Special Master

Recommendations
to the Court
Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document
471
Filed in TXSD
on 11/04/16 Page 1 of 13
The Special Masters, Kevin Ryan and Francis McGovern, present these recommendations in accordance with the various orders of the Court in
M.D. et al. v. Abbott et al., CA 2:11-CV-00084. This report is designed to help the State implement the Goals outlined in the Courts
Memorandum Opinion and Verdict of the Court of December 17, 2015. More specifically, this report is designed to help craft the reforms and
oversee their implementation and are viewed as recommendations. This report does not address any legal issues; legal issues are reserved
for the Court. This report is based on the evidentiary record presented in the trial of this case and presentations and discussions by and with the
parties. The parties have cooperated fully in providing information requested and in consulting with the Special Masters. All recommendations
are made with respect only to children in the PMC class, and those assigned to them.
Implementation Steps/Processes/Tasks

Implementation Dates

Monitoring Methodology

1. Since the Court concluded, "When DFPS staff visit or call a foster child, the caregiver must allow the staff member and the child to speak
privately, unless the staff member agrees that it would be unsafe. If the meeting was not conducted in private, the staff must explain why in the
childs case files,"
1.1 We recommend to reduce the risk of this harm to PMC children that DFPS policy require that caseworkers visits with children include quality
time with the child separate from the caregiver(s) and other children, if the child is verbal, such as, for example, language that is already in part
included by DFPS in Section 6311.2 of the CPS Policy Manual. Former PMC children testified to not seeing their caseworkers privately and regularly,
even as they suffered in placement and experienced abuse.

We recommend the
policy be effective 3 We recommend this include review of the CPS Policy Manual and a
months following the case record review by the Special Masters.
Court's Order.

1.2 We recommend to reduce the risk of harm to PMC children that, as part of its caseworker training program for new employees, DFPS provide
adequate training on its child visitation policies to all caseworkers with responsibility for visiting children in the PMC class, specifically requiring that
visits with PMC children include quality time with the child separate from the caregiver(s) and other children, if the child is verbal, such as, for
example, language that is already in part included by DFPS in the CPS Policy Manual, Section 6311.2.

We recommend the
policy be effective 3 We recommend DFPS report semi-annual performance detail on
months following the caseworkers' training to the Court.
Court's Order.

1.3 We recommend to reduce the risk of harm to PMC children that DFPS ensure that monthly face-to-face visits between CVS caseworkers and
children in the PMC class occur as required and that DFPS report on same to the Court semi-annually. Former PMC children testified to not seeing
their caseworkers privately and regularly, even as they suffered in placement and experienced abuse.

We recommend the
policy be effective 3 We recommend the methodology be developed by the Special
months following the Masters following consultation with DFPS and approved by the Court.
Court's Order.

2. Since the Court concluded, "DFPS paperwork and electronic filing system, including IMPACT, CLASS, and the External files, must become more
efficient. Each child should have a readily accessible and organized case file, comprised of all records pertaining to that child. The Court was
routinely frustrated at the disorganization, duplication, and inconsistency in the foster childrens case files. Caseworkers should be able to spend
more than 26% of their time with foster children,"

2.1 We recommend to reduce the risk of harm to PMC children that DFPS submit a plan with specific timeframes, subject to Court approval, to
ensure that DFPS staff and contractors working with PMC children have access to all the case information they need to serve children in one
centralized place. As the Court observed in the December 2015 Opinion, based in part on more than 358,000 pages of case record material
contained in Defendants Exhibit 120, "The problems of inadequate and incomplete caseworker documentation are considerably magnified by the
way in which DFPS maintains foster childrens case files. Childrens records are not kept in a single location nor are they consistently maintained in
chronological order. The DFPS plan should ensure that DFPS caseworkers and supervisors serving PMC children, as well as CASA staff and
volunteers, and SSCC staff in Foster Care Redesign regions, have access to an integrated, current, complete and accurate case record for PMC
children on their caseloads, including, for example, the child's current status and permanency goal; the child's Transition Plan (where applicable);
the child's placement information and all safety-related and licensure/verification information about the child's placement, including investigation
and inspection reports, enforcement actions and internal reviews conducted by CPAs; the child's historic and current caseworker(s) and
supervisor(s), with corresponding contact information; the child's complete medical, dental, educational and mental health information and
records.

3. Since the Court concluded, "DFPS shall include an updated portrait photograph of each child in their respective case files. The Special Master
will recommend how frequently the photograph must be updated. Each photograph shall include the date it was taken, and be organized and
easily retrievable in the case files,"

Page 1 of 13

We recommend DFPS
submit the plan to the We recommend the Special Masters confer with DFPS and develop a
Court within 3 months monitoring methodology once the plan is approved by the Court.
of the Court's Order.

Special Master
Recommendations
to the Court
Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document
471
Filed in TXSD
on 11/04/16 Page 2 of 13
Implementation Steps/Processes/Tasks

Implementation Dates

Monitoring Methodology

3.1 We recommend to reduce the risk of harm to PMC children that DFPS policy require, when a child comes into the PMC class, a photograph
We recommend the
must be taken of the child and placed in the childs case record promptly. We recommend at least one updated photograph be taken each year the
provision become We recommend a policy review and a case record review by the
child remains in care and placed in the file, such as is already required by DFPS, for example, in Section 6316 of the CPS Policy Manual. We
effective upon issuance Special Masters to verify implementation.
recommend the policy require the date of the photograph be recorded in the childs case record, such as, for example, is already required by DFPS
of the Court's order.
in Section 6316 of the CPS Policy Manual. We recommend DFPS implement the policy.

3.2 We recommend to reduce the risk of harm to PMC children that DFPS policy require for PMC children under the age of 3 updated photos be
taken of the child at least semi-annually, and the date of the photograph be recorded in the childs case record. We recommend DFPS implement
the policy.

We recommend the
policy be effective 3 We recommend the methodology be developed by the Special
months following the Masters following consultation with DFPS and approved by the Court.
Court's Order.

We recommend the
3.3 We recommend to reduce the risk of harm to PMC children that as part of its new-worker training program, DFPS provide adequate training on
provision become
We recommend the Special Masters undertake a review of training
how caseworkers can use their DFPS-issued smart phones to photograph a child and upload the photograph to the DFPS child welfare IMPACT
effective in new worker
materials and training classes.
database.
training upon issuance
of the Court's order.
4. Since the Court concluded "DFPS shall establish, staff, and maintain a 24-hour hotline for receiving and responding to reports of abuse and
neglect. The hotlines phone number must be readily available and displayed prominently in all foster care residential facilities. Foster children
must be allowed telephone access to reach out to this 24-hour system, free from observation,"
4.1 We recommend to reduce the risk of harm to PMC children that DFPS operate a statewide reporting system for allegations of child abuse and
neglect, such as, for example, the Texas Abuse Hotline that is currently administered by Statewide Intake (SWI) 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

We recommend the
provision become We recommend a review of hotline operations by the Special
effective upon issuance Masters.
of the Court's Order.

4.2 We recommend to reduce the risk of harm to PMC children that DFPS ensure PMC children have the right to report abuse, neglect,
exploitation, or violation of personal rights without fear of punishment, interference, coercion, or retaliation, such as, for example, is already
expressed in the DFPS Minimum Standards for Child-Placing Agencies (CPAs) (currently Section G, Childrens Rights).

We recommend the
We recommend this include a review of Minimum Standards for Child
provision become
Placing Agencies and any other related materials by the Special
effective upon issuance
Masters.
of the Court's Order.

