A recent flurry of articles and media
reports commemorated the one-year anniversary of the disappearance of
Relisha Rudd from the homeless shelter at DC General Hospital.
However, many questions remain about Relisha and her family's
contacts with the Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA), the agency
responsible for protecting abused and neglected children in the
District of Columbia. Despite some very interesting information
published by the Washington Post almost a year ago, nobody has
answered directly the question of whether the family was under agency
supervision when Relisha disappeared. The agency seems to be hiding
behind the smokescreen of confidentiality, but that should not
prevent the City Council from demanding the full answers in closed
session.
In an article published last April 5,
the Washington Post reported that “confidential files read to The
Washington Post show that the agency sustained complaints at least
three times involving Young [Relisha's mother]'s children.” The
last complaint occurred in November 2013, when the family was in the
shelter. This was only a few months before Relisha disappeared. One
of Relisha's brothers had been thrown to the ground and slapped until
his lip bled, according to the report read to the Post. A social
worker noted lack of supervision and abuse.The Post goes on to report
that the police got involved and received conflicting accounts about
who hit the boy, and no charges were filed. But the the story did not
note that there is an important distinction between the police filing
charges and CFSA substantiating the allegation, which is the trigger
that is needed for the children to be removed or for the family to
receive agency supervision.
The Post stated that the children
remained with their mother, and that “only after Relisha went
missing were her three brothers placed in foster care.” But as CFSA
Director Brenda Donald pointed out in a letter to the Post, “The
fact that CFSA does not remove a child as a result of a substantiated
abuse or neglect allegation does not mean that we do not provide any
services.” That quote confirms something that was unclear from the
Post's language that “the agency sustained complaints.” It seems
clear that the agency substantiated (or confirmed) one or all of the
neglect allegations against the family. And with the above statement,
Ms. Donald is strongly suggested that the agency did provide services
to Relisha's family.
Unfortunately, the Washington Post
reporters did not follow up by asking the right question. Given that
the an allegation was substantiated but the children were not removed
from the home, they should have asked if a case was opened on the
family. Opening a case is the only vehicle for the agency to deliver
services, as well as continue monitoring the family. Ms. Donald's
response suggests strongly that a case was opened. The fact that
there was an open case is further supported by the heavily redacted
version of the District Government's Review of Interactions With
RR and Her Immediate Family and District Government Agencies,
published on September 2, 2014, and available on the internet.1
That report states that
The family was
receiving services from multiple social service, ______, education
and health agencies and community providers. At the time of RR's
disappearance, ___ 's [presumably Relisha's parents'] compliance
with ____ and other services was inconsistent; however, the known
family circumstances did not satisfy the legal threshhold for
removal of the children.
It is very likely
that the first and third blank originally read “child welfare”
and that the family was a subject of an open case. My conclusion is
based on logic as well as on the two recommendations that the
District drew from this redacted statement. The second
recommendation, in particular, states that CFSA and the Office of
Attorney General should establish a policy dictating “when it is
appropriate to involve the DC Superior Court in providing judicial
oversight on in-home child welfare services when a family is not
making adequate progress despite the offer of services.” Usually,
when CFSA does not remove a child but opens an in-home case, it does
not involve the court, but there has been discussion of the need to
involve the court more often in such cases. Therefore, from this
recommendation, it seems obvious that a case was opened but the
family was not responsive.
So given what we
know, it is highly plausible that CFSA opened a case on Relisha's
family, probably after the November 2014 allegation was
substantiated. If that was true, then the CFSA social worker would
have had to say that the the problems had been resolved and the
children was safe in order to justify closing the case. Thus, a
critical question is whether the case was still open when Relisha
disappeared, or whether it had been closed. And here the redacted
document provides some hints as well. The report states that: "At the time of
RR's disappearance, both _________ [probably CFSA and the Department
of Mental Health] were providing services to the family; however,
there was no recent assesssment of RR's parents' capacity or of the
family's overall functioning.”
Based on that
statement, it is reasonable to assume that a case was still open on
the family. That means a social worker should have been visiting the
family twice a month. That worker should have been checking on
Relisha's school attendance and and the parents' compliance with
whatever services the agency was requiring in order to close the
case, which probably included mental health services. Most
importantly, the worker should have been seeing Relisha at least
twice a month. Police began to search for Relisha on March 19 and
found that she had been with Tatum since February 26, but nobody had
reported her missing. What was the social worker responsible for the
case doing all this time? (If the family did not have an open case, then the question becomes why not, given that the social worker reported lack of supervision and abuse.)
It is crucial to
know exactly what happened so that more disasters can be avoided. In
its recommendations, CFSA stresses the adoption of new assessment
tools for children and families, a standardized safety plan, and
training for workers on “effective visitation.” I'm skeptical of
these kinds of quick fixes, which are often an attempt to avoid
hiring more social workers and giving them enough time with their
clients. If social workers are overwhelmed by too many cases and
required busywork, then they simply cannot assess for safety
correctly, no matter how many “tools” and “plans” they are
forced to complete,. Indeed, such tools may worsen the situation as
the time needed to fill them out can come at the expense of
critically needed time with the family.
Some
information about the quality of CFSA's in-home casework is provided
by the most recent report of the Center for the Study of Social
Policy (CSSP), the court-appointed monitor for CFSA.2
In its report, CSSP reported on a detailed review of 20 in-home cases
between January and June 2014. Of these 20 cases, only five (or 25%)
were rated as “acceptable” on “Implementing Supports and
Services.”
I filed a Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) Request requesting information about how
CFSA is dealing with families with substantiated abuse or neglect
allegations where the child is not removed. In FY2014, CFSA's Acting
Director testified that 877 allegations of abuse or neglect were
substantiated. I asked how many of those allegations resulted in
removals of one or more children and how many resulted in the opening
of an in-home case. I also asked what happened to those in-home
cases. How many eventually resulted in a removal? How many closed?
Of those that closed, how long were they open? CFSA denied my request
because FOIA “does not require an agency to create documents that
do not exist and ...does not require an agency to answer questions.”
The fact that CFSA does not even collect this data, or at least
report it in this form, is very troubling.
The City Council should request the
systemwide information that was denied to me. The Council should also
demand the following information about Relisha's case:.
- A list of all the reports that were filed about Relisha Rudd's family over the years.
- A list of all allegations that were substantiated.
- When was the most recent case opened?. Was it closed? If not, what services were being provided?
- When was Relisha most recently seen on a visit to her family? According to agency files, did the worker ask about Relisha's whereabouts and what was he or she told?
CFSA has been touting the success of
its initiative to “narrow the front door” or take fewer children
into foster care. The acting director reported proudly in his recent
testimony to the council that 62% of the children it serves are at
home, as compared to only 51% at the end of FY 2010. That is good
news indeed, as long as the children who are at home are receiving
the monitoring and services that they need to be safe. And Relisha
certainly was not.
Notes
- Office of the Deputy Mayor for Education. Office of the Deputy Mayor for Health and Human Services. Summarized Findings and Recommendations: Review of Interactions with RR and Her Immediate Family and District Government Agencies. September 2, 2014. Accessed March 4, 2015 from http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/RR%20Report%20FINAL%209%202%2014_Redacted.pdf
- Center for the Study of Social Policy. LaShawn vs. Gray Progress Report for the Period January 1 to June 30, 2014, page 84. Accessed March 26, 2015 from http://www.cssp.org/publications/child-welfare/class-action-reform/2014/LaShawn-A-v.-Gray-Progress-Report-Jan-June-2014.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment