31, 2008, no later than November 15,
2008; 2. For child fatalities occurring after
March 31, 2008, within six months of the
date of death. Findings and
recommendations of these reviews will be
incorporated into all relevant QA activities,
program improvement, contract agency
oversight, and other related policies and
practices. See page 65
XV. Implementation Plan: DHS will develop a Plaintiffs’ counsel
detailed implementation plan, approved by approved a portion of
plaintiffs and the monitor that will become the Implementation
part of this Agreement and fully enforceable. Plan but did not
The implementation plan will set forth the approve certain
steps, timetables, and persons responsible sections due to a lack
for DHS to achieve compliance with the of specificity or
terms of this Agreement. The parties will inconsistency with the
review this implementation plan on an terms of the
annual basis to determine whether Agreement.
modifications are necessary to ensure that
DHS achieves compliance in the manner and
within the time periods contained in this
Agreement. Ongoing Partially
XVI. Named Plaintiffs Updates: DHS will
provide Plaintiffs’ counsel with regular
quarterly updates of the individual named
plaintiffs’ case records until such time as the
named plaintiffs are no longer in DHS foster
care custody. Each quarter thereafter, the
parties will meet and confer in good faith
regarding the named plaintiffs’ case plans
and placements and services. Ongoing Yes
IV. Methodology
In preparation for this report, the monitoring team conducted extensive verification activities
to evaluate DHS’ progress implementing its commitments in the Agreement. These activities
included meetings with DHS leadership, verification visits to DHS offices and private agencies
throughout the state, and reviews of individual case records and other documentation. During
field office visits, the monitoring team reviewed a random sample of children’s cases
27
investigated by the newly-created specialized investigative units; interviewed staff and
supervisors; and talked to public and private managers about the pace, progress, and
challenges of the reform. The monitoring team also completed extensive verification work at
DHS’ central offices regarding relative home, foster home and institutional licensure and re-
licensure processes; training; waiver processes; and investigations of institutional complaints.
For Period Three, the monitoring team conducted verification activities in DHS operations for
fourteen counties and five private agencies. To date, the monitoring team has visited the six
largest urban counties at least twice; all of the nine next largest counties; and a random sample
of the remaining medium and small counties. In all, the monitoring team has conducted
verification work in offices serving more than 75 percent of the children in DHS’ custody.
The monitoring team reviewed extensive aggregate and detail data produced by DHS. All of the
data cited in this report was produced by DHS, unless otherwise noted. The monitoring team
analyzed these data for internal consistency and cross-verified them against other data sets
produced by DHS to assess data quality. As detailed in the data section below and in the
relevant areas of the report, the monitoring team surfaced significant data issues, which DHS
must resolve in order to achieve compliance with the commitments in this Agreement.
V. Demographics
A. Complaints, Investigations, and Substantiations of Abuse and Neglect
During Period Three, DHS received 59,287 child protective services complaints. While
complaints remain stable, the percentage of complaints triggering investigations continues to
increase. DHS reports that from FY2000 to FY2007 the percentage of reports requiring
investigation ranged between 54 and 56 percent. However, in FY2008, that rate grew to 60
percent, and in FY2009 to 61 percent. During Period Three, DHS referred 38,445, or 65 percent,
to local offices for investigation. An increase to 65 percent in such a short period of time is
significant. Forty-five of the 83 counties had an uptick in the number of investigations during
Period Three, with nine offices experiencing increases of 25 percent or more. By county, the
median percentage referred for investigation was 60 percent, with a low of 31 percent referred
(Clare) to a high of 100 percent referred (Keweenaw). Of the 38,445 that DHS referred for
investigation, DHS substantiated abuse or neglect in 10,431, or 27 percent of those cases. By
county, the median percentage substantiated was 26 percent, with a range of 9 percent
(Leelanau) to 50 percent (Keweenaw). Variation in CPS practice at the county level remains
wide. For full detail by county, see Appendix B.
28
B. Population of Children in Custody
As noted in the Methodology section above, during verification work for Period Three the
monitoring team identified a significant issue with the manner in which DHS had reported
previously on the number of children in DHS’ custody. In short, DHS had improperly excluded a
number of children who were in custody, and had improperly included a number of children
who were not in custody. As a result, the monitoring team requested that DHS undertake
extensive analysis – subject to verification by the monitoring team – to explain and rectify this
significant discrepancy. DHS has done that work and offered an explanation.
Specifically, for the last monitoring report DHS reported that there were 16,224 children in
custody3 as of September 30, 2009, the last day of monitoring Period Two. After the
discrepancy was identified and DHS worked to rectify it, DHS now reports that there were in
fact 17,461 children in custody as of September 30, 2009, a difference of 1,237 youth. The
explanation for this significant discrepancy is described in more detail in the data section of this
report.
The data that DHS ultimately produced shows that there were 16,857 children in custody as of
March 31, 2010. Comparing that to DHS’ recalculated number of children in custody as of
September 30, 2009 (17,461), 16,857 represents a decrease of 3.5 percent (604 children) during
the monitoring period. According to DHS, 4,000 children entered custody and 4,604 exited
during the monitoring period. Because of the questions regarding DHS’ data reported for
Periods One and Two, however, the monitoring team cannot assess with precision whether this
suggests a trend.
As of March 2010, of the 16,857 children in custody, the largest group – 7,173 – are children
who are six or under. Michigan continues to have a large population of older youth in custody.
Twenty-nine percent (4,949) are 12 to 17, and eight percent (1,277) are 18 and over, as detailed
in the following chart:
3
The references in this report to children and youth placed in DHS’ supervision, custody or care refer to
child welfare and do not include children and youth who are the responsibility of DHS through the
juvenile justice system unless those children and youth also have an open child welfare case.
29
Figure 1
Ages of Children in Custody

(March 2010)
(n=16,857)
Ages 0-6,
7,173,
42.5%
Ages 7-11,
3,458, 20.5%
Ages 18 and Ages 12-17,
older, 1,277, 4,949, 29%
8%
For full detail by county, see Appendix C.
With regard to gender, the population is split equally, 50 percent male and 50 percent female.
With regard to race, the population of children in care is primarily split between African-
American (42 percent) and White children (49 percent):4
Figure 2
Race of Children in Custody

(March 2009)
(n-16,857)
Unable to
Determine, 121,
1%
White, 8,300,
Native
49%
Hawaiian/ Multi-Racial,
Pacific Islander, African 1,214, 7%
13, 0% American,
Asian, 23, 0%
American 7,013, 42%
Indian/Alaskan
Native, 172, 1%
4
DHS has changed the race categories from the data reported for Periods One and Two, adding multi-racial.
30
In addition, six and one-half percent of children are identified with Hispanic ethnicity.
As the chart below demonstrates, 85 percent of children in DHS custody live in family settings,
including foster families (30 percent), with relatives (32 percent), with their own parents (16
percent), and in homes that intend to adopt the child (7 percent).5 Of children in custody, 891
(5 percent) live in institutional settings, including residential treatment and other congregate
care facilities. Another 1,229, or seven percent, reside in independent living placements, which
serve youth on the cusp of aging-out of care. The remaining three percent reside in other
settings, with unrelated caregivers, or are AWOL or unidentified.
Figure 3
Placement of Children in Custody

(March 2010)
(n=16,857)
Adoptive Home,
1,211, 7%
Unidentified, Relatives*,
41, 0% 5,298, 32%
AWOL, 214, 1%
Other**, Foster Care
179, 1% Unrelated Families*,
Caregiver,
4,956, 30%
116, 1%
Independent Institutions, Own Parent
Living, incl. shelters, Home*, 2,722,
1,229, 7% 891, 5% 16%
*Includes in- and out-of-state

**Includes out-of-state facilities (1), detention, jail, community justice & court treatment (86), legal
guardians (42), mental health hospitals (11), and other placements (39)
Of the children in care on March 31, 2010, 41 percent were in care for less than one year, while
21 percent were in care for more than 3 years:
5
While all of these placement categories have been impacted by the DHS data issues referenced above, the
number and percentage of children in adoptive placements was significantly impacted by DHS’ under reporting in
prior periods.
31
Figure 4
Length of Stay in Care

(March 2010)
(n=16,857)
Less than 1
year, 6,927,
41% 1-2
years,
4,229,
More than 6 years, 25%
1,217, 7%
3-6 years, 2-3 years,
2,355, 14% 2,129, 13%
For full detail by county, please see Appendix D.
VI. Building the Organizational Capacity to Support Reform
A. Building a Children’s Services Organization and Structure
DHS committed to a number of organizational, structural, and functional changes to better

drive and manage reform. Those include modifications to DHS’ organizational structure,
implementing a clear division between DHS’ child welfare and other responsibilities (referred to
as “bifurcation”); creation of a high-level coordination entity, the Children’s Services
Administration (CSA), to ensure consistency in the application of child welfare programs;
evaluation of the on-the-ground relationship between the public and private agencies through
the public staff that monitor private agency casework; and creating a structure charged with
ensuring equity in financial support to children in custody.
In every monitoring period to date, DHS has reorganized its senior child welfare leadership
structure. These numerous changes over the past two years have added to the challenges of
the reform. Unfortunately, there is now a widespread consensus among leaders of most of the
private agencies (known as Child Placing Agencies, or CPAs) that communication with DHS and
coordination within DHS has deteriorated sharply.
In Period One, DHS implemented numerous organizational changes consistent with the court
order and made a series of leadership changes to advance its work on the reform of the child
32
welfare system. During Period Two, there were more changes in leadership personnel, as the
acting Children’s Services Field Manager (overseeing child welfare work in 78 counties)
returned full-time to her position as county director of Genesee County and the Director of the
Bureau of Children’s Field Service Operations (overseeing child welfare work in the five largest
counties) left the position and became a county director. Those two field leadership positions,
both reporting to the agency’s Chief Deputy Director, were re-filled by experienced child
welfare professionals, one of whom subsequently left and the position was re-filled again.
In Period Three, the Department’s Chief Deputy Director resigned, and the Director of the
Bureau of Children’s Field Service Operations (overseeing child welfare work in the five largest
counties and as of Period Three, Ingham County) stopped reporting directly to the DHS Chief
Deputy Director and began reporting to the CSA Director. Following Period Three, the state
altered that reporting structure yet again, moving the Director of the Bureau of Children’s Field
Services Operations, the Director of Bureau of Child Welfare, and the Director of Child Welfare
Improvement Bureau further away from the CSA Director, despite an explicit provision in the
Agreement that those positions must report to the CSA Director. The move compounds one of
the thorniest problems of this effort – the need for stronger coordination and communication
between DHS field offices, where the work with children and families occurs, and the CSA.
The establishment of the CSA was intended by the parties to create a fully functioning child
welfare agency within DHS, with some important caveats: the Agreement does not require a
direct reporting relationship between the Children’s Services Field Manager (overseeing child
welfare work in 77 counties as of Period Three) and anyone within the CSA, adding to the
complexity of moving the reform forward in those counties. Since the establishment of the
Agreement and its approval as an order of the federal court in October 2008, it has become
clear to the monitoring team that child welfare operations in these counties have struggled for
resources (see the Caseloads section of this report, for example) and services. The monitoring
team recommends strongly that the parties meet to review the current organizational
structure’s strengths and weaknesses and consider adjustments that will strengthen
coordination and communication.
With the election of a new Governor, Michigan has an opportunity to build a high-level
leadership team that can coordinate the work of this reform effectively and improve the
partnerships within DHS and between DHS and the many private agencies that serve children
and families in Michigan.
33
Purchase of Service Monitoring Function
The Agreement requires that DHS, in coordination with the monitoring team, review the
effectiveness of the DHS Purchase of Service (POS) monitoring function. The POS role is an
outgrowth of Michigan’s partnership with the private sector. Even though primary case
management responsibility is contracted out to a private agency caseworker who is held to the
same training, qualifications, and caseload standards as a DHS caseworker, DHS nonetheless
assigns a DHS caseworker to oversee the private agency caseworker. DHS POS workers review
service plans, assess progress toward permanency, and perform all data entry into DHS’
information technology system regarding the work that private agency staff complete on cases
because private agencies do not have access to the system.
During Period Three, DHS had intended to have a meeting to review the effectiveness of the
POS monitoring position. That meeting did not occur until Period Four and, as a result, DHS is
not in compliance with this provision of the Agreement. For Period Four, they began to gather
information regarding county practices related to POS monitor responsibilities; identify areas
where there may be duplication of effort between POS and direct casework staff; and analyze
POS monitors’ caseloads. DHS intends to survey all of its POS monitors in order to gather
relevant information. DHS plans to complete the survey, research other state’s practices
regarding cases assigned to private agencies, reconvene the workgroup, and make
recommendations about the POS role to DHS leadership.
Determination of Care
The parties agreed that there needed to be equity statewide in the determination of care (DOC)
process, which establishes the rate to be paid for support of a child. The rate itself is also called
the DOC. There is a standard rate and then there can be enhancements to that rate based on
age and circumstance, particularly with respect to children with special needs.
DHS named the Federal Compliance Office, a unit of the Child Welfare Improvement Bureau
within the CSA, as the lead central entity responsible for ensuring uniform payment of DOC.
Prior to the implementation of the Agreement, DHS automated the DOC process. DHS public
agency staff enter data into an electronic protocol that uses a formula to give each child a score
that correlates to a DOC rate. Private agencies must depend on public agency staff to enter and
approve the information for the children in their care.
In Period Three, DHS established a database tracking and reporting system on DOC levels across
counties, private agencies, and DHS. That system generates a monthly report of DOC
authorizations, which the Federal Compliance Office began reviewing in November 2009. The
34
staff assess the monthly DOC authorizations against baseline data from prior years to detect
trends and patterns of reimbursement levels in order to test that decisions are being made
equitably across the state. DHS has also committed to engaging in a quality assurance process
in which they will sample DOC case decisions that will inform an annual evaluation of the DOC
process.
DHS met the terms of the Agreement with respect to the centralization of the DOC process.
DHS also appears to have a viable plan for ensuring accountability with the statewide equity
commitments, but as that plan is in its first year of implementation, the monitoring team
cannot yet assess DHS performance in those areas.
DHS also created a new appeal process that was implemented in Period Three. The revised
process removes the administrative review of DOC appeals from the local office and creates a
centralized process for review, also housed in the Federal Compliance Office. Between October
1, 2009 through August 31, 2010, DHS reports there were only six appeals, which resulted in
two reversals and four affirmations of local office determinations.
Flexible Funding for Individualized Needs
The Agreement states:
In order to ensure that the range of funds, including “flexible

funds” . . . are available to meet individualized needs of families
and children and can be readily accessed by case managers
working with those families and children, DHS shall implement a
system that designates appropriate and knowledgeable
administrative staff, rather than the case managers, as the staff
responsible for determining the specific funding source to be
drawn upon for the provision of goods and services identified as
needed . . . .
(VIII.A.6.)
DHS reports that it has in place administrative staff (that is, staff who are not caseworkers) who
review funding requests in each of the counties to ensure that appropriate funding sources are
utilized. During the monitoring team’s review of case files and interviews with staff, however, it
became evident that many caseworkers are not yet sufficiently familiar with flexible funds, nor
are they aware of how to access them to build unique service plans for children and families.
35
DHS acknowledges it had not developed nor implemented a written protocol advising staff how
to access flexible funds as of the close of Period Three. The monitoring team will assess the
State’s progress on this commitment in future reports.
B. Strengthening Contract Oversight
The Child Welfare Contract Compliance Unit (CWCCU), formerly known as the Purchased
Services Division, is the lead unit of the Children’s Services Administration responsible for
monitoring DHS’ contracts with private agencies. DHS committed, beginning October 2009, to
conduct contract evaluations of all child caring institutions (residential facilities known as CCIs)
and private child placing agencies providing placements and services (CPAs). The purpose of
the evaluations is to ensure the safety and well-being of the children served by the CCI or CPA
and to ensure that the contract agency is complying with the applicable terms of their
agreement. At least once annually, DHS committed to 1) inspect each private CPA to review all
relevant aspects of the agency’s operations; 2) conduct an unannounced inspection of each
residential care facility; and 3) visit a random sample of each agency’s foster homes, including
five percent of the total number of homes supervised by the agency or ten homes, whichever is
greater.
DHS reports that, even prior to entry of the Agreement, one of CWCCU’s core missions was to
conduct annual evaluations of private child placing agencies and residential facilities under
contract with DHS to provide foster care, adoption, residential and juvenile justice services.
The CWCCU visited as many providers as possible each year, but staffing limitations prevented
contract compliance monitors from visiting each agency and residential facility annually.
Additional staffing has enabled the unit to significantly increase its ability to annually inspect
and evaluate each contracted private CPA and residential facility.
The Agreement also calls for unannounced inspections of residential care facilities each year.
The Bureau of Child and Adult Licensing (BCAL) is the designated DHS unit responsible for
conducting those unannounced inspections as part of its regular licensure schedule. DHS also
committed to visit a random sample of each agency’s foster homes annually in accordance with
this provision; however, no staff had been identified to complete those visits in Period Three.
DHS reported there were 220 contracted programs subject to these provisions of the
Agreement in FY2010, of which 59 were adoption programs; 84 were foster care programs; 66
were residential programs; and 11 were shelter care, sex offender foster care (juvenile justice)
or treatment foster care programs. A contract compliance review was completed for 59
programs (27 percent) in Period Three and reviews were scheduled to occur in Period Four for
36
an additional 131 programs (59 percent), contemporaneous with each program’s contract
renewal schedule. In some cases, no contract review was conducted or scheduled if a program
opened, closed or had its contract terminated in the fiscal year; if program operations were
suspended during the year; or if the program was not presently serving DHS children. There
were 30 such programs (14 percent) of the 220 eligible for review.
The monitoring team reviewed a sample of the evaluation reports and observed that during
their visits contract compliance monitors assessed programs in a variety of areas such as
training, case management, staffing ratios, policies and procedures, program operations, child
and family assessments, and quarterly reporting. The contract evaluations included case file
reviews and interviews with management, staff, children, foster parents, and biological parents
involved with the program. Each of the 59 programs inspected in Period Three was cited for
one or more contract, policy, or rule violations. The violations involved training, caseloads, and
various service delivery requirements. The majority of the programs submitted a contract
compliance improvement plan that was approved by CWCCU, with the balance of the plans due
in the next monitoring period.
With respect to the unannounced inspections, BCAL reported there are 217 licensed residential
care facilities that require unannounced inspections in FY2010. By the end of Period Three, 72
of those facilities were inspected as part of their interim or renewal licensure cycle. The
remaining facilities are scheduled to be inspected in Period Four.
With respect to the third obligation under this provision, DHS provided no information
regarding whether it had visited and reviewed a random sample of each agency’s foster homes.
Because DHS has until the end of Period Four to fully satisfy this year’s annual review
commitments, the monitoring team will report on complete performance with respect to
contract evaluations, unannounced inspections of residential facilities, and visits to agency
foster homes at that time.
DHS also committed to implement performance-based contracting – i.e., to include in its

contracts with providers of child welfare and placement services provisions that hold the
agencies accountable to achieve the same outcomes for children and families that DHS must
achieve as specified in the Agreement. DHS also agreed to conduct annual reviews of each
provider’s performance against those provisions using the performance-based measures that
apply in the public sector. DHS amended foster care and adoption contracts in June 2009 and
residential facility contracts in July 2009 to include the performance measures and began
testing its data systems to ensure compliance can be properly tracked. DHS committed to
begin reviewing private agencies’ attainment of these performance measures in October 2010,
37
and has begun to establish baseline performance in the interim. The monitoring team will
report on implementation of performance-based contracting in future reports.
C. Assessing the Adequacy of Resources for Reform
DHS did not request sufficient support from the Legislature in advance of or during Period
Three to implement all of the requirements embedded within the Agreement. As a result, the
state was not compliant with some of the caseload standards established in the Agreement;
was not compliant with the obligation to maintain sufficient permanency planning staff, which
adversely affected outcomes for children in the backlog cohort awaiting permanency; and was
not compliant with the commitment to grow additional services,6 as described in the
monitoring team’s report to the court at the conclusion of Period Two.
DHS committed in the Agreement that it would, at a minimum, request of the Michigan
Legislature “state funds and any federal/special fund authorization sufficient to effect the
provisions and outcome measures set forth in this Agreement in connection with any budget,
funding, or allocation request to the executive or legislative branches of State government.”
(I.H.) Nonetheless, DHS and the State Budget Office did not advance to the Michigan
Legislature a request for funds or spending authorization to fully fund all needed positions or to
replace the significant cuts in services to children and families that the administration
implemented in FY2009.
The Governor submitted to the Legislature an Executive Budget proposal for DHS in FY2010,
recommending an increase of $113,382,400 over and above the authorized appropriation in
FY2009, to support DHS’ implementation of its child welfare reform commitments. This
encompassed $30,727,200 in State General Funds, as well as authorization to spend
$79,000,900 in federal aid and $3,654,300 in county revenue.
6
DHS advocated to the Legislature for a reduction in certain services. For example, among its requests to the
Legislature regarding Conference House Bill 5882, DHS wrote, “Section 565 that addresses family preservation
programs was not included in the Executive Recommendation. The section was included in the Senate and House
versions, and it contains an allocation to Wayne County of $2,000,000 in the Senate-passed bill and $1,600,000 in
the House-passed bill. If this section remains in the budget, please change the Wayne County allocation to
$1,600,000. The programs were cut by 20% in fiscal year 2010, and the allocation to Wayne County needs to
reflect that reduction.”
38
In June 2009, the State Budget Director submitted to the Michigan Legislature a revised FY2010
funding recommendation for DHS, which eliminated 197 child welfare staff positions originally
requested to implement the Agreement. The administration reduced its request to
$93,344,600 and DHS indicated the 197 positions were no longer necessary to satisfy its
commitments in the Agreement due to reductions in the overall caseload. However, as
described later in this report, DHS – for the second consecutive period - did not meet some of
the caseload standards set forth in the court order for Period Three, standards which are only
the starting point in a multi-year process of reducing caseloads from excessive to appropriate
levels. As this report was being finalized, DHS reported another setback, informing the
monitoring team that pursuant to the retirement program advanced by the Governor, more
than 1,300 staff from DHS will be retiring, and they anticipate that will further slow future
hiring to fill these critical positions.
The Legislature ultimately appropriated less than the administration requested, adopting an
increase of $73,613,300 over and above the authorized appropriation in FY2009, to support
DHS’ implementation of its child welfare reform commitments. This encompassed $59,011,700
in State General Funds, as well as authorization to spend $11,165,200 in matching federal aid
and $3,436,400 in county support. In an October 29, 2009, letter to the Senate, the Governor
observed that she did not agree with the “legislatively-negotiated targets” that “drastically
reduced” funding for child welfare improvements.
D. Assessing the Needs of Children and Families
In Period Three, DHS did not meet its obligation to expand services as required. The Agreement
required DHS to “make available additional funds of at least $4 million to develop the additional
services and placements identified by the first Needs Assessment.” (IX.E.) Consistent with that
provision, the monitoring team reviewed an extensive Needs Assessment commissioned by DHS
last year and issued final recommendations and a timeline in July 2009 for DHS’ implementation
of expanded services for children and youth.7 DHS advised the monitoring team that $4 million
in state general funds had been appropriated in Public Act No. 129 of 2009 for Needs
Assessment services. However, no new Needs Assessment services were implemented in
Period Three pursuant to the timeline established by the monitoring team in the summer of
2009.
7
See Needs Assessment Recommendations at http://www.public-catalyst.com.
39
VII. Developing the Workforce to Deliver High Quality Services
In the Agreement, DHS committed to develop the workforce over time in order to ensure that
both DHS and private agency staff serving Michigan’s at-risk children and families have
improved educational qualifications and receive quality training. Specifically, DHS agreed that
caseworkers will have a bachelor’s degree in an appropriate field; receive pre-service training;
and receive regular in-service training; that supervisors will have a master’s degree in an
appropriate field and receive supervisory training; and that specialized workers, such as
licensing staff and permanency planning specialists, will receive training relevant to their work.
During Period Three, the Monitoring Team noted some improvement in this area. However,
DHS did not achieve full compliance with its commitments.
A. Increasing Worker Qualifications
In Period Three, there were 1168 entry level caseworkers who were required to have a
bachelor’s degree in an appropriate field. The monitoring team compared the personnel lists
provided by DHS with reports from the DHS training database, JJOLT, in order to assess
compliance. During verification, it became clear to the monitoring team that DHS significantly
improved the accuracy of their tracking, reporting, and compliance in this area. Based on the
information provided, all 116 of the caseworkers possessed the requisite degree. Moreover, 15
of the DHS caseworkers and 11 of the private agency caseworkers had a master’s degree in
social work or in a related human services field, although the higher degree was not required.
In the Agreement, DHS also committed that newly-hired or promoted public agency supervisors
would have a master’s degree in an appropriate field. DHS reported hiring or promoting 18
supervisors between October 1, 2009 and March 31, 2010. The monitoring team verified
performance on this commitment by comparing the personnel reports provided by DHS with
reports from the DHS training database. Seventeen DHS supervisors possessed the requisite
master’s degree. As is authorized by the Agreement, DHS waived the master’s degree
requirement for the remaining supervisor based on experience. In total, DHS has granted 18
waivers of the master’s degree requirement, representing five percent of the 357 DHS
8
DHS reported that it hired 129 new public and private agency caseworkers during Period Three. Thirteen staff
had previous experience as caseworkers and had already attended pre-service training; therefore, those staff were
excluded for purposes of determining compliance, leaving 116 total staff subject to these commitments. Whether
those thirteen staff are included or excluded does not impact DHS’ compliance with the Agreement.
40
supervisors allocated. Because this is less than ten percent, it does not trigger the case-by-case
review of the waivers by the monitoring team provided for in the Agreement.
B. Expanding Training to Strengthen the Workforce
Pre-Service Training
DHS did not meet their commitment in Period Three to ensure all new caseworkers enroll in
training, complete the pre-service training program, pass the performance-based evaluation
(PBE), and carry no more than three cases prior to completing training.
In the Agreement, DHS committed that public and private agency entry level caseworkers in
CPS, foster care, and adoption programs and purchase of service (POS) monitors will complete
an eight week pre-service training program. As part of pre-service training, a trainee may be
assigned specific tasks or activities in connection with a case so long as the primary
responsibility for that case remains with an experienced worker. A trainee also may be
assigned responsibility for a “training caseload” of up to three cases, under appropriate
supervision, and must pass a performance-based evaluation (PBE), including a written
examination, prior to assuming a full caseload.
Of the 116 entry-level caseworkers hired in Period Three, 96 were enrolled in training during
the period. Another 11 staff were scheduled for training in April and three staff were scheduled
for training between June and September 2010. DHS had no record that six staff had been
trained nor were they scheduled for training in April or subsequent months. Of the 96 staff
enrolled in training during Period Three, 93 finished training and passed the competency exam,
one started training but did not finish, and two staff completed training but did not take the
PBE. Availability and access to training improved in Period Three as evidenced by the level of
training enrollment and completion. This represents a marked improvement compared to
Period Two.
Table 1 – Comparison of Pre-Service Training in Period Two and Period Three
Not Yet Received

New Hires In Training During the Period
Training
Period 2 Period 3 Period 2 Period 3 Period 2 Period 3
Public 85 61 66 78% 59 97% 19 22% 2 3%
Private 74 55 38 51% 37 67% 36 49% 18 33%
TOTAL 159 116 104 65% 96 83% 55 35% 20 17%
41
Once staff begin training, they can assume up to three cases each. Under the Agreement, those
staff must finish training and take and pass the competency exam before they are allowed to
assume a full caseload. DHS is responsible for producing data with respect to the number of
cases a trainee carried while in pre-service training in order to determine adherence to the
commitment limiting trainees to no more than three cases while in training.
DHS has not provided this data for Period Three. Instead, DHS advised the monitoring team
late in Period Four that the training caseload data DHS had previously provided for Period Three
– and for Period Two - was incorrect. Rather than provide data regarding the number of cases
each trainee carried during training, DHS instead provided data from the every other month
point-in-time caseload reports as of April 1, 2010. The number of cases a trainee had on April
1, 2010 does not answer the question whether a trainee complied with this requirement. A
trainee could have completed training before April 1, 2010, for example, in which case the data
provided would be irrelevant to compliance with this provision. As a result, the monitoring
team is unable to assess compliance with the training caseload commitment in the Agreement
for Period Three. Moreover, based on DHS’ acknowledgment, it is now clear that the
assessment of compliance in the Period Two monitoring report is incorrect. Going forward,
DHS must specifically track the number of cases a trainee is assigned before and during pre-
service training in addition to its continuing obligation to provide caseload data for all child
welfare caseworkers. Until the monitoring team receives accurate training caseload
information, DHS will be considered non-compliant with this commitment.
It should be noted that during the monitoring team’s verification site visits some public and
private agency managers reported struggling to meet the training caseload standard. They
were candid about the challenge of balancing staff turnover, training requirements, and
caseload coverage and the tough decisions they must make about potentially overloading
trainees, seasoned workers or supervisors — all of which could result in not complying with the
Agreement. DHS and the private agencies must identify the additional capacity needed to meet
training caseload commitments and explore ways to better support caseworkers so they are
not overloaded during training.
In-Service Training
The commitment that all caseworkers receive ongoing training annually increased for DHS staff
and commenced for private agency staff in Period Three. The chart below reflects the
timetable for implementation of in-service training for caseworkers.
42
Table 2 – Implementation Schedule for In-Service Training
FC & Adoption Private Agency

Training Year CPS Staff
Staff Staff
October 2008 – September 2009 16 hours 24 hours N/A
October 2009 – September 2010 24 hours 40 hours 24 hours
October 2010 – September 2011 32 hours 40 hours 40 hours
October 2011 and thereafter 40 hours 40 hours 40 hours
Because full compliance with this year’s in-service commitments is not required until the end of
Period Four, performance on these requirements will appear in the next monitoring report.
DHS continued to leverage its partnership with seven Michigan graduate social work schools,9
which developed a Child Welfare In-Service training program that offers a wide array of
relevant courses for caseworkers. In addition to the university-based training opportunities,
DHS continued to offer pre-approved in-service training sessions hosted by the Prosecuting
Attorneys Association of Michigan, the State Court Administrative Office, the Department of
Community Health, and several online sites. Further, local training tailored to specific needs of
an office or region is also available to staff.
The state also committed to encourage its child welfare staff and the staff of private CPAs to
pursue master’s level graduate degrees under a tuition reimbursement program. DHS reported
that it allocated $400,000 in FY2010 and $900,000 in FY2011 for tuition reimbursement. At the
end of Period Three, a process for administering the program was under development and no
funds had yet been expended.
Supervisory Training
In the Agreement, DHS committed that new supervisors in the CPS, foster care, adoption or POS
programs would complete a 40-hour training program and pass a competency-based
performance evaluation within three months of assuming the supervisory position. As noted,
DHS reported that 18 public agency staff were promoted or hired into supervisory positions
during Period Three. Eleven completed training within three months of becoming supervisors.
Another four completed training within four months of assuming the supervisory position. Two
9
The Michigan Graduate Schools of Social Work participating in the partnership are Andrews University, Eastern
Michigan University, Grand Valley State University, Michigan State University, University of Michigan, Wayne State
University, and Western Michigan University.
43
of the remaining three completed training within six months and one supervisor did not attend
training. While there was an increase from Period Two in the percentage of supervisors that
completed training timely, given the small number of supervisors promoted or hired each
period, full compliance should be achievable.
C. Lowering Caseloads
In the Agreement, DHS committed to lower caseloads to agreed-upon standards for six types of
child welfare work in Period Three: child protective services investigations; child protective
services ongoing cases; foster care cases; adoption cases; licensing cases; and purchase of
service monitoring cases. In addition, DHS also agreed to lower the ratio of supervisory staff to
caseworkers.
As discussed more fully in the Period Two report, when DHS receives an allegation of child
abuse or neglect and decides to investigate, child protective services staff conduct the
investigation and determine whether the maltreatment occurred. After the investigation, staff
can open a child protective services ongoing case, which involves providing the child and family
with services in the family’s home to ensure the child’s safety; place the child in foster care
because he or she cannot safely stay in the home and transfer the case to a foster care worker;
or close the investigation. Foster care staff works to achieve permanency for children through
reunification, adoption, or guardianship, and if adoption becomes the permanency goal, an
adoption worker is also assigned to the case. Licensing staff are responsible for supporting
existing foster homes, completing new applications to become foster homes, and conducting
investigations of complaints that a foster home is not complying with foster home
requirements. And POS monitors, as discussed above, are public agency staff charged with
oversight of private agency casework.
In order to assess caseload performance during this monitoring period, the monitoring team
conducted its own analysis of the April 2010 raw caseload data separate from the analysis
offered by DHS.10 The monitoring team has continued to work with DHS to align these
analyses.
Note that one of the common practices in Michigan is to have a single staff person provide
more than one type of service. There are many possible combinations: for example, one
caseworker can provide both CPS and CPS ongoing services, foster care and POS monitoring,
10
The methodology used to assess caseloads is available at www.public-catalyst.com.
44
adoption and licensing services, or licensing and IV-E reviews. Staff providing mixed services
are assessed with respect to caseload compliance for each category of service they provide. As
a result, in order to assess unique staffing the monitoring team requested that DHS provide
FTE, or full-time equivalent, staff information (e.g., this staff person spends 50 percent of her
time on IV-E reviews and 50 percent on licensing). DHS began providing this information for the
April 2010 caseloads, but notified the monitoring team that they are aware that there are
issues with the quality of the FTE reporting.
Child Protective Services Caseloads
The Agreement’s child protective services caseload standards include two types of cases: child
protective services investigations (CPS-I), which are the initial investigation and finding
regarding an allegation of child abuse or neglect, and child protective services ongoing cases
(CPS-O), in which DHS determines that the child or children can remain safely at home but that
in-home services and/or monitoring are necessary.
For Period Two, the Agreement required that 95 percent of CPS-I staff have no more than 16
cases on their caseloads; as detailed in the Period Two report, DHS only achieved that target for
60 percent of staff. Similarly, for Period Two 95 percent of CPS-O staff were to have no more
than 30 children on their caseloads; 63 percent complied with that target. Those standards
remained the same for Period Three. DHS also committed to comply with additional standards:
that 60 percent of CPS-I staff would have 14 or fewer cases and that 60 percent of CPS-O staff
would have 25 or fewer cases. The chart below details DHS’ performance against those targets:
Table 3 – CPS Caseloads
Child Protective Services – Investigations

1 Staff to 16 Cases 1 Staff to 14 Cases
All Staff
April 2010 Target = 95% Target = 60%
5 Largest Public Counties 332 178 54% 132 40%
78 Public Counties 435 247 57% 187 43%
Private Agencies N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 767 425 55% 319 42%
45
Child Protective Services – Ongoing
1 Staff to 30 Children 1 Staff to 25 Children
All Staff
5 Largest Public Counties 336 182 54% 134 40%
78 Public Counties 421 255 61% 197 47%
Private Agencies N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total 757 437 58% 331 44%
As indicated in the chart, DHS’ performance on the CPS-I 16 standard and the CPS-O 30
standard – which was already noncompliant in Period Two - declined even further in Period
Three, such that DHS was noncompliant with both of those standards again. On the new
standards – 60 percent of CPS-I workers would have 14 children or fewer and 60 percent of
CPS-O workers would have 25 children or fewer – DHS missed both, with performance of 42
percent and 44 percent respectively. For full detail by county, please see Appendix E. Notably,
DHS’ own analysis – which differed slightly from the monitoring team’s – also concluded that
DHS missed all four of these targets.
Also according to DHS, performance continued to decline through June 2010. DHS reported the
following performance for June 2010:
 51.8 percent of CPS-I staff met the 1:16 standard, well below the 95 percent of staff
required by the Agreement;
 37 percent of CPS-I staff met the 1:14 standard, well below the 60 percent required by
the Agreement;
 56.1 percent of CPS-O staff met the 1:30 standard, well below the 95 percent required
by the Agreement.
 41.2 percent of CPS-O staff met the 1:25 standard, well below the 60 percent required
by the Agreement.
That data has not yet been verified by the monitoring team, which will review and analyze it in
the next monitoring report.
The decline in performance on child protective services caseload standards is troubling. These
staff are the first responders in keeping children safe from abuse and neglect, and assuring
adequate staffing should be a top priority. Instead, DHS has not only been slow to respond to
the need for more investigators, but leadership has also let this group of staff fall farther and
farther behind.
46
Foster Care Caseloads
DHS met the foster care caseload standards in both Periods One and Two, and that compliance
continued in Period Three. During this period DHS was required to meet three standards: that
70 percent of staff would have no more than 22 children on their caseloads; that 60 percent of
staff would have no more than 25 children on their caseloads; and that 95 percent of staff
would have no more than 30 children on their caseloads. As demonstrated by the following
chart, DHS met all of those targets with 84 percent, 92 percent, and 95 percent, respectively:
Table 4 – Foster Care Caseloads
Foster Care
1 Staff to 22 1 Staff to 25 1 Staff to 30
All Staff Children Children Children
April 2010 Target = 70% Target = 60% Target = 95%
Five Largest Public
Counties 356 288 81% 325 91% 339 95%
78 Public Counties 328 254 77% 290 88% 305 93%
Private Agencies 435 403 93% 417 96% 420 97%
Total 1,119 945 84% 1,032 92% 1,064 95%
For full detail by county/agency, please see Appendix F.
Adoption Caseloads
During Period One, DHS reduced adoption caseloads and met the then-applicable caseload
standard. During Period Two, however, DHS met one standard – that 60 percent of adoption
staff would have 25 or fewer children on their caseloads – and missed the other – that 95
percent of staff would have 30 or fewer children on their caseloads. DHS significantly exceeded
the former, with 84 percent of staff achieving the standard, and missed the latter by 6 percent,
with 89 percent of staff meeting the target. During Period Three, as the chart below
demonstrates, DHS again achieved the 1:25 standard and missed the 1:30 standard with the
percentage of staff meeting each standard declining from Period Two. In addition, DHS also
missed the new standard, that 70 percent of staff would have 22 or fewer children on their
caseloads by two percent. For full detail by county/agency, please see Appendix G.
47
Table 5 – Adoption Caseloads
Adoption
1 Staff to 22 1 Staff to 25 1 Staff to 30
All Staff Children Children Children
Target = 70% Target = 60% Target = 95%
April 2010
5 Largest Public
Counties 28 18 64% 19 68% 22 79%
78 Public Counties 37 12 32% 17 46% 20 54%
Private Agencies 207 154 74% 178 86% 189 91%
Total 272 184 68% 214 79% 231 85%
DHS has provided data for June 2010 on adoption caseloads. However, DHS’ analysis does not
provide an overall assessment of DHS’ performance on adoption caseloads. Instead, DHS
divided up adoption work into several different categories instead of assessing how all adoption
work impacts the caseloads for all adoption staff. This approach does not comport with the
language in the Agreement or with the guidance given by the monitoring team. In addition,
DHS has not yet rectified issues raised previously regarding the manner in which pre-
termination cases are counted by private agencies and post-adoption cases are counted in both
the public and private agencies with the result that the above data is likely to be an over-count
of DHS compliance. The monitoring team expects DHS to both collect all of the relevant
information and realign its methodology for counting adoption caseloads and will report on
DHS’ June 2010 performance on adoption caseloads in the next monitoring report.
Licensing Caseloads
As noted, licensing workers are primarily responsible for supporting existing foster homes,
completing new applications to become foster homes, and conducting investigations of
complaints that a foster home is not complying with foster home requirements. As discussed at
length in the Period Two report, DHS initially agreed to conduct a workload study to assess the
relative weights of these types of work, but then later declined. As a result, the responsibility
for determining licensing caseloads became that of the monitoring team, establishing that a
normal licensing caseload would consist of two complaint investigations, 10 enrolled
applications for licensure, and 24 existing homes, which together account for the FY2010 total
of 36 licensing cases. The monitoring team also made clear that this standard is flexible: for
example, a licensing worker could have three complaints, 12 applications to become new foster
homes, and 12 existing homes, and the worker would still be compliant. This standard is
applicable for the first time in Period Three.
48
Using that methodology, DHS achieved its target for Period Three. As the following chart
demonstrates, 81 percent of licensing staff – 21 percent above the target of 60 percent – were
compliant with that standard. For full detail by county/agency, please see Appendix H.
Table 6 – Licensing Caseloads
Licensing Workers
1 Staff to 36 Cases
All Staff Target = 60%
April 2010
5 Largest Public Counties 35 28 80%
78 Public Counties 90 69 77%
Private Agencies 221 182 82%
Total 346 279 81%
DHS has provided data for June 2010 on licensing caseloads. However, DHS’ analysis does not
provide an overall assessment of DHS’ performance for all licensing staff. Instead, DHS
assessed each worker doing each type of work separately – i.e., DHS counted the number of
workers with complaint investigations and determined whether those workers were compliant,
rather than assessing all licensing workers and all work together to determine compliance. This
approach does not comport with the language of the Agreement or the guidance given by the
monitoring team. The monitoring team expects DHS to align their methodology going forward.
POS Monitor Caseloads
For the first time in Period Three, DHS was required to achieve caseload standards for POS
monitors, who are responsible for overseeing private agency casework. DHS did so:
Table 7 – POS Monitor Caseloads
Purchase of Service Monitors

1 Staff to 55 Cases
All Staff
April 2010 Target = 60%
Private Agencies N/A N/A N/A
Total 592 526 89%
For full detail by county, please see Appendix I.
49
DHS has provided data for June 2010 on POS monitor caseloads. However, DHS’ analysis does
not provide an overall assessment of DHS’ performance on all POS monitoring caseloads.
Similar to licensing and adoption caseloads, DHS assessed POS monitors overseeing foster care
cases and POS monitors overseeing adoption cases separately rather than provide an overall
assessment of all POS monitors and all POS work. This approach does not comport with the
language of the Agreement or the guidance given by the monitoring team. DHS is expected to
align its reporting going forward.
Supervisor Ratios
Also for the first time this monitoring period, DHS committed in the Agreement to achieve a
target ratio of supervisors to frontline, caseload carrying staff. The role of the supervisor in
child welfare practice cannot be emphasized enough: effective front-line supervisors are
critical to provide caseload-carrying staff with the training, mentoring, and coaching that is
necessary for quality child welfare practice. In the Agreement, DHS committed that supervisors
will ultimately have no more than five caseload-carrying staff to supervise. As the following
chart demonstrates, DHS achieved the target, with 63 percent of its supervisors supervising five
or fewer staff:
Table 8 – Supervisor to Staff Ratios
Supervisor to Staff Ratios

1 Supervisor to 5 Staff
All Supervisors
Private Agencies 230 175 76%
Total 545 346 63%
For full detail by county and agency, please see Appendix J.
D. Challenges Ahead
There are significant challenges ahead for DHS in terms of achieving its caseload targets,
particularly with respect to child protective services investigators, the first responders for child
safety. DHS has, from the beginning of the reform, consistently met the foster care targets,
met some of the adoption targets while missing others, and missed the child protective services
targets. DHS has not yet demonstrated the ability to receive authorization and funding to
recruit, retain, and reallocate staff as necessary to improve existing performance to the level
50
that DHS committed in the Agreement. The challenge ahead, then, is that: DHS must
demonstrate the ability to project the number of staff needed to achieve full compliance,
obtain those staff, and deploy those staff – or reallocate existing staff – in order to achieve
compliance.
VIII. Developing the Capacity for Assessment & Implementation
A. Accessing and Utilizing Data
The quality of critical core data produced by DHS proved to be one of the most significant and
troubling issues of Period Three. During the first year of reform, DHS greatly expanded the
scope of data reporting as the demand for data surged both internally and externally. In the
Period Two report, the monitoring team documented increasing concern about the quality of
data DHS was producing and the lack of management attention to a verification process to
ensure the data produced was accurate and complete. Unfortunately, in the course of Period
Three verification, the monitoring team uncovered a series of problems with the quality of core
data sets DHS produced pursuant to the Agreement. Assessment of those data issues revealed
that some were longstanding – and so called into question the quality of data DHS produced
during Periods One and Two. It is the assessment of the monitoring team that the data quality
issues uncovered in the course of the verification work should have been identified by DHS
leadership prior to submission to the monitoring team. It is deeply troubling that DHS
leadership submitted incomplete information to the court. It is also troubling that DHS
leadership did not ensure accurate and complete information was available to their staff and
management in the field or the private sector.
It is important to note that there are two basic types of child welfare information produced by
DHS. Most information is supposed to be produced via the existing data management systems
– a combination of DHS’ child welfare system (SWSS, Michigan’s SACWIS system), public
assistance system (BRIDGES), licensing system (used by BCAL), and other information in the
Michigan data warehouse. The other source of information is hand counts. DHS hand counts
information where it acknowledges that the existing data collection and reporting information
systems cannot report completely and accurately on information required to manage the
department’s work and report on the commitments in the Agreement. For example, DHS hand
counts the number of relative homes licensed and caseloads. In several instances, DHS goes
back and forth between the two, producing lists of information from the data systems that are
then refined through rounds of field verification hand counts.
51
During Period Two, this last cross-referencing process revealed issues with the original data
produced with respect to both the baseline permanency backlog cohorts and the relative home
backlog cohorts described in the Period Two report. The very issues identified by some DHS
staff in reporting on those two areas, predominantly issues of population definition and data
lag, proved prescient of the issues the monitoring team identified and raised with DHS with
respect to the system wide data in Period Three. Again, if DHS had an adequate review and
verification process in place, the issues uncovered with those populations would have given
them the information they needed to assess their core data sets, or at the very least, should
have served as a warning for the need to engage in further assessment of the data they were
producing.
DHS should be able to report accurately on core child welfare data: the number of children in
custody on a particular date (“point-in-time” reporting); the number of children entering
custody over a period; the number of children exiting custody over that same period; and the
number of all children in custody during that period. These are basic data reporting functions –
and virtually every other type of child welfare information DHS must produce requires that this
basic core information be accurate and complete. During Period One, the monitoring team
relied on DHS standardized reports to assess the number of children in care, entries and exits.
Beginning in Period Two, the monitoring team requested that DHS begin to produce three of
the four cohort reports described above. Cohort reports are standard practice in child welfare
reporting, as reflected, for example, in federal reporting requirements.
For Period Three, DHS produced the four cohorts to the monitoring team, and the monitoring
team immediately noticed a problem using basic addition and subtraction: beginning with the
number of children in care at the end of Period Two, adding the number of all children entering
care during Period Three, and subtracting all children who left care during Period Three, should
have equaled the number of children in care at the end of Period Three. It did not. The
monitoring team immediately called this issue to the attention of DHS leadership. Following
several rounds of telephone calls and data analysis, DHS surfaced the following issues:
 DHS identified categories of children they had previously excluded from counts of the
number of children in care. With respect to the number of children in care on the last
day of Period Two, DHS identified a total of 1,511 children in those categories that
should have been included.
 DHS identified 270 children previously included in that Period Two count who should
have been excluded.
 DHS revealed important data architecture and policy issues that impact data reporting
on entries into care. For example, when a child is removed from home, the child was
52
not registering in the database as a child in care until such time as the case had been
assigned to a foster care worker and the worker or supervisor completed the entry
information in the database. As a result, a child could be physically in care for several
days without registering as a child in care for reporting purposes.
 DHS was routinely excluding the almost 300 children who were in the “Adoption
Program” – children in care who were formally placed pursuant to a court order in an
adoptive home. DHS represents these children were included in the federal reporting
so it is difficult to understand why DHS would not have included those children in DHS’
standardized public reporting or reporting pursuant to the Agreement.
 Data entry lag – the time between when an event happens and when it is entered and
registers in the database – is a significant issue in DHS data reporting. For example:
o DHS reported that it was taking 119 days (almost four months) to enter 95
percent of the data regarding children entering care.
o DHS reported it was taking 225 days to enter 95 percent of placement data
(both initial placements and re-placements).
o DHS reported that they reduced the data entry lag on adoptions significantly but
it was still taking 106 days to enter 95 percent of adoption finalization data.
Pursuant to the Agreement, DHS committed to produce all data reporting within 60 days of the
conclusion of a period. In order to report timely, then, DHS would have to have at least 95
percent of data entered earlier – somewhere between 45 and 53 days, in order to have at least
a week for data extraction, analysis, comparison and verification in order to comply with the
Agreement timeframe. But as the list above indicates, DHS did not have complete information
for reporting within the full 60 days. DHS had been producing data reports without taking the
data entry lag into account – and without previously identifying data entry lag as an issue to the
monitoring team.
Because DHS in prior data production cycles had not previously considered the impact of data
entry lag on the production of data to the monitoring team or included groups of children
identified only during Period Four, the data produced previously to the monitoring team did not
reflect accurately the entries or exits or point-in-time counts of children in care during prior
periods. With the surfacing of these data issues after Period Three, the current reporting
period had to be pushed back in order to give DHS time to account for data entry lag and be
able to produce cohort reports that would account for at least 95 percent of children in each
53
category. That late reporting places DHS out of compliance with the requirement that they
produce the required data within 60 days.11
DHS represents that the Period Three data they forwarded to the monitoring team in August
2010, more than 120 days after the end of the reporting period, is now complete. The
monitoring team analyzed the various data sets submitted and those data sets are now much
more internally consistent than previously. But the monitoring team still has concerns. For
example, the monitoring team has made repeated requests that DHS reconcile the counts of
children on the caseload reports (which are hand-counted) with the cohort counts (which come
out of SWSS) – and DHS has been unable to do so. While the monitoring team would expect
some small differences between the point-in-time counts at the end of the period and the
caseload counts, which occurred on a different date, the differences in counts are significant,
leaving open the question of whether the issue lies with the caseload counts, with the cohort
counts, both, or something else. The burden lies with DHS to reconcile these critically
important data sets and resolve or explain the differences.
Finally, despite flagging this issue to DHS repeatedly, DHS leadership has not established a high
level verification and review process to test each report and compare reports for consistency
from different units of DHS prior to forwarding those reports to the monitoring team. The
monitoring team has consistently found important differences between one report and
another. For example, the monitoring team has found a more than 25 percent difference
between the number of adolescents in care reported from one source versus another. Training
data is not reconciled with caseload staffing data. BCAL data is not reconciled with data
produced by the DHS Children’s Service Administration. Spreadsheets in the same report do
not add to the reported totals – and sometimes are not added at all. Much of the data
produced consistently arrives without any analysis, including any critical caveats about the
quality of the data. When the monitoring team calls these issues to the attention of individual
staff, they are cooperative and respond to the best of their ability. And staff have developed a
helpful standard reporting format used for a number of reports that includes the parameters of
the report, data definitions, summary information, and the detailed reporting. But these are
errors and omissions that leadership should be raising long before that information is sent to
the monitoring team. The failure to do so suggests the leadership team is not reviewing the
11
The parties met in August 2010 and addressed the topic of future data reporting. DHS represented that they
were making efforts to improve data entry and that they believe they can report accurately if the reporting
deadline were extended to 100 days. For the purposes of Period Four only, plaintiffs agreed to grant DHS an
extension on data reporting to 100 days.
54
data, which leaves open the question of what information the leadership team is utilizing to
manage the reform.
The burden of meeting the data reporting requirements lies with DHS and it is the job of
leadership to ensure there are sufficient resources, oversight, and verification processes to
meet those commitments. The data issues detailed above impact not only the specific
provisions in the Agreement regarding data compliance but also the ability to manage other
elements of the reform, as referenced in other sections of this report.
B. Federal Outcome Reporting
In the mid-1990s, Congress enacted legislation that required the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) to evaluate the manner in which state child welfare agencies provide
services funded by the federal government under Titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act,
42 U.S.C. §§ 1320a–2a.12 As a result of that mandate, the Children’s Bureau within the HHS
Administration of Children and Families (ACF) was charged with developing and implementing a
review process, which is now known as the Child and Family Services Review (CFSR). Through
the CFSR process, the ACF strives to ensure that states are complying with federal
requirements, provide transparency to children and families’ involvement with state child
welfare systems, and help states “to enhance their capacity to help children and families
achieve positive outcomes.”13 The CFSR is a two-step process: first, the ACF prepares for each
state a profile based on data submitted by the state from its information technology system of
record (in Michigan’s case, SWSS), and the state prepares a comprehensive self-assessment.
Second, the ACF conducts an on-site, qualitative review of a limited number of case records.
Based on the data profile and the on-site review, the ACF delivers a final report that determines
whether the state is in substantial conformity with the CFSR elements. If not, the state will
have to develop and implement a performance improvement plan. Michigan’s most recent
CFSR on-site review occurred in September 2009; the ACF issued a final report in March 2010;
Michigan was found not to be in substantial conformity in a number of areas, and a
performance improvement plan was due on April 27, 2010. As of November 23, 2010, the ACF
had not yet approved Michigan’s performance improvement plan.14
12
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/recruit/cfsrfactsheet.htm
13
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/recruit/cfsrfactsheet.htm
14
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/general_info/pipstatus.htm
55
As part of the data profile, the ACF uses the State’s data to generate quantitative outcome
measures that focus on safety and permanency. The safety measures pertain to recurrence of
maltreatment and abuse and neglect in placement. The permanency measures assess the
state’s performance reunifying children, moving children to adoption, serving children who
have been in custody for long periods of time, and ensuring that children do not move from
placement to placement repeatedly while in custody. As indicated in the chart below, the CFSR
outcome measures include four composites, which are generally comprised of multiple sub-
measures: (1) Timeliness and Permanency of Reunification; (2) Timeliness of Adoptions; (3)
Permanency for Children and Youth in Foster Care for Long Periods of Time; and (4) Placement
Stability. The CFSR aggregates performance on the sub-measures into an overall score on the
composite and then compares that score to a national standard.
DHS and the plaintiffs incorporated each of these federal measures into part of the Agreement.
For the composites, DHS agreed to achieve specified numerical targets that are to be staged in
over time. DHS also agreed to report on the sub-measures that comprise the composites
beginning in this report and that by October 2013 DHS’ performance on each such measure will
exceed the median for all states at that time. DHS agreed to begin reporting on performance
for the twelve-month period that ended in Period Two during Period Three.
Before turning to DHS’ performance, it is important to note that the source of the data
produced by the ACF is DHS’ SWSS system itself, which is the same system that DHS uses to
generate all of the rest of the data produced to the monitoring team under the Agreement.
The ACF does not generate its own data from independent sources for these outcome
measures; they are solely based on data sent from DHS to the ACF. As a result, data quality
issues inherent in DHS’ data exist in equal measure within the data generated by the ACF – it is
the same data source for both DHS- and ACF-generated reporting. ACF reporting is sufficiently
delayed, however, that the data lag issues discussed in the data section of this report are not as
applicable. Therefore, many of the same data issues that have been discussed in this report
apply also to the data included within the ACF data profile for DHS, and these data must be
viewed with that significant caveat in mind.
With that said, the chart below includes the interim target for each composite that is specified
in the Agreement or, for the sub-measures, the current median for all states. The chart also
indicates DHS’ current performance and whether DHS achieved those interim targets that are
due. Currently only the composite targets are due, so the individual measures are noted as not
applicable.
56
Table 9 – CFSR Measures
Interim
Target/ Interim
15
CFSR/Settlement Agreement Measure Current Performance Target
Median Achieved
(MP3)
Safety: Absence of Maltreatment Recurrence: Of all
children who were victims of substantiated or indicated
maltreatment allegation during the first 6 months of the
reporting period, what percent were not victims of None 93.3% N/A
another substantiated or indicated maltreatment
allegation within a 6-month period (higher score is
preferable).
Safety: Absence of Child Abuse and/or Neglect in
Foster Care (12 months): Of all children in foster care
during the reporting period, what percent were not
99.68% 99.29% No
victims of substantiated or indicated maltreatment by
foster parent of facility staff member (higher score is
preferable).
Composite 1: Timeliness & Permanency of Reunification 99 111 Yes
Measure C1 - 1: Exits to reunification in less than 12
months: Of all children discharged from foster care to
reunification in the year shown, who had been in foster
care for 8 days or longer, what percent was reunified in 69.9% 52.0% N/A
less than 12 months from the date of the latest removal
from home? (Includes trial home visit adjustment)
(higher score is preferable)
Measure C1 - 2: Exits to reunification, median stay: Of
all children discharged from foster care (FC) to
reunification in the year shown, who had been in FC for
8 days or longer, what was the median length of stay (in 6.5
11.6 months N/A
months) from the date of the latest removal from home months
until the date of discharge to reunification? (This
includes trial home visit adjustment) (lower score is
preferable)
15
DHS’ performance is based on the July 6, 2010 Data Profile prepared by the Administration of Children and
Families. DHS has also invested significant time and effort in building the internal capacity to perform this analysis
itself in order to have the ability to produce these data as needed. For this period, DHS’ data and the ACF’s data
are virtually identical. Because the ACF data is available, however, the monitoring team has relied on it for this
report.
57
Interim
Target/ Interim
15
Median Achieved
(MP3)
Measure C1 - 3: Entry cohort reunification in < 12
months: Of all children entering foster care (FC) for the
first time in the 6 month period just prior to the year
shown, and who remained in FC for 8 days or longer, 39.4% 25.2% N/A
what percent was discharged from FC to reunification in
less than 12 months from the date of the latest removal
from home? (higher score is preferable)
Measure C1 - 4: Re-entries to foster care in less than 12
months: Of all children discharged from foster care (FC)
to reunification in the 12-month period prior to the year
15.0% 3.3% N/A
shown, what percent re-entered FC in less than 12
months from the date of discharge? (lower score is
preferable)
Composite 2: Timeliness to Adoption 93 108.3 Yes
Measure C2 - 1: Exits to adoption in less than 24
months: Of all children who were discharged from
foster care to a finalized adoption in the year shown,
26.8% 34.8% N/A
what percent was discharged in less than 24 months
from the date of the latest removal from home? (higher
score is preferable)
Measure C2 - 2: Exits to adoption, median length of
stay: Of all children who were discharged from foster
care (FC) to a finalized adoption in the year shown, what 32.4
28.7 months N/A
was the median length of stay in FC (in months) from the months
date of latest removal from home to the date of
discharge to adoption? (lower score is preferable)
Measure C2 - 3: Children in care 17+ months, adopted
by the end of the year: Of all children in foster care (FC)
on the first day of the year shown who were in FC for 17
continuous months or longer (and who, by the last day
of the year shown, were not discharged from FC with a 20.2% 27.9% N/A
discharge reason of live with relative, reunify, or
guardianship), what percent was discharged from FC to a
finalized adoption by the last day of the year shown?
Measure C2 - 4: Children in care 17+ months achieving
legal freedom within 6 months: Of all children in foster 8.8% 14.0% N/A
care (FC) on the first day of the year shown who were in
58
Interim
Target/ Interim
15
Median Achieved
(MP3)
FC for 17 continuous months or longer, and were not
legally free for adoption prior to that day, what percent
became legally free for adoption during the first 6
months of the year shown? Legally free means that
there was a parental rights termination date reported to
AFCARS for both mother and father. This calculation
excludes children who, by the end of the first 6 months
of the year shown had discharged from FC to
“reunification,” “live with relative,” or “guardianship.”
Measure C2 - 5: Legally free children adopted in less
than 12 months: Of all children who became legally free
for adoption in the 12 month period prior to the year
shown (i.e., there was a parental rights termination date
45.8% 38.8% N/A
reported to AFCARS for both mother and father), what
percent was discharged from foster care to a finalized
adoption in less than 12 months of becoming legally
free? (higher score is preferable)
Composite 3: Achieving Permanency for Longest
118 125.5 Yes
Waiting Children
Measure C3 - 1: Exits to permanency prior to 18th
birthday for children in care for 24 + months. Of all
children in foster care for 24 months or longer on the
first day of the year shown, what percent was
discharged to a permanent home prior to their 18th 25.0% 31.4% N/A
birthday and by the end of the fiscal year? A permanent
home is defined as having a discharge reason of
adoption, guardianship, or reunification (including living
with relative) (higher score is preferable).
Measure C3 - 2: Exits to permanency for children with
TPR: Of all children who were discharged from foster
care in the year shown, and who were legally free for
adoption at the time of discharge (i.e., there was a
parental rights termination date reported to AFCARS for 96.8% 96.7% N/A
both mother and father), what percent was discharged
to a permanent home prior to their 18th birthday? A
permanent home is defined as having a discharge reason
of adoption, guardianship, or reunification (including
59
Interim
Target/ Interim
15
Median Achieved
(MP3)
living with relative) (higher score is preferable)
Measure C3 - 3: Children Emancipated Who Were in
Foster Care for 3 Years or More. Of all children who,
during the year shown, either (1) were discharged from
foster care prior to age 18 with a discharge reason of 47.8% 46.2% N/A
emancipation, or (2) reached their 18th birthday while in
foster care, what percent were in foster care for 3 years
or longer? (lower score is preferable)
Composite 4: Placement Stability While in Foster Care 101.5 106.3 Yes
Measure C4 – 1: Two or fewer placement settings for
children in care for less than 12 months. Of all children
served in foster care (FC) during the 12 month target
83.3% 85.6% N/A
period who were in FC for at least 8 days but less than
12 months, what percent had two or fewer placement
settings? (higher score is preferable)
children in care for 12 to 24 months. Of all children
served in foster care (FC) during the 12 month target
59.9% 73.0% N/A
period who were in FC for at least 12 months but less
than 24 months, what percent had two or fewer
placement settings? (higher score is preferable)
children in care for 24+ months. Of all children served in
foster care (FC) during the 12 month target period who 33.9% 47.7% N/A
were in FC for at least 24 months, what percent had two
or fewer placement settings? (higher score is preferable)
As this chart demonstrates, DHS did not achieve the sole interim safety target that was due this
period. That measure – absence of child abuse or neglect in foster care – is the same as
maltreatment in care, which presents significant data issues that were discussed at length in
the Period Two monitoring report. In addition, DHS’ progress addressing those challenges and
reducing the level of maltreatment in care are discussed in this report as well.
DHS achieved the interim targets on the permanency composites that were required by the
Agreement. Even with that performance, there are still areas of concern that DHS must focus
on moving forward.
60
First, it is notable that although DHS achieved the interim target on the adoption composite,
DHS did not perform well on measure C2-5, which tracks all children who become legally free to
see if they are adopted within 12 months. At 38.8 percent, Michigan’s performance is well
below the national median of 45.8 percent and the 75 th percentile of 53.7 percent. This is
notable because, as discussed at length in the Monitoring Period Two report, this measure is an
entry cohort, which gives a clearer picture of the performance for all children rather than just
those that exit to adoption. Essentially, DHS’ performance on this measure, which compared to
the other adoption measures (which are exit cohorts), suggests that for the children who DHS
does get adopted, DHS does so relatively quickly. But that is only a subset of all children who
are made legally free, which also includes those children who do not achieve permanency and
instead age out of care.
On permanency composite one, reunification, DHS achieved a score of 111, exceeding the
Agreement target of 99. The data here suggest that DHS – while clearly meeting the interim
target required – will have to focus on improving reunification practice moving forward. That
need is underscored by the variance between Michigan’s performance on these measures and
the performance of other states. On the three measures that capture the time children stay in
care before they are reunified, DHS’ performance is well below the national median. DHS
reunified 52 percent of children exiting care within 12 months compared to a national median
of 69.9 percent; reunified 25.2 percent of children entering care within 12 months compared to
a national median of 39.4 percent; and, notably, DHS’ length of stay for children exiting care to
reunification is 11.6 months, nearly twice the national median of 6.5 months. These measures
suggest strongly that DHS should assess the quality and timeliness of its reunification practice.
DHS also achieved the interim target on the composite that measures how often children are
moved from placement to placement while in foster care. Research has shown that an
increased number of moves from placement to placement exacerbates the risk that a child will
face worse outcomes including homelessness, unemployment, and criminal justice
involvement. During FY2009, DHS exceeded the target of 101.5 with a composite score of
106.3. Despite that performance, both the 2009 and 2002 CFSR reviews found based on their
full, qualitative case record review – which includes consideration of this quantitative measure
and additional information such as case records and interviews - that placement stability was
not a strength for DHS. Moreover, systems such as Michigan that struggle to recruit and retain
kin and non-kin foster homes often have difficulty ensuring placement stability because they
lack sufficient placement options to ensure that children can be matched well to foster families.
And finally, the 2009 CFSR found that DHS’ system of record, SWSS, was not in compliance with
federal standards because DHS cannot use it “to identify the placement location of every child
in foster care because information about placement changes is not always entered into the
61
system in a timely manner.” If placement changes are not entered timely, quantitative
measures of placement stability such as these will necessarily be compromised. Given DHS’
challenges in foster home recruitment and licensure as well as the CFSR findings, DHS must
verify and validate its placement stability performance to ensure that it is providing accurate
data regarding performance on this measure.
Finally, there is a concern around the number of youth exiting to nonpermanent outcomes. In
FY2008, 1,428 children left foster care to nonpermanent exits. In FY2009, 1,832 children left to
nonpermanent exits, an increase of 404 children or 28 percent.
C. Implementing Quality Assurance
During Period Three, DHS continued to grow its quality assurance (also known as continuous
quality improvement (CQI)) capacity. The stability of staff and leadership improved, and the
number of special reviews conducted increased. By the end of the period, DHS had started to
report regularly on its CQI activities, including posting reports publicly on the DHS website.16
The posting of these reports helps fulfill one of the parties’ goals in the Agreement, which is to
make this important work more transparent. DHS was not yet reporting quarterly as it
committed in the Agreement but did complete a six-month report at the end of the period.
DHS was only just beginning to develop the process for reviewing reports up through the chain
of command and constructing corrective action plans as Period Three came to a close. DHS is
also still working on developing their quality assurance program for child protective services
(CPS), described further in the CPS section of this report. In all, DHS made progress compared
to Period Two but is behind on some obligations with respect to quality assurance for Period
Three.17
The CQI unit consists of the CQI manager and twelve CQI staff – five located in five of the six
urban counties, one located in DHS central office, and the remaining six distributed regionally
across the remaining 77 counties. The staffing challenges reported in the two previous reports
16
See http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dhs/QA_Report-Special_Reviews-Oct09_Mar10_324692_7.pdf;
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dhs/QA_Report_on_Maltreatment_Higher_Risk_Cases_-_July_09-
Sept_09_315392_7.pdf; http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dhs/QA-Report-of-Fatality-Reviews_Apri-09_Dec-
09_323108_7.pdf; http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dhs/QA-Report-of-Fatality-Reviews_Apri-08-March-
09_323444_7.pdf; and http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dhs/QA_Report_of_Fatality_Reviews_-_April_05-
March_08_315388_7.pdf. The monitoring team will reference the content of the reports here in the context of
DHS’ performance with regard to the Agreement. For more detail, see the reports themselves.
17
The parties agreed the QA Unit would be responsible for data production to the monitoring team. In practice,
the Data Management Unit (DMU), not the QA Unit, produces most of the required data.
62
began to abate in Period Three. A new permanent manager for the unit was appointed at the
beginning of the period. Stability improved with only one vacancy outstanding at the end of the
period and some turnover, followed by re-filling of positions, during the period. The CQI unit,
as with other DHS units, has to compete for staff at a time in the agency where there are
several different opportunities for experienced and talented staff. DHS needs to explore
options to maintain stability and ensure experienced staff can be incorporated and maintained
at the appropriate level.
During Period Three, the majority of CQI staff time focused on conducting the special reviews
mandated in the Agreement. In addition to the special reviews, CQI staff continued to produce
the fatality reports described in the prior monitoring reports and below. They engaged in
targeted reviews of cases as requested by either senior CSA leadership or local managers. They
formulated the first DHS response to the annual Foster Care Review Board report. They helped
design the CPS QA tool and reporting discussed in the safety section of this report. And they
began a CQI planning process with local managers.
As referenced in earlier reports, there are five types of special reviews of higher risk
populations explicitly defined in the Agreement for which the CQI unit is primarily responsible.
DHS initially does a data search for children who might meet the criteria for special review.
DHS represents that the refined data search criteria over-selects for children with the potential
to be in each cohort.18 DHS conducts a data search for each cohort every 90 days – so twice
during a reporting period.19 Cases previously reviewed are then eliminated from each cohort
(unless there is new cohort-related activity) and the CQI staff then do a computer file review to
further screen the data-identified cases to see if they meet the cohort criteria. As reported
previously, DHS screens out a number of cases before focusing on the subset of cases that they
report meet the review criteria.
Cohort A is different from the other four cohorts. Cohort A is time-limited so once DHS is
confident their data search process is sufficiently refined, they can define the outer limits of this
cohort and then complete it. By October 13, 2010, DHS reports they had reviewed 273 cases
and were planning to review 36, 35 of which they had previously reviewed but were re-
reviewing due to a subsequent allegation. The other four categories of higher risk populations
are not time limited so new cases can be added each period. As a result, DHS has committed to
18
See the data section of this report for ongoing issues with DHS data selection.
19
DHS agreed to report every 90 days on special reviews, but missed that target for Period Three, reporting only
once at the end of the period.
63
updating each of those four cohorts every 90 days. Reviews in these other four categories
could continue throughout the life of this Agreement20 but with an expectation that the
numbers in each category will diminish significantly over time with improvements in practice.
With respect to Cohorts B and E, as seen in the table below, DHS is current with their reviews
and so is now handling only new reviews as they arise. With Cohort D, by the end of Period
Four, DHS anticipates having completed all existing reviews, and so again will be handling only
new reviews as they arise. That leaves only Cohort C (multiple placements), which is the largest
cohort and which DHS is addressing through sampling each period.
Table 10 – Period Three Special Reviews

(As of October 13, 2010)
Cases Cases Not
Reviewed Completed
During Period During
SPECIAL REVIEW COHORT Three Period Three
A: Single allegation of abuse/neglect in the
placement where the child is living. 252 0
B: Multiple allegations of abuse/neglect in
the foster home where the child is living. 63 0
C: Child lived in 3 or more placements in the
previous 12 months. 358 1,760*
D: Child living in a residential placement and
has been there for 12 months or more. 320 27*
E. Child living in an unlicensed, non-relative
home. 146 0
*Sample was pulled on this cohort during Period Three.
In completing a review, the reviewer utilizes SWSS and the case file as well as any other
relevant documents (investigative reports, licensing files) and has the discretion to
communicate with the caseworker or supervisor if it is deemed necessary. The reviewer fills
20
Even with respect to the four ongoing cohorts, the special review process can cease if certain specific
requirements set forth in the Agreement are met. The Agreement states that “*t+he *special+ review process . . .
shall be repeated every 90 days until all special reviews are completed. The monitor may, upon DHS’ request and
after consultation with the plaintiffs, terminate the requirement for completing any or all categories of special
reviews upon finding that either a) DHS has developed sufficient, generally useful information as a result of these
reviews, and further special review of individual cases is unlikely to provide significant benefit, or b) because of
DHS implementation of other relevant sections of this Agreement, such reviews are no longer necessary.” (XIV.4.)
64
out a lengthy case reading tool. That tool was created in April 2009 and has undergone two
subsequent rounds of revisions and will continue to be revised as DHS hones its CQI processes.
The tool is in Microsoft Excel so the results can be collated.
The monitoring team has read the special review reports submitted by DHS. Comparing the
reviews from this period to the prior period, the breadth of the reviews has increased with
more attention paid to medical and mental health issues, particularly as the reviewers began to
focus on children in residential placements and children in multiple placements.
Developmentally, the CQI process is still at an early stage of analysis. Each report expressly
references safety issues and makes an explicit determination as to whether or not those issues
are present. There is a great deal of focus on compliance, on policy, and on documentation –
and uneven attention to permanency, well-being, best practices, trends, and systemic issues.
There were glimpses of strengths-based findings in a few reports but the tone of most is
focused more on compliance.
Because DHS has begun to publish reports on the special reviews on their website, the
monitoring team will not repeat the findings of those reports. Instead, the monitoring team
will only reference relevant and critical findings by subject matter elsewhere in this report.
A further quality assurance activity described in the Agreement involves DHS’ implementation
of a process for reviewing the case handling of all children who die while in out-of-home
placement, regardless of cause, and to integrate lessons learned from these reviews in ongoing
continuous quality improvement efforts. Specifically, DHS committed to review all cases where
children died while in care, using qualified and competent individuals to complete the reviews
and ensuring that the reviewers are independent of the county in which the fatality occurred.
For all foster child deaths that occurred after March 31, 2008, child fatality reviews are due
within six months of the date of death, and are shared under a protective order of the federal
court with plaintiffs and the monitoring team.
The DHS Office of Family Advocate (OFA) conducts all fatality reviews and sends all findings and
recommendations for individual fatality reviews to the agencies and units involved for
corrective action. OFA provides completed plans to the QA unit and the field operations
leadership. The QA Unit reviews all information from the reports and compiles information
that is used for analysis. Any recommendations that are made by OFA and QA that are not case
specific are put into a quality improvement plan (QIP) by QA and sent to the appropriate
program/policy offices. The QA unit publishes reports of its work reviewing child fatalities as
well. The first published QA child fatality report, reviewing 28 child fatalities, is available on the
DHS public web site, www.michigan.gov/dhs. The report candidly underscores the need for
65
ongoing practice reforms: strengthening worker contacts with children, improving the health
care safety net for children in care, and improving CPS investigative work.
Ten youth died in the care of the state between October 1, 2009 and March 31, 2010. Of the
ten child fatalities reported by DHS in Period Three, six were referred to CPS for investigation.
Of the cases investigated, none were confirmed for abuse or neglect and none of the
complaints remain open for investigation.
As we know from research, developing a robust CQI practice is a multi-year process. DHS will
need to continue to develop this capacity – with sufficient support and integration with practice
in the field to ensure early investments in this area take hold. In particular, in upcoming
periods, DHS leadership needs to address the integration of learning from the reviews and the
other CQI activities to support the work of caseload carrying staff, supervisors, and managers as
envisioned in the commitments in the Agreement.
IX. Improving Safety
A. Establishing a Statewide Child Abuse Hotline
Effective child welfare agencies have systems in place to receive, screen and act on calls
alleging child maltreatment uniformly. DHS committed in the Agreement to phase out its local
office screening systems and to establish a 24/7 centralized hotline with the necessary staff,
information technology, and telecommunications systems to receive and manage all calls
alleging child maltreatment across the state. This commitment, which DHS agreed will be fully
implemented by October 2011, will create a system for all reporters to call one well-publicized
child abuse hotline number rather than requiring a caller to identify the correct number out of
many, based on their location. Callers will reach screeners who are trained and who are
expected to make consistent decisions for all calls across the state, and screeners will be
managed by supervisors whose only job will be to ensure that all reports are screened
appropriately and consistently and are tracked, monitored, and sent to the field for
investigation in a timely fashion. Continuous quality improvement of statewide screening
practice will also be possible with a centralized system, benefitting children and families across
the state.
In order for DHS to evaluate how best to design and implement a statewide hotline, the
Agreement requires that the existing centralized screening office in Wayne County function as a
pilot site beginning in Period Three. Wayne County was selected for the pilot because it already
features a centralized screening system that receives and screens allegations of maltreatment
for all of Wayne County, which includes four local DHS offices.
66
During Period Three, DHS planned to begin the pilot by routing all Macomb County calls
received after hours and on weekends and holidays to Wayne County. Doing so would afford
DHS the opportunity to identify issues that arose from a small centralization effort and to
identify lessons learned and make recommendations to DHS leadership as they plan to
implement the statewide hotline. Implementation was to begin in March 2010. However, as
implementation approached, issues were identified related to the DHS SWSS information
system’s capacity to capture cross-county CPS information. System workarounds were required
in order to proceed with the pilot and DHS ultimately decided not to go forward with the pilot
due to the risks inherent in those workarounds. As a result, DHS has not met its commitment
to establish a Wayne County hotline pilot at the end of Period Three.
As Period Four began, DHS leadership continued to plan for implementation of the statewide
hotline. DHS established a statewide committee with representation from DHS staff and
external stakeholders to review issues related to information technology, staffing, identifying a
hotline site, policy, and quality assurance. The monitoring team will report on DHS’ progress in
preparing for implementation on this important commitment in the Period Four report.
B. Assessing CPS Capacity & Performance
DHS agreed to “ensure that its system for receiving, screening, and investigating reports of child
abuse and neglect is adequately staffed and that investigations of all reports are initiated and
completed within the time period required by law.” (V.A.) CPS staffing is discussed in the
caseload section of this report, and DHS is out of compliance. As for timeliness, it is a key
element of quality CPS practice. When an allegation of abuse or neglect is substantiated,
making that determination timely allows child protective services agencies to take steps to
protect the child victim from the risk of additional harm and to provide services and support to
the child to address the impact of the abuse or neglect. When an allegation of abuse or neglect
is not substantiated, timely decision making minimizes, to the extent possible, the impact of the
allegation and investigation on the child and family. In either event, timely decision making is
critical. To that end, the Agreement requires that DHS ensure that all CPS investigations are
initiated and completed within the time periods required by state law.
As noted, during Period Three DHS received 59,287 child protective services complaints. Of
those, DHS referred 38,445, or 65 percent, to local offices for investigation, a significant
increase in the rate referred compared to Period Two. Statewide, those that were referred to
local offices for investigation had a median time of nine hours from the complaint to the
commencement of the investigation, with a low of 1.62 (Shiawassee) to a high of 46.6 hours
(Dickinson). From complaint to disposition of the investigation, the statewide median was 31
67
days, with a range of 20 days (Montmorency) to 49 days (Oceana). For full detail by county, see
Appendix B. Median performance is within the time periods required by law and the range of
average performance at the county level to closure meets the required timeframes. However,
DHS data about median time to commencement at the county level suggests some counties
could be out of compliance with the initiation timeframes required by law. In the absence of
more detailed data by DHS about the range of actual performance, the monitoring team cannot
currently assess compliance with this element.
C. Building a Robust CPS Quality Assurance System
DHS agreed to create a robust quality assurance process “to ensure that reports of abuse and
neglect are competently investigated and that, in cases in which abuse and/or neglect is
indicated, actions are taken and services are provided appropriate to the circumstances.” (V.C.)
This process was to begin in April 2009. The wide variation in practice with regard to timeliness
referenced in the preceding section, as well as the wide variation in practice with respect to
referrals for investigations and substantiation rates documented in the demographic section of
this report, underline the necessity of implementing such a QA process statewide.
To date, DHS has opted to stay with a CPS QA process quite similar to the one that existed at
the time the Agreement was created. That CPS QA process relies on local supervisors doing a
mandated number of monthly reviews for local office cases, with supervisors trading off the
review cases in order to ensure the reviewer is not also the supervisor for the worker with that
case. Over the past year, DHS has taken steps to modify that localized process but has not yet
determined how to create a robust CPS QA system of the type contemplated by the parties in
the Agreement.
As previously reported, DHS created a centralized, randomized case selection process; built and
continued to modify a master case reading tool; and piloted a shadowing process in which
supervisors would accompany staff on investigations, during visits, to permanency planning
conferences, and to court. At the end of Period Two, DHS had promised to utilize the pilot
results to create a new proposal to the monitoring team for a CPS QA process that would move
beyond local reviews to a statewide process sufficient to ensure feedback to central office to
help shape improvements in CPS training, support, and policy statewide.
At the end of Period Three, DHS reported to the monitoring team that they were planning a
process to collect the results of these local CPS case reviews – beginning first with a paper
collection process but hoping to soon have the case reading tool available online so that
information could be collected electronically, making it more accessible for review beyond the
68
local office. DHS submitted the plan in July 2010, during Period Four, and the monitoring team
will assess that plan, as well as DHS’ implementation of a statewide system, in the next report.
DHS’ own data indicates wide variation in practice at a county level, which suggests fertile
ground for CPS qualitative assessment. But DHS does not currently have a QA process that can
explore those differences and assess quality against a statewide threshold standard. Local
reviews utilizing local reviewers can play an important role in a QA process – but by themselves,
they do not suffice.
Moreover, as DHS and the monitoring team have discussed, these localized reviews lean heavily
on supervisory staff already under strain – and that is problematic. As detailed elsewhere in
this report, DHS is more than a year out of compliance with achieving the initial CPS caseload
standard – and DHS attributes some of their CPS non-compliance to backlogs in supervisory
reviews mandated prior to case closure. DHS QA staff report they have no choice other than to
rely on a localized process as they are consumed with completing the special reviews, another
commitment made in the Agreement. In short, the existing system is not sufficiently resourced
to meet the CPS QA commitment.
By the end of Period Three, one year after the April 2009 commitment deadline, DHS had not
produced the promised plan to create a robust statewide CPS QA system; had implemented a
local, but not a statewide CPS QA system; and had not identified the resources necessary to
staff a robust CPS QA system. The monitoring team therefore finds that through Period Three
DHS has partially complied with this term of the Agreement.
X. Addressing Abuse and Neglect in Placement
A series of well-publicized abuse incidents in foster and adoptive homes helped trigger public
awareness of the need for child welfare reform in Michigan.21 Consequently, in constructing
the Agreement, Michigan agreed to improve its ability to identify, prevent, and address abuse
or neglect in all forms of placement – relative homes, foster homes, and group and institutional
placements – through a series of actions including:
 Improving identification and reporting of alleged and substantiated incidents of abuse

or neglect in care (V.D);
21
See Bailey, Kresnak & Lam, “Losing Isaac,” Detroit Free Press (series beginning January 29, 2007) and Kresnak,
“Ricky Holland’s Story,” Detroit Free Press (series beginning December 2, 2007).
69
 Implementing new specialized units dedicated to investigating allegations of abuse or
neglect in all forms of placement in each of the five most populated counties (V.D);
 Planning for the implementation of three other specialized regional units dedicated to
investigating allegations of abuse or neglect in all forms of placement in the remaining
78 counties (V.D);
 Implementing new accountability tools to ensure substantiated incidents of abuse or
neglect or corporal punishment in all forms of placement are addressed through the
licensing and contracting processes (XII.C);
 Conducting a series of individual special reviews for children living in a placement where
there were one or more allegations of abuse or neglect; reporting on those reviews;
constructing corrective action plans to address issues identified during those reviews;
and creating accountability mechanisms to ensure tracking of corrective action plan
commitments (XIV.F.1.a); and
 Addressing issues related to use of restraints, seclusion, and prescription and
administration of psychotropic medications, which present a heightened risk of
maltreatment (XI).
As reported in Period Two, DHS had fallen behind with respect to its commitments with regard
to the reporting provisions; accountability provisions; and certain psychotropic medication
provisions; and there were issues with respect to the quality and sufficiency of the planning for
the specialized investigation units. During Period Three, DHS took further steps with respect to
obligations which pre-dated the period, including new efforts mid-period to improve
identification, reporting and data analysis of abuse or neglect in care; implementation of one of
the key accountability provisions related to contractual repercussions for an agency’s failure to
report suspected abuse or neglect; and quickening the pace of the special review process,
completing many of the required reviews related to abuse or neglect in care. DHS also
addressed new requirements in this area, implementing the new specialized investigative units
in the five most populous counties. However, some of the pre-existing obligations remained
outstanding as the period drew to a close, including ongoing concerns about DHS’ full
implementation of all of the accountability provisions; full implementation of the data reporting
provisions; and implementation of certain provisions related to psychotropic medication.
By the close of Period Three, DHS had issued a Foster Care Policy Bulletin clarifying the consent
needed for a child to be prescribed any psychotropic medication, but was still in the process of
developing its processes for reviewing prescription, consent and utilization data. DHS is also
responsible for undertaking a review of the policies and procedures surrounding the use of
psychotropic medications, in close consultation with the monitoring team, which did not occur
by the end of Period Three.
70
In consultation with the monitoring team, DHS successfully obtained from the Child Welfare
League of America a comprehensive assessment of its policies and practices with respect to
restraint and seclusion of children and youth. The Agreement contemplates this assessment
will form the basis for practice recommendations from the monitoring team, which will be
forthcoming once DHS completes its assessment of its policies and practices regarding the
utilization of psychotropic medication. These tasks should be aligned, and the
recommendations promulgated as a result of both assessments, in order to ensure that DHS
comprehensively addresses the use of chemical restraints as well as physical restraint and
seclusion practices.
DHS also committed to providing further feedback about the efforts they were taking to
remedy concerns elevated by plaintiffs during the dispute resolution process regarding
establishing a sound maltreatment in care baseline and addressing maltreatment in care.22 DHS
noted their concern that plaintiffs’ requests might be beyond the scope of the dispute
resolution process. The response came in the form of a letter from Director Ahmed dated May
25, 2010. That letter emphasized DHS’ commitment to improve coordination among the
various entities responsible for different aspects of the maltreatment in care provisions through
a cross-functional team. The letter also referenced two methodologies DHS was utilizing to
improve data reporting with regard to abuse and neglect in foster care, one of which was
initiated in January 2010. DHS’ letter suggested that these efforts will yield a sound baseline for
maltreatment in care reporting over time without committing the agency to a particular
timeframe for achieving that goal.
In sum, there was a great deal of activity related to this set of commitments as Period Three
came to a close. For detailed information about the purpose and context for each
commitment, please see the Period Two report. For Period Three purposes, the monitoring
team has combined the assessment of these provisions where they intertwine.
A. Structure and Reporting
As described in the Period Two report, responsibility for investigating abuse and neglect in care
has been structurally divided at DHS based on the type of placement. Investigations in relative
homes and foster homes have been handled by local CPS staff while investigations in
institutional placements – shelters, group homes, residential treatment centers, etc. – have
been the purview of the BCAL licensing staff. For all of the reasons set forth in the Period Two
22
See Appendix A.
71
report, this separation of responsibility created different processes for identifying and
responding to maltreatment in different settings and created significant challenges with respect
to reporting substantiations in placement at all, particularly in institutional placements, and
with identifying allegations and substantiations in home settings as being placement-related.23
During Period Three, that bifurcation of responsibility began to change with the creation of six
new specialized investigation units in the largest counties.24 These units brought responsibility
for investigating all allegations in all types of placement together in one place, creating the
opportunity for standardizing investigative practice. Specialization in investigating allegations
in placements and assumption of this new responsibility for investigating not only family-based
placement (relative and foster home) but also institutional placements did bring some
challenges. Assignment of the investigations is geographic, so counties with larger numbers of
residential facilities have greater volume and DHS, as a result, had to adjust their prior
projections about specialized unit caseloads. Moreover, investigating in an institutional context
can be complex with more potential complainants, more witnesses, and the need to parse
disciplinary, restraint, and seclusion practices. Volume also increased as reporting from some
private agencies soared in connection with concerns that any incident in placement could be
interpreted as an allegation of abuse or neglect – and a private agency could then face serious
sanctions for failure to report, as discussed below.
The monitoring team visited several of these specialized units, interviewed staff, and reviewed
cases. It is to the credit of local county child welfare leadership and the Urban Field Operations
director (UFO) that they are paying close attention to the development of these units. As these
units are county-based, the UFO observed the potential benefit of peer-to-peer learning and
additional training in order to ensure standardization of best practices. As Period Three came
to a close, the UFO was looking for opportunities to bring the supervisors together and provide
additional training to staff during Period Four.
23
DHS notes that the challenges related to bifurcation of investigative responsibility are also likely to have had an
impact on one category of higher-risk cases slated for special reviews under the quality assurance provisions of the
Agreement. That category involves children who had been the subject of an allegation of abuse or neglect in a
residential care setting or a foster home, whether licensed or unlicensed, between June 2007 and September
2008, and who remain in the facility or home in which the maltreatment is alleged to have occurred. (XIV.F.1.a)
DHS reports that a thorough scan of their data and information did not surface any children who fit this definition
living in residential care settings.
24
As referenced elsewhere in this report, the consent decree refers to the five designated counties – Wayne,
Genesee, Oakland, Macomb and Kent – but DHS has opted to add a sixth county, Ingham.
72
These new specialized units also have the potential benefit of improving data collection. There
is the necessity of clearly identifying all placement-related allegations in order to refer them
appropriately to the new units. These units are also well situated to record all results within
the SWSS database.
Throughout Period Three, bifurcation of investigative responsibility remained in place in the

remainder of the state, consistent with the staging set forth in the Agreement. Implementation
of three regional specialized units originally scheduled to begin in April 2010 was extended to
June 2010 at DHS’ request. During Period Three, DHS did much of the planning associated with
these units, incorporating learning from the establishment of the urban specialized units.
Challenges include the wide swath of territory each of these regional units must cover and the
location of residential facilities, some of which are clustered in counties which otherwise have
relatively low CPS volume. In order to address the geographic challenges, DHS will place the
supervisor for each unit in one county and the individual investigators in that supervisor’s unit
will all be placed in different counties, the locations chosen in order to try to minimize travel
time and matched with anticipated volume. One unit will be supervised from Grand Traverse,
covering 41 counties (DHS expects most to be very low volume). The second unit will be
supervised from Saginaw, covering 24 counties, including three with comparatively large
numbers of institutional placements. And the third unit will be supervised from the DHS
Central Office in Lansing, which is in Ingham County, but as Ingham County has its own
specialized unit this unit will cover 13 counties outside of Ingham, going east, south and west,
including the largest number of high volume counties outside of the six urban counties.
Implementation of these units is the responsibility of the Child Welfare Manager who reports to
the Deputy Director for Field Operations, but, pursuant to the Agreement, when operational,
these units are to report to the CSA Director. As Period Three came to a close, DHS notified the
monitoring team they were going to miss the June deadline for implementation of these
regional units, and as of August 2010, DHS reported difficulty recruiting staff with the right
experience to fill the required positions in those units and so implementation was to be further
delayed.
Until these specialized units are fully operational statewide, challenges remain. DHS took
several steps to try to bridge the gap in coordination and communication among the many
entities within DHS responsible for different aspects of reporting and responding to allegations
of maltreatment in care. They convened a workgroup with representatives from throughout
DHS. BCAL was granted new access and responsibility for recording allegations and
substantiations of abuse or neglect not only within the BCAL database but also within SWSS.
DHS also began implementing a new policy and flagging system statewide within SWSS to
identify, at the point of intake, any CPS allegation that is placement-related. As a result, DHS
73
could, for the first time, report directly from SWSS on maltreatment in care. They reported 78
substantiations of maltreatment in care during the period with 40 of those occurring in relative
homes, 35 in foster homes, and three in institutional settings. Finally, during the dispute
resolution negotiations, DHS committed to linking the BCAL database to SWSS.
Once fully implemented the new structure of specialized investigation units statewide, along
with the changes in policy and in SWSS, have the promise of improving consistency of practice
and reporting of both allegations and substantiations of abuse and neglect in care. Until that
occurs, the interim steps taken by DHS should help improve reporting but some reporting
challenges will remain, as will the differential in the culture of practice in investigating
allegations of abuse or neglect in care as discussed in the Period Two report. Continued review
by the monitoring team of BCAL investigations during Period Three underlines the ongoing
difference in approach from that observed through case reviews and interviews with staff in the
new specialized investigation units.
Based on the monitoring team’s verification work, the ongoing implementation of the new
flagging system and policy, and the staggered implementation of the new specialized units, the
monitoring team cannot yet conclude that DHS has adequately addressed maltreatment in
care.
The monitoring team anticipates that the number of identified substantiations of abuse or
neglect in placement may increase in subsequent periods. Improved reporting is a benefit – but
it may also create the impression that the number of children in placement in Michigan abused
or neglected is increasing, when that may not be the case. It is also true that if there is an
uptick in actual abuse and neglect in placement, that increase may be obscured by the change
in reporting. As surfaced during the dispute resolution process, plaintiffs are justifiably anxious
to make sure reporting improves and that DHS can report comprehensively and reliably on
abuse and neglect in care – and have the critical information necessary to answer the question
about whether or not enough is being done to prevent and respond to allegations of abuse and
neglect in placement. But DHS is not yet situated to be able to report a reliable baseline. The
monitoring team will continue to pay close attention to this issue in subsequent periods.
B. Coordination
The Period Two report noted a number of coordination challenges with respect to
investigations of allegations of abuse and neglect in care. Some of those coordination
challenges were related to the split in responsibility between BCAL and CPS staff and are
beginning to be addressed with the implementation of the new units as referenced above.
However, as DHS recognized in its special review work, coordination challenges persist – and
74
will remain even when the specialized investigation units are operative statewide. DHS rightly
noted through their special review work that coordination of information and communication
among all of the parties involved with a family is critical and can have an impact on the quality
of an investigation, as well as the results.
The DHS reviewers noted that DHS practice is such that there could be the need to conduct as
many as four separate investigations concurrently:
 CPS investigation of allegations of child abuse and neglect in placement;

 Licensing investigation of compliance with statutory and regulatory standards and
policies, which could be conducted by BCAL, by DHS licensing staff, or by private agency
licensing staff;
 DHS and/or private agency foster care staff investigation of the continued
appropriateness of the child’s placement; and
 Law enforcement investigation of criminal allegations.
DHS stressed the need for coordination among the roles:
 Foster care workers can provide the investigator with information about the foster
family and the child that will be helpful during the investigation;
 Investigators are responsible for initial safety assessments of children who are in the
home;
 The child’s caseworker is responsible for conducting placement activities when removal
of children from the foster home is necessary; and
 Licensing workers are responsible for stopping placements into the foster home during
the investigation and for notifying foster parents of that decision.
With the recognition of these challenges, DHS is proposing a range of solutions through policy,
training, and management emphasis that they hope will improve coordination. The monitoring
team will report on DHS’ progress in future periods.
C. Deploying New Accountability Tools
In signing the Agreement, DHS committed to adopt two additional tools for addressing
allegations and substantiations of abuse and neglect in placements supervised by contract
agencies. DHS committed to conducting an analysis and giving “due consideration” to any
substantiations of maltreatment and incidents of corporal punishment at the time that DHS
processes an application for an agency’s license renewal. (XII.C.) DHS also committed to the
following with respect to an agency’s failure to report an allegation of maltreatment: a first
infraction requires DHS to review and consider the circumstances of the failure to report
through a corrective action plan from the contract agency, while a second infraction within a
75
twelve-month period requires that DHS terminate the contract. At the conclusion of Period
Two, DHS had not implemented either provision of the Agreement. During Period Three, DHS
began implementation of the second provision but delayed implementation of the first until
Period Four.
Failure to Report
As Period Three began, DHS, through their Child Welfare Contract Compliance Unit (CWCCU),
reinforced to contract providers (Adoption Contractors, Placement Agency Foster Care
Contractors and Residential Foster Care Contractors), the mandatory requirement for reporting
suspected child abuse/neglect cases to DHS. DHS did this through a letter notification sent to
providers on October 27, 2009. The letter states:
If the Bureau of Child and Adult Licensing (BCAL) and/or Children’s

Protective Services (CPS) conduct an investigation and determine
that a contracted provider has failed to comply with the
mandated reporting requirements, the Child Welfare Contract
Compliance Unit (CWCCU) will be notified. If the CWCCU receives
two separate notifications of substantiated findings of failure to
report suspected abuse or neglect within a 12-month period,
CWCCU will initiate adverse contract action necessary to
terminate the contract.
For Period Three, DHS reported that three contract agencies were cited for failure to report
suspected abuse or neglect. Two of those three agencies were also cited by BCAL for failure to
report during Period Two. With regard to those earlier incidents, DHS took the position that
DHS had not provided adequate notice of this Agreement provision until the letter issued
during Period Three. As a result, DHS chose to treat these second incidents of failure to report
as initial incidents – and so did not invoke the mandatory termination rule. However, both
programs closed during Period Four. DHS reports that neither closure was the result of this
provision of the Agreement.25
The Period Two report flagged growing concern among the private contract agencies about
interpretation by DHS staff of the “failure to report” provision. That concern grew over the
25
The DHS contracting unit reports the contracts were terminated; BCAL reports that they had provided notice to
the programs that their licenses were not going to be recommended for renewal because of a series of licensing
violations; and the programs report that they closed voluntarily.
76
course of Period Three with private providers indicating they were being cited for failure to
report incidents that they did not believe constituted allegations of abuse or neglect; cited for
failure to report for incidents they reported once they became aware of the incident, but the
incident had occurred earlier; and that the separate monitoring of this provision by DHS
contracting staff, licensing staff, and investigators was burdensome and confusing. They also
indicated that those concerns were driving them to report extensively in the absence of what
they perceived to be consistent guidance and application of this provision. Extensive private
agency reporting was further confirmed by the new specialized investigation units who
described receiving ever-increasing numbers of reports from the private agencies – and in some
instances, in their view, this included reporting of incidents that would not meet the threshold
for an allegation of abuse or neglect. Finally, private providers again indicated, as they had in
Period Two, that they had been asking DHS leadership for guidance in the application of this
provision but they believed DHS leadership had not been consistent or clear.
Failing to report an allegation of abuse or neglect in care is serious, and the obligation to do so
for the private agencies predates the Agreement, as it is embedded in Michigan’s Child
Protection Law and in their DHS contracts. Both under-reporting and over-reporting are
problematic, and the monitoring team will continue to follow closely the response by DHS
leadership in their oversight of this provision.
Due Consideration
With regard to the accountability provision related to “due consideration” in the re-licensure
process of incidents of corporal punishment and substantiated incidents of abuse or neglect in
an agency placement, for Period Three DHS reported the following information:
 Nine contract agencies had substantiated incidents of corporal punishment; four of

these agencies had two incidents each.
 Three contract agency staff (all from different programs) were placed on the DHS
Central registry as substantiated perpetrators of abuse or neglect.
But as in Period Two, a review of BCAL licensing reports from Period Three by the monitoring
team again demonstrated a pattern in which neither corporal punishment nor substantiations
were explicitly referenced in the licensing consultant’s evaluation of an agency’s suitability for
re-licensure. As noted above, this issue became the subject of the dispute resolution process at
the end of Period Three, and DHS committed to taking a series of actions in Period Four. As a
result, BCAL modified their license renewal template to include these elements of due
consideration in the evaluation section of the renewal report and trained their staff on the new
77
process. The BCAL licensing consultant will now include in the renewal inspection the following
information for consideration:
 All incidents of substantiated abuse/neglect and corporal punishment occurring in a

child caring institution, CPA, and in foster homes supervised by the CPA;
 Compliance with all corrective action plans in place during the renewal period;
 All repeat violations of the applicable statutory and administrative rules; and
 The severity and frequency of the statutory and administrative rule violations.
With regard to corporal punishment, BCAL reviewed the rule definition regarding behavior
management for foster homes and found that the administrative rules for Child Caring
Institutions did not adequately define corporal punishment. DHS is in the process of revising
the definition of corporal punishment through an administrative rule change. The draft rule
change was submitted to the State Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules (SOAHR) in April
2010. The DHS Regulatory Officer will be working with SOAHR to expedite the rule
promulgation. Further information regarding implementation of all of the elements of this
provision will be included in the Period Four report.
D. Special Reviews
As described in the Period Two report, DHS also committed to conducting special reviews of
two populations that were the subject of prior allegations of abuse or neglect in placement.
The first population includes children who were the subject of an allegation of abuse or neglect
in a residential setting or a foster home, whether licensed or unlicensed, between June 2007
and September 2008, and who remain in the facility or home in which the maltreatment is
alleged to have occurred (“single allegation” group). The second includes children who were
the subject of three or more reports alleging abuse or neglect in a foster home, the most recent
of which was filed during or after July 2007, and who remain in the foster home in which
maltreatment is alleged to have occurred (“multiple allegation” group). Note that these two
populations could overlap and where they do, DHS includes those children in the multiple
allegation analysis. There are also two important differences between these groups, other than
the number of allegations. The first is that with regard to the single allegation group, the
defined population is time-limited and so there is fixed group for review. However, with
respect to the multiple allegation group, the obligation is not time-limited and is ongoing unless
and until the obligation is extinguished as provided by the Agreement. The second important
difference is that children in residential settings are included in the first group but not the
second. Note that DHS identified no children in residential settings for special review for the
first group and, because of this difference, is not required to include children in residential
settings in the second group.
78
As of October 13, 2010, DHS conducted 273 special reviews for the single allegation group and
81 special reviews for the multiple allegation group. Of the 36 pending reviews in the single
allegation group, 35 are re-reviews as are 17 of the 30 in the multiple allegation group. The
need for this number of re-reviews should be raising a red flag for DHS but it may also provide
clues around maltreatment in care reporting in general. As referenced above, the obligation to
review the multiple allegation group is ongoing. All of these reviews were conducted by the
staff in the Office of Child Welfare Quality Assurance (QA). As agreed to by the parties, DHS
posts their findings on their website.
As described in the QA section of this report, DHS was only beginning to develop its centralized
review process and production of corrective action plans as Period Three came to a close. With
regard to their review of these two special populations, the QA team surfaced a number of
important policy and practice issues. QA leadership will be updating the monitoring team on
DHS progress in these areas in the coming months.
XI. Improving Placement Practice
Good placement practice is a combination of having the right range of resources; a good
process for assessing the match between a child and a family; and exercising good decision
making skills during that matching process. Good placement practices improve safety for
children, support their well-being, and aid in attaining swift and positive outcomes. In systems
with placement deficits, matching systems tend to be non-existent or weak, and placement
decision making skills are not well developed because there are very limited options and staff
often have no choice but to place children wherever there is an opening. To ensure DHS
develops a strong placement practice, they committed to assess the existing placement array to
develop resources where they were needed; invest in support for relative caregivers; create a
statewide placement process that takes the child’s needs and the family’s capacity into account
when making placement decisions; and articulate and implement key values and principles to
guide that decision making process to ensure that it leads to placement decisions that are in the
best interests of children.
A. Implementing a Child Placement Process
In the Agreement, DHS committed to implement a high quality process to match children
placed into foster care with compatible foster families. DHS first committed to review and
analyze Wayne County’s existing child-placement process, the Child Placement Network (CPN),
to determine whether it would be effective to expand it statewide. Based on that analysis, DHS
committed to deploy a new process (whether the CPN with or without modification or some
79
other process) in Oakland, Genesee, Kent, and Macomb counties by October 2009, followed by
the nine next largest counties by October 2010, and the remainder of the state by October
2011.
During Period Two, DHS reviewed and analyzed the Wayne County CPN and determined that,
with enhancements in process and supporting technology, it could be expanded statewide.
However, during Period Three DHS reported that they were not prepared to implement the
system beyond Wayne County. Instead, they convened a public/private agency workgroup to
address the changes that would be needed to implement the CPN in the five largest counties.
DHS has developed a plan to implement the CPN in Oakland, Genesee, Kent, and Macomb
counties, but that plan will not be operational until Period Four. Therefore, DHS did not
achieve this commitment in Period Three.
B. Changing Specific Placement Practices
As a key element of the reform, DHS committed to making significant changes designed to
improve their placement process. Those commitments:
 Value placing children consistent with their individual needs;