4.3 We recommend to reduce the risk of harm to PMC children that DFPS ensure PMC children have the right to report abuse, neglect,
exploitation, or violation of personal rights anonymously and privately to a 24-hour hotline for receiving and responding to reports of abuse and
neglect, such as, for example, language contained in the proposed DFPS amendments to RCCL Minimum Standards for CPAs and GRO.
4.4 We recommend to reduce the risk of harm to PMC children that DFPS ensure all reports to the 24-hour hotline, referenced by the Court above,
regarding children in the PMC class be appropriately screened and, where warranted, investigated thoroughly. The Court concluded in the
December 2015 Opinion that DFPS' "approach to child abuse keeps the confirmed reports of abuse in care findings artificially low." We recommend
that DFPS commence and complete investigations of maltreatment of PMC children timely, consistent with DFPS policy. We recommend DFPS
report maltreatment to PMC children on a semi-annual basis to the Court. Testimony during the trial indicated that DFPS could not accurately report
from the IMPACT system on the timely closure of abuse and neglect investigations, so we recommend DFPS submit to the Court a data plan to track
and report accurately the commencements, extensions and closures of maltreatment investigations.

4.5 We recommend to reduce the risk of harm to PMC children that DFPS ensure its contracted CPA residential providers (such as residential
treatment centers and group homes, but not including foster homes or therapeutic foster homes) maintain in each facility where PMC children are
housed, a landline phone that connects directly to the DFPS 24-hour hotline, such as, for example, the blue phone system currently used by Texas
for children in its juvenile justice system. We recommend DFPS require that all foster homes, foster group homes and therapeutic foster homes
housing children in the PMC class maintain a landline phone accessible to the child in the home, with the toll-free hotline number appended to the
landline.

Page 2 of 13

We recommend the
We recommend this include a review of Minimum Standards for Child
provision take effect
Placing Agencies and any other related materials by the Special
upon issuance of the
Masters.
Court's Order.
We recommend these
provisions take effect
upon issuance of the
Court's Order. We
recommend the data
plan be submitted
within 2 months of the
Court's Order.

We recommend qualitative case record reviews for PMC

maltreatment investigations and hotline screening reviews by the
Special Masters. For DFPS' maltreatment reports to the Court and
reports to the Court on timeliness of investigations, we recommend
the Special Masters develop a methodology following consultation
with DFPS, subject to approval of the Court.

We recommend RCCL staff verify phone access in the residential

We recommend the
treatment centers and group homes as described, and CVS
policy be effective 3
caseworkers verify phone access in foster homes, foster group homes
months following the
and therapeutic foster homes as described, subject to verification by
Court's Order.
the Special Masters.

Special Master
Recommendations
to the Court
Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document
471
Filed in TXSD
on 11/04/16 Page 3 of 13
Implementation Steps/Processes/Tasks

Implementation Dates

4.6 The Court found multiple occasions where children alleged physical, sexual, and verbal abuse to DFPS staff but the allegations were not relayed We recommend the
to the hotline and investigated. Therefore to reduce the risk of harm to PMC children we recommend DFPS develop, publish and train all affected
policy be effective 3
individuals on policy that requires all DFPS staff, foster parents, and staff of SSCCs, CPAs, GROs and RTCs to report all allegations of abuse and
months following the
neglect of children in the PMC class to the hotline for investigation.
Court's Order.

Monitoring Methodology
We recommend the Special Masters verify the policy and training,
and review additional data and information, including licensing
reviews, to assess whether allegations of PMC child abuse and
neglect are being referred to the hotline for investigation.

5. Since the Court concluded "DFPS shall improve its programs and outreach for children who will age out of foster care so that more children
take advantage of these programs,"

5.1 We recommend to reduce the risk of harm to PMC children that DFPS submit and implement a plan with specific timeframes, subject to Court
approval, to provide services, programs, and benefits through an individualized case management model to prepare youth, age 14 and older in the
PMC class, for life after they emancipate from DFPS custody. The goal is to assist youth avoid the heightened risk of homelessness and re-
victimization, described in the trial transcript repeatedly, which was encountered by youth who aged out of DFPS custody without a forever family
and without having developed the skills needed to transition into adulthood. DFPS reported to the Special Masters that 1,180 children emancipated
from DFPS custody in 2015. We recommend the DFPS plan include: A. The commitment to begin individualized case planning with youth beginning
We recommend the
at age 14, such as, for example, ensuring that youth have a first Circles of Support (COS) or Transition Planning meeting upon turning 14 years old.
plan be submitted to
DFPS could decide that COS or Transition Planning meetings will then take place in conjunction with a permanency planning meeting every 4 months
We recommend the Special Masters confer with DFPS and develop a
the Court within 3
until the youth exits the PMC class. B. Developing a youths Transition Plan, and periodically re-assessing the youth to determine progress toward
monitoring methodology once the plan is approved by the Court.
months of the Court's
goals. C. A schedule for monitoring and updating youths' case plans with an eye toward building skills over the span of time a PMC youth is receiving
Order.
independent living preparation services. D. Providing drivers education classes for PMC youth who are old enough to receive a learners permit and
opt to take drivers education. E. Working with the youths Attorney Ad Litem (AAL) to facilitate having any eligible criminal or juvenile records for
offenses for which the youth was adjudicated or convicted sealed or expunged. F. Ensuring every PMC youth who exits the class has a copy of his or
her birth certificate. G. Ensuring that DFPS assesses youth for individual disabilities and eligibility for corresponding benefits and submits, as
appropriate, applications for federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI) on behalf of PMC children deemed eligible. H. Committing that PMC youth
have safe, stable housing upon emancipation. Once approved by the Court, we recommend DFPS implement the plan.

5.2 We recommend within 6 months of a child entering the PMC class that DFPS ensure the child's birth certificate has been secured and placed in
the child's case record.

We recommend the
provision become
We recommend a case record review by the Special Masters.
effective upon issuance
of the Court's order.

We recommend the
DFPS email program
policy take effect within
5.3 We recommend to reduce the risk of harm to PMC youth that, when they do not opt to extend care and are eligible to exit, prior to their exiting
2 months of the Court's
the PMC class, DFPS policy require the agency to assist emancipating youth in creating e-mail accounts (as described on DFPS' website here:
We recommend verification of email accounts and document
Order. We recommend
https://www.dfps.state.tx.us/txyouth/legal/personal_docs.asp) so that they may receive encrypted copies of personal documents and records, in
transmission through records review by the Special Masters. We
DFPS submit the plan
addition to receiving copies of originals. If PMC youth do not opt to extend care, we recommend that DFPS develop a plan with specific timeframes,
recommend the Special Masters develop a monitoring methodology
within 6 months of the
subject to Court approval, to ensure youth know about, and can access, benefits the youth is eligible to receive once they emancipate, including, for
for the plan once reviewed and approved by the Court.
Court's Order and
example, a transitional living allowance, aftercare room and board assistance, and the DFPS Education and Training Voucher Program.
implement the plan
upon approval by the
Court.

6. The Court concluded "All PMC children shall be entitled to an attorney ad litem and a CASA volunteer, as well as any other representative
appointed to TMC children that the Special Master determines is necessary for PMC children's safety and well-being," and we have no further
recommendations.

