From: Robert.Ward@cga.ct.gov To: CC: John.Geragosian@cga.ct.gov; Donna.G.Moore@cga.ct.

gov Subject: RE: Open records request Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 17:41:53 +0000 Ms. [Withheld] The Judicial Department made payments to Family Re-Entry, Inc. and New Directions, Inc. of North Central Connecticut without being able to verify the accuracy of the providers’ invoices. Forensic Health Services, Inc. was the provider for which the Judicial Department did not obtain a copy of an independent audit. Our audit was focused on the Judicial Department’s lack of internal control and therefor there was not any follow up with law enforcement personnel. Please feel free to call me if you need any further information or wish to discuss this matter. Robert M. Ward Auditor of Public Accounts 860-240-8653

From: [mailto: @live.com] Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 1:17 PM To: Geragosian, John; Ward, Robert Subject: Open records request

Dear Auditor, This is a freedom of information act request made pursuant to the State's open records laws seeking information relative the following 2010 audit of the judiciary: http://cga.ct.gov/apa/pdf2010/Judicial_90010_09.pdf See Page 15: "1. Lack of invoice monitoring- Our review of two providers, involving adult behavioral health services, revealed that the Department made payments without being able to verify the accuracy of the providers’ invoices. Information such as monthly client referrals and their treatments were not available to the Department’s Court Support Services Division Administration Unit. As a result, payments were made without any confirmation that referrals and treatments were valid. We were informed that this same condition applied to all fees for service contracts involving adult behavioral health services, which totaled $14,370,039 during the three year audited period. Such payments are part of a State grant for the Alternative Incarceration Program. 2. Lack of audit review- We noted a provider was exempt from the State and Federal single audit requirements and accordingly did not submit any audited financial statements. However, the Department’s contract with the provider contains a provision which can require the “exempt” provider to submit to an audit. The Department contracted with the provider to run several juvenile risk reduction centers. The provider was paid a total of $9,709,776 over the three fiscal years ending June 30, 2007, 2008 and 2009. Such a significant amount of payments should have prompted the Department to require an audit of the provider."

Request: (1) Please identify the names of the contractors referenced above. (2) Please disclose any documentation relative to any follow up action which was taken with law enforcement. Thank you.

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

AUDI TOR S’ R EP OR T JUDI CI AL DEP AR TM ENT FOR THE FI SCAL YEAR S ENDED JUNE 30, 2007, 2008 AND 2009

AUDITORS OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
KEVIN P. JOHNSTON ROBERT G. JAEKLE

Table of Contents INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................1 COMMENTS..............................................................................................................................1 Foreword ................................................................................................................................1 Résumé of Operations ............................................................................................................2 Revenues and Receipts .......................................................................................................2 General Fund Expenditures.................................................................................................3 Special Revenue Fund- Federal and Other Restricted Accounts ........................................4 Special Revenue Fund-Banking Fund.................................................................................5 Superior Court Condemnation Award Fund .......................................................................5 State Bar Examining Committee ........................................................................................6 CONDITION OF RECORDS ...................................................................................................7 Employee Evaluations............................................................................................................7 Attendance Records ...............................................................................................................7 Bar Examining Committee ....................................................................................................10 Agency Administered Construction Projects .........................................................................11 Expenditures ..........................................................................................................................12 State Grants ............................................................................................................................14 Office of Victim Services ......................................................................................................16 RECOMMENDATIONS ...........................................................................................................19 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CERTIFICATION................................................................22 CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................................24

April 19, 2010 AUDITORS' REPORT JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT FOR THE FISCAL YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 2007, 2008 AND 2009 We have examined the financial records of the Judicial Department for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2007, 2008 and 2009. This report on our examination consists of the Comments, Condition of Records, Recommendations and Certification that follow. The financial statement presentation and auditing of the books and accounts of the State are done on a Statewide Single Audit basis to include all State agencies including the Judicial Department. This audit examination has been limited to assessing compliance with certain provisions of financial related laws, regulations, contracts and grants and evaluating internal control structure policies and procedures established to ensure such compliance. COMMENTS FOREWORD: The Judicial Department operates under the provisions of Article Fifth of the Constitution of the State of Connecticut and Titles 6 and 51, Chapters 78 and 870, respectively, of the General Statutes. The Judicial Department is headed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who is responsible for the administration of the Department. Daily operations of the Department are under the direction of the Chief Court Administrator who is responsible for the efficient and proper administration of judicial business. Included within the Judicial Department are the Supreme Court, the Appellate Court, the Superior Court and the various Courts of Probate.

1

Auditors of Public Accounts The Supreme Court is the State's highest court. It must hear certain appeals from decisions of the Superior Court and it has discretion whether to grant review of cases decided by the Appellate Court. It also has authority to transfer to itself any case in the Appellate Court and, except certain original actions (as provided by Article XXVI of the Amendments to the Connecticut Constitution); it may transfer a case or class of cases from itself to the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court is an intermediate court of appeals. During the audited period, the Honorable David M. Borden, the Senior Associate Justice, served as acting Chief Justice, in accordance with Section 51-3 of the General Statutes, until April 25, 2007, when the current Chief Justice, the Honorable Chase T. Rogers, was confirmed. The Honorable William J. Lavery served as Chief Court Administrator until November 1, 2007, when he was replaced by the current Chief Court Administrator, the Honorable Barbara M. Quinn. The Superior Court is the sole court of original jurisdiction for all cases of action except for (1) such actions over which the courts of probate have original jurisdiction, as provided by statute, and (2) the very limited number of actions over which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction, as provided by the Constitution. During the period under review, the State was divided into 13 Judicial Districts and 20 Geographical Areas for purposes of applying venue in civil and criminal matters. There were also 13 Districts for the application of venue laws in juvenile matters and there were six separate courts established within various Judicial Districts solely for hearing housing matters. There also continued to be a tax session court located in New Britain. In addition, there was a Statewide Centralized Infractions Bureau for processing infractions, certain motor vehicle violations and certain minor criminal matters. All aspects of the Judicial Department's financial operations are covered in this report with the following exceptions. The Office of the Probate Court Administrator is an agency within the Judicial Department and is reported on separately by us. However, the individual local Courts of Probate are subject to audit by the Probate Court Administrator and are not audited by us. Similarly, the Public Defender Services Commission is an autonomous body within the Judicial Department and is reported on separately. RÉSUMÉ OF OPERATIONS: Revenues and Receipts: Revenues and receipts of the Department consisted primarily of the fines and fees collected at the various locations of the Superior Court and by its Centralized Infractions Bureau. All such receipts are credited initially to the Fines Awaiting Distributions Fund, which totaled $85,302,248 $89,372,829 and $89,793,750 for the 2006-2007, 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 fiscal years, respectively. Disbursements of the Fines Awaiting Distribution Fund consist of transfers to the following funds according to the provisions of the various statutes under which the fines and fees are levied.

2

Auditors of Public Accounts Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2007 2008 2009 $2,247,499 $2,489,431 $2,478,536 53,158,106 56,374,645 57,863,697 4,412,981 4,586,233 4,321,028 24,502,214 24,311,931 23,508,623 981,448 1,610.589 1,621,866 $85,302,248 $89,372,829 $89,793,750

Transfer to Criminal Injury Compensation Fund Transfer to General Fund Transfer to Special Revenue Funds Transfer to Special Transportation Fund Fines distributed to towns and miscellaneous Total Fund Disbursements

Parking fines are paid out to the towns in which the infractions occurred. General Fund receipts, in addition to the transfers from the Fines Awaiting Distribution Fund, totaled $5,166,834, $4,423,209 and $3,505,997 for the 2006-2007, 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 fiscal years, respectively. The significant categories of receipts were refunds of prior years’ expenditures, investment income and sales of the Commission on Legal Publications (COLP). In accordance with Section 51-52, subsection (e), of the General Statutes, excess funds from the Department's Clerk’s Trust Accounts are deposited in the State Treasurer's Short Term Investment Fund (STIF). Investment income from STIF was deposited in the General Fund and totaled $3,127,059, $2,270,187 and $582,206 for the 2006-2007, 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 fiscal years, respectively. The decrease in investment income over the three-year audit period corresponded to the steady decline of the STIF rate of return from over five percent during the 2006-2007 fiscal year to approximately one-half of one percent as of June 2009. COLP sales of legal publications totaled $449,304, $398,640 and $376,034 for the 2006-2007, 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 fiscal years, respectively. General Fund Expenditures: General Fund expenditures for the Judicial Department are summarized below: Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2007 2008 2009 Personal Services and Employee Benefits: Salaries and Wages $279,217, 110 All other 6,033,706 Total Personal Services and Employee Benefits 285,250,816 Purchases and Contracted Services: Professional, scientific and technical services 14,643,472 Premises and property expenses 31,149,206 Fixed charges 67,191,324 Client services 3,430,088 Information technology 6,520,678 Purchased commodities 5,938,257 Communications 2,995,713 $297,121,220 7,012,984 304,134,204 16,119,371 32,821,185 78,599,695 2,934,214 7,087,316 5,855,430 2,964,418 $311,928,628 7,288,690 319,217,318 17,010,942 35,078,342 87,535,036 2,541,526 6,584,893 5,318,591 3,314,193 3

Auditors of Public Accounts Capital outlays-Equipment All other Total Purchases and Contracted Services Total General Fund Expenditures 2,373,542 2,911,328 137,153,608 $422,404,424 2,693,294 3,180,412 152,255,335 $456,389,539 3,069,029 3,291,380 163,743,932 $482,961,250

Overall Department General Fund expenditures increased by $24,618,556, $33,985,115 and $26,571,711, or approximately six, eight and nearly six percent for the 2006-2007, 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 fiscal years, respectively. The above increases can be mainly attributed to increases in personal services and fixed charges. Personal services increased by approximately seven, six and five percent for the three audited fiscal years. These increases were from increases in the number of employees, regular collective bargaining increases along with increases for non-union employees, law clerks and judges. The number of fulltime General Fund filled positions were 3,980, 4,170 and 4,141 as of June 30, 2007, 2008 and 2009, respectively. The above increases in fixed charges are increases in State grants and transfers of grants from other State agencies. This represents increased funding for expanded community based programming for both adult and juvenile offenders. The Department additionally purchased equipment through the Capital Equipment Purchases Fund totaling $1,089,724, $1,394,348 and $895,875 for the 2006-2007, 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 fiscal years, respectively. Special Revenue Fund- Federal and Other Restricted Accounts Special Revenue Fund receipts, in addition to transfers from the Fines Awaiting Distribution Fund, totaled $13,645,110, $14,758,436 and $15,387,315 for the 2006-2007, 2007-2008 and 20082009 fiscal years, respectively. This consisted mostly of Federal Grant receipts, totaling $7,551,625, $7,082,802, and $6,345,179 and non-Federal Grants receipts, totaling $5,329,254, $7,122,118 and $8,900,557 for the 2006-2007, 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 fiscal years, respectively. Non- Federal restricted accounts include the Client Security Fund which operates under Section 51-81d of the General Statutes. The Fund is used for reimbursing claims for losses caused by the dishonest conduct of attorneys and is financed by an annual $110 assessment for practicing attorneys and $55 for non-practicing attorneys, paid by any person admitted as an attorney by the Superior Court. Such fees totaled approximately $2,910,211, $2,980,156 and $3,072,050 for the 2006-2007, 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 fiscal years, respectively.

4

Auditors of Public Accounts A summary of the Department’s Special Revenue Fund expenditures follow: Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2007 2008 2009 Personal Services and Employee Benefits Purchases and Contracted Services: Client Security Fund payments Criminal injury awards Grants-other All other Total Purchases and Contracted Services Total Expenditures $893,227 2,188,903 647,666 7,634,679 1,373,881 11,845,129 $12,738,356 $2,304,531 4,271,041 432,533 5,988,320 1,655,053 12,346,947 $14,651,478 $3,939,814 1,667,049 409,227 5,800,926 1,950,851 9,828,053 $13,767,867

The overall decrease in expenditures for the 2008-2009 fiscal year can be attributed to the significant decrease in the payment of claims filed with the Client Security Fund account. The number of claims from victims of attorney theft will vary from year to year and there is no limit on a claim payout. The majority of the expenditures involved various grant transfers. The expenditure category “Criminal injury awards” are payments to victims by the Office of Victim Services in addition to payments from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Fund. The source of funding was from Crime Victim Assistance Grants (CDFA # 16.575) with overall Special Revenue Fund expenditures totaling $4,965,307, $5,120,010 and $4,806,167 for the 2006-2007, 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 fiscal years, respectively. Special Revenue Fund- Banking Fund: Public Act 08-176, effective June 12, 2008, required the Judicial Department to establish a foreclosure mediation program in each judicial district. The program is available to owner-occupants of one-to-four family residential real property in Connecticut who are also borrowers under a mortgage encumbering the property and who use the property as their primary residence. Under the Act, until July 2010, if a lender starts a foreclosure action, they must give the borrower notice of the foreclosure mediation program which includes providing a foreclosure mediation request form. The borrower may then submit the form to the court and receive mediation under Department policies and procedures. The Act appropriated funding from the Banking Fund, a Special Revenue Fund, to fund the cost of foreclosure mediation program. During the 2008-2009 fiscal year, the Department spent $1,957,916 in personal services and fringe benefits for the foreclosure mediators. Superior Court Condemnation Award Fund:

5

Auditors of Public Accounts Under Section 48-11, of the General Statutes, compensation offered by the State Transportation Commissioner as part of condemnation proceedings that are being disputed by property owners is deposited in this Fund. The money on deposit is paid to the proper persons through the State Treasurer on application of the owner or owners and on order of the Court. Deposits by the State Transportation Commissioner totaled $10,307,456, $22,330,263 and $5,627,109 for the 2006-2007, 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 fiscal years, respectively. For the same period, disbursements paid to owners of property or returned to the State Department of Transportation totaled $9,227,134, $16,477,623 and $16,359,464, respectively. State Bar Examining Committee: The State Bar Examining Committee operates under the authority of State law (Section 51-81 of the General Statutes) and the rules of the Superior Court (Connecticut Practice Book, Chapter 2). It assists the Court in overseeing the admittance of persons to the practice of law in Connecticut. The Committee funds its operations through the fees it collects from applicants. The funds so derived are retained by the Committee and are not accounted for within any authorized State Fund. Based on the Committee's financial statements, as of June 30, 2009, cash and cash equivalents totaled $1,038,117. Cash receipts consisted mostly of fee collections and totaled $626,098, $1,350,261 and $755,844, for the 2006-2007, 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 fiscal years, respectively. For the same period, the Committee's cash disbursements totaled $626,368, $853,305 and $985,050, respectively, and were for salaries and other administrative expenses. (See “Condition of Records” section.)

6

Auditors of Public Accounts CONDITION OF RECORDS Our audit of the Judicial Department's records revealed several areas requiring improvement or further comment as discussed below: Employee Evaluations: Criteria: According to all Judicial bargaining unit agreements and the Judicial Branch’s Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, an annual performance appraisal shall be completed approximately three but no less than two months prior to the employee’s annual salary increase date. Our test of payroll showed that annual performance appraisals were not on file for seven out of 20 employees tested. Appraisals ranged from one to four years in arrears while the employees continued to receive annual increments. The Department was not in compliance with established policies included in collective bargaining agreements and the Judicial Branch’s Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual. There were no controls in place to ensure that employee evaluations were performed. The Department should ensure annual evaluations are performed for all its employees. (See Recommendation 1.) “In response to the last audit report, in October 2008, a memo was sent to all Executive Directors by the Executive Director of Administrative Services to ensure compliance with Judicial Branch requirements and recommendations of the Auditors of Public Accounts concerning annual performance appraisals. A follow-up memo was sent to the Executive Directors requesting that they certify by November 1, 2009, and annually thereafter, that performance appraisals in each of the units had been completed. It is anticipated the new certifications will significantly increase compliance, however, since performance evaluations are performed in the fall of each year the policy was not in effect until after the audit period and, therefore, not reflected in the current audit period.”

Condition:

Effect:

Cause: Recommendation: Agency Response:

Attendance Records: Criteria: 1. Timesheets- The Judicial Department’s Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual requires each employee and supervisor to initial both the biweekly timesheet and the JASMIN attendance form (Form ND04). JASMIN is the automated payroll and personnel system for recording and processing payroll transactions for the Judicial Department. Form ND04 7

Auditors of Public Accounts is the official record of the employees’ attendance for the JASMIN system. 2. Compensatory time- According to the Judicial Department’s Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, employees excluded from earning overtime will earn compensatory time subject to prior supervisory approval. In addition, employees eligible for overtime under FLSA shall not accumulate beyond 240 hours in compensatory time. 3. Medical certificates- According to Judicial Department procedures, an employee must submit a request form (HR-1 Judicial) for FMLA leave. The Judicial Department follows the Department of Administrative Services’ FMLA Manual. It requires that an employee must provide 30 days advance notice of foreseeable leave and notice within five business days when the employee realizes the need for leave in unforeseen cases. Those requiring additional leave time must submit an additional request form (HR-2 Judicial) and supporting documentation. Conditions: 1. Attendance records- Our review of 20 payroll transactions found four biweekly timesheets were not signed by the employee or supervisor, three employees did not initial Form ND04 to verify their attendance, and Form ND04 was not available for three other employees. 2. Compensatory time- We selected ten employees from a Department report of compensatory time balances as of August 2009 and noted the following: a. There were instances where compensatory time was not lapsed in accordance with their bargaining unit contract for five of the ten employees. Three of the five employees had been improperly carrying accumulated balances of compensatory time in excess of 240 hours, ranging from 240 to 666 hours. b. Four of the ten employees did not have sufficient documentation on file to support that compensatory time earned was necessary and approved. c. There were three employees with timesheets not signed by their supervisor and another employee’s starting and ending time was unclear. Thus, we could not verify whether the compensatory time earned was valid. 3. Medical certificates- Our sample of 25 employees on extended sick leave included 16 on FMLA sick leave and nine on maternity leave. Four of those on FMLA leave did not have a FMLA Employee request form (HR-1 Judicial) on file. Two employees continued to be absent for 24 8

Auditors of Public Accounts and 250 days, respectively, past the approved FMLA leave period without submitting any further requests or medical certificates to justify the extended absence. In addition, there were instances where either the FMLA and maternity leave paperwork was not processed in a timely manner. Such requests and approvals were not processed until after the employee returned to work. Effect: 1. Timesheets- The lack of timesheet documentation or verification and/or approval of timesheets increased the risk of errors and/or fraud. 2. Compensatory time- The failure to lapse compensatory time in a timely manner and allowing such balances to exceed the maximum limit of 240 hours violated the Department’s policies. It also resulted in an additional unnecessary cost to the State by allowing an employee to substitute compensatory time for vacation time. 3. Medical certificates- Inadequate and/or insufficient documentation of sick leaves increases the risk that such extended leave was not valid, resulting in increased unnecessary costs to the State. Cause: The deficiencies in timesheet documentation appear to be the result of a lack of verification of completeness in the records. Regarding compensatory time, the JASMIN system did not prevent accumulation of compensatory time in excess of 240 hours. There was also a lack of oversight and employee understanding of compensatory time policies and procedures. The deficiencies with medical certificates were attributed to transitions in duties of human resources staff in 2007, a lack of awareness by employees of reporting requirements for sick leave and delays in getting documentation from medical practitioners. The Department should improve its attendance record documentation involving timesheets, compensatory time and medical certificates. (See Recommendation 2.) “The Branch will establish an internal audit procedure to provide for review of attendance documents which require employee and supervisor signatures. Many employees earn compensatory time in direct support of the court. Therefore, the need to work beyond the normal work day is not uncommon and occurs spontaneously based upon the specific matters being heard on a given day. Written approval prior to earning compensatory time is not always possible in these instances. As a result, sometimes supervisors receive requests to approve compensatory time at the end of the day. Adjustments will be incorporated into existing compensatory time policies to better reflect this reality. In addition, a memo will be sent to the divisions reminding them of the importance of the employee’s certifying signature on the time sheet, supervisor’s 9

Recommendation:

Agency Response:

Auditors of Public Accounts approvals, the necessity of retention of attendance forms, and the required documentation to support compensatory time earned. A recent check and random audit by the Human Resources Unit of the JASMIN system did indicate that compensatory time is appropriately lapsing. A review of Federal law ( 29 CFR 553.24) provides that “public safety” employees are not capped by the 240 hour compensatory time maximum, but may accumulate not more than 480 hours of compensatory time for FLSA overtime hours worked. This recommendation has been brought to the attention of the appropriate divisions and the Branch will continue to monitor for compliance with the policy. Effective November 2009, the Branch has implemented the medical certification requirement for all FMLA applications. Effective January 2010, pursuant to new procedures, the Branch sends a second FMLA application to those employees who request an extension. Training for new requirements will be provided to the affected staff.” Auditors’ Concluding Comments: At the time of our review, the Judicial Department’s Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual imposed a maximum of 240 compensatory hours. We were informed that the Branch would revise its policy so that certain groups of employees could accumulate up to 480 hours of compensatory time. Such policy clarification is needed so that employees and their supervisors can consistently enforce the agency’s policies. Bar Examining Committee: Background: As noted in the Resume of Operations section, the Bar Examining Committee (BEC) funds its operations through the fees it collects from applicants. BEC’s funds are not accounted for within any authorized State fund. The BEC maintains a checking account for its everyday activities. Excess funds are transferred to the Committee’s STIF account. 1. BEC checking account- To increase operating efficiency and reduce inherent risk, business operations should be consolidated and any unneeded bank accounts eliminated. 2. Disbursements- BEC procedures for checking account disbursements require an “Approval for Payment” form signed by the BEC Administrative Director, Chairman and Treasurer. Condition: 1. BEC checking account- The BEC continues to operate a checking account which appears unnecessary since their receipts and disbursements could be handled through the establishment of a restricted account in the

Criteria:

10

Auditors of Public Accounts General Fund similar to the Department’s Client Security Fund. Receipts and disbursements would then be processed by the Agency’s business office which has established internal controls over receipts and disbursements. 2. Disbursements lacking complete signed approval- A sample of 25 BEC disbursements showed six invoices, totaling $2,078, where the required “Approval for Payment” form was not signed by the BEC Chairman or Treasurer. Effect: The Committee’s checking account and time spent by its staff in its maintenance appears to be an unnecessary duplication of effort and increases inherent risk. The lack of complete approval of check disbursements could result in inappropriate and/or unnecessary payment. The BEC has kept its checking account apparently considering it a preferable method to conduct its business. The lack of signatures for authorizing payments was attributed to oversight by the BEC during a period of transition. The Bar Examining Committee should close its checking account with its activities accounted for in a restricted General Fund account and obtain all appropriate approvals for disbursements. (See Recommendation 3.) “As noted in our previous audit, the Bar Examining Committee, a board comprised of both private attorneys and judges, is by nature of its operation, a quasi-judicial, quasi-independent operation. As such, management of its operations is inherently a partnership with the Branch. Although the Committee has not incorporated some of the changes recommended, the current practices continue to result in appropriate ways to conduct business. The Branch will continue its collaborative efforts with the Bar Examining Committee to improve operations and optimize the utilization of resources and assets. With a change in officers in May 2008, improvements to monitor approvals for disbursements were implemented and no instances of non-compliance have been noted to date.”

Cause:

Recommendation:

Agency Response:

Agency Administered Construction Projects: Background: The Department expenditures for agency administered construction projects totaled $2,307,432 and $3,585,727 and 4,477,950 for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2007, 2008 and 2009, respectively. These expenditures were mainly from Capital Projects and Other Purposes Funds.