 Maintain DHS’ long-standing commitment to placing children with relatives whenever
possible;
 Recognize the benefit of keeping siblings together, which can provide much needed
stability along with a built-in support system. Sibling placement is particularly beneficial
for adolescents, who are much less likely to run away when placed with their siblings.
Joint sibling placement also makes visitation for parents and caseworkers much easier;
 Support placing children in their home neighborhoods to aid parental visitation and to
create the opportunity for children to continue attending their own schools and
spending time with their friends;
 Strongly favor placing children in relative and foster homes over institutional placement;
and
 Emphasize the need to place children with a permanency goal of adoption in a home
where adoption is a possibility.
Other commitments are designed to guard against negative placement practices that grow in
systems under strain:
 Overloading individual foster homes with too many children, particularly too many
young children or children with special needs;
80
 Placing high-risk children, like those with a history of violence or sexual acting out
behavior, with children vulnerable to abuse;
 Placing children in detention centers;
 Over-using temporary placements, like shelters; and
 Moving children and youth multiple times.
Finally, the parties agreed that no child should be barred from a placement – or delayed in
receiving the best placement – because of race, ethnicity or religion, and DHS agreed not to
contract with any provider who gives preference on any of those bases.
In July 2009, DHS issued instructions to its local offices and the private agencies regarding most
of these new placement commitments. That initial set of instructions raised questions,
particularly with regard to the exception processes, which the leadership of the six largest
counties and the field manager for the other 77 counties sought to clarify. A second set of
instructions issued in December 2009 updated these placement instructions.
Some confusion about how to reconcile these placement provisions remains – in particular, as
reflected in a letter to the Court from the Michigan Probate Judge’s Association dated April 1,
2010, there is persistent misunderstanding of the placement cap provision. The letter states
that the probate judges believe the Agreement prohibits sibling groups larger than three from
being placed together, but it does not. This misunderstanding has persisted and goes well
beyond the probate judges. The monitoring team raised this issue in the Period Two report as
it arose in interviews with staff in the public and private agencies.26 To reiterate, the
Agreement allows placement of more than three children in a foster home but it must either be
ordered by the Court or be approved at the senior management level at DHS and be in the best
interests of the children, which, as is indicated in a separate section of the Agreement, placing
siblings together almost always is.
26
The Probate Judges Association letter states: “The settlement requires not more than three children in a foster
home. The federal ‘Fostering Connection’ Act, 42 USCA 1305, encourages courts to keep sibling groups together,
without reference to how many siblings the group contains. For groups of more than three siblings, courts have
the uncomfortable choice of violating the settlement agreement or complying with federal policy.” (Letter to
Judge Edmunds, April 1, 2010, p. 3). As with the federal law cited above, the Agreement also strongly encourages
the placement of siblings together. But it also mandates that any placement over three children be approved by
DHS senior management. In practical terms, this means the placement of any sibling group over three – and there
are many in Michigan – requires approval through the waiver exception process. The misunderstanding reflected
in this letter is a common one. The parties should re-review the sibling placement and placement cap provisions to
determine if there is a need to modify language in the Agreement in order to clarify that any number of siblings
can and should be placed together if it is in the best interests of the children to do so.
81
With respect to the entire list of placement policies and processes set forth in the Agreement,
some are mandatory and cannot be waived. Others include a waiver exception process that
requires documentation that the placement is in the best interests of the child followed by
review and approval at the highest levels of DHS. Both the DHS Urban Field Operations Director
overseeing the six largest counties and the Child Welfare Manager for the remaining counties
set up tracking systems to monitor the waiver exception process. The result is two separate
tracking systems, rather than one for all of DHS. Period Three is the first time DHS could
generate data with respect to several of the placement guidelines. Both the standardization of
the exception tracking process and the data analysis are important steps forward for DHS. For
Period Four, the monitoring team expects from DHS analysis comparing the exception tracking
system against the initial placements to monitor whether all children who should have been
reviewed were in fact reviewed.
Limitations on Out-of-County Placements
The Agreement provides two alternatives for measuring whether or not children are being
placed proximately to their home communities – placement within county or placement within
a 75-mile radius, whichever is greater. Period Three is the first reporting period in which
information for this provision was made available by DHS. Unfortunately, in pulling this data
after Period Three ended, DHS discovered they could not retrospectively capture the placement
information for 3,887 children (28 percent) who were placed during the period but later exited
the system. DHS informed the monitoring team they plan to capture that information for
Period Four. DHS is also missing address information for a relatively small percentage of the
remaining children – two percent. But between the exits and the unavailable addresses, the
combined missing information (30 percent) is substantial, which means DHS cannot document
compliance with this provision of the Agreement.
DHS provided information on 70 percent of the 13,856 children placed during Period Three –
9,641 children. For this group of children, DHS reports a very high rate in county or within 75
miles, 97 percent.
For the children not placed within county or within 75 miles of their home community, DHS
agreed to follow an exception process which begins by requiring that the caseworker document
that it is in the best interest of the child to be placed that far away from home. That request for
an exception with documentation must then be reviewed and, if appropriate, approved by DHS
senior management. DHS reports at least 279 children were not placed in county or within 75
miles of their home community. DHS reports statewide there were 139 requests for an
exception – two were withdrawn; two were denied; the outcome of one is unknown; and the
82
remaining 134 were granted. DHS did not compare the list of exception requests with the list of
children known to have been placed out of county or beyond 75 miles. However, a numerical
comparison indicates an issue – 134 approved requests for exception but 279 children
documented as placed out of county. Therefore, DHS’ own reporting indicates they did not
receive the required approval for every child placed out of county or beyond the 75-mile limit,
and as a result, DHS is out of compliance.
As a result of the missing placement information and the missing exception approvals, the
monitoring team must conclude that DHS is out of compliance with this provision of the
Agreement.
Limitations on Separation of Siblings
The parties agreed that siblings who enter care together should be placed together unless such
placement is harmful to one or more of the siblings; one of the siblings has exceptional needs
that can only be met in a specialized placement; or the size of the sibling group makes such
placement impractical. Currently, as documented in the Needs Assessment, DHS has much
work to do to improve sibling placement rates. The majority of the children in care in Michigan
are part of a sibling group – two out of every three. The majority of sibling groups consist of
two or three siblings, 80 percent, but one out of every five children is part of a sibling group of
four or more. DHS previously provided the monitoring team with sibling placement
information, but now reports that information was not accurate and they could not, as of the
close of Period Three, produce reliable data on sibling placements. As a result, the monitoring
team does not have sufficient information to evaluate DHS performance with respect to this
provision.
That said, DHS did provide placement tracking information with respect to the next provision in
the Agreement, the limitations on the number of children in a home, and some of those
exception requests were approved precisely to keep siblings together. Urban Field Operations
(UFO) began to track this issue specifically in November of 2009 and they report 29 approvals of
an exception to the foster home placement cap specifically to keep siblings together. That
number of requests seems very low given the volume of placements in the urban areas and the
size of sibling groups in Michigan – but the review and approval for the purposes of keeping
siblings together does reflect the principle articulated in this provision of the Agreement. The
Field Operations Administration (FOA) does not specifically track exception requests and
approvals for sibling groups but a review of their tracking information does reflect approvals for
the purposes of keeping siblings together. Both the UFO Director and the Child Welfare
Manager are very clear they will approve reasonable requests for exceptions for the purpose of
83
keeping siblings together. More of the issue appears to lie in communication to the field and to
stakeholders because, as reported above, there is continued misunderstanding about the
placement cap operating as an absolute bar to placing sibling groups of more than three
children together and a lack of awareness of both the exception process and of this provision in
the Agreement favoring the placement of siblings together. DHS’ December policy issuance
reinforced both the sibling placement provision and the exception provision but that came
almost halfway through Period Three. The monitoring team will return to this issue in Period
Four.
Limitations on the Number of Children in Foster Homes
The parties agreed that beginning in March 2009, “no child shall be placed in a foster home if
that placement will result in more than three foster children in that foster home, or a total of
six children, including the foster family’s natural and/or adopted children,” and that “[n]o
placement will result in more than three children under the age of three residing in a foster
home.” (X.B.3.) Exceptions to this restriction are permitted, but must be made on an individual
basis justifying the placement as in that child’s best interest. Such placements must be
approved by the county child welfare administrator, if the child is from one of the six largest
counties, or the Child Welfare Manager in central office if the child is from one of the other 77
counties. The instructions to the field recognize that the request for an exception, review, and
approval, if warranted, must occur swiftly as most children are placed in care under emergent
circumstances.
DHS still cannot provide data on the number of children placed in foster homes that exceed the
cap. DHS did provide information from the tracking exception logs demonstrating that staff do
routinely request exceptions to the placement cap to place siblings together and for other
reasons. However, again, the tracking system does not include information on whether all of
the children placed in a home in excess of these limitations were the subject of an exception
request. The number of exception requests is relatively modest – 296 in all with 88 from the
UFO, 85 of which were approved; and 208 from the FOA, two of which were withdrawn, one is
unknown, seven were denied, and the remaining 198 were approved. In the absence of
information statewide and/or information on the number of children who should have been
subject to an exception request, the monitoring team cannot currently assess DHS’
performance on this commitment.
Limitations on Placement in Jail, Correctional or Detention Facilities
Unfortunately, foster youth continued to be locked in detention centers in Period Three with no
underlying delinquency charge and in some instances with the knowledge and support of DHS.
84
The Agreement requires that no child in DHS custody will be placed, by DHS or with the
knowledge of DHS, in a jail, correctional, or detention facility unless placed pursuant to a
delinquency charge. DHS reported that in Period Three, 156 foster youth were detained on 179
separate occasions, with some children detained more than once. Alarmingly, 67 confinements
occurred with no underlying delinquency charge or basis, and in 12 instances DHS either
requested or supported the court’s decision to detain the youth in contravention of the
Agreement. During Period Three, DHS reissued a Management Directive Letter in Wayne
County reminding staff of the prohibition on maintaining children and youth in secure
detention, specifically in the Wayne County Juvenile Detention Facility. The letter was reissued
after the monitoring team learned of and reported to DHS the jailing of a foster child in Wayne
County for a significant period of time. Numerous Michigan stakeholders advised the
monitoring team that a shortage of appropriate, accessible placements had contributed to the
detention of children despite the absence of an underlying delinquency charge.
Limitations on Placement of High-Risk Youth
In the Agreement, DHS also committed not to place children who are “at high risk for
perpetrating violence or sexual assault in any foster care placement with foster children not so
determined.” (X.B.6.) During Period Three, DHS reported that it drafted policies to implement
this commitment, and that it intends to incorporate this commitment into a comprehensive
policy that will guide workers’ decision making regarding placement settings. While such a
policy can be valuable, the only caveat is that it must be sufficiently clear that this commitment
is mandatory, providing no discretion to override its terms, and this particular commitment
cannot be just one of a number of factors to consider in the placement decision. However, the
policy was not issued during Period Three and therefore DHS was noncompliant. The
monitoring team will report on DHS’ progress on this commitment in the Period Four report.
Limitations on Residential Placements
The Agreement contains several provisions designed to limit the use of residential placement
and lengths of stay in residential placements. The parties agreed on a strict approval process in
advance of placing a child in “a residential treatment center or any other group setting with a
capacity in excess of eight children (campus-wide).” (X.B.7.) That approval is premised on
documentation that the child’s needs cannot be met in any other type of placement; that those
needs can be met in the placement requested; and that the facility is the least restrictive
placement that can do so. Approval can only be granted by the child welfare director in the six
largest counties and the central office Child Welfare Manager for the remaining counties.
Placement in such a facility is to be reassessed every 90 days and any stay beyond six months
85
must once again be approved at the same management level as the initial placement. If the
stay extends beyond 12 months, the CSA Director or DHS Director must approve it.
In Period Three, DHS, as promised, established a residential placement unit that monitors
entries, focuses on youth in the backlog cohort living in residential placements, assists with the
special reviews of youth who have been in residential placement for one year or longer, and
provides assistance in identifying step-down and permanency options for children and youth in
residential placements. By the end of Period Three, the population reported in institutional
care was 891.
During Period Three, DHS continued to conduct special reviews of children and youth living in
institutional placements. This population includes those who may have lived in multiple
residential placements if the total amount of time in residential care exceeds 12 months. DHS
will continue to conduct special reviews for this population so long as there are children and
youth in this population who meet the 12-month criteria. During Period Three, DHS identified
357 children and youth who had not previously been reviewed who appeared to meet the
criteria for this cohort. DHS conducted an in-depth review of 248 and found that 203 met the
criteria. DHS reviewed those 203 during Period Three, nearly twice as many as had been
reviewed during Period Two. As the report on the special reviews is available on the DHS
website, all of the findings will not be repeated here. But several of those findings connect to
other provisions in the Agreement, including the finding that a disproportionate number of
these youth are wards of the court and the conclusion that DHS needs a wider range of step-
down options, including more therapeutic foster care homes as well as improved permanency
planning, which DHS hopes will come with the work of the newly-created residential placement
unit. Special reviews of the multiple placement population also noted a high correlation
between multiple moves and children in mental health placement facilities and residential
placements.
DHS reports that there were 938 children placed in residential care facilities resulting in 1,315
placements during Period Three. DHS did not supply similar data on the number of children
who should have been subject to the 90-day or 12-month provisions. The DHS tracking systems
reflect 548 exception requests submitted, of which seven were pending, one was denied, 35
were approved with conditions and the remaining 505 were approved. With 505 approved
versus the 938 children with 1,315 placements reported by DHS, there is a significant gap
between the number of placements and the number of exception requests approved. DHS
acknowledged that gap and has proposed several strategies for improving performance with
respect to this provision, strategies that should take full effect in Period Four. But, DHS is not in
compliance with the approval processes required by this provision.
86
Limiting Use of Shelters & Temporary Placements
The Agreement emphasizes the importance of family settings for children and provides that
children shall not remain in emergency or temporary facilities, including shelter care, for more
than 30 days. Moreover, DHS agreed not to place children in shelter care more than once in a
given 12-month period unless one of three exceptions exists: (1) the child had been AWOL and
is just returning to care; (2) the child’s safety is at risk; or (3) the child has a significant change in
behavior and the county director approves the placement. Multiple placements cannot exceed
seven days in any circumstances.
In Period Three, DHS reports there were 550 children placed in shelter care with no prior
shelter placement. DHS reports that 75 percent of the children and youth (414) were placed in
shelter care for fewer than 30 days and a quarter (136) were placed in excess of 30 days. The
average length of stay for children in shelter care was 33 days; the median was 14 days. The
shortest length of stay for children in shelter care during Period Three was one day and the
longest length of stay was an astounding 794 days. DHS was noncompliant with these
commitments.
Fifty-four children who were reportedly in a shelter placement during Period Three had a single
prior shelter placement within 12 months. Of these 54 children, DHS was only able to
demonstrate that one child’s shelter placement fell within the exceptions described in the
Agreement. Moreover, an additional 14 children had at least two prior shelter placements
within 12 months – a frequency not contemplated or authorized by the Agreement.
Improving Placement Stability
The Agreement recognizes the benefits of improving placement stability for all children in care.
In order to gather information to help identify the drivers of multiple placements, DHS agreed
to conduct special reviews for children who lived in three or more placements during the
previous 12 months. As noted in the data section, DHS has significant data lag issues with
respect to placement data and some issues with the quality of the data entry – and those issues
were readily apparent as DHS attempted to define the pool for this set of special reviews.
During Period Three, DHS identified a pool of more than 2,500 children who appeared to have
been in three or more placements during the previous 12 months. During Period Three, DHS
examined 641 cases and discovered that 355 (55 percent) met the criteria. Again, the findings
of these special reviews can be found on DHS’ website. As mentioned, the reviewers noted a
correlation between multiple placements and youth with mental health and behavioral issues.
87
DHS reports they are making efforts to improve the quality of the placement data and reduce
data lag in the expectation they will be able to better target the children and youth in this
cohort moving forward. DHS also reports they are going to continue to examine a
representative sample of these cases each period until such time as they either have the
capacity to review all of the outstanding cases or the process set forth in the Agreement for
bringing the special reviews to an end is triggered.
Reducing Use of Unlicensed, Unrelated Caregivers
DHS has been reducing the use of unlicensed, unrelated caregivers. Consistent with the
Agreement, DHS issued policy prohibiting such placements unless court-ordered. As of October
13, 2010, DHS reports they completed 193 reviews with 65 remaining. DHS reports that they
found the permanency plan anticipated the caregiver would be the permanent placement. The
reviewers noted that documentation of the court ordering the placement was often
incomplete. Again, the findings of these special reviews are posted on the DHS website for
further review.
XII. Recruitment, Retention & Licensing Capacity
A. Relative, Foster and Adoptive Homes
In the Agreement, DHS made several commitments in the area of developing family-based
placement resources for children in its custody, including recruiting, licensing and retaining an
increased number of relative, foster and adoptive parents. At the end of Period Two DHS was
struggling to meet those commitments. That struggle continued in Period Three when DHS
licensed 189 fewer foster homes than in Period Two. In addition, DHS closed 75 more homes
during Period Three than were licensed. This represents an overall decline in performance.
DHS has developed additional recruitment strategies that are being implemented during Period
Four to address these performance issues. The monitoring team will report on the results of
those initiatives in the next monitoring period. However, it must be noted that DHS has not
been able to fully develop a recruitment strategy for sibling homes or for developing homes for
children with disabilities due to the lack of accurate data to fully assess the placement needs of
those children. Moving forward, DHS cannot continue to cite the shortcomings of the SWSS
system as sufficient reason to excuse a failure to develop recruitment plans for these two
critical populations. DHS has other avenues – sampling, hand counts, analysis of other related
data sources, and the collective experience of local staff – to inform the development of such
plans.
88
DHS has also continued its efforts to license relative homes. The Agreement required that DHS,
by September 2010, resolve the licensure of all unlicensed relatives who had children in their
care prior to October 2008. Based on the information provided by DHS, DHS is on schedule to
meet this commitment. Regarding new relative placements, DHS has not met the terms of the
Agreement and will need to enhance its efforts in this area.
B. Developing Placement Resources
During Period Three DHS reports that a total of 1,056 homes were newly-licensed; 497 were
relative homes and 559 were foster homes. DHS licensed 189 fewer homes during Period Three
than in Period Two, when 1,245 homes were licensed, an overall decrease in performance of 15
percent. When comparing foster home licensure against relative home licensure, the number
of foster homes licensed decreased by 35 homes, or six percent; conversely, the number of
relative homes licensed decreased by 154 homes, or 24 percent. DHS’ lack of progress in
licensing both relative and foster homes during Period Three is a concern and calls into
question the agency’s capacity to place children in the most appropriate family settings.
Figure 5
Foster and Relative Homes Licensed

1400
1200
1000
594
800 559
Foster
600
Relative
400 462
651
497
200
213
0
Period One Period Two Period Three
89
Further, DHS reports that 1,131 homes were closed during Period Three, exceeding the 1,056
new homes licensed, for a net loss of 75 homes.27 This net loss puts additional strain on the
placement system, limiting options for staff who seek to ensure that the best placement
decisions can be made for children removed from their families.
C. Needs Assessment/Recruitment and Retention28
The Agreement requires DHS conduct an analysis to determine how many additional foster
homes are necessary to serve children in DHS’ custody. To that end, DHS was required to
review and analyze the “extent to which its present array of available foster and adoptive
homes is appropriate to the characteristics and needs of the foster care population” in the five
urban counties (Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, Kent and Genesee) by May 2009 and in the
remaining 78 counties by October 2009. (VIII.B.4.) Based on those needs assessments, the
Agreement required DHS to develop recruitment and retention plans that DHS was to
implement within three months of the completion of each review.
At the end of Period Two, DHS had completed the review of the urban counties and concluded
that an additional 2,160 foster homes were needed in order to meet the needs of children
entering foster care. (However, as noted in the Period Two report, the original plan did not
outline specific strategies, it did not set targets for individual counties, and it did not include a
plan for individualized adoptive home recruitment. As noted below, DHS began to remedy
these planning issues in Period Three.) DHS completed the needs assessment for the remaining
78 counties during Period Three and all of the counties were required to produce individual
recruitment and retention plans that DHS rolled up into an overall commitment to license 1,373
non-kin foster homes statewide during FY2010, which ended on September 30, 2010. Based on
the information submitted by DHS, it is not possible to assess whether all of the plans were
completed within the required three-month period but all were completed when this
information was submitted to the monitoring team.
This commitment to license 1,373 non-kin foster homes is an ambitious target, as it represents
a 30 percent increase over the number of non-kin homes licensed in FY2009. Within that
statewide target, DHS established specific targets for each county, both in terms of the total
27
Period Three marks the transition to counting both foster and relative homes in total homes opened and closed,
and the resulting net increase or decrease. Period One and Period Two data reflected foster homes only.
28
The Agreement requires two separate Needs Assessments – one that is the overall Needs Assessment discussed
earlier in this report and a separate, more narrowly focused set of Needs Assessments to determine the need for
foster homes by county. This section discusses the latter requirement only.
90
number of non-kin homes to be licensed and the subset of those homes that would be suitable
for adolescent youth. As it stands, DHS intends for the urban counties to develop and license
512 new non-kin homes and for the remaining 78 counties to develop and license 861 non-kin
homes. For detail by county, please see Appendix K.
At the end of Period Three, DHS had licensed 559 non-kin foster homes, 41 percent of the total
target DHS set for FY2010. Some counties (39 percent) were doing well and were on track to
meet their targets by the end of the fiscal year, while others (61 percent) were behind.
DHS reports that central office foster care staff work with both private agency and DHS local
office staff to discuss expectations and to enhance a collaborative recruitment effort among the
system partners. DHS central office staff will be assisting and providing technical support to the
urban counties and plan to meet with private agency staff to review data, to maintain
communication, and to support recruitment efforts.
DHS recognizes that successful recruitment and retention is dependent to a large extent on
creating a culture of supportive customer service and, therefore, made the commitment to
address this issue in its recruitment plan. Strategies for working with foster parents, private
agencies and communities are being developed to address these issues. However, it must be
recognized that success in this area will be largely dependent on DHS’ ability to prioritize this
work and to strategize with the field and private agencies to do so. Targets and plans must be
monitored, course-corrections made, and resources allocated in order for DHS to meet its
commitments.
Special Populations
The Agreement requires that DHS also develop a statewide plan that addresses the placement
needs of three specific populations of children: adolescents who are 14 years of age and older;
sibling groups; and children with disabilities. DHS submitted its special population recruitment
plan to the monitoring team during Period Two. However, both the monitoring team and the
plaintiffs did not accept the plan because it did not provide sufficient clarity regarding specific
strategies, staff capacity, target setting, or adoptive home recruitment. During Period Three,
DHS submitted a revised plan to address these concerns.
With regard to adolescents, DHS reviewed data from a specific point in time and reported that
approximately 4,500 adolescents age 14 and older were placed in out-of-home settings,
representing 29 percent of the total number of children in care. Over 1,100 of those
adolescents (26 percent) resided in non-family settings. Because these children face significant
challenges in achieving permanency, DHS set targets for each county to license foster homes
91
appropriate for adolescents. The statewide target is to develop 441 adolescent homes; DHS
expects the urban counties to develop 193 homes and the remaining 78 counties to develop
248 homes. DHS, however, was unable to report on the number of homes developed during
Period Three. The monitoring team will report on DHS’ progress in future monitoring periods.
For both sibling groups and children with disabilities, DHS reported that it does not have
available data that it can use to assess need. It is incumbent on DHS to explore all options (if
SWSS cannot produce the data, DHS should hand-count, sample or use some other approach to
gather the necessary data) to resolve the data issues for both of these populations so DHS can
assess need, set targets, and develop recruitment plans. The monitoring team will report on
the status of these efforts in Period Four.
Notwithstanding the data issues, DHS reports that they are actively recruiting foster homes that
will accept siblings and children with special needs. Their recruitment efforts include working
with stakeholders regarding the importance of placing siblings together and targeting medical
and school personnel who have an expertise in working with children with disabilities. In
addition the DHS Office of Communications is exploring partnerships with the United Cerebral
Palsy Association, the Association for Retarded Citizens and the Michigan Disability Rights
Coalition.
D. Adoptive Home Recruitment
DHS reports that its Office of Communications has worked collaboratively with other agencies
to increase the awareness of the need for additional adoptive homes for children awaiting an
adoptive family. During Period Three DHS began working with the Michigan Heart Gallery, a
traveling photography exhibit featuring children legally free for adoption. The first exhibit was
shown in Detroit with over 300 people in attendance. The event was covered by the media,
including TV and newspapers. The exhibit will continue through 2010 and make stops
throughout the state. DHS is also partnering with the National Resource Center for the
Recruitment and Retention of Foster and Adoptive Parents at Adopt Us Kids by participating in
the national media campaign for recruitment of foster and adoptive parents.
Although DHS began its efforts during Period Three, much of the recruitment and retention
work that DHS planned in the area of adoption begins during Period Four. The monitoring team
will report on DHS’ progress in future monitoring periods.
92
Challenges in Recruitment and Retention
DHS has identified several challenges that need to be addressed in order to achieve better
recruitment and retention outcomes. The first challenge relates to staffing. DHS identified that
the wide variety of tasks assigned to licensing staff, which include training new applicants,
completing routine renewals of licenses, and conducting special investigations of foster homes,
all take priority over recruitment activities. In addition, DHS reports the routine turnover of
staff causes delays due to the time it takes to hire and train new employees.
DHS also reports that there are inconsistencies in how counties process applications and
proceed with a foster home study. For example, some counties do not begin the actual home
study (comprised of visits to the home) until the family has completed their pre-service training.
In these situations the agency does not know whether the family will meet other eligibility
requirements (i.e., physical space), and has spent a large amount of time training those
applicants even if they ultimately do not. DHS is working on a common protocol to resolve this
issue, especially in the area of relative applicants.
As discussed above, DHS continues to experience difficulty obtaining accurate data for
planning. But DHS has limited themselves to SWSS as the data source. As these plans are now
more than a year behind the schedule set in the Agreement, DHS must be willing to explore
other options to gather the critical information necessary for planning, or the placement needs
for children in the special populations will not be fully addressed.
Expansion of Treatment Homes
DHS was required to have available 100 treatment foster home beds, a category of foster
homes designed to serve children with higher levels of need. During Periods One and Two, DHS
converted 59 existing foster homes to provide this level of care by increasing regulatory
requirements, lowering the number of children who can be served, and providing clinical
support for the homes. During Period Three, DHS added an additional 57 beds through three
primary strategies: (1) DHS successfully implemented a Treatment Foster Home program in
Genesee, Oakland, Macomb and Wayne Counties, and expanded the number of children served
through its SED (Seriously Emotionally Disturbed) Waiver program; (2) In February 2010, DHS
contracted with Monroe Community Mental Health Authority to provide Treatment Foster
Care, providing 32 additional beds in Monroe, Washtenaw, Lenawee and Livingston counties;
and (3) DHS continued its partnership with Community Mental Health agencies, which offered
intensive supports for foster families and children with an identified high level of need.
93
Utilization of Relatives and the Relative Placement Process
When DHS makes the decision to remove a child from his or her home, relatives are sought as
the first placement resource. The commitment to utilize relatives as the placement of choice is
consistent with best social work practice, as placing children with relatives reduces trauma and
increases the likelihood for placement stability. DHS relies heavily on the use of relatives to
provide placements for children entering care. In some instances relative placement is the
result of a planned decision through a Permanency Planning Conference (PPC). Other times,
placement is the result of an emergency removal.
DHS has committed to implement relative placement practices that ensure safe and stable
placements are made. First and foremost, DHS has agreed to license relative caretakers unless
exceptional circumstances exist. Licensing enables relatives to receive the same board
payment as non-kin foster parents receive. The licensing process also offers the relative
caretaker greater access to training and support services to enhance the quality of care
provided.
As a prerequisite for placing the child with a relative, the DHS or CPA worker visits the home in
order to ensure that a safe physical environment exists. Next, criminal history and child abuse
registry checks are conducted for all adults living in the home. If the background checks are
satisfactory, the child may be placed and a 30-day home study is completed. At this point a
decision must be made to recommend that the home be studied for licensure or, if an
exceptional situation exists, to request a waiver of licensure. In order to become licensed a
relative must: participate in training, submit medical, personal and employment references,
verify income, consent to State and Federal fingerprinting, and be available for home visits and
meetings with licensing staff. Subsequent to the 30-day home study, DHS reports that it takes
an average of 5.5 months for a relative home to become licensed.
Exceptions to relative licensure are permitted as outlined in the Agreement. Any such
exception requests must be submitted to the Urban Field Operations Director or the Child
Welfare Manager for review and approval. The exceptions must document that the relative
caretaker was fully informed of the benefits of licensure including the financial reimbursement
through board payments. Exceptions must be reviewed on an annual basis.
DHS provided the monitoring team with a list of the 460 relative waivers requested during
Period Three. The five largest counties accounted for 284 of the requests, while the remaining
78 counties accounted for 176. Although 460 waivers were requested during the Period only
81, or 18 percent, were waivers for placements made during Period Three. All other waiver
requests submitted were for placements made in prior monitoring periods.
94
The monitoring team reviewed a random sample of waivers during verification. Based on that
review, it appears that the quality of the waiver requests is improving. These waiver requests
were supported by the necessary documentation and approvals more often than during Period
Two, when documentation issues were identified in the sample reviewed by the monitoring
team.
DHS reports that there continue to be issues regarding the agency’s ability to track needed
waivers, as well as ensuring that the 30-day relative home assessment is conducted. A work
request has been submitted to add enhancements to the SWSS system so that this data can be
captured in the system. In addition, DHS expects the enhancements will enable the creation of
a managerial tracking report. Lastly, DHS central office foster care staff have begun to
participate in monthly meetings with field office staff to discuss tracking and the need to
complete the 30-day relative home assessment.
Relative Home Backlog Cohort
Prior to signing the Agreement, DHS’ policy allowed for the placement of children with relatives
with no requirement for the relative to become licensed. Upon signing the Agreement, DHS
committed to license existing relative caregivers and identified 6,315 children placed with
unlicensed relatives. This group of children became known as the relative backlog cohort. In
the Agreement, DHS committed to review 50 percent of the relative backlog cohort by
September 30, 2009. DHS achieved that goal during Period Two. The Agreement further
requires that DHS review the remaining 50 percent of children in the relative backlog cohort for
licensure by September 2010. While there are no specific benchmarks required in Period
Three, DHS has provided the following information regarding the current status of the backlog
cohort reviews.
DHS reports that of the 6,315 children in the initial backlog cohort, 2,604 children remained in
custody at the conclusion of Period Three. DHS provided a detailed breakdown of these
children and reported that: 1,180 children are placed in homes where the relative caregiver
has been licensed; 365 children have been moved from the relative home; 347 children
received waivers to remain with unlicensed relatives and that 712 children’s status remain to
be resolved.
95
Figure 6
Children Remaining In Relative Backlog