Page 3 of 13

Special Master
Recommendations
to the Court
Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document
471
Filed in TXSD
on 11/04/16 Page 4 of 13
Implementation Steps/Processes/Tasks

Implementation Dates

Monitoring Methodology

7. Since the Court concluded, "The Special Master shall recommend any provision beyond the Courts Goals that are deemed necessary to cure
the States constitutional violations outlined in this Opinion," recommend the following:
7.1 The Court observed in the December 2015 Opinion that "rape, abuse, psychotropic medication and instability are the norm" for PMC children,
and many children's records, which were made available to the Special Masters as exhibits to the case, were missing important health information.
The children's records include serious concerns of physical and sexual abuse but the records indicate children were not timely (or ever) examined by
doctors to determine if they had been assaulted. Injuries went untreated. Necessary medical follow up did not occur. Incomplete and missing
healthcare information was a common feature in the records. In order to reduce the risk of these harms to children, we recommend that DFPS
develop and implement a HealthCare Plan for PMC children with specific timeframes subject to the review and approval of the Court. We
We recommend the
recommend DFPS consult "Fostering Health: Healthcare for Children and Adolescents in Foster Care," by the American Academy of Pediatrics and
HealthCare Plan be
include in the HealthCare Plan: A. Annual medical examinations for children in the PMC class; B. The establishment of a medical home for all
submitted to the Court
children in the PMC class; C. The provision of necessary follow up treatment and medical care, including for acute and chronic illnesses; D. The
within 6 months
We recommend the Special Masters confer with DFPS and develop a
provision of up-to-date immunizations; E. The provision of annual dental examinations for PMC children 3 years and older; F. The provision of
following the Court's monitoring methodology once the plan is approved by the Court.
mental health assessments by a qualified professional for all PMC children within 60 days of entry to the PMC class, and the delivery of necessary
Order and implemented
follow up care as needed; G. Establishment of a complete medical record (also known as a medical passport) in the child's case record, which is
upon approval of the
updated timely and shared with the child's caregivers at the time of placement and re-placement; H. The establishment of Informed Consent
Court.
protocols for the administration of psychotropic medication by a prescribing physician to a PMC child, based upon documented evaluation and
diagnosis, and the routine, independent review of psychotropic medications by a qualified physician. (In the December 2015 Opinion, the Court,
recounting one of the children's histories, wrote, "In January 2006, two months after making physical abuse outcry, five-year-old J.V.. had his first of
many visits to a psychiatrist to address behaviors of kicking, hitting, and defiance. He was prescribed Focalin for ADHD, although there is no record
of an evaluation.")
We recommend the
7.2 We recommend to reduce the risk of harm to PMC children that DFPS propose to the Court a plan, with specific timeframes and activities, to
provision become
We recommend the Special Masters develop a monitoring
identify and address PMC children's exposure to traumatic events such as, for example, abuse, neglect, removal from their birth families, placement
effective within 2
methodology for the plan once reviewed and approved by the Court.
moves and sibling separation.
months of the Court's
Order.

8. Since the Court concluded, "CVS Caseworkers: (1) DFPS must track primary CVS caseworker caseloads on a child-only basis. The Special Master
shall recommend whether tracking should be categorized separately for full-time and part-time primary CVS caseworkers, and how tracking
should be categorized on a region and county-level. The State cannot include in the calculations secondary workers, workers in training, or fictive
workers created out of overtime. The State is welcome to continue tracking caseloads by stages, but not in lieu of child-only tracking," And...
9. Since the Court concluded, "CVS Caseworkers: (2) DFPS must complete a Workload Study to determine the time required for caseworkers to
adequately perform their tasks. DFPS will specify how long it takes to complete each task. The Special Master shall recommend how frequently
DFPS must complete additional workload studies.," And...
10. Since the Court concluded "CVS Caseworkers: (3) The Special Master shall recommend the point at which caseloads are manageable for full-
time and part-time CVS caseworkers, taking into account times of crises. What is manageable is to be understood as the level at which
caseworkers are able to perform their basic functions and not compelled to quit at an unreasonable rate. In other words, a manageable caseload
is the level at which children are free from an unreasonable risk of harm," And...
11. Since the Court concluded, "CVS Caseworkers: (4) DFPS must hire and maintain enough primary CVS caseworkers to ensure that caseloads
are manageable in each county in the State," we report and recommend the following:

Page 4 of 13

Special Master
Recommendations
to the Court
Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document
471
Filed in TXSD
on 11/04/16 Page 5 of 13
Implementation Steps/Processes/Tasks

Implementation Dates

11.1 DFPS produced to the Special Masters an Executive Summary of a Work Measurement Study conducted from August 1, 2015 through March
31, 2016, for caseworkers engaged in certain tasks, including case profiles most often associated with childrens PMC cases. DFPS noted, It is
important to emphasize this type of study only addresses the quantitative measure of how much time was actually spent on various casework
activities and does not address any qualitative measures or address the issue of how much time should be spent on these activities. The Work
Study methodology blended the work experiences of I See You Workers with the work experiences of CVS Workers, even though DFPS defines
their responsibilities to children differently in their job descriptions. This inclusion of the I See You Workers may have had the effect of decreasing
the actual average case time spent on case profiles most often associated with childrens PMC cases because DFPS expects less time to be expended
per child by I See You Workers than by CVS Workers. Nonetheless, the DFPS Executive Summary concludes, and the DFPS study author confirmed to
the Special Masters, that DFPS caseworkers expended an average of 9.7 hours per month on case profiles most often associated with PMC children,
and that these workers had an average of 137.9 hours per month to spend on their casework. The study's author reported to the Special Masters
that dividing the average number of case hours (137.9) by the average number of hours per month spent on case profiles most often associated
with PMC cases (9.7) yields the average caseload for CVS workers serving children in the PMC class based on the amount of time available to them:
14 cases. This number, which represents DFPS' reported average PMC caseload, strongly informs our recommendation to the Court. The Special
Masters did not independently verify whether CVS caseloads for workers serving PMC children were, in fact, averaging 14 children per worker. The
December 2015 Opinion of the Court concluded, based on evidence presented at trial, that CVS caseloads are unmanageable. Although we do not
recommend a fixed caseload cap, which would inhibit DFPS' ability to assign cases, we do recommend the Court adopt DFPS' own finding and we
recommend DFPS implement a caseload standard in the range of 14 to 17 PMC cases for CVS caseworkers who are assigned to the role of serving
PMC children and who work full-time in that role.

Monitoring Methodology

We recommend the Special Masters following consultation with DFPS

develop a methodology to track, verify and report on the caseloads of
CVS workers who serve PMC children once the Court issues the
We recommend DFPS
Order. We recommend tracking be categorized separately for full-
commence efforts to
time and part-time primary CVS caseworkers, and tracked by region,
implement the
county and office. We recommend caseload rates be pro-rated for
recommended standard
CVS staff who are less than full-time. We recommend caseload rates
upon issuance of the
for CVS staff who spend part-time in caseload carrying or supervisory
Court's Order and
functions and part-time in other functions be analyzed as if they are
complete statewide
part-time staff and their caseloads pro-rated accordingly. We
implementation within
recommend that, for CVS workers with mixed caseloads, for example
24 months of the
caseworkers serving both PMC and TMC children, the methodology
Court's Order.
afford each TMC child the same weight as a PMC child. We also
recommend that DFPS complete Workload Studies for CVS workers
every 5 years, using a methodology approved by the Court.

