National Court–Appointed Special Advocate Program
Audit Report 07-04
December 2006
Office of the Inspector General
|
As required by Congress, the U.S. Department of Justice Office (DOJ) of the Inspector General (OIG) conducted an audit of the National Court‑Appointed Special Advocate Association (NCASAA).1 The objectives of this audit, as mandated by Congress, were to determine: (1) the types of activities NCASAA has funded since 1993, and (2) the outcomes in cases where court‑appointed special advocate (CASA) volunteers are involved as compared to cases where CASA volunteers are not involved, including:
Background In 1976, Superior Court Judge David Soukup of Seattle, Washington, concluded that he was not obtaining sufficient relevant facts during case hearings necessary to ensure that the long-term welfare of the child was being represented. To address this concern, he developed the concept of recruiting and training community volunteers to represent the best interest of the child in court proceedings. In 1977, the first CASA pilot program was implemented in Seattle. The purpose of the CASA program is to ensure that abused and neglected children receive high-quality, sensitive, effective, and timely representation in court hearings to determine their guardianship. In 1978, the National Center for State Courts selected the Seattle CASA program as the best national example of citizens participating in juvenile justice, resulting in the replication of the program in courts across the country. By 1982, it was clear that a national association was needed to coordinate the 54 existing state and local CASA programs and provide training and technical assistance. As a result, in 1984 NCASAA was incorporated and its headquarters office was opened in Seattle. At the time NCASAA was incorporated, there were 107 state and local CASA programs in 26 states.5 As of 2005, there were 948 state, local, and tribal CASA programs in 49 states that served an estimated 226,204 children.6 Statistics on Child Abuse in the United States According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), in fiscal year (FY) 2004, an estimated 3 million children were alleged to have been neglected or abused and were the subject of investigation or assessment by state or local child protective services (CPS) agencies.7 Additionally, in FY 2004:
An HHS report, The Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) Report No. 13, Preliminary FY 2005 Estimates, September 2006 (2005 AFCARS report), estimated that as of September 30, 2005:8
Further, according to the 2005 AFCARS report, in FY 2005 approximately 311,000 children entered foster care, while 287,000 exited foster care. Office of Justice Programs Since 1984, DOJ Office of Justice Programs (OJP) has worked to improve the juvenile justice systems and assist crime victims. The Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990, as amended, authorized the OJP Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to administer a newly created CASA grant program. The OJP Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) also provides funding through the Tribal Court CASA Program, which assists in developing and enhancing programs that provide volunteer advocacy for abused or neglected Native American children. Additionally, CASA programs are also eligible to receive Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) funding at the state level, which provides support services to crime victims. OJP partners with NCASAA to administer the CASA grant program and provide funding, training, and technical assistance to state, local, and tribal CASA programs. Since 1993, OJP has awarded NCASAA 15 grants totaling $100.4 million, including 12 OJJDP grants totaling $98.52 million and 3 OVC grants totaling $1.88 million. Summary of Findings and Recommendations Activities Funded by NCASAA To determine the types of activities funded by NCASAA since 1993, as mandated by Congress, we requested that NCASAA provide accounting data from January 1, 1993, through June 30, 2006, for all expenditures from both federal and non-federal funding sources. We found that NCASAA did not retain any accounting records or supporting documentation for expenditures occurring prior to 1995. Additionally, although NCASAA retained some of the accounting records and supporting documentation for 1995 through 1997, the information was incomplete. According to federal regulations (28 C.F.R. § 70), grantees are only required to retain financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other records pertinent to Department of Justice grants for a period of 3 years from the date of submission of the final financial report. Because NCASAA was not required to and did not retain the accounting records and supporting documentation for its expenditures occurring prior to 1998, we cannot provide information regarding activities funded by NCASAA prior to that time in this report. However, we were able to obtain information related to the activities funded by NCASAA from January 1, 1998, through June 30, 2006. As shown in Table 1, from January 1, 1998, through June 30, 2006, NCASAA expended $88.86 million in funds received through OJP grant programs and $14.24 million in funds received from all other sources including foundations.
We also found that:
During our review of NCASAA’s accounting records, we found that from 1999 through 2006 NCASAA recorded that it allocated $1.23 million of its OJP grant funds to fundraising activities. However, we determined that this was the result of an accounting error and that NCASAA did not use OJP grant funds for fundraising activities. We also found that in 1998 and 1999 NCASAA failed to input a program accounting code identifying the program activity for expenses totaling about $1.5 million. We informed NCASAA of these errors during our review, and they have since been corrected. Court‑Appointed Special Advocate Program Outcomes We found that with the exception of the length of time a child spends in foster care, HHS does not require state and local CPS programs to report data that specifically addresses the outcome measures mandated by Congress for this audit. NCASAA also does not request that its CASA program members provide data that specifically addresses the outcome measures required for this audit. As a result, although we obtained data for the state and local CASA programs that we used to address the audit objectives, we were not always able to obtain comparison data for cases that did not involve a CASA volunteer. We also found that OJP had established outcome measures for its CASA grant programs. However, the outcome measures established by OJP do not address the effectiveness of the programs in meeting the needs of children in the CWS. Additionally, none of the outcome measures established by OJP address the outcome measures mandated for this audit. In our judgment, OJP should develop outcome performance measures for the CASA grant programs to determine the effectiveness of the programs in meeting the needs of children in the CWS. As appropriate, these outcome measures should correspond with the data required by HHS for state and local CPS agencies, so that OJP has a basis for comparing the effectiveness of its CASA grant programs. Because of the lack of data on the objectives mandated for this audit, to determine the outcomes in cases where CASA volunteers are involved as compared to cases where CASA volunteers are not involved, we relied on the following:
We identified two studies of the CASA program that in our judgment provided the most comprehensive and current information related to this objective.
For the CASA Data Request, NCASAA distributed our request for data on the four outcome measures from the case management systems to 731 state, local, and tribal CASA programs. We received data related to time in foster care, permanent case closure, and the case outcomes including adoption and reunification from 192 respondents representing 339 programs. However, we generally did not receive data on the number of services ordered by the courts and received by children and their parents because it was not generally tracked in the case management systems. Additionally, we distributed a nationwide survey to state, local, and tribal CASA programs offices requesting information on the four outcome measures, as well as additional information on the: (1) basis for the responses related to the four outcome measures in our survey, (2) effectiveness of NCASAA, and (3) data reported in the Caliber Study, which was the most recent study available related to the outcome measures. Out of the 945 CASA programs to which the OIG survey was sent, we received 491 responses. The consolidated results of the OIG survey are detailed in Appendix II. The results of our audit related to the outcomes in cases where CASA volunteers are involved as compared to cases where CASA volunteers are not involved for (1) the length of time a child spends in foster care, (2) the extent to which there is an increased provision of services, (3) the percentage of cases permanently closed, and (4) achievement of the permanent plan for reunification or adoption, are discussed in the following sections. Length of Time in Foster Care We found that the length of time a child spends in foster care is longer for cases involving a CASA volunteer as compared to cases that did not involve a CASA volunteer. As shown in Table 2, the Youngclarke Review and Caliber Study found that the average length of time a child spends in foster care is between 3.9 months and 1.5 months longer for cases involving a CASA volunteer.
It should be noted that both the Youngclarke Review and Caliber Study concluded that there was no significant difference in the length of time a child spends in foster care for cases involving a CASA volunteer as compared to cases that did not involve a CASA volunteer. We also found that the length of time a child spends in foster care is longer for cases involving a CASA volunteer as compared to the national average for all CPS cases, including CASA cases.14 As shown in Table 3, based on the CASA Data Request and the OIG survey the average length of time a child spends in foster care is between 2 months and 1.2 months longer for cases involving a CASA volunteer than the national average for all CPS cases.
Although we found that children in cases involving a CASA volunteer were on average in foster care longer, this is not necessarily an indication that the CASA program is not effective. We base our conclusion on the following:
Number of Services Provided Examples of services ordered by the court for children include mental health, medical treatment, and training in independent living if children are close to the age of majority. Services ordered by the court for parents include mental health, drug, and alcohol treatment, as well as training on basic health and domestic violence. The Youngclarke Review and Caliber Study both included the number of services ordered for children and the parents of children in cases involving a CASA volunteer as compared to cases not involving a CASA volunteer. This information was obtained from actual CASA, CPS and court case files and through interviews of CASA and CPS officials. Based on the Youngclarke Review and the Caliber Study, on average between 2.1 and 3.1 additional services were ordered by the court for children and the parents of children in cases involving a CASA volunteer, as shown in Table 4.
We were unable to verify the results of the Youngclarke Review and the Caliber Study. The number of services ordered for children and the parents of children in the CWS is not an outcome that is generally tracked by state, local, and tribal CASA programs in their case management systems. Therefore, we were unable to obtain sufficient data related to this outcome measure from the CASA Data Request. Based on the OIG survey, we found that on average 8.1 services were ordered for the children and parents of children in cases involving a CASA volunteer. However, HHS does not require state and local CPS programs to report data on the number of services ordered. As a result, we were unable to compare the information we obtained from the OIG survey to the national average. Percentage of Cases Permanently Closed All state and local CPS cases are eventually permanently closed, even those cases for which permanent placement of the child was not achieved, when the child reaches the age of majority, is incarcerated, or dies. As a result, for the purposes of this audit, we defined permanent closure as those cases that had been closed for any reason and the child had not reentered the CWS at anytime prior to the date the case data was collected for this audit. The Youngclarke Review found that cases involving a CASA volunteer were more likely to be “permanently closed” as compared to cases not involving a CASA volunteer. Specifically, the review found that only 9 percent of children in cases involving a CASA volunteer reentered the CWS as compared to 16 percent of children in cases not involving a CASA volunteer. The Caliber Study did not provide data on the percentage of children who reentered the CWS; rather, the study reported on the number of cases for which subsequent allegations of abuse were reported. The Caliber Study found that:
It should be noted that the Caliber Study did not determine whether the subsequent allegations of abuse were substantiated. Additionally, the Caliber Study concluded that there was no significant difference in the subsequent allegations of abuse related to children with or without a CASA volunteer. HHS does not require state and local CPS agencies to report data on permanent case closure or the number of children who reenter the CWS. Further, NCASAA does not require that its CASA program members provide reentry data. CASA volunteers are frequently dismissed by the courts once permanent placement is achieved. Once CASA volunteers are dismissed from a case, they no longer have access to court records related to case closure. Additionally, if a child reenters the CWS, the CASA program does not receive this information unless the new case is referred by the court. Nonetheless, we requested that the state, local, and tribal CASA programs provide reentry data in the CASA Data Request and the OIG survey. The results of the information we received in response to our survey is listed below.
Achievement of the Permanent Plan for Reunification or Adoption For each child in the CWS, a permanent plan for the placement of the child is developed. Generally, the permanent plan is either reunification with the parents or adoption. In recent years, to minimize the time a child spends in the CWS, dual permanent plans have been incorporated in most jurisdictions so that a back-up plan runs parallel to the primary plan.17 As result, in these instances either the primary or the back-up permanent plan is generally achieved. Neither the Youngclarke Review nor the Caliber Study included data on whether the permanent plan was achieved. However, both studies included data on case outcomes, including the percentage of cases that resulted in reunification, adoption or other closure. Specifically:
HHS does not require state and local CPS agencies to report data on achievement of the permanent plan. NCASAA also does not request that its CASA program members provide data on achievement of the permanent plan. However, from the CASA Data Request and OIG Survey we were able to obtain data on outcomes for cases involving a CASA volunteer, including the percentage of cases that resulted in reunification, adoption or other closure, which we compared to the national average for all CPS cases, including CASA cases. Specifically:
Based on the available data, we found that children in cases involving a CASA volunteer were more likely to be adopted and less likely to be reunified with their parents than children in cases not involving a CASA volunteer. However, this may be because cases involving a CASA volunteer are typically the most serious cases of maltreatment. Therefore, children in these types of cases may be less likely to be reunified with their parents, regardless of whether or not a CASA volunteer was involved. Summary and Conclusion From January 1, 1998, through June 30, 2006, NCASAA expended a total of $88.86 million in funds received through OJP grant programs and $14.24 million in funds received from all other sources, including private foundations. NCASAA expended 93.15 percent of its OJP grant funding on activities that directly supported CASA programs. Conversely, NCASAA expended 6.85 percent of its OJP grant funding on general and administrative support activities, which is significantly less than the 16.3 percent average administrative costs for human services non-profit organizations. Additionally, from 1999 through 2006, as a result of an accounting error, NCASAA recorded that it allocated $1.23 million of its OJP grant funds to fundraising activities when, in fact, these funds had not been spent for that purpose. We also found that in 1998 and 1999 NCASAA failed to input a program accounting code identifying the program activity for expenses totaling about $1.5 million. We informed NCASAA of these errors during our review and they have since been corrected. With respect to the questions identified by Congress, we found that OJP had established outcome measures for its CASA grant programs. However, the outcome measures established by OJP do not address the effectiveness of the programs in meeting the needs of children in the CWS. Additionally, none of the outcome measures established by OJP address the outcome measures mandated for this audit. Further, with the exception of the length of time a child spends in foster care, HHS does not require state and local CPS agencies to report data that specifically addresses the outcome measures mandated by Congress for this audit. NCASAA also does not request that its CASA program members provide data that specifically addresses the outcome measures required for this audit. Nonetheless, based on the available data and the results of the OIG survey, we found that in cases where CASA volunteers are involved as compared to cases where CASA volunteers are not involved:
Although the outcomes for cases involving a CASA volunteer appear to be less favorable in some instances than cases not involving a CASA volunteer, this may be a result of the fact that cases involving a CASA volunteer are typically the most serious cases of maltreatment. Therefore, children in these types of cases are more likely to: (1) be placed in foster care, (2) require more services, and (3) be adopted rather than reunified with their parents. However, we also found that based on the limited information available, children in cases involving a CASA volunteer were less likely to reenter the CWS after permanent placement was achieved. Recommendations Our report contains two recommendations that focus on specific steps that OJP should take to improve the CASA grant program. These recommendations include requiring that:
Footnotes
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| « Previous | Table of Contents | Next » |