11

Auditors of Public Accounts Criteria: According to Section 4b-52 of the General Statutes, State agencies may administer and/or award a contract for construction, renovations, repairs or alterations to any State facility costing between $100,000 and $500,000 with the permission of the Department of Public Works (DPW). DPW Guidelines and Procedures Manual for Agency Administered Projects requires the completion of a “Certificate of Completion” form for such agency administered projects to be submitted to DPW with a copy to the State Building Inspector’s Office. Our review of 15 agency administered construction projects during the audited period showed there were four projects where the Department did not send a Certificate of Completion to DPW or the State Building Inspector’s Office. The Department failed to follow DPW guidelines in completing and properly submitting a “Certificate of Completion” form for four agency administered projects. The Department was apparently not aware that a “Certificate of Completion” was a requirement for the completed projects. The Department should follow the documentation requirements for the completion of agency administered construction projects. (See Recommendation 4.) “The Branch had been unaware of the requirement to provide a Certificate of Completion for applicable projects and will do so in the future.”

Condition:

Effect:

Cause: Recommendation:

Agency Response:

Expenditures: Criteria: Sound business practice would limit the purchase of electronic equipment to immediate operational needs in consideration of the rapid changes in technology, limited manufacturers’ warranties, and limited financial resources. The use of temporary employment services should be documented by properly signed and approved timesheets. The Judicial Department’s Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual (Section 802) requires that purchases between $3,000 and $9,999, not on contract, need to have at least three written quotations from vendors. Condition: 12 1. Unused equipment- Our random physical inspection of 25 equipment items disclosed that six items purchased from May 2007 to November

Auditors of Public Accounts 2008 were still in the original delivery packaging, An additional review disclosed that several equipment items, including flat panel monitors, printers, laptops, scanners, and digital pens, which were purchased between October 2005 and November 2008, at a total cost of $45,054, were still unused and in storage as of October 2009 when we conducted our inspection. Our review also found an additional $72,096 of similar computer equipment, purchased from March through June 2009 still in the original packaging as of October 2009. 2. Lack of timesheet documentation for temporary employment servicesThe Department contracted with a vendor for a temporary office clerk for 19 hours per week for a 13 week period ending in June 2009. The total payment was $3,150. We were informed that the vendor was paid with an invoice for the total without any supporting timesheets. We noted that the agency had used the vendor for a total of $52,391 in temporary services over the three audited fiscal years without requiring timesheet documentation. 3. Continuing purchases without a contract- During the 2008-2009 fiscal year, we noted that the Department spent a total of $4,848 in credit card payments and $1,870 in regular payments through the business office to a particular vendor for document stamps. The Department did not have a contract with the vendor nor did it solicit bids. Effect: The equipment that remains unused for a significant period of time is a waste of State resources that could be used for more immediate needs. In addition, such unused equipment may become obsolete with the passage of time resulting in unnecessary loss of funds. The lack of signed and approved timesheets for temporary employees lessens the assurance that such services were properly performed. The failure to follow Department purchasing policies may cause extra expenses to the State by not obtaining the most competitive pricing for goods and/or services. Cause: Unexpected delays in several grant funded projects resulted in the stockpiling of equipment. The contract for temporary employment services did not require timesheets. The lack of a contract or bids for the document stamps vendor was apparently an administrative oversight. The Department should improve internal control over expenditures. (See Recommendation 5.) “The Branch is increasingly reliant on technology to efficiently meet its statutory and constitutional responsibilities. The Branch presently carries 13

Recommendation: Agency Response:

Auditors of Public Accounts an inventory of more than $16 million in electronic equipment that includes in excess of 4,900 desktops, 1,700 laptops, 3,700 monitors, 2,500 printers and 800 scanners, and historically spends $750,000 to $1,000,000 annually to obtain new equipment and update existing systems. Present warehouse practices include receiving items, promptly tagging and recording them in inventory, and deploying them to the field. The overwhelming majority of these items are immediately deployed to the field. However, there are circumstances beyond the Branch’s control that may cause some items to remain warehoused for longer periods. These circumstances include delays in hiring staff due to budgetary rescissions, as well as logistical complications that inevitably arise from the rollout of statewide initiatives among the Branch’s 82 locations. To further reduce the possibility of equipment waiting for deployment in the warehouse, a new policy was initiated in July 2009 that will significantly improve centralized controls and coordination in purchasing in the purchasing of new equipment. The Branch purchases of temporary employment services totaled approximately $1,300,000 over the audit period. The units receiving temporary services for this particular vendor sign the Temporary Employment Agencies time sheet in addition to signing the Invoice for Goods and Services Rendered to the State of Connecticut, Form CO-17. The invoice includes the hours worked by temporary employees. Purchasing has instructed the new temporary employee contractor to henceforth send a copy of the employee’s timesheet when submitting invoices. Purchasing Cards have been an invaluable means of efficiently and economically obtaining goods for the Branch. The Branch monitors the individual’s year-to-date purchasing card activity. The Branch is initiating year to date reporting by vendors for purchasing card activity in order to better determine when a blanket order or contract is appropriate.” State Grants: Criteria: Sound internal control requires adequate procedures to ensure that payments are for actual services. In reviewing invoices involving fees for services, invoices based on units of referrals and different types of treatment should be verified for accuracy. Section C-8 of the Department’s contract with providers specifies that contractors exempt from the provisions of OMB Circular A-133 and Section 4-230 through 4-236 of the General Statutes may be required to submit to an audit at a time and in a manner prescribed by the Judicial Department and at the expense of the Department. 14

Auditors of Public Accounts Condition: 1. Lack of invoice monitoring- Our review of two providers, involving adult behavioral health services, revealed that the Department made payments without being able to verify the accuracy of the providers’ invoices. Information such as monthly client referrals and their treatments were not available to the Department’s Court Support Services Division Administration Unit. As a result, payments were made without any confirmation that referrals and treatments were valid. We were informed that this same condition applied to all fees for service contracts involving adult behavioral health services, which totaled $14,370,039 during the three year audited period. Such payments are part of a State grant for the Alternative Incarceration Program. 2. Lack of audit review- We noted a provider was exempt from the State and Federal single audit requirements and accordingly did not submit any audited financial statements. However, the Department’s contract with the provider contains a provision which can require the “exempt” provider to submit to an audit. The Department contracted with the provider to run several juvenile risk reduction centers. The provider was paid a total of $9,709,776 over the three fiscal years ending June 30, 2007, 2008 and 2009. Such a significant amount of payments should have prompted the Department to require an audit of the provider. Effect: The lack of invoice monitoring increases the risk of improper or incorrect payments. The lack of audit review results in material State grant expenditures not being audited for compliance or whether the provider’s financial statements are free of material misstatement. We were informed that the lack of invoice monitoring was due to insufficient data collection. Also, Judicial field offices were not instructed to compare the provider’s invoices to their client referral lists. The lack of requiring an audit was due to the Department not monitoring the significant funding to the provider exempt from State and Federal single audit requirements. The Department should ensure thorough reviews of provider’s invoices to detect any erroneous payments and require an audit of any provider receiving significant State funding. (See Recommendation 6.) “The Court Support Services Division (CSSD) within the Judicial Branch administered an annual average of more than $85,000,000 in contracted services during the audited years. Of this amount approximately $12,000,000, or 14 percent, encompasses contracts identified as fees for services. There are currently 16 staff members in the Grants and Contracts Unit of CSSD and 3 staff members in the Fiscal Administration Unit who have responsibilities associated with ensuring contractors adhere to the requirements of the contract terms, Judicial Branch financial 15

Cause:

Recommendation:

Agency Response:

Auditors of Public Accounts guidelines and invoicing procedures. Compliance staff members perform over 900 program site visits per fiscal year to verify contract compliance. These site visits encompass a significant amount of case file and program record reviews with the specific goal of maximizing the quality and cost effectiveness of the services provided to the Branch. Program invoices and budgets are thoroughly reviewed and examined by the accounting staff to ensure that fiscal resources committed to the provision of client services by the Judicial Branch are expended responsibly. In addition, CSSD has under development an automated contractor data collection system that will enhance the Branch’s ability to track services and program operations at the client level. This automated system will create a cost effective method to enhance the Branch’s ability to monitor the activities of contracted providers including, but not limited to, the verification of client services received in unit cost contracts. CSSD will also undertake a thorough review of monitoring procedures currently in place to determine if additional processes could be developed and implemented to improve current monitoring systems within the context of available resources. CSSD will undertake a review of the current status of contracted services that are exempt from the requirement to provide an audit of their programs under the provisions of the State Single Audit Act. Parameters will be reviewed and implemented under which such audits might be required at the expense of the Judicial Branch.” Office of Victim Services: Background: The Office of Victim Services (OVS) within the Judicial Department is the payer of last resort for the losses suffered by crime victims up to a maximum of $15,000 for personal injury claims and $25,000 for claims involving a homicide. Claim payments are made from the Criminal Injury Compensation Fund, a Special Revenue Fund financed by monthly transfers of receipts from fines and fees collected by the Judicial Department (initially deposited in the Fines Awaiting Distribution Fund). Under Section 53a-139 of the General Statutes, it is a Class D Felony to falsely make a written instrument that is a public record with the intent to defraud. In addition, a fundamental function of government is to protect its citizens from those who engage in any form of criminal or illegal activities. This would include situations where any potential violation of either State or Federal laws occurs during the course of a public employee’s duties. Such knowledge of improprieties should be reported to the appropriate governmental authorities.

Criteria:

16

Auditors of Public Accounts Condition: Our prior review disclosed that the OVS had not established any policy or procedure for notifying State or Federal authorities of possible illegal activities from applicants who are illegal immigrants or those who had received wages “under the table”. The Department informed us that there is no law that requires OVS to report possible illegal immigrants to Federal authorities. It was explained, however, that if the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or any other agency was to approach OVS for information regarding an OVS claimant, they would comply with the agency’s request. We are not aware that OVS has attempted to contact ICE about a course of action should OVS come into contact with a possible illegal immigrant. As of November 2009, OVS has developed proposed procedures to contact the Department of Revenue Services with contact information about employers found to be paying unreported wages. We note that at this time, the Judicial Department has not yet formally approved the policy. We would additionally note that any unreported wages should also be reported to the Workers’ Compensation Commission. Effect: The lack of procedures to address the reporting of illegal activities results in the continuance of such activities and the loss of tax revenues to the State and Federal government. OVS had not established any policy or procedure for reporting the possible illegal status of a claimant to State or Federal agencies as there are no laws or regulations that require it. We are not making a recommendation at this time in anticipation that the OVS policies for unreported wages will be formally adopted and approved. In addition, although the Department is not legally bound to report information about illegal immigrants, we would encourage contacting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for any guidance when discovering possible illegal immigrants during the processing of claims. “The issues addressed in the finding have broad implications for the Judicial Branch. The Branch’s Criminal Practice Committee has established an Immigration Committee, which is co-chaired by the Honorable David Gold and the Honorable Joette Katz. The Committees were developed from the strategic plan of the Public Service and Trust Commission. The Immigration Committee is charged with making recommendations to the Criminal Practice Commission on what would be 17

Cause:

Conclusion:

Agency Response:

Auditors of Public Accounts the ideal process for the Judicial Branch to follow regarding issues related to immigration.”

18

Auditors of Public Accounts RECOMMENDATIONS Our prior report on the Judicial Department covered the fiscal years ended June 30, 2005 and 2006, and contained nine recommendations. The following is a summary of those recommendations and the action taken by the Judicial Department. The Department should ensure annual evaluations are performed for all its employees and personnel files contain all relevant information about an employee’s history. The first part of the recommendation concerning employee evaluations will be repeated while the other part concerning personnel files has been resolved. (See Recommendation 1.) The Department should ensure that all compensatory time is properly approved before it is earned. (See Recommendation 2.) The Department should improve its property control records. This recommendation has been resolved. The Bar Examining Committee should close its checking account with its activities accounted for in a restricted General Fund account and improve monitoring over the approval of payments. The first part of the recommendation concerning the closing of the checking account will be repeated. The second part of the recommendation condition concerning the monitoring of payments has been resolved and replaced by the need to get proper approvals for disbursements. (See Recommendation 3.) The Department should continue to ensure the accuracy of mileage reimbursements for State Marshals serving summary process. This recommendation has been resolved. The Department should improve its oversight over the use of State Purchasing Cards by its employees. The recommendation will not be repeated since conditions have significantly improved since our last review. The Department should improve its internal control and review overpayments to property management vendors. This recommendation has been resolved. The Department should ensure that all contractors have proof of current insurance coverage while working on agency administered construction projects. This recommendation has been resolved. The Office of Victim Services should (1) require proof of payment for victims receiving compensation, (2) ensure complete forms are on file for victims receiving a waiver on the $100 deductible for claims payments, (3) consider all allowable sources of funds including insurance benefits in determining compensation payments and (4) develop procedures to report any illegal activities noted by claim reviewers to the proper governmental authorities. We note that there has been sufficient action taken in this matter to withdraw this recommendation.

19

Auditors of Public Accounts Current Audit Recommendations: 1. The Department should ensure annual evaluations are performed for all its employees. Comment: Our review found the Department was not consistent in performing annual evaluations of its employees. 2. The Department should improve its attendance record documentation involving timesheets, compensatory time and medical certificates. Comment: Our review showed an overall lack of supervisory approval of employees earning compensatory time and proper lapsing of compensatory time balances. 3. The Bar Examining Committee should close its checking account with its activities accounted for in a restricted General Fund account and obtain all appropriate approvals for disbursements. Comment: The Bar Committee’s checking account is unnecessary since its financial activities could be accounted for in a General Fund restricted account by the Department’s business office. Our test of disbursements showed instances where the required signed approvals were not obtained. 4. The Department should follow the documentation requirements for the completion of agency administered construction projects. Comment: Our review found several instances where the Department did not submit a “Certificate of Completion” for several projects, as required by established guidelines.

20

Auditors of Public Accounts 5. The Department needs to improve internal controls over expenditures. Comment: Our review found instances of recently purchased equipment that remained unused in inventory for more than a year, a temporary employment service that was paid without providing signed and approved timesheets to document hours actually worked, and the continuing use of a vendor for document stamps without a contract or solicitation of bids to ensure that the most competitive price was obtained. 6. The Department should ensure thorough reviews of provider’s invoices to detect any erroneous payments and require an audit of any provider receiving significant State funding. Comment: The agency was paying for adult behavioral health services from providers without sufficient documentation to verify the accuracy of the providers’ invoices. We also noted a provider that received significant State grant funding was not being annually audited despite contractual provisions which allowed a financial audit.

21

Auditors of Public Accounts INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CERTIFICATION As required by Section 2-90 of the General Statutes we have audited the books and accounts of the Judicial Department for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2007, 2008 and 2009. This audit was primarily limited to performing tests of the Agency’s compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and grants, and to understanding and evaluating the effectiveness of the Agency’s internal control policies and procedures for ensuring that (1) the provisions of certain laws, regulations, contracts and grants applicable to the Agency are complied with, (2) the financial transactions of the Agency are properly recorded, processed, summarized and reported on consistent with management’s authorization, and (3) the assets of the Agency are safeguarded against loss or unauthorized use. The financial statement audits of the Judicial Department for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2007, 2008 and 2009, are included as a part of our Statewide Single Audits of the State of Connecticut for those fiscal years. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the Judicial Department complied in all material or significant respects with the provisions of certain laws, regulations, contracts and grants and to obtain a sufficient understanding of the internal control to plan the audit and determine the nature, timing and extent of tests to be performed during the conduct of the audit. Internal Control over Financial Operations, Safeguarding of Assets and Compliance: In planning and performing our audit, we considered the Judicial Department’s internal control over its financial operations, safeguarding of assets, and compliance with requirements as a basis for designing our auditing procedures for the purpose of evaluating the Agency’s financial operations, safeguarding of assets, and compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and grant agreements, but not for the purpose of providing assurance on the effectiveness of the Agency’s internal control over those control objectives. Our consideration of internal control over financial operations, safeguarding of assets, and compliance requirements was for the limited purpose described in the preceding paragraph and would not necessarily identify all deficiencies in internal control over financial operations, safeguarding of assets and compliance with requirements that might be significant deficiencies or material weaknesses. However as discussed below, we identified certain deficiencies in internal control over financial operations, safeguarding of assets, and compliance with requirements that we consider to be significant deficiencies. A control deficiency exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent or detect on a timely basis unauthorized, illegal, or irregular transactions or the breakdown in the safekeeping of any asset or resource. A significant deficiency is a control deficiency, or combination of control deficiencies, that adversely affects the Agency’s ability to properly initiate, authorize, record, process, or report financial data reliably, consistent with management's direction, safeguard assets, and/or comply with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements such that 22

Auditors of Public Accounts there is more than a remote likelihood that a financial misstatement, unsafe treatment of assets, or noncompliance with laws, regulations, contracts and grant agreements that is more than inconsequential will not be prevented or detected by the Agency’s internal control. We consider the following deficiencies, described in detail in the accompanying “Condition of Records” and "Recommendations" sections of this report, to be significant deficiencies in internal control over financial operations, safeguarding of assets and compliance with requirements: Recommendation 6 concerning provider invoice review and audits of providers exempt from single audit requirements. A material weakness is a significant deficiency, or combination of significant deficiencies, that results in more than a remote likelihood that noncompliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements or the requirements to safeguard assets that would be material in relation to the Agency’s financial operations, noncompliance which could result in significant unauthorized, illegal, irregular or unsafe transactions, and/or material financial misstatements by the Agency being audited will not be prevented or detected by the Agency’s internal control. Our consideration of the internal control over the Agency’s financial operations, safeguarding of assets, and compliance with requirements, was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and would not necessarily disclose all deficiencies in the internal control that might be significant deficiencies and, accordingly, would not necessarily disclose all significant deficiencies that are also considered to be material weaknesses. However, we believe that the significant deficiency described above is a material weakness. Compliance and Other Matters: As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the Judicial Department with laws, regulations, contracts and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could result in significant unauthorized, illegal, irregular or unsafe transactions or could have a direct and material effect on the results of the Agency's financial operations, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and grant agreements. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards. However, we noted certain matters which we reported to Agency management in the accompanying “Condition of Records” and “Recommendations” sections of this report. The Judicial Department’s response to the findings identified in our audit are described in the accompanying “Condition of Records” section of this report. We did not audit the Judicial Department’s response and, accordingly, we express no opinion on it. This report is intended for the information and use of Agency management, the Governor, the State Comptroller, the Appropriations Committee of the General Assembly and the Legislative Committee on Program Review and Investigations. However, this report is a matter of public record and its distribution is not limited. 23

Auditors of Public Accounts CONCLUSION In conclusion, we wish to express our appreciation for the assistance and courtesies extended to our representatives by the personnel of the Judicial Department during the course of this examination.

Donald R. Purchla Principal Auditor

Approved:

Kevin P. Johnston Auditor of Public Accounts

Robert G. Jaekle Auditor of Public Accounts

24

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

PERFORMANCE AUDIT MONITORING OF STATE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE STATE SINGLE AUDIT THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT COURT SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION

AUDITORS OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
KEVIN P. JOHNSTON ROBERT G. JAEKLE

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ……………..……………………………………….….……………. i – v INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………….………………….……. 1 AUDIT OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY ………….………….……………………… 5 NOTEWORTHY ACCOMPLISHMENTS …………….………………………………………………. 7 RESULTS OF REVIEW .……………………………………………………………………….…… 8 Item No. 1. The Judicial Department has not established formal procedures to ensure that non-profits failing to submit their State Single Audit reports are detected within a timely manner….……….……...…….………. 8 Item No. 2 The Judicial Department’s participation in the State Single Audit Act can be strengthened through the use of written procedures and/or a desk review checklist, the timely dissemination of information within the Agency, and by the accounting staff establishing a working relationship with their counterparts at the Office of Policy and Management………………………………….. 10 Item No. 3. There is a need to require non-profits to submit a detailed reconciliation between their June 30 final program expenditure amount reported to the Court Support Services Division and the expenditure amount reported for the program on their State Single Audit Schedule of State Financial Assistance, whenever differences exist……....…………………………….13 Item No. 4. The Court Support Services Division’s quarterly contractor monitoring process needs to be improved…….………………………………….……. 15 Item No. 5. The lack of State uniform cost standards or principles has resulted in the Judicial Department developing its own approach for allowing or disallowing indirect costs to be charged against a State financial assistance award……….………………………………………………….. 19 RECOMMENDATIONS …….…………………………………………………………………..… 23 CONCLUSION ………………………………………………………………………………..…. 25

Auditors of Public Accounts

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In accordance with the provisions of Section 2-90 of the Connecticut General Statutes, we have conducted a performance audit of some aspects of the requirements of the State Single Audit Act as it pertains to the Judicial Department. The conditions noted during this audit, along with our recommendations, are summarized below.

Monitoring of Audit Report Submissions

The Judicial Department has not established formal procedures to ensure that non-profits failing to submit their State Single Audit reports are detected within a timely manner. The State Single Audit Act (the Act) requires a non-State entity to submit the report of any audit conducted under the Act to the State within six months after the audited entity’s fiscal year end. We were unable to determine if seven of the 11 non-profits’ audit reports selected for review had been filed within six months after the end of the non-profits’ fiscal year. No record existed to indicate when the Judicial Department had received these seven audit reports. The remaining four non-profits’ audit reports were not received within six months after the end of the non-profits’ fiscal year. The late filing submission dates ranged from a low of 14 months to a high of 22 months after the end of the applicable non-profit’s fiscal year end. The Judicial Department should establish a procedure, which alerts staff that a non-profit has failed to submit a State Single Audit report within six months after the end of the non-profit’s fiscal year, unless a filing extension is granted. This will require capturing the initial Agency receipt date for an audit report. (See Item No. 1.)

