THE MISSISSIPPI LEGISLATURE

The Joint Committee on

Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review

Report # 594

Issues Related to the Increase in the Number of Children in the Department of Human Services’ Custody in Hancock County

Executive Summary

Introduction

The number of children in the Department of Human Services’ custody*  in Hancock County as a result of allegations of abuse and/or neglect increased 148% over the last five years.**  This increase has strained the resources of all participants involved, including the Hancock County Youth Court, the Department of Human Services (DHS), community mental health providers, and the county’s government, which must provide resources to cover certain expenses associated with youth court activities. As of December 31, 2014, Hancock County had 10.4 children in custody per one thousand inhabitants, which is the highest number of children in custody per 1,000 inhabitants of all Mississippi counties. The average number of children in custody per one thousand inhabitants in a Mississippi county was 1.3.*** 

PEER sought to determine the issues related to and possible causes of the increase in the number of child protection cases in Hancock County within the last five years. The Committee sought to address the following objectives:

• identify the contributing factors to the disproportionate numbers of children in the Department of Human Services’ custody compared to other counties in Mississippi; and,
• determine what options, resources, and strategies are available to help accommodate the number of children in the short term and reduce the number of children being taken into custody in the future.

PEER’s review did not include investigation of any alleged fraud or misrepresentation by staff of the entities reviewed. Also, PEER’s review did not include a qualitative assessment of whether DHS’s custody was appropriate for individual cases.

Background

The participants primarily responsible for the child protection process in Mississippi are the youth courts and the Department of Human Services’ Division of Family and Children Services. Court-appointed special advocates and regional community mental health centers also provide services that support the child protection process. The phases of the child protection process are intake, investigation, adjudication, and disposition, each encompassing multiple steps.

Regarding the child protection process in Hancock County:

• For the period 2007 through 2013, Hancock County had a higher rate of admissions to DHS’s custody than the average of all other counties in the state. During that period, the number of children entering DHS’s custody in Hancock County grew an average of approximately 47% per year.
• For the period of April 1, 2014, to September 30, 2014, Hancock County had a smaller percentage of children leaving DHS’s custody than the state average.
• For the period of April 1, 2014, to September 30, 2014, the average number of days that children were in DHS’s custody in Hancock County was less than the average for other Mississippi counties.
• For the period of October 1, 2013, to September 30, 2014, Hancock County had more than the double the number of substantiated reports of child maltreatment per one thousand inhabitants than the average for other Mississippi counties.

The high rate of child maltreatment in Hancock County does not explain the disproportionate number of children in DHS’s custody in that county. For the period of October 1, 2013, through September 30, 2014, Tippah, Yalobusha, Pike, and Pontotoc counties had similar child maltreatment rates to that of Hancock County but had substantially fewer children in DHS’s custody. However, for the same period, the Hancock County Youth Court placed children in foster care more often than other counties of the state.

External factors (such as demographic characteristics of families) and internal factors (such as the policies, practices, and personnel of the Department of Human Services and the youth court) are the forces that affect the number of children in DHS’s custody in Hancock County.

What external forces could contribute to the number of children in DHS’s custody in Hancock County?

Three external factors identified by community stakeholders and PEER’s comprehensive literature review that may contribute to an increased rate of child maltreatment in Hancock County are the illicit consumption of drugs, a transient population, and the number of children living in single-parent households. However, no causal relationships were established by the data.

Although the exact cause of child maltreatment has not yet been identified, research has identified a range of risk factors associated with child abuse occurrence and potential. These risk factors may be grouped into four broad categories: parent or caregiver factors, family factors, child factors, and environmental factors. Within these risk factors are components such as transience, mental health issues, illicit consumption of drugs, poverty, and unemployment.

Three factors identified by community stakeholders and PEER’s comprehensive literature review that may contribute to an increased rate of child maltreatment in Hancock County are illicit consumption of drugs, a transient population, and the number of children living in single-parent households. However, no causal relationships were established by the data.

Although Section 42 housing was associated with an increase in DHS’s custody, this increase could also be caused by population density. The geographic area in Hancock County with the largest number of children placed in DHS’s custody had no Section 42 housing.

What internal forces could contribute to the number of children in DHS’s custody in Hancock County?

High staff turnover and heavy workloads of Division of Family and Children’s Services workers in Hancock County contribute indirectly to the number of children in DHS’s custody in that county. Also, some of the Hancock County Youth Court’s policies have had an effect on the number of children in DHS’s custody in that county.

