Introduction

In 1992, the first Commission on Abused and Neglected Children was created to recommend improvements in the continuum of care for children in Indiana through the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration. Sixteen recommendations were made that created changes in the job of Child Protective Services (CPS)/child welfare caseworkers; in the availability of services; and, in the availability of funding. The Commission generated a report that was distributed in December of 1992, but continued activity as a Commission through May 1993 to ensure that action was taken. The report of the Commission is credited with forming the framework for many systemic improvements.

In 2002, child advocates felt it was time once again to reassess the systems that are serving abused and neglect children and their families in Indiana. Available statistics validated the need to improve the quality of life for Indiana’s children and their families.

· Child fatalities from abuse and neglect in fiscal year 2002 were at an all time high (69).¹

^{· Each year, one child dies from child maltreatment every week Indiana.2}

^{· Reports of child abuse and neglect-61,369 in fiscal year 2002- have remained very high since the first Commission in 1992.3}

^{· Younger children (under six years) are victims of abuse and neglect more often than any other age group (41% of substantiated abuse and neglect in fiscal year 2002).3}

^{· Lack of parenting skills and support are consistently cited as the primary cause of abusive actions in cases of child abuse and neglect fatalities.1}

^{· Some prevention programs (Healthy Families Indiana) and programs for children with special needs (First Steps) have waiting lists for services.}

^{· Indiana is among the leading states for growth in methamphetamine use, putting children of users at higher risk for abuse and neglect.}

^{In 2002, the Indianapolis Star conducted an unprecedented investigation into child fatalities in Indiana. For several weeks there were feature stories in the newspaper about children who died of abuse or neglect. The series of articles also focused on discrepancies in the data and statistics produced by the state’s information system. Public attention to the issue was at an all time high, leading to an outcry for reform.}

^{Senate Bill 62 was authored by Senators Connie Lawson (R-Danville), Billie Breaux (D-Indianapolis), and Vi Simpson (D-Bloomington) during the 2003 legislative session to create the Commission on Abused and Neglected Children and Their Families and Those At-Risk of Abuse and Neglect (herein after referred to as "the Commission"). Representatives William Crawford (D-Indianapolis), Vanessa Summers (D-Indianapolis), and Mary Kay Budak (R-LaPorte) sponsored the bill in the House of Representatives. The primary charge for the Commission was to develop and present an implementation plan for a continuum of services for children at risk of abuse or neglect and for children who have been abused or neglected, and their families. The bill received enormous support with a vote of 92-1 in favor in the full House of Representatives, and 43-2 in favor in the Senate. Commission members would be appointed by the Senate, House of Representatives, and the Governor and would represent a variety of backgrounds from across the state. (See Appendix A for a Commission Roster)}

 

^{The Commission members were charged with the following:}

^{1) Reviewing Indiana’s public and private family services delivery system for children at risk of abuse or neglect and for children who have been reported as suspected victims of child abuse or neglect.}

^{2) Reviewing federal, state, and local funds appropriated to meet the service needs of children and their families.}

^{3) Reviewing current best practices standards for the provision of child and family services.}

^{4) Examining the qualifications and training of service providers, including foster parents, adoptive parents, child caring institution staff, child placing agency staff, case managers, supervisors, and administrators, and making recommendations for a training curriculum and other necessary changes.}

^{5) Recommending methods to improve use of available public and private funds to address service needs.}

^{6) Providing information concerning identified unmet needs of children and families and providing recommendations concerning the development of resources to meet the identified needs.}

^{7) Suggesting policy, program, and legislative changes related to family services to accomplish the enhancement of the quality of the services and identification of potential resources to promote change to enhance the services.}

^{8) Preparing a report consisting of the commission’s findings and recommendations, and the presentation of the implementation plan for a continuum of services for children at risk of abuse or neglect and for abused or neglected children and their families.}

^{Unlike the 1992 Commission that focused on children and their families who have suffered abuse and neglect and dealt with the public child welfare system, the 2003-2004 Commission was given two extra charges: to incorporate the private sector in their study, and to add children and families at-risk of abuse and neglect.}

^{The Commissioners began their work in November 2003 with a deadline of August 15, 2004, for a completed report to be presented to the Board of Child Care Coordination; Legislative Council, that includes leadership from the Indiana House and Senate; and Indiana Governor. Legislation that formed the Commission did not provide public funding for the work of the Commission. Funding for the Commission was obtained through a grant to Prevent Child Abuse Indiana from the Nina Mason Pulliam Charitable Trust and a grant to the Indiana University School of Social Work from the Kids First Trust Fund. Prevent Child Abuse Indiana and the IU School of Social Work provided ongoing staff and resources to support the Commission’s work.}

^{During the first meeting of the Commission, the Commissioners were given the following charges by Chairman Dr. Michael Patchner, Dean of Indiana University School of Social Work:}

^{To be inclusive of all points of view from all persons around the state;}

^{To make meetings and records accessible to the public;}

^{To be comprehensive in reviewing all facets of the child welfare system;}

^{To set aside specific priorities and agendas in order to consider what is best for children before anything else, and recognizing also that the family is in the best interest of the child.}

^{In line with the public access laws, all meetings and meeting minutes of the full Commission and any subgroups were open to the public. Press releases announcing meetings were sent to media around the state. Notices of upcoming meetings were announced at meetings, posted outside of meeting rooms, listed in the Indianapolis Star, and listed on the Commission website, http://socialwork.iu.edu. Notice of meetings were posted at least 48 hours in advance and "meeting" was defined as any time two or more Commissioners met. All meeting minutes were posted on the website as well. Public access law prevented work from being done by email, which would have allowed more efficient work among Commissioners living all across the state. Phone calls/conferences were held to the same public access guidelines. Public notice was given and arrangements were made for the public to be able to participate in the calls.}

^{The Commissioners chose to meet from 12:00 to 3:00 p.m. on the second Friday of each month and employed several means of gathering information to aid them in making their recommendations. An email address, helpkids@iupui.edu, was established immediately that allowed the public to contact or give input to the Commission Chair. To fulfill the Commission’s charge to be inclusive and accessible, public forums were held in all areas of the state. Areas that were not represented by Commissioners were a top priority when sites were chosen. Eight public forums were held in Evansville, Fort Wayne, Gary, Indianapolis, La Porte, Muncie, Seymour, and Terre Haute. Parents, grandparents, educators, students, foster parents, DFC staff, private agency representatives, and child advocates provided testimony at each site.}

^{Commission meetings also provided an opportunity for testimony from the public. Testimony from numerous experts in the field of child abuse and neglect and related fields were presented to provide information needed by the Commissioners to better prepare their recommendations. (See Appendix B for a listing of presentations) A variety of research studies and reports on issues of child abuse and neglect were gathered to provide a foundation for the Commission’s work as well. (See Appendix C for a listing of resources)}

^{As the Commission began its work, many overarching themes were recognized that would come to be the cornerstones of the recommendations to be made. Among these themes were:}

^{· Lack of consistency across counties of interpretation/application of statutes, codes, and policies;}

^{· Lack of confidence/trust in the information system and resulting data;}

^{· Lack of understanding that the child welfare system and legal system are not the same and are regulated by different standards, rules, and statutes;}

^{· Lack of resources to meet the needs of families waiting for services, many of them in crisis;}

^{· Overrepresentation of children of color in Indiana’s child welfare system;}

^{· Lack of consistent sensitivity to diverse cultures;}

^{· Need for community-wide valuing of children and their families;}

^{· Need for better inclusion of family members -extended and nuclear- not involved in the abuse of a child in order to build confidence and support;}

^{· Need for increased attention and allocation of resources to primary prevention (before abuse starts) and early intervention, despite the state’s recently increased investment in research-based programs like Healthy Families Indiana;}

^{· Need for considerable investment to get services provided at adequate levels to meet the demand/needs.}

^{Also recognized were the many programs and services that were working in some counties or communities. Recommendations were made in the public forums by several professionals to expand these programs and increase the funding so that equitable services could be available across the state.}

^{In addition, many conflicts of values, principles, and priorities became apparent and were considered by Commissioners included}

^{1) Desire for immediate solution vs. Reality of need for long-term strategies}

^{2) Needs of abused/neglected children vs. Lack of funds and trained professionals}

^{3) Primary prevention-before abuse vs. Prevention after abuse occurs occurs}

4) Local autonomy vs. Need for consistency across the state

5) Flexibility vs. Standardization

^{6. Adherence to best practices vs. Lack of longitudinal/research-based data}

^{Six specific work groups were established and included additional members besides Commissioners. All three branches of state government -legislative, executive, and judicial- were represented in the work groups. The directives given to the Commission to be inclusive, comprehensive and accessible also applied to the Work Groups. Each work group met independently from the Commission meetings and adhered to the same standards set forth by public access laws. Work groups provided reports to the Commission and presented their recommendations pertaining to their subject area for discussion, revision, and approval.}

^{The Work Groups included: Service Delivery; Funding; Best Practices; Unmet Needs; Training; and Policy/Program Solutions. (See Appendix D for a list of work group members.) It was decided that each recommendation must address the fiscal impact, leadership, and legislative action required for it to be accomplished. Over 70 Recommendations were initially developed by the Work Groups. Commissioners determined that prioritization was needed because the General Assembly could not realistically review or support that many recommendations. In the prioritization process, some of the overriding themes did not emerge in the form of specific recommendations, including: the need for greater attention to and resources for primary prevention, the role of grandparents in families, affordable/accessible quality childcare, improving communication between "the system" and families, and a more integrated approach to treating the mental health problems for Indiana’s children and their families.}

^{______________________________________________________________________}

^{1Indiana Family and Social Services Administration (2002). Fiscal Year 2002 Child Abuse and Neglect Statistics.}

^{2 Indiana Family and Social Services Administration (January 2002). 2001 State Fiscal Year Demographic Trend Report.}

^{3 Indiana Family and Social Services Administration (2002). Fiscal Year 2002 Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities.}

 

Letter from the Chair

 

^{The Indiana Commission on Abused and Neglected Children and Their Families, created by the General Assembly (P.L.198-2003) and appointed by the Governor, Senate, and House of Representatives, is pleased to present this report to the citizens of Indiana. The Commission was formed to review the public and private child welfare systems in Indiana and to make recommendations to enhance service delivery, funding, practices, and training and qualifications of service providers; to address unmet needs; and to identify policy, program, and legislative changes that should be made. Throughout all of its work the overriding theme of the Commission members was to do what was right for children in Indiana by making recommendations that would prevent abuse and neglect and would enhance treatment and services to abused and neglected children and their families.}

^{The Commission was committed to hearing from the public and working with the greatest degree of transparency possible. The Commission established an e-mail address, helpkids@iupui.edu, held public forums at eight locations throughout the state, and invited public comments and participation at its meetings, including meetings of all work groups. In all, hundreds of people provided input into the work of the Commission through the various avenues that were established. We heard from families who wanted more involvement, from family case managers who discussed the need for smaller caseloads, from parents who wanted their children back home with them, from children and young adults who felt rescued, saved, and sometimes hurt by the child welfare system. We learned about best practices, system failures and ,heard stories and ideas about how the system could be improved. We also invited experts to address the Commission.}

^{We wanted the public to be informed about our work. Therefore, we established a website, social work.iu.edu, where the public could find minutes of our meetings, schedules of our activities, and documents expressing our thinking. We are grateful to those hundreds of individuals who provided their input into the work of the Commission; they were heard.}

^{I want to express my sincerest gratitude to the members of the Commission for their hard work and extraordinary commitment. Countless hours were devoted to this effort with all of the Commissioners working very diligently to assure we would meet our deadline despite getting a late start due to factors beyond anyone’s control. The Commissioners, who chaired our six work groups, deserve special recognition because of their determination and focus to accomplish our charge. The Commission is grateful to members of the Work Groups who volunteered their time and expertise and who were very committed to assist with our work. I and the members of the Commission especially want to thank and recognize Dr. Gail Folaron, Associate Professor at the Indiana University School of Social Work, and Denise Malayeri, Prevent Child Abuse Indiana, who provided staff support for the Commission. Their focus, attention to details, and pleasant manner made our work possible.}

^{This report outlines recommendations that will improve the child welfare system in Indiana. The next step is for legislators, policy makers, and service providers to implement the recommendations of the Commission. Words cannot describe the pain, anguish, and the consequences that occur when children are abused and neglected. We believe by implementing the recommendations put forth in this report the children and families of Indian will be better served.}

^{It has been a privilege to Chair the Commission and to lead such important work. I am extremely grateful for this opportunity and I personally want to thank everyone who was involved in the work of the Commission, including the general public who wrote letters, attended our forums and meetings, and who constantly reminded us of the importance of our work. I look forward to seeing some meaningful changes in the child welfare system so the lives of children and their families can be improved.}

^Sincerely,

^{Michael A. Patchner, Ph.D.}

^{Chair, Indiana Commission on Abused and Neglected Children and Their Families, and}

^{Dean, Indiana University School of Social Work}

 

Executive Summary

^{The 2003-2004 Indiana Commission on Abused and Neglected Children and their Families Abused and Neglected Children and their Families was created by the General Assembly (SEA 62) and appointed by the governor, speaker of the house and president pro tempore of the senate. The Commission was charged with reviewing several areas related to child victims and children at risk of abuse and neglect. The charge included:}

^{§ Reviewing Indiana's public and private family services delivery system for children at risk of abuse or neglect and for children who have been reported as suspected victims of child abuse or neglect.}

^{§ Reviewing federal, state, and local funds appropriated to meet the service needs of children and their families}

^{§ Reviewing current best practices standards for the provision of child and family services.}

^{§ Examining the qualifications and training of service providers, including foster parents, adoptive parents, child caring institution staff, child placing agency staff, case managers, supervisors, and administrators, and making recommendations for a training curriculum and other necessary changes}

^{§ Recommending methods to improve use of available public and private funds to address the service needs}

^{§ Providing information concerning identified unmet needs of children and families and providing recommendations concerning the development of resources to meet the identified needs, and}

^{§ Suggesting policy, program, and legislative changes related to the family services to enhance the quality of the services and identify potential resources to promote change to enhance the services.}

 

^{The Commission Recommendations are listed below:}

^{1. The State of Indiana should move to achieve full accreditation of its Child Welfare, Child Protection and Child and Family Services systems by the Council on Accreditation over the next three years.}

^{2. The DFC shall meet the caseload best practice standard so that each worker shall have no more than 12 active investigations per month and 17 active cases for ongoing workers. Provision shall be made to adequately staff so that caseloads are sufficiently covered during times of turnover, maternity leaves, sick leave, vacations, etc.}

^{3. Adequate technology with continual updates needs to be institutionalized and accessible to staff across disciplines, including access to a statewide common database or case management system such as the one currently under review by JTAC (Judicial Technology and Automation Committee). An independent group should be formed to analyze the ICWIS (Indiana Child Welfare Information System) data system, making recommendations on how to streamline the system to make the system less time consuming and more user friendly.}

^{4. Create and fund a Permanent Executive Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect (PECCAN) through legislative action. PECCAN shall be an ongoing child welfare advisory council to FSSA and the Board for the Coordination of Child Care Regulations, primarily responsible for assuring that the recommendations of this commission are enacted, collaborating with the DFC in the development of strategic plans to enhance the child welfare system, identifying cutting edge in the work of child welfare, and serving as a conduit to coordinate communication and work of other board and councils throughout FSSA that work with child welfare issues and programs. PECAAN shall be composed of representatives from all disciplines involved in the issue of child abuse and neglect both public and private as well as clients who have been served by the DFC.}

^{5. Enhance the authority, independence, and functioning of the Community Child Protection Team (CPT) by providing training, resources, support and accountability.}

^{6. Amend IC-31-34-10-3 so that every child in Indiana who is found to be a Child in Need of Services (CHINS) is represented by a Guardian ad litem or Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA), with the gradual phasing in of the CASA program over the next 6 years. CASAs assigned to represent a CHINS must be well-trained, well-screened, and supported in their work with children pursuant to Indiana Office of GAL/CASA program standards.}

^{7. Pass legislation to develop a system of Court Appointed Parent Guides for parents who may need help in understanding the CHINS process.}

^{8. Develop a ten-year, multi-media public awareness campaign designed to educate the general public about issues, factors and available resources for positive "parenting" and child development (pre-natal thorough eighteen years).}

^{9. Sustain, expand and improve family support services in all 92 counties. Insure that each county has sufficient public and private family support services to provide pre-out of home placement and abuse prevention services. Continue and expand the Indiana Supreme Court Family Court Project.}

^{10. Establish a permanent Research and Training Institute for Children or similar entity to conduct and compile research for both child abuse prevention and intervention, disseminate information, develop and provide training, and identify and promote best practice models. This Institute would provide these services to all professionals who impact on the lives of at-risk and abused children including DFC staff, law enforcement, medical and other service providers, judges, day care and preschool providers, Department of Education, and prosecuting attorneys.}

 

^{11. Reduce the disproportionate number of children of color in the child welfare system by supporting research, screening and assessment practices and training that addresses the unique factors that bring these children into care and eliminate barriers to timely and appropriate interventions.}

^{12. Develop and implement transitional living services for youth in out of home care who are "aging out" (turning 18 years of age or being emancipated) of the child welfare system. Transitional living services need to assist the youth in planning and implementing a plan for education, employment, housing, health care, connecting with significant others, and the development of problem solving skills.}

^{13. Indiana should adopt an alternative response system in response to allegations of abuse and neglect. Traditional investigations should be limited to the most serious cases of physical and sexual abuse and severe neglect while low risk cases should receive the alternative response of supportive counseling and case management services.}

^{14. Amend HB 1194 to better facilitate kinship and emergency placements of children removed from their homes following reports of abuse or neglect.}

^{15. Amend IC 31-34-9-8 to require the Division of Family and Children to provide a rationale to the court in every instance in which they request a motion to dismiss a case. The motion shall be granted within 10 days unless the court sets the matter for a hearing.}

^{16. Amend IC 31-19-11-1 to include a finding that the requirements of IC 31-19-17, Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4, have been complied with prior to approval of an adoption.}

^{17. Carve out the Family and Children Fund from the growth caps and limits on the banking of unused tax levies that were imposed as a result of SEA 01 enacted in December 2003.}

^{18. Increase federal dollars into Indiana, particularly under Title IV-E, Medicaid, and other sources.}

^{19. Encourage parents to pay child support for children in out-of-home care, in accordance with the parents’ ability to pay.}

^{20. Maximize each child’s eligibility for federal programs through use of regional experts in funding resources. Where possible, streamline the processes for determining eligibility and provide incentives for agencies to work together to fund services.}

^{21. Evaluate use of the Kids First Trust Fund to increase accountability for the fund and to support its purpose of primary prevention, and create additional mechanisms for donations.}

^{22. Comply with IC 36-2-10-11 regarding timely payments to providers by the county treasurer. Conform to best practice standards that require payment of providers within 60 days.}

^{23. Reinstate the Title IV-E state share in budget cycle 2006-07 and increase the State share of funding for the Family and Children Fund in budget cycle 2008-09.}

 

^{24. Provide Medicaid waiver services to families with children with disabilities.}

^{25. Within the public sector, hiring requirements for family case managers (line staff) must be changed to include a degree requirement with a preference for a degree in human service or social work from a program which contains a structured, supervised practicum. To be consistent with the Council on Accreditation (COA) requirements, the practicum should have learning objectives and be a minimum of 6 academic credit hours. The student placement should occur in a child and family service agency.}

^{Public child welfare supervisors should hold an MSW degree and/or Bachelor’s degree with 5 years of child welfare experience.}

 

^{26. The commission recommends that the state allocate additional positions to increase the number of permanent DFC child welfare training staff to provide at least one full time trainer in each of the seven DFC regions.}

^{27. The DFC should develop a policy requiring preservice training for all family case managers before a worker carries a caseload. Training should include a period of job shadowing and a shared caseload. Preservice training should be followed by a close monitoring and supervision.}

^{28. Foster parent trainings, both preservice and inservice, should be standardized, mandated and regularly scheduled. An assessment system needs to be developed to identify the on-going training needs of foster parents on an annual basis.}

 

^{29. Amend the state adoption statute to require all prospective adoptive parent, initiating adoptive proceedings through the child welfare system to attend 20 hours of foster parent training (sections 1-10 of the foster parent CORE training currently required of foster parents licensed by Indiana) plus six hours of pre-adoptive training. These trainings shall also be open to relatives and adult partners who are considering adoption and should be strongly encouraged. Prospective adoptive parents interested in adopting children who reside in therapeutic foster care shall be required to attend the additional 10 hours of training required of therapeutic foster parents.}

^{Pre and Post adoptive services should be funded, advertised and made available throughout the state for individuals considering adoption from any source.}

^{30. Title IV-B contracts shall be expanded to include standards for continuing education and training for Home Based service providers, including specialized training in areas identified by the service provider as areas of expertise (sex abuse, developmental disabilities). Evidence of such training should be made available to FSSA.}

^{Local Offices of Family and Children (LOFC) contracts should include standards for Home Based staff qualifications and training or experience, as well as expectations regarding continued staff training. Evidence of such qualifications and training should be made available to LOFCs.}

^{Family Case Managers should be trained on the best use of Home Based services (strengths and limitations) to ensure that these services are used appropriately.}

^{31. Professional licensing boards and entities responsible for oversight for all healthcare providers, MDs, RNs, Psychologists, Social Workers, Educators, Attorneys, and Law Enforcement and other professionals who regularly work with children should adopt an a renewable training requirement in child abuse and neglect.}

 
^{Draft of Proposed Recommendations by the Commission on Abused and Neglected Children and their Families}

^{Recommendation 1}

^{The State of Indiana should move to achieve full accreditation of its Child Welfare, Child Protection and Child and Family Services systems by the Council on Accreditation over the next three years.}

Rationale

^{Accreditation will provide the DFC with a process of on-going quality improvement and evidence that they are meeting quality standards. Accreditation assures that "an agency is frequently evaluating and meeting the recognized standards of its field with respect to policies and procedures, service delivery, and organizational management and administration" (The Pew commission on children in foster care, 2004, p. 32). Through accreditation, the FSSA can best establish, support and maintain a child’s welfare system that can meet the unique safety, permanency, and development needs of every child served in a culturally respectful manner.}

^{Accreditation will help the child welfare system achieve}

^{§ Quality}

^{§ Consistency (from county to county).}

^{§ Credibility}

^{§ Sustainability (from one administration to the next)}

^{§ Accountability}

^{Accreditation will assure that Indiana's public child welfare system meets the minimal acceptable standards of performance. Through a self study process, the DFC will analyze and evaluate its current performance in relation to established standards. This will provide the department with information on strengthens and gaps from which to develop their five year plan. The accreditation process will also expose the agency to a site review from which the administration will receive written and verbal feedback on the quality of their program. Successful completion of the accreditation process will assure Indiana residents that the agency meets established and empirically based standards, will provide children and families with quality services and may protect the agency from frivolous lawsuits.}

^{Accreditation standards will provide the state with clear expectations regarding caseload size, staff training and standards of practices in all service areas, including family services, foster care, adoption, independent living, and residential care. This will assure that there is more consistency in the workloads, approaches and supervision.}

^{Indiana's public child welfare system will benefit significantly from the accreditation process. Caseloads currently exceed all recommendations based on research and standards and workers are frequently under educated and/or trained for their positions. In a recent study of the Indiana public child welfare system, for example, researchers found that supervisors burdened with excessive caseloads, find it difficult to attend supervisory Core training until they have been in their positions for three years. In some cases, these supervisors have no experience in the field of child welfare and/or an educational background with which to support the workers under their supervision. (Folaron, Hostetter & Decker, 2003)}

^{Education and training is also a problem for Indiana line workers. Currently, there is no degree requirement or policy requiring training of line workers. As a result, some counties have unprepared child welfare workers intervening in the lives of families without adequate training or the support of a knowledgeable and full time supervisor. Lack of training, education and supervision combined with excessive caseloads takes a toll on Indiana children. There were 51 child fatalities in 2003 due to child maltreatment. Eleven (22%) of the total 51 child fatalities occurred in families with at least one prior child protective services substantiated investigation. (Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, 2003).}

^{As Indiana moves to full accreditation, we recommend instituting and adhering to the accreditation standards of}

^{§ Pre-service and in-service training for line staff and supervisors}

^{§ Prescribed caseloads}

^{§ Prescribed supervision}

^{§ Consistent service and program standards, especially in the areas of}

^{o CPS}

^{o Foster care}

^{o Adoption}

^{o Family services}

^{o Independent living}

^{o Best practice business standards}

Cost and Timeline

The cost of accreditation would be approximately $1.4 million in the first year. This figure includes costs associated with Indiana University’s MSW program of $489,000 which is already in FSSA’s base spending. An additional $382,000 would allow the program to continue through its fourth and fifth years. The fiscal impact would also include, $160,000 for two contractual COA/PIP positions, $241,000 for six (6) additional family case managers, $750,000 for training, and $10,000 in miscellaneous expenses.

This recommendation is rated by the Commission as a high priority recommendation with an extended timeline. There is a sense of urgency among the commission members to insure that some of the accreditation standards are meet rapidly, including the reduction of staff caseloads, increased hiring qualifications, and increased training, including a policy requiring preservice training before workers are responsible for a caseload. The additional accreditation standards could be met over time through the aid of a strategic plan.

Recommendation 2

The DFC shall meet the caseload best practice standard so that each worker shall have no more than 12 active investigations per month and 17 children for ongoing workers. Provision shall be made to adequately staff so that caseloads are sufficiently covered during times of turnover, maternity leaves, sick leave, vacations, etc.

^{Study after study confirms the necessity of reasonable caseloads for public child welfare workers to effectively investigate and serve abused and neglected children and their families. The Child Welfare League of America recommends caseloads of 12 active investigative cases per month, per worker, 17 active cases per worker with no more than 1 new case assigned for every six open cases on caseloads of ongoing cases, or 10 active on-going cases and 4 active investigations per caseload for workers with mixed caseloads. Supervisor should be responsible for no more than 5 workers (CWLA, 1999). Indiana caseloads are reaching or exceeding caseloads of 50 in several parts of the state.}

^{When caseloads are at this level, it is impossible to provide the services needed to help families keep their children safe. In the past 7 years, worker responsibilities and paperwork have increased as a result of federal legislation passed in 1998.}

^{In Indiana, home visits are required for all investigations unless supervisory approval is given to excuse this requirement. On going workers are responsible for visiting the children on their caseloads, in their own home, every 60 days. This is a challenging task on caseloads that exceed 50 children.}

^{In many rural counties, ongoing and investigative workers rotate intake and on-call responsibilities. For investigators, intake reduces the worker available to make out of office visits to four days per week. Being on call may require a worker to work all night on an emergency and still be required to come into the office at the regular time to complete court work, placement activities, ICWIS input, etc. to fulfill on-call responsibilities. Indiana law requires on-going workers are required to participate in regular review hearings at the juvenile court every 6 months. Some courts hold hearings every 3 months. Court participation requires preparation, notification of all parties, attendance and presenting cases in court. All of these activities take precious time away from worker-client interactions.}

^{The GAO (2003) found that high caseloads are one of the leading causes of caseworker turnover. Turnover is high in many counties throughout Indiana. When a position turns over, there is often a delay in hiring. Provisions needs to be made to "overstaff" so that gaps created by turnover and new worker training, maternity leaves, sick leave, vacations, etc. are sufficiently covered. Currently, overworked supervisors and line staff pick up the slack when workers leave or take extended absences. As a result, workers and supervisors are often covering two or more caseloads at a time. Large caseloads and worker turnover have been found to "delay the timeliness of investigations and limit the frequency of worker visits with children, hampering agencies’ attainment of some key federal safety and permanency outcomes" (GOA, 2003). In this environment, morale is low and children are placed at risk by the very agency mandated to protect them.}

Cost and Timeline

^{It is the recommendation of the Commission that this recommendation be passed by the 2005 General Assembly and become effective July 1, 2005. The commission passed this recommendation with a rating of highest priority and recommends rapid implementation.}

 

Recommendation 3: (FI)

Adequate technology with continual updates needs to be institutionalized and accessible to staff across disciplines, including access to a statewide common database or case management system such as the one currently under review by JTAC (Judicial Technology and Automation Committee). An independent group should be formed to analyze the ICWIS (Indiana Child Welfare Information System) data system, making recommendations on how to streamline the system to make the system less time consuming and more user friendly.

Rationale

^{Indiana child welfare staff do not have adequate technology available to support their work. For example, the Indiana Child Welfare Information System (ICWIS) contains over 2,000 screens and is not user friendly. Case managers regularly work with 200-250 screens and complain data has to be retyped repeatedly. Testimony at public hearings throughout state from case mangers, supervisors, and directors suggest that ICWIS is very time consuming and takes away much needed time to interact with clients. Some workers estimate that 50%-70% of their time is spent in computer entry (Folaron, Hostetter, & Decker, 2003; GOA, 2003).}

^{Complaints about the ICWIS system include more than data entry. Staff, from the top down, complain that the reports are not always understandable, reliable or accurate. An independent review group must be formed to review the strengths and weakness of the ICWIS program and recommend changes. This group must include not only computer experts but local county family case managers, both investigators and on-going workers, supervisors, county directors, and office staff to identify the barriers and needs of the current system, develop a plan and determine the fiscal impact of corrections that are needed.}

^{The DFC needs access to local, state police and federal data bases for timely completions of investigations. The Judicial Technology and Automation Committee (JTAC) is developing a statewide case management system that would allow courts and probation departments to access information on juvenile offenders across all counties.}

^{Licensed child placing agencies (LCPA's) also need access to this information in that they are also completing 335's (licensing recommendations) that require state limited criminal history checks, CPS checks and sex offense checks. A long delay in licensing of homes often occurs for LCPA's waiting to receive the CPS check back from the county - a delay that can cost money as kids remain in residential care waiting for a license to be approved. If LCPA's had access to complete the CPS check, as they have access to complete the criminal history and sex offender's registry, then the licensing process could be completed in a more timely manner. We have waited for up to two months on receiving the CPS check report back from a counties, licenses have lapsed due to this (with kids in the home), all because the county workers don't have the time to do these checks for LCPA's.}

^{Finally, workers need access to technology in the field such as cell phones, lap tops and PDA's. Cell phones are needed to support workers in emergency and/or dangerous situations. Workers visit homes reported for domestic violence without the support of police back up or access to other means of protection. PDA's and laptops will allow workers to record client information in the field and avoid duplication of paperwork from handwritten notes to computer entry.}

Cost and Timeline

This recommendation is rated by the Commission as a high priority recommendation with an extended timeline. Several of the suggestions within the recommendation can be implemented rapidly, others will require an extended timeline. The overall goal of implementing an enhanced database and access to the data will require a strategic plan.

 

Recommendation 4

PECCAN

Create and fund a Permanent Executive Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect (PECCAN) through legislative action. PECCAN shall be an ongoing child welfare advisory council to FSSA and the Board for the Coordination of Child Care Regulations, primarily responsible for assuring that the recommendations of this commission are enacted, collaborating with the DFC in the development of strategic plans to enhance the child welfare system, identifying cutting edge in the work of child welfare, and serving as a conduit to coordinate communication and work of other board and councils throughout FSSA that work with child welfare issues and programs. PECAAN shall be composed of representatives from all disciplines involved in the issue of child abuse and neglect both public and private as well as clients who have been served by the DFC.

Rationale

^{The State of Indiana has been hampered by the lack of any permanent mechanism to react to the ongoing issues and challenges facing the public and private organizations serving children and their families. Whereas the Indiana FSSA currently has many councils and boards from which to seek input and gather advice, PECCAN would be the only one involved with the Child Welfare service delivery system. PECCAN would be a partner in the DFC strategic planning process, monitor recommendations from this commission, and support the DFC in its work to bring best practices to child welfare service in Indiana.}

^{Strategic planning processes focuses on identifying both areas needing improvement and areas of strength within the agency and in the community and monitoring its implementation. A continual cycle of strategic planning would allow the State to look at needs, evaluate progress, and adapt the agency’s activities as needs change. This process should be led by community decision makers, engage managers and staff, at all levels, and actively involve a broad range of stakeholders in an ongoing basis.}

^{In 2002 (last numbers available), there were 61,361 victims of child abuse and neglect. In that year, 61 children died from abuse or neglect. A system of services that deals with the life and death of children and has the ability to permanently tear apart Hoosier families needs to be taken seriously.}

^{The Board for Coordination of Child Care Regulation has served as the primary entity charged by the Indiana General Assembly with overseeing issues related to child welfare, in addition to all facets of child care. In 2002, the Board for Coordination of Child Care Regulation recommended the legislation that established the current Commission on Abused and Neglected Children and Their Families (CCAN), and the Board will be receiving the final report for review.}

^{As the Board for Coordination of Child Care Regulation’s scope is so large, the Commission recommends that a first step in establishing an on-going strategic planning and advisory council (PECCAN) be a sub-committee established under the umbrella of the Board for Coordination of Child Care Regulation. This sub-committee would include legislative, FSSA, private citizen and members of the Board representation, similar to the make-up of the full Board for Coordination of Child Care Regulation.}

^{Additionally, a second pronged approach to oversight and advocacy will be the Children’s Coalition of Indiana (CCI). When the original Commission on Abused and Neglected Children completed its report in 1993, CCI served as a volunteer coalition of child-focused members who advanced legislative action, monitored the status and progress of the Commission’s recommendations and served as a strong partner to insure that the first Commission’s recommendations were implemented. CCI is still the only recognized coalition of child-focused interests and could both assist the sub-committee of the Board for Coordination of Child Care Regulation and ultimately PECCAN (as it is developed) in a similar role.}

^{PECCAN should address the following system wide problems in its initial sessions: Turnover among state public child welfare leadership, revised or revamped organizational design for FSSA; implementation of a statewide child abuse and neglect prevention program that communicates the value of children with a focus on three priorities: community education, outreach to insure that parents are seeking voluntary services, and prevention and early intervention services for at risk children and their families.}

Cost and Timeline

Depending on the language of the legislation, the Committee may fall under the rules of the Legislative Council. If this is the case, the Commission would have an authorized budget of $8,000 if the Committee is smaller than 16 members, and $15,000 if it is larger. If the Committee is not under the rules of the Legislative Council, then the cost would depend on the number of members, who staffs the Committee, and if reimbursements are to be provided for members.

^{PECCAN should be instituted immediately to serve as an oversight body for the Commission recommendations. The Commission recommends that this recommendation be passed by the 2005 General Assembly and become effective July 1, 2005. The commission passed this recommendation with a rating of highest priority and rapid implementation.}

Recommendation 5

Enhance the authority, independence, and functioning of the Community Child Protection Team (CPT) by providing training, resources, support and accountability.