Audit Report Reviews, Dissemination of Information, and Staff Participation

The Judicial Department’s participation in the State Single Audit Act can be strengthened through the use of written procedures and/or a desk review checklist, the timely dissemination of information within the Agency, and by the accounting staff establishing a working relationship with their counterparts at the Office of Policy and Management. Management has not provide its accountants, who are responsible for reviewing State Single audit reports, with written procedures and/or a desk review checklist for use in reviewing State Single Audit reports. Consequently, no definitive record existed to document exactly what an audit report had been checked for and if any problems were noted that needed to be addressed by the non-profit or by Judicial’s management. i

Auditors of Public Accounts Our audit examination revealed that State Single Audit reports and correspondence are often allowed to sit around in one Judicial unit for a month or two before they are distributed to the appropriate Judicial units. Further, we learned that accountants, who are responsible for reviewing State Single Audit reports, had never met with the Agency’s designated State Single Audit contact person or attended any State Single Audit meetings held by the Office of Policy and Management. The use of a desk review checklist would not only document the Court Support Services Division staffs’ conscientious efforts to review audit reports; but also provide a permanent record of problems, which may turn out to be recurring in nature. State Single Audit information needs to be distributed to employees in a timely manner and staff members need to be fully engaged in the State Single Audit process. (See Item No. 2.) Need to Require a Formal Reconciliation There is a need to require non-profits to submit a detailed reconciliation between their June 30 final program expenditure amount reported to the Court Support Services Division and the expenditure amount reported for the program on their State Single Audit Schedule of State Financial Assistance, whenever differences exist. As part of our performance examination, we compared a non-profit’s audit report expenditures for the Alternative Incarceration Center Services program and/or the Alternative to Juvenile Detention Program against final quarterly expenditure reports submitted to the Court Support Services Division, and to payments made to a non-profit. We performed this comparison for 11 non-profits that received such program funding from the Court Support Services Division for the State fiscal year ended June 30, 1998. The comparison was also made for four of the 11 non-profits for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1999. The comparison revealed a number of discrepancies between final quarterly expenditure reports and expenditure amounts reflected in audit reports for seven of the 11 non-profits. Our comparisons indicated the need to have a non-profit organization submit a formal reconciliation, whenever there is a difference between the non-profit’s final quarterly expenditure amount for a specific grant program and the corresponding amount reported in the State Single Audit on the Schedule of State Financial Assistance. The reconciliation should be filed at the same time as the audit report. The reconciliation should be certified by the non-profit’s auditors or subject to verification by the non-profit’s auditors to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the reconciliation. (See Item No. 3.)

ii

Auditors of Public Accounts

Management Oversight is Weak

The Court Support Services Division’s monitoring process needs to be improved.

quarterly

contractor

Our review of the Court Support Services Division’s monitoring process for the Alternative Incarceration Center Services program and the Alternative to Juvenile Detention Program revealed a number of problems. Management could not provide us with a listing of Court Support Services Division’s programs and providers that each Criminal Sanctions Monitor was responsible for overseeing. Our review of quarterly monitoring reports for 10 Alternative Incarceration Center Services and four Alternative to Juvenile Detention Program providers (all non-profits) revealed the following situations or problems. Many monitoring reports were not completed in a timely manner. Some monitoring reports were missing pages and others contained blank pages. Many monitoring reports lacked the signature of a Regional Deputy Director. Court Support Services Division’s staff failed to indicate acceptance or rejection of corrective action plans or written responses submitted by service providers. If quarterly monitoring reports are to be an effective tool in monitoring for compliance with contractual terms, the delivery of quality services each quarter, and for ensuring community safety; the quarterly monitoring reports need to be issued in a timely manner. The monitoring reports should contain all required pages, each page should identify the period covered and the contractor’s name, and the reason for not completing a page should be noted on the page. No quarterly monitoring report should be accepted as completed by management unless it reflects a dated signature for both the provider’s representative and the monitor. Deputy Directors should be required to sign the quarterly monitoring reports to indicate that they have reviewed them and note their acceptance or rejection of a report. Court Support Services Division’s procedures should require monitors and Deputy Directors to indicate their acceptance or rejection of corrective action plans or written responses submitted by providers. (See Item No. 4.)

Need for State Cost Standards

The lack of State uniform cost standards or principles has resulted in the Judicial Department developing its own approach for allowing or disallowing indirect costs to be charged against a State financial assistance award. Presently, there is no State policy regarding approval of a cost allocation plan and an indirect cost rate for a non-State entity by a State agency or the iii

Auditors of Public Accounts charging of indirect costs to State programs based on a Federally approved indirect cost rate. As indicated in our performance audit report (dated August 2, 2000) covering the Office of Policy and Management’s administration of the State Single Audit Act, cost principles have not been developed for the State’s financial assistance programs as have been established for Federal financial assistance programs. Our review of indirect cost correspondence on file at the Court Support Services Division indicated the need for the establishment of State cost principles and guidelines. One non-profit indicated that it was unsuccessful in its efforts to obtain approval for an indirect cost rate to use in charging State programs. Further, the non-profit stated that neither the Federal agency nor the Connecticut Department of Social Services that provided the majority of its funds would serve as its cognizant agency. Consequently, the non-profit adopted the Judicial Department as its cognizant agency. Another non-profit indicated that its indirect cost allocation plan was developed and approved under Federal guidelines and that the plan would be submitted to the Connecticut Department of Social Services (the State agency that provided most of its Federal funding) for review and approval. Approximately three months later, the non-profit informed the Court Support Services Division that its current cognizant agency was the Connecticut Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services. A Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services letter stated, “we have reviewed and approved your methodology for indirect cost allocation. Feel free to communicate this to those agencies who require this approval.” Although the non-profit’s audited report and quarterly expenditure reports reflected the allocation of indirect costs to State programs, the non-profit’s auditor indicated that no indirect costs were charged to State programs. Since there are no State directives for allowing the charging of indirect costs, the Judicial Department relies on the Federal Office of Management and Budget’s Circular A-87, “Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments” for guidance in permitting the charging of indirect costs to State grants. In addition, the Judicial Department is allowing the charging of indirect costs to State funded programs based on indirect cost rates approved by Federal cognizant agencies. The above situations point out the need for State directives regarding direct cost, allowable and unallowable cost, cost allocation plans, and the charging of indirect cost to State programs. Until State cost standards or principles are established, the term cognizant agency is open to interpretation by both non-profits seeking approval for indirect cost

iv

Auditors of Public Accounts charges and State agencies approached by non-profits requesting approval for their cost allocation plans and indirect cost rates. In addition, State agencies are free to permit recipients of State financial assistance to use Federal indirect cost rates for charging indirect costs to State programs. (See Item No. 5)

v

Auditors of Public Accounts

INTRODUCTION
One of the functions of State government is to provide financial assistance, through State grants and loans, to entities that serve the needs of the State’s citizens, either to improve the State’s economy, to assist persons in need, to carry out specific programs mandated by the Legislature, or to assist municipalities. Prior to 1991, a separate audit of each award was required to assure that State funding was being spent appropriately. Consequently, several different State agencies were often conducting audits of the same recipient’s financial records. To reduce the duplication of effort and to establish uniform standards for financial audits, the State Single Audit Act (the Act) was created and became effective July 1, 1991, through passage of Public Act 91-401 (codified as Chapter 55b of the Connecticut General Statutes). Public Act 92-121 extended the period for compliance with the State Single Audit Act from fiscal years beginning on or after July 1, 1992 to fiscal years beginning on or after July 1, 1994 for non-profit entities. The Act set a minimum dollar requirement of $100,000 in combined Federal and State funding before an audit was required. This Act was modeled after the Federal Single Audit Act, which requires all entities receiving Federal grants over a specified amount to be audited under the Federal Single Audit guidelines. Similar to the Federal Single Audit, one audit satisfies the requirements for all grant funds that are received. The passage of Public Act 98-143 changed the basis that determines when an audit pursuant to the Act has to be performed. For fiscal years beginning on or after July 1, 1998, the requirement was changed from the receipt of $100,000 of combined Federal and State funding to expenditures totaling $100,000 or more of State funding. Audits are not required by the Act if the total State funding expended is less than $100,000. The Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management is responsible for the administration of the State Single Audit Act. Certain responsibilities, assigned to the Secretary, are described in Chapter 55b of the General Statutes. Those duties include the adoption of State regulations to implement provisions of the Act and the designation of cognizant agencies for audits filed under the Act. In addition, Public Act 98-143 gave the Secretary the power to assess a penalty if an entity fails to file an audit report within six months after the end of the entity’s fiscal year. The Secretary has designated the Office of Policy and Management, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Education, and the Department of Economic and Community Development as cognizant agencies for different State programs. The Department of Transportation is the cognizant agency for the Council of Governments, the Regional Council of Elected Officials, the Regional Planning Agencies, and the Tourism Board. The Department of Education is responsible for the Regional Education Service Centers, the Charter Schools, and the Regional School Districts and the Department of Economic and Community Development is the cognizant agency for the Housing Authorities.

1

Auditors of Public Accounts The Office of Policy and Management is the cognizant agency for all other recipients. This includes the municipalities, hospitals, private colleges and universities, and all other governmental and non-profit entities. The Municipal Finance Services Unit of the Office of Policy and Management’s Intergovernmental Policy Division has been assigned the responsibility for assisting those entities in carrying out the requirements of the State Single Audit Act in addition to its other duties as advisor and liaison to the State’s municipalities. In accordance with Section 4-236 of the General Statutes, the Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management has issued State Single Audit regulations. The Regulations provide for State agencies to participate with their assigned cognizant agency in order to fulfill the cognizant agency’s State Single Audit responsibilities. The Office of Policy of Management has issued a desk review checklist to assist State agencies in carrying out their duties, under the State Single Audit Act. The responsibilities of the grantor agencies, such as the Judicial Department, are outlined below: Ensure that their grantees are aware of and meet the State Single Audit Act filing requirements. Review the Schedule of State Financial Assistance or State Awards to determine that the agency’s grants are properly reported on the Schedule. Check the Schedule of Financial Assistance or Awards to determine if any of the agency’s grant programs are identified as major State programs under the provisions of Section 4-230 of the State Single Audit Act. Review the Report on Compliance with Specific Requirements Applicable to Major State Programs and determine if the specific requirements of the agency’s major programs are listed. Review the Independent Auditor’s Report on the Financial Statements and Notes to the Financial Statements to determine the existence of an explanatory paragraph or qualified opinion regarding the auditee’s ability to continue as a going concern. Review the Cognizant Agency’s Summary of Audit Findings for compliance findings, questioned costs, and internal control weaknesses for which the grantor agency is responsible, and evaluate their effect on the agency’s programs. Evaluate Corrective Action Plans and follow-up to ascertain that they have been implemented. Determine the need for the recovery of any grant funds.

2

Auditors of Public Accounts REVIEW OF STATE SINGE AUDIT REPORTS The Municipal Finance Services Section within the Intergovernmental Policy Division at the Office of Policy and Management, in conjunction with an outside contractor, reviews the State Single Audit reports for compliance with the Act. Desk reviews, which entail a review of the audit report itself, are performed on approximately ten percent of the audit reports received. The purpose of the desk review is to determine whether the report is in compliance with the terms outlined in Section 4-233 of the General Statutes. If deficiencies are found, the independent auditor is contacted and corrections are made before the grantor is notified that the audit has been filed. Finding reviews are done on all reports. The finding review consists of listing all the problems with the grantee’s systems that were found by the independent auditor. If the findings affect more than one agency, the Office of Policy and Management becomes responsible for overseeing that findings are resolved. If the findings affect only one agency, the grantor and the affected agency, if different, are notified. Then the Office of Policy and Management files the report and the grantor agencies are responsible for follow-up on the auditor’s findings. The Judicial Department has designated as its State Single Audit agency contact person, the Director of the Internal Audit Division. The Office of Policy and Management forwards copies of its audit findings and directives to the Director of Internal Audit. Grantees are required to send copies of their audit reports to the Director of Internal Audit. The Director distributes the Office of Policy and Management’s audit findings and correspondence, along with grantees’ audit reports, to the appropriate Judicial divisions. Thus, the task of reviewing State Single Audit reports and the Office of Policy and Management’s audit findings rest with the various Judicial divisions providing funding to the grantees. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT PROGRAMS REVIEWED Section 1 of Public Act 90-213 called for the establishment, within available appropriations, of an Office of Alternative Sanctions within the Judicial Department, effective January 1, 1991. Further, this Section of the Public Act required the Office of Alternative Sanctions to oversee and coordinate the implementation of alternative sanctions for the regular criminal docket of the Superior Court. This required the Office of Alternative Sanctions to plan and establish new alternative sanctions programs, determine which types of offenders are suitable for placement in the alternative sanctions programs, and determine the effectiveness of programs. The Office of Alternative Sanctions is authorized to contract with nonprofit organizations that offer alternative incarceration programs, halfway houses and other similar services. In addition, the Office of Alternative Sanctions is authorized to contract for independent evaluations of the alternative sanctions programs. Section 1 was codified as Section 54-123a of the General Statutes. Public Act 95-225 amended Section 54-123a to include the docket for juvenile matters of the Superior Court. Public Act 95-225 is discussed in more detail in a subsequent paragraph. In response to Section 1 of Public Act 90-213, the Office of Alternative Sanctions established the Alternative Incarceration Center Services program to provide services for adults accused of a criminal offense and adults convicted of a criminal offense. The Office of Alternative Sanctions

3

Auditors of Public Accounts has contracted with non-profit organizations to provide the services of the Alternative Incarceration Center Services program. Under the Alternative Incarceration Center Services program, daily contact is to be maintained with clients. Clients are provided employment assistance and counseling, educational and vocational training, substance abuse counseling, family and group counseling, and life skills assistance. In addition, clients are to participate in community service activities. If not for the services provided under the Alternative Incarceration Center Services program, these adults would otherwise be incarcerated. Public Act 95-225 gave significant responsibility for juvenile delinquency programs to the Office of Alternative Sanctions, as of July 1, 1996. The Public Act called for the Office of Alternative Sanctions to develop programs to prevent and reduce juvenile delinquency and to provide services to juvenile offenders not requiring incarceration. The treatment programs must cover chemical dependency, mental health needs, physical or sexual abuse, and educational needs, and provide treatment based on individual needs. Further, this Public Act required juvenile offenders to participate in community services activities. In response to the passage of Public Act 95-225, the Office of Alternative Sanctions established the Alternative to Juvenile Detention Program, which offers both residential and non-residential programs. The Office of Alternative Sanctions has contracted with non-profit organizations to provide the Alternative to Juvenile Detention Program services. The Alternative to Juvenile Detention Program is designed to provide cost-effective, safe, community-based intermediate sanctions for juveniles who are detained for 10 to 20 days on a pre-trial basis and are deemed to be able, with appropriate services and supervision, to be maintained in a community program. Under Alternative to Juvenile Detention Program, juveniles are provided educational instruction, substance abuse education and treatment, mental health services, group and individual counseling. In addition, the juvenile clients participate in family focus groups, community service activities and recreational activities. Early in 1998, the Judicial Department contracted with the National Center for State Courts to perform a comprehensive assessment of administrative and operative functions. The assessment was undertaken to discover potential opportunities to improve the level of services provided and to increase and enhance operating efficiencies. This assessment resulted in the merger of six former separate components of Judicial Department into the newly created Court Support Services Division. Operating functions that were formerly performed by the Office of Adult Probation, the Office of Alternative Sanctions, the Bail Commission, the Family Matters Unit, the Division of Juvenile Detention, and the Juvenile Probation Unit are now cared out by the Court Support Services Division. Under the Court Support Services Division, five regions have been established to more effectively provide for the needs of judges, offenders and communities, and to more efficiently use existing resources. The regions operate under the direction of Regional Deputy Directors.

4

Auditors of Public Accounts

AUDIT OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
The Auditors of Public Accounts, in accordance with Section 2-90 of the Connecticut General Statutes, are responsible for examining the performance of State entities to determine their effectiveness in achieving expressed legislative purposes. We conducted a performance audit of some aspects of the Judicial Department in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards. The audit of the Judicial Department covered economy, efficiency, and program issues, all of which are types of performance audits. The audit focused on two State financial assistance programs administered by the Court Support Services Division within the Judicial Department, and the Division’s participation in the State’s Single Audit monitoring process. The two programs selected were the Alternative Incarceration Center Services program and Alternative to Juvenile Detention Program. Previously, we issued a performance audit on the Office of Policy and Management and the Agency’s role as the administrator of and cognizant agency for the majority of recipients receiving State financial assistance. As noted in the Office of Policy and Management audit report, we planned to review the State Single Audit Program and other systems used to monitor the State financial assistance programs at several State agencies. This report is limited to our review of the Judicial Department, specifically the operation of the Court Support Services Division. Our audit objectives were as follows: To determine if the goals of the State Single Audit Act, as it applies to the Judicial Department, specifically the Court Support Services Division, are being achieved. Are the required audits received in a timely manner? Are the Division’s programs being properly covered in the audit reports? To determine if the State Single Audit provides an adequate monitoring tool to assure that the Agency’s program goals are being met. To determine if procedures, which have been instituted by the Court Support Services Division to oversee the expending of the State financial assistance, are reasonable. To determine if allowable costs, including items that are billed as indirect costs, have been sufficiently addressed in Court Support Services Division’s financial guidelines, agreements, and in its compliance supplement requirements. To determine if indirect costs are being sufficiently audited to obtain reasonable assurance that only allowable types of costs and equitable amounts are charged to the State programs.

5

Auditors of Public Accounts To accomplish our objectives, we reviewed the Connecticut General Statutes, State Single Audit regulations issued by the Office of Policy and Management, Federal Office of Management and Budget circulars and a related guide, Office of Policy and Management policies and procedures, and our prior financial audit report and supporting workpapers pertaining to the Judicial Department. At the Court Support Services Division, we reviewed the Division’s Financial Guideline Manual, accounting expenditure records, contractual agreements, budget documentation, non-profit expenditure reports, file correspondence, and non-profit audit reports. We interviewed officials and other personnel of the Agency within the scope of our audit. Certain Agency financial information was stored in computer databases. We did not rely on such information to achieve our audit objectives or to develop our audit findings, and it was determined that it was not necessary to assess the reliability of the computer-based data. The field audit work was conducted from April 2000 through October 2000 by staff members Charles A. Bannon and Lynne A. Adler. Work was performed at the Court Support Services Division.

6

Auditors of Public Accounts

NOTEWORTHY ACCOMPLISHMENTS
We noted that an article published by the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance in October 1998 commended the Judicial Department for establishing alternative sanctions programs for virtually every offender. The article indicated that both the Alternative Incarceration Center Services program and Alternative to Juvenile Detention Program, covered in our audit examination, are helping protect the public, assisting offenders in developing skills, saving money and reducing offender recidivism. The article commended the Chief Court Administrator and the Judicial Department for doing an admirable job of “engaging the courts as a problem solver” in response to the prison crisis of the late 1980s. The article noted that the Office of Alternative Sanctions found a solution that promised meaningful benefits for everyone involved, including the communities, the judiciary, government officials, and offenders. The Office of Alternative Sanctions created programs that demonstrated to the community that offenders would be held accountable for their crimes. Further, the article stated that the Office of Alternative Sanctions provided an alternative to the endless expense of building and operating State prisons, while restoring the public’s faith in the efficacy of the criminal justice system.

7

Auditors of Public Accounts

RESULTS OF REVIEW
Item No. 1. The Judicial Department has not established formal procedures to ensure that non-profits failing to submit their State Single Audit reports are detected within a timely manner. The State’s Single Audit Act (the Act) requires that audit reports of audits conducted under the Act be submitted to the State within six months after the audited entity’s fiscal year end. The Office of Policy and Management, as the cognizant agency for the State financial assistance awarded by the Judicial Department, is responsible for assuring that these audit reports are submitted in a timely manner. However, the Office of Policy and Management relies on the Judicial Department to inform it of what audits are due and when they are due, as it does not have any other independent source of this information. The grantor agency, in this case the Judicial Department, has a number of responsibilities related to the review of the audit reports. For example, the grantor agency must follow up on any findings that are reported. Other responsibilities are more fully detailed in the “Introduction” section of this report. The Single Audit report is an important financial monitoring tool that is to be utilized by the grantor agencies to assure that State money was appropriately spent, that costs were allowable, and that grant financial requirements were met. In the Judicial Department, it is one of the primary monitoring tools for State financial assistance that is awarded under the Alternative Incarceration Center Services program and the Alternative to Juvenile Detention Program (some $14,600,000 was awarded for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1998). As a monitoring tool, its use is diminished or eliminated if the audit reports are not received and reviewed in a timely manner. To make effective use of the audit report as a monitoring tool, it is expected that the grantor agency would develop procedures that would track that an audit report is due, the date it is due, the date it is received, any follow-up action that is required, and so forth. The Judicial Department has not formulated procedures. We found that the receipt date of audit reports was not recorded in seven out of 11 instances that we reviewed. In three of the 11 instances, the dates marked as received were between 14 and 20 months after the fiscal year ended and in another instance, the report was not received until after we brought it to the Department’s attention that it did not have an audit report on file (almost two years after the end of the entity’s fiscal year). We were told that because of other obligations, audit reports are often allowed to sit around in one Judicial unit for a month or two before they are distributed to the appropriate Judicial unit. Another reason for the inadequate tracking is the confusion about who has responsibility for monitoring the receipt of these reports. We have noted that there are different instructions in the contracts as to where the reports should be directed. Those should be clarified and procedures should be put into place to note the receiving date on all items and a tracking system for the prompt handling and follow-up of these reports should be put into place. (See Recommendation No. 1.)

8

Auditors of Public Accounts Agency’s Response: “The audit accurately notes that it is the cognizant agency, in this case the Office of Policy and Management (OPM), by statute if not always in practice, who has been responsible for assuring that audit reports are submitted in a timely manner. Nevertheless, the [Judicial] Branch is implementing a system to monitor the timely submission of such reports and notify OPM when submission is not timely. Additionally, a full-time position is being added within Internal Audit to track, review and follow-up these reports. It should be noted as well that Judicial Branch grant agreements require the submission of audits even when State Single Audit provisions would not apply and do put recipients on notice regarding any instances of non-compliance with requirements.”

9

Auditors of Public Accounts Item No. 2. The Judicial Department’s participation in the State Single Audit Act can be strengthened through the use of written procedures and/or a desk review checklist, the timely dissemination of information within the Agency, and by the accounting staff establishing a working relationship with their counterparts at the Office of Policy and Management. Agency management is responsible for establishing policies and procedures, assigning job duties to employees, providing guidance to employees in caring out their duties through written procedures, and for the coordination, communication and dissemination of information within the Judicial Department. The Judicial Department has designated as its Agency contact person for the State Single Audit Act, the Director of the Internal Audit Division. Thus, the Office of Policy and Management sends any correspondence regarding the State Single Audit to the Director. The Director informed us that his only function was to coordinate meetings with the Office of Policy and Management, and to distribute Single Audit correspondence and audit reports to the applicable Judicial units. He indicated that he forwards the Office of Policy and Management’s correspondence to four or five Judicial divisions. If he is not sure which division may have provided funding to an organization, he forwards a copy of the Office of Policy and Management’s correspondence to all the divisions. Further, he indicated his normal procedure is to distribute Single Audit information on a monthly basis. Due to his workload, a back up of between one and one-half months to two months might occur in the distribution of information received from the Office of Policy and Management. This backlog may account for Court Support Services Division’s Manager of Grants and Contracts informing us that he was receiving the Office of Policy and Management’s “Delinquent Entities” listing on a quarterly basis. According to the Office of Policy and Management, the “Delinquent Entities” listing is distributed monthly. Two Court Support Services Division accountants, presently responsible for reviewing audit reports of non-profit providers, assumed this task after their supervisor was assigned new job responsibilities. They assumed responsibility for reviewing audit reports covering the 1997-1998 fiscal year. The accountants informed us that they had never met with or had any meetings with the Director of Internal Audit regarding the State Single Audit process and his involvement. Our audit examination revealed that the Court Support Services Division’s management had not provided its accountants with formal written procedures to follow in reviewing audit reports submitted by organizations receiving funding from the Court Support Services Division. Further, we learned that the accountants were unaware of how often the Office of Policy and Management issued the “Delinquent Entities” listing, and why they received the Office of Policy and Management’s correspondence for organizations that were not receiving any Court Support Services Division funding. In addition, they were unaware of the existence of the Office of Policy and Management’s “Grantor Agency Desk Review Checklist for Governmental and Nonprofit Entities.” The Office of Policy and Management’s desk review checklist is revised periodically to assist Agency personnel in reviewing audit reports and sent to individuals designated as the Single Audit contact person. During our discussions with the accountants, questions were raised about the Office of Policy and Management’s involvement in reviewing

10

Auditors of Public Accounts audit reports, the possibility that they may be duplicating desk review procedures being carried out by the Office of Policy and Management’s staff, and if the Office of Policy and Management offered any training pertaining to the State Single Audit. Unfortunately, the accountants have not attended any State Single Audit meetings with the Office of Policy and Management, and thus, they have not established a working relationship with their counterparts at the Office of Policy and Management, and therefore, were somewhat in the dark regarding the aforementioned matters. Although the Director of Internal Audit was informed by the Office of Policy and Management’s staff that the Office of Policy and Management did not offer Single Audit training, we have been informed by the Office of Policy and Management’s staff that training would be provided to any State agency requesting such training. We have conveyed the Office of Policy and Management’s apparent willingness to provide such training to members of the Judicial Department. The Director informed us that he has forwarded copies of the Office of Policy and Management’s desk review checklist to the Court Support Services Division’s management but not directly to staff personnel responsible for reviewing audit reports. Upon discussing with management the need for State Single Audit procedures to document the audit review process, management informed us that an accounting firm had been hired to develop procedures for use in reviewing audit reports. Management indicated that the accounting firm had developed a very extensive automated checklist for use in reviewing audit reports. Further, management indicated that the automated checklist was not currently being used due to the lack of resources to hire additional staff to complete the checklist tasks. Based on our discussions with the Court Support Services Division accountants and our observations, it did appear that the accountants are conscientious about reviewing audit reports. However, due to the lack of written procedures or the use of a desk review checklist, no definitive record existed to document just what the accountants had reviewed an audit report for or if an audit report was reviewed for matters considered important by the Office of Policy and Management. The use of the Office of Policy and Management’s desk review checklist, at a minimum, would provide a permanent record of problems, which may turn out to be recurring in nature. Some examples of recurring problems are the misuse of State funds, the failure of an auditor to identify Federal or State funds properly, the failure of an auditor to identify unspent State funds and/or substandard audit report filings. There needs to be better coordination, communication and dissemination of information within the Judicial Department to ensure that all participants in the State Single Audit process are fully aware of the process and receive information in a timely manner. Also, the accountants should attend State Single Audit meetings between the Office of Policy and Management and the Judicial Department so that they can establish a working relationship with their counterparts at the Office of Policy and Management. Such interaction hopefully will prove beneficial to both agencies in fulfilling their duties under the State Single Audit Act. (See Recommendation No. 2.)