Cohort
(n=2,604)
Status
Unresolved,
712, 28% Licensed,
1,180, 45%
Waiver, 347, Moved, 365,

13% 14%
Regarding the 712 children placed in homes waiting to be resolved, DHS reports that 239
children live with relatives who are in the process of becoming licensed; 207 waiver requests
were submitted pending approval; 231 waiver requests are being considered and additional
follow up work is needed regarding the remaining children.
Licensing of New Relative Homes
At the signing of the Agreement, DHS committed to license or to obtain a waiver of licensure
for all children newly-placed with relatives. Through Period Three, DHS reports that 5,943
children have been placed with relatives and are subject to this provision of the Agreement.
Four thousand twenty-five children were placed with relatives during Periods One and Two.
DHS reported their status at the conclusion of Period Three as follows: 768 (19 percent) of the
children reside in homes that have been licensed; 158 (4 percent) received waivers to remain in
the relative home; 854 children (21 percent) moved from their relative home; 1,099 (27
percent) of the children’s cases were closed without licensure or an approved waiver; and
1,146 (29 percent) of the children remain in unlicensed homes with no approved waiver.
During Period Three, 1,918 children were newly-placed in the homes of unlicensed relatives. At
the end of Period Three, 1,428 (74 percent) of those children were in homes that remained
unlicensed or with no waiver; 48 (3 percent) had an approved waiver; 82 (4 percent) reside in
homes that became licensed; 259 (14 percent) had moved from the relative home and 101
children’s cases (5 percent) had closed and no action was necessary.
96
Figure 7
Children Newly Placed with Relatives

Period One through Period Three
(n=5,943) Licensed,
850, 14%
Non-licensed
and Not
Waiver,
Waived,
Moved, 206, 4%
2,574, 43%
1,113, 19%
Closed,
1,200, 20%
Of the 2,574 children in homes whose status is pending and must be resolved, 1,324 (51
percent) are residing with families that are in the licensing process, 92 children (4 percent) are
in homes pending waiver approval, and 239 children (9 percent) reside in homes where a
waiver is being considered. Nine hundred and nineteen children reside in unlicensed relative
homes where the status is unknown.29 DHS is requesting updates from its local offices and
from the CPAs in order to determine the status of these children. DHS further reports that they
are in the process of developing a statewide database that will allow staff to complete regular
updates of a child’s status. This will replace the manual spreadsheets currently in use, with the
goal of receiving more timely and accurate information.
Figure 8
Children Placed with Unlicensed Relatives

Status Unresolved
Considering (n=2,574)
Waiver, 239,
Status
9%
Unknown,
919, 36%
In Licensing
Process, Waiver
1,324, 51% Pending, 92,
4%
29
Two hundred and sixty-nine children were placed with relatives during March 2010 and resolution of their status
through either a waiver or referral for licensure was not due at the end of the period.
97
DHS committed to complete the relative licensing process within 90 days. As previously
mentioned, in addition to the initial 30-day home assessment, licensure is taking an average of
5.5 months to completion. In order to improve the time to licensing and the quality of the
home evaluations, a multidisciplinary task force was convened by DHS to analyze the system to
make necessary changes to improve outcomes. The task force has developed a draft
certification worker outline that identifies the required tasks with recommended timelines in
order to meet the 90-day licensure commitment.
Heightened attention to the licensing of new relative homes will be required by DHS in order to
meet the commitments in the Agreement. Through Period Three, DHS has been unable to
meet licensing timeframes, submit waivers in a timely manner, or track the status of all
unlicensed homes. Therefore, DHS did not meet these commitments in the Agreement.
The Capacity Challenge

DHS made extensive commitments in the Agreement with regard to both foster and relative
home licensure – and those commitments began by ensuring there was sufficient staffing
capacity to conduct safety screens, do home studies, review criminal and central registry
databases, train families, and provide all of the other supports necessary to achieve licensure.
DHS also agreed that all licensing staff should be trained.
In the Period Two report, the monitoring team identified significant issues with DHS’
performance in meeting its licensing staffing and training commitments. In the last month of
Period Three, with the plaintiffs’ filing of the letter of non-compliance and subsequent
negotiations, DHS made commitments to reassess their approach to licensing staffing and cited
changes to their licensing training plan they expected would improve their performance. Some
of those changes took effect during Period Three, while others will only become effective
during Period Four.
With respect to Period Three, DHS finally documented that they had met the specific
requirement to fund 40 additional full-time staff to meet the relative backlog cohort licensing
staffing commitment in the Agreement. However, DHS did not meet its overall commitment to
provide sufficient capacity to license unlicensed homes within 90 days nor with respect to
meeting targets for licensing foster homes. With respect to training, performance improved,
but a continuing lack of coordination and prioritization, which DHS asserts it will address in
Period Four, kept DHS from meeting this commitment. In all, as foreshadowed in the Period
One and Two reports, the issue does not appear to be about the number of licensing staff but
rather the deployment, training, and support of those staff – senior management issues.
98
Staff Capacity
Pursuant to the Agreement, DHS committed to increase the number of new licensing staff and
maximize the efficiency of existing licensing staff. The monitoring team is charged with
assessing licensing staffing capacity for four commitments in the Agreement, two that pertain
to relative homes, one that pertains to foster homes, and one that pertains to both:
 Relative Homes - During Period One, DHS was to have hired or contracted for 40 full-
time staff to be devoted to the licensing of relative homes in the backlog cohort.
 Unlicensed Homes - With respect to unlicensed homes (almost all of which are relative
homes), the Agreement requires the monitoring team to assess whether DHS has
designated sufficient licensing staff to review all current unlicensed foster homes and to
complete the licensing process for each family within 90 days.
 Foster Homes – Beginning in October 2009, the monitoring team must assess whether
DHS has sufficient staffing capacity in order to execute the plans for recruitment,
licensing and retention of foster homes, particularly the specialized recruitment for
adolescents, sibling groups, and children with disabilities.
 Both Relative and Foster Homes - Beginning in October 2009, all licensing staff have to
meet caseload standards.
For Period Three, DHS identified 546 individuals performing licensing work, but only provided
information regarding 331 of those. Of those 331, DHS reported the following FTE 30 counts:
Table 11 – Licensing FTEs
Reported FTEs Public Private TOTAL

Relative FTE 56 58.6 114.6 46%
Foster Home FTE 50.3 84.4 134.7 54%
TOTAL FTE Reported 106.3 143.1 249.4
April 2010 Caseload Report 125 211 336
30
As discussed in the caseload section of this report, FTE stands for “Full Time Equivalent.” If a person works full-
time as licensing staff, that person is 1.0 FTE. However, if that person works part-time, as 40 percent of reported
staff do, he or she is less than 1.0 FTE. The level of FTE depends upon the amount of time each such staff spends
on licensing duties. If they spend half of their time, they are .5 FTE; if they spend a quarter of their time, they are
.25 FTE, for example. Adding those FTEs together produces the totals for this section.
99
While reporting has improved, DHS still has work to do to in order to provide complete FTE
information (the information is missing about 215 licensing staff), particularly with respect to
the private agencies.
As discussed in the Period One and Two reports, DHS had previously relied exclusively on its
hiring of 80 child welfare funding specialists (CWFS), who were described as spending half of
their time on relative licensing matters, to meet their requirement to devote 40 new staff to
relative licensing. In practice, the CWFS did not spend sufficient time on relative licensing to
meet this requirement. At the beginning of Period Four, DHS management issued instructions
to the field to underline that CWFS should be spending 50 percent of their time on these
activities. But during Period Three, for the first time DHS recognized and documented the
expansion of relative licensing capacity in the private sector. As set forth in the above chart,
DHS documented the equivalent of more than 100 staff devoted to relative licensure. Based on
this information and interviews with private and public agency staff, the monitoring team
concludes that DHS met its specific commitment to fund an additional 40 relative licensing staff.
With respect to the second commitment, that DHS would designate sufficient licensing staff in
order to meet its commitment to license all unlicensed homes within 90 days, DHS continues to
be out of compliance. DHS’ failure to meet the 90-day requirement is documented above in
this report, as is the number of relative homes licensed during Period Three, 497, a 24 percent
decline from Period Two. Acknowledging that the number of relative licensing staff fluctuates
and that DHS appears to have under-reported the number of actual staff devoted to relative
licensure (particularly private-sector staff), using the number of relative licensing staff DHS
reported above - just under 115 full-time staff – each staff person licensed, on average, 4.8
homes during Period Three, or less than one relative home per month.31 During that six-month
period, DHS took an average of 5.5 months to license a relative home (excluding the initial 30-
day home study period). Based on that performance and the fact that DHS itself had
determined that it needed to license relative homes for a minimum of an additional 1,563
children in unlicensed homes (239 in the relative home backlog cohort and 1,324 in the cohorts
of children newly-placed and moved to a new placement) during Period Three, the monitoring
team concludes that DHS did not meet its commitment to have sufficient licensing staff to
license all unlicensed homes within 90 days.
31
If, as the monitoring team believes, DHS under-reported the existing relative licensing capacity, the average per
full-time staff person is actually lower.
100
With respect to sufficient licensing staffing to execute DHS’ own foster home recruitment plans
(including the plan for the need for additional homes for specialized populations described
above), performance varies significantly by county, with some counties meeting or exceeding
licensing targets (39 percent), while the remainder are behind. Statewide, DHS had achieved
only 41 percent of its overall target at the end of Period Three. With 559 foster homes licensed
during Period Three (a six percent decline from Period Two) and just under 135 foster home
licensing staff, each full-time staff licensed an average of four homes each over the six-month
period, or much less than one per month. Given that level of performance and the
performance with respect to DHS’ own targets, the monitoring team concludes that DHS did
not have sufficient licensing capacity to meet the goals of their recruitment plans.
As discussed in previous reports, DHS currently deploys licensing staff to perform several
different functions in addition to the requirement to license relative and foster homes. The
averages reported above must be construed in the context of management decisions about
how to deploy licensing staff, and not as a reflection of the performance of individual licensing
staff. In visiting DHS and private agencies, the monitoring team met with licensing staff and
their supervisors and found they were juggling a wide variety of tasks and priorities, trying hard
to meet all the directives they received from the DHS Central Office. Some counties and private
agencies were performing well, but most were struggling. DHS leadership must develop
strategies, determine priorities, and direct resources to support local performance so that DHS
can meet its obligations statewide.
Training
DHS agreed that all staff engaged in licensing work would receive licensing training. In
implementing this commitment, DHS decided to rely on both the existing curriculum and
existing licensing training infrastructure.
The Period Two report documented a failure to meet the licensing training requirement and
this issue was cited in plaintiffs’ notice of non-compliance. During negotiations, DHS defined a
lack of capacity and coordination as the primary barriers to their non-performance and agreed
to expand the size of training classes, add an additional instructor, and improve coordination.
However, as those commitments were made only as Period Three came to an end, DHS
remained out of compliance with the training requirements during Period Three.
As documented in the Period One and Two reports, the licensing training infrastructure is
sparse, consisting of two experienced senior licensing staff from BCAL who also have
responsibility for reviewing the overwhelming majority of foster and relative home
certifications for licensure and licensing those homes. They provide the certification and
101
complaint training, the two types of training DHS has designated for licensing staff. Note that
the training most relevant to foster and relative home recruitment is the certification training.
Certification is the process of completing all of the tasks – training, home study, physical plant
inspections, references, etc. – necessary to complete a full licensing packet. Complaint training
is required for staff who investigate allegations that a licensed home or institution is out of
compliance with licensing requirements. In practice, most licensing staff perform certification
and complaint functions.
Table 12 – Licensing Training
Licensing Training - Period Three Public Private TOTAL

Completed all training32 87 172 259 47%
Completed certification but not
complaint training 70 108 178 33%
Completed complaint training but
not certification training 6 15 21 4%
No training reported 41 47 88 16%
TOTAL 204 342 546
DHS improved its reporting on licensing training during Period Three but still needs further
improvement. DHS also improved on the percentage of licensing staff who were trained. For
Period Two, the monitoring team assessed the percentage of licensing staff who had received
certification training at 59 percent. For Period Three, that percentage rose to 80 percent (that
includes those in the chart above who completed all training and who completed certification
training only). Nonetheless, DHS management has more work to do to ensure that all licensing
staff are trained.
XIII. Achieving Permanency for Children and Youth
Under the Agreement, DHS committed to make dramatic improvements in permanency

practice throughout the system to achieve better outcomes for children and families. At the
same time, DHS also committed to move two identified groups of children - those who have
been legally free for adoption or with a goal of reunification for more than one year as of
January 1, 2009 - to permanency expeditiously. These groups are referred to as the
reunification and legally free backlog cohorts.
32
DHS has defined licensing training as completing both modules of training. But where DHS reported a licensing
staff person served only one function - certification or complaint investigation - that staff person’s training was
deemed complete once they had the relevant training.
102
During Period Two, DHS spent time designing implementation strategies that would enable it to
achieve timely permanency for children in its custody. DHS defined much of how current
practice must change, articulated those changes to all system partners and provided training to
staff who must implement the changes. Additionally, DHS began to think through strategies for
supporting DHS and CPA staff in understanding how the practice changes must come together
as a whole to achieve good outcomes for children and families.
During Period Three, DHS began to implement those improved practices throughout DHS local
offices and CPAs. DHS continued its work assigning children appropriate permanency goals,
began to implement concurrent planning in two counties, started building the capacity to
develop individualized assessments and service plans for children and families, and commenced
team decision making meetings (referred to as permanency planning conferences). DHS
struggled with other commitments, however, such as achieving permanency for youth in the
legally free backlog cohort, defining and implementing an adoption process, and ensuring that
fewer youth exit care without achieving permanency.
A. Permanency Planning Goals
In the Agreement, DHS committed to review and assign only federally recognized permanency
goals for children in its custody. As a result, DHS eliminated the Michigan permanency goals of
Independent Living and Emancipation, which did not reflect true permanency for youth in DHS’
custody. Under the Agreement, DHS committed to assign only goals of:
 Reunification;
 Adoption;
 Guardianship;
 Permanent Placement with a Fit and Willing Relative (PPWFWR);
 Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement (APPLA), which involves the child
continuing to live with the foster parent while the case is open with the family agreeing
to maintain a significant role after the child exits custody; and
 Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement-E (APPLA-E), which involves a
significant connection to a caring adult who is willing to be a permanent connection but
with whom the youth may not be residing.
If a worker believes that the appropriate goal is PPWFWR, APPLA or APPLA-E, the worker must
obtain the approval of the Director of the Bureau of Child Welfare. Those goals require this
approval as they are considered to be less optimal than permanency through reunification,
adoption or guardianship. Unlike those goals, a responsible adult does not take full legal
responsibility for children who achieve PPWFWR, APPLA or APPLA, but they do commit to care
103
for them. As a result, DHS maintains a role with the family, keeping the child’s case open and
providing services to the child and family.
During Period Three DHS continued its work ensuring that staff review the goals of all children
in DHS’ custody to ensure compliance with the new goal requirements. The chart below
documents permanency goals as reflected in DHS’ SWSS system as of March 31, 2010:
Table 13 – Federal Goals
Federal Goal Code Description Children with Goal Percent

Reunification 8,499 50%
Adoption 5,347 32%
Guardianship 403 2%
Permanent Placement with
Relative 582 3%
Another Planned Permanent
Living Arrangement (APPLA) 1,989 12%
Sub-goal APPLA 280 2%
Sub-goal APPLA-E 1,709 10%
Unknown 37 .002%
TOTAL 16,857
Based on the data above, at the end of Period Three, 2,571 children and youth had been
preliminarily assigned permanency goals of PPWFWR, APPLA, and APPLA-E. As noted, these
goals must be approved by the Director of the Bureau of Child Welfare. As Period Two
concluded, field offices and CPAs had submitted requests for approval of 283 of those goals.
During Period Three, DHS and CPA staff submitted an additional 568 approvals, doubling the
number submitted over the previous period but, in total, still far short of the total of 2,571 such
goals.
The monitoring team reviewed a sample of permanency goal approvals during Period Three
verification activities. The quality of the information provided from the field offices to the
Bureau Director improved from the prior reporting period as staff became more familiar with
the process. Additionally, DHS described that better communication had been established with
the field offices. As an example, when additional information was needed calls were made to
local offices for clarification rather than sending the materials back. This improved
communication has enabled more timely processing of the permanency goal approval requests.
104
The chart below outlines the permanency goal approval requests received in the Bureau of
Child Welfare through the end of Period Three.
Table 14 – Permanency Goal Approval Requests
PPFWR APPLA APPLA-E

Request Status TOTAL
Goals Goals Goals
Approved 100 107 264 471
Pending 56 80 189 325
Withdrawn 7 12 9 28
Denied 4 4 5 13
Closed 0 4 10 14
Total Submitted 167 207 477 851
Of the 471 goal approvals, the court subsequently entered orders approving the goals for 373
children with PPFWR and APPLA goals, thus finalizing the permanency process for those
children and youth.
B. Concurrent Permanency Planning
In the Agreement, DHS committed to implement concurrent permanency planning, which is the
process of working toward a child’s reunification while, at the same time, establishing an
alternative permanency goal in the event a child cannot be safely reunified with his or her
family. As Period Three commenced, DHS implemented a concurrent planning pilot in Clinton
and Gratiot counties. Those counties were chosen as the initial pilot sites due to a strong
combination of leadership, capacity, and court partnerships. The pilot began with a two-day
training provided to DHS and CPA workers and supervisors. A half-day training was provided to
numerous community stakeholders and court personnel, including judges and attorneys.
DHS central office staff provided technical assistance to the pilot sites and attended court
hearings, PPCs, case conferences and staff meetings to discuss implementation. Technical
assistance has been provided to field staff regarding concurrent permanency planning and the
courts, policy guidelines, and best practices with regard to case management and
documentation.
During Period Three, there were 21 concurrent permanency planning cases opened in the two
pilot counties. At the end of the period, evaluation and assessment of the pilot commenced.
DHS compiled data regarding the cases and reviewed a sample of case files for children in the
pilot. Additionally, DHS reports that the statewide concurrent permanency planning analyst
actively monitors the SWSS system as well as reviews case files to ensure that appropriate data
105
entry is occurring. Through these efforts DHS has been able to identify both strengths and
challenges in implementing concurrent permanency planning.
In terms of strengths, DHS reports that workers are utilizing PPCs to identify service needs and
are frontloading services to parents and children. Parent/child visitation plans are being
developed and initial diligent relative searches are being conducted. Family and Child
Assessments are being completed consistently and timely and full disclosure regarding
concurrent permanency planning is provided to parents at placement.
Challenges include consistently implementing concurrent planning principles throughout the

case, including clear identification of the concurrent permanency goal. Ongoing documentation
of work on the concurrent goals has been a challenge and workers have requested clarity
regarding the Structured Decision Making assessment tools, as they are finding concurrent
planning can be confusing in the context of the tools. In meeting with the monitoring team,
DHS staff identified services, transportation in rural areas, working with foster parents to
understand concurrent planning, and working in collaboration with CPAs as challenges in
implementation as well.
Informed by the pilot sites, DHS will develop policy and practice guidelines and the statewide
rollout plan in Period Four. The monitoring team will report on DHS’ efforts in implementing
concurrent planning beyond the pilot sites in future monitoring reports.
C. Assessments and Service Plans
In the Agreement, DHS committed to complete written assessments of child and family
strengths and needs and to develop comprehensive service plans within 30 days of a child’s
entry into DHS’ custody. Comprehensive, individualized, and quality assessments of strength
and needs are critical to effective child welfare practice. These assessments allow the agency
to identify the family’s natural strengths (e.g., close relatives or a tightly-knit community) and
use them to empower children and families to address the challenges they face. They also
identify the family’s needs so that DHS can work with the family to develop individualized plans
for services to address those challenges meaningfully and timely. The plans must include
attainable and measurable goals; identify parties responsible for each task; and include a
strategy to engage effectively with the child, family, and all involved agencies to achieve the
permanency goal. The Agreement also recognizes the critical role of the supervisor in guiding
caseworkers through this process, requiring that supervisors review the plan and have a face-
to-face meeting with the worker to discuss it, as well as meetings at least monthly on all cases.
106
DHS issued updated policies during Period Three, making changes to the policies governing the
Initial Service Plan, Updated Service Plan, Permanent Ward Service Plan, and the Parent,
Agency Treatment Plan, and Service Agreement sections of the Foster Care policy manual. The
changes that were made to those policies are consistent with commitments made in the
Agreement related to the development of service plans and assessments.
In order for the policy changes to be reflected in the written assessments and service plans,
DHS reports that changes are required in the SWSS system and that a service request has been
submitted for those changes. Additionally, since CPA staff do not enter data directly into SWSS,
updated templates are being developed for CPA staff to use when completing the assessment
and service plan documents. Until those changes are completed in Period Four, DHS and CPA
workers must include relevant information in the existing assessment and service plan template
and SWSS documents. While perhaps a viable short term strategy, it will be critical for the
templates and SWSS system changes to occur in order to ensure that all the required
information is documented in the various assessments and service plans.
D. Team Decision Making/Permanency Planning Conferences
DHS committed to implement team decision making, also known as permanency planning
conferences (PPCs), a strategy designed to engage families and to include every person with a
connection to a child in key decisions regarding the child and family. PPCs are intended to
empower children and families to drive decision making regarding their needs, services and
case plans. DHS committed to implement PPCs at seven critical points in each case. They are:
1. Prior to placement, or by the next working day after an emergency placement;

2. Prior to the transfer of a child in foster care to a different placement setting, or
by the next working day after an emergency transfer;
3. Prior to reunification;
4. Prior to a change in the permanency goal;
5. When a child returns from Absent Without Legal Permission (“AWOLP”) status;
6. When a child has been in care for nine months with a goal of reunification and
sufficient progress has not been achieved to ensure reunification within 12
months; and
7. When a child has been legally free for adoption for three months but does not
have a permanent placement identified.
The Agreement included a phase-in of PPCs beginning in Period Three, during which the five
largest counties were required to implement PPCs in all seven critical case decision points. The
nine next largest counties were required to implement Initial Placement PPCs beginning in
107
Period Three. DHS is required to implement the remaining PPCs in those counties and all PPCs
in the remaining counties by October 2010.
During Period Three, DHS issued L-Letter instructions to DHS field offices. The instructions
include the definitions, requirements, implementation schedule, and protocols for PPCs. DHS
also amended its private agency contracts in October 2009 to include those requirements.
The statewide protocols developed by DHS describe in detail the required elements of a PPC.
The protocols are comprehensive and define the purpose, expectations, processes, and roles
and responsibilities during and after the PPC. DHS has developed a series of forms that
document PPC attendance, decisions made, plans developed, and follow up actions required as
a result of the PPC. Copies of the PPC forms are required to be included in the child’s record.
In order to analyze performance for Period Three, DHS identified events in the SWSS system
that would identify when PPCs were required. DHS staff documented PPCs as they were
completed in a PPC database, and these two data sources were reconciled to determine
performance. (CPAs submitted spreadsheets used to document PPCs, as they do not have
access to the DHS database.) DHS reports that they are developing a web-based PPC database
in the JJOLT system that both DHS and CPA staff will utilize to document when a PPC has been
completed. The system is being piloted in Kent County and will be available during Period Four.
Period Three is the first reporting period DHS is required to provide data regarding the PPC
commitments. Thus, the data in the chart below is a baseline. The chart identifies the event
type, the number of documented events that required a PPC, the number of PPCs held, and the
percentage of compliance in the fourteen counties required to conduct PPCs during the period.
Table 15 – Permanency Planning Conferences
Permanency Planning Conferences Compliance

(14 Required Counties)
PPCs PPCs
Event Type Required Completed %
Removal 2,809 1,800 64%
Placement Change 2,608 1,295 50%
Reunification 1,250 555 44%
Goal Change 1,605 801 50%
Return from AWOLP 288 118 41%
In Care Nine or More Months 343 181 53%
TPR Three or More Months 304 107 35%
108
In its 2010 Implementation Plan, DHS committed that it would identify non-caseload carrying
staff in the 14 largest counties to facilitate PPCs. DHS also committed that those staff will:
 Complete the three-day training curriculum provided by the DHS Child Welfare Training
Institute;
 Possess a bachelor’s degree and a minimum of two years of child welfare experience;
and
 Have demonstrated knowledge of DHS policies, procedures, resources and laws.
DHS reports that 265 DHS and CPA staff completed facilitator training during Period Three,
including 25 full-time, non-caseload carrying facilitators. Twenty-two of those staff work in the
largest five counties. There are three full-time facilitators working in the three next largest
counties. DHS reports that there are an additional eight full-time staff with reduced caseloads
or other responsibilities, and 234 part-time facilitators. Although DHS made the commitment
to have full time non-caseload carrying facilitators in the fourteen largest counties during
Period Three, the agency reports that Period Three was a time of transition and that while full-
time positions have been allocated for the 14 largest counties they will not be filled until Period
Four.
During Period Three verification activities, the monitoring team discussed PPC implementation
with leadership in DHS offices and in CPAs. It was evident that the commitment to conduct
PPCs was well understood and that plans were in place for implementation. A theme that
emerged during the discussions was the time spent on conducting PPCs and the need for offices
to have an adequate pool of facilitators to conduct the meetings. Implementation of PPCs is a
major practice commitment that will take ongoing management, supervision, monitoring and
staff support. Evaluating the adequacy of the staffing will be an ongoing issue requiring the
attention of DHS leadership.
E. Permanency Tracking System
As discussed more fully in the Period Two monitoring report, DHS committed in the Agreement
to develop a robust permanency tracking system that it could use to evaluate, manage, and
implement the Agreement’s reforms and to report on the progress of those reforms to the
monitoring team. In support of that commitment, DHS has developed and deployed an
ambitious array of reports they advise are now accessible to the field – but as referenced in the
data section of this report, there have been data quality issues. DHS must solve the data
quality issues, an effort best done in partnership with the local offices and private agencies, and
then work to link a simple set of these reports together so that the separate reports truly
constitute a tracking system.
109
F. Caseworker Contacts and Visitation
As described in more detail in the Period Two monitoring report, a key element of permanency
practice involves visitation, both between the caseworker and the child in custody and the child
and his or her parents and siblings. Because more frequent visitation leads to improved safety,
permanency, and well-being outcomes for children, DHS made several commitments in the
Agreement to improve its visitation practice including:
 By October 2011, DHS committed to ensure that caseworkers visit children in custody at
least two times during each child’s first month of placement (with at least one visit in
the placement and including a private meeting), and at least one time during each
subsequent month;
 By October 2009, DHS committed to ensure that caseworkers visit parents of children
with a goal of reunification at least twice during the first month of placement (with at
least one visit in the home) and call at least twice, and for subsequent months visit at
least once (with one visit in every three-month period in the home) and call as needed;
 By October 2009, DHS committed to ensure that children with a goal of reunification
visit their parents at least twice monthly unless specified exceptions exist; and
 By October 2009, DHS committed to ensure that siblings in custody visit each other at
least monthly unless specified exceptions exist.
For this monitoring period, DHS committed to produce data regarding performance on
caseworkers visiting parents, children visiting their parents, and children visiting their siblings.
Because DHS’ commitment regarding caseworkers visiting children is not targeted to occur until
October 2011, DHS did not produce data regarding performance on that commitment.33 DHS
also did not produce data regarding sibling visitation, although that commitment was due in
October 2009. Therefore, DHS was noncompliant with that provision.
Caseworker Contacts with Parents
Because this commitment includes additional requirements for children in the first month of
custody (two visits as opposed to one for subsequent months), DHS has created two separate
reporting mechanisms. The first identifies the number of parents of children who have entered
33
DHS did, however, take steps to improve on the baseline performance reported in the Period Two report. At the
end of the monitoring period, DHS announced plans to train 2,700 DHS and CPA caseworkers and supervisors
regarding the importance of timely, quality visitation. That training was scheduled to occur in Period Four, the
summer of 2010.
110
custody within the preceding month and reports on the percentage of those parents who
received at least two visits in total and the percentage of those parents who received at least
one visit in the home. The following table shows DHS’ performance on this commitment:
Figure 9
Worker Contacts with Parents During First Month Child is in Care

(Oct. 2009 - March 2010)
50% Compliance % with
44%
45% two visits - Mother
37% 38%
40% 36% 36% 35%
34% 33%
35% Compliance % with
30% 28%
24% 23% 25% two visits - Father
25%
20%
Compliance % - at
15% least one visit in the
10% 8%
6% 5% 4% 3% mother's home
4% 3% 1% 3% 3% 3%
5% 2%
Compliance % - at
0%
least one visit in the
Oct-09 Nov-09 Dec-09 Jan-10 Feb-10 Mar-10 father's home
As that chart illustrates, during Period Three caseworkers visited mothers of children in their
first month in foster care at least twice between 35 and 44 percent of the time. Caseworkers
visited fathers less often, between 23 and 33 percent of the time. At least one of those visits
occurred in the home in far fewer cases: between one and eight percent of the time for
fathers, and between two and six percent of the time for mothers. As these data make clear,
DHS did not ensure that caseworkers visited parents in accordance with the Agreement. In
addition, DHS did not provide data regarding the commitment that it would ensure that these
parents receive at least two telephone calls from their caseworkers during the first month the
child is in care. Therefore, for both the Agreement’s commitments regarding contacts and
telephone calls during the first month a child is in care, DHS was noncompliant.
As the following chart demonstrates, DHS’ performance during subsequent months (after the
first) that children were in care was similar:
111
Figure 10
Worker Contact with Parents - Months Subsequent to First

(Oct. 2009 - March 2010)
60%
51% 52% 52% 53% Compliance % with one visit -
50% 50%
Mother
50%
42% 41%41% 43%
40% 39% 40% 41% Compliance % - at least one
40%
visit in the mother's home
30% 29% per quarter
30% Compliance % with one visit -
Father
20%
Compliance % - at least one
10% visit in the father's home per
quarter
0%
Oct-09 Nov-09 Dec-09 Jan-10 Feb-10 Mar-10
As that chart illustrates, during Period Three caseworkers visited mothers of children after their
first month in custody at least once between 50 and 53 percent of the time. Caseworkers
visited fathers less often, between 39 and 43 percent of the time. At least one of those visits
occurred in the home per quarter in fewer cases: 30 percent for fathers for the period between
October and December 2009, 29 percent for fathers for the period between January and March
2010, 42 percent for mothers for the period between October and December 2009, and 41
percent for mothers for the period between January and March 2010. (Note: quarterly
performance is shown on the chart above in the first month of each quarter.) As these data
make clear, DHS did not ensure that caseworkers visited parents of children in care for more
than one month in accordance with the commitments in the Agreement. Therefore, DHS was
noncompliant with this commitment as well.
Parent/Child Visitation
Another critical commitment in the Agreement is around visitation between parents and
children. When children are in custody a robust visitation practice is critical to a meaningful
permanency practice. If reunification is determined to be the appropriate goal, visits between
the child and the parents are the only mechanism available to ensure the continuity and growth
112
of the parent/child bond. As a result, in the Agreement DHS committed to ensure that children
with goals of reunification will visit their parents at least twice each month in ordinary cases.
As the chart below demonstrates, DHS’ performance is significantly below that contemplated
by the Agreement:
Figure 11
Parent and Child Visits

(October 2009 - March 2010)
25%
20% 20% Children With Two Visits
20% 18% 18% 18% 18%
with Mother
15%
15% 13% 14% 13% Children with Two Visits
12% 13%
with Father
10%
5%
0%
Oct-09 Nov-09 Dec-09 Jan-10 Feb-10 Mar-10
During Period Three, DHS reported that children visited with their mothers at least twice each
month between 18 and 20 percent of the time. DHS reported that children visited their fathers
between 12 and 15 percent of the time. In both cases, DHS’ performance did not comport with
the Agreement and DHS was noncompliant with this provision.
G. Adoption
Based on data that became available late in Period Three, DHS finalized 3,030 adoptions during
FY2009, an historically high amount. DHS staff and their partners in the private agencies should
be proud of this accomplishment.
During Period Three – the first half of FY2010 - DHS finalized 1,283 adoptions. Of those, 687
children (54 percent) were five years old and under, 298 (23 percent) were age six to nine, 142
(11 percent) were age 10 to 12, and 156 (12 percent) were age 13 and older. With regard to
race, 449 (35 percent) of the children adopted were African-American, 802 (63 percent) were
White, and 32 (two percent) were Asian, American Indian or Alaskan Native, or unidentified.
113
For Period Three, DHS reported that 1,351 children became legally free for adoption. During
verification, however, the monitoring team identified a concern with that data. DHS’ report of
children made legally free includes all children who have, documented in SWSS, an effective
date for the termination of parental rights (TPR) of the child’s mother, an effective date for the
termination of parental rights of the child’s father, and an entry in the “Permanent Legal
Status” field indicating that the child is legally free. Of the 1,351 children included in DHS’
report, however, for 197 of these children the most recent TPR date (whether mother or father)
is before the beginning of Period Three; similarly, for two such children the most recent date is
after the conclusion of the period. DHS explained that the most recent termination date is not
the operative date in this report; instead, the controlling date (i.e., the date that determines
whether the child is included in the report) is the date of the Permanent Legal Status, which is a
field updated by staff in SWSS.
The significance of these findings is twofold. First, the monitoring team requested that DHS
produce the number of children whose parents’ rights were terminated during Period Three,
such that they became legally free during the period (October 1, 2009 to March 31, 2010).
During that time period, DHS’ system shows that 1,152 children had their parents’ rights
terminated, not 1,351. This discrepancy calls into question not only this period’s data on
children made legally free, but it also calls into question the data reported to the monitoring
team for prior monitoring periods regarding the number of children made legally free. As with
the other data issues discussed in this report, this is a significant issue that must be resolved
expeditiously.
Second, and more important, the current design of this report could lead staff to miss children
who are legally free as they attempt to identify children to move to permanency. This report is
part of the Permanency Tracking System, and DHS has made it available to staff to use as a tool
to identify children who are legally free to help ensure that they achieve timely permanency.
The current form of the report will not capture children whose parents’ rights have been
terminated (i.e., those children with termination dates in SWSS for both mother and father) if a
worker has neglected to enter the appropriate code in the “Permanent Legal Status” field. As a
result, there could be any number of children in DHS’ custody whose parents’ rights have been
terminated - as evidenced by those children having TPR dates for both mother and father in the
system - who will still not appear on this report, which ostensibly is a comprehensive list of all
children made legally free during the preceding six months. If staff use this as a tool to identify
children to focus on in their permanency work, those children will be omitted, possibly for
significant periods of time. In fact, of the 197 children whose TPR dates predated this Period,
there are TPR dates ranging back to 2003 and 2004.
114
H. Improving the Adoption Process
When a child in DHS custody cannot be reunified with family, achieving timely permanency for
that child is imperative. Adoption is generally the preferred permanency option for those
children. In the Agreement, DHS committed to implement an adoption process that would
ensure the timely movement of cases when the decision is made to seek adoption for the child.
The adoption process requires that DHS and the assigned contract agency shall within 30 days
of the goal change:
a. Assign a worker with adoption expertise to the case;

b. Determine whether the child’s foster parents or relatives are prepared to
adopt the child and if so, take appropriate steps to secure their consent to
adopt;
c. If no adoptive resource has been identified, register the child on adoption
exchanges; and
d. Develop a child specific recruitment plan if no adoptive resource has been
identified.
In Michigan, a child’s permanency goal is changed by the court upon the recommendation of
DHS. DHS reported that during Period Three agency leadership participated in discussions with
the courts to develop a common agreement regarding the point at which a child’s goal would
be changed to adoption. It was determined that the goal would change when termination of
parental rights occurs, thus creating a clear point at which the Agreement commitments
regarding the adoption process must commence.
DHS reports that in collecting Period Three information, inconsistencies in the point at which
staff changed permanency goals in SWSS and in assigning adoption workers became clear and
demonstrated a need for DHS to clarify and develop best practice policy. According to DHS,
changes to the process had to be considered carefully to avoid unforeseen consequences that
would delay timeliness to adoption. Therefore, as Period Three concluded DHS had not yet
issued instructions to the field regarding the adoption goal process and DHS indicated that it
could not provide data to demonstrate compliance with these commitments.
Adoption Disruptions
In the Agreement, DHS committed to provide the monitoring team with a list of all children
whose pre-adoptive placements disrupted prior to finalization. For Period Three, DHS identified
five children whose adoptive home placements disrupted. Three children exhibited serious
behavior problems that the prospective adoptive parents were unable to handle. All three
children were removed from the pre-adoptive homes and were placed in licensed foster
115
homes. One adoptive placement technically disrupted when the Court of Appeals overturned
termination of the father’s parental rights. However, parental rights were subsequently
terminated and the child remained with the adoptive family throughout the legal appeal
process. So, while the adoptive placement technically was voided during the appeal, the
youth’s placement did not change. Finally, one older youth expressed that he was not
interested in adoption and his permanency goal changed to Another Planned Permanent Living
Arrangement (APPLA). The plan for this youth is to remain with the same foster parents who
had expressed adoption interest until he reaches adulthood.
I. Supporting Adoptive and Guardianship Families
Adoption Subsidy
In the Agreement, DHS committed to make timely determinations regarding eligibility for
adoption subsidies. DHS has established that it will determine eligibility within 30 days of the
receipt of a family’s application in the adoption subsidy unit. During this monitoring period,
DHS reports that they received 978 applications for adoption subsidy from DHS local offices and
CPAs. Five hundred and three of those applications were approved, 68 were denied, 66 were
returned to the sending office and 341 applications remained in pending status at the end of
Period Three. At the end of the monitoring period in March 2010, the subsidy unit was
processing applications received in December 2009, falling short of the department’s goal to
process applications within 30 days and creating delays in the adoption process.
During verification activities, field staff discussed concerns regarding the processing of adoption
subsidy applications by the DHS subsidy unit and the impact on adoption processing. DHS
acknowledged that there were delays in processing subsidies through the period due to staffing
issues. DHS further acknowledged that there is not an automated process to track adoption
subsidy applications and that the data provided to the monitoring team is from hand counts.
DHS is working on improving both the staffing and tracking issues in order to ensure both
timely and accurate tracking of subsidy applications.
Upon identification of an adoptive family for a legally free child, DHS must provide the family
with an adoption subsidy application within 14 days. DHS reports that they have no mechanism
to track this provision, and therefore the monitoring team cannot assess compliance.
Medical Subsidy
To support families who adopt children and to ensure that children’s needs continue to be met,
DHS committed to develop and implement a full range of post-adoption services to assist all
116
eligible special needs children. DHS also committed to maintain sufficient resources to deliver
such post-adoption services to all children in the plaintiff class who qualify for these services.
DHS provides post-adoption services to families who adopt eligible children through a post-
adoption medical subsidy program. The program funds medical services, assisted care services,
educational services, summer camp, outpatient psychological counseling, and out-of-home
placement, including short-term residential placement. This program is the payer of last resort
and uses solely state funds (rather than any federal funds). During Period Three, DHS received
1,009 requests for medical subsidy. Of those, 577 applications were approved and 53 were
denied. Five applications were returned to the sending office and 374 applications for medical
subsidy remained pending at the end of the monitoring period. The same timeliness and
tracking issues described above apply to medical subsidy processing.
Subsidized Guardianship
In order to extend post-permanency services to an even broader group of children and their
families, DHS decided to extend the adoption medical subsidy program to eligible children and
youth who achieve permanency through the newly-created subsidized guardianship program.
DHS reports that there were 117 applications for subsidized guardianship received during
Period Three. Sixty-one of the applications were approved, no applications were denied, and
56 remained pending at the end of the monitoring period. There were no medical subsidy
requests received for children and youth in the subsidized guardianship program. While
subsidized guardianship is a new permanency option for children and youth, the monitoring
team expects to see evidence that medical subsidy applications are being submitted for
children achieving permanency through subsidized guardianship in future monitoring periods.
Subsidy Funding
DHS provided the following historical information regarding funding, expenditures and the
number of children served through the adoption medical subsidy program:
Table 16 – Subsidy Expenditures
Fiscal Year Allocation Expenditures Children Served

2008 $12 million $11,954,977 1,862
2009 $12 million $ 7,529,428 1,787
2010* $12 million $ 2,212,012* 1,152*
st
*1 half of FY2010 - 10/1/09 to 3/31/10
117
DHS reports that they expect expenditures to increase during the second half of FY2010, as
monthly expenditures are higher during the summer when services provided by school districts
terminate and are provided through medical subsidy. DHS also expects expenditures in the first
half of the fiscal year to increase as delayed bills are submitted for payment later in the fiscal
year. Final Fiscal Year 2010 expenditures will be addressed in the next monitoring report.
DHS reports that since 2008 it has worked to provide community services to children and youth
receiving medical subsidy and to fund residential placement only when needed for short
durations. In 2008 there were approximately 150 children and youth in residential placement
through the medical subsidy program. Today, there are approximately 70 children in
residential placement or being reviewed for residential placement and DHS attributes the
decrease in medical subsidy expenditures from 2008 to 2009 to the decrease of children in
residential placement. DHS further reports that they are in the process of expanding the types
of community services eligible through the medical subsidy program so that families can receive
a wider range of services to meet their children’s needs.
J. Focusing on Waiting Youth in Need of Permanency: The Backlog Cohorts
As discussed more fully in the Period One and Two reports, DHS committed to achieve
permanency for two groups of children: those who were legally free awaiting adoption for
more than one year and those who were awaiting family reunification for more than one year
as of January 1, 2009. As reported in Period Two, DHS initially identified 5,052 children in the
reunification backlog cohort and 4,260 children in the legally free cohort, but during Period Two
identified additional children either improperly included in or excluded from the cohorts due to
technical or data entry issues. DHS reports rectifying those issues, resulting in a revised
reunification cohort of 5,017 children and a revised legally free cohort of 4,376 children.
Backlog Cohort Performance
In the first year of the reform, DHS committed to achieve permanency for 50 percent of the
children in each of the cohorts. As described in the Period Two report, DHS met the target for
children in the reunification cohort with 52 percent but missed the target for the legally free
cohort, reaching 33 percent. With regard to the legally free cohort, DHS had still not met the
Period Two target by the end of Period Three, with less than a six percent improvement over
the entire period at just under 39 percent. Even more troubling, the number of legally free
children aging-out of care increased to 578, more than 13 percent of the entire cohort.
During the second year of the reform, DHS committed to achieve permanency for 85 percent of
the children in each of the cohorts. Although that commitment is not due until September 30,
118
2010, it is nonetheless important to assess DHS’ progress here given the cumulative nature of
these requirements. The following chart details DHS’ performance as of March 31, 2010:
Table 17 – Backlog Cohort Performance
Legally Free Reunification

Full Cohort 4,376 5,017
Reunification 5 0.1% 2577 51.4%

Adoption 1,570 35.9% 438 8.7%
Relative 107 2.4% 109 2.2%
Guardianship 22 0.5% 146 2.9%
Permanency 1,704 38.9% 3,270 65.2%
Aged Out 578 13.2% 105 2.1%
Other 42 1.0% 19 0.7%
In Care 2,052 46.9% 1,623 32.4%
As detailed in the chart above, as of March 31, 2010 DHS had achieved permanency for an
additional 13 percent of the youth in the reunification cohort over and above the 52 percent of
youth who had achieved permanency as of the end of Period Two. With a total of 65 percent
of youth in the reunification cohort achieving permanency and just under three percent aging
out or leaving to other exits, approximately thirty-two percent of the youth in the cohort
remain. In order to achieve its target of eighty-five percent by September 30, 2010, DHS will
have to improve on its performance and move twenty percent of these youth to permanency,
seven percent more than Period Three. For Period Three performance by county, please see
Appendix L.
DHS’ performance on the legally free cohort, however, leaves a daunting challenge. As the
chart above details, DHS has moved only 38.9 percent of these youth to permanency as of
March 31, 2010. DHS has not yet achieved the 50 percent that it committed to achieve by
September 30, 2009, even with six additional months to do so. And during those six months,
DHS only moved six percent of youth in the cohort to permanency above the 33 percent it had
moved to permanency at the end of Period Two. In order to reach the target of 85 percent,
DHS will need to achieve permanency for approximately 2,013 youth – of the 2,052 remaining
119
in care – by September 30, 2010. To put that in context, during the last eighteen months DHS
has transitioned 1,704 youth to permanency, three hundred less than DHS will need to achieve
in six months in order to meet its target. Performance here has been lackluster and DHS must
redouble their efforts to ensure that these youth achieve permanency. For Period Three
performance by county, please see Appendix M.
Permanency Planning Specialists
In order to focus on moving children in the backlogs to permanency, DHS committed to create
200 Permanency Planning Specialists (PPS) positions by the end of Period Two. The PPS
positions are defined in the Agreement as “limited term, specialized assignment positions
responsible for reviewing cases of and pursuing legal permanency for children in the Backlog
Cohorts.” (VII.G.2.B.) As discussed in the Period Two report, DHS initially identified caseload-
carrying foster care workers to fulfill this requirement of the Agreement. Those workers were
assigned full caseloads of children in the backlogs, managing some of the most difficult children
and youth in care. Plaintiffs objected to DHS’ implementation strategy and the parties met to
discuss the intent of the Agreement. After discussion, both DHS and plaintiffs agreed that the
intent of the commitment was for the agency to hire (or contract for) non-caseload carrying
staff to serve in the PPS role. As Period Two concluded, DHS continued to identify the caseload-
carrying staff as PPS and were noncompliant with this provision of the Agreement as a result.
The Agreement requires that, beginning in Period Three, DHS continue to employ and/or
contract for sufficient Permanency Planning Specialists as required to pursue legal permanency
for all backlog cohort cases.
During Period Three DHS proposed the following staffing to achieve compliance with this
provision of the Agreement:
Permanency Resource Managers (PRM): These are newly-created supervisory level non-
caseload carrying positions working in the DHS Permanency Division. The PRMs review cases of
children in the backlog cohorts supervised by both DHS and CPAs and have the authority to
provide direction and technical assistance to staff in the field offices. During Period Three these
staff received specialized training in preparation for assuming these new positions. Twenty
PRMs are assigned geographically throughout the state and six PRMs are assigned to a
specialized unit that reviews cases of youth in residential placement from four of the largest
counties. The PRMs review cases supervised by both DHS and CPAs. At the close of Period
Three, twenty-five PRM positions were filled with one vacancy in the residential unit. During
Period Three PRM staff completed 412 case reviews.
120
Permanency Planning Specialists (PPS): DHS continues to identify caseload-carrying foster care
and adoption direct and POS staff in DHS field offices as Permanency Planning Specialists. As
Period Three concluded, 95 such workers were assigned to work primarily on backlog cohort
cases throughout DHS field offices.
Permanency Planning Assistants (PPA): There remain 38 Permanency Planning Assistants

throughout DHS local offices. These are essentially case aide positions filled by staff that
provide support by completing tasks such as transporting children and families, reviewing
reports, meeting with youth, and gathering relevant case documents. DHS has decided that as
the Permanency Planning Assistants leave their positions those staff will not be replaced.
As the results for Period Three demonstrate, DHS was insufficiently staffed to achieve
permanency for children in the legally free backlog cohort.
K. Focusing on Youth Who Do Not Achieve Permanency: Older Youth Aging Out of Care
At a period in time in which the monitoring team expected that the number of older youth in
care would be increasing in accordance with the terms of the Agreement, it is not. DHS
developed a policy to extend all foster youths’ eligibility for foster care placement until age 20
and to make available independent living services through age 21. In July 2008, DHS published
an amendment to its Children’s Foster Care Manual, CFF 722-15, announcing that “foster care
youths may remain in foster care until the age of 20.” But there is little evidence that this
policy is being implemented in practice.
At the close of Period Two, according to the revised data provided by DHS, there were 1,304
youth in custody ages 18 and older. At the close of Period Three there were 1,277 youth in
custody ages 18 and older, representing eight percent of the total foster care population.
Of those 1,277, there were 780 youth age 18; 456 youth age 19; and 41 youth older than 19:
Figure 12
Ages of Older Youth in Care

(March 2010)
(n=1,277)
18, 780, 61%
19, 456, 36%

20+ Years
Old, 41, 3%
121
From the end of Period Two to the end of Period Three, the number of youth 18 and older in
care decreased by 27, from 1,304 to 1,277. The monitoring team confirmed this trend in field
visits across Michigan and focus groups with homeless youth who had recently exited from
DHS’ custody, during which the monitoring team continued to identify youth whose child
welfare cases were closed at age 18 despite the youth not achieving permanency. A number of
agencies advised the monitoring team that their service contracts with DHS are restricted to
serving youth up to age 18, and that older youth are ineligible to be served in these programs,
often leading to the closure of the youth’s case despite provisions in the Agreement entitling
older youth to remain in care and receive services longer. In order to expand the safety net for
older youth, DHS will need to grow services and expand its existing contracts’ client age
eligibility.
Youth Placed in Independent Living Programs
In the Agreement, DHS committed that it would not place youth under the age of 16 in
independent living placements and would instead continue to work to achieve permanency for
those youth. At the end of Period Three, 1,229 youth were placed in independent living. Of
those, five (.4 percent) were under the age of 16. The remaining 1,224 were sixteen or older.
Independent Living Services
In March 2009, DHS published an amendment to its Children’s Foster Care Manual describing a
variety of independent living services available “until the youth is discharged from foster care,
establishes independence or reaches 21 years of age.” Youth do not need to be in custody in
order to continue to receive these services. These programs offer youth essential life skills that
can help them cross the bridge from DHS custody to independence. DHS has begun to offer
some new programs and opportunities for older youth in care as well.
During Period Three, there were 6,600 children in custody who were 14 and older as of the first
day of the period (allowing DHS the full six months of the period to transition youth who had
just turned 14 into independent living services). DHS could not, however, provide data on the
number of those youth who received independent living services. Therefore, DHS could not
demonstrate that it offered Independent Living (IL) Services to all eligible youth ages 14 and
older as required by the Agreement.
Health Insurance
DHS also committed to ensure that older youth exiting custody have health insurance. The
federal government makes significant funds available to the states, at their option, to extend
122
health insurance coverage to these youth. Michigan’s program is known as Foster Care
Transition Medicaid (FCTMA). DHS’ performance ensuring youth receive health care coverage
after they age out of custody has improved quite significantly over the past two years, but does
not yet ensure that all eligible youth are enrolled.
Between May and December 2008, only 10 percent of the youth who exited custody were
enrolled in FCTMA when they left state care. That worsened between January and March 2009,
when 348 youth aged-out of custody but only 13 young people, or four percent, had open
FCTMA cases. After DHS undertook a robust training initiative during Period Two, 180 (34
percent) of 533 eligible youth received FCTMA, but DHS continued to be disappointed by its
results. During Period Three, DHS reported that 575 youth exited custody at age 18 or older,
and 310 (54 percent) of the exiting youth were enrolled in FCTMA. An additional 25 percent of
youth (143) exiting care received Medicaid through programs other than FCTMA. DHS reports
that a significant part of this improvement results from an automated referral in its SWSS
system that is now triggered when most youth age out of care.
Referrals to Michigan Works!
DHS is required to, but did not, refer all youth age 14 and older in custody and youth
transitioning from custody to Michigan Works! agencies for participation in public programs
designed to expand vocational skills and opportunities. In Period Two, DHS published an L-
Letter and Michigan Works! referral form, with an immediate effective date. In Period Three,
of the 6,600 youth in care ages 14 and older as of the beginning of the period, only 286 (four
percent) were referred to Michigan Works! during the period. DHS did not demonstrate
whether some of the remaining 6,314 had been referred in prior monitoring periods.
Housing for Youth Aging-Out of Care
DHS committed to refer youth without an identified housing situation at the time of
emancipation from DHS’ custody to the Michigan State Housing Development Authority
(MSHDA) for rental assistance and services under the Homeless Youth Initiative (HYI). Agency
leadership met during Period Three to develop a process for referrals, but had not issued an L-
Letter offering guidance on the referral process by the close of Period Three and had not, in
fact, begun the routine referral of youth as required in the Agreement.
123
XIV. Improving the Well-Being of Children in DHS Custody
A. Ensuring the Physical and Mental Health of Children in Custody
In the Agreement, DHS committed to ensure access to physical and mental health services for
children in placement. DHS also committed to develop and submit a detailed Health Services
Plan during Period Two that would set forth the specific steps DHS will undertake to ensure that
each child entering custody receives the screenings, examinations and immunizations
contemplated in the Agreement. DHS submitted a draft plan in June 2009 but requested
additional time to revise the plan after discussions with the monitoring team. Plaintiffs agreed
to allow DHS a further extension to September 2010 because DHS’ plan relies heavily on the
conversion of children’s health care coverage to the Medicaid managed care system scheduled
to occur this fall.
Beginning in Period One, DHS agreed to ensure that each child entering custody will be assigned
a Medicaid number and that foster parents and other placement providers will receive a
Medicaid card, or an alternative verification of the child’s Medicaid status and number, within
30 days of the child’s entry into care. DHS was unable to track and ensure implementation of
this commitment through Period Three.
Beginning in Period Three, DHS committed to ensure that children entering custody receive
needed emergency medical, dental, and mental health care, as well as a full medical
examination within 30 days of the child’s entry into care. The monitoring team found no
evidence to support that DHS had been able to comply with these commitments by the close of
Period Three. DHS did not have in place a tracking system to identify the extent to which it
offered children a full medical examination within 30 days. The monitoring team, therefore,
undertook a case record review and examined the case files of a number of children from
multiple counties who entered care during Period Three. Of 111 cases reviewed, the
monitoring team found documentation of only 37 percent of children receiving a medical
examination within 30 days of entering care, underscoring the need for significant additional
work to be done in this area.
B. Provision of Educational Services
DHS is responsible to ensure that every reasonable effort is made to meet the educational
needs of children in custody. DHS is required to ensure that each child is screened for general
and educational needs within 30 days of his/her entry into custody and to take reasonable
steps to ensure that school-age foster children are registered for and attending school within
five days of placement. Furthermore, DHS is required to make reasonable efforts to ensure the
124
continuity of a child’s educational experience by keeping the child in a familiar or current school
and neighborhood when in the child’s best interests and feasible, and by limiting the number of
school changes the child experiences.
In the Agreement, DHS committed to hire 14 regional Education Planners to offer “support to
youth age 14 and older in accessing educational services and in developing individualized
education plans, including identifying all available financial aid resources.” (VIII.A.4.b.v.) As of
June 2010, 12 of the 14 Planners had been identified or hired, and DHS, based on an
assessment of children’s needs, decided to dedicate eight of the 14 positions to the five largest
urban counties while placing the other six staff in 22 multi-county configurations.
DHS conducts its educational assessment of children using a question within the Child
Assessment of Needs and Strengths (CANS). According to DHS, prior to completing the CANS
the caseworker collects information through interviews with the family, child, placement
resources, and collateral contacts and a thorough review of available documentation.
Caseworkers complete the CANS and create a child-specific service plan. Within the service
plan the caseworker is asked to document the following items in the education section: school
name, grade, whether the child was passing or failing, and any other pertinent information. If
education is identified as a need, the caseworker must identify services to address the need and
document the identified services and/or activities in the plan.
In December 2009 an interim policy bulletin was released providing guidance to the field
regarding educational services for children in custody. The bulletin directs caseworkers to
complete an educational assessment within 30 days and include prior educational assessments
when determining current educational needs of the child. Policy clarifies the caseworker’s role
to include coordination with school personnel to gather previous school records, utilizing
previous assessments, and to have discussions with parents, teachers, and other interested
parties when assessing the child’s current educational needs.
The monitoring team reviewed more than 135 case files for children and youth who entered
placement during Period Three across a number of counties and found scant evidence that DHS
routinely screens children for educational needs within 30 days of entry into care. The
monitoring team also conducted a set of interviews with DHS child welfare field staff and
leadership and determined that many were unfamiliar with the educational assessment process
and could not articulate a standard practice for assessing children’s educational needs. The
monitoring team will continue to review this area of practice closely in future periods and
report on DHS’ ability to identify and meet children’s educational needs.
125
Appendix A – Dispute Resolution Documents
Document 1: Plaintiffs’ Notice of Noncompliance, March 10, 2010
Document 2: Defendants’ Response, March 24, 2010
Document 3: Defendants’ Proposal to Address Alleged Noncompliance, April 9, 2010 (Note:

Defendants modified and executed proposal originally documented by the
monitoring team based on in-person negotiations between the parties.)
Document 4: Plaintiffs’ Response, April 12, 2010
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
A-10
A-11
A-12
A-13
A-14
A-15
A-16
A-17
A-18
A-19
A-20
Memorandum
To: Kevin Ryan, PCG
From: Susan Lambiase, Sara Bartosz
Date: April 21, 2010
Re: Plaintiffs’ Comments to the Monitor’s April 12, 2010 Memorandum
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs comment below on the Monitor’s Memorandum that Plaintiffs received on April 12,
2010, which set forth the commitments proposed by the State during the parties’ March 25,
2010 meeting with the Monitor in Lansing, Michigan. In so doing, Plaintiffs expressly reserve
(1) all prior objections regarding any and all instances of Defendants’ non-compliance in
implementing the consent decree and (2) all their rights to seek strict compliance with the
terms of the consent decree going forward. Specifically, Plaintiffs comment regarding the
State’s proposed commitments in response to Plaintiffs’ March 10, 2010 notice of non-
compliance in a good faith effort to facilitate progress toward all reform goals. However,
Plaintiffs suspend decision on any possible legal action on these issues until receipt of the final
Monitoring Report for Period Three, at which point Plaintiffs will assess progress on the issues
that are the subject of dispute resolution and decide whether formal enforcement action on
these areas of noncompliance will be necessary.
TRAINING
Pre-Service VI.A.2 & 4
It is Plaintiffs’ position that the identified commitments do not adequately address: (1) how the
field will manage ensuring that individual caseworkers, whether public or private, will be
assigned caseloads that do not exceed the maximum training caseload before completing their
hours of pre-service training and passing the performance evaluation; the commitments go
more toward documentation than substance in terms of enforcing the training caseload
maximum; (2) how CWTI trainings will be offered at times and places sufficient to meet the
legitimate business need of private child placing agencies to assign salaried caseworker staff full
caseloads as soon as possible and appropriate; and (3) how accountability for system-wide
compliance with training requirements (pre-service, in-service and supervisory) will be vested,
both organizationally and in practice, in a single, responsible DHS manager, instead of
fragmented or diffused across multiple offices or individuals.
A-21
In-Service VI.A.3
It is Plaintiffs’ position that the three identified commitments must be expressly made
applicable to both public and private child placing agencies and their supervisory/caseworker
staff.
Supervisory Training VI.B.2 & 6
It is Plaintiffs’ position that the identified commitments do not adequately assure that new
supervisors, whether public or private, are not assigned supervisory responsibilities beyond a
three month period before completing their hours of supervisory training and passing the
performance examination; the commitments go more toward documentation than substance in
terms of enforcing supervisory qualifications and training.
Licensing Training VI.C
Plaintiffs do not object to the State’s commitments on this performance element as set
forth in the Monitor’s memorandum.
CASELOADS
1. Caseload Counting Methodology for All Caseloads
Plaintiffs do not object to the State’s commitments on this performance element as set forth in
the Monitor’s memorandum.
Adoption Caseloads VI.E(4)(b)
the Monitor’s memorandum. Plaintiffs expressly reserve their right to object to the proposed
weighting methodology developed by DHS to assure that adoption workers carry appropriate
workloads.
CPS Caseloads VI.E(5)(a)(i) and (b)(i)
PERMANENCY BACKLOG/LEGALLY FREE CHILDREN
PPS Hiring VII.G(2)(b) & (3)(a)
A-22
Plaintiffs object to the State’s commitments on this performance element as set forth in the
Monitor’s memorandum. The consent decree explicitly requires DHS to create and fill 200 full-
time positions for Permanency Planning Specialists and related supervisory and support staff.
Defendants have failed to create and fill the 200 positions and now plan to reduce further this
specialized permanency workforce by continuing to allow PPA positions to go unfilled when
vacancies arise. Additionally, the parties have agreed that the intent of this commitment was
for the agency to hire (or contract for) non-caseload carrying staff to serve in the PPS role, but
DHS continues to have the PPS staff actually carry the backlog cases. The substantial progress
to be made in reducing the permanency backlogs is placed in further peril by continued short
staffing and heavy workload.
Legally Free Backlog Cohort VII.G(3)(c)
Plaintiffs object to the State’s commitments on this performance element as set forth in the
Monitor’s memorandum. Specifically, Plaintiffs object to the caseloads being carried by
Permanency Planning Specialists (to which we have previously objected), which all are well
beyond the CWLA acceptable range for an adoption worker. The backlog cohort work requires
consistent and intensive effort to develop connections for children who have languished in care
for extended periods without an identified pre-adoptive or other permanency resource.
Second, Plaintiffs object to the lack of supports being provided by DHS to its private agency
partners in relation to backlog cohort cases. Children in the legally free backlog cohort are
entitled to the same intensive permanency planning work whether assigned to a DHS or private
CPA caseworker.
SERVICES
Health Services Plan VIII.A(2)
forth in the Monitor’s memorandum and the Bridge Health Plan.
Medicaid Card VIII.A(2)(d)
Mental Health Spending VIII.A(3)
A-23
Psychotropic Medication Documentation XI.A(5)
the Monitor’s memorandum subject to their right to review and object to the psychotropic
medication protocol to be submitted by DHS on or before May 15, 2010.
YOUTH AGING OUT VIII.A(4)(a) & (b)(i-iv)
the Monitor’s draft memorandum. (As a reminder, Plaintiffs have previously expressly reserved
their objection to Defendants’ failure to meet their obligations as set forth in Section VIII(b)(i-iv)
of the consent decree on or before November 15, 2008.)
RELATIVE LICENSING VIII.B(7)(b), (e), (j), (k), (m)
Plaintiffs object to the State’s commitments on this performance element as set forth in
the Monitor’s draft memorandum. First, Plaintiffs are unable to determine how many private
agency caseworkers are in fact devoted to working on the relative licensing backlog. Second,
DHS has not demonstrated any legally binding commitment by private CPAs to provide work on
the relative licensing backlog of a defined nature and extent. Third, Plaintiffs are not satisfied
that DHS is exercising adequate supervision over its private providers in addressing the relative
licensing backlog. Finally, it is Plaintiffs’ position that DHS is not delivering a coordinated, full-
time effort by the equivalent of 40 staff, both public and private, as is required by the
settlement agreement. The relative licensing process continues to appear fragmented and ad
hoc in relation to case assignments and responsibilities.
MALTREATMENT IN CARE XII.C
forth in the Monitor’s memorandum.
A-24
Appendix B - Complaints, Investigations, Substantiations, and Timeliness by County
(October 2009 through March 2010)
Percentage of Percentage of
CPS CPS Complaints Investigations
COUNTY Substantiations
Complaints Investigations Resulting in Resulting in
Investigations Substantiations
Alcona 52 33 63% 13 39%
Alger 63 32 51% 9 28%
Allegan 836 392 47% 154 39%
Alpena 259 120 46% 27 23%
Antrim 275 134 49% 32 24%
Arenac 153 112 73% 36 32%
Baraga 63 51 81% 11 22%
Barry 381 277 73% 63 23%
Bay 782 562 72% 119 21%
Benzie 105 59 56% 9 15%
Berrien 1,113 723 65% 260 36%
Branch 429 380 89% 163 43%
Calhoun 1,435 711 50% 182 26%
Cass 326 208 64% 50 24%
Charlevoix 245 139 57% 28 20%
Cheboygan 345 270 78% 91 34%
Chippewa 361 141 39% 35 25%
Clare 279 87 31% 33 38%
Clinton 351 207 59% 37 18%
Crawford 146 87 60% 27 31%
Delta 283 154 54% 18 12%
Dickinson 194 92 47% 32 35%
Eaton 778 510 66% 180 35%
Emmet 247 143 58% 27 19%
Genesee 3,527 2,863 81% 715 25%
Gladwin 194 94 48% 18 19%
Gogebic 136 68 50% 11 16%
Grand Traverse 781 433 55% 69 16%
Gratiot 340 151 44% 44 29%
Hillsdale 451 349 77% 114 33%
Houghton 108 77 71% 21 27%
Huron 175 80 46% 21 26%
Ingham 1,958 1,198 61% 461 38%
Ionia 754 373 49% 107 29%
A-25
Iosco 191 126 66% 48 38%
Iron 101 71 70% 14 20%
Isabella 490 312 64% 72 23%
Jackson 1,112 733 66% 189 26%
Kalamazoo 2,229 1,247 56% 519 42%
Kalkaska 207 124 60% 44 35%
Kent 3,621 2,043 56% 740 36%
Keweenaw 2 2 100% 1 50%
Lake 170 109 64% 37 34%
Lapeer 489 288 59% 77 27%
Leelanau 14 11 79% 1 9%
Lenawee 719 352 49% 88 25%
Livingston 750 503 67% 100 20%
Luce 94 45 48% 16 36%
Mackinac 81 50 62% 10 20%
Macomb 3,337 2,395 72% 601 25%
Manistee 183 119 65% 18 15%
Marquette 467 234 50% 73 31%
Mason 268 177 66% 22 12%
Mecosta 369 172 47% 31 18%
Menominee 181 92 51% 27 29%
Midland 589 262 44% 57 22%
Missaukee 5 4 80% 1 25%
Monroe 849 367 43% 109 30%
Montcalm 682 399 59% 38 10%
Montmorency 42 32 76% 11 34%
Muskegon 1,509 867 57% 250 29%
Newaygo 580 366 63% 85 23%
Oakland 4,061 2,749 68% 586 21%
Oceana 262 169 65% 29 17%
Ogemaw 213 115 54% 40 35%
Ontonagon 43 21 49% 7 33%
Osceola 261 142 54% 25 18%
Oscoda 70 43 61% 7 16%
Otsego 275 152 55% 48 32%
Ottawa 1,311 569 43% 99 17%
Presque Isle 68 34 50% 5 15%
A-26
Roscommon 273 126 46% 39 31%
Saginaw 1,420 1,223 86% 338 28%
Sanilac 339 238 70% 35 15%
Schoolcraft 87 42 48% 6 14%
Shiawassee 653 444 68% 157 35%
St Clair 1,467 962 66% 188 20%
St Joseph 597 390 65% 98 25%
Tuscola 489 221 45% 66 30%
Van Buren 685 418 61% 101 24%
Washtenaw 1,264 783 62% 240 31%
Wayne 7,719 6,496 84% 1,730 27%
Wexford 474 296 62% 91 31%
TOTAL 59,287 38,445 Median: 60% 10,431 Median: 26%
Range: Range:
31% to 100% 9% to 50%
A-27
Complaint Complaint
to to Complaint to Complaint to
Commence Disposition Commence Disposition
COUNTY (Avg. Hours) (Avg. Days) COUNTY (Avg. Hours) (Avg. Days)
Alcona 2.29 33.16 Leelanau 15.19 43.6
Alger 11.2 34.91 Lenawee 8.81 30.86
Allegan 7.48 32.45 Livingston 6.94 30.72
Alpena 3.92 42.21 Luce 9.55 27.27
Antrim 3.08 34.15 Mackinac 9.36 29.34
Arenac 8.08 26.44 Macomb 22.47 27.08
Baraga 8.73 30.56 Manistee 6.42 32.79
Barry 3.81 27.85 Marquette 10.45 27.91
Bay 9.37 33.36 Mason 3.33 36.32
Benzie 15.7 29.33 Mecosta 10.21 35.05
Berrien 7.41 32.34 Menominee 8.23 23.83
Branch 8.28 29.88 Midland 5.28 21.08
Calhoun 17.99 28.33 Missaukee 4.5 27
Cass 10.25 32.4 Monroe 14.01 29.88
Charlevoix 8.67 32.2 Montcalm 18.48 38.49
Cheboygan 6.54 29.1 Montmorency 6.53 20.13
Chippewa 8.92 30.61 Muskegon 5.21 27.02
Clare 9.95 41.79 Newaygo 5.13 37.18
Clinton 9.21 33.85 Oakland 19.95 27.58
Crawford 5.1 21.18 Oceana 3.94 49.27
Delta 5.4 24.78 Lapeer 12.69 28.63
Dickinson 46.58 32.65 Ogemaw 18.37 21.16
Eaton 5.56 31.16 Ontonagon 2.79 21.76
Emmet 8.15 36.24 Osceola 5.92 37.44
Genesee 10.7 28.22 Oscoda 9.65 25.09
Gladwin 6.98 29.82 Otsego 2.99 35.36
Gogebic Unknown 27.04 Ottawa 19.91 41.29
Grand
Traverse 28.34 35.06 Presque Isle 5.79 37
Gratiot 3.61 29.42 Roscommon 12.4 34.39
Hillsdale 9.52 22.31 Saginaw 13.85 29.66
A-28
Complaint Complaint
to to Complaint to Complaint to
Commence Disposition Commence Disposition
COUNTY (Avg. Hours) (Avg. Days) COUNTY (Avg. Hours) (Avg. Days)
Houghton 6.05 33.28 Sanilac 8.61 27.11
Huron 8.66 28.91 Schoolcraft 7.63 28.9
Ingham 14.64 22.9 Shiawassee 1.62 20.87
Ionia 10.51 28.79 St Clair 9.65 37.54
Iosco 3.76 32.48 St Joseph 2.32 38.28
Iron 7.76 46.8 Tuscola 15.93 36.1
Isabella 2.48 43.97 Van Buren 11.69 30.11
Jackson 8.18 28.7 Washtenaw 38.28 33.89
Kalamazoo 11.37 29.17 Wayne 22.74 30.24
Kalkaska 4.5 33.72 Wexford 2.9 33.2
1.62 to 46.58
Kent 13.51 23.93 RANGE 20 to 49 days
hours
Keweenaw 12.42 29
Lake 3.3 34.27
MEDIAN 9 hours 31 days
Lapeer 12.69 28.63
A-29
Appendix C - Ages of Children in Custody by County
Age by County
(March 2010)
12-17 Years
0-6 Years Old 7-11 Years Old 18 and Older Grand
County Old
Total
Children % Children % Children % Children %
Alcona 0 0% 1 14% 6 86% 0 0% 7
Alger 5 50% 3 30% 2 20% 0 0% 10
Allegan 53 38% 39 28% 42 30% 4 3% 138
Alpena 18 43% 9 21% 13 31% 2 5% 42
Antrim 4 21% 3 16% 10 53% 2 11% 19
Arenac 12 40% 9 30% 9 30% 0 0% 30
Baraga 17 53% 9 28% 6 19% 0 0% 32
Barry 26 41% 20 32% 16 25% 1 2% 63
Bay 46 48% 19 20% 26 27% 5 5% 96
Benzie 5 63% 1 13% 2 25% 0 0% 8
Berrien 205 49% 82 20% 108 26% 21 5% 416
Branch 45 51% 22 25% 21 24% 0 0% 88
Calhoun 125 53% 47 20% 51 22% 14 6% 237
Cass 55 46% 25 21% 34 29% 5 4% 119
Central Office 66 17% 117 30% 190 48% 19 5% 392
Charlevoix 13 37% 8 23% 13 37% 1 3% 35
Cheboygan 30 41% 21 28% 23 31% 0 0% 74
Chippewa 26 57% 12 26% 7 15% 1 2% 46
Clare 14 48% 1 3% 9 31% 5 17% 29
Clinton 68 54% 26 21% 28 22% 4 3% 126
Crawford 19 28% 19 28% 25 37% 4 6% 67
Delta 9 60% 2 13% 2 13% 2 13% 15
Dickinson 31 61% 10 20% 9 18% 1 2% 51
Eaton 81 58% 29 21% 22 16% 8 6% 140
Emmet 18 42% 7 16% 17 40% 1 2% 43
Genesee 541 45% 249 21% 336 28% 75 6% 1,201
Gladwin 5 42% 4 33% 2 17% 1 8% 12
Gogebic 8 33% 7 29% 8 33% 1 4% 24
Grand
Traverse 84 50% 38 23% 41 24% 5 3% 168
Gratiot 24 50% 7 15% 15 31% 2 4% 48
Hillsdale 58 59% 27 28% 11 11% 2 2% 98
Houghton 10 45% 5 23% 7 32% 0 0% 22
A-30
Age by County
(March 2010)
12-17 Years
County Old
Total
Huron 8 24% 6 18% 18 53% 2 6% 34
Ingham 283 44% 131 20% 184 28% 49 8% 647
Ionia 47 53% 15 17% 22 25% 4 5% 88
Iosco 17 41% 7 17% 14 34% 3 7% 41
Iron 6 43% 2 14% 4 29% 2 14% 14
Isabella 51 61% 19 23% 8 10% 5 6% 83
Jackson 104 44% 48 20% 68 29% 17 7% 237
Kalamazoo 232 51% 91 20% 105 23% 30 7% 458
Kalkaska 16 38% 8 19% 15 36% 3 7% 42
Kent 438 46% 165 17% 280 29% 77 8% 960
Keweenaw 0 0% 1 33% 2 67% 0 0% 3
Lake 6 24% 9 36% 8 32% 2 8% 25
Lapeer 19 48% 11 28% 9 23% 1 3% 40
Leelanau 9 25% 13 36% 12 33% 2 6% 36
Lenawee 56 42% 38 28% 36 27% 4 3% 134
Livingston 31 44% 8 11% 28 40% 3 4% 70
Luce 5 71% 0 0% 0 0% 2 29% 7
Mackinac 10 48% 8 38% 3 14% 0 0% 21
Macomb 532 45% 219 18% 360 30% 76 6% 1,187
Manistee 13 87% 0 0% 2 13% 0 0% 15
Marquette 22 41% 14 26% 15 28% 3 6% 54
Mason 7 29% 7 29% 10 42% 0 0% 24
Mecosta 39 49% 18 23% 22 28% 0 0% 79
Menominee 10 33% 12 40% 7 23% 1 3% 30
Midland 42 48% 15 17% 23 26% 7 8% 87
Missaukee 7 41% 3 18% 6 35% 1 6% 17
Monroe 54 40% 32 24% 30 22% 18 13% 134
Montcalm 27 43% 12 19% 19 30% 5 8% 63
Montmorency 0 0% 1 11% 8 89% 0 0% 9
Muskegon 214 45% 107 23% 132 28% 19 4% 472
Newaygo 26 43% 7 12% 18 30% 9 15% 60
Oakland 357 35% 226 22% 335 33% 109 11% 1,027
Oceana 15 54% 5 18% 7 25% 1 4% 28
Ogemaw 11 39% 5 18% 11 39% 1 4% 28
Ontonagon 2 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2
A-31
Age by County
(March 2010)
12-17 Years
County Old
Total
Osceola 12 39% 8 26% 10 32% 1 3% 31
Oscoda 2 40% 1 20% 1 20% 1 20% 5
Otsego 27 52% 16 31% 8 15% 1 2% 52
Ottawa 79 49% 24 15% 47 29% 12 7% 162
Presque Isle 7 64% 1 9% 3 27% 0 0% 11
Roscommon 27 55% 7 14% 13 27% 2 4% 49
Saginaw 152 48% 63 20% 81 26% 19 6% 315
Sanilac 13 41% 5 16% 11 34% 3 9% 32
Schoolcraft 0 0% 4 67% 1 17% 1 17% 6
Shiawassee 47 51% 13 14% 27 29% 6 6% 93
St Clair 177 51% 71 20% 79 23% 20 6% 347
St Joseph 99 52% 44 23% 43 23% 4 2% 190
Tuscola 36 47% 15 20% 21 28% 4 5% 76
Van Buren 70 47% 33 22% 36 24% 9 6% 148
Washtenaw 94 43% 47 22% 54 25% 23 11% 218
Wayne 1,869 38% 954 19% 1,578 32% 528 11% 4,929
Wexford 25 61% 11 27% 4 10% 1 2% 41
Total 7,173 43% 3,458 21% 4,949 29% 1,277 8% 16,857
A-32
Appendix D - Length of Stay by County
Length of Stay by County