Rationale

^{Improving the professionalism of the DFC requires improved collaboration and enhanced authority with the local Child Protection Teams (CPT). CPTs are multidisciplinary teams composed of professionals who are knowledgeable about child abuse and neglect, such as prosecutors, judges, CASAs, and medical professionals. These teams should be given more training, and their function and authority should be enhanced.}

^{Any system in the state that deals with life and death issues of children and families should have an effective community oversight review system. The existing Child Protection Team (CPT) is an excellent beginning, but it falls short of having effective oversight authority. This current statutory plan for the child protection team is a good foundation upon which to build. These statutes fall short of providing the team with true autonomy and authority. The present statute provides for the establishment of a community Child Protection Team, but limits its authority to that of an advisor of the local child protection services and/or the juvenile court.}

^{Currently the operations of the team vary some from county to county as does the objectivity, efficiency of the team. Some county's a very well function teams and others have difficulty with attendance, selection of the review of cases, with membership and a wide variety of other issues.}

^{In reviewing this legislation the committee recommends that}

^{§ The authority of the child protection team be strengthened through legislative changes}

^{§ The convening body of the child protection team be changed in order to effect a more neutral, objective team (such entities for example may be the CASA's in any given county, the prosecuting attorney's offices)}

^{§ The funding be allocated from the current OFC budget to provide a small stipend to assist in the operation of the team.}

Cost and Timeline

^{The fiscal impact associated with the revised structure of the CPT teams is estimated at $1200 per county. It is the recommendation of the Commission that this recommendation be passed by the 2005 General Assembly and become effective July 1, 2005. The commission passed this recommendation with a rating of highest priority and recommends rapid implementation.}

^{Recommendation 6}

^{Amend IC-31-34-10-3 so that every child in Indiana who is found to be a Child in Need of Services (CHINS) is represented by a Guardian ad litem or Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA), with the gradual phasing in of the CASA program over the next 6 years. CASAs assigned to represent a CHINS must be well-trained, well-screened, and supported in their work with children pursuant to Indiana Office of GAL/CASA program standards.}

^Rationale

^{Children under court supervision should have a voice in the decisions that impact their safety, permanency and personal future. Currently, not all children are invited to the court hearings that determine their futures, nor do they have adequate representation. Many times they do not have a voice in court. Indiana is the only state which does not require representation for children by an attorney, guardian ad litem, or CASA in all abuse and neglect proceedings.}

^{Indiana currently has 69 GAL/CASA programs. GAL/CASA responsibilities include conducting independent reviews of a child's situation and submitting a formal recommendations to the court. GAL/CASAs are trained volunteers, appointed by the judge, to represent the best interests of a child in courts. GAL/CASAs generally have only 1-2 children on their caseloads so they have the time to meet the children and their families, investigate the child's circumstances, advocate at court hearings through written and verbal presentations and monitor the family's compliance with the court order. (Court appointed special advocates, 2000).}

^{The appointments of GAL/CASAs are a proven means of strengthening the voice of children in the courtroom. Further, researchers have identified positive outcomes in states where GAL/CASAs are involved, including reduced court time and quicker permanency decisions. The Office of Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) views GAL/CASA as both a safety net for abused and neglected children as well as an essential ally in delinquent prevention. (Court Appointed Special Advocates, 2000). The GAL/CASA program is endorsed by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and The American Bar Association (The Pew commission on children in foster care, 2004).}

^{Indiana must expand the appointments of GAL/CASAs for children under court supervision. Currently, GAL/CASA representation is not mandatory in standard abuse and neglect cases or in all sexual abuse cases in Indiana unless parents deny the allegation. I.C. 31-34-10-3 requires that a CASA/GAL be appointed in CHINS cases in the following situations:}

^{§ If the parent, guardian or custodian denies the allegations of the CHINS petition,}

^{§ If the child is alleged to be a CHINS because the child substantially endangers the child's health or the health of t another individual,}

^{§ If the child is alleged to be a CHINS due to the inability refusal or neglect of the child's parent, guardian or custodian to supply the child with necessary medical care,}

^{§ If the location of both of the child's parents is unknown,}

^{§ If the child is alleged to be a CHINS because the child is born with fetal alcohol syndrome or any amount, including a trace amount, of a controlled substance or legend drug in the child's body,}

^{§ If the child is alleged to be a CHINS due to an injury or abnormal physical or psychological development or is a t a substantial risk of a life threatening condition that arises or is substantially aggravated because the child's mother used alcohol, a controlled substance, or a legend drug during pregnancy}

^{Generally judges, attorneys, and caseworkers do not have sufficient time or resources to provide the in-depth information courts need to make fully informed decisions about these children’s future and well-being. Therefore, we recommend an expansion of the Court Appointed Special Advocate Program.}

^{Cost and Timeline}

^{Currently, there are 24 counties without programs and several that do not have sufficient funding to handle their caseload. The CASA program would require an additional $800,000 annually in order to expand the program. This would allow for additional funding for those programs that are insufficiently funded and phase-in an additional 4-5 new programs each year. Funding is also included for two coordinators to perform training and assist in the implementation.}

^{The phasing in of the GAL/CASA program across the State will require a six year timeline. The CASA Programs must be certified by the State Office and follow State guideline and standards.}

^{There are currently 23 counties without any programs. Other counties have programs but they do not represent all children. For the larger counties, such as Marion, Lake, Allen, St. Joe's, Vanderburgh, which currently have programs, we recommend a 15-20% increase in representation each year (with funding to help get them there) over the 6 year time period. In the rural counties several multi-county programs can be developed, which will save money as they can share resources and staff through staffing, recruitment, public relations and community efforts, and joint trainings.}

^{The Commission passed this recommendation with a rating of highest priority with the understanding that the implementation and cost would be extended over a number of years.}

^{Recommendation 7}

^{To be written}

^{Recommendation 8}

 

^{Develop a ten-year, multi-media public awareness campaign designed to educate the general public about issues, factors and available resources for positive "parenting" and child development (pre-natal thorough eighteen years).}

^Rationale

^{Lack of parenting skills is consistently the primary reason cited by perpetrators for their acts of child maltreatment. Many abusive and neglectful actions result from a lack of understanding of age appropriate behaviors and what is "normal" for various stages of child development. Prevention experts know that public awareness/education is an important first step in changing attitudes and behaviors. Media and public relations campaigns can be effective vehicles for changing behaviors because studies validate that the majority of Americans depend upon the media and public systems for much of their information and education. They believe, trust and begin to adopt a "message" that they see and hear repeatedly (at least six times), preferably from varying and diverse sources.}

^{Perpetrators also cite "feeling isolated" and disconnected from resources as a factor for their behaviors. The mobility of today’s families adds to this isolation. Public education campaigns can be a resource of consistent parenting/child development/family support information regardless of where the family lives.}

^{Public education campaigns can be a source of support for those tens of thousands of unidentified at-risk families. The majority of families substantiated annually for acts of child maltreatment do not have records of having been in the child welfare system previously. Nationally, as well as locally, 50% to 70% of the substantiated abusive or neglectful families are not getting any "systemic" support prior to the abusive act being committed.}

^{Cost and Timeline}

^{The expenses for a statewide campaign require the professional expertise for developing, implementing, and evaluating its impact. Estimated fiscal impact for the State funding would be $300,000 - $500,000 per year for the first two years and $250,000 for years 3 through 10. The total annual budget would be at least $ 750,000 (for years 2 through 10), for a total, minimum 10 year campaign budget of $ 7,500,000.00. Leadership from the business community, civic and professional organizations, and media resources are absolutely essential. Private funding and in-kind or pro bono support must also be secured.}

^{It is expected that the campaign expenses will be supported almost exclusively by public funds in the first year as the solicitation and acquisition of private and other support will be more likely after the campaign is created and there are "products" for them to see. Costs are based upon 2004 rates and it is expected that there would be about a 3 to 5 % increase each year.}

 

^{This recommendation passed with a rating of high priority and extended ten year timeline. The work can begin immediately. Two years of background work has already been completed by Prevent Child Abuse America (PCA) and the Frameworks Institute. A detailed timeline and work plan has been developed by PCA. The next steps include developing an RFP for a campaign manager and developing the organizational structure. These steps require financial backing and commitment.}

 

^{Recommendation 9}

 

^{Sustain and expand equitable resources to support families in all 92 counties. Insure that each county has sufficient public and private services to fully support families thus preventing child abuse and neglect and out of home placement whenever possible.}

 

^Rationale

^{Pre-placement/Preventative services seem to be one of the fastest growing and most successful services in our state. Families come to trust and rely on the workers that visit their homes on a regular basis. Home based services, along with other services offered in our communities, work to enhance the strengths of our families, while intervening on the problems that brought that service to the family.}

^{Service accessibility is often limited in rural areas leaving families underserved and children at risk. FSSA needs to develop a minimal standard for services availability and accessibility and take a leadership role by overseeing and implementing a continuum of services to families from prenatal to 21 years of age. Such standards are necessary to assure that every county has ample services to offer families in need and provide assurance that services will follow children and families as they move from one location to another.}

^{Federal reviewers documented gaps in services to children and families in Indiana the 2002 Child and Family Service Review. Areas identified as needing improvement included}

^{§ The services provided were not always linked to family needs, impacting both child permanency and well being.}

^{§ Underlying issues such as substance abuse, domestic violence and multi-generational issues are sometimes overlooked in the assessment and service delivery processes, resulting in a failure to provide adequate services to keep children safe, prevent subsequent maltreatment and prevent removal.}

^{§ After children were reunified with their families, DFC sometimes closed the case without providing post-reunification services, linking the family to community supports or ensuring that changes that occurred within the family were lasting ones.}

^{§ In some localities, children did not receive timely treatment for their mental health needs due to delays in assessment and service delivery. (U.S. Dept. of HHS, 2002)}

^{On the other hand, there are several programs and services throughout the state that have been quite successful in preventing instances of child abuse and neglect from ever happening, through parent education and support. Many homebased service programs have been successful in keeping children safe in their own homes. Programs that implement best practice standards should not be eliminated. At the same time, preventative programs and interventions, which educate parents on issues of childhood development and work to strengthening the family unit, should be continuously supported, evaluated and expanded.}