11

Auditors of Public Accounts Agency’s Response: “The State Single Audit Desk Review Checklist for Governmental and Nonprofit Entities has been set up as the basis for review of audit reports and follow-up of questioned items. Interaction regularly occurs on a variety of subjects between the Director of Internal Audit and Court Support Services Division (CSSD) administration and notification is disseminated of meetings, when…required. Additionally, the fundamental change identified in response to Item #1 will lead to a more direct and consistent link between Internal Audit and CSSD, dramatically enhancing communication.”

12

Auditors of Public Accounts Item No. 3. There is a need to require non-profits to submit a detailed reconciliation between their June 30 final program expenditure amount reported to the Court Support Services Division and the expenditure amount reported for the program on their State Single Audit Schedule of State Financial Assistance, whenever differences exist. Whenever a difference exists between an audited expenditure amount and a recipient’s reported expenditure amount for the same program and for a June 30 fiscal year or a fiscal year end other than June 30, a detailed reconciliation is required to explain the reason(s) for the difference(s). Such a reconciliation is needed in order for the accounting staff to determine if State funds have not been returned to the Court Support Services Division. During our performance audit examination, we inquired of Court Support Services Division’s accounting personnel what types of problems were being encountered due to some non-profit organizations having a fiscal year end that did not coincide with the State’s fiscal year end of June 30. The accountants indicated that in the past they had attempted to reconcile audited financial expenditure amounts to final expenditure amounts reported to the Court Support Services Division by a non-profit. This process usually required them to call or write a letter requesting a breakdown of expenditures according to the State’s fiscal accounting period (July 1 to June 30). Further, they indicated that the reconciliation process was very time consuming. Presently, they call a non-profit and request a reconciliation between the audit report expenditure amount and the non-profit’s final quarterly expenditure amount reported to the Court Support Services Division. In addition, they request that the non-profit have their auditors sign off on the reconciliation. As part of our audit examination, we compared a non-profit’s audit report expenditures for the Alternative Incarceration Center Services program and the Alternative to Juvenile Detention Program against final quarterly expenditure reports submitted by the non-profit organization, and to the Court Support Services Division payments made to the non-profit. We performed this comparison for the 11 non-profits that received funding from the Court Support Services Division for the State fiscal year ended June 30, 1998. The comparison was also made for four of the 11 non-profits for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1999. Our review revealed the following situations: Four of the 11 non-profits had fiscal year ends different from the State’s fiscal year end of June 30. Just one of the four non-profits’ audit reports reflected fiscal year June 30 financial expenditure and unspent amounts that were in agreement with the final quarterly expenditure report submitted by the non-profit. Two of the non-profits reported that they had fully expended their 1997-1998 fiscal year grant awards. Because the non-profits have a fiscal year end other than June 30, the 1997-1998 expenditure amounts were presented in two separate audit reports for each non-profit. According to the audit reports for the two non-profits, one non-profit had not spent $153,444 of its 1997-1998 grant award. The other non-profit had not spent $9,027 of its grant award.

13

Auditors of Public Accounts The fourth non-profit’s audit reports did not present expenditure amounts by the State grant period (fiscal year). Independent auditors are not required to provide supplemental schedules that detail total program expenditures presented for fiscal years that do end on June 30. Thus, no determination can be made as to whether or not a State grant was expended in full or if the non-profit has failed to return unspent State funds. The remaining seven non-profits had a fiscal year end of June 30, which is the same as the State’s fiscal year end. For four of the seven non-profits, we noted variances between their audit report expenditure amounts and the final expenditure amounts reported to the Court Support Services Division by the non-profits. One non-profit returned fiscal year 1997-1998 unspent funds of $9,065. Whereas, the audit report indicated that this non-profit had over spent the grant award by $64,718. For the 1998-1999 fiscal year, this non-profit indicated that it had spent $980 more than its grant award. Whereas, the audit report indicated that the non-profit had expended $158,368 less than the amount of State funds paid to the non-profit. Another non-profit indicated that it had not spent $4,754 of its State grant award and returned the amount to the Court Support Services Division. According to the audit report, the grant was fully expended. Our review of available information on file at Court Support Services Division did not reveal the cause for the aforementioned differences. The reliability of financial data being submitted to Court Support Services Division is in question. Further, it appears that unspent funds have not been returned to Court Support Services Division and that non-State funds are being commingled with State funds. The above situations clearly point out the need to have a non-profit organization submit a formal reconciliation, if there are differences between the non-profit’s final quarterly expenditure amount for a specific grant program and the corresponding amount reported in the State Single Audit Schedule of State Financial Assistance. The reconciliation should be filed at the same time as the audit report. The reconciliation should be certified by the non-profit’s auditors or subject to verification by the non-profit’s auditors to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the reconciliation. (See Recommendation No. 3.) Agency’s Response: “Such reconciliations are currently requested. However, the requirement for such reconciliation is being formalized for inclusion in the SSA Compliance Supplement and/or Branch contracts.”

14

Auditors of Public Accounts Item No. 4. The Court Support Services Division’s quarterly contractor monitoring process needs to be improved. The Court Support Services Division’s Operations Unit is responsible for monitoring the delivery of services provided by contractual providers. Five Regional Deputy Directors are responsible for overseeing the monitoring process. Each regional office is authorized two Criminal Sanctions Monitors, who are responsible for monitoring the operations of contractual providers. In an effort to ensure contract compliance and quality service delivery by the providers, the Court Support Services Division has established a formal monitoring policy. The Court Support Services Division’s staff is to conduct formal monitoring visits at contracted agencies four times a year at regular intervals. The formal monitoring visits are to be scheduled with the contractor in advance and documented on the appropriate form(s) according to the type of Court Support Services Division program. In addition, informal monitoring may occur in between the formal reviews as needed. These may include site visits, telephone contacts, and through contacts with other Judicial Department personnel. After conducting a quarterly monitoring review, the Criminal Sanctions Monitor is required to issue the completed monitoring report to the appropriate Regional Deputy Director, the Program Manager for the Juvenile and Alternative Sanctions programs, and the contracted service provider to whom the report pertains. The service provider is required to sign and date the cover page of the report so as to acknowledge receipt of the monitoring report. If deficiencies are cited in the monitoring report, the service provider must respond in writing within 10 days of receipt of the report. In reviewing the Court Support Services Division’s monitoring process, we sought to determine the following: if monitoring reports were properly completed and in a timely manner, if monitoring reports were being signed and dated by representatives of the providers in acknowledgement that they had received a copy of the reports, if required corrective action plans or written responses were submitted by providers and reviewed by the Court Support Services Division’s staff for acceptance or rejection, and if monitoring reports were being signed by Deputy Directors in acknowledgement that they had seen the quarterly monitoring reports. Our initial review of the monitoring process revealed an organizational problem. Prior to a Judicial Department reorganization in February 1999, Criminal Sanctions Monitors reported to supervisors. The supervisors were responsible for determining what types of reviews were required for contractual providers and directing monitors to conduct the necessary reviews. Since the reorganization, this management responsibility has fallen to the Criminal Sanctions Monitors. Consequently, there was no official listing of which Court Support Services Division

15

Auditors of Public Accounts programs and providers each Criminal Sanctions Monitor was responsible for overseeing. Thus, we contacted Criminal Sanctions Monitors for said information with the assistance of another Court Support Services Division staff member. On June 2, 2000, an E-mail was sent to all Criminal Sanctions Monitors asking them to identify the Alternative Incarceration Center Services program and Alternative to Juvenile Detention Program providers that they were responsible for monitoring. Also, we requested a copy of the latest quarterly monitoring reports completed for the Alternative Incarceration Center Services program and the Alternative to Juvenile Detention Program providers. If the third quarter (January through March 2000) monitoring report had not yet been completed, we requested an explanation as to why the report had not been completed. We also requested copies of corrective action plans or any written responses submitted by a provider in response to a quarterly monitoring report being provided to us. Our review of quarterly monitoring reports for 10 Alternative Incarceration Center Services providers (all non-profits) revealed the following situations or problems: No quarterly monitoring reports were available for two Alternative Incarceration Center Services non-profit providers, Project More, Inc. and The Connection, Inc. We were informed that no adult monitor was assigned to the South Central Region at the time the reviews should have been conducted. Management informed us that the Court Support Services Division was in the process of hiring someone to monitor these two non-profit providers. Fourteen quarterly monitoring reports were provided to us for the other eight Alternative Incarceration Center Services providers. This was due to services being provided at more than one location by some Alternative Incarceration Center Services non-profit providers. Seven of the quarterly monitoring reports covered the most recent quarter (January through March 2000) subject to a formal monitoring visit. Four other quarterly monitoring reports reflected the combined results of the second and third quarter monitoring reviews. The monitor informed us that the consolidating of quarterly monitoring reviews was due to an increased workload for monitors Statewide. Further, the monitor stated that the Program Manager for Alternative Sanctions had approved the combining of the quarterly monitoring reviews. We were provided second quarter (October through December 1999) monitoring reports for three other locations because the third quarter exit interviews had not yet taken place. The monitor indicated that the exit interviews had not taken place, in part, due to monitors’ workloads. Three of the 14 Alternative Incarceration Center Services quarterly monitoring reports appeared to have been prepared in a timely manner, within one month after the end of the quarter. It appeared that the three second quarter (October through December 1999) monitoring reports were not issued in a timely manner. The Criminal Sanctions Monitor did not sign the reports until either March 17 or March 23, 2000. Eight of the quarterly monitoring reports were not signed by a Regional Deputy Director. Included in the eight unsigned reports were the four combined second and third quarter reports mentioned in the preceding paragraph. We were informed that these four monitoring reports did not

16

Auditors of Public Accounts contain the Deputy Director’s signature in order to accommodate our request for copies of the monitoring reports. Five of the 14 Alternative Incarceration Center Services quarterly monitoring reports appeared to have been properly completed. Some reports had missing pages and others had pages that were left blank with no explanation as to why the pages were not completed. Three monitoring reports were missing the first of three pages that pertain to client files. Three quarterly reports were missing the “Tally Sheet.” Another monitoring report contained a blank “Tally Sheet.” This page provides a recap by section reviewed (such as facility/equipment, client files, client supervision, etc.) and whether the section reviewed prompted the need for corrective action by the provider. Five of the 14 Alternative Incarceration Center Services quarterly monitoring reports required the non-profit provider to file a corrective action plan. Four of the providers filed a corrective action plan or written response. The Court Support Services Division’s staff made no notations on the written responses to indicate if the responses addressed the problems cited in the monitoring reports. As of July 10, 2000, one non-profit had yet to file a corrective action plan for a third quarter (January through March 2000) review that was apparently completed on May 8, 2000. A representative for the provider signed the quarterly monitoring report on June 5, 2000. The cover sheet for the quarterly Alternative Incarceration Center Services monitoring report, in addition to requiring the date the monitor, and that the provider’s representative and a Deputy Director signed the report, also requires the date the report was distributed to the Operations Unit and Administration Unit. The distribution section of the cover sheet was not completed for any of the fourteen monitoring reports provided to us. Our review of four Alternative to Juvenile Detention Program quarterly monitoring reports revealed the following situations or problems: Alternative to Juvenile Detention Program services are provided at four locations by four non-profit organizations. Just one of the four quarterly monitoring reports provided to us covered the third quarter (January through March 2000). For the other three providers, we received second quarter monitoring reports (October through December 1999). We were informed that one of the third quarter reviews had not been performed at the time of our request for copies in June, another third quarter review had not yet been typed, and the other third quarter review had been conducted with an independent auditor but had not been issued. We were unable to determine if the third quarter monitoring report had been issued on a timely basis because the monitoring report cover sheet was missing. Because the cover sheet was missing, we could not determine if the provider’s representative and a Deputy Director had been provided copies of the monitoring report.

17

Auditors of Public Accounts We were unable to determine if two-second quarter monitoring reports had been issued on a timely basis. The two non-profits’ representatives failed to date their signatures, as required. The two monitoring reports were not signed by a Regional Deputy Director. One of the monitoring reports called for the filing of a corrective action plan. Court Support Services Division’s staff made no notations on the written responses to indicate if the responses addressed the problems cited in the monitoring report. All three available cover sheets for the quarterly Alternative to Juvenile Detention Program monitoring reports failed to indicate if copies of the monitoring reports had been distributed to the Operations Unit and Administration Unit, as required. In reviewing quarterly monitoring reports for the Alternative Incarceration Center Services program and the Alternative to Juvenile Detention Program, we noted that only the cover sheet for the quarterly reports divulged the quarter reviewed, the name of the provider and the program reviewed. Some quarterly monitoring reports were clipped together rather than stapled together, heightening the chance that pages could become separated and possibly misidentified as to what period, provider and/or program that they happened to represent. If quarterly monitoring reports are to be an effective tool in monitoring for compliance with contractual terms, the delivery of quality services each quarter, and for ensuring community safety; the quarterly monitoring reports need to be issued in a timely manner. The monitoring reports should contain all required pages, each page should identify the period covered and the contractor’s name, and the reason for not completing a page should be noted on the page. No quarterly monitoring report should be accepted as completed by management unless it reflects a dated signature for both the provider’s representative and the monitor. Deputy Directors should be required to sign the quarterly monitoring reports to indicate that they have reviewed them and note their acceptance or rejection of a report. Court Support Services Division’s procedures should require monitors and Deputy Directors to indicate their acceptance or rejection of corrective action plans or written responses submitted by providers. (See Recommendation No. 4.) Agency’s Response: “Prior to the audit, CSSD had established a committee to review the contract monitoring process and instruments. As a result the system was revised and a Contract Monitoring policy was developed. The new policy establishes specific time standards and clear accountability for contract monitoring. The policy is in the final stage of review and will be implemented by October 2001.”

18

Auditors of Public Accounts Item No. 5. The lack of State uniform cost standards or principles has resulted in the Judicial Department developing its own approach for allowing or disallowing indirect costs to be charged against a State financial assistance award. Indirect costs are costs incurred for common or joint purposes benefiting more than one cost objective and the costs cannot be readily assigned to a particular cost objective or project specifically benefited. On April 28, 2000, the General Assembly passed Public Act 00-125, which requires the Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management to adopt regulations establishing uniform standards that prescribe the cost accounting principles to be used in the administration of State financial assistance by recipients of such assistance. The establishment of uniform standards that prescribe cost accounting principles, including allowable/unallowable costs and an indirect cost allocation plan, to be used in the administration of State assistance awards by non-profit organizations, local governments and other recipient organizations could improve accountability over State financial awards. Prior to the passage of Public Act 00-125, the Office of Policy and Management’s staff indicated that there was no clear authority to establish uniform cost standards. Further, management stated that it was not clear that such authority was part of the State Single Audit process. However, it does appear that the Office of Policy and Management’s staff did consider cost standards part of the State Single Audit process prior to our performance audit examination of the Office of Policy and Management’s administration of the State Single Audit Act. During our review of non-profit audit reports on file at the Court Support Services Division, we noted that one non-profit’s audit reports recommended the development of a systematic and rational allocation system for the allocation of common costs to State grant programs. This recommendation was contained in the non-profit’s audit reports covering the fiscal years ended September 30, 1997 and 1998. As a result of reviewing these two audit reports, the Office of Policy and Management issued its desk review results in April 1998 and 1999 for the aforementioned 1997 and 1998 audit reports, respectively. The two desk reviews were sent to the Judicial Department, the Department of Social Services, the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services and the Department of Labor. The two audit reports indicated that the Judicial Department, the Department of Social Services and the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services provided major State expenditure funding to this non-profit. The Office of Policy and Management provided nonmajor State expenditure funding and the least amount of State funding to this non-profit in each of the two fiscal years. The two desk reviews indicated that the Office of Policy and Management (the cognizant agency) was the State agency responsible for monitoring the resolution process for the cost allocation finding. Since there are no State directives for allowing the charging of indirect costs, the Judicial Department relies on the Federal Office of Management and Budget’s Circular A-87, “Cost Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments” for guidance in permitting the charging of costs to State grants. The Court Support Services Division’s Financial Guideline Manual states that organizations are encouraged to account for expenses as direct cost whenever possible. The Court Support Services Division permits a contractor to charge indirect costs to Judicial Department programs. The contractor must file with the Court Support Services

19

Auditors of Public Accounts Division, a letter from the cognizant agency approving its indirect cost rate and stating that the indirect cost allocation plan has been prepared in accordance with applicable policies and procedures. We found that the Court Support Services Division’s initial contractual agreements and most recent agreements with non-profits stated that the cognizant organization is normally the Federal agency or the Federal pass through funding agency that provides the most funding to the organization. If no Federal funds are supporting the organization, the plan should be submitted to the State agency or the municipality that provides the most funding to the organization. The Judicial Department’s superseded July 1998 Financial Guideline Manual contained the same definition of cognizant agency as the Judicial agreements. The current Financial Guideline Manual states that the cognizant agency is normally defined as the agency that provides the most funding to the organization. The Court Support Services Division will allow an organization to charge indirect costs at a rate not to exceed 10.0 percent of direct charges pending approval of its indirect cost allocation plan and indirect cost rate. The organization must secure approval of its indirect cost allocation plan within one year from the inception of an agreement. An approved indirect cost rate becomes effective at the beginning of the reporting quarter in which the indirect cost plan was approved. As previously mentioned above, one non-profit’s audit reports, covering the fiscal years ended September 30, 1997 and 1998, contained a recommendation calling for the development of a systematic and rational allocation system for the allocation of common costs to State grant programs. Further, we noted that the Office of Policy and Management was the State agency responsible for monitoring the resolution process. Our audit examination revealed that the Court Support Services Division’s management had corresponded with this same non-profit in July 1996 regarding its September 30, 1995 audit report, which indicated that the non-profit had no consistent method for allocating indirect costs among its funding sources. The Court Support Services Division’s management requested a prompt resolution of the matter and reminded the non-profit that the Alternative Incarceration Center Services agreement required the non-profit to seek approval for its indirect cost allocation plan. The non-profit indicated that it had tried unsuccessfully for some time to get the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Social Services to approve an indirect cost rate. In addition, the non-profit submitted a letter (dated June 26, 1996) sent to the Department of Social Services requesting approving of its proposed indirect cost rate. The non-profit’s correspondence stated that a number of its funding sources, along with its auditor, are requiring an indirect cost rate from our cognizant agency. The non-profit claimed, “OMB guidelines require the cognizant agency to be the federal or state agency from which we receive the majority of our funds. In our case, it is the Department of Social Services.” Approximately three months after being reminded by the Court Support Services Division that it was required to seek approval for its indirect cost allocation plan, the non-profit submitted a payroll based indirect cost allocation plan to the Judicial Department, now considered the cognizant agency for this non-profit. Since the Court Support Services Division prohibited the use of a payroll based indirect cost allocation plan; the allocation plan was rejected. Another non-profit indicated to the Court Support Services Division that its indirect costs are computed under cost accounting procedures contained in the Federal Office of Management and Budget’s Circular A-133 and the State Single Audit Act. Further, the non-profit stated, “this plan though approved under Federal Circular A-133 will also be submitted to the Department of

20

Auditors of Public Accounts Social Services (where Perception Programs gets most of its Federal funding) or the Judicial Department for review and approval.” Approximately three months later, the non-profit informed the Court Support Services Division that its current cognizant agency was the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services. The non-profit submitted a letter from the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, which stated “we have reviewed and approved your methodology for indirect cost allocation. Feel free to communicate this to those agencies who require this approval.” The Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services’ letter made no mention of the allocation method approved or if an indirect cost rate had been approved. Quarterly expenditure reports submitted to the Court Support Services Division by the non-profit reflected indirect cost charges. A Court Support Services Division employee tried unsuccessfully to find out from the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services what the approved indirect cost rate was for the non-profit. We called the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services more than once in our attempts to find out the approved indirect rate for the non-profit. Finally, a Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services employee responded to our inquiry and stated that the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services had approved only the non-profit’s cost allocation plan and that no indirect rate had been approved. We contacted the non-profit’s auditor and were informed that the non-profit did not use an indirect cost rate to allocate administrative costs to Judicial programs. The auditor stated that the non-profit used direct costing in charging administrative cost to programs and that there were no indirect costs being charged to Judicial programs. Further, the auditor indicated that the non-profit had received approval from the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services for their method of charging administrative cost directly to programs. However, correspondence from the non-profit indicated that indirect costs were computed by applying its approved indirect cost rate to actual expenditures in the administrative cost center. Normally under Federal guidelines, cost allocation plans are prepared for the purpose of identifying costs benefiting a number of activities, projects, programs or grants and the method of distributing joint costs to the benefiting activities, projects, programs or grants. In certain situations a governmental unit may be required to develop a cost allocation plan that distributes indirect (and in some cases, direct) costs not using rates. We called the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services to determine just what had been submitted by the non-profit and approved by the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services. We were unsuccessful in our effort. The above situations clearly point out that confusion will reign until the Office of Policy and Management develops cost principles and takes full responsibility for being the cognizant agency for non-profits or designates other State agencies to act as the cognizant agency. Until uniform cost standards are issued by the Office of Policy and Management, State agency personnel are free to permit recipients of State financial assistance to use Federal indirect cost rates for charging indirect costs to State programs. Also, State agencies will formulate their own conclusion as to which State agency is the cognizant agency for a non-profit with regard to approving a non-profit’s indirect cost allocation plan and indirect cost rate. No recommendation is presented in this audit report since it is the responsibility of the Office of Policy and Management (the cognizant agency for the State Single Audit Act) to develop cost

21

Auditors of Public Accounts principles. However, a copy of this audit report is being submitted to the Office of Policy and Management for their consideration. Agency’s Response: “Judicial Branch indirect cost standards were established to provide consistency among the many and varied contracts that exist, in the absence of any statewide standards. They are periodically reviewed and any guidance provided by the Office of Policy and Management as the cognizant agency is welcomed.”