(March 2010)
Less More
than 1 1-2 2-3 3-6 than 6 Grand
County year % years % years % years % years % Total
Alcona 1 14% 1 14% 0 0% 1 14% 4 57% 7
Alger 4 40% 5 50% 0 0% 1 10% 0 0% 10
Allegan 78 57% 27 20% 18 13% 13 9% 2 1% 138
Alpena 30 71% 5 12% 4 10% 3 7% 0 0% 42
Antrim 3 16% 9 47% 0 0% 7 37% 0 0% 19
Arenac 15 50% 9 30% 4 13% 2 7% 0 0% 30
Baraga 9 28% 16 50% 4 13% 2 6% 1 3% 32
Barry 36 57% 18 29% 7 11% 2 3% 0 0% 63
Bay 49 51% 20 21% 18 19% 8 8% 1 1% 96
Benzie 5 63% 1 13% 2 25% 0 0% 0 0% 8
Berrien 182 44% 99 24% 60 14% 58 14% 17 4% 416
Branch 38 43% 35 40% 5 6% 9 10% 1 1% 88
Calhoun 97 41% 60 25% 42 18% 31 13% 7 3% 237
Cass 61 51% 28 24% 11 9% 14 12% 5 4% 119
Central Office 242 62% 150 38% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 392
Charlevoix 15 43% 12 34% 4 11% 4 11% 0 0% 35
Cheboygan 46 62% 18 24% 8 11% 2 3% 0 0% 74
Chippewa 32 70% 13 28% 1 2% 0 0% 0 0% 46
Clare 12 41% 10 34% 1 3% 4 14% 2 7% 29
Clinton 45 36% 42 33% 16 13% 23 18% 0 0% 126
Crawford 31 46% 21 31% 10 15% 4 6% 1 1% 67
Delta 11 73% 0 0% 0 0% 2 13% 2 13% 15
Dickinson 34 67% 10 20% 1 2% 5 10% 1 2% 51
Eaton 82 59% 37 26% 13 9% 8 6% 0 0% 140
Emmet 27 63% 12 28% 0 0% 4 9% 0 0% 43
Genesee 401 33% 274 23% 211 18% 196 16% 119 10% 1201
Gladwin 5 42% 2 17% 3 25% 2 17% 0 0% 12
Gogebic 13 54% 4 17% 2 8% 2 8% 3 13% 24
Grand
Traverse 61 36% 58 35% 32 19% 16 10% 1 1% 168
Gratiot 23 48% 19 40% 1 2% 1 2% 4 8% 48
Hillsdale 21 21% 21 21% 27 28% 24 24% 5 5% 98
A-33
(March 2010)
Less More
Houghton 12 55% 7 32% 0 0% 1 5% 2 9% 22
Huron 18 53% 4 12% 6 18% 4 12% 2 6% 34
Ingham 263 41% 187 29% 79 12% 82 13% 36 6% 647
Ionia 47 53% 26 30% 5 6% 6 7% 4 5% 88
Iosco 29 71% 3 7% 4 10% 5 12% 0 0% 41
Iron 7 50% 2 14% 1 7% 3 21% 1 7% 14
Isabella 56 67% 16 19% 3 4% 7 8% 1 1% 83
Jackson 78 33% 63 27% 27 11% 50 21% 19 8% 237
Kalamazoo 226 49% 124 27% 48 10% 36 8% 24 5% 458
Kalkaska 20 48% 12 29% 5 12% 2 5% 3 7% 42
Kent 362 38% 289 30% 160 17% 116 12% 33 3% 960
Keweenaw 0 0% 0 0% 3 100% 0 0% 0 0% 3
Lake 18 72% 4 16% 0 0% 1 4% 2 8% 25
Lapeer 28 70% 8 20% 1 3% 3 8% 0 0% 40
Leelanau 12 33% 3 8% 16 44% 4 11% 1 3% 36
Lenawee 49 37% 52 39% 9 7% 21 16% 3 2% 134
Livingston 38 54% 18 26% 3 4% 10 14% 1 1% 70
Luce 5 71% 0 0% 0 0% 1 14% 1 14% 7
Mackinac 12 57% 6 29% 3 14% 0 0% 0 0% 21
Macomb 491 41% 377 32% 126 11% 152 13% 41 3% 1187
Manistee 8 53% 7 47% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 15
Marquette 26 48% 14 26% 3 6% 8 15% 3 6% 54
Mason 9 38% 2 8% 2 8% 10 42% 1 4% 24
Mecosta 36 46% 26 33% 10 13% 5 6% 2 3% 79
Menominee 14 47% 7 23% 2 7% 2 7% 5 17% 30
Midland 27 31% 32 37% 8 9% 15 17% 5 6% 87
Missaukee 12 71% 4 24% 0 0% 0 0% 1 6% 17
Monroe 69 51% 28 21% 9 7% 20 15% 8 6% 134
Montcalm 33 52% 15 24% 6 10% 8 13% 1 2% 63
Montmorency 4 44% 5 56% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 9
Muskegon 225 48% 132 28% 52 11% 47 10% 16 3% 472
Newaygo 25 42% 18 30% 0 0% 14 23% 3 5% 60
Oakland 318 31% 287 28% 149 15% 189 18% 84 8% 1027
Oceana 16 57% 11 39% 1 4% 0 0% 0 0% 28
Ogemaw 19 68% 3 11% 2 7% 2 7% 2 7% 28
A-34
(March 2010)
Less More
Ontonagon 2 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2
Osceola 19 61% 10 32% 2 6% 0 0% 0 0% 31
Oscoda 3 60% 1 20% 1 20% 0 0% 0 0% 5
Otsego 31 60% 17 33% 1 2% 3 6% 0 0% 52
Ottawa 97 60% 27 17% 19 12% 16 10% 3 2% 162
Presque Isle 4 36% 3 27% 4 36% 0 0% 0 0% 11
Roscommon 25 51% 15 31% 5 10% 3 6% 1 2% 49
Saginaw 180 57% 64 20% 10 3% 43 14% 18 6% 315
Sanilac 13 41% 8 25% 3 9% 7 22% 1 3% 32
Schoolcraft 0 0% 1 17% 0 0% 5 83% 0 0% 6
Shiawassee 52 56% 16 17% 9 10% 11 12% 5 5% 93
St Clair 178 51% 77 22% 43 12% 42 12% 7 2% 347
St Joseph 99 52% 55 29% 26 14% 8 4% 2 1% 190
Tuscola 31 41% 28 37% 8 11% 7 9% 2 3% 76
Van Buren 77 52% 35 24% 21 14% 11 7% 4 3% 148
Washtenaw 89 41% 50 23% 32 15% 32 15% 15 7% 218
Wayne 1676 34% 993 20% 692 14% 894 18% 674 14% 4929
Wexford 30 73% 1 2% 5 12% 1 2% 4 10% 41
Total 6,927 41% 4,229 25% 2,129 13% 2,355 14% 1,217 7% 16,857
A-35
Appendix E - CPS Caseloads by County

All Staff
Urban 332 178 54% 132 40%
Genesee 48 17 35% 11 23%
Ingham 19 16 84% 10 53%
Kent 39 29 74% 25 64%
Macomb 40 20 50% 15 38%
Oakland 45 16 36% 13 29%
Wayne Central 0 0 N/A 0 N/A
Wayne North 44 25 57% 19 43%
Wayne South 44 24 55% 18 41%
Wayne West 53 31 58% 21 40%
Outstate 435 247 57% 187 43%
Alcona-Iosco 5 4 80% 2 40%
Alger-Schoolcraft 4 4 100% 4 100%
Allegan 8 4 50% 4 50%
Alpena-Preque Isle 4 0 0% 0 0%
Antrim 4 4 100% 4 100%
Arenac 3 3 100% 1 33%
Baraga-Keweenaw 3 3 100% 3 100%
Barry 4 2 50% 0 0%
Bay 9 5 56% 4 44%
Benzie-Manistee 4 4 100% 4 100%
Berrien 11 4 36% 3 27%
Branch 7 4 57% 0 0%
Calhoun 11 4 36% 4 36%
Cass 5 3 60% 2 40%
Charlevoix-Emmet 7 3 43% 2 29%
Cheboygan-Mackinac 7 6 86% 4 57%
Chippewa 3 2 67% 2 67%
Clare 2 0 0% 0 0%
Clinton 4 0 0% 0 0%
Crawford 4 3 75% 2 50%
Delta 3 3 100% 3 100%
Dickinson 3 3 100% 3 100%
Eaton 12 6 50% 2 17%
Gladwin 2 2 100% 2 100%
Gogebic 4 4 100% 4 100%
Grand Traverse-Leelanau 8 3 38% 3 38%
Gratiot 4 1 25% 0 0%
Hillsdale 5 4 80% 3 60%
Houghton 3 3 100% 3 100%
A-36
All Staff
Huron 2 1 50% 0 0%
Ionia 6 6 100% 5 83%
Iron 3 1 33% 1 33%
Isabella 7 2 29% 0 0%
Jackson 16 14 88% 13 81%
Kalamazoo 21 5 24% 3 14%
Kalkaska 4 4 100% 4 100%
Lake 2 1 50% 0 0%
Lapeer 5 5 100% 5 100%
Lenawee 7 7 100% 7 100%
Livingston 8 2 25% 1 13%
Luce 3 1 33% 1 33%
Marquette 5 3 60% 2 40%
Mason 4 0 0% 0 0%
Mecosta-Osceola 6 2 33% 1 17%
Menominee 3 3 100% 2 67%
Midland 6 3 50% 2 33%
Monroe 8 3 38% 2 25%
Montcalm 7 2 29% 2 29%
Montmorency-Oscoda 3 2 67% 2 67%
Muskegon 20 17 85% 12 60%
Newaygo 7 6 86% 4 57%
Oceana 4 0 0% 0 0%
Ogemaw 3 3 100% 1 33%
Ontonagon 2 2 100% 2 100%
Otsego 3 3 100% 3 100%
Ottawa 14 10 71% 5 36%
Roscommon 4 1 25% 1 25%
Saginaw 27 14 52% 14 52%
Sanilac 5 3 60% 3 60%
Shiawassee 6 6 100% 5 83%
St. Clair 18 7 39% 5 28%
St. Joseph 9 8 89% 5 56%
Tuscola 5 0 0% 0 0%
Van Buren 9 3 33% 2 22%
Washtenaw 13 2 15% 1 8%
Wexford-Missaukee 7 4 57% 3 43%
Grand Total 767 425 55% 319 42%
A-37
Target = 95% Target = 60%
All Staff
April 2010
Urban 336 182 54% 134 40%
Genesee 48 17 35% 10 21%
Ingham 22 19 86% 13 59%
Kent 40 31 78% 27 68%
Macomb 39 19 49% 14 36%
Oakland 49 19 39% 14 29%
Wayne Central 0 0 N/A 0 N/A
Wayne North 42 23 55% 17 40%
Wayne South 44 24 55% 18 41%
Wayne West 52 30 58% 21 40%
Outstate 421 255 61% 197 47%
Alcona-Iosco 5 4 80% 2 40%
Alger-Schoolcraft 3 3 100% 3 100%
Allegan 9 5 56% 4 44%
Alpena-Preque Isle 4 0 0% 0 0%
Antrim 4 4 100% 4 100%
Arenac 4 4 100% 2 50%
Baraga-Keweenaw 2 2 100% 2 100%
Barry 6 4 67% 2 33%
Bay 9 5 56% 4 44%
Benzie-Manistee 4 4 100% 4 100%
Berrien 10 3 30% 3 30%
Branch 8 5 63% 1 13%
Calhoun 11 4 36% 4 36%
Cass 5 3 60% 2 40%
Charlevoix-Emmet 6 2 33% 1 17%
Cheboygan-Mackinac 7 6 86% 4 57%
Chippewa 4 3 75% 3 75%
Clare 2 0 0% 0 0%
Clinton 3 0 0% 0 0%
Crawford 3 3 100% 2 67%
Delta 2 2 100% 2 100%
Dickinson 5 5 100% 5 100%
Eaton 9 5 56% 2 22%
A-38
All Staff
April 2010
Gladwin 3 3 100% 3 100%
Gogebic 3 3 100% 3 100%
Grand Traverse-Leelanau 7 2 29% 2 29%
Gratiot 4 1 25% 0 0%
Hillsdale 9 8 89% 6 67%
Houghton 3 3 100% 3 100%
Huron 2 1 50% 0 0%
Ionia 4 4 100% 3 75%
Iron 3 1 33% 1 33%
Isabella 7 2 29% 0 0%
Jackson 8 8 100% 7 88%
Kalamazoo 28 12 43% 10 36%
Kalkaska 4 4 100% 4 100%
Lake 2 1 50% 0 0%
Lapeer 5 5 100% 5 100%
Lenawee 9 9 100% 8 89%
Livingston 7 2 29% 2 29%
Luce 3 1 33% 1 33%
Marquette 5 3 60% 2 40%
Mason 4 0 0% 0 0%
Mecosta-Osceola 5 2 40% 1 20%
Menominee 2 2 100% 1 50%
Midland 6 3 50% 2 33%
Monroe 8 3 38% 2 25%
Montcalm 2 1 50% 1 50%
Montmorency-Oscoda 3 2 67% 2 67%
Muskegon 21 18 86% 13 62%
Newaygo 6 5 83% 2 33%
Oceana 4 0 0% 0 0%
Ogemaw 3 3 100% 1 33%
Ontonagon 1 1 100% 1 100%
Otsego 5 5 100% 5 100%
Ottawa 12 9 75% 6 50%
Roscommon 4 1 25% 1 25%
A-39
All Staff
April 2010
Saginaw 29 17 59% 17 59%
Sanilac 5 3 60% 3 60%
Shiawassee 7 7 100% 6 86%
St. Clair 15 5 33% 3 20%
St. Joseph 8 8 100% 6 75%
Tuscola 6 1 17% 1 17%
Van Buren 3 3 100% 2 67%
Washtenaw 14 3 21% 2 14%
Wexford-Missaukee 7 4 57% 3 43%
Grand Total 757 437 58% 331 44%
A-40
Appendix F - Foster Care Caseloads by County/Agency
Foster Care
1 Staff to 22 1 Staff to 25 Children 1 Staff to 30
All Staff Children Target = 60% Children
Urban 356 288 81% 325 91% 339 95%