We recommend the Special Masters following consultation with DFPS

develop a methodology to track, verify and report on the caseloads of
CVS workers who serve PMC children once the Court issues the
Order. We recommend tracking be categorized separately for full-
time and part-time primary CVS caseworkers, and tracked by region,
county and office. We recommend caseload rates be pro-rated for
11.2 We recommend to reduce the risk of harm to PMC children that DFPS submit a plan with specific timeframes, subject to Court approval, to
We recommend DFPS
CVS staff who are less than full-time. We recommend caseload rates
ensure that CVS staff who serve children in the PMC class have caseloads between 14 and 17 children statewide. We recommend DFPS propose to submit the plan to the
for CVS staff who spend part-time in caseload carrying or supervisory
the Court a schedule for implementation, including the percentage of affected caseworkers who will have caseloads within the recommended range Court within 3 months
functions and part-time in other functions be analyzed as if they are
12 months following the Court's Order, 18 months following the Court's Order and 24 months following the Court's Order.
of Court's Order.
part-time staff and their caseloads pro-rated accordingly. We
recommend that, for CVS workers with mixed caseloads, for example
caseworkers serving both PMC and TMC children, the methodology
afford each TMC child the same weight as a PMC child. We also
recommend that DFPS complete Workload Studies for CVS workers
every 5 years, using a methodology approved by the Court.
12. Since the Court concluded, "CVS Caseworkers: (5) DFPS must significantly lower its primary CVS caseworker turnover rate,"

12.1 We recommend in order to reduce the risk of harm to PMC children that DFPS propose and implement a plan to the Court with specific
timeframes to reduce CVS caseworker turnover, subject to Court approval, which includes: A. A model of graduated caseloads for newly hired and
qualified caseworkers through the first 9 months of their onboarding and training. B. Phasing in a mentorship program for newly hired caseworkers
by more experienced CVS staff, such as, for example, the program described in the CPS Mentor Handbook from December 2015, which affords the
We recommend DFPS
assigned mentors reduced case assignments in consideration for the time they devote to mentoring, coaching and supporting newly assigned CVS
We recommend the Special Masters develop a monitoring
submit the plan to the
staff, and co-locates mentors and protges whenever possible in the same unit. C. A model of training that balances field-based experiential
methodology for the Plan once it has been reviewed and approved by
Court within 4 months
learning with classroom-based learning, such as, for example, the current DFPS CPD model which, according to researchers at the University of
the Court.
of the Court's Order.
Texas-Austin, is beginning to have a discernable, positive impact on CVS worker retention. D. A plan to complete implementation of the DFPS Child
Protective Services Salary Study 2012 recommendations. E. A plan to implement a ratio of 1 supervisor for 5-6 CVS caseworkers within 18 months of
the Court's Order. F. An updated DFPS Child Protective Services Salary Study with proposals to address inadequate compensation as one of the main
causes for caseworker turnover.

Page 5 of 13

Special Master
Recommendations
to the Court
Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document
471
Filed in TXSD
on 11/04/16 Page 6 of 13
Implementation Steps/Processes/Tasks

Implementation Dates

Monitoring Methodology

13. Since the Court concluded, "CVS Caseworkers: (6) The Special Masters shall evaluate and recommend whether secondary CPU and I See You
Workers should be maintained. If so, the Special Masters shall recommend provisions to make them more effective at protecting foster children
from an unreasonable risk of harm,"

13.1 We recommend to reduce the risk of harm to PMC children that DFPS decrease the significant number of PMC child placements out of
children's home regions and catchment areas. Testimony during the trial indicated that "39% of PMC children are placed out of region." As the Court
We recommend DFPS semi-annually report the number of PMC
observed in the December 2015 Opinion, "Regional Director Bowman agreed that placing children far from home negatively affects the bonds and
children placed out of region; the number of PMC children placed out
connections that children need to be emotionally healthy. Yet ... 60% of children are placed out of their home county. The combined effects of the
We recommend DFPS of county (and not placed in an adjacent county); the number of pmc
inadequate array and frequent moves means that any stability a PMC child may gain in her initial placement is destroyed when she is relocated. For
submit the Placement children placed out of catchment area; and the number of PMC
example, the Court counts at least four occasions where J.S. was sent over 200 miles to new placements. Likewise, K.E. was twice moved over 250
Plan to the Court within children assigned an I See You Worker. We recommend the Special
miles. Because K.E.s 27 placement changes took her all over Texas, she attended at least 12 schools in ten years. Like many of the Named Plaintiffs,
6 months of the Court's Masters annually verify the placements of PMC children relative to
K.E. had to repeat grades and functions academically well below her age." Similarly, the Court wrote in the December 2015 Opinion, "Many of
Order.
their home regions and counties. We recommend the Special
M.D.s placements moved her far from her siblings, who were not in foster care, and her home community. She had 16 different primary and
Masters develop a monitoring methodology for this plan once it has
secondary caseworkers." We recommend DFPS propose a Placement Plan to the Court, (also mentioned in Recommendation 24.2 below), with
been reviewed and approved by the Court.
specific timeframes, to substantially improve the percentage of PMC children placed in-region and in-catchment areas, over the next 24 months.
Upon Court review and approval, we recommend DFPS implement that plan.

13.2 We recommend the Court order and review a Work Study of I See You Workers before determining whether I See You Workers should be
maintained. DFPS reported to the Special Masters that 77 I See You Workers were responsible for serving 3,406 children (both TMC and PMC) on
June 30, 2015, for an average caseload of 44 children per worker. That is a very high number of children given the complexity of the role designed by
DFPS. According to the position description for the I See You Specialist provided to the Special Masters, they must [m]ake monthly contact with
We recommend the
children in conservatorship of DFPS who are placed outside of their home region and enter contacts in IMPACT, attending monthly medication
Special Masters retain
reviews for children placed in residential treatment settings, assist primary workers with family visits and subsequent placement moves as needed.
an expert to conduct
The courtesy worker will assure the child's needs are being met appropriately by the placement. The courtesy worker will also provide the primary
the I See You Worker
worker with written information of any meeting/staffing and provide information to assist in the completion of the child's plan of service, common
Workload Study and
application and court report. The courtesy worker will facilitate parent and/or sibling visitation. The courtesy worker will provide resources to
share the study's
relative placements. To be effective in the position, I See You Workers must be familiar with PMC childrens records, which are dense. As the
findings with the Court
We recommend the Special Masters following consultation with DFPS
Court's December 2015 Opinion notes, "it took the Court 462 hours just to read the 358,102 pages" from the 20 children's case files in the record. and the parties within 9
develop a methodology to track, verify and report on the caseloads of
Twenty cases represents less than half the average caseload for I See You Workers reported by DFPS as of June 2016. Many of the childrens records months of the Court's
I See You Workers who serve PMC children once the Court issues the
are tens of thousands of pages long; even guided by the Court's detailed analysis of each child's experiences in the December 2015 Opinion, it took Order. We recommend
Order.
the Special Masters and staff more than 225 hours to review those records. For example, M.D.s case record was 32,401 pages long and included 45 that the DFPS plan to
audio files and 3 video files. S.A.s record was 33,636 pages long, A.M.s record was 33,432 pages long and J.S.s record was 40,923 pages long. It
implement the interim
would be very difficult, if not impossible, for I See You Workers to read, digest and update this amount of information for 44 children at any given
caseload standard for I
time. Given the Court's conclusions in the December 2015 Opinion about the poor quality of I See You Workers' interactions with PMC children, we See You Workers be
recommend the Court authorize the Special Masters to retain an expert to conduct a Workload Study and recommend to the Court whether to
submitted to the Court
maintain I See You Workers and, if so, at what point their PMC caseloads are manageable. Until the submission to the Court of the Study, and in
within 3 months of the
light of the substantial responsibilities assigned to I See You Workers in the DFPS job description, we recommend that DFPS adopt an interim
Court's Order.
caseload standard for I See You Workers, to reduce the risk of harm to PMC children, in the range of 22 to 25 children per I See You Worker, and
submit to the Court a plan for implementing same. Upon approval by the Court, we recommend DFPS implement the plan. We do not recommend a
fixed caseload cap.

13.3 To reduce the risk of harm to PMC children and enhance the quality of contacts between I See You Workers and PMC children, we recommend We recommend the
DFPS develop and implement a contact guide, which I See You Workers would complete during monthly visits with a child. We recommend the
Contact Guide be
guide include the I See You Workers assessment of the childs safety, including an assessment of the placement; a confirmation that the child was
produced and
We recommend a case record review by the Special Masters.
interviewed individually, separately and privately from the caregiver and other children; a discussion of the form(s) of discipline being used in the
implemented in the
placement; a review of the child's medical, mental health, dental and educational needs; and other DFPS expectations of its staffs interactions with field within 6 months of
the PMC children they supervise.
the Court's Order.

Page 6 of 13

Special Master
Recommendations
to the Court
Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document
471
Filed in TXSD
on 11/04/16 Page 7 of 13
Implementation Steps/Processes/Tasks

Implementation Dates

Monitoring Methodology

13.4 The Court wrote extensively in the December 2015 Opinion about children who infrequently, or never, saw some of their CVS caseworkers,
despite the enormous responsibilities assigned to those workers for the child's safety, care and permanency. To reduce the risk of harm to children We recommend the
in the PMC class, we recommend that DFPS require that when a child is assigned an I See You or secondary worker, the child's primary CVS
provision become We recommend the methodology be developed by the Special
caseworker must visit the child in-person or via available technology such as, for example, Skype, Facetime, and video conferencing, separate and
effective upon issuance Masters following consultation with DFPS and approved by the Court.
apart from other children and caregivers, at least quarterly, in addition to the regular, in-person visits between the child and other assigned
of the Court's order.
secondary caseworkers.
14. The Court concluded "CVS Caseworkers: (7) The Special Master shall recommend other provisions deemed necessary to ensure that primary
CVS caseworkers are able to protect foster children from an unreasonable risk of harm," and we have no additional recommendations.
15. Since the Court concluded "CCL Investigations, Inspections, and Licensing: (1) DFPS must complete a Workload Study to determine the time
requires for investigators and inspectors to adequately perform their tasks. DFPS will specify how long it takes to complete each task. The Special
master shall recommend how frequently DFPS must complete additional workload studies," And...
16. Since the Court concluded "CCL Investigations, Inspections, and Licensing: (2) The Special Master shall recommend the point at which
caseloads are manageable for investigators and inspectors. What is manageable is to be understood as the level at which investigators and
inspectors are able to perform their basic functions. In other words, a manageable caseload is the level at which children are free from an
unreasonable risk of harm."
If the Court orders the
Special Masters to
retain an expert to
16.1 DFPS has not commenced a Workload Study of RCCL Investigators and Inspectors, indicating to the Special Masters the agency's belief that
conduct the Workload
caseloads for these staff are now manageable and that this function will transfer to the Texas Health and Human Services Commission next year. Of Study, we recommend
the 36 RCCL Investigators (I and II) as of June 30, 2016, DFPS reported 9 Investigators were responsible for more than 17 child abuse and neglect
the expert submit
investigations. Absent a Workload Study, we cannot offer a data-informed recommendation to the Court at what point RCCL Investigators' and
conclusions to the Court
Inspectors' caseloads are manageable. We recommend a Workload Study, which will be even more valuable should investigative workloads grow if within 8 months of the
We recommend a Workload Study be completed and submitted to
DFPS establishes accessible landline phones as described in Recommendation 4.5 above, giving PMC children a way to reach the hotline. In addition Court's Order. If the
the Court within 8 months of the Court's Order.
to the Courts directive above to DFPS, the Court may wish, in order to reduce the risk of harm to PMC children, to order the Special Masters to
Court also, or
retain an expert as part of their team to commence a Workload Study of RCCL Investigators and Inspectors to inform at what point RCCL
alternatively orders
Investigators and Inspectors caseloads are manageable.
DFPS to conduct this
Workload Study, we
recommend it deliver
the study results to the
Court within 8 months
of the Court's Order.

We recommend the
establishment of
16.2 Because the investigation of child abuse and neglect among children in the PMC class is among DFPS' most important responsibilities, we
specialized staff
recommend to reduce the risk of harm to PMC children that DFPS identify a discrete cohort of staff, for example a selection of RCCL staff, and
assigned exclusively to We recommend the Special Masters verify case assignments, meet
exclusively assign them to the work of maltreatment investigations, except for remote, rural or substantially less populated areas of the State where investigate abuse and with staff and supervisors.
exclusive assignment is impractical.
neglect take effect 6
months following the
Court's Order.
17. Since the Court concluded, "CCL Investigations, Inspections, and Licensing: (3) PMU must conduct case readings to assess RCCL investigations
in a manner and at a frequency deemed appropriate by the Special Master. The Special Master will recommend the appropriate method to
correct dispositions and order corrective actions when PMU identifies deficiencies,"

Page 7 of 13

Special Master
Recommendations
to the Court
Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document
471
Filed in TXSD
on 11/04/16 Page 8 of 13
Implementation Steps/Processes/Tasks

17.1 We recommend to reduce the risk of harm to PMC children that PMU conduct case readings, and report results to the Court semi-annually,
using a tool developed in consultation with the Special Masters.

Implementation Dates

Monitoring Methodology

We recommend DFPS
begin the PMU case
readings within 6
months of the Court's
Order, using as the
sample all PMC
maltreatment
investigations for the
final six months of 2016.

Going forward, we recommend PMU confer with the Special Masters

to identify the sample for the semi-annual reviews and that the
Special Masters develop and implement a read-behind process
involving the Special Masters.

18. Since the Court concluded "CCL Investigations, Inspections, & Licensing: (4) The Special Master shall recommend provisions to solve RCCLs
unwillingness to institute corrective actions against violating facilities,"
18.1 We recommend to enhance transparency, and reduce the risk of harm to PMC children, that DFPS make public on the agencys website all of
the completed licensing inspections conducted by RCCL and/or its successive entities, redacting child identifying information and other information
deemed confidential under law and regulation. We recommend DFPS post the full licensing inspection report, including: information regarding the
reason for inspection, the full narrative inspection report, the outcome of the inspection including violations and whether RCCL implemented
corrective or adverse action as the result of violations identified during the inspection. We recommend DFPS make public on its website all
corrective action plans, required by RCCL and/or other successive entities, submitted by violating agencies. We recommend to enhance
transparency and accountability that DFPS make public on its website the dates when RCCL accepts corrective action plans submitted by violating
agencies and the status of corrective active plans.

We recommend DFPS
submit the plan to the We recommend the Special Masters review RCCL data and
Court within 3 months information, and agency website information.
of the Court's Order.

18.2 We recommend to reduce the risk of harm to PMC children that DFPS develop a plan with specific timeframes, subject to Court approval, to
We recommend DFPS
expand the array of enforcement actions available to DFPS for identified violations, including the ability of DFPS to suspend and close foster homes, submit the plan to the We recommend the Special Masters develop a monitoring
foster group homes and therapeutic foster homes directly, even when verified and maintained by CPAs. We recommend upon Court approval, DFPS Court within 3 months methodology for the Plan once reviewed and approved by the Court.
implement the plan and make public on its website all enforcement actions undertaken by the agency.
of the Court's Order.
19. Since the Court concluded, "CCL Investigations, Inspections, and Licensing: (5) DFPS shall track child-on-child abuse, and categorize it as such.
The Special Master shall recommend the most appropriate fashion to track child-on-child abuse bearing in mind that the information should be
easy to retrieve and should be used to inform all placements and treatments. The Special Master shall also recommend how to categorize the
initiators of child-on-child abuse, sensitive to the consequences of labeling children as perpetrators. The Special Master shall also recommend
if child-on-child abuse should simultaneously be categorized as neglectful supervision by the caregiver,"
19.1 We recommend to reduce the risk of harm to PMC children that DFPS require all CPAs report to DFPS, and document, allegations of sexual
abuse committed by a child against another child, such as, for example, is already required by DFPS in the current Minimum Standards for Child-
Placing Agencies (currently Section 749.503). DFPS defines sexual abuse in this context as: "conduct harmful to a childs mental, emotional or
physical welfare, including nonconsensual sexual activity between children of any age, and consensual sexual activity between children with more
We recommend the
than 24 months difference in age or when there is a significant difference in the developmental level of the children; or failure to make a reasonable
provision become
effort to prevent sexual conduct harmful to a child. In light of trial testimony that sexually abused children need a placement with no other
We recommend DFPS conduct the primary monitoring of CPAs for
effective within 2
children, (the Court summarized, "Defendants and Plaintiffs experts agreed that sexually abused children should live in single-child placements"),
performance, and the Special Masters verify.
months of the Court's
we recommend in Recommendation 23.1 (below) that DFPS provide a plan to the Court with specific timeframes documenting how it will track
Order.
available "single child homes," that is, homes with no other birth, adoptive, relative or non-relative kinship or foster children present, and how it will
match those placements to PMC children who, upon a thorough and documented assessment, are determined to need such a home. We
recommend if DFPS places a sexually abused child in a setting with other children, the agency must first document in the childs case record why the
child has not been placed in a single child home.