22

Auditors of Public Accounts

RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Judicial Department should establish a procedure, which alerts staff that a non-profit has failed to submit a State Single Audit report within six months after the end of the non-profit’s fiscal year, unless a filing extension is granted by the cognizant agency. Comments: Our performance audit examination revealed the lack of a system to ensure that audit reports were being received from non-profits subject to the State Single Audit Act not later than six months after the end of a non-profit’s fiscal year. We were unable to determine if seven of the 11 non-profits’ audit reports selected for review had been filed within six months after the end of the non-profits’ fiscal year. No record existed to indicate when these seven audit reports had been received by the Judicial Department. Of the remaining four audit reports, two were received by the Court Support Services Division 14 months after the end of the non-profits’ fiscal year. The third non-profit’s audit report was received 20 months after the end of its fiscal year. The fourth non-profit’s audit report was received 22 months after the end of the non-profit’s fiscal year. 2. The Judicial Department should improve its participation in the State Single Audit process by utilizing written procedures and/or a desk review checklist for reviewing audit reports. There needs to be better coordination, communication and dissemination of State Single Audit information within the Judicial Department to ensure that all participants are fully aware of the process and receive information in a timely manner. Comments: Management has not provided its accountants, who are responsible for reviewing State Single audit reports, with written procedures and/or a desk review checklist for use in reviewing State Single Audit reports. Consequently, no definitive record existed to document exactly what an audit report had been checked for and if any problems were noted that needed to be addressed by the non-profit or by the Judicial Department’s management. Our audit examination revealed that State Single audit reports and correspondence are often allowed to sit around in one unit of the Judicial Department for a month or two before they are distributed to the appropriate units within the Judicial Department. Further, we learned that accountants, who are responsible for reviewing State Single audit reports, had never met with the Agency’s designated State Single Audit contact person or attended any State Single Audit meetings held by the Office of Policy and Management.

23

Auditors of Public Accounts 3. The Judicial Department should require a non-profit organization to submit a formal reconciliation, if there are differences between the non-profit’s final quarterly expenditure amount for a specific grant program and the corresponding amount reported in the State Single Audit Schedule of State Financial Assistance. The reconciliation should be filed at the same time as the audit report. The reconciliation should be certified by the non-profit’s auditors or subject to verification by the non-profit’s auditors to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the reconciliation. Comments: As noted in Recommendation Number One, we selected for review the audit reports for 11 non-profits. For these 11 non-profits, we compared program expenditure amounts stated in a non-profit’s audit report to its final quarterly expenditure reports for two grant programs. This comparison revealed a number of discrepancies between final quarterly expenditure reports and expenditure amounts reflected in audit reports for seven of the 11 non-profits. 4. The Court Support Services Division’s quarterly contractor monitoring process needs to be improved to ensure compliance with contractual terms, the delivery of quality services each quarter, and to ensure community safety. Comments: Our review of the Court Support Services Division’s monitoring process for the Alternative Incarceration Center Services program and the Alternative to Juvenile Detention Program revealed a number of problems. Due to a Judicial Department reorganization in February 1999, the management responsibility for determining what types of reviews were required for contractual providers has fallen to the Criminal Sanctions Monitors. Consequently, there was no official listing of which Court Support Services Division programs and providers each Criminal Sanctions Monitor was responsible for overseeing. Our review of quarterly monitoring reports for 10 Alternative Incarceration Center Services and four Alternative to Juvenile Detention Program providers (all non-profits) revealed the following situations or problems. Many monitoring reports were not completed in a timely manner. Some monitoring reports were missing pages and others contained blank pages. Many monitoring reports lacked the signature of a Regional Deputy Director. Court Support Services Division’s staff failed to indicate acceptance or rejection of corrective action plans or written responses submitted by service providers.

24

Auditors of Public Accounts

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, we wish to express our appreciation of the courtesies shown to our representatives during the course of our audit. The assistance and cooperation extended to them by the Judicial Department in making their records readily available and in explaining transactions greatly facilitated the conduct of this examination.

Charles A. Bannon Principal Auditor

Approved:

Kevin P. Johnston Auditor of Public Accounts

Robert G. Jaekle Auditor of Public Accounts

25

1

A Contracted Vendors under 04-6024 Community Solutions Inc.

B AFCC (Y/N)

2 3 4 5 6

Wheeler Clinic Vera Institute of Justice Alternative Solutions Assoc. Achieve Global, Inc. Francis J. Carino

7 8 9

Child Health & Development Inst. Community Corrections Institute

C D NOTES Website Carlos Valinho, Treasurer. See Martha A. http://www.csi-online.org/about/board.html Dean v. Carlos M. Valinho [FA044012513], Dr. Horowitz of CT Resources Gp. Was evaluator on custody case. Mother accused of PAS, all access to child severed. Father discloses second family and that he had another child with babysitter, accused of violence, wins sole custody. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ct-superiorcourt/1606307.html http://www.wheelerclinic.org/board-of-trustees http://www.vera.org/content/about-us/trustees http://www.alternativesolutionsassociates.com/biography.html http://www.achieveglobal.com/about-us/executive-team.aspx Francis J. Carino http://www.ct.gov/csao/cwp/view.asp?a=1795&q=285522 Supervisory Juvenile Prosecutor Division of Criminal Justice 300 Corporate Place Rocky Hill, CT 06067 860-258-5800 http://www.chdi.org Mostly State and Federal law enforcement http://www.communitycorrections.org/ and justice system employees, investigators, some retired.

A Ct. Resource Group

B Yes

C D (1) Copy of CT Resources Group Contract http://www.connecticutresourcegroup.com/about.htm http://www.scribd.com/doc/125730813/DrHoward-M-Krieger-s-Contract-WithConnecticut-Judicial-Branch-re-ProfessionalTrainings (2) CT Resources Group Invoices Part 1 http://www.scribd.com/doc/125725460/Conn ecticut-Court-Billing-Invoices-Part-1-DrHoward-M-Krieger-and-Dr-Sidney-SHorowitz (3) CT Resources Group Invoices part 2 http://www.scribd.com/doc/125730381/CTCourt-Billing-Invoices-Part-2-Dr-Howard-MKrieger-and-Dr-Sidney-S-Horowitz (4) Horowitz Bills on Boyne case Part 3 http://www.scribd.com/doc/126239188/DrSidney-Horowitz-s-Billing-Records-PART-3Boyne-v-Boyne (5) Dr. Sidney Horowitz Testimony re: Medical Billing Irregularities (Shawn Tittle v. Susan Skipp) http://www.scribd.com/doc/126272714/DrSidney-Horowitz-Testimony-re-MedicalBilling-Irregularities-Shawn-Tittle-v-SusanSkipp http://www.crj.org/cji Jim Pascoe [HWC Instructor] is the Director http://handlewithcare.com of Clinical Training for Universal Health Services. In this role he has responsibility for ensuring that UHS’s 100+ behavioral facilities have the safest, most advanced verbal and physical management programs. In addition to conducting HWC training seminars, Kandi and Kyle Withers supervise a 24-hour semi-independent living program for young adults in the custody of the Department of Children and Family Services and on parole with the Ohio Department of Youth Services. http://www.hopeworkscentral.org/index.php/board-a-staff.html http://www.j-sat.com/newsletter/epic/ See whistleblower suit filed against State of http://nebp.neias.org/bp12/?page_id=6 CT http://www.ct.gov/chro/lib/chro/pdf/osullianr uling.pdf

10 11 Cramer & Associates 12 Crime & Justice Institute Handle With Care

13 14 Hope Works 15 Justice System Assessment & Training Mary-K O'Sullivan 16

A Richard Pavasaris

B

C D Richard Pavasaris has over 32 years https://cssd.ctclearinghouse.org/CourseCatalog/instructorView.asp?id=4 experience as an Adult Probation Officer, a Chief Probation Officer and a Regional Manager for Adult Supervision services in the Court Support Services Division (CSSD). After his retirement from the Judicial Department as a Regional Manger in 2003 he has been a consultant to the division as a trainer in the Level of Service Inventory (LSI) and Adult Substance Use Survey (ASUS) Assessments, receiving certification as an ASUS trainer from Dr. Wanburgh, the author and creator of the ASUS assessment. He has conducted numerous trainings for Adult probation officers in the LSI and ASUS assessments, both for pre-service Adult Probation Officer trainees and booster trainings for existing staff within CSSD. In addition he has trained staff in Case Planning and has completed the training for trainers course offered by the APPA for Search and Seizure training as well as for Firearm Safety. Since 2004 he have also been a consultant to Community Solutions Inc. (CSI) providing training in the LSI and ASUS for Alternative Incarceration Center (AIC) personnel, DOC, DMHAAS etc. http://www.csionline.org/training/Staff%20Bios.html

17 18 Quest Consulting Network Riegler-Shienvold

Director

19 Philip Stahl Director

20 21 Street Smart Ventures

Arnold Shienvold, Member of the American http://www.rieglershienvold.com Psychological Association; Fellow of the Pennsylvania Psychological Association where he also serves on the custody evaluation work group; past president of the Academy of Family Mediators; past president of the Association for Conflict Resolution; Serves on the Board of Governors of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts; Pennsylvania Council of Mediators, American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children. Promotes Parental Alienation Syndrome http://parentingafterdivorce.com/meet-dr-stahl/ scams run in the courts. http://parentingafterdivorce.com/wpcontent/uploads/2012/05/AlienationArticleFo rWJFL11.pdf http://www.ssventures.com/about.html

A UCONN Health Ctr

B

C Board of Directors includes Robert S. Dakers http://www.uchc.edu is the executive financial officer for the state of Connecticut's Office of Policy and Management (OPM). Jewel Mullen is the commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Public Health (DPH). Teresa Ressel served as the chief operating officer for UBS Securities LLC and the chief operating officer, UBS Americas. Prior to UBS, she was confirmed by the U.S. Senate as assistant secretary for management and chief financial officer of the Department of Treasury. Prior to government service and banking, Ms. Ressel served as an executive at Kaiser Permanente leading regulatory compliance, change management, and financial matters related to corporate governance including government services contracts. Also includes a former BOA VP, a variety of real estate brokers, (AAA, Travelers, Aetna) insurance execs, and attorneys.

D

22 Yardley Associates Affilates Mike and Mimi Donegan- "Our curriculum is http://www.yardleyonline.com/index.html continually evolving to include current research in the field. We strive to include all information provided by CSSD supported workshops and trainings for Parent Education Program Providers into the substance of our curriculum, and we are keenly aware of the content of the annual AFCC conferences."

23 24 Charles Wolfe New Day Global, LLC 25 Armata & Davis, LLC 26

http://www.cjwolfe.com/biobus807.pdf AKA KAUFFMAN FOUNDATION OF http://www.transformationconference.info ENTREPRENEURSHIP http://www.unleashingideas.org/events/view/ 11297 Affiliates /Davis CT Collaborative Divorce Association http://www.collaborative-divorce.com/bios/armata.htm is a member includes Kenneth and Bonnie Robson, http://www.ctcollaborativedivorce.com/mem bers_davisj.asp

Court Support Services Div - CT Judicial Branch

2/26/13 7:29 PM

Directories | Forms | Self-Help

Court Support Services Division
Directory of Offices
The Court Support Services Division (CSSD) was established within the Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut, in February 1999. It was formed to respond to the changing needs of judges, attorneys, litigants, defendants, and communities, while providing on-going public safety. Mission: To provide effective support services within the Judicial Branch by working collaboratively with system stakeholders to promote compliance with court orders and instill positive change in individuals, families and communities. Vision: To provide effective services by working in collaboration with other agencies to support the Judicial Branch in providing a high quality of justice, enhancing public safety and assisting individuals and families through effective interventions.

Central Office 936 Silas Deane Highway, Wethersfield 06109
Executive Director William H. Carbone, Tel: 860-721-2100; Fax: 860-258-8976

Administration
Tel: 860-721-2100; Fax: 860-258-8979 Grants & Contracts Facilities & Materials Management Unit Fiscal Administration & Restitution Unit Human Resources Information Technology

Family Services
Stephen R. Grant, Director Tel: 860-721-2105; Fax: 860-258-8976 Family Services Center for Research, Program Analysis and Quality Improvement Center for Best Practices

Operations
Tel: 860-721-2110; Fax: 860-258-8976 Adult Probation & Bail Services Juvenile Probation Residential Services Alcohol Education DNA Project
http://www.jud.ct.gov/CSSD/ Page 1 of 2

Court Support Services Div - CT Judicial Branch

2/26/13 7:29 PM

Interstate Compact Program & Services

Juvenile Residential Services
Karl Alston, Deputy Director III Tel: 860-721-2125 Hartford Detention Center Bridgeport Detention Center New Haven Detention Center

Program and Staff Development
James Greene, Deputy Director Tel: 860-721-2175 Training Academy Community Service

http://www.jud.ct.gov/CSSD/

Page 2 of 2

CSSD Program and Staff Devlopment - CT Judicial Branch

2/26/13 7:26 PM

Directories | Forms | Self-Help

Court Support Services Division
Program and Staff Development
Community Service Labor Program
The CSLP works with pre trial and sentenced individuals placing them in community service jobs that afford them a chance to “give back” and learn new skills. These projects have demonstrated to Connecticut's communities that offenders can be involved in community activities and produce positive results on a consistent basis. Community service work can include maintenance of state parks, campgrounds and beaches, graffiti removal and removal of debris at illegal dumping sites, etc. CSLP volunteers are also well known throughout the state for their volunteer work on behalf of many well known foundations and charities, including the American Cancer Society, The American Heart Association and The CT Special Olympics.

The Court Support Services Division’s (CSSD) Training Academy
The CSSD Training Academy was founded in 1999 and charged with providing professional training and development to all of the staff within the agency to expand the skills, knowledge and expertise that are required to achieve excellent and professional performance. Since its’ inception, the Training Academy has grown in full time staff, who are representative of the major business functions within CSSD (Juvenile Probation, Juvenile Residential Services, Adult Services, Family Services). Assistant Director of Program and Staff Development James Greene has responsibility for the Training Academy, which is managed by Chief Probation Officer II Laura DiFelice. The Academy provides a range of coordinated training. There are three levels of training:

1. pre-service which is required for new hires and is comprised of a mix of instructor lead training coupled with on2. 3.
the-job training that is intensive, sequential, and comprehensive, in-service training which is mandatory for all veteran staff and CSSD policy prescribes the number of training hours that each staff member receives, and leadership management training which is required for all personnel promoted to supervisory or managerial positions.

Each of the business units disciplines maintains a training advisory committee comprised of line and managerial staff, and representatives of CSSD’s Best Practices Unit, which researches evidence based practices for the agency and its’ network of providers. The training advisory committees assist in planning, oversight, and evaluation of training to ensure that curriculum is developed based on what research indicates is most effective and meets the needs of the staff. Instructors are selected both from within CSSD and also outside. Adjunct trainers are recruited from the field because they best understand the problems and challenges of the job. In addition, the CSSD Training Academy contracts with, supervises and oversees content experts/consultants who train both staff from private non-profit agencies which service CSSD clients as well as supplement required training for CSSD staff.

http://www.jud.ct.gov/CSSD/prgstaffdev.htm

Page 1 of 2

CSSD Program and Staff Devlopment - CT Judicial Branch

2/26/13 7:26 PM

CSSD training activities and efforts in Adult Probation were validated by accreditation from the American Correctional Association (ACA) in 2006 ensuring that CSSD met or exceeded all training related standards for Adult Probation staff. In April of 2009, Adult Probation achieved re-accreditation from ACA who commended the Training Academy for it’s progress in staff development.

For further information on Program and Staff Development please contact Assistant Director of Program & Staff Development James Greene at James.Greene@jud.ct.gov

http://www.jud.ct.gov/CSSD/prgstaffdev.htm

Page 2 of 2

Family Services - CT Judicial Branch

2/26/13 7:30 PM

Directories | Forms | Self-Help

Court Support Services Division
Family Services (Civil and Criminal)
Frequently Asked Questions Family Services is dedicated to providing assistance to courts and clients in the timely resolution of family and interpersonal conflict. In the Family Civil Court, Family Services addresses concerns such as child custody, child access, financial matters, property disputes, and Temporary Restraining Orders. By utilizing Alternative Dispute Resolution services, such as Pretrial Settlement Negotiation, Conciliation, Mediation, and Conflict Resolution Conference, interpersonal disputes can often be addressed in a manner that promotes individual responsibility and self-determination. There are situations when parents are unable to reach agreement regarding their parenting dispute. At the court’s direction, Family Services conducts Issue-Focused Evaluations and Comprehensive Evaluations. Recommendations are offered to the parents and the court regarding parenting plans that are focused on the best interests of the children. In addition to providing Alternative Dispute Resolution and evaluation services, Family Services coordinates contracted services such as Supervised Visitation, Transitions in Parenting, and the Parent Education Program, that addresses specific parenting issues. In the Family Criminal Court, Family Services assists the family criminal court by providing intake assessment and pre-trial supervision for individuals arrested for family violence crimes. The goal is to enhance victim safety, hold offenders accountable, and prevent, reduce, and stop the frequency and severity of violence against victims and complainants. At arraignment, Family Services assesses the defendant’s likelihood of future violence and makes recommendations to the court, including the appropriate level of protective orders. Family Services conducts comprehensive assessments and prepares written reports that identify and summarize the clients’ needs. Pre-trial supervision is provided to monitor adherence to court-ordered conditions, and the defendant’s degree of compliance is reported to the court. Additionally, CSSD Family Services contracts with several service providers who offer programs to defendants that address domestic violence, including the Family Violence Education Program, Explore, and Evolve. Center For Research, Program Analysis and Quality Improvement (CRPAQI) The Center for Research, Program Analysis and Quality Improvement (CRPAQI) serves as a conduit in providing information to, and establishing linkages with, all units within CSSD, other state agencies, and contracted providers. Additionally, the Center administers internal quality improvement and research efforts and oversees research initiatives conducted by external parties. Several research and annual data reports are posted on this website. Requests for additional data or research relating to any of CSSD’s disciplines can be directed to the Manager of CRPAQI. Center for Best Practices (CBP) The Court Support Services Division (CSSD) is committed to enhance public safety, reduce client recidivism and instill positive change in the individuals and families served. Through the Programs and Services/Center for Best Practices
http://www.jud.ct.gov/CSSD/familysvcs.htm Page 1 of 2

Family Services - CT Judicial Branch

2/26/13 7:30 PM

unit, CSSD has committed staff and fiscal resources to the research, design; training; implementation and quality assurance of evidence based practices in Adult Services, Juvenile Services and affiliated contracted programs.

For information on Family Matters please contact Director Stephen Grant

http://www.jud.ct.gov/CSSD/familysvcs.htm

Page 2 of 2

Business Connections for Laura Difelice

1/2/13 10:19 AM

Add a Company Home People Companies States Login

Connecticut > Torrington > Laura Difelice

Laura Difelice

0

Follow @corporationwiki

Updated 6/19/2012 - This profile of Laura Difelice was created using data from Dun & Bradstreet Source: Dun & Bradstreet refreshed 6/19/2012 Company Information

The most comprehensive company info available. Get your free trial.
www.hoovers.com/

Return to Laura Difelice's Profile
Layout: View Large Format | Circular | Tree | ISOM | EfficientSugiyama | CompoundFDP

Connections McCall Foundation Inc Located in Torrington, CT Judith V. Bouchard Located in Torrington, CT Laura Difelice Located in Torrington, CT Roxanne Bachard Located in Torrington, CT Eleanor Kramer Located in Torrington, CT Don J. Cook Located in Torrington, CT
http://www.corporationwiki.com/graphs/roamer.aspx?id=81527831 Page 1 of 2

Arrest Records: 2 Secrets
1) Type Name and State 2) Unlimited Secrets About Anyone. Takes Seconds
InstantCheckmate.com

CSSD Chronicle
A regular publication of information and news about Court Support Services Division Please share this with a colleague! Wednesday, March 25, 2009 Please share this with a colleague!
The

Bestt Practtiices iin Offffender Superviisiion ffor Adulltt Bes Prac ces n O ender Superv s on or Adu Probattiion Offffiicers Proba on O cers
The CSSD Training Academy is constantly reviewing curriculums and looking to respond to staff needs. CSSD Executive Director Bill Carbone noted that “The Academy provides essential training to ensure that we can provide the most effective services to clients and the court.” He has supported the expansion of the Academy over the past several years to provide new and innovative learning experiences. One of the most recent efforts in this area is the “Institutes” training curriculum. Each Institute is designed to provide CSSD staff with in-depth information about issues that are of particular concern to them. Responding to officer feedback, Institute topics are those that have not been available as part of their pre-service or in-service professional development up to this point. The first ever Institute – Substance Abuse and Mental Health 201 – began last October and will finish its sixsession course in March. It was developed for Adult Probation Officers. Twenty-five (25) officers were accepted on a first-come first-serve basis, including officers in specialized units and supervisors. At the end of February, a second offering of this Institute began which will end in late April. The next Institute is being planned for the fall 2009 and will likely be on services and interventions for special needs clients.
BACKGROUND: Laura DiFelice, Manager of the CSSD Training Academy and a Probation Officer/ Supervisor for 20 years, observed that she has long had the idea for a concentrated approach to teaching skills that are so important to delivery of supervision services. From her own experience, she knows how vital it is to have more than just a brief overview of substance abuse and mental health issues. Close to three quarters of clients have one or the other, and increasingly, both conditions. This makes it vital for an officer to understand what these conditions mean in real life, how people act and are affected by these problems, and what are the most effective things that can be done to encourage positive behavior change.

New Training Academy Institutes:

Dr. Pantalon is a clinical and school psychologist, and an assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at Yale University School of Medicine. He has been a trainer for CSSD for over seven years and has trained nearly all of our Juvenile and Adult Probation Officers in the use of Motivational Interviewing. The two, three-day components of this first Institute include: Substance Abuse 201: A three-day overview of the diagnosis, assessment and treatment of a wide array of substance use problems in adults. Mental Health 201: A three-day overview of the diagnosis, assessment and treatment of a wide array of mental health problems in adults In the Substance Abuse portion of the course, participants were taught to identify and explain evidence-based diagnostic criteria, assessment procedures and treatments for various types of substance use problems and disorders. Special emphasis is given to the manner in which probationers exhibit substance abuse problems and how to engage such individuals in an effective process of assessment and treatment. The Mental Health curriculum provided instruction on how to correctly identify and explain various mental health conditions, including various types of treatments for depression, anxiety, psychosis, mania, personality disorders, and cognitive/neurological deficits. The various psychological and medication based treatments available are also explained as well as how probationers exhibit mental health problems and some best practices on how to engage in an effective process of assessment and treatment. POSITIVE FEEDBACK FROM PARTICIPANTS: Officers who have taken the Institute course have been very positive about it. They were impressed with the course work and information provided. Adult Probation Officer Rebecca Segui of New Haven had some very positive things to say about this Institute.

DISTINGUISHED FACULTY & COURSE OUTLINE: Institute is being taught by Michael Pantalon, Ph.D.

SUGGESTIONS? QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? CONCERNS? CONTACT US!
Rena.Goldwasser@jud.ct.gov

CSSD Chronicle
A regular publication of information and news about Court Support Services Division Please share this with a colleague! Wednesday, March 25, 2009 Please share this with a colleague!
She noted that her “…understanding of these issues has increased and so has my ability to engage and case plan with clients more effectively. Now I also have the tools to advocate and ensure the most effective services and work more effectively with various treatment providers.” According to Michelle O’ Donnell, Probation Officer II, Waterbury Supervision., “The training provided a refreshing, new perspective on working with addicted clients, a new way of listening to what they are telling you and a new way of responding to their use.” Tina Merchant, Chief Probation Officer I, New London, said that the Institute course “… provides the probation officer with the knowledge to assess the appropriateness of treatment … and to work as part of the treatment team and as an advocate for their client. Of all the trainings I have attended it is the most applicable to understanding and assisting those clients that struggle with substance abuse issues and suffer mental illness.” FOR MORE INFORMATION, please contact Laura DiFelice, Manager, CSSD Training Academy at Laura.DiFelice@jud.ct.gov or 860-827-4411.

SUGGESTIONS? QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? CONCERNS? CONTACT US!
Rena.Goldwasser@jud.ct.gov

Welcome to McCall Foundation - Board of Directors

1/2/13 10:15 AM

BOARD of DIRECTORS
SERVICES & PROGRAMS Overview of Programs Intensive Residential Intermediate Residential Residential / Justice System Outpatient Services Prevention Programs RESOURCES & INFORMATION About McCall / Contact Us Often-Asked Questions Links to Other Resources Travel Directions Board of Directors Funding Employment Site Plan Terms of Use

OFFICERS Dr. Carnes Weeks, President Darcy Lovetere, Vice President Roxanne Bachand, Secretary/Treasurer MEMBERSHIP Connie Colt Laura Difelice Alfred Finn William Mascetti Vanessa Pannuto Arthur Rosenblatt Tami Jo Stevenson Marie Wallace

http://mccall-foundation.org/pages/board.html

Page 1 of 2

Welcome to McCall Foundation - Funding

1/2/13 10:15 AM

Prevention Works

FUNDING
SERVICES & PROGRAMS Overview of Programs Intensive Residential Intermediate Residential Residential / Justice System Outpatient Services Prevention Programs RESOURCES & INFORMATION About McCall / Contact Us Often-Asked Questions Links to Other Resources Travel Directions Board of Directors Funding Employment Site Plan Terms of Use

Funding of The McCall Foundation is provided in part by: State of Connecticut Department of Mental Health & Addiction Services, Patricia Rehmer, Commissioner State of Connecticut Department of Children & Families, Joette Katz, Commissioner State of Connecticut Department of Correction Leo C. Arnone, Commissioner Court Support Services Division, Stephanie R. Barksdale, Executive Director United Way of Northwestern Connecticut, William A. Egan, III, Executive Director The Community Foundation of Northwest Connecticut, Guy Rovezzi, President Foundation for Community Health Nancy Heaton, Executive Director Berkshire Taconic Fund Archbishops Annual Appeal Civic Family Services, Inc.

http://mccall-foundation.org/pages/funding.html

Page 1 of 2

March 28, 2011
The calendar is found online at: Https://cssd.ctclearinghouse.org/CourseCatalog

Court Support Services Division
Inclement Weather Line: (for any CSSD classes found in this calendar) 860-793-7227 Please call or email Wheeler Clinic if you are unable to attend a class and ask to speak with someone about CSSD trainings 860-793-2164

January - March 2011 Training Calendar
1

INSTRUCTIONS FOR USING THE CSSD TRAINING CALENDAR
This booklet is the CSSD Training Calendar for January 1 - March 31, 2011. As always, this new calendar of classes is found online and can be accessed through the Training Calendar website. Https://cssd.ctclearinghouse.org/CourseCatalog. If you have saved this URL as a “favorite”, you may have to re-enter it into your browser and re-save it to see the current calendar. Please note: Only 3 calendar months of the Training Calendar are visible at a time with a start date of the 1st of each month for the 3-month period. I would encourage you to become familiar with the CSSD registration system and online catalog of courses. The most current version of the catalog will always be online. If you wish to register all students on-line under one supervisor’s name, you may use the same email address for multiple students but each student must create their own student account and have a unique password. Please keep a list of passwords at your office. If you forget a password, call Laura Minor or Debbie Winiarski at Wheeler Clinic. When a student signs up for a class online, he/she should be sure to click on the “complete” button on the last registration screen. If that isn’t done, the student is not registered and will not receive an email confirmation. If your staff members do not have access to computers, you may copy the faxable “student account” form in this calendar, fill one out for each student and fax it to Wheeler Clinic at 860-793-9813. Each student will be registered by Wheeler staff and a confirmation will be faxed to you if you do not have access to email. Also, those without computers will be able to register for classes by phone (instructions are found on page 3 of the calendar). A confirmation/notification email address or fax number must be given. If a student or his/her supervisor can’t be contacted by email; the fax or phone number given to Wheeler Clinic will be used to notify you about cancelled classes, etc. If your staff members haven’t registered as students yet, please have them do so as soon as possible. This is the only way to register for the CSSD required and recommended classes found in this calendar. Please call either Laura Minor or Debbie Winiarski if you have questions about registration (860-793-2164). We have included directions to all of the sites where these spring classes will be offered. Directions are also available online. Please do not use MapQuest or GPS for these sites. Please remember, if a student cannot attend a class, Wheeler Clinic should be notified as soon as possible by email or phone. There are often waiting lists to get into classes and as much notice as possible is helpful to notify other potential students. Thank you for your interest and cooperation. Laura DiFelice CSSD Training Academy Supervisor

2

MASS - AFCC
Volume 1 JANUARY 26, 1994

WELCOME TO MASS - AFCC
More than fifty enthusiastic professionals, including judges, lawyers, mediators and mental health professionals, attended the September 14, 1993 organizational meeting of the Massachusetts Chapter of Association of Family and Conciliation Courts. The reputation of AFCC as well as the need for an interdisciplinary organization dealing with a wide range of family issues accounted for the positive response. Robert Tompkins, the National President of AFCC, and Tim Salius, the technical assistance director and a past President, addressed the group regarding the activities of the national organization and the benefits of membership. The national office of AFCC has been very helpful in launching the Massachusetts Chapter and has provided $1,000.00 in seed money. The Massachusetts Chapter has been very active since the initial meeting in September. An interim Board of Directors for the Massachusetts Chapter has met several times; By-laws have been drafted; the first in a series of seminars was held on November 16,1993; and the first Annual Meeting has been organized for March 15, 1994 at the Marriott in Westboro. A separate meeting announcement and registration form for the Annual Meeting is enclosed in this mailing. The speaker at the First Annual meeting will be the Honorable Scan Dunphy, First Justice of the Hampshire County Probate Court. Judge Dunphy will be joined by Liz Austin to discuss the mandatory parent education program being

launched in the Hampshire County Probate Court. Educating parents about the effects of divorce on children and appropriate parenting for families in separate households is quickly emerging as a priority nationwide. In Massachusetts many individual groups and agencies are beginning their own programs. Massachusetts has just passed legislation authorizing the Chief Justice of the Probate and Family Court to establish parent education pilot projects in different courts. Judge Dunphy and his court were instrumental in the passage of that legislation. The text of that legislation appears on page 3. Join us at the Marriott in Westborough on March 15,1994 to learn more about the Massachusetts Chapter of Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, to share your ideas with people with similar interests and to get the Massachusetts Chapter of AFCC off to a great start. The membership form and the meeting reservation form are enclosed in this mailing. Please feel free to duplicate it and share it with friends and colleagues wishing to join. I look forward to seeing you on March 15 and working with you thereafter. The Honorable Arline S. Rotman Associate Justice of the Worcester Probate and Family Court

AFCC Awards History
John E. VanDuzer Distinguished Service Award
Recognizes outstanding contributions and/or achievements by members of AFCC.
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 Phil Bushard Hon. Denise McColley Isolina Ricci Christie A. Coates Kathryn Kuehnle Linda Hahn Hon. Leonard Edwards Hon. Douglas McNish Robert Tompkins John and Joan VanDuzer Hon. Landon Pearons and Hon. David Steinberg Hugh McIsaac Hon. Donald King Janet Johnston Linda Girdner No award National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges - Karen Raiford - No award - Robert Miller - Hon. John VanDuzer - Hon. Donald King - Chief Justice Frank Gordon - Chief Justice Raymond Erlich - Chief Justice Harry Carrico

Irwin Cantor Innovative Program Award

Recognizes innovation in court-connected or court-related programs.
2009 - UpToParents.org 2008 - FIRST 5 Commission of Santa Clara County and Family Court Services, San Jose, California 2007 - For the Children Program, Portland, Maine 2006 - The Higher Ground Program, Johnson County, Kansas 2005 - Early Neutral Evaluation, Hennepin County Family Court Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota 2004 - Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement 2003 - Family Violence Prevention Center, Maricopa County, Arizona 2002 - UMass Medical Center Family Court Clinic 2001 - Children of Separation and Divorce, Inc. 2000 - National Family Life & Education Center 1999 - Law Courts Education Society of British Columbia 1998 - Supreme Court of Ohio 1997 - Family Court of New Zealand 1996 - Self-Service Center of Maricopa County 1995 - Parent Education Programs (nationwide) 1994 - Los Angeles Contemnors Program

President’s Award
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 -

Presented by the AFCC President for exemplary service to AFCC.
Janet Johnston Nancy Ver Steegh Hon. Arline Rotman (ret.) Leslye Hunter Andrew Schepard Linda Fieldstone Michele MacFarlane and John Harper Eileen Pruett Fred Mitchell Philip Stahl Hon. Denise McColley Suzie Thorn Jan Shaw Peter Salem Sandy Braver Victoria Metz No award Robert Tompkins & Ruth Urban Phil Bushard

Stanley Cohen Distinguished Research Award
Recognizes outstanding research and/or research achievements in the field of family and divorce.
2009 - Judith Wallerstein 2008 - Nicholas Bala 2007 - Sanford Braver, Irwin Sandler and Sharlene Wolchik 2006 - J. Herbie DiFonzo and Mary E. O'Connell 2005 - Janet Walker 2004 - Marsha Kline Pruett 2003 - Paul Amato 2002 - Robert Emery 2001 - JoAnne Pedro-Carroll 2000 - Janet Johnston 1999 - Charlene Depner 1998 - Jessica Pearson and Nancy Thoennes 1997 - Joan B. Kelly

Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

VOLUME 21, NUMBER 3

An association of family, court and community professionals

SUMMER 2002

Custody Evaluation Symposium Focuses on Child Sexual Abuse and Family Violence
FCC’s Fifth International Symposium on Child Custody Evaluations will take place November 7-9, 2002 at the Westward Look Resort in Tucson Arizona. The theme of the Symposium is “Addressing Allegations of Abuse: The Delicate Balance Between Evaluation and Protection.” This year’s program will continue the Symposium tradition of using the three plenary sessions for an indepth examination of issues of interest to custody evaluators, judicial officers, lawyers, mediators, parenting coordinators and others who work with families in conflict. Symposium plenary sessions will focus on the challenges raised by allegations of family violence and child maltreatment. A case study approach will be used to examine two dominant approaches to child custody evaluations. Presenters will discuss the trauma centered approach, which focuses on examination of allegations of maltreatment or family violence prior to assessment of any other allegations in the evaluation. This approach argues that there is no more important task than protecting the child and that evaluators must immediately recommend protective measures when there is any chance the child is at risk. The traditional model of custody evaluation will also be discussed. This outlook suggests that an evaluator must obtain all possible sources of information before making recommendations to the court about the welfare of a child. AFCC will present an interdisciplinary panel of leading experts to address these contrasting approaches to a custody evaluation. Presenters will examine strategies for early intervention, case management and options for intervention and resolution. The panel will include: • Kathryn Kuehnle, Ph.D., author, Assessing Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse, Tampa, Florida • Toby Kleinman, J.D., Adler & Kleinman, Brunswick, New Jersey • Hon. Susan Snow (ret.), former AFCC President, Palo Hills, Illinois • Jonathan Gould, Ph.D., moderator, author, Conducting Scientifically Crafted Child Custody Evaluations The Symposium program will also feature 20 workshops and four full-day Pre-symposium institutes. Core skills workshops are designed for practitioners who are new to the field or looking to brush up on their skills. These workshops include: • Improving Your Interviews with Children • Interviewing Adults • Effective Use of Collateral Sources • The Science and Art of Parent-Child Observation Continued on page 11

Access Programs Highlight Parent Education Congress
FCC’s Fifth International Congress on Parent Education and Access Programs gets a new twist this year as several parental access programs will highlight the conference agenda. The Congress takes place November 10-12, 2002 at the Westward Look Resort in Tucson, Arizona. The widespread growth of parental access programs throughout the United States is in large part due to funding made available through the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement. This year’s Congress will highlight several of these programs including: • Supervised Visitation in Domestic Violence Cases • Access Programs for Never-Married Parents • Connecticut’s Comprehensive Approach to Parental Access A special workshop for those interested in access programs will also be presented by Deborah Pontisso, Advocacy Relations Specialst, Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement, Washington, D.C. This year’s program will feature plenary sessions addressing critical issues for those working with separating and divorcing families. The opening night presentation on Working with High Conflict Families will feature Janet R. Johnston, Ph.D., co-author, In the Name of the Child, San Jose State University; Jack Arbuthnot, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Ohio University; Linda Louie, M.S.W., Division Chief, Family Court Services, Los Angeles, California; and Hon. Nanette M. Warner, Presiding Family Law Judge, Pima County Superior Court, Tucson, Arizona. The Monday morning plenary session will feature some of the nation’s leading experts on Prevention Programs and will examine the role these programs play in the legal system. This session will focus on effective use of Prevention Programs as well as the Continued on page 11

A

A

In this Issue
Member Profile of AFCC President Jan Shaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 3 ACR Honors AFCC Members . . . . . . . . . . page 4 AFCC Board of Directors Elected . . . . . . . page 6 ABA Child Custody Pro Bono Project . . . . page 9

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE
The number of AFCC Chapters continues to grow. AFCC members in New York received Provisional Chapter status at our international conference and in record breaking time. Florida, another professional group of high achievers, joined Arizona, California, New Jersey and Massachusetts as a chartered Chapter. Texas, a Provisional Chapter, is drawing closer to earning it’s charter. The organizing efforts in Illinois and Missouri are all pointing to their successfully meeting the requirements to become Provisional Chapters in the near future. In states with organizing efforts in progress or those with Chapters, your support and participation are needed. AFCC’s website, www.afccnet.org is the perfect spot to find links to our Chapters including Chapter websites and upcoming conferences. Members Fred Mitchell and the Honorable Hugh Starnes are our Chapter committee Co-chairs and at the helm we couldn’t ask for two better leaders to support our existing Chapters and help guide our newcomers. If you haven’t used the searchable and printable directories on our website to locate colleagues or to learn more about AFCC’s upcoming events, why not give it a try? I am hoping once we have completed our administrative restructure that we can look to your ideas for expanding our website, initiating an e-business pilot project and exploring the feasibility of providing on-line training opportunities. For some, using a computer to obtain member or other AFCC information is not desirable; our AFCC office still provides member data, a printed directory and other information on request. You should have received the program brochure for our two special topic conference this November in Tucson, Arizona. As a graduate of the University of Arizona in Tucson, I can say with all confidence that Tucson in November is a perfect time to visit, network with colleagues, expand your knowledge and expertise in child custody evaluations and parent education and access programs. Bring a colleague, a new member or a professional interested in joining our multi-disciplinary organization. Our 2000 strong membership crosses oceans, disciplines, ethnicity’s and interests. In closing, I want to acknowledge the leadership of our immediate Past President, Magistrate Denise McColley of Napoleon, Ohio. A visionary, consummate professional, tireless worker, collaborator and a woman of extraordinary talents, Denise has served all of us in a manner “above and beyond.” Many thanks to the Board members who, as of June 30, 2002, completed their terms including Pat Ross, Dallas, Texas; Hon. Arline Rotman (ret.), Boston, Massachusetts; Doneldon Dennis, Minneapolis, Minnesota; and LeDeana Gamble, Las Vegas, Nevada. Our work lives are so busy, please take time for yourself, your family and those you care about.

AFCC BOARD OF DIRECTORS
President Jan A. Shaw Orange, CA President Elect Hon. George Czutrin Hamilton, ON Vice President/Secretary Leslye Hunter, M.A. Metairie, LA Treasurer Mary Ferriter, M.P.A., J.D. Boston, MA Past President Denise McColley, M.Ed., J.D. Napoleon, OH Robert Barrasso, J.D., Tucson, AZ Carole Brown, Ph.D., Darlinghurst, NSW Australia Hon. Linda Dessau, Melbourne, VC Australia Hon. Ross Goodwin, Quebec City, QC Canada Stephen Grant, M.A., Rocky Hill, CT R. John Harper, L.L.B. Hamilton, ON Canada William J. Howe III, J.D., Lake Oswego, OR Michele MacFarlane, L.I.S.W., Toledo, OH Fred Mitchell, Ph.D., Tucson, AZ Leah Pallin-Hill, J.D., Phoenix, AZ C. Eileen Pruett, J.D., Columbus, OH Hon. Hugh Starnes, Fort Myers, FL Janet Walker, Ph.D., Newcastle Upon Tyne, England Acting Executive Director Peter Salem Madison, Wisconsin AFCC NEWSLETTER Vol. 21. No. 3 Editor Peter Salem Published by AFCC 6515 Grand Teton Plaza, Suite 210 Madison, WI 53719-1048 Tel: (608) 664-3750 Fax: (608) 664-3751 E-mail: afcc@afccnet.org Web: www.afccnet.org The AFCC Newsletter is a publication of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts. The newsletter is published four times a year. Deadlines for news items and advertising are March 1, June 1, September 1, and December 1. Advertising copy must be camera ready and payment made in U.S. funds. Advertising Rates: Full page (7 1/2" x 10") . . . . . . . . . . $400 Half page (7 1/2" x 4 7/8") . . . . . . . $300 Quarter page (3 5/8" x 4 7/8") . . . . . $175

Jan Shaw Orange, California wo months ago I took office as your President and not a dull moment have I had since then! We “hit the streets running” because of our need to establish a new administrative structure after ending our long time contract with Ann Milne and her company Ann L. Milne & Associates. Peter Salem, formerly Associate Director, was named by the Board of Directors in June to assume the role of Acting Executive Director, while beginning a nationwide recruitment for an Executive Director. Former AFCC President Arline Rotman was named to head the Human Resources committee, a new committee formed to conduct the Executive Director search and to explore, research, and make recommendations to the Board of Directors on a myriad of personnel policies, practices and procedures and an employee benefits package. Judge Rotman and her committee, Bill Howe, Leslye Hunter, Denise McColley, and Larry Lehner are hardworking and focused on their important tasks. AFCC Office Manager Dawn Holmes and Program Associate Chris Shanahan remain on staff and together with Peter they have done an outstanding job of bringing operational stability to AFCC’s headquarters during this dramatic shift in our business model. We are on course to have the Board of Directors hire our next Executive Director at our November meeting. On behalf of AFCC, thank you for attending our 39th Annual Conference in Waikoloa, Hawaii in June. Conference evaluations indicate that attendees both enjoyed the conference location and the program! AFCC’s reputation for putting together a strong program at a great location remains intact thanks to Michele MacFarlane, Conference Committee chair and her committee, Ann Milne, Peter Salem, our many expert presenters and the AFCC staff. If you haven’t done so already, please mark your calendars for May 28-31, 2003 and plan to attend our 40th AFCC Anniversary Conference and gala event in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada’s capital city. I am confident this conference stands to be one of the best! Stay tuned.
AFCC NEWSLETTER • SUMMER 2002

T

2

AFCC Board of Directors Elected
FCC is pleased to welcome new members of the Board of Directors, Fred Mitchell, Tucson, Arizona; Steve Grant, Rocky Hill, Connecticut; William Howe, Portland, Oregon; and Leah PallinHill, Phoenix, Arizona. AFCC wishes to acknowledge those members who have completed their service to the board, Doneldon Dennis, Minneapolis, Minnesota; LeDeana Gamble, Las Vegas, Nevada; and Pat Ross, Dallas, Texas. A special thanks to Hon. Arline Rotman (ret.) who leaves the AFCC Board of Directors after nine years of service. Judge Rotman served as AFCC President in 2000-2001 and was instrumental in the planning and execution of AFCC’s streamlined governance structure and setting the stage for effective leadership in the future.

A

President Elect Hon. George Czutrin, Hamilton, ON, Canada Vice President/Secretary Leslye Hunter, M.A. Metairie, LA Treasurer Mary M. Ferriter, M.P.A., J.D. Boston, MA Past President Hon. Denise McColley, M.Ed. J.D. Napoleon, OH Board Members Robert Barrasso, J.D. Tucson, AZ Carole Brown, Ph.D. Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia Hon. Linda Dessau Melbourne, VC, Australia Hon. Ross Goodwin Quebec City, QC, Canada

Stephen Grant, M.A. Rocky Hill, CT R. John Harper, L.L.B. Hamilton, ON, Canada William J. Howe III, J.D. Lake Oswego, OR Michele MacFarlane, L.I.S.W. Toledo, OH Frederic Mitchell, Ph.D. Tucson, AZ Leah Pallin-Hill Phoenix, AZ C. Eileen Pruett, J.D. Columbus, OH Hon. Hugh Starnes Fort Myers, FL Janet Walker, Ph.D. Newcastle Upon Tyne, England

AFCC Board of Directors for 2002-2003
President Jan A. Shaw, M.P.A. Orange, CA

AFCC 2002-2003 Committee Chairs
Awards and Scholarship Committee Pat Ross 600 Commerce, Ste. 7-176 Dallas, TX 75202-4652 P: (214) 653-7674 F (214) 653-6613 Email: pross@dallascounty.org Chapter Committee Fred Mitchell Pima County Legal Services Bldg. 32 N. Stone Ave., Ste. 1704 Tucson, AZ 85701-1403 P: (520) 740-5590 F: (520) 624-4034 Email: fmitchell@sc.co.pima.az.us Hon. Hugh Starnes Lee County Justice Center 1700 Monroe St. Fort Myers, FL 33901 P: (239) 335-2257 F: (239) 477-2069 Email: Hstarnes@ca.cjis20.org Conference Committee Michele MacFarlane 429 N. Michigan St., Ste. A Toledo, OH 43624-1692 P: (419) 213-6800 F: (419) 213-6808 Email: mmacfarl@co.lucas.oh.us Development Committee John Harper 1 James St. South., Ste. 200 Hamilton ON L8P 4R5 Canada P: (905) 522-3517 F: (905) 522-3555 Email:John@harperjaskot.com Finance Committee Mary Ferriter Ten St. James Ave., 16th Fl. Boston, MA 02116-3813 P: (617) 695-0021 F: (617) 695-0665Email: mary.ferriter@psflaw.com Human Resources Committee Hon. Arline Rotman 95 Douglas Rd. Norwich, VT 05055 P: (617) 724-9575 F: (617) 724-2808 Email: arliner@aol.com Membership Committee Leslye Hunter 3113 Independence St., Ste. G Metairie, LA 70006 P: (504) 455-3574 F: (504) 455-7668 Email: LHunterAFCC@aol.com Shelly Probber 1868 Nacodoches Rd. San Antonio, TX 78209P:(210) 829-4876 F: (210) 829-4947 Email: sprobber@aol.com Nominations Committee Denise McColley Henry County Courthouse P. O. Box 70 Napoleon, OH 43545 P: (419) 592-5926 F:(419) 599-0803 Email: mccolley@bright.net Professional Development and Technical Assistance C. Eileen Pruett Supreme Court of Ohio 30 E. Broad St. Columbus, OH 43266-0419 P: (614) 752-4700 F: (614) 466-6652 Email: pruette@sconet.state.oh.us Publications Committee Phil Bushard 1 S. Sierra St., 3rd Fl. Reno, NV 89501 P: (775) 328-3556 F (775) 328-3129 Email: pbushard@mail.co.washoe.nv.us Doneldon Dennis A-503 Government Center Minneapolis, MN 55487 P: (612) 348-3614 F: (612) 348-6332 Email: doneldon.dennis@co.hennepin.mn.us

6

AFCC NEWSLETTER • SUMMER 2002

ABA Child Custody Pro Bono Project Highlights Achievements
n February 2001, the American Bar Association launched the Child Custody Pro Bono Project. The project was funded by a $1 million grant from Bill and Melita Grunow in memory of their niece Ann Liechty, a dedicated child advocate. The project is co-sponsored by the ABA Standing Committee on Pro Bono and Public Service and the Family Law Section, and is housed in the ABA Center for Pro Bono. The project has a director, several interns, a part-time consultant, and a part-time administrative assistant. The project receives advice from an expert Advisory Committee of 16 entities, which includes AFCC. Denise McColley, AFCC Past President, has served as the AFCC representative since the project’s inception. During the recent ABA Annual meeting, Denise and the rest of the project’s Advisory Committee and staff reflected upon the projects accomplishments in the past year-and-a-half. The project’s main goal during this time has been to increase the quantity and quality of representation for children in private custody cases, including divorce, unmarried parent disputes, private guardianship, adoption, and civil orders of protection with custody issues. The project has a special focus on the use of pro bono attorneys in this representation. Among the accomplishments of the project since its inception are the following:

I

organizations, and summarized in several publications.