^{Cost and Timeline}

^{According to a report prepared by the Juvenile Law Commission, the State of Indiana spent approximately $14.6 million in FY02 on prevention and child well-being services. An additional $151.8 million in federal funds were also used for these services. The cost of this recommendation would depend on the outcome of an assessment of unmet need.}

^{This recommendation was rated as one of the highest priority recommendations by the commission with an understanding that the implementation would be extended over a period of years.}

^{Recommendation 10}

^{Establish a permanent Research and Training Institute for the Prevention of Child Maltreatment to conduct and compile research on child abuse prevention and intervention, disseminate information, develop and provide training, and identify and promote best practice models. This Institute would provide information and training services to all professionals who impact on the lives of at-risk and abused or neglected children including DFC staff, law enforcement, medical and other service providers, judges, day care and preschool providers, educators, attorneys, and lawmakers.}

^Rationale

^{Inconsistent action in child abuse and neglect cases has been cited repeatedly in the press. Inconsistency applies to literally every organization that deals with abused and neglected children, including the DFC, law enforcement, judicial system, prosecutors, the medical community and educators. While there is much being done that is good, there are also instances of failure to report abuse and neglect, incomplete investigations, misdiagnoses of injuries, failure to complete criminal investigations, and failure to prosecute those cases. At the core of these breakdowns is the lack of a central organization that can provide current information and training across disciplines in a cohesive and consistent manner.}

 

^{There are several needs, including:}

^{§ Need for a central research and development site that focuses on child abuse and neglect and its causes and treatment;}

^{§ Need for an organization that can effectively disseminate best practice information to all those who need and use it, and;}

^{§ Need for a training entity to insure that professionals know how to use and apply best practices. Training that is currently available is piecemeal, sometimes contradictory, and rarely crosses agency boundaries.}

^{An institute, housed on a university campus, would provide a neutral setting for training professionals across disciplines. Currently, information on best practices is not being disseminated because of lack of funding. Information that is disseminated is not always available to the professionals that need it or is not offered in a timely manner.}

^{Expected outcomes would include:}

^{§ A decrease in the occurrence of child abuse and neglect as best practices, prevention education, and new methodologies became consistently known and applied by professionals across the state}

^{§ More effective treatment for children who have already suffered from child abuse and/or neglect as research results and new treatments become quickly available to the professionals who work with abused children}

^{§ Increased identification and conviction of child abusers would reduce reoccurrences by the same perpetrators as DFC staff, law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges reacted to child abuse/neglect in a more consistent manner}

^{§ Improved diagnoses of injuries and illnesses resulting from child abuse and/or neglect, which would also work to reduce repeat maltreatment}

^{§ National recognition for Indiana as a leader in the area of child abuse and neglect prevention and, with such recognition, the possibility to use that reputation as a quality of life drawing card for business and commerce.}

^{Cost and Timeline}

^{The fiscal impact of this recommendation would depend on the level of contribution provided by the university under which the institute is housed. In order to operate and accomplish the goals of the Institute, there would need to be funding for a PhD, two research assistants, two support staff, and 10 training coordinators. The estimated cost associated with staffing the Institute would be approximately $900,000 annually. This calculation assumes a salary of $70,000 for a PhD, $45,000 for research assistants and trainers, $25,000 per support staff, and a 32% addition for fringe benefits. The $900,000 does not account for any additional costs that may be incurred such as leasing expenses, equipment, or travel costs.}

^{This recommendation passed as a high priority recommendation with an extended timeline for implementation. This institute is expected to require a five year commitment from the legislature before it can become self sustaining.}

^{Recommendation 11}

^{Reduce the overrepresentation of children of color in the child welfare system by supporting research, screening and assessment practices and training that address the unique factors that bring these children into care and eliminate barriers to timely and appropriate interventions.}

^Rationale

^{Consistent with national trends, children of color are overrepresented in the Indiana Child Welfare system. Overrepresentation is the term used to define the high number of children of color in the child welfare system being larger than their number in the general population. Indiana's child population (under 18) based on the 2000 census is composed of 81.5 % White; 10.4% Black; 4.8% Hispanic, and 3.3% other; while the Indiana foster care population in 2001 was made up of 61.76% White; 34.26% Black and 3.98% other (FSSA, 2002). The numbers are more dramatic when reviewed for the counties where more African American children live. In addition, Black children are overrepresented at every point in the system: investigations, out-of-home care, Termination of Parental Rights (TPR), etc.}

^{Researchers have found that children of color not only enter foster care at a higher rate but they stay longer, leave at a slower rate than white children and are less likely to be reunified with their families. These disparities exist despite evidence that there are "no differences in the incidence of child abuse and neglect according to racial group." (Pew, pg 50). In Indiana, in 2001, forty percent of Black children remained in the system for more than 3 years while only 2-3% of the White children remained more than 3 years. These numbers clearly document the overrepresentation and disproportional treatment of children of color in the Indiana child welfare system.}

^{Indiana taxpayers spend millions annually to house children of color in foster homes and residential care facilities. In 2003, for example, the Family and Children's Fund expenditures totaled approximately $350 million (IARRCA, 2004). Given that 34.26% of children in foster care are Black, the projection can be made that $120,000,000 of that expenditure was for children of color. What is unknown is whether this money could be used more appropriately to fund less costly and more effective preventions and interventions that keep these children safe.}

^{Funding for research is needed to determine the causal factors of this overrepresentation of children of color in Indiana’s child welfare system. There are currently no studies on the cultural sensitivity of screening tools, for example, or the effectiveness of cultural competence training. A well funded action research agenda is needed to exam and revise the existing child welfare screening tools and training to ensure cultural sensitive assessment and interventions.}

^{Research findings can lead to the development of appropriate screening tools and mechanisms for ensuring the safety of the child while allowing for culturally competent assessment and practice. A decrease in the disparity between the numbers of children of color in the general population and the child welfare system can result in significant savings to the state and more consistent care for children of color.}

^Cost

^{This initiative would require a minimum of $125,000 annually from public funds for at least three years. Costs include professional research, developing the metrics for measuring success, seeking private sector participation and support, developing initial training and screening tools, data analysis, disseminating information about the research and the results and curriculum development. This study and the implementation of the results in revised screening tools and empirically tested trainings is expected to save the state money by identifying and correcting the factors that result in the costly overrepresentation of children of color in out of home care.}

^{This recommendation passed with a rating of highest priority. The implementation of this recommendation should begin immediately and will extend over a three year period.}

 

^{Recommendation 12}

^{Develop and implement transitional living services for youth in out of home care who are "aging out" (turning 18 years of age or being emancipated) of the child welfare system. Transitional living services need to assist the youth in planning and implementing a plan for education, employment, housing, health care, connecting with significant others, and the development of problem solving skills.}

 

^Rationale

^{Currently, 5,300 children are in foster care in the state of Indiana (In FSSA, 2004). In FY 2002, 81 youth aged out of foster care (IN FSSA, 2003). In a study on the status and outcome of children who age out of foster care, "an unacceptable number ended up living on the streets, lacked a place to live, were incarcerated, lacked enough money to meet their basic living expenses, failed to maintain steady employment or were physically or sexually victimized" (Reilly, 2003, p.740). This is especially true of youths with developmental disabilities and/or mental illness. Reilly (2003) suggests that training and services increases the likelihood of more positive outcomes for emancipating youth.}

^{The youth exiting the foster care system need more extensive support than children who grow up with consistent relationships and structure. Public monies are spent to keep youths in substitute care until the age of 18. At 18, these children are generally discharged from the system without money, medical care, or family support. Prior to discharge, these youth need training and skill development in independent living. Post discharge, these children need a continuum of services which include medical care, housing, educational resources; mentoring programs, and financial resources. There are some funds available to support these youth through the IV-E Independent Living program and the Medicaid waiver option, but these funds are insufficient and often not accessible.}

^{Transitional living services for youth aging out of the system can be enhanced by:}

^{§ Providing competency based training for all family case managers regarding case planning for transitional services, funding sources available for transitional living services and information about how to access funding,}

^{§ Maximizing the utilization of the John Chafee Foster Care Independence Program funding.}

^{§ Maximizing the utilization of the Education Training Vouchers to support the transition and success of foster youth attending college or vocational education.}

^{§ Maximizing the utilization of the "Title IV-B" dollars for Independent Living Skills development,}

^{§ Amending the Medicaid state plan to extend coverage from age 18 to 21 years of age,}

^{§ Adopting and mandating an assessment tool and an evidence based curriculum with documented outcomes for independent living skill development.}

^{Cost and Timeline}

 

^{Recommendation 13}

^{Indiana should adopt an alternative response system in response to allegations of abuse and neglect. Traditional investigations should be limited to the most serious cases of physical and sexual abuse and severe neglect while low risk cases should receive the alternative response of supportive counseling and case management services.}

^Rationale

^{Alternative response is a system for serving families, following a report of child maltreatment, using community resources rather than DFC staff. According to the National Study of Child Protective Services Systems and Reform Efforts: Findings on Local CPS Practice, two thirds of states use an alternate response system (Bruce, C., Fluke, J., Sedlak, A., Schultz, D. & Ying-Ying, Y., 2003).}