19.2 We recommend to reduce the risk of harm to PMC children that DFPS require all incidents of sexual abuse by a child against another child be
immediately reported by foster caregivers, CPAs and GROs to a 24-hour hotline established by DFPS to receive, screen and refer for investigation
reports of child abuse and neglect, such as, for example, the hotline run by DFPS' Statewide Intake.

Page 8 of 13

We recommend the
provision become
We recommend RCCL monitor CPAs and GROs for performance, and
effective within 2
the Special Masters verify performance.
months of the Court's
Order.

Special Master
Recommendations
to the Court
Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document
471
Filed in TXSD
on 11/04/16 Page 9 of 13
Implementation Steps/Processes/Tasks

Implementation Dates

19.3 We recommend to reduce the risk of harm to PMC children that DFPS investigate all reported incidents of sexual abuse by a child against a
child for, at least, Neglect by the caregivers charged to supervise the child, such as in Neglectful Supervision and Neglectful Placement.

Monitoring Methodology

We recommend the
provision become
We recommend a case record review by the Special Masters.
effective within 2
months of the Court's
Order.

We recommend the
19.4 We recommend to reduce the risk of harm to PMC children that DFPS ensure the child's case record prominently identifies PMC youth as
provision become
having "sexually aggressive" behavior if the youth has sexually abused another child or is at high risk for perpetrating sexual assault. The designation
We recommend a case record review by the Special Masters.
effective within 6
"sexually aggressive" should be easy to search and retrieve in the child's case record, and easy for DFPS to track for all PMC children so described.
months of the Court's
Order.
19.5 We recommend to reduce the risk of harm to PMC children that DFPS ensure the child's case record prominently identifies a PMC youth as
sexually abused if the child has been sexually abused by an adult or another youth. The designation "sexually abused" should be easy to search
and retrieve in the child's case record, and easy to track for all PMC children so described. The Court observed in the December 2015 Opinion that
DFPS had not identified PMC child D.I. as sexually abused, instead "referring to his rape in his case files as problems getting along with the older
foster kids, sexual behavior, a sexual act with some boys, and participating in sex with other children in the home.

We recommend the
provision become
effective within 6
We recommend a case record review by the Special Masters.
months of the Court's
Order.

We recommend this be
included as part of new
worker training within 2
19.6 We recommend to reduce the risk of harm to PMC children that DFPS ensure all CVS caseworkers serving PMC youth receive training on where months of the Court's We recommend DFPS certify worker training compliance to the
to find and how to make the designations in PMC children's case records for youth with sexually aggressive" behavior and sexually abused youth. Order and that all CVS Court.
workers be trained
within 6 months of the
Court's Order.
We recommend DFPS
19.7 We recommend to reduce the risk of harm to PMC children that DFPS propose a plan to the Court, with specific timeframes and activities,
Upon Court approval of DFPS' plan, we recommend the Special
propose the plan to the
informed by PMU case record reviews of substantiated and unsubstantiated maltreatment investigations and other data and information, to reduce
Masters confer with DFPS and develop a methodology for
Court within 6 months
the incidence of maltreatment of PMC children, and implement the plan upon Court approval.
verification.
of the Court's Order.
We recommend these
19.8 We recommend to reduce the risk of harm to PMC children that DFPS not place any child determined to be "sexually aggressive" or at high risk
provisions take effect
for perpetrating violence or sexual assault in any foster care placement with PMC foster children not so determined without an appropriate,
upon issuance of the
documented assessment concerning the safety of all children in the placement.
Court's Order.

We recommend the Special Masters verify the placements of all PMC

children designated with "sexually aggressive" behavior and whether
the placements' safety assessments for all PMC children have been
completed.

19.9 We recommend to reduce the risk of harm to PMC children that DFPS conduct an individualized needs assessment for every PMC child who
has been sexually abused by an adult or another youth to determine their needs, including whether they need a therapeutic foster home and, if so,
ensure the child receives appropriate services and a placement matching his/her needs.

We recommend these
provisions take effect
We recommend a case record review by the Special Masters.
upon issuance of the
Court's Order.

19.10 We recommend to enhance transparency and to reduce the risk of harm to PMC children that DFPS publicly report the number of
substantiated allegations of child maltreatment each month for children in the PMC class.

We recommend
publication of monthly We recommend the Special Masters confer with DFPS to establish
data effective within 2 what, if any, time lags in reporting are appropriate given agency
months of the Court's practice and agency data verification efforts.
Order.

20. Since the Court concluded, "CCL Investigations, Inspections, and Licensing: (6) The Special Master shall recommend other provisions deemed
necessary to ensure that RCCL protects foster children from an unreasonable risk of harm,"

Page 9 of 13

Special Master
Recommendations
to the Court
Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document
471
Filed in TXSD
on 11/04/16 Page 10 of 13
Implementation Steps/Processes/Tasks

Implementation Dates

20.1 We recommend DFPS propose a plan with specific timeframes, subject to Court approval, which strengthens its monitoring and oversight of
PMC children's placements using its full array of regulatory and contractual tools. We recommend the plan include, for example, the requirement
that DFPS afford due consideration to all incidents of abuse, neglect, and/or corporal punishment occurring in the placements administered or
supervised by a CPA or GRO at the time of its inspection/re-inspection and processing its application for verification/renewal. We recommend the
plan extend DFPS' monitoring of placement agencies' obligation to report suspected child abuse or neglect to DFPS, by including, for example,
provisions that require an immediate investigation by DFPS to determine the appropriate corrective action up to and including termination or
modification of relevant portions of a contract for failure to report. We recommend DFPS fortify its regulatory and contractual enforcement tools
such as, for example, establishing that a repeated failure by a placement agency within one year to report suspected child abuse or neglect shall
result in a review of the contract agencys violations by DFPS senior leadership. We recommend upon Court approval, DFPS implement the plan on
the timeline established by the Court.

Monitoring Methodology

We recommend DFPS
submit the plan to the We recommend the Special Masters develop a monitoring
Court within 6 months methodology for the plan once reviewed and approved by the Court.
of the Court's Order.