High staff turnover and heavy workloads of Division of Family and Children’s Services (DFCS) workers in Hancock County contribute indirectly to the number of children in DHS’s custody in that county. While PEER was unable to quantify the impact of the turnover and tenure statistics for DFCS caseworkers and supervisors, a workforce that necessitates pre-service training at a rate higher than the state average and that cumulatively has 64% of its caseworkers and supervisors with less than two years’ experience could potentially be contributing to the number of children in custody in Hancock County.

PEER analyzed workload data for DFCS caseworkers and supervisors for one day per month from November 2014 through February 2015, then averaged the results for the four days to approximate a workload over time. During that period, the workloads of 43% of Hancock County’s caseworkers and 48% of its supervisors exceeded the workload standards set by DHS policy and the Olivia Y. Modified Service Agreement.

Within the Hancock County Youth Court, internal forces that could contribute to the large number of children in DHS’s custody are risk reduction policies specific to that court, court procedures, and the caseloads of guardians ad litem. Hancock County’s risk reduction policies for drug testing, investigations by court intake personnel, and visitation differ significantly from those of other counties within the state. These differences could have contributed to the large number of children in custody in Hancock County.

How have the internal forces described in this report contributed to the number of children in DHS’s custody in Hancock County?

The ability of Hancock County’s DFCS staff to carry out their functions consistently and professionally could have an impact on the court’s willingness to trust the agency’s guidance and recommendations in the child protection process. Likewise, certain atypical policies and procedures of the Hancock County Youth Court could also have an impact on the outcomes of the process. Together, the performance of both players can impact the decisions of judges to take or retain custody of children who go through the process when other alternatives might be available.

Weaknesses cited in this report have affected Hancock County DFCS workers’ ability to accomplish tasks essential to successful performance of their duties. Policies of the Hancock County Youth Court, while intended to protect children, have contributed to the number of children in DHS’s custody and also contribute to friction between the court and the Department of Human Services’ staff.

Weaknesses in the Hancock County DFCS staff’s performance and Hancock County Youth Court’s high position on the risk reduction policy spectrum have contributed to mistrust, lack of confidence, and friction between the two entities.

Recommendations

1. The staff of the Department of Human Services and the Hancock County Youth Court should meet quarterly to discuss candidly the problems cited in this report or any other problems that arise related to the administration of child protective services. Specifically, the staff of the two entities should engage in dialogue regarding what should be reasonable expectations for the DFCS social service workers, including performance, training, and preparation for court, plus any other related personnel matters the two consider relevant to the issue of staff performance.
   
   
   • The Youth Court should cite specific, remediable deficiencies that DFCS could reasonably address through the assignment of new or more seasoned staff and the improvement in supervision and worker preparation.
   • The DFCS staff should set out for the court any and all concerns it has related to the court’s policies and procedures in such areas as investigations by court intake personnel, drug testing, court orders, as well as any other issues related to youth court operations that DHS considers to be pertinent to the effective implementation of a child-centered approach to abuse and neglect cases.
   During these discussions, the Department of Human Services and the Hancock County Youth Court should seek the guidance and participation of the Mississippi Supreme Court’s recently appointed Jurist in Residence. The Jurist in Residence is a highly experienced former youth court judge with experience in addressing the issues of court-DHS dynamics, program implementation, and development.
2. The Youth Court should explore possible revision of its drug testing policy by reducing the financial burden on persons who must be tested. Use of public funding or co-pays should be considered in lieu of requiring individuals to bear the cost of their own drug tests. Because the Hancock County Youth Court has the ultimate authority over court policy and procedure, HCYC should:
   
   
   • clarify and formally adopt its policy related to visitation;
   • provide guidelines to the Hancock County DFCS regarding the spaces and resources that are available to DFCS staff while waiting to attend court sessions; and,
   • review the workload of guardians ad litem and recommend to the Hancock County Board of Supervisors what additional funding is needed to address bringing the workload of the guardians ad litem closer to nationally recommended standards.
3. Both the HCYC and the Hancock County DFCS should maintain records of any particular cases, policies, and practices involving the intake, investigation, adjudication, and disposition of youth court abuse and neglect cases and report such information to PEER when it conducts its six-month follow-up.

* Although children in custody in Hancock County (and other Mississippi counties) for protection from abuse and neglect are technically in the custody of the state, for purposes of clarity, this report refers to these children as being in the [Mississippi] Department of Human Services’ custody.

** According to the Department of Human Services, the number of children in DHS’s custody in Hancock County increased from 185 on December 31, 2009, to 459 on December 31, 2014.

*** PEER calculated the state average by adding the number of children in DHS’s custody per one thousand inhabitants in each county and then dividing that figure by the number of counties in the state.

PEER Home Page         Full Text PDF (818K)