^{The goal of an alternative response system is to keep children safe by tailoring the response to reports of child maltreatment to the needs of the child and the family. "Alternate response" is used when}

^{§ A child abuse or neglect report is made to the DFC and is determined to be low-risk,}

^{§ A report is investigated and unsubstantiated however; the investigator feels that the family can use supportive services to increase healthy family functioning, or}

^{§ A report is investigated and indication of abuse/neglect is found.}

^{Providing an Alternative Response System will allow families to resolve their family crisis and keep their children safe without involving the overwhelmed public child protection system. The Alternative Response system can individualized to fit the diversity, need, and complexity of each county. In a pilot of the Alternative response system in Marion County, assessments have proven to reduce recurrence of substantiated abuse by 29% over 3 years. Families that don’t meet the criteria for moderate or high-risk but have continued problems would be linked with proven, contracted community resources such as community centers, social service agencies, child welfare agencies. Family involvement is voluntary.}

 

^{An outside evaluation report of the Marion County project found the program to be successful in reducing incidences of abuse and neglect, as evidenced in the sharp increase in service requests. In the past 6 months, for example, the clientele base has literally double. Some of the reported successes include the following:}

^{§ Only 5 out of 262 children under the age of 18 who were served were re-referred to CPS.}

^{§ The project area had considerably fewer substantiated cases of abuse/neglect and of short-term removals (less than 48 hours).}

^{§ The project is reducing the number of less serious cases being substantiated through CPS.}

^{Cost and Timeline}

^{The cost of the alternative response system piloted in three communities in Marion County. Program was @ $225k per year per community. Within this $225k consist @ $30k devoted to the community based initiative alone (stipend resident involvement, events, community commitments, etc.). Assuming that the level of funding per community would remain at $225,000, the cost of this initiative would be approximately $2.25 million over two years.}

^{The roll out of this alternative response should begin in five rural and five urban communities which historically have a high incidence of abuse and neglect. The roll out should be over a two year period. These demonstration sites should include a strong research component to provide the state with information on best practice models. These models will provide the other counties with guidance and options. A similar evaluation was commissioned in Marion County at a cost of 20k.}

^{The commission recommended that this recommendation be given high priority with an extended timeline.}

^{Recommendation 14}

^{Amend HB 1194 to better facilitate kinship and emergency placements of children removed from their homes following reports of abuse or neglect.}

^Rationale

^{An amendment to HB 1194 will create an appropriate balance between the physical safety and the emotional well-being of the child removed from their home as a result of abuse or neglect.}

^{Current federal laws and policies requires children, who are removed from their homes, be placed in the least restrictive environment possible. According to federal guidelines, relatives are considered for placement before any other placements are considered. Research suggests that children are less traumatized when placed with people they know and with whom are comfortable. Relative placements have been identified as least restrictive and the least traumatic to a child's well being.}

^{HB 1194 requires local, state, and federal criminal history checks plus CPS checks and juvenile records of the people living in a relative's home before a child can be placed with a relative caregiver following a report of abuse or neglect. This places relatives at a higher standard of scrutiny than licensed foster families and residential facilities.}

^{State police and CPS background checks can be done promptly and would not impede an immediate relative placement. Juvenile criminal history and criminal background information, however, is less readily accessible. Currently, there is no central computerized system within Indiana to do juvenile criminal history checks. It will also be expensive and difficult to obtain the required criminal background information from the federal government (FBI). Delays in obtaining this information will result in multiple moves for children before they can be placed with a relative caregiver.}

^{The federal government has fiscal penalties for states that fail to meet standards set by federal guidelines. The provisions contained in HB 1194, as it currently stands, may put Indiana at risk of losing federal dollars because of non-compliance with relative placements, least restrictive environment, and the number of times children are moved from placement to placement.}

^{Cost and Timeline}

^{There is no fiscal impact associated with this recommendation. It is the recommendation of the Commission that this recommendation be passed by the 2005 General Assembly and become effective July 1, 2005. The commission passed this recommendation with a rating of highest priority and recommends rapid implementation.}

^{Recommendation 15}

^{Amend IC 31-34-9-8 to require the Division of Family and Children to provide a rationale to the court in every instance in which they request a motion to dismiss a case. The motion shall be granted within 10 days unless the court sets the matter for a hearing.}

^Rationale

^{Under the current statute and recent case law, a motion to dismiss a CHINS case filed by the OFC must be granted by the court if it is prior to the parent's admission to the CHINS petition. Under the current law, the OFC does not have to provide any reason for the dismissal, nor is the OFC required to consult with the child that is the subject of the CHINS action or with anyone else about the dismissal of the case. As a result, a CHINS case can be dismissed when it may not be in the best interest of the child. The written rationale for dismissal filed before the court will give the court discretion on whether to set the matter for hearing and/or appoint a GAL or CASA to represent the best interest. The GAL/CASA will be able to present evidence to the court regarding the dismissal and the safety of the child.}

^{Cost and Timeline}

^{The implementation fiscal impact is expected to be minimal and would include a short increase in court time and paperwork. The Commission recommends that this recommendation be given the highest priority and rapid implementation. It is recommended that it be passed by the 2005 General Assembly and become effective July 1, 2005.}

^{Recommendation 16}

^{Amend IC 31-19-11-1 to include a finding that the requirements of IC 31-19-17, Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4, have been complied with prior to approval of an adoption.}

^Rationale

^{The Disposition of Petition for Adoption (IC 31-19-11-1) lists the findings the court has to make in order to approve an adoption. The list includes such issues as suitability of the adoptive parents, paternity, legal notification of absent or non-custodial parents, etc. This law should be amended to require the placing agent to show that the available medical, educational, psychological information and social history on the birth parents and child has been provided to the adoptive parents. The purpose of such an amendment would be to try to reduce the number of disrupted adoptions by apprising adoptive parents of any issues that might suggest that they should seek services early on and the issues they might need to address with those services.}

^{Currently, disclosure of background information, including medical and psychological, about the birth parents and the child being considered for adoption is addressed in IC 31-19-17, Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4. This law covers the disclosure issue in both public agency and private adoptions including those handled by private attorneys. The one possible exception might be where the adoptive parents identify the child to be adopted themselves and hire an attorney to process the adoption through court. There is no check, however, to assure that adoptive parents receive all information available to them and there is no legal penalty to the agent who does not provide information to the adoptive parents.}

 

^{Rather than try to impose some type of criminal penalty that would require enforcement and would still operate after the adoption had taken place, it might help if courts were required to insure that adoptive parents had been provided with the information to which they are already entitled under IC 31-19-17 prior to approving an adoption. It is believed that such efforts on the part of the court will help decrease adoptive disruptions and post adoptive law suits.}

^{Cost and Timeline}

^{The fiscal impact is expected to be minimal and would include a short increase in court time and paperwork. The Commission recommends that this recommendation be given the highest priority and rapid implementation. It is recommended that it be passed by the 2005 General Assembly and become effective July 1, 2005.}

^{Funding Recommendations}

^{Children’s needs should drive the provision of services, as opposed to the availability of funding to pay for necessary services. Services in Indiana must be more adequately funded without regard to county of residence.}

^{Recommendation 17}

^{Carve out the Family and Children Fund from the growth caps and limits on the banking of unused tax levies that were imposed as a result of SEA 01 enacted in December 2003.}

^Rationale

^{The limits placed on the county Family and Children Fund in the 92 counties were effective 1-1-04. Counties lost $20.4 million in dollars that had already been appropriated to the Family and Children Funds by the 92 county councils. SEA 01 restricted the flexibility of counties to respond to annual fluctuations in the number of children reported as abused or neglected, the number of children needing placement, and the number of children who are able to be returned to their families or adopted. The Family and Children Fund should be exempted from the limitations imposed by SEA 01 and returned to the previous limits on growth that were in effect prior to 1-1-04.}

^Timeline

^{The Commission recommends that this recommendation be given the highest priority and rapid implementation. It is recommended that it be passed by the 2005 General Assembly and become effective July 1, 2005.}

^{Recommendation 18}

^{Increase federal dollars into Indiana, particularly under Title IV-E, Medicaid, and other sources.}

^Rationale

^{Indiana has traditionally drawn down fewer federal dollars than other states. There should be an emphasis on exploring Medicaid and other sources of funding for programs that will expand the array of available services and bring additional resources to the table to meet current and emerging needs.}

^{Indiana should maximize use of Title IV-E training dollars for case managers, child caring institution and child placing agency staff, foster parents, and adoptive parents. Current training dollars are limited by the availability of few state matching dollars. This funding source can provide 75% federal participation for some training programs related to out-of-home care, foster care, and adoption. Options to increase the state’s share of matching funds, including the use of private matching dollars, to draw down additional federal funds should be explored and action taken.}

^{In addition, key administrative, legislative, and advocacy groups should support efforts at the federal level to de-link the Title IV-E program to the 1996 income standards for the former Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program and replace the link with an annual adjustment for the income standards. The 1996 Welfare Reform federal legislation replaced the AFDC program with the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program. However, it maintained the link to income standards from 1996 that make it more difficult for children to qualify for Title IV-E foster care assistance as the years go by. Indiana’s percentage of children on this program had been as high as 45% in the mid-1990s; the current rate is 31%. This means that thousands of children, who might have been eligible for this program if the income standards had increased each for the past eight years, are not eligible for federal assistance. This means fewer dollars to reimburse counties for foster care payments, fewer dollars to cover the administrative costs of case managers for those children, and fewer training dollars. The percentage of children eligible impacts the dollars received by the state for all three types of funding: room and board for the children, administrative funds, and training funds.}

^{Examples of other federal funds which should be explored include the Medicaid Rehabilitation Option expansion to accredited or qualified service providers; Medicaid’s Early Periodic, Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) program to include additional early intervention services; the Child Abuse Prevention Treatment Act (CAPTA) funding and requirements, and Title IV-D child support regional incentive funds.}

^{Cost and Timeline}

^{The Commission recommends that this recommendation be given the highest priority and rapid implementation. It is recommended that it be passed by the 2005 General Assembly and become effective July 1, 2005.}

^{Recommendation 19}

^{Encourage parents to pay child support for children in out-of-home care, in accordance with the parents’ ability to pay.}

^Rationale

^{Parents should acknowledge their responsibilities for the child through some level of payment that depends on income level. Some courts are reluctant to order child support payments. Parents on public assistance or who otherwise have little or no income should be exempted from this requirement. However, the majority of parents (at least the 69% whose children are not eligible for Title IV-E payments) can pay at least a minimal amount. This payment should reflect their commitment to their child and will assist in the reimbursement of taxpayer funds for the care of their child. In making the determination about an order for child support, the court should consider that a parent may incur additional expenses to visit the child, or may have reduced income as the parent may have to take time off from work to attend court hearings, counseling sessions, etc.}

^{Cost and Timeline}

^{The Commission recommends that this recommendation be given the highest priority and rapid implementation. It is recommended that it be passed by the 2005 General Assembly and become effective July 1, 2005.}

^{Recommendation 20}

^{Maximize each child’s eligibility for federal programs through use of regional experts in funding resources. Where possible, streamline the processes for determining eligibility and provide incentives for agencies to work together to fund services.}

^Rationale

^{Case managers and others who work with children’s services cannot keep up with the various programs and waivers that may be used to better serve children and their families. Regional experts who are trained in the various funding resources, who know Medicaid, Title IV-E, various waivers, Medicaid’s EPSDT program, Special Education funding, etc., can assist front-line staff in finding resources and benefits that enhance the service delivery for each child and family.}

^{Some children receive services from multiple agencies, have multiple case managers, multiple assessments or evaluations, and multiple plans for services based on each system. Other children get little or no service. Agencies should be encouraged to work together across systems to "braid" funding to provide services to children. Dollars that are unspent as a result of these efforts should be moved to the front end of the service array to provide prevention and early intervention services. Collaboration between the county probation departments and county offices of family and children should be improved. County probation youth and Children in Need of Services (CHINS) receive services through the same fund, the Family and Children’s Fund. Improved collaboration and cross-training will enable both offices to more effectively make use of the dollars that are available and assist in identifying all the federal funding programs for which children may be eligible. Examples of initiatives that are promising include the family court model, SHOCAP for information sharing and planning regarding habitual offenders, and community and school projects to reduce truancy and suspensions.}

^{Cost and Timeline}

^{The fiscal impact of this recommendation would depend on the level of need in each region. Assuming one expert per region would suffice, the estimated cost would be approximately $456,000. This would include 7 regional experts at $45,000 plus fringes, $30,000 for travel, and $10,000 for miscellaneous expenses such as equipment and supplies.}

^{The Commission recommends that this recommendation be given the highest priority with the understanding that the implementation will be extended over a period of years. The goal of streamlining the eligibility process and providing incentives for interagency collaboration can best be implemented over time through the development of a strategic plan.}

 

^{Recommendation 21}

 

^{Evaluate use of the Kids First Trust Fund to identify its purpose and increase accountability for the fund.}

^Rationale

^{The funding from the sale of Kids First license plates needs to be examined more closely; some of the legislators who created the program no longer feel that it is being used to support its legislated purpose for primary prevention of child abuse and neglect. The funding criteria, decision-making process and accountability for the expenditures should be reviewed. There appear to be discrepancies between what was explained as programs allowable for funding and the actual awards made. In addition, funding is declining as the sales of license plates decrease. Other mechanisms to allow the general public to contribute to the fund should be put in place. The primary recommendation is to allow a check-box on State income tax forms to provide additional funding for primary prevention programs. One former resource for the fund should also be explored, that being the marriages license fees and divorce filing fees.}

^{The commission also recommends that secondary and tertiary programs be more adequately funded so that resources are not taken from the Kids First Fund. In particular, the Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) programs and child advocacy centers need additional funding to support their work. Currently, CASA programs are primarily supported by State funding of $800,000 per year for all counties.}

 

^{Cost and Timeline}

^{This recommendation has no perceived fiscal impact. The Commission recommends that this recommendation be given a high priority and rapid implementation.}

 

^{Recommendation 22}

^{Comply with IC 36-2-10-11 regarding timely payments to providers by the county treasurer. Conform to best practice standards that require payment of providers within 60 days.}

 

^Rationale

^{Providers often wait months for payment for the care and treatment of CHINS and probation children. Timely payment to providers would reduce the cost of borrowing that providers have increasingly had to carry. IC 36-2-10-11 requires the county treasurer to pay each warrant of the auditor when it is presented, if there is sufficient money in the county treasury. If there is no money in the treasury, the warrant bears legal interest on the date it is presented, with interest continuing until the treasurer gives public notice that there is money to redeem outstanding orders (IC 36-2-10-11) or until the auditor calls for the redemption of outstanding county warrants (IC 36-2-9-17).}

 

^{Providers have little or no reserves and increasingly are extending their line of credit out to the maximum allowable. In addition, some providers have been unable to maintain service to the community and have closed their doors. The most prominent agency that closed was Pleasant Run Children’s Home in Indianapolis, but other, more rural agencies have closed as well. In May 2004, the Shelby County Youth Shelter and Youth Service Bureau announced its closing; in addition, St. Vincent’s Hospital announced the closing of its residential treatment program in May.}

 

^{Accreditation standards for providers require them to make payment of accounts within 60 days; providers need to have their receivable payments within the 30-60 days to maintain their own accreditation standards. These same standards should be the practice of state and county government in paying for services from providers.}

 

^{Cost and Timeline}

^{There is no fiscal impact associated with this recommendation. It is the recommendation of the Commission that this recommendation be passed by the 2005 General Assembly and become effective July 1, 2005. The commission passed this recommendation with a rating of highest priority and recommends rapid implementation.}

^{Recommendation 23}

 

^{Reinstate the Title IV-E state share in budget cycle 2006-07 and increase the State share of funding for the Family and Children Fund in budget cycle 2008-09.}

^{Rationale The State share of Title IV-E Foster Care should be reinstated in the budget cycle for SFY 2006 and 2007. In the budget cycle for 2008-09, the State budget should include an increase in fiscal support for the 92 county Family and Children Funds. The State general fund contributes only 10-12% (including property tax replacement funds) to the overall expenditures of the Family and Children. Sixty-seven percent (67%) is county funding; approximately 20% is federal, and the remaining amount (3%) comes from parental reimbursements. The breakdown of Title IV-E participation formerly included participation by the State at 23%, the county at 15%, and the federal government at 62%. Reinstatement of the State portion would help local office budgets. An increase in the State’s participation in the overall Fund can assist with development of more prevention and family preservation services and will strengthen county cash flow. Current cash flow is restricted to the two property tax draw-downs per year (June and December) with very limited funding received between those two periods.}

^{Cost and Timeline}

^{There is no fiscal impact associated with this recommendation. The commission passed this recommendation with a high priority rating with the understanding that the implementation will be extended over a period of years.}

^{Recommendation 24}

^{Increase the availability of Medicaid waiver services to families with children with disabilities. The ultimate goal is to eliminate the waitlist.}

^Rationale

^{In July 1999 the Supreme Court of the United States issued the Olmstead v. L. C. decision. The Olmstead decision clearly challenges federal, state, and local governments to develop cost-effective community-based services "in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities." Indiana, like many other states, is not in compliance with the Olmstead decision because of the long waiting lists of individuals with disabilities for Medicaid waivers. Medicaid waivers allow Medicaid funds to pay for home and community based services to people with disabilities who otherwise would require care in a Medicaid funded facility.}

^{As part of the effort to reduce the incidence of abuse and neglect of children, Indiana should appropriate state matching funds to expand Indiana’s Medicaid Waiver program and reduce waiting lists for Medicaid Waiver services for children with disabilities. Indiana should also use available federal dollars to help fund a careful review of Indiana’s Medicaid Waiver waiting lists to determine the number of children who are waiting for services.}

^{Children with disabilities often place higher emotional, physical, economic, and social demands on their families (Benedict, White, Wulff, & Hall, 1990). The difficulties experienced by families of children with disabilities are related to many factors - the degree of severity of the family member’s disability, challenging behaviors, family situations, parenting skills, the capacity to cope with adversity, and availability of community supports. As a result, children with an identified disability are 3.4 times more likely to be maltreated than children with}