In 2014, after years of neglect by her administration, Governor Jan Brewer issued an executive order dissolving the Department of Economic Security Division of Children, Youth and Families, and creating the Division of Child Safety and Family Services.
Brewer’s order was issued in response to revelations that at least 6,500 reported abuse cases had gone ignored by the Department.
At the time, lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle were skeptical of Brewer’s choice. Although she said decried the “lack of transparency,” and “excuses,” few believed that Brewer’s new department would improve the situation if it involved the same bureaucrats with the same attitudes towards parents and kids.
As a result, few were surprised when an independent review of Arizona’s child safety system found that “operational ambiguities associated with referral mechanisms, assessment protocols, and service pathways–combined with increasingly high caseloads and lack of resources–have contributed to the numerous challenges facing the new Department.”
The Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago conducted the independent review as required by legislation. That legislation required the Office of the Auditor General “to contract with an independent consultant with expertise in child welfare system planning and operations to examine the current child safety system, consider best practices to improve the delivery of child welfare services in Arizona, and provide consultation on effectively establishing the Department with a focus on implementation challenges,” according to the report.
“Although Chapin Hall presents a prioritized list of recommendations to address the areas of greatest risk, they also caution that implementing the recommendations will take time and will be challenging given the volume of cases the Department is dealing with as well as the lack of trust stakeholders have with the Department,” according to the report.
In other words, despite spending millions of dollars on the creation of the new Arizona Department of Child Safety, Arizona’s child safety system is still a disaster. The abuse of parents and children over the years has created distrust across the State, socio-economic lines, and the political spectrum.
With the likes of Maria Hoffman, Director of the Arizona Legislative Office of Family Advocacy, who handles who handles CPS constituent issues directly and with the Attorney General’s Office, threatening parents with jail time that if they seek assistance from their legislators they may be in contempt of court, the mistrust is understandable and inexcusable.
Between social workers, who seem intent on chasing down questionable claims of abuse by spouses during the course of ugly divorces while ignoring the children they place into the State’s few foster homes, and Hoffman, there is little wonder why horror stories only make their ways onto the internet under layers of protective veils.
The abuse of parents and children is happening, but Chapin Hill report fails to note it. Still, the report does a great deal to highlight some of the failings of the current system.
Finding highlights:
In Arizona today, there are more than 17,000 children living in foster care, which is more children than reported at any time in the last fifteen years. To a large extent, the increase in foster children is the result of a dramatic increase in the number of abuse and neglect reports, particularly since 2009. In that year, reports of maltreatment totaled slightly more than 33,000; by the end of 2014, the number of reports had increased to 48,000, an increase of 44 percent in six short years. Increases in child protection caseloads of this magnitude, over a relatively short period of time, put considerable strain on public child welfare agencies. Arizona was and is no exception.
When we asked stakeholders around the state to explain why the child welfare caseload grew so quickly, most of the people we spoke with pointed to rising demand for child welfare at a time when state services for vulnerable families were being scaled back. In our review of the available data, we found considerable evidence to support this point of view:
The number of children, along with the number of poor children living in the state, was growing.
There were cut backs in childcare subsidies.
The size of the state workforce (caseworkers and supervisors) working for the child welfare agency was reduced during the economic downturn.
During this critical period, we also found that reports of maltreatment increased dramatically.
According to the Department of Child Safety’s own data, between 2010 and 2014, the number of maltreatment reports grew by 44 percent, to more than 48,000. The most notable increase involved allegations of neglect. Whereas physical abuse was trending downward between 2004 and 2012, there was a dramatic surge in the number of neglect reports.
The increase in maltreatment reports was made more complicated by the fact that a larger fraction of maltreatment reports were being substantiated, which is the term used to indicate that a report of maltreatment was verified. Prior 2009, substantiation rates statewide were approximately six to eight percent of reports, by 2014, that figure was roughly 12 percent. Importantly, the data also indicate that Arizona places proportionately more children into foster care than other states, given a substantiated allegation of maltreatment. As a result, pressure on the foster care system grew at a nearly exponential rate. Time spent in out-of-home also increased. By our estimate, the median time spent in out-of-home care increased by almost fifty percent.
In the midst of these trends, the data also show a substantial decline in funding for childcare subsidies as well as changes in the size of the child welfare workforce. All in all, reductions in system capacity in the midst of rising demand set off a cascade of issues the Department is still addressing.
Arizona State Rep. Kelly Townsend, who has devoted much of her time to protecting parental rights stated, “I remain committed to addressing the inequities within the DCS system that both disenfranchise parent’s rights, as well as neglect to protect the children in the most dire circumstances. We must look at ways to maintain institutional knowledge within the department by retaining employees by improving morale, drastically improving training, and analyzing incentives for long-term employment. We must also disincentivize removal of children from the home for financial gain, and most importantly we must demand that a parent’s right to a speedy trial, right to produce evidence, and the right to speak freely about their situation be maintained.”