21. Since the Court concluded, "Inadequate Placement Array: (1) DFPS shall not allow unrelated children that are more than one service level
apart (e.g., Moderate and Intense-level children) to be placed in the same room in any residential facility. The Special Master shall recommend if
it is appropriate to allow unrelated children that are only one service level apart (e.g., Basic and Moderate-level children) to be placed in the
same room in any residential facility," And...
22. Since the Court concluded, "Inadequate Placement Array: (2) The Special Master shall recommend what age ranges of unrelated children are
appropriate to be placed in the same room in any residential facility. The Court understands that larger age gaps may be more appropriate for
younger children (e.g. a five-year-old and a ten-year-old in the same room) than for older children (e.g. a ten- year-old and a 15-year old in the
same room),"
22.1 We recommend to reduce the risk of harm to PMC children that unrelated PMC children with different service levels only be placed in the
same room after a thorough and documented assessment by DFPS staff that certifies that such placement is safe and appropriate for each PMC
child.
22.2 We recommend to reduce the risk of harm to PMC children that by 6 months following the Court's Order, all PMC children under two years of
age be placed in family-like settings; by 12 months following the Court's Order, all PMC children under six years of age be placed in family-like
settings; by 24 months following the Court's Order, all PMC children under 13 years of age be placed in family-like settings. The Court observed in
the December 2015 Opinion that DFPS is second worst in the nation at placing young children in congregate care. We recommend that acceptable
family-like settings include, for example, non-relative foster care, tribal foster care, kinship foster care, and therapeutic foster care. We recommend
DFPS allow exceptions to placement in a family-like setting for the following: sibling groups of four or more children who cannot otherwise be
placed together, children whose individualized needs require inpatient psychiatric hospitalization, treatment and/or medical care, or young children
who are placed with their minor parent.

We recommend DFPS
submit the plan to the We recommend the Special Masters develop a monitoring
Court within 4 months methodology for the plan once reviewed and approved by the Court.
of the Court's Order.

As described

We recommend the Special Masters review and verify PMC children's

placements. We recommend exceptions be approved by DFPS
supervisory authority, documented by DFPS staff in the child's case
record and verified by the Special Masters through case record
reviews.

22.3 We recommend to reduce the risk of harm to PMC children that by 24 months following the Court's Order, PMC children ages 13 years of age
We recommend the Special Masters review and verify PMC children's
and older can only be placed in a shelter if a family-like setting is unavailable to meet their needs and the appropriate DFPS staff documents in the
We recommend this
placements. We recommend exceptions be approved by DFPS
childs case record the ongoing efforts made to secure for the child a family-like placement. We recommend DFPS allow exceptions to placement in provision be effective
supervisory authority, documented by DFPS staff in the child's case
a family-like setting for the following: sibling groups of four or more children who cannot otherwise be placed together, children whose
24 months following the
record and verified by the Special Masters through case record
individualized needs require inpatient psychiatric hospitalization, treatment and/or medical care, or young children who are placed with their minor
Court's Order.
reviews.
parent.
22.4 We recommend to reduce the risk of harm to PMC children that DFPS not allow unrelated children more than three years apart in age to be
placed in the same room in any residential facility unless DFPS after a thorough, documented assessment certifies that such placement is safe and
appropriate.
23. Since the Court concluded "Inadequate Placement Array: (3) DFPS shall track how many placements in its array are designated as single-child
homes (including biological and adopted children), and track how many foster children need single-child homes. DFPS shall explain its criteria for
determining which children need single-child homes. DFPS shall ensure that all children who need single-child homes are placed in such homes,
unless it is in the childs best interest to remain with siblings or be supervised at a congregate care facility. If a child who needs a single-child
home is not placed in such a home, the childs primary CVS caseworker must explain why in the childs case files," And...

Page 10 of 13

We recommend this
provision be effective 6 We recommend DFPS verify within 9 months of Court's Order and
months following the then include ongoing verification in regular inspections.
Court's Order.

Special Master
Recommendations
to the Court
Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document
471
Filed in TXSD
on 11/04/16 Page 11 of 13
Implementation Steps/Processes/Tasks

Implementation Dates

Monitoring Methodology

23.1 DFPS does not currently track placements as "single child homes." In light of trial testimony that sexually abused children frequently need a
placement with no other children, (the Court summarized, "Defendants and Plaintiffs experts agreed that sexually abused children should live in
We recommend the
single-child placements."), we recommend that DFPS provide a plan to the Court with specific timeframes documenting how it will track available
plan be submitted to
We recommend the Special Masters develop a monitoring
"single child homes," that is, homes with no other birth, adoptive, relative or non-relative kinship or foster children present, and how it will match
the Court within 3
methodology for the plan once reviewed and approved by the Court.
those placements to PMC children who upon a thorough and documented assessment are determined to need such a home. We recommend if
months of the Court's
DFPS places a sexually abused child in setting with other children, the agency must first document in the childs case record why the child has not
Order.
been placed in a single child home.
24. Since the Court concluded, "Inadequate Placement Array: (4) DFPS shall conduct a formal statewide needs assessment to determine an
adequate placement array, including by number, geographic distribution, and placement type. DFPS must procure a placement array that
substantially matches this assessment, and place children appropriately. The Special Master shall recommend how frequently DFPS must
complete additional statewide needs assessments. DFPS shall take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that it has available to it at all times
an adequate placement array, including by number, geographic distribution, and placement type, and that foster children are placed promptly in
an appropriate facility,"

24.1 We recommend in order to reduce the risk of harm to PMC children that DFPS submit to the Court its 2016 statewide Placement Needs
We recommend the
Assessment (the Assessment) which DFPS expects to produce by January 2017. We recommend the Assessment include the number, geographic
Needs Assessment be
distribution and placement types in DFPS placement array, and the expected placement needs for PMC children in 2017, by catchment areas. We
submitted within 2
recommend the Assessment integrate the results from DFPS' April 2016 Residential Child Care Capacity Survey which demonstrated substantial
months of the Court's
interest in expanding placement capacity for children. We recommend DFPS submit to the Court a Placement Plan (also mentioned in
We recommend the provision be satisfied by submission to the Court
Order. We recommend
Recommendation 13.1 above), informed by the Assessment, to meet the needs identified in the Assessment and expand the array of safe family-
of the Needs Assessment.
the Placement Plan be
based placements for PMC children. We recommend the Placement Plan, whether administered directly or through private agency contracts, be
submitted within 6
performance and outcomes based, with specific timeframes and benchmarks, and identify strategies to address, among other gaps, the need for
months of the Court's
placements for specialized and often hard-to-place groups of PMC children such as, for example, sibling groups of four or more, teenagers, children
Order.
with developmental disabilities and children who require placement in a home with no other children.

24.2 We recommend, following the Court's review of the 2016 Needs Assessment and the Placement Plan described in Recommendation 13.1 and
Recommendation 24.1, that the Special Masters, following consultation with DFPS, propose to the Court performance targets for DFPS over a 12-
month period to expand the number of foster homes and therapeutic foster homes for PMC children. We recommend DFPS implement the
Placement Plan to expand placements for children, and work toward the 12-month performance targets, upon approval of the Court.

We recommend the
proposal be submitted We recommend DFPS periodically, on a schedule determined by the
to the Court due within Court, publicly report on its progress toward achievement of the
8 months of the Court's performance targets.
Order.

24.3 We recommend in order to prevent the risk of harm to PMC children that DFPS prohibit the overnight placement of PMC children in offices.
We recommend the
We recommend DFPS prohibit the placement of PMC children in any other facilities or locations that are not regulated by DFPS directly or through a provision take effect We recommend the Special Masters review PMC children's
CPA as child welfare placements, except kin placements or where necessary to meet the individualized medical or behavioral and mental health
within 3 months of the placement data and conduct a case record review.
needs of PMC children.
Court's Order.

24.4 We recommend the Special Masters confer with DFPS and propose to the Court in each subsequent year, based on an updated needs
assessment, annual performance targets to ensure an adequate supply of foster homes and therapeutic foster homes statewide, which DFPS would
work to achieve upon Court approval.

We recommend an
annual process.