Genesee 49 49 100% 49 100% 49 100%
Ingham 19 10 53% 19 100% 19 100%
Kent 14 12 86% 12 86% 14 100%
Macomb 44 18 41% 32 73% 33 75%
Oakland 51 49 96% 49 96% 49 96%
Wayne Central 13 11 85% 11 85% 13 100%
Wayne North 66 61 92% 64 97% 65 98%
Wayne South 58 47 81% 55 95% 57 98%
Wayne West 42 31 74% 34 81% 40 95%
Outstate 328 254 77% 290 88% 305 93%
Alcona-Iosco 3 3 100% 3 100% 3 100%
Alger-Schoolcraft 2 2 100% 2 100% 2 100%
Allegan 7 5 71% 6 86% 7 100%
Alpena-Preque Isle 3 0 0% 1 33% 1 33%
Antrim 3 1 33% 2 67% 2 67%
Arenac 3 2 67% 2 67% 3 100%
Baraga-Keweenaw 3 3 100% 3 100% 3 100%
Barry 3 3 100% 3 100% 3 100%
Bay 5 4 80% 5 100% 5 100%
Benzie-Manistee 2 2 100% 2 100% 2 100%
Berrien 21 15 71% 18 86% 18 86%
Branch 5 3 60% 5 100% 5 100%
Calhoun 11 10 91% 11 100% 11 100%
Cass 5 3 60% 5 100% 5 100%
Charlevoix-Emmet 4 4 100% 4 100% 4 100%
Cheboygan-Mackinac 4 3 75% 3 75% 4 100%
Chippewa 1 1 100% 1 100% 1 100%
Clare 1 1 100% 1 100% 1 100%
Clinton 7 6 86% 7 100% 7 100%
Crawford 4 4 100% 4 100% 4 100%
Delta 2 2 100% 2 100% 2 100%
Dickinson 3 3 100% 3 100% 3 100%
Eaton 7 6 86% 7 100% 7 100%
A-41
Foster Care
Gladwin 2 2 100% 2 100% 2 100%
Gogebic 3 3 100% 3 100% 3 100%
Grand Traverse-Leelanau 6 6 100% 6 100% 6 100%
Gratiot 3 3 100% 3 100% 3 100%
Hillsdale 5 5 100% 5 100% 5 100%
Houghton 3 3 100% 3 100% 3 100%
Huron 3 1 33% 1 33% 1 33%
Ionia 4 4 100% 4 100% 4 100%
Iron 3 0 0% 2 67% 2 67%
Isabella 5 5 100% 5 100% 5 100%
Jackson 9 9 100% 9 100% 9 100%
Kalamazoo 15 5 33% 11 73% 12 80%
Kalkaska 2 2 100% 2 100% 2 100%
Lake 1 1 100% 1 100% 1 100%
Lapeer 4 4 100% 4 100% 4 100%
Lenawee 8 7 88% 7 88% 8 100%
Livingston 5 3 60% 3 60% 4 80%
Luce 1 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Marquette 4 4 100% 4 100% 4 100%
Mason 2 2 100% 2 100% 2 100%
Mecosta-Osceola 5 4 80% 4 80% 5 100%
Menominee 1 1 100% 1 100% 1 100%
Midland 8 6 75% 6 75% 6 75%
Monroe 7 7 100% 7 100% 7 100%
Montcalm 2 0 0% 2 100% 2 100%
Montmorency-Oscoda 1 1 100% 1 100% 1 100%
Muskegon 13 3 23% 5 38% 9 69%
Newaygo 4 4 100% 4 100% 4 100%
Oceana 1 1 100% 1 100% 1 100%
Ogemaw 2 2 100% 2 100% 2 100%
Ontonagon 1 1 100% 1 100% 1 100%
Otsego 3 3 100% 3 100% 3 100%
Ottawa 6 5 83% 6 100% 6 100%
Roscommon 2 0 0% 0 0% 2 100%
Saginaw 19 18 95% 19 100% 19 100%
Sanilac 3 3 100% 3 100% 3 100%
Shiawassee 5 5 100% 5 100% 5 100%
A-42
Foster Care
St. Clair 17 10 59% 14 82% 15 88%
St. Joseph 8 5 63% 7 88% 8 100%
Tuscola 6 5 83% 5 83% 5 83%
Van Buren 6 4 67% 6 100% 6 100%
Washtenaw 7 7 100% 7 100% 7 100%
Wexford-Missaukee 4 4 100% 4 100% 4 100%
Private Agency 435 403 93% 417 96% 420 97%
Adoption Option Inc 1 1 100% 1 100% 1 100%
Adoption Options World
Wide 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Adoption Specialists 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Alternatives for Children
and Families 10 9 90% 9 90% 9 90%
Bethany Christian
Services 51 46 90% 47 92% 48 94%
Black Family
Development 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Catholic Charities
Lakeshore 5 0 0% 5 100% 5 100%
Catholic Charities of
Lenawee 2 2 100% 2 100% 2 100%
Catholic Charities
Shiawassee Genesee
Counties 4 4 100% 4 100% 4 100%
Catholic Charities West
Michigan Grand Rapids 9 7 78% 9 100% 9 100%
Catholic Family Services
of the Dioceses of
Saginaw 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Catholic Social Services
of Washtenaw 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
of Wayne County 7 7 100% 7 100% 7 100%
Child & Family Services
Capital Area 7 7 100% 7 100% 7 100%
Northwestern Michigan 14 14 100% 14 100% 14 100%
A-43
Foster Care
of NE MI 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Child and Family Services
of Wisconsin and the UP 4 4 100% 4 100% 4 100%
Childhelp Inc. 4 4 100% 4 100% 4 100%
DA Blodgett for Children 26 23 88% 23 88% 23 88%
Don Bosco Hall 2 2 100% 2 100% 2 100%
Eagle Village 4 3 75% 3 75% 3 75%
Ennis Center for Children 20 20 100% 20 100% 20 100%
Evergreen Children’s
Services 9 8 89% 8 89% 8 89%
Family & Children
Services 10 10 100% 10 100% 10 100%
Family Adoption
Consultants 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Family Counseling &
Children Services 3 3 100% 3 100% 3 100%
Family Outreach Center 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Family Services &
Children’s Aid of Jackson 3 3 100% 3 100% 3 100%
Federation of Youth
Services, Transitional
Living Program 4 4 100% 4 100% 4 100%
Forever Families 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Girlstown 3 1 33% 3 100% 3 100%
Goodwill Farms 1 1 100% 1 100% 1 100%
Hands Across the Water 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Holy Cross Children
Services 33 30 91% 31 94% 31 94%
Homes For Black
Children 5 5 100% 5 100% 5 100%
Judson Center 5 4 80% 4 80% 4 80%
Listening Ear 2 2 100% 2 100% 2 100%
Lutheran Adoption
Services 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Lutheran Child and
Family Service of
Michigan 25 23 92% 23 92% 23 92%
A-44
Foster Care
Lutheran Social Services
of Michigan 44 43 98% 44 100% 44 100%
Methodist Children’s
Home Society 4 4 100% 4 100% 4 100%
Michigan Indian Child
Welfare Agency 4 2 50% 3 75% 4 100%
New Light Child & Family
Institute 3 3 100% 3 100% 3 100%
Oakland Family Services 5 3 60% 4 80% 5 100%
Orchards Children’s
Services 23 23 100% 23 100% 23 100%
Pathways, MI 3 3 100% 3 100% 3 100%
Sault Binogii Tribe
Placement 3 3 100% 3 100% 3 100%
Spaulding For Children 7 7 100% 7 100% 7 100%
Spectrum Human
Services 8 8 100% 8 100% 8 100%
St. Francis Family Center
of Oakland 10 10 100% 10 100% 10 100%
St. Vincent Catholic
Charities 5 5 100% 5 100% 5 100%
Starfish Family Services 2 2 100% 2 100% 2 100%
Teaching Family Homes 2 1 50% 1 50% 1 50%
The Children’s Center 12 12 100% 12 100% 12 100%
Upper Peninsula Family
Solutions 3 3 100% 3 100% 3 100%
Vista Maria 7 7 100% 7 100% 7 100%
Wedgwood Christian
Services 3 3 100% 3 100% 3 100%
Wolverine Human
Services 11 11 100% 11 100% 11 100%
Youth Guidance Foster
Care 3 3 100% 3 100% 3 100%
Grand Total 1,119 945 84% 1,032 92% 1,064 95%
A-45
Appendix G - Adoption Caseloads by County/Agency
Adoption
Children Target = 60% Children
All Staff
April 2010
Urban 28 18 64% 19 68% 22 79%
Genesee 7 1 14% 1 14% 2 29%
Ingham 2 2 100% 2 100% 2 100%
Kent 7 6 86% 6 86% 7 100%
Macomb 3 0 0% 1 33% 2 67%
Oakland 3 3 100% 3 100% 3 100%
Wayne Central 5 5 100% 5 100% 5 100%
Wayne North 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Wayne South 1 1 100% 1 100% 1 100%
Wayne West 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Outstate 37 12 32% 17 46% 20 54%
Alcona-Iosco 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Alger-Schoolcraft 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Allegan 2 1 50% 1 50% 2 100%
Alpena-Preque Isle 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Antrim 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Arenac 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Baraga-Keweenaw 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Barry 2 0 0% 1 50% 2 100%
Bay 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Benzie-Manistee 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Berrien 4 0 0% 1 25% 1 25%
Branch 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Calhoun 3 2 67% 2 67% 2 67%
Cass 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Charlevoix-Emmet 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Cheboygan-Mackinac 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Chippewa 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Clare 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Clinton 1 1 100% 1 100% 1 100%
Crawford 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Delta 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Dickinson 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Eaton 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
A-46
Adoption
All Staff
April 2010
Gladwin 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Gogebic 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Grand Traverse-Leelanau 6 0 0% 0 0% 1 17%
Gratiot 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Hillsdale 1 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Houghton 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Huron 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Ionia 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Iron 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Isabella 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Jackson 2 2 100% 2 100% 2 100%
Kalamazoo 2 2 100% 2 100% 2 100%
Kalkaska 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Lake 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Lapeer 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Lenawee 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Livingston 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Luce 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Marquette 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Mason 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Mecosta-Osceola 1 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Menominee 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Midland 1 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Monroe 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Montcalm 1 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Montmorency-Oscoda 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Muskegon 1 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Newaygo 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Oceana 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Ogemaw 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Ontonagon 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Otsego 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Ottawa 1 1 100% 1 100% 1 100%
Roscommon 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Saginaw 3 3 100% 3 100% 3 100%
Sanilac 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
A-47
Adoption
All Staff
April 2010
Shiawassee 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
St. Clair 2 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
St. Joseph 1 0 0% 1 100% 1 100%
Tuscola 1 0 0% 1 100% 1 100%
Van Buren 1 0 0% 1 100% 1 100%
Washtenaw 1 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Wexford-Missaukee 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Private Agency 207 154 74% 178 86% 189 91%
Adoption Option Inc 4 4 100% 4 100% 4 100%
Adoption Options World Wide 2 2 100% 2 100% 2 100%
Adoption Specialists 2 0 0% 1 50% 2 100%
Alternatives for Children and
Families 4 3 75% 3 75% 3 75%
Bethany Christian Services 27 19 70% 22 81% 23 85%
Black Family Development 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Catholic Charities Lakeshore 5 2 40% 3 60% 4 80%
Catholic Charities of Lenawee 2 2 100% 2 100% 2 100%
Catholic Charities Shiawassee
Genesee Counties 3 3 100% 3 100% 3 100%
Catholic Charities West Michigan
Grand Rapids 6 3 50% 4 67% 5 83%
Catholic Family Services of the
Dioceses of Saginaw 1 1 100% 1 100% 1 100%
Catholic Social Services of
Washtenaw 1 1 100% 1 100% 1 100%
Catholic Social Services of Wayne
County 2 2 100% 2 100% 2 100%
Child & Family Services Capital
Area 4 3 75% 3 75% 3 75%
Northwestern Michigan 7 5 71% 7 100% 7 100%
Child & Family Services of NE MI 4 4 100% 4 100% 4 100%
Child and Family Services of
Wisconsin and the UP 2 2 100% 2 100% 2 100%
Childhelp Inc. 1 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
DA Blodgett for Children 10 9 90% 9 90% 9 90%
A-48
Adoption
All Staff
April 2010
Don Bosco Hall 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Eagle Village 3 3 100% 3 100% 3 100%
Ennis Center for Children 10 9 90% 10 100% 10 100%
Evergreen Children’s Services 5 4 80% 4 80% 4 80%
Family & Children Services 6 5 83% 5 83% 5 83%
Family Adoption Consultants 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Family Counseling & Children
Services 4 4 100% 4 100% 4 100%
Family Outreach Center 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Family Services & Children’s Aid
of Jackson 3 2 67% 2 67% 2 67%
Federation of Youth Services,
Transitional Living Program 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Forever Families 2 1 50% 2 100% 2 100%
Girlstown 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Goodwill Farms 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Hands Across the Water 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Holy Cross Children Services 1 0 0% 1 100% 1 100%
Homes For Black Children 4 4 100% 4 100% 4 100%
Judson Center 4 4 100% 4 100% 4 100%
Listening Ear 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Lutheran Adoption Services 27 13 48% 21 78% 25 93%
Lutheran Child and Family Service
of Michigan 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Lutheran Social Services of
Michigan 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Methodist Children’s Home
Society 3 3 100% 3 100% 3 100%
Michigan Indian Child Welfare
Agency 2 1 50% 1 50% 2 100%
New Light Child & Family
Institute 1 1 100% 1 100% 1 100%
Oakland Family Services 3 3 100% 3 100% 3 100%
Orchards Children’s Services 10 9 90% 10 100% 10 100%
Pathways, MI 1 0 0% 0 0% 1 100%
Sault Binogii Tribe Placement 2 2 100% 2 100% 2 100%
A-49
Adoption
All Staff
April 2010
Spaulding For Children 4 4 100% 4 100% 4 100%
Spectrum Human Services 3 0 0% 3 100% 3 100%
St. Francis Family Center Catholic
Social Services of Oakland 7 4 57% 4 57% 5 71%
St. Vincent Catholic Charities 3 3 100% 3 100% 3 100%
Starfish Family Services 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Teaching Family Homes 1 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
The Children’s Center 5 4 80% 5 100% 5 100%
Upper Peninsula Family Solutions 1 1 100% 1 100% 1 100%
Vista Maria 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Wedgwood Christian Services 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
Wolverine Human Services 4 4 100% 4 100% 4 100%
Youth Guidance Foster Care 1 1 100% 1 100% 1 100%
Grand Total 272 184 68% 214 79% 231 85%
A-50
Appendix H - Licensing Caseloads by County/Agency
Licensing Workers
1 Staff to 36 Cases
All Staff
Urban 35 28 80%
Genesee 5 5 100%
Ingham 2 2 100%
Kent 2 2 100%
Macomb 10 8 80%
Oakland 4 4 100%
Wayne Central 11 6 55%
Wayne North 0 0 N/A
Wayne South 1 1 100%
Wayne West 0 0 N/A
Outstate 90 69 77%
Alcona-Iosco 1 1 100%
Alger-Schoolcraft 0 0 N/A
Allegan 2 1 50%
Alpena-Preque Isle 1 0 0%
Antrim 0 0 N/A
Arenac 3 3 100%
Baraga-Keweenaw 1 1 100%
Barry 1 1 100%
Bay 1 1 100%
Benzie-Manistee 1 1 100%
Berrien 5 3 60%
Branch 2 2 100%
Calhoun 5 5 100%
Cass 1 1 100%
Charlevoix-Emmet 1 1 100%
Cheboygan-Mackinac 2 1 50%
Chippewa 0 0 N/A
Clare 0 0 N/A
Clinton 1 1 100%
Crawford 1 0 0%
Delta 1 1 100%
Dickinson 0 0 N/A
Eaton 2 1 50%
Gladwin 1 1 100%
Gogebic 1 1 100%
Grand Traverse-Leelanau 0 0 N/A
Gratiot 1 1 100%
Hillsdale 1 1 100%
Houghton 1 1 100%
A-51
Licensing Workers
1 Staff to 36 Cases
All Staff
Huron 1 1 100%
Ionia 1 1 100%
Iron 1 1 100%
Isabella 1 1 100%
Jackson 2 2 100%
Kalamazoo 4 2 50%
Kalkaska 0 0 N/A
Lake 0 0 N/A
Lapeer 0 0 N/A
Lenawee 1 0 0%
Livingston 2 2 100%
Luce 1 0 0%
Marquette 1 1 100%
Mason 1 1 100%
Mecosta-Osceola 2 2 100%
Menominee 1 1 100%
Midland 1 0 0%
Monroe 2 2 100%
Montcalm 0 0 N/A
Montmorency-Oscoda 1 1 100%
Muskegon 3 1 33%
Newaygo 1 1 100%
Oceana 1 1 100%
Ogemaw 2 2 100%
Ontonagon 1 1 100%
Otsego 0 0 N/A
Ottawa 2 2 100%
Roscommon 0 0 N/A
Saginaw 5 4 80%
Sanilac 1 1 100%
Shiawassee 1 1 100%
St. Clair 4 1 25%
St. Joseph 2 2 100%
Tuscola 2 1 50%
Van Buren 2 1 50%
Washtenaw 2 1 50%
Wexford-Missaukee 1 1 100%
Private Agency 221 182 82%
Adoption Option Inc 4 4 100%
Adoption Options World Wide 1 1 100%
Adoption Specialists 0 0 N/A
Alternatives for Children and Families 4 3 75%
A-52
Licensing Workers
1 Staff to 36 Cases
All Staff
Bethany Christian Services 26 17 65%
Black Family Development 1 0 0%
Catholic Charities Lakeshore 4 4 100%
Catholic Charities of Lenawee 1 1 100%
Catholic Charities Shiawassee Genesee Counties 4 4 100%
Catholic Charities West Michigan Grand Rapids 3 3 100%
Catholic Family Services of the Dioceses of Saginaw 1 1 100%
Catholic Social Services of Washtenaw 0 0 N/A
Catholic Social Services of Wayne County 3 3 100%
Child & Family Services Capital Area 3 3 100%
Child & Family Services Northwestern Michigan 7 6 86%
Child & Family Services of NE MI 3 3 100%
Child and Family Services of Wisconsin and the UP 2 2 100%
Childhelp Inc. 2 2 100%
DA Blodgett for Children 7 4 57%
Don Bosco Hall 0 0 N/A
Eagle Village 1 1 100%
Ennis Center for Children 11 10 91%
Evergreen Children’s Services 3 1 33%
Family & Children Services 4 4 100%
Family Adoption Consultants 0 0 N/A
Family Counseling & Children Services 2 2 100%
Family Outreach Center 0 0 N/A
Family Services & Children’s Aid of Jackson 1 0 0%
Federation of Youth Services, Transitional Living
Program 0 0 N/A
Forever Families 2 2 100%
Girlstown 1 0 0%
Goodwill Farms 1 1 100%
Hands Across the Water 0 0 N/A
Holy Cross Children Services 14 14 100%
Homes For Black Children 3 0 0%
Judson Center 0 0 N/A
Listening Ear 2 2 100%
Lutheran Adoption Services 0 0 N/A
Lutheran Child and Family Service of Michigan 18 15 83%
Lutheran Social Services of Michigan 27 24 89%
Methodist Children’s Home Society 3 2 67%
Michigan Indian Child Welfare Agency 2 2 100%
New Light Child & Family Institute 2 1 50%
Oakland Family Services 5 3 60%
Orchards Children’s Services 8 6 75%
A-53
Licensing Workers
1 Staff to 36 Cases
All Staff
Pathways, MI 2 2 100%
Sault Binogii Tribe Placement 2 2 100%
Spaulding For Children 2 2 100%
Spectrum Human Services 3 3 100%
St. Francis Family Center Catholic Social Services of
Oakland 4 4 100%
St. Vincent Catholic Charities 3 3 100%
Starfish Family Services 0 0 N/A
Teaching Family Homes 3 2 67%
The Children’s Center 5 2 40%
Upper Peninsula Family Solutions 2 2 100%
Vista Maria 3 3 100%
Wedgwood Christian Services 1 1 100%
Wolverine Human Services 4 4 100%
Youth Guidance Foster Care 1 1 100%
Grand Total 346 279 81%
A-54
Appendix I - POS Caseloads by County
Purchase of Service Monitors (by County)

1 Staff to 55 Cases
April 2010
Urban 356 322 90%
Genesee 52 46 88%
Ingham 8 8 100%
Kent 21 11 52%
Macomb 47 33 70%
Oakland 56 56 100%
Wayne North 61 60 98%
Wayne West 42 40 95%
Outstate 236 204 86%
Alcona-Iosco 2 2 100%
Alger-Schoolcraft 2 1 50%
Allegan 5 4 80%
Antrim 2 2 100%
Arenac 1 1 100%
Barry 4 4 100%
Bay 5 5 100%
Berrien 5 2 40%
Branch 3 3 100%
Calhoun 11 10 91%
Cass 3 3 100%
Chippewa 1 1 100%
Clare 1 1 100%
Clinton 2 2 100%
Crawford 4 3 75%
Delta 1 1 100%
Dickinson 3 3 100%
Eaton 4 4 100%
Gladwin 0 0 N/A
Gogebic 2 2 100%
A-55
1 Staff to 55 Cases
April 2010
Grand Traverse-Leelanau 11 6 55%
Gratiot 0 0 N/A
Hillsdale 4 3 75%
Houghton 1 1 100%
Huron 4 2 50%
Ionia 0 0 N/A
Iron 1 0 0%
Isabella 4 4 100%
Jackson 12 12 100%
Kalamazoo 12 7 58%
Kalkaska 2 2 100%
Lake 1 1 100%
Lapeer 1 1 100%
Lenawee 8 8 100%
Livingston 3 3 100%
Luce 0 0 N/A
Marquette 2 2 100%
Mason 2 2 100%
Menominee 1 1 100%
Midland 2 1 50%
Monroe 7 7 100%
Montcalm 3 2 67%
Muskegon 8 4 50%
Newaygo 4 4 100%
Oceana 1 1 100%
Ogemaw 1 1 100%
Ontonagon 0 0 N/A
Otsego 3 3 100%
Ottawa 6 6 100%
Roscommon 2 2 100%
Saginaw 16 16 100%
Sanilac 1 1 100%
Shiawassee 5 5 100%
St. Clair 4 2 50%
St. Joseph 8 8 100%
Tuscola 3 3 100%
Van Buren 2 2 100%
A-56
1 Staff to 55 Cases
April 2010
Washtenaw 5 4 80%
A-57
Appendix J - Supervisory Staff Ratios by County/Agency
Supervisor to Staff Ratios (by County

and Private Agency)
1 Supervisor to 5
All
Staff
Supervisors
Urban 143 70 49%
Genesee 19 6 32%
Ingham 9 4 44%
Kent 14 11 79%
Macomb 18 8 44%
Oakland 18 5 28%
Wayne North 20 9 45%
Wayne West 18 8 44%
Outstate 172 101 59%
Alcona-Iosco 1 0 0%
Alger-Schoolcraft 1 1 100%
Allegan 3 1 33%
Antrim 1 0 0%
Arenac 2 2 100%
Barry 3 2 67%
Bay 3 3 100%
Berrien 6 3 50%
Branch 2 1 50%
Calhoun 7 7 100%
Cass 2 1 50%
Chippewa 2 1 50%
Clare 1 1 100%
Clinton 3 2 67%
Crawford 2 2 100%
Delta 2 2 100%
Dickinson 1 1 100%
A-58
and Private Agency)
1 Supervisor to 5
All
Staff
Supervisors
Eaton 4 3 75%
Gladwin 1 1 100%
Gogebic 2 2 100%
Grand Traverse-Leelanau 4 1 25%
Gratiot 1 0 0%
Hillsdale 2 0 0%
Houghton 1 1 100%
Huron 2 2 100%
Ionia 3 1 33%
Iron 1 1 100%
Isabella 2 1 50%
Jackson 6 3 50%
Kalamazoo 7 2 29%
Lake 1 1 100%
Lapeer 2 1 50%
Lenawee 3 0 0%
Livingston 3 3 100%
Marquette 2 2 100%
Mason 2 2 100%
Midland 3 2 67%
Monroe 3 1 33%
Montcalm 2 1 50%
Muskegon 8 4 50%
Newaygo 3 1 33%
Oceana 1 1 100%
Ogemaw 2 2 100%
Ontonagon 1 1 100%
Otsego 2 2 100%
Ottawa 4 1 25%
Roscommon 1 0 0%
Saginaw 11 6 55%
Sanilac 1 0 0%
Shiawassee 3 3 100%
St. Clair 7 3 43%
A-59
and Private Agency)
1 Supervisor to 5
All
Staff
Supervisors
St. Joseph 3 2 67%
Tuscola 2 0 0%
Van Buren 4 2 50%
Washtenaw 5 3 60%
Private Agency 230 175 76%
Adoption Option Inc 1 1 100%
Adoption Options World Wide 2 2 100%
Adoption Specialists 2 0 0%
Alternatives for Children and Families 6 3 50%
Bethany Christian Services 27 18 67%
Black Family Development 1 1 100%
Catholic Charities Lakeshore 4 1 25%
Catholic Charities of Lenawee 1 1 100%
Catholic Charities Shiawassee Genesee Counties 3 3 100%
Catholic Charities West Michigan Grand Rapids 4 3 75%
Catholic Family Services of the Dioceses of Saginaw 1 1 100%
Catholic Social Services of Washtenaw 1 1 100%
Catholic Social Services of Wayne County 5 5 100%
Child & Family Services Capital Area 3 2 67%
Child & Family Services Northwestern Michigan 6 5 83%
Child & Family Services of NE MI 1 1 100%
Child and Family Services of Wisconsin and the UP 1 1 100%
Childhelp Inc. 3 3 100%
DA Blodgett for Children 12 5 42%
Don Bosco Hall 1 1 100%
Eagle Village 3 2 67%
Ennis Center for Children 9 7 78%
Evergreen Children’s Services 5 3 60%
Family & Children Services 4 3 75%
Family Adoption Consultants 0 0 NA
Family Counseling & Children Services 3 3 100%
Family Outreach Center 0 0 NA
Family Services & Children’s Aid of Jackson 3 3 100%
Federation of Youth Services 1 1 100%
Forever Families 1 1 100%
A-60
and Private Agency)
1 Supervisor to 5
All
Staff
Supervisors
Girlstown 1 1 100%
Goodwill Farms 1 1 100%
Hands Across the Water 0 0 NA
Holy Cross Children Services 12 9 75%
Homes For Black Children 3 3 100%
Judson Center 3 2 67%
Listening Ear 1 1 100%
Lutheran Adoption Services 7 4 57%
Lutheran Child and Family Service of Michigan 13 10 77%
Lutheran Social Services of Michigan 19 16 84%
Methodist Children’s Home Society 2 1 50%
Michigan Indian Child Welfare Agency 3 2 67%
New Light Child & Family Institute 2 1 50%
Oakland Family Services 3 3 100%
Orchards Children’s Services 10 9 90%
Pathways, MI 2 2 100%
Sault Binogii Tribe Placement 1 1 100%
Spaulding For Children 4 4 100%
Spectrum Human Services 3 1 33%
St. Francis Family Center Catholic Social Services of
Oakland 4 2 50%
St. Vincent Catholic Charities 3 3 100%
Starfish Family Services 1 1 100%
Teaching Family Homes 2 1 50%
The Children’s Center 6 6 100%
Upper Peninsula Family Solutions 1 1 100%
Vista Maria 3 3 100%
Wedgwood Christian Services 1 1 100%
Wolverine Human Services 4 4 100%
Youth Guidance Foster Care 1 1 100%
A-61
Appendix K - Foster Homes Licensing Targets by County
FY2010 Non-Kin Licensing Targets

Target for Target for
FY2010 Homes Licensed
Homes for Homes for Period 4 % Target
County Licensing During Period
0-13 year Youth 14 Target Remaining
Target Three
olds and older
Alcona 3 2 1 0 3 100%
Alger 1 1 0 1 0 0%
Allegan 37 31 6 13 24 65%
Alpena 5 4 1 0 5 100%
Antrim 10 8 2 5 5 50%
Arenac 4 3 1 0 4 100%
Baraga 4 3 1 1 3 75%
Barry 12 8 4 5 7 58%
Bay 16 11 5 4 12 75%
Benzie 5 4 1 6 0 0%
Berrien 22 15 7 10 12 55%
Branch 7 2 5 1 6 86%
Calhoun 29 20 9 11 18 62%
Cass 14 12 2 5 9 64%
Charlevoix 7 5 2 3 4 57%
Cheboygan 5 4 1 3 2 40%
Chippewa 5 4 1 1 4 80%
Clare 5 2 3 2 3 60%
Clinton 11 6 5 4 7 64%
Crawford 7 5 2 1 6 86%
Delta 4 3 1 2 2 50%
Dickinson 3 2 1 1 2 67%
Eaton 23 15 8 11 12 52%
Emmet 8 5 3 5 3 38%
Genesee 76 36 40 28 48 63%
Gladwin 3 2 1 1 2 67%
Gogebic 6 4 2 1 5 83%
Gd. Traverse 26 23 3 7 19 73%
Gratiot 6 4 2 1 5 83%
Hillsdale 8 6 2 3 5 63%
Houghton 9 6 3 3 6 67%
Huron 4 3 1 1 3 75%
Ingham 32 17 15 14 18 56%
Ionia 6 3 3 4 2 33%
A-62
Target Three
olds and older
Iosco 3 2 1 0 3 100%
Iron 3 2 1 0 3 100%
Isabella 12 10 2 2 10 83%
Jackson 19 11 8 5 14 74%
Kalamazoo 47 27 20 25 22 47%
Kalkaska 7 5 2 3 4 57%
Kent 95 55 40 55 40 42%
Keweenaw 1 1 0 0 1 100%
Lake 6 4 2 0 6 100%
Lapeer 4 3 1 1 3 75%
Leelanau 5 3 2 1 4 80%
Lenawee 22 16 6 9 13 59%
Livingston 14 9 5 7 7 50%
Luce 5 4 1 2 3 60%
Mackinac 4 3 1 1 3 75%
Macomb 127 77 50 36 91 72%
Manistee 3 2 1 3 0 0%
Marquette 6 4 2 3 3 50%
Mason 4 3 1 0 4 100%
Mecosta 12 9 3 1 11 92%
Menominee 10 6 4 1 9 90%
Midland 20 15 5 3 17 85%
Missaukee 6 5 1 2 4 67%
Monroe 9 5 4 5 4 44%
Montcalm 11 6 5 8 3 27%
Montmorency 1 1 0 0 1 100%
Muskegon 39 22 17 18 21 54%
Newaygo 3 1 2 2 1 33%
Oakland 104 70 34 47 57 55%
Oceana 6 5 1 3 3 50%
Ogemaw 6 5 1 0 6 100%
Ontonagon 4 3 1 0 4 100%
Osceola 8 6 2 4 4 50%
Oscoda 3 2 1 0 3 100%
Otsego 5 4 1 1 4 80%
A-63
Target Three
olds and older
Ottawa 39 35 4 30 9 23%
Presque Isle 2 1 1 1 1 50%
Roscommon 3 2 1 1 2 67%
Saginaw 26 20 6 17 9 35%
St. Clair 23 15 8 3 20 87%
St. Joseph 14 12 2 4 10 71%
Sanilac 4 3 1 0 4 100%
Schoolcraft 0 0 0 0 1 100%
Shiawassee 1 0 1 3 0 0%
Tuscola 17 13 4 4 13 76%
Van Buren 14 11 3 8 6 43%
Washtenaw 24 17 7 11 13 54%
Wayne 141 112 29 68 73 52%
Wexford 8 6 2 3 5 63%
Totals 1,373 932 441 559 814 59%
A-64
Appendix L - Reunification Permanency Backlog Cohort Progress by County
Reunification Permanency Backlog Cohort Progress

Still in Care
Total Exits to % Achieving Other
County (As of
Baseline Permanency Permanency Exits
3/31/10)
Alcona 4 4 100.0% 0 0
Alger 3 3 100.0% 0 0
Allegan 34 32 94.1% 0 2
Alpena 16 12 75.0% 1 3
Antrim 20 20 100.0% 0 0
Arenac 10 3 30.0% 0 7
Baraga 0 NA NA NA 0
Barry 4 4 100.0% 0 0
Bay 17 10 58.8% 0 7
Benzie 5 4 80.0% 0 1
Berrien 96 45 46.9% 0 51
Branch 18 14 77.8% 0 4
Calhoun 88 67 76.1% 2 19
Cass 19 15 78.9% 1 3
Charlevoix 28 20 71.4% 0 8
Cheboygan 21 12 57.1% 0 9
Chippewa 10 9 90.0% 0 1
Clare 2 2 100.0% 0 0
Clinton 56 43 76.8% 2 11
Crawford 28 15 53.6% 1 12
Delta 1 NA NA NA 1
Dickinson 13 11 84.6% 0 2
Eaton 26 16 61.5% 0 10
Emmet 7 6 85.7% 0 1
Genesee 360 247 68.6% 4 109
Gladwin 0 NA NA NA 0
Gogebic 21 17 81.0% 0 4
Grand Traverse 16 16 100.0% 0 0
Gratiot 7 7 100.0% 0 0
Hillsdale 35 18 51.4% 0 17
Houghton 2 2 100.0% 0 0
Huron 12 6 50.0% 0 6
Ingham 112 73 65.2% 3 36
Ionia 10 10 100.0% 0 0
A-65
Still in Care
County (As of
3/31/10)
Iosco 6 2 33.3% 0 4
Iron 2 2 100.0% 0 0
Isabella 11 8 72.7% 1 2
Jackson 90 57 63.3% 2 31
Kalamazoo 41 30 73.2% 0 11
Kalkaska 8 8 100.0% 0 0
Kent 275 158 57.5% 10 107
Keweenaw 4 1 25.0% 0 3
Lake 5 5 100.0% 0 0
Lapeer 9 9 100.0% 0 0
Leelanau 7 2 28.6% 0 5
Lenawee 35 30 85.7% 0 5
Livingston 11 6 54.5% 0 5
Luce 1 1 100.0% 0 0
Mackinac 2 NA NA NA 2
Macomb 272 213 78.3% 7 52
Manistee 6 4 66.7% 1 1
Marquette 16 9 56.3% 0 7
Mason 10 5 50.0% 0 5
Mecosta 14 7 50.0% 0 7
Menominee 11 5 45.5% 0 6
Midland 14 11 78.6% 0 3
Missaukee 0 NA NA NA 0
Monroe 26 19 73.1% 0 7
Montcalm 10 7 70.0% 1 2
Montmorency 0 NA NA NA 0
Muskegon 78 53 67.9% 0 25
Newaygo 9 8 88.9% 0 1
Oakland 529 394 74.5% 17 118
Oceana 6 5 83.3% 0 1
Ogemaw 2 2 100.0% 0 0
Ontonagon 1 1 100.0% 0 0
Osceola 4 4 100.0% 0 0
Oscoda 1 NA NA NA 1
Otsego 11 7 63.6% 0 4
Ottawa 28 17 60.7% 0 11
Presque Isle 5 2 40.0% 0 3
A-66
Still in Care
County (As of
3/31/10)
Roscommon 5 5 100.0% 0 0
Saginaw 59 59 100.0% 0 0
St Clair 84 63 75.0% 2 19
St Joseph 53 39 73.6% 0 14
Sanilac 7 6 85.7% 0 1
Schoolcraft 0 NA NA NA 0
Shiawassee 63 53 84.1% 1 9
Tuscola 18 15 83.3% 0 3
Van Buren 28 22 78.6% 0 6
Washtenaw 29 15 51.7% 0 14
Wayne 2,007 1,136 56.6% 68 803
Wexford 3 2 66.7% 0 1
Total 5,017 3,270 65.2% 124 1,623
A-67
Appendix M - Legally Free Permanency Backlog Cohort Progress by County
Legally Free Permanency Backlog Cohort Progress

Still in Care
Total Exits to % Achieving
County Other Exits (As of
Baseline Permanency Permanency
3/31/10)
Alcona 1 0 0.0% 0 1
Alger 0 NA NA NA 0
Allegan 16 4 25.0% 3 9
Alpena 7 3 42.9% 2 2
Antrim 13 4 30.8% 1 8
Arenac 4 2 50.0% 1 1
Baraga 2 1 50.0% 0 1
Barry 6 3 50.0% 2 1
Bay 35 26 74.3% 1 8
Benzie 0 NA NA NA 0
Berrien 94 38 40.4% 10 46
Branch 16 11 68.8% 0 5
Calhoun 73 41 56.2% 14 18
Cass 16 8 50.0% 2 6
Charlevoix 0 NA NA NA 0
Cheboygan 9 6 66.7% 1 2
Chippewa 3 2 66.7% 1 0
Clare 7 3 42.9% 1 3
Clinton 39 23 59.0% 5 11
Crawford 9 5 55.6% 0 4
Delta 11 7 63.6% 1 3
Dickinson 9 6 66.7% 1 2
Eaton 12 5 41.7% 0 7
Emmet 5 3 60.0% 1 1
Genesee 416 158 38.0% 58 200
Gladwin 2 0 0.0% 0 2
Gogebic 4 1 25.0% 0 3
Grand Traverse 15 9 60.0% 2 4
Gratiot 17 8 47.1% 4 5
Hillsdale 16 7 43.8% 4 5
Houghton 2 0 0.0% 0 2
Huron 7 2 28.6% 0 5
Ingham 185 90 48.6% 27 68
Ionia 20 11 55.0% 1 8
A-68
Still in Care
3/31/10)
Iosco 11 3 27.3% 4 4
Iron 3 0 0.0% 0 3
Isabella 16 5 31.3% 6 5
Jackson 94 48 51.1% 6 40
Kalamazoo 110 30 27.3% 26 54
Kalkaska 8 3 37.5% 1 4
Kent 158 76 48.1% 29 53
Keweenaw 0 NA NA NA 0
Lake 8 6 75.0% 2 0
Lapeer 3 2 66.7% 0 1
Leelanau 8 3 37.5% 0 5
Lenawee 32 11 34.4% 4 17
Livingston 14 8 57.1% 2 4
Luce 5 4 80.0% 0 1
Mackinac 1 0 0.0% 1 0
Macomb 287 126 43.9% 37 124
Manistee 2 2 100.0% 0 0
Marquette 18 9 50.0% 2 7
Mason 5 0 0.0% 1 4
Mecosta 13 7 53.8% 2 4
Menominee 3 1 33.3% 0 2
Midland 32 17 53.1% 6 9
Missaukee 1 0 0.0% 1 0
Monroe 43 11 25.6% 4 28
Montcalm 10 5 50.0% 0 5
Montmorency 1 1 100.0% 0 0
Muskegon 87 32 36.8% 13 42
Newaygo 11 0 0.0% 4 7
Oakland 320 97 30.3% 43 180
Oceana 0 NA NA NA 0
Ogemaw 7 1 14.3% 0 6
Ontonagon 2 2 100.0% 0 0
Osceola 3 2 66.7% 1 0
Oscoda 0 NA NA NA 0
Otsego 8 6 75.0% 0 2
Ottawa 27 10 37.0% 7 10
Presque Isle 1 1 100.0% 0 0
A-69
Still in Care
3/31/10)
Roscommon 10 3 30.0% 2 5
Saginaw 146 66 45.2% 24 56
St Clair 53 20 37.7% 7 26
St Joseph 48 36 75.0% 3 9
Sanilac 18 11 61.1% 1 6
Schoolcraft 1 0 0.0% 1 0
Shiawassee 21 7 33.3% 2 12
Tuscola 19 13 68.4% 2 4
Van Buren 20 12 60.0% 2 6
Washtenaw 81 43 53.1% 5 33
Wayne 1,533 477 31.1% 225 831
Wexford 3 0 0.0% 1 2
Total 4,376 1,704 38.9% 620 2,052
A-70

Progress of The Michigan Department of Human Services, Period Three Monitoring Report, Dec 7, 2010

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Progress of The Michigan Department of Human Services, Period Three Monitoring Report, Dec 7, 2010

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Progress of the

Period Three Monitoring Report for

October 1, 2009—March 31, 2010

Issued December 7, 2010

Appendix A - Plaintiffs’ Notice of Non-Compliance and Related Documents ............................. A-1

Figure 1 – Ages of Children in Custody ......................................................................................... 30

 Supporting the workforce by lowering caseloads and enhancing training;

II. Summary of Progress & Challenges Ahead

III. Summary of Commitments

A. Complaints, Investigations, and Substantiations of Abuse and Neglect

Ages of Children in Custody

For full detail by county, see Appendix C.

Race of Children in Custody

Placement of Children in Custody

*Includes in- and out-of-state

Length of Stay in Care

For full detail by county, please see Appendix D.

VI. Building the Organizational Capacity to Support Reform

A. Building a Children’s Services Organization and Structure

DHS committed to a number of organizational, structural, and functional changes to better

Flexible Funding for Individualized Needs

The Agreement states:

In order to ensure that the range of funds, including “flexible

B. Strengthening Contract Oversight

DHS also committed to implement performance-based contracting – i.e., to include in its

C. Assessing the Adequacy of Resources for Reform

D. Assessing the Needs of Children and Families

A. Increasing Worker Qualifications

B. Expanding Training to Strengthen the Workforce

Table 1 – Comparison of Pre-Service Training in Period Two and Period Three

Not Yet Received

FC & Adoption Private Agency

Child Protective Services Caseloads

Table 3 – CPS Caseloads

Child Protective Services – Investigations

Table 4 – Foster Care Caseloads

Table 6 – Licensing Caseloads

POS Monitor Caseloads

Table 7 – POS Monitor Caseloads

Purchase of Service Monitors

For full detail by county, please see Appendix I.

Table 8 – Supervisor to Staff Ratios

Supervisor to Staff Ratios

For full detail by county and agency, please see Appendix J.

VIII. Developing the Capacity for Assessment & Implementation

A. Accessing and Utilizing Data

B. Federal Outcome Reporting

C. Implementing Quality Assurance

Table 10 – Period Three Special Reviews

*Sample was pulled on this cohort during Period Three.

IX. Improving Safety

A. Establishing a Statewide Child Abuse Hotline

B. Assessing CPS Capacity & Performance

C. Building a Robust CPS Quality Assurance System

X. Addressing Abuse and Neglect in Placement

 Improving identification and reporting of alleged and substantiated incidents of abuse

A. Structure and Reporting

Throughout Period Three, bifurcation of investigative responsibility remained in place in the

 CPS investigation of allegations of child abuse and neglect in placement;

DHS stressed the need for coordination among the roles:

C. Deploying New Accountability Tools

If the Bureau of Child and Adult Licensing (BCAL) and/or Children’s

 Nine contract agencies had substantiated incidents of corporal punishment; four of