• Mini-grants
The project distributed $40,000 in minigrants to support new child custody pro bono program development within existing programs. The following programs received funding: $11,000 to Children’s Law Center of Kentucky; $10,000 to Pine Tree Legal Assistance/Maine Volunteer Lawyers Project; $10,000 to Legal Aid Society of Northwest North Carolina; $3,000 to Chicago Volunteer Legal Services; $3,000 to Franklin County Bar Association; and $3,000 to West Tennessee Legal Services.

• Information and Technical Assistance
Project staff served as an information resource and provided technical assistance to more than 125 current and potential child custody programs, state and local child custody reform committees, judges, lawyers, and other persons and entities interested in child custody representation.

• Ann Liechty Pro Bono Child Custody Award
The project worked with the ABA Standing Committee on Pro Bono and Public Service to establish and present the first annual Ann Liechty Pro Bono Child Custody Award. The award recognizes an outstanding attorney who has provided free representation to children in custody cases. The 2002 award went to Rebecca Rundgren of Denver, Colorado, nominated by, and a volunteer for, the Rocky Mountain Children’s Law Center.

• Child Custody Resource Library
The project has collected 215 documents in its Child Custody Resource Library. Each document is abstracted and categorized in an electronic database. Currently the database is searched by project staff based on requests made to them. By year’s end, the database will be searchable by any user over a website. All documents have copyright clearances for distribution and are sent out free of charge.

• Presentations, Seminars and Training Programs
Project staff conducted numerous presentations on the need for, and the status of, children’s representatives in custody cases. The project also produced an all-day, interdisciplinary training program on June 6, 2002 in Washington, D.C. for children’s representatives.

The project has a long-term, five-year plan in place. During the coming year, the project plans to: • Continue to speak around the country at conferences and seminars on the importance of representation for children in custody cases, and the best practices for pro bono representation. • Work with the ABA Family Law Section on passage of Standards of Practice for Representing Children in Custody Cases. • Finalize a videotape training program for free distribution to local programs to train pro bono attorneys and program staff. • Produce ten computer-based training/ education modules, and distribute to pro bono programs, pro bono attorneys, legal service providers, law schools, judges, psychologists, social workers and parent educators. • Place online a list of all law-related child custody programs. • Produce a document called “Profiles of Successful Child Custody Programs” to assist new and existing programs. • Continue with the first year’s success in making mini-grants, recognizing a pro bono child advocate with the Ann Liechty Award, and providing resources and assistance to persons and programs around the country. The project would like to hear from local programs about their own efforts in this area as well as about ways in which the project can assist local programs with their needs. For more information, contact the project’s Director, Linda Rio, at (312) 9885805 or lrio@staff.abanet.org. You can also visit the project’s web site at www.abachildcustodyproject.org.

• Survey of Laws on Child Custody Representation
The project surveyed the laws of all 50 states and the District of Columbia on the following issues: when representatives are appointed for children in custody cases; the role of those representatives; who can be a representative; how representation is funded; qualifications for representatives; and when children’s preferences are considered. The results of this survey have been distributed to many persons and

Job Announcement
Counselor/Mediator I.
Family Services of the Conciliation Court, Pinal County, AZ. Starting salary: $35,450-37,250. Minimum of Master’s degree required. For further information, see http://www.co.pinal.az.us./

• Child Custody List Service
The project established and manages a List Service for current and potential child custody programs and others interested in the representation of children in private custody case. The List Service has over 125 subscribers. Anyone interested in joining the List Service can email project Director Linda Rio at lrio@staff.abanet.org.

AFCC NEWSLETTER • SUMMER 2002

9

Connecticut Access Program Selected as Site for National Study
by Debra Kulak, Program Manager, Family Services, Court Support Services Division, Rocky Hill, CT

C

onnecticut has been selected as one of the five states, along with Nevada, Illinois, Oklahoma, and Georgia, by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services to participate in a Federal study examining the effectiveness of the Access and Visitation Grants. According to AFCC Board Member Steve Grant, Deputy Director of Connecticut Family Services, “Being selected as a study site is a very public recognition of the fine work that our Court Support Services Division (CSSD) family staff does in administering the court-based mediation pilot program sponsored by this grant.” Since 1997 the Judicial Branch and the Department of Social Services (DSS) have collaborated to provide a variety of services to Family Services clients under the Federal Access and Visitation grant program. One of these projects is a pilot program that has been implemented by the CSSD Family Services Unit’s Hartford office. It offers

court-based negotiations and mediation services to clients appearing in Magistrate Support Court who have concerns with respect to contact with their children. The Hartford pilot program has recently received recognition by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services and was selected as a model program to participate in the study. The evaluation will be conducted by the OIG’s Office of Evaluation and Inspections. The OIG is focusing on states that have programs under the grant which provide mediation services to clients who are receiving state assistance. The goal is to examine the impact mediated agreements have had on improving parents’ access to their children. Data will be collected to evaluate if mediated agreements actually resulted in the increased access and, if so, correlate to improved child behavior, improved parental relationships and increased responsiveness in child support payments. OIG program analysts met with Family Services administrators this summer to discuss the five-year history of this program. They conducted a site visit to the Hartford Family Services office and interviewed

Family Relations staff members who provide the service. Finally, they conducted a review of agreements reached in Family Service Magistrate cases, Magistrate Court files, and the DSS Child Support Offices payment records. The preliminary findings of this study will be presented to the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) in September 2002. The final report on the study is expected at the beginning of 2003. Bill Carbone, CSSD Executive Director, noted, “This program provides a needed service for clients and we have had excellent outcomes. We are excited to be able to share the program successes with others through the results of this study.” For additional information please contact Debra.Kulak@jud.state.ct.us or (860) 529-1316. Debra Kulak and Steve Grant will present on the Hartford pilot program at AFCC’s Fifth International Congress on Parent Education and Access Programs, November 10-12, 2002 in Tucson, AZ. For more information on the Congress go to http://afccnet.org/docs/conferences.htm

Connecticut Intake Assessment Project Awarded to AFCC
FCC has been awarded a contract with the Judicial Branch of Connecticut to develop an intake assessment protocol for families referred to Family Services for dispute resolution services. The protocol is designed to help address the case management challenges caused by growing caseloads and the increasing number of intractable disputes for court services agencies. A streamlined intake assessment tool, facilitating early and indepth identification of parenting conflicts, will assist Family Relations Counselors in achieving a better match between the needs of families and the level of intervention and services provided. The project team consists of AFCC members Robin Deutsch, Ph.D., Boston, MA; Professor Andrew Schepard, Hofstra Law School; Professor Janet Johnston, San Jose State University; Dr. Geri Fuhrmann, Psy.D., University of Massachusetts Medical School; Linda Cavallero, Ph.D., University of Massachusetts Medical School; Ann Milne, ACSW, former AFCC Executive Director; and Peter Salem, Acting Executive Director of AFCC.

Kids Count Club Thanks Donors
Continued from page 7 Bronze Lewis A. Bonney Aza Howard Butler Ned Price F. Dan Foley Cynthia Garwood Joan Hollett Elizabeth B. Johnson Judge & Mrs. Lawrence Kaplan Norberto Katz Pamela Krell Judy Meeh Ned Price William F. Rosa Patricia Ross Nancy Satenberg Robert Tompkins Anita Trubitt Contributors Joan S. Anderson Kristy Bradish Victoria Coad Ellen M. Crain-Rostker Deborah Datz Karen M. Dorn George Ferrick John H. Hunt Donna F. Jewett Linda B. Johnson Jerald A. Kessler Anita K. Lampel Eileen H. McCarten Joan C. Pavlik Linda Rio Brian P. Seltzer Susan E. Speight Barbara Suskind

A

10

AFCC NEWSLETTER • SUMMER 2002

VOLUME 22, NUMBER 2

Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

SPRING 2003

High Conflicts, Low Budgets AFCC Tackles Tough Problems at St. Louis Regional Conference

M

ake your plans to meet us in St. Louis for AFCC’s Midwest Regional Conference, November 13-15, 2003. The program begins with pre-conference institutes the morning of Thursday, November 13 and concludes mid-day Saturday, November 15. The local planning committee, led by AFCC members Andrea Clark, Ellen Cowell and the entire Missouri Chapter, is working hard to make sure the conference is a huge success. The conference will examine the challenges courts and practitioners face providing effective services to a growing number of families with increasingly difficult issues. Mediators, evaluators, judges, lawyers, court administrators, researchers and educators will not want to miss this extraordinary opportunity to learn about successful collaborative processes and services designed for today’s economic climate. Preliminary conference topics include

custody evaluation models, dependency mediation, triage in court services, unbundling legal services, group processes for high-conflict families, hybrid settlement processes, efficient and effective court services, programs for unrepresented litigants, evidence-based prevention programs and services for low-income families. In addition to a great program, St. Louis offers wonderful attractions, including the Gateway Arch, St. Louis Blues Hockey and St. Louis University Billiken Basketball at the nearby Savvis Center, Union Station, St. Louis Zoo and Art Museum at Forest Park, Missouri Botanical Gardens, Riverboat Casinos and the St. Louis Symphony Orchestra. AFCC has negotiated a bargain room rate of only $115, single or double occupancy. To make your reservations early, call the Sheraton St. Louis City Center Hotel & Suites at (314) 231-5007 or toll-free at (888) 627-8096.

Missouri Chapter Update
St. Louis area Lunch and Learn, “Long-Distance Parenting Plans for Never-Married Parents with Very Young Children: Can These Plans Ever Work?” is planned for Wednesday, July 9, 2003 from noon to 1:30 pm. Presenters are Andrea Clark, LCSW, Domestic Relations Services Mediator, Family Court of St. Louis County; Alisse Camazine, J.D.; and Honorable Thea Sherry, Associate Circuit Judge, Circuit Court of St. Louis County. For information, contact aclark@stlouisco.com.

A

AFCC 40th Anniversary Conference a Resounding Success

S

upreme Court Justices, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Justice Department officials and other dignitaries helped AFCC celebrate its 40th Anniversary in style at the Annual Conference at the Westin Ottawa in Canada’s capital city. While the conference hotel offered views of Parliament Hill, the Rideau Canal and Canada’s National Art Center, it was the activity inside the hotel that had more than 500 conference delegates buzzing. The conference began with pre-conference institutes, including a jam-packed session on “Working with High Conflict Families: Child Alienation and Parenting Coordination” presented by Robin Deutsch, Ph.D., and Joan Kelly, Ph.D. AFCC also collaborated with the National Judicial Institute (NJI) to present a special pre-conference institute for judges on “Cultural Competence in the Courtroom.” Special thanks to lead presenters Annie Bunting and Hayne Wai, to Co-chairs Hon. R. James Williams and Hon. William Fee, and to NJI Executive Director George Thomson and AFCC President Elect Hon. George Czutrin for making this collaboration possible. Opening night began with uniformed members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) leading the procession of dignitaries Continued on page 8

AFCC’s Jan Shaw, Hon. Ross Goodwin and Hon. George Czutrin with Madam Justice Marie Deschamps (front) and the RCMP.

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE
I am proud to report we are sound financially, our membership of more than 2100 is the highest in AFCC history, our Kids Count Club raised the highest amount ever this year (and, in turn, offered the most scholarships and awards ever) and we added a new provisional Chapter in Missouri. On behalf of AFCC I was privileged to attend the Texas, Massachusetts and Arizona Chapter conferences and the National Center for State Courts Assembly of Court Associations in Washington, D.C. with more than 50 other associations. The nation’s capital was also the site of the William Rehnquist Award dinner for outstanding jurists where I was able to join the California Judicial Council in honoring the 2002 recipient, California’s Chief Justice, Ronald George. So much of the association’s work is generated by volunteers. Thanking everyone deserving of recognition for their support, guidance, friendship and countless hours of hard work would fill more space than is available. So although I can’t single out everyone, I do want to acknowledge the Board of Directors for their commitment, enthusiasm and leadership and a special thanks to Phil Bushard and Doneldon Dennis for our new and revised pamphlets, Hon. Arline Rotman and her Human Resources Committee for creating from “square one” personnel polices and benefits and for conducting our recruitment and selection for our Executive Director, to our Chapter Co-chairs Hon. Hugh Starnes and Fred Mitchell for their steady hands and effective leadership, to Leslye Hunter for her great efforts and ideas for increasing membership, and to Michele Mac Farlane, Chair of the Conference Committee, for her ability to balance new conference ideas with AFCC traditions. Last, but certainly not least, thanks to our Canadian Justices George Czutrin, Ross Goodwin and Emile Kruzick for a wonderful and enriching conference in Ottawa in spite of a war and a serious outbreak of a little known disease. Finally, to Peter Salem and AFCC staff members Candi Walker, Nola RisseConnolly and Dawn Holmes, I simply couldn’t have served my term without you— you are the best! AFCC is losing to retirement Past President Bob Tompkins. Bob was tireless in his work in behalf of AFCC, families and children. He will be missed! Our incoming President Justice George Czutrin cares deeply about the best interests of children and the Courts. I know he can count on the support of all of us in the days and months ahead. Until next time, thank you for giving me the opportunity to be your President this year. It’s been a memorable and rewarding experience and an exciting time to be a part of AFCC’s 40-year history.

AFCC BOARD OF DIRECTORS
President Jan Shaw Orange, CA President Elect Hon. George Czutrin Hamilton, ON Vice President/Secretary Leslye Hunter, M.A. Metairie, LA Treasurer Mary Ferriter, M.P.A., J.D. Boston, MA Past President Denise McColley, M.Ed., J.D. Napoleon, OH Robert Barrasso, J.D., Tucson, AZ Carole Brown, Ph.D., Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia Hon. Linda Dessau, Melbourne, VC, Australia Larry S. Fong, Calgary, AB, Canada Hon. Ross Goodwin, Quebec City, QC Canada Stephen Grant, M.A., Rocky Hill, CT R. John Harper, L.L.B. Hamilton, ON Canada William J. Howe III, J.D., Lake Oswego, OR Michele MacFarlane, L.I.S.W., Toledo, OH Fredric Mitchell, Ph.D., Tucson, AZ Leah Pallin-Hill, J.D., Phoenix, AZ C. Eileen Pruett, J.D., Columbus, OH Hon. Hugh Starnes, Fort Myers, FL Janet Walker, Ph.D., Newcastle Upon Tyne, England Executive Director Peter Salem Madison, Wisconsin AFCC NEWSLETTER Vol. 22. No. 2 Editor Peter Salem Associate Editor Candace Walker Published by AFCC 6515 Grand Teton Plaza, Suite 210 Madison, WI 53719-1048 Tel: (608) 664-3750 Fax: (608) 664-3751 E-mail: afcc@afccnet.org Web: www.afccnet.org The AFCC Newsletter is a publication of AFCC, an association of family, court and community professionals. The newsletter is published four times a year. Deadlines for news items and advertising are March 1, June 1, September 1, and December 1. Advertising copy must be camera ready and payment made in U.S. funds. Advertising Rates: Full page (7 1/2” x 10”) . . . . . . . . . . $400 Half page (7 1/2” x 4 7/8”) . . . . . . . $300 Quarter page (3 5/8” x 4 7/8”) . . . . . $175

Jan Shaw Orange, California

I

t is bittersweet to say that this is the last time I will be writing to you as your President. I have been honored to hold the title and in my actions and words I hope I have represented AFCC in a manner that befits the mission, goals and professionalism of our association. I have fully enjoyed the journey with only one regret, the journey ended before I was able to complete all the plans I had when I entered office on July 1, 2002. An organizational assessment conducted three years ago recommended we make significant changes in our governance structure, in our organizational structure and in the delegation of work to committees. Past Presidents Hon. Arline Rotman and Denise McColley set a course that began with the membership voting to change the bylaws to reduce Board of Directors from 50 members to 19. And the decision-making practice of the Executive Committee was shifted to the Board. In recent years the Executive Committee has convened on emergency matters only. The budgeting timetable was advanced and the expectation set that the budget be balanced. On our way in re-engineering our association came an unexpected turn of events, the retirement of AFCC’s longtime Executive Director, Ann Milne. It has been a year since Ann’s retirement and much remains to be done in transitioning from a contract to an employer-employee model. The first order of business was to conduct a nationwide search for an Executive Director. Our recruitment produced many candidates with excellent credentials but none more qualified than Peter Salem, formerly our Associate Director. Next was the hiring of the office staff, finalizing personnel policies, salaries and benefits as well as administrative policies. With Peter in his new role, we were able to move forward more quickly in increasing our membership, growing our Chapters and convening two successful conferences. The AFCC Newsletter, the Family Court Review and a dozen new and revised pamphlets filled more than one plate.
AFCC NEWSLETTER • SPRING 2003

2

Connecticut’s Triage Study: An Exploration of Significant Elements during the Intake Process
by Michelle Boulais, Central Connecticut State University

A

each negotiation. In total, this study examined 922 short calendar negotiations during January 2003.

AFCC ADVISORY COUNCIL
Joel Bankes, MS Normal, IL Hon. Betty Barteau Russia Phil Bushard, D.P.A. Reno, NV Linda Cavallero, Ph.D. Worcester, MA Kathleen Clark, Ph.D. Galion, OH Christie Coates, M.Ed., JD Boulder, CO Hon. Melvin E. Cohn San Carlos, CA Hon. Sean Dunphy Boston, MA Gregory Firestone, Ph.D. Tampa, FL Jay Folberg, LLB San Francisco, CA Jonathan Gould, Ph.D. Charlotte, NC Elayne E. Greenberg, MS, JD Great Neck, NY Janet Johnston, Ph.D. San Jose, CA Joan Kelly, Ph.D. Corte Madera, CA Hon. Emile Kruzick Orangeville, ON Gerald Lecovin, LLB Vancouver, BC Margaret Little, Ph.D. Los Angeles, CA Donald Moir, LLB Vancouver, BC Diane Nunn San Francisco, CA Hon. Frank Orlando Fort Lauderdale, FL Jessica Pearson, Ph.D. Denver, CO Hon. Arline Rotman (ret.) Norwich, VT Andrew Schepard, JD Hempstead, NY Arnold Shienvold, Ph.D. Harrisburg, PA Philip Stahl, Ph.D. Danville, CA Suzie S. Thorn, JD San Francisco, CA Robert Tompkins, M.A. Derby, CT M. James Toner Reno, NV John VanDuzer Hamilton, ON Betty Vitousek (ret.) Honolulu, HI Carolyn Wah, JD Patterson, NY Janet Ward Columbus, IN Hon. R. James Williams Halifax, NS

n effective triage process in family court systems is critical to the efficient and effective delivery of services. While many courts have intake and screening protocols, few mechanisms exist to systematically identify areas of concerns, identify appropriate levels of intervention, guide treatment and referral recommendations, better utilize existing court resources and ease the docket flow. As part of a project to develop such a tool, the Court Support Services Division of the Connecticut Superior Court conducted a preliminary study to identify key issues among families seen within civil courts across the state. Connecticut’s Family Services Division consulted with AFCC to identify and implement best practices and provide more efficient service delivery to clients despite fiscal restraints. As a result, the AFCC completed an in-depth review of the models of practice and developed a list of recommendations, one of which was to develop a standardized method of intake, screening and triage. In response to this finding, CSSD decided to conduct an exploratory study in an effort to view the pressing issues of family court. Focus groups were conducted to identify the key areas covered during short calendar negotiations, a unique process in which Family Relations Counselors conduct an intake and often facilitate settlement conferences with clients and, if they are represented, their lawyers. Counselors work with clients on issues including custody and access, child support and other financial issues. The focus groups were comprised of judges, lawyers, Family Relations Supervisors and Family Relations Counselors. Next, a paper and pencil questionnaire was developed for Family Relations Counselors to record interactions during their short calendar negotiations immediately following the negotiation session. The questionnaire addressed issues including case type, type of motion, issue type and presenting issues. For this study, case type was broken down into four categories: (1) Pendente Lite, (2) Post Judgment, (3) Never Married and (4) Other. Type of motion was categorized as Basic Pendente Lite, Contempt, Modification and Other. Finally, issues were classified as Custody, Custody/ Access or Access. The second part of the questionnaire asked counselors to check off the source of information (lawyer, client, collateral source) regarding nineteen areas of inquiry during the negotiation process. Counselors were asked to record the length of time spent on

Results
This study includes cases from all thirteen Judicial Districts in Connecticut and represents rural, suburban and urban civil courts. The average time spent completing a short calendar negotiation was thirty-two minutes. Of the 922 records, Pendente Lite (PDL) accounted for 37.3 percent, Post Judgment (PJ) 29.4 percent and Never Married represented 21.3 percent. The collapsed category that included “Other” or a combination of any of the three case types mentioned above was equivalent to 12 percent of the records. As for type of motion, Basic Pendente Lite accounted for 32 percent, 12.1 percent were considered Contempt motions, Modification equaled 29.6 percent and Other represented 14.8 percent. The insignificant response rates for combinations of the four categories were grouped into one category, which accounted for 5.6 percent and Not Answered accounted for 5.9 percent. Issue type results were as follows: 7.7 percent were strictly Custody, 28.3 percent were Access issues and 48.7 percent were a combination of the two. The remaining 15.3 percent were financial issues. The results of the study presented some interesting and unexpected findings for CSSD consideration. Prior to the survey, it was believed that staff resources were depleted by the large number of clients returning after divorce, however this study showed that only 29.4 percent of cases were post judgment matters. In addition, it was thought that Never Married couples did not make significant use of court services, however, the results indicate that more than 21 percent of clients were categorized as Never Married. This finding suggests that services such as Parent Education should broaden the focus to incorporate more for parents who did not marry. Finally it was believed that a significant amount of short calendar negotiations addressed financial issues. However, the data suggests that only 15.3 percent of cases addressed these issues.

Background and Methods

Conclusion
This study provides a statistical description of the reality of the short calendar negotiation processes in the Connecticut Superior Court. The results offer insight into key areas for future development of the CSSD intake and assessment protocol, training and development and provide guidance for resource allocation and services to be offered to various populations. This greater understanding of the process will allow for more effective service delivery.
AFCC NEWSLETTER • SPRING 2003

3

AFCC Board of Directors for 2003-2004
FCC is pleased to welcome new members of the Board of Directors, with terms beginning July 1, 2003: Cori Erickson, Sheridan, Wyoming; Linda Fieldstone, Miami, Florida; William Fee, Angola, Indiana; and Robert Smith, Ft. Collins, Colorado. AFCC thanks the following members who have completed their service on the Board of Directors: Carole Browne, Sydney, Australia; R. John Harper, Hamilton, Ontario; and Leah Palin-Hill, Arizona. A special note of thanks to former AFCC President Denise McColley, who leaves the Board of Directors after 11 years of dedicated service. Ms. McColley served as Chair of the Conference and Nominations Committees and helped lead the restructuring of the AFCC Board of Directors and governance. She will continue as Chair of AFCC’s Human Resource Committee in 2003-04.

A

Past President Jan A. Shaw, M.P.A. Orange, CA Board Members Robert Barrasso, J.D. Tucson, AZ Hon. Linda Dessau Melbourne, VC, Australia Cori Erickson, M.S. Sheridan, Wyoming Hon. William Fee Angola, IN Linda Fieldstone, B.S.W., M.Ed. Miami, FL Larry Fong, Ph.D. Calgary, AB, Canada Hon. Ross Goodwin Quebec, QC, Canada Stephen Grant, M.A. Rocky Hill, CT William Howe III, J.D. Lake Oswego, OR Michele MacFarlane, L.I.S.W. Sylvania, OH Fredric Mitchell, Ph.D. Tucson, AZ C. Eileen Pruett, J.D. Columbus, OH Robert Smith, J.D., M.Div. Ft. Collins, CO Janet Walker, Ph.D. Newcastle Upon Tyne, England

AFCC 2003-2004 Committee Chairs
Awards and Scholarships Committee Hon. Emile Kruzick, Chair Orangeville, ON Chapter Committee Linda Fieldstone, Co-chair Miami, FL Hon. Hugh Starnes, Co-chair Fort Myers, FL Conference Committee Michelle MacFarlane, Co-chair Sylvania, OH Fredric Mitchell, Ph.D., Co-Chair Tucson, AZ Development Committee Hon. Arline Rotman (ret.), Chair Norwich, VT Finance Committee Mary Ferriter, JD, MPA, Chair Boston, MA Human Resources Committee Denise Herman McColley, M.Ed., J.D., Chair Napoleon, OH Membership Committee Leslye Hunter, MA., LPC, Co-Chair Metairie, LA Shelley Probber, Ph.D., Co-chair San Antonio, TX Nominations Committee Jan A. Shaw, MPA, Chair Orange, CA Professional Development and Technical Assistance Committee Kelly Browe Olson, Co-chair Little Rock, AR C. Eileen Pruett, Co-chair Columbus, OH Publications Committee Doneldon Dennis, Co-chair Minneapolis, MN Phil Bushard, Co-chair Reno, NV

AFCC Board of Directors 2003-2004
President Hon. George Czutrin Hamilton, ON, Canada President Elect Leslye Hunter, M.A. Metairie, LA Vice President/Secretary Hon. Hugh Starnes Fort Myers, FL Treasurer Mary M. Ferriter, M.P.A., J.D. Boston, MA

Family Court Review Editors Selected for 2003-2004
he Family Court Review editorial staff for the 2003-2004 academic year has been selected. All editors are students at Hofstra University Law School and work under the direction of Family Court Review Editor Andrew Schepard. Managing Editor Olga Batsedis Managing Editors of Articles Chris Graziano Carolyn Schwarz Managing Editors of Matrimonial Newsletter Michelle Aulivola Heather Farago 6

T

Notes & Comments Editors Molly Cooper Lisa Flesch Articles Editors Kim DiConza Jen Spina Jen Yadegari Book Review Editor Karim Hatata Mental Health Editor Toni Ann Serpe AFCC Liaison Rachelle Barjon

Calendar of Upcoming Events
AFCC Fall Regional Conference November 13-15, 2003 Sheraton City Center St. Louis, Missouri AFCC 41st Annual Conference May 12-15, 2004 Adam’s Mark Hotel on the Riverwalk San Antonio, Texas AFCC 42nd Annual Conference May 18-21, 2005 Sheraton Seattle Seattle, Washington

AFCC NEWSLETTER • SPRING 2003

AFCC Kids Count Club Update
Kids Count Club Award Presented to Christie Lake Kids
AFCC congratulates Christie Lake Kids in Ottawa on receiving the Kids Count Club award of $2,000. The award was presented at the Awards Luncheon of the AFCC 40th Anniversary Conference in Ottawa, May 29, 2003. Christie Lake Kids runs both the Christie Lake Camp and a year-round S.T.A.R. program (Skills Through Activity and Recreation). Both programs were developed under the guidance and direction of child psychiatrist Dr. Dan Offord, director of the internationally recognized Canadian Center for Studies of Children at Risk located in Hamilton, Ontario. In the Ottawa area Christie Lake has provided a model for successfully eliminating a major deficit in the lives of economically disadvantaged children by enriching their present and future life quality with equal access, equal participation, and equitable outcomes. The funds from the AFCC Kids Count Club Award will be used to send four disadvantaged children to camp this summer. Florida and Massachusetts Chapters of AFCC.

Resource Development Fund Supporters
Annual Campaign 2002-2003 Key Club Ann L. Milne John and Joan VanDuzer and the Harbinger Foundation Diamond Contributors William L. Carpenter Hon. Arline S. Rotman Suzie S. Thorn Family Foundation Platinum Contributors AFCC California Chapter AFCC Florida Chapter AFCC Massachusetts Chapter Doneldon Dennis Andrew Schepard Jan Shaw Leslie Ellen Shear Gold Contributors AFCC Arizona Chapter Mary Ferriter Friends of Arline Rotman Leslye Hunter Denise McColley Fred Mitchell Peter Salem Silver Contributors AFCC Missouri Chapter Ruthanne Allen Lynn Baker Christine Burt Phil Bushard Linda Cavallero Hon. George Czutrin Jan DeRemer Linda Dessau

AFCC Thanks Supporters
AFCC thanks all Kids Count Club supporters for their generous contributions to the AFCC Resource Development Fund during this past year. Resource Development funds help support conference scholarships for AFCC members and the annual Kid’s Count Club Award. A special thank you to this year’s Key Club, Diamond and Platinum Donors, Ann Milne, John and Joan VanDuzer and the Harbinger Foundation, William Carpenter, Arline Rotman, the Suzie S. Thorne Family Foundation, Doneldon Dennis, Andrew Schepard, Jan Shaw, Leslie Ellen Shear and the California,

Barbara Fidler Steven Friedlander Scott Guyer Mike Gottlier and Jeff Siegel Steve Grant R. John Harper Valerie Houghton Bill Howe Janet Johnston Deanna Look Loy Michele MacFarlane Hugh McIsaac Paul Meller Linda Rio Jack Rounick Arnold Shienvold Hon. Hugh Starnes Mary Ann Stokes Bronze Contributors Leah Browne Christine Campisi Robin Deutsch Karen Fenchel Lisa Johnson Steven Larson Roxanne Permesly Susan Raja Edward Silverman Ruth and Phil Stahl Maureen Vernon Contributors Aza Butler Mary Bullock Risa Garon Beth Johnson Terry Johnston Marsha Kline Pruett Joan Pavlik Lita Schwartz Brian Seltzer R. Malia Taum

AFCC Silent Auction Takes Ottawa By Storm
FCC’s Fifth Annual Silent Auction was held May 30, 2003 at the Westin Ottawa. An enthusiastic crowd came away with fabulous items, great values and in the end helped AFCC’s Kids Count Club raise nearly $12,000 for scholarships and financial awards to programs that service families. This year’s auction featured an extraordinary array of items. Film buffs were able to bid on authentic posters, books, DVD’s and calendars donated by Atlantic-Alliance films. Sports enthusiasts had their choice of autographed baseballs from Alex Rodriguez, Yogi Berra and Carlton Fisk, a Deuce McAllistar autographed football helmet or a package of items from the Anaheim Angels or Ohio State Buckeyes. AFCC members also contributed an original watercolor, a hand-knit scarf, a hand-crocheted afghan and original glass artwork. A collection of fine wines, exotic sipping tequila, autographed books, designer clothing, original artwork and hotel and dinner packages gave bidders a wide range of

A

items from which to choose.

Kids Make International Connection Through AFCC Silent Auction
Of special note was the chain of events started by the contribution of a hand-made patch quilt donated by AFCC Office Manager Dawn Holmes and made by her son Michael’s kindergarten class from Belleville, Wisconsin. The high bidder was Ned Courtney, Executive Director of Family Mediation Canada. Ned turned the quilt over to his wife’s pre-school class and the students there will become pen pals with their counterparts in Wisconsin.

Contributors to AFCC’s Fifth Annual Silent Auction
Adam’s Mark Hotel, San Antonio AFCC AFCC Arizona Chapter AFCC Florida Chapter AFCC Massachusetts Chapter AFCC Missouri Chapter AFCC New Jersey Chapter Alliance-Atlantis Richard Altman Association for Conflict Resolution Connie Beck Sanford Braver Wendy Bryans Phil Bushard Alan Childs Christine Coates Complete Equity Markets Patti Cross Hon. George Czutrin Doneldon Dennis Hon. Linda Dessau Continued on page 10 7

Special Thanks to Starwood
A live auction gift of 20,000 Starwood Preferred Points was donated by Starwood and Global Sales Director David Narwich. AFCC thanks all of the contributors to the Fifth Annual Silent Auction for their generosity and for making the event such a huge success.
AFCC NEWSLETTER • SPRING 2003

Five-Year Report

2002-2007

Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

Five-Year Report: 2002-2007

AFCC Board of Directors
President
Hon. William C. Fee Angola, IN

AFCC Staff
Executive Director
Peter Salem, M.A.

Program Director

President Elect
Robin M. Deutsch, Ph.D. Boston, MA

Candace Walker, CMP, CMM

Business and Administrative Director
Chris Shanahan, B.A., CPA

Vice President
Hon. Emile R. Kruzick Orangeville, ON, Canada

Secretary
AFCC is an interdisciplinary and international association of professionals dedicated to the resolution of family conflict. Linda B. Fieldstone, M.Ed. Miami, FL

Marketing and Development Manager
David Vigliotta, B.S.

Treasurer
Robert M. Smith, J.D. Windsor, CO

Registrar and Office Manager
Dawn Holmes

Program Coordinator

Mission
To improve the lives of children and families through the resolution of family conflict.

Past President
Mary M. Ferriter, J.D., M.P.A. Boston, MA

Nola Risse-Connolly, B.A.

Administrative Assistant
Erin Sommerfeld, B.A.

Board Members
Richard L. Altman, J.D. Napoleon, OH Wendy Bryans, LL.B. Ottawa, ON, Canada Annette T. Burns, J.D. Phoenix, AZ Andrea Clark, M.S.W. St. Louis, MO Cori Erickson, M.S. Sheridan, WY Dianna Gould-Saltman, J.D. Los Angeles, CA Hon. Graham Mullane Newcastle, NSW, Australia Marsha Kline Pruett, Ph.D., M.L.S. Northampton, MA Arnold T. Shienvold, Ph.D. Harrisburg, PA Philip M. Stahl, Ph.D. Queen Creek, AZ Hon. Hugh E. Starnes Fort Myers, FL Nancy Ver Steegh, J.D., M.S.W. St. Paul, MN Emeritus Prof. Janet Walker Newcastle upon Tyne, England

Chapter Services and Development Consultant
Leslye Hunter, M.A., LMFT, LPCC

Vision
A justice system in which all professionals work collaboratively through education, support and access to services to achieve the best possible outcome for children and families.

Values
• Collaboration and respect among professions and disciplines • Learning through inquiry, discussion and debate • Innovation in addressing the needs of families and children in conflict • Empowering families to resolve conflict and make decisions about their future

Five-Year Report: 2002-2007

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report chronicles the development of AFCC for the fiscal years 2002-03 through 2006-07, the first five years of the current administration. It addresses AFCC initiatives and special projects, organizational development, membership, conferences, resource development, publications, administration and finance, Web site, technology and collaborating organizations. Comparative data and narrative are offered to provide historical context.

AFCC Initiatives and Special Projects
Between 2002 and 2007, AFCC initiatives and special projects played a growing role in the day to day activities of the association. Eight special projects were initiated between 2002 and 2007, funded through a mix of contracts, small grants, the operating budgets of AFCC and its collaborating organizations and participating individuals and organizations. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Connecticut Family Civil Intake Assessment Screen Guidelines for Parenting Coordination Court Services Task Force Model Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluation Family Law Education Reform (FLER) Project Educator’s Guide to Working with Separated and Divorcing Parents Domestic Violence and Family Courts Project Developing Nations Libraries Project

The Family Law Education Reform Project and Domestic Violence and Family Court Project were anchored by the first two AFCC-sponsored conferences at the Johnson Foundation’s prestigious Wingspread Conference Center.

Organizational Development
AFCC completed three major projects in the area of organizational development: • • • A five-year strategic plan An organizational effectiveness project, funded by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Identity branding

Membership
AFCC membership experienced significant growth between 2002 and 2007. • • • Numerous new benefits were added, with a focus on electronic communication and access to information Overall membership increased by 94% Five chartered Chapters were added and AFCC designated a half-time staff position to support the growth and development of Chapters

PAGE 1

Five-Year Report: 2002-2007

Eight special projects were initiated between 2002 and 2007: (1) Connecticut Family Civil Intake Assessment Screen (2) Guidelines for Parenting Coordination (3) Court Services Task Force (4) Model Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluation (5) Family Law Education Reform (FLER) Project (6) Educator’s Guide to Working with Separated and Divorcing Parents (7) Domestic Violence and Family Courts Project (8) Developing Nations Libraries Project These projects were funded through a mix of contracts, small grants, the operating budgets of AFCC and its collaborating organizations and participating individuals and organizations. The accomplishments of the projects described below were the result of an investment of significant resources by AFCC, other organizations and many individuals. The benefits appear to be significant including: actively involving more than 135 people in the work of the association; guiding professional practice; providing new content and disseminating new information through Family Court Review, other publications and conferences; and developing opportunities for collaboration. The projects appear to have helped to elevate the AFCC profile as an innovative, collaborative organization and a major force in the field.

Connecticut Family Civil Intake Assessment Screen Project
In the summer of 2002 AFCC was awarded a $50,000 contract with the Connecticut Court Support Services Division (CSSD) Family Services Unit to develop a research-based screening instrument for the Family Services Unit. The project team conducted site visits; direct observation, review and assessments of services; focus groups with stakeholders; and a literature review on screening protocols. CSSD revised its menu of services on the recommendation of the project team. The screening protocol was developed, training conducted and the screen was first piloted, and then rolled out statewide. The instrument was presented at a pre-conference institute at the 42nd Annual Conference in Seattle in May 2005 and for the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges in October 2005. An article on the project was published in Pace Law Review and a chapter is forthcoming in AFCC’s Innovations in Court Services. The project team was Peter Salem (Project Director), Robin Deutsch, Andy Schepard and Janet Johnston, working with CSSD staff members Steve Grant, Debra Kulak, Kathryn Cerrutti and Joseph DiTunno. In 2005, AFCC was awarded a second contract of up to $50,000 per year to evaluate the instrument over a 3-year period. Marsha Kline Pruett is the principal investigator. As of this writing, the project has reached the semi-finals of the Kennedy School of Government (at Harvard University) Innovations in American Government Awards.

AFCC Guidelines for Parenting Coordination
In 2003, AFCC President George Czutrin appointed a Task Force to develop Model Standards of Practice for Parenting Coordination, following the first Task Force on Parenting

PAGE 4

Five-Year Report: 2002-2007

Coordination that conducted research and published the 2003 Report on Parenting Coordination Implementation Issues. The Task Force determined that the Parenting Coordination process was too new to use the term “Model Standards” and, in May 2005, proposed to the Board of Directors the AFCC Guidelines for Parenting Coordination. The Guidelines passed unanimously and are available on the AFCC Web site at http://www.afccnet.org/resources/standards_practice.asp. AFCC Parenting Coordination Task Force: Christie Coates, J.D., M.Ed. (Chair), Linda Fieldstone, M.Ed., (Secretary), Barbara Ann Bartlett, J.D., Robin Deutsch, Ph.D., Billie Lee Dunford-Jackson, J.D. , Philip Epstein, Q.C., Barbara Fidler, Ph.D., Jonathan Gould, Ph.D., Hon. William Jones (ret.), Joan Kelly, Ph.D., Matthew J. Sullivan, Ph.D., Robert N. Wistner, J.D.

AFCC Court Services Task Force
The AFCC Court Services Task Force was appointed by AFCC President George Czutrin in 2003 to examine the challenges faced by contemporary court service agencies and to conduct a review of initiatives and best practices in service delivery. The Task Force held an open forum at the AFCC Regional Conference in St. Louis in November 2003 and then conducted a survey of court service agencies to assess their challenges. Survey findings were presented at AFCC’s 41st Annual Conference in San Antonio in May 2004. The Task Force also disseminated a call for nominations for exemplary family court-related programs. Task Force members selected 69 programs, edited the entries and featured them in the 2005 AFCC publication Exemplary Family Court Programs and Practices: Profiles of Innovative and Accountable Court-Connected Programs. AFCC Court Services Task Force: Barbara A. Babb, J.D. (Chair), David Hodges, M.A., (Vice Chair) , Stephen Grant, M.A., (Vice Chair), Phil Bushard, D.P.A., Pamela Cardullo Ortiz, J.D., Hon. Leonard Edwards (ret.), George Ferrick, Ph.D., Judith Moran, J.D., Jan Shaw, M.P.A., Risa Sheriff, LL.B., Robert Smith, J.D., M.Div.

Model Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluation
AFCC President Leslye Hunter appointed the Task Force on Model Standards for Child Custody Evaluation in 2004. The Task Force was charged with revising AFCC’s 1994 Model Standards. Over a two-year period the Task Force held open meetings at AFCC conferences in Nashville (2004), Seattle (2005) and Breckenridge (2005) and posted two drafts for public comment (August and December 2005). The Task Force received more than 600 comments from the public postings and the Model Standards were not without controversy. Some psychologists were concerned about the Model Standards’ specificity and the implications for potential Board complaints. The Task Force was responsive to comments from members and revised the drafting process to accommodate additional feedback. The Model Standards were adopted by a unanimous vote of the AFCC Board of Directors in May 2006 and are posted at http://www.afccnet.org/resources/standards_practice.asp. AFCC Task Force on Model Standards for Child Custody Evaluation: William G. Austin Ph.D. (Co-chair), Lorraine Martin M.S.W. (Co-chair), David Martindale, Ph.D. (Reporter), Leslie Drozd, Ph.D., Dianna Gould-Saltman, J.D., H.D. Kirkpatrick, Ph.D., Kathryn Kuehnle, Ph.D., Debra Kulak, M.S., Hon. Denise McColley, Arnold Shienvold, Ph.D., Jeffrey Siegel, Ph.D., Philip M. Stahl, Ph.D.

PAGE 5

Five-Year Report: 2002-2007

Family Law Education Reform Project
The Family Law Education Reform Project (FLER) is a collaborative endeavor between AFCC and the Center for Children, Families and the Law at Hofstra Law School. The goal of FLER is to close the gap between the teaching and practice of family law. The project gathered information and ideas through a combination of a series of open meetings at AFCC annual conferences (San Antonio, 2004; Seattle 2005; Tampa Bay 2006), with think tanks of invited family law professors (Hofstra Law School, November 2004) and representatives of family law and related professional organizations (Wingspread, March 2005), research conducted by law students at Hofstra and Northeastern law schools and an Internet survey of interdisciplinary practitioners. The final report, commentaries and related articles were published as a special issue of Family Court Review in October 2006. Stage two of FLER began in September 2006 with a meeting to plan for the development of curricular modules designed to support the FLER Report’s recommendations for family law teaching. The plan is for the modules to be posted online and made available for no charge to family law teachers. The FLER Project has been a unique undertaking for AFCC and in many ways has been a model of collaboration. The project was primarily funded through the budgets of AFCC and Hofstra, as well as small grants from the JAMS Foundation ($8,000), the Johnson Foundation (estimated $14,000 value for Wingspread Conference) and the Seedlings Foundation ($15,000 for modules planning) and participating law schools, organizations and individuals. FLER has met with widespread enthusiasm and has been the subject of numerous articles in family law newsletters and blogs. Endorsements have come from the American Bar Association Section on Dispute Resolution, Association for Conflict Resolution, International Academy of Collaborative Professionals, National Association of Counsel for Children and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. Additionally, the Minnesota Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers has independently worked in conjunction with William Mitchell and Hamline Law Schools to develop and offer a family law course based on FLER report principles and recommendations. FLER Steering Committee: Andrew Schepard (Co-chair), Peter Salem (Co-chair), J. Herbie DiFonzo (Co-reporter), Mary E. O’Connell (Co-reporter), William Howe III, Leslye Hunter, John Lande, Jennifer Rosato, Hon. Hugh Starnes, Tom Fee (Facilitator), Greg Lampe (Curriculum Advisor). FLER Think Tank Participants: Phyllis Bernard, Elizabeth Brandt, Iris A. Burke, June Carbone, Michael Dale, Barbara Glesner Fines, Marsha Freeman, Martin Guggenheim, Hon. William Jones, Mary Kay Kisthardt, Kelly Browe Olson, Twila Perry, Stacey Platt, Catherine Ross, Jana Singer, Barbara Stark, Nancy Ver Steegh, Janet Weinstein, Elissa Benedek, Lisa Berman, Hon. Susan Carbon, Hon. Dolores Carr, Alexis Collentine, Howard Davidson, Otis Dean, Linda Elrod, Robert Emery, Stephen Erickson, Susan A. Hansen, Karen Jick, Kris Koeffler, Forrest Mosten, Paul D. Pearson, Peggy Podell, Marsha Kline Pruett and Andrea Schneider.

An Educator’s Guide to Separating and Divorcing Parents
In 2004, an AFCC workgroup was appointed to develop guidelines for educators on how to work with separating and divorcing parents. The workgroup is working on a wide range of

PAGE 6

Five-Year Report: 2002-2007

AFCC eNEWS
The AFCC eNEWS debuted in February 2006 and is distributed bi-monthly to more than 10,000 subscribers. The eNEWS provides both substantive articles as well as announcements about AFCC and AFCC Chapter events. The eNEWS receives several regular contributions from AFCC members: research articles from J.M. Craig Press; case law updates from the Family Law Prof Blog; mediation articles from mediate.com; international articles from AFCC International Committee members; and various submissions from AFCC’s collaborating organizations. The AFCC eNEWS is provided to all AFCC members and is available at no charge to non-members.

AFCC Parenting Coordination Network
The AFCC Parenting Coordination Network is a Yahoo Groups email list for AFCC members interested in parenting coordination. The Network allows members to ask questions, disseminate information, share referrals and network with one another. The Network went online in April 2006 and has been used actively throughout its existence and now has 264 members.

COLLABORATING ORGANIZATIONS
The growth of AFCC and its activities would not have been possible without partnerships of several collaborating organizations. For some, the relationship is relatively limited while others have engaged more fully in projects and programs. These collaborative endeavors have enabled AFCC to accomplish a great deal, and this report would not be complete without acknowledging their participation and contributions. American Bar Association Section of Dispute Resolution American Bar Association Section of Family Law American Bar Association Center for Children and the Law American Bar Association Pro Bono Custody Project American Psychological Association Asia Foundation Association for Conflict Resolution Family Section Canadian Judicial Council Complete Equity Markets, Inc. Connecticut Judicial Branch – Court Support Services Division Family Law Prof Blog Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Freedom 22 Foundation Hofstra School of Law Center of Children, Families and the Law International Academy of Collaborative Professionals J.M. Craig Press JAMS Foundation Johnson Foundation (Wingspread Conference Center) Loyola University Chicago Law Center

PAGE 20

Five-Year Report: 2002-2007

Loyola University New Orleans Law School Mediate.com National Association of Counsel for Children National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges National Institute of Trial Advocacy Our Family Wizard Seedlings Foundation Supreme Court of Ohio University of Baltimore Center for Children, Families and the Court University of South Florida Conflict Resolution Collaborative University of Wisconsin-Madison Continuing Studies Division Werner Institute for Negotiation and Conflict Resolution Wiley-Blackwell William and Flora Hewlett Foundation World Congress, Inc.

PAGE 21