We recommend the Special Masters review PMC children's

placement data and conduct a case record review.

25. Since the Court concluded "Inadequate Placement Array: (5) DFPS shall track how many children are in each residential facility, including
biological and adopted children, as well as each facilitys licensed capacity. DFPS shall make this information easy to retrieve,"
25.1 We recommend DFPS publish this information on its website and update the information quarterly until such time as DFPS operationalizes its
Placement Portal.
26. Since the Court concluded, "Inadequate Placement Array: (6) DFPS can continue to pursue Foster Care Redesign, but only if the Special
Master recommends, and the Court agrees, that Redesign meets the statewide needs assessment. The Special Master can evaluate Foster Care
Redesign," And...
Page 11 of 13

We recommend this
provision take effect
We recommend the Special Masters review the DFPS website.
upon issuance of the
Court's Order.

Special Master
Recommendations
to the Court
Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document
471
Filed in TXSD
on 11/04/16 Page 12 of 13
Implementation Steps/Processes/Tasks

Implementation Dates

Monitoring Methodology

27. Since the Court concluded, "Inadequate Placement Array: (7) The Special Master shall recommend provisions to solve the problem of
children being removed from placements where they are succeeding because their level of care has altered. The Special Master shall also
recommend provisions to solve the perverse incentive of DFPS providing additional funds to caregivers for children at increased levels of care,"
27.1 Foster Care Redesign has not yet been implemented fully in any region of the State. Its first regional roll-out, as described in the Courts
December 2015 Opinion, was not successful, and its subsequent implementation in the first catchment area continues to offer lessons to DFPS
leadership on the models strengths and challenges. We recommend DFPS submit to the Court a Foster Care Redesign plan, taking into
consideration the findings of the 2016 Placement Needs Assessment. We recommend the plan include DFPS analysis of the resources required,
main strategies and actions to be taken, key benchmarks, and any known challenges to achieve statewide implementation as DFPS intends. The
challenges the plan should address include, among others, the capacity of providers across Texas to serve as the identified SSCC; the service array,
including the recruitment and development of foster homes that meet the individualized needs of PMC children; how and on what schedule DFPS
will implement a statewide transition to a blended placement funding model as DFPS preferred way to address the incentives, described in the
Court's December 2015 Opinion, associated with greater compensation to providers for increased levels of residential care; and the statewide
adoption of a child placement system that will match children's individualized needs to placements and services. We recommend the plan also
include proposed timelines for staged, statewide implementation through the end of FY 2021, as proposed by DFPS.

We recommend the
plan be submitted to
the Court due within 12 We recommend the Court review and consider the plan.
months of the Court's
Order.

28. Since the Court concluded "Inadequate Placement Array: (8) The Special Master shall recommend other provisions deemed necessary to
ensure that DFPSs placement array no longer causes an unreasonable risk of harm to foster children,"
We recommend the
We recommend the Special Masters following consultation with DFPS
first report by DFPS be
develop a methodology to track, verify and report on the placement
made within 6 months
moves of PMC children.
of the Court's Order.

28.1. We recommend DFPS report to the Court semi-annually on PMC children's placement moves.

29. Since the Court concluded "Foster Group Homes: (1) The Special Master shall recommend if FGHs should continue to operate based on
whether FGHs can be improved to the extent that they will not cause an unreasonable risk of harm to foster children," And...
30. Since the Court concluded, "Foster Group Homes: (2) If the Special Master determines that FGHs should continue to operate, the Special
Master shall recommend necessary provisions, including awake-night supervision, additional staff training, and more appropriate staff-to-child
ratios," we report and recommend:
30.1 The Court described extensively the harm endured by children in certain foster group homes in the December 2015 Opinion. DFPS reported to
We recommend this
the Special Masters that as June 30, 2016, there were 219 foster group homes housing 584 children (TMC and PMC) across Texas. Following the
We recommend DFPS monitor and certify to the Court. We
provision take effect 6
Court's December 2015 Opinion ordering awake-night supervision in these homes, 7 foster group homes had more than 8 DFPS children placed in
recommend verification of PMC children's placements by the Special
months following the
them as of June 30, 2016, according to DFPS. We recommend to reduce the risk of harm to PMC children that no more than 8 children (cumulative,
Masters, including case record review, DFPS data and information.
Court's Order.
including foster, birth and adoptive) reside in a foster group home effective 6 months following the Court's Order.
We recommend that
within 9 months of the
30.2 As of June 30, 2016, DFPS reported to the Special Masters that 219 foster group homes housed 584 children (TMC and PMC), including 345
Court's Order, the
siblings in 123 sibling groups. Only 26 of these 219 foster group homes housed more than 6 DFPS children (TMC and PMC) though the number of
limitation to sibling
other children in the home (adoptive, birth) is not included. We recommend to reduce the risk of harm to PMC children, effective 9 months from
placement exception
We recommend DFPS monitor and certify to the Court. We
the Court's Order, DFPS only exceed 6 children (cumulative, including foster, birth and adoptive) in a foster group home for the purposes of placing take effect. Within 18
recommend the Special Masters verify PMC children's placements,
siblings together. This would permit a ceiling of 8 children (cumulative, including foster, birth and adoptive) for the purposes of placing siblings
months of Order, we
including case record reviews, DFPS data and information.
together. Within 18 months of the Court's Order, we recommend DFPS end the use of foster group homes. Since existing foster group homes are
recommend complete
eligible for verification consideration by DFPS as either foster homes or group homes, we recommend DFPS require re-verification of foster group
conversion of eligible
homes as group homes or foster homes within 18 months of the Court's Order.
Foster Group Homes to
Foster Homes or Group
Homes.
31. Since the Court concluded "Further, the State shall immediately stop placing PMC foster children in unsafe placements, which include foster
group homes that lack 24-hour awake-night supervision. Foster group homes that immediately require 24-hour awake-night supervision may
continue to operate while the Special Master and the State craft and enforce the Implementation Plan,"

Page 12 of 13

Special Master
Recommendations
to the Court
Case 2:11-cv-00084 Document
471
Filed in TXSD
on 11/04/16 Page 13 of 13
Implementation Steps/Processes/Tasks

Implementation Dates

31.1 DFPS represented to the Special Masters that many foster group homes have been converted to verified foster homes since the Courts
December 2015 Opinion, effectively reducing their maximum capacity to 6 children. As of June 30, 2016, DFPS reported to the Special Masters there
were still 219 foster group homes housing 584 children (TMC and PMC), including 345 siblings in 123 sibling groups. Only 26 of these 219 foster
group homes housed more than 6 DFPS children (TMC and PMC) though DFPS did not count the number of other children in the home (adoptive,
kin, birth). The Court ordered DFPS to ensure 24-hour awake-night supervision in foster group homes to prevent harm to children. The record
Effective by Order of
includes examples of children being harmed in foster group homes including conclusions of child sexual assaults while caregivers were sleeping.
the Court, December
Following the Court's December 2015 Order, it is unclear how 24-hour awake-night supervision is now provided in, for example, a single parent
2015.
foster group home, if any, or a two parent foster group home where one of the parents works outside the home during the day and the other is
responsible for child care in the home during the day. In those settings, a central question that begs inquiry is who stays awake all night and when
do they sleep? We recommend that DFPS verify and certify semi-annually to the Court that all foster group homes have 24-hour awake-night
supervision until such time as there are no more foster group homes.

Page 13 of 13

Monitoring Methodology

We recommend DFPS verify and certify to the Court by identifying

how many caregivers reside in the foster group homes, and which
caregivers are responsible for staying awake all night. We
recommend verification of PMC children's placements by the Special
Masters, including review of case records, DFPS data and
information.