This week, HB2427, which requires Arizona Department of Child Safety to apply rules, and policies concerning the removal of a child from a home uniformly across the state landed on Governor Doug Ducey’s desk. At the same time, the Arizona Auditor General issued a report recommending the Department’s use of a differential response system which provides a method other than investigation for responding to child abuse and neglect reports.
Child welfare advocates are hoping HB2427, sponsored by child and parent advocate Rep. Kelly Townsend, and the Auditor General’s suggestion that the Department continue working with the Legislature to develop statutory changes allowing for differential response signal the beginning of real reform.
HB2427, which passed unanimously in both chambers, was sought by parents and social workers alike in response to what has been a system in chaos.
In September 2015, the Arizona Auditor General released a damaging report in which it was revealed that children have been ripped away from their families by inexperienced and overworked caseworkers. The audit found that the Department’s “child safety and risk assessment tool does not sufficiently guide caseworkers in making child safety decisions.”
One of the most damaging findings was the determination that the Department “has inadequately implemented critical components of its child safety and risk assessment process.” The audit focused on the Department’s child safety and risk assessment practices, including its approach for determining whether to remove a child from their home. According to the auditors, the Department uses multiple factors in its assessment process and relies on caseworker judgment to assess risk.
“The Department’s child safety and risk assessment tool does not sufficiently guide caseworkers in making child safety decisions,” concluded the auditors. “Insufficient training has also limited caseworkers’ ability to conduct child safety and risk assessments.” Auditors found, that although “caseworkers and supervisors should come to these meetings with open minds, some indicated that they come with their decision already made regarding the child – removal decision and may not adequately engage with families during the meeting.”
The Auditor General states in the Differential Response and Case Screening Special Report: “The Department does not have a differential response system and must investigate all reports of child abuse or neglect. One potential advantage of differential response is that families may feel more engaged and satisfied with the child welfare system than they do going through an investigative response. Further, jurisdictions have found that using an alternative response did not compromise child safety. Although an alternative response may have higher up-front costs than an investigative response, it may be less costly over time.”
The Auditor General echoed what Townsend and others have been calling for. Specifically, the Department should:
• Continue working with the Legislature on any necessary legislation that allows for differential response;
• Finalize and implement criteria and policies and procedures for making response assignment decisions and response track switching;
• Develop well-defined practices to guide workers and implement training for appropriate staff;
• Determine services that should be provided, address any potential barriers to service accessibility, and monitor contracted service providers;
• Decide on key implementation strategies such as phasing in the differential response system;
• Finalize its communication plan and allow stakeholder feedback during implementation; and
• Develop and implement processes for evaluating the differential response system.
On Thursday the Governor vetoed his first bill; SB1197, a popular bill that would have required that students be taught to learn to write in cursive. Child welfare advocates are hoping the Governor will be more sensitive to kids’ and parents’ needs and sign